British by descent passing on citizenship
 

Hello everyone,
I'm a British citizen by descent. I was born after 1983. I was born abroad and automatically I got my British citizenship directly thru my mum and she was born in the UK. I always keep my UK passport up to date. I've never had any problems. I don't have any kind of other documentation proving my British citizenship. I was just wondering is there someway to prove that I am 'British by descent'?

My UK passport only says 'BRITISH'. It does not differentiate nor specify. I am perfectly fine with this. I was just wondering what exactly does it mean to be 'British by descent'? I have all the same rights that normal UK born Brit would have. I am really no different. My mother raised me to be British.

The only difference I can see is Brits born abroad have a slightly different status as we cannot automatically pass British citizenship onto our children if they're born outside the UK.

A friend told me there's a 3 year UK residency requirement prior to the child's birth. You have to go to the British consulate to register the birth of your child and provide evidence that you lived in the UK for at least 3 years (or more) of your life. You have to have evidence of some kind. A 3 year paper trail. For example that you paid your taxes to the Crown for at least 3 years and/or paid at least 3 years of council taxes, etc if you want to pass British citizenship onto your children?

I am really confused about this.

If you're British, you're British and it should be as simple as that. It seems a bit unfair. People of Irish descent never have this problem because their nationality laws are completely different. For example, if you have an Irish grandparent, you can get Irish citizenship regardless of where your parents were born. From what I understand, you just have to prove you have an Irish grandparent.

Any thoughts on this?

Re: British by descent
 

Welcome to BE. Just to clarify your post, you're asking two questions -

I was just wondering is there someway to prove that I am 'British by descent'?

I was just wondering what exactly does it mean to be 'British by descent'?

And you're asking if this is correct -

A friend told me there's a 3 year UK residency requirement prior to the child's birth. You have to go to the British consulate to register the birth of your child and provide evidence that you paid your taxes to the Crown for at least 3 years and paid at least 3 years of council taxes, etc if you want to pass British citizenship onto your children?

Am I on the right track?

Re: British by descent
 

First, thank you for welcoming me to BE.

Yes, I just edited my post to add some clarity. I don't have any children of my own yet. It's possible that British nationality laws will change after Brexit and many things will be different. (For example, our UK passports will change from red to blue in colour and will no longer have the European Union label anymore).

I was only curious to know what others went thru and how they went about the process of passing British citizenship?

For further clarity, my mum is British (UK born) and she is considered a British citizen otherwise than by descent. I am a British citizen by descent (because I was born abroad). If I have any children and if they're born outside of the UK, they will not automatically get British citizenship. I have to register them at the nearest British consulate and prove I lived in the UK for at least 3 years. It is not clear to me what evidence exactly the British consulate will accept.

I have heard horror stories of British by descent mothers having to return to the UK nearly 8 months pregnant, so they can give birth in the UK and their children will be born on British soil, just to ensure their children will have British citizenship without any problems. I heard this is the easiest way.

It doesn't seem fair to me that people of British heritage that are British by descent (born outside the UK) have to prove they were living in the UK for a minimal of 3 years, showing an extensive paper trail of evidence to the British consulate in order to pass British citizenship onto their children who are English by blood but also born abroad like their parent, when I know for a fact that immigrants that go to the UK and get naturalised are able to automatically pass British citizenship onto their children even if they're born abroad. You might ask why. It is because the immigrants that naturalised are given exactly the same legal status that 'British citizen otherwise than by descent' citizens have. In other words, they're given exactly the same status that people who were born in the UK to British parents.

I did read the wiki page about British citizens by descent. I only wish there was more detailed information out there.

britishexpats (dot) com/wiki/British_Citizenship_by_Descent

This is very confusing indeed.

Re: British by descent
 

It doesn't seem fair that 'British by descent' parents cannot automatically give UK citizenship to their overseas born children and it seems somewhat archaic and discriminatory.

Why differentiate between 'British citizen by descent' and 'British citizen otherwise than by descent'?

It should not matter where a 'British by descent' person was born. To have these discriminatory laws still in place is wrong.

British naturalised citizens can automatically pass their UK citizenship onto their overseas born children but I cannot because my citizenship status is 'British by descent' and it is different to theirs.

Re: British by descent
 

I do know there's a second option for British by descent parents who have never lived in the UK.

For example if a child is born overseas to 'British by descent' mother then she goes to the nearest British consulate to get a visa or some kind of document in her baby's passport so she can take her baby with her to the UK.

AFTER 3 years in the UK with the child, the mother can register her child as a British citizen but ONLY if the child is under 18 years old.

My question, is this considered a naturalisation process for British citizenship for the child?

The child's citizenship status would not be considered 'British by descent' but would be 'British citizen otherwise than by descent'?

Re: British by descent
 

British nationality law is primarily based on jus soli - right of soil - rather than jus sanguinis - right of blood. This means that you are primarily British by place of birth rather than ancestry. British citizenship is therefore usually limited to the first generation born aboard but birth in the UK to a citizen or settled person grants citizenship automatically. This will benefit some and disadvantage others.

You ask if there is any way for you to have evidence of your British citizenship by descent. As you were born after 1983 then depending on where you were born consular birth registration may be an option.

British Consular Birth Registration : British Expat Wiki

The two processes you outline regarding British citizens by descent passing on their citizenship to a second generation born abroad is correct. This is known as registration as a British citizen and the application must be made before the applicant turns 18. Three years in the UK before the child is born followed by registration gives British citizenship by descent. Three years spent in the UK with the parent(s) after the child is born gives British citizenship otherwise than by descent.

Re: British by descent
 

(Disclaimer: I want to make it clear I'm not a legal professional and if people need legal advice they should go to a solicitor to properly advise them)
I am merely trying to find out what the overall registration process is? I wonder if anyone here has gone through it and I'd like to know what their experience was like?

I spent hours reading stuff from the official Home Office's website.

It looks like there's multiple routes that British citizenship can be obtained. I discovered British nationality law is quite complex and it has changed over the years. Historically it has changed quite a bit over the centuries since the days of the British Empire, many times over in what it defined as a 'British citizen' or 'British subject' under its old laws.

I am not sure if any of the information I found is correct or not. Certainly from what I understand, if a child is born stateless obviously the Home Office would have to make an exception?

As I understand it traditionally most European citizenships are based on jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) and is a principle of nationality law by which that citizenship is not determined by the PLACE of birth but by having at least one PARENT (or both parents) who is a citizen of that country.

Hence I could not understand if you are a British citizen by descent, why can't you automatically pass citizenship onto your children?

British naturalised citizens are entitled to automatically pass their British citizenship onto their overseas born children and if anyone questions this, it is considered politically incorrect and even racist?

However for a British citizen (by descent) to want to pass their citizenship onto the next generation(s) i.e. their overseas born children, they have to go through bureaucratic hurdles of meeting residency requirements, filling out forms, paying fees and sending lots of paperwork in order to provide full time employment for some civil servants in the Home Office and no one is allowed to criticise this?

What isn't clear to me is why the registration procedure for a child to acquire British nationality is so complicated. The primary obstacle is proving a continuous uninterrupted 3 year paper trail showing that you lived in the UK (prior or after the child's birth?) in order to satisfy an archaic bureaucratic system thats designed to keep certain civil servants employed with a mountain of paperwork. . .

I believe after BREXIT we'll probably see changes. The only reason I can see as to why this current system continues is because the British people have tolerated it for so long. This costs tax payers a lot of money. In the near future it is likely a lot of these jobs will be automated to save the tax payer money and finally end this discriminatory practice.
Why no one never petitioned Parliament to simply change the nationality laws on this one sticky topic is beyond me. Certainly a British citizen who obtained their citizenship by descent shouldn't be treated any different than a British citizen born in the UK or a British naturalised citizen.

To discriminate based on origins and place of birth is illegal and seems to contradict other British laws designed to prevent discrimination in the first place. How this is allowed to continue is beyond my comprehension.

*************

From what I gather the registration route is NOT considered to be the same as naturalisation. It is a completely different process, am I correct?

Many people get confused by this. For example the registration route for a minor child (under 16?) is not required to attend a citizenship ceremony and if the child is under the age 10, they are not required to have a criminal background check.

This is important because some countries do not allow dual citizenship and if you take on a second citizenship (usually through naturalisation), you automatically lose your first one. They'll make an exception only if it was obtained through birth but it depends on that country's nationality laws. Britain allows dual citizenship. Most anglo saxon countries do allow dual citizenship.

I would argue the registration process for British citizenship for a child under 18 is NOT an act of naturalisation. Is naturalisation a completely different process?

If the child is registered as a British citizen, I would argue it is only a registration made by the PARENT while the child was a minor (for example at age 3). Presumably the child cannot be accountable for the actions of their parent. If the child's British citizenship was obtained via the jus sanguinis principle (i.e. right of blood) through their parent's act of simply registering their child's birth with the Home Office, I don't see how this is an act of naturalising.

If there is NO citizenship ceremony to attend and NO oaths need to be taken, it certainly could be argued that they obtained British citizenship not through a naturalisation process, but through a mere registration process via their British citizen parent while still a minor child under 18.

If British citizenship was obtained for the child primarily through the 'jus sanguinis' principle through the birth parent's decision to register their child as a 'British', how could it be an act of naturalisation?

From what I gather, there some requirements that may be similar to naturalisation such as providing evidence of a 3 year residency requirement, it still not an act of naturalisation. The registration process is a far simpler method if one is eligible, is this correct?

What can we learn from this????

en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/British_nationality_law#Registration_as_a_British_ citizen

Re: British by descent
 

I've no idea about most of your post, because frankly it's gobbledygook to me! :lol: I also completely disagree with your position and think that those that obtain British citizenship by descent absolutely should be treated differently to those that were born in the UK and/or have lived in the UK - JMO.

But just to say, yes, lots have been through it and a search of the forum will bring loads of relevant threads up. And if you want info from a reliable source rather than Wikipedia etc, our resident immigration law guru BritinParis is the man.

HTH.

Re: British by descent
 

Haha. Most legal mumbo jumbo is gobbledygook to me too. However I don't believe British by descent persons should be treated any differently.

Re: British by descent
 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. :)

Re: British by descent
 

Believe it or not there are British citizens that were born in the UK that left the UK at an extremely young age and never returned, yet they're still able to transmit citizenship to their kids.

Re: British by descent
 

May I ask why you disagree?

Re: British by descent
 

Because I don't see why somebody that has never lived in the UK or perhaps even visited there, and whose mother/father has also never set foot in the UK, should automatically get British citizenship.

Asking them to spend a few years actually living there and contributing to society seems fair enough to me. Same as other countries i.e. the USA.

To me it's far odder that countries like Ireland do give citizenship to those that have never lived there and perhaps have no intention of doing so. JMO though.....

Re: British by descent
 

I agree, and as a practical point, if British citizenship was inherited indefinitely through the generations then, even in a stable population, the number of British citizens would grow every generation (where only one parent is British).

By now probably three quarters or more of US citizens have some British ancestry, including a very substantial part of the black US population as as result of interbreeding with US slaves. I would imagine the same proportion of the Canadian, Australian, and NZ population has some British ancestry, and undoubtedly there are tens of millions more scattered across all the former countries of the British Empire, not to mention British trading centers in countries such as Argentina, Turkey, China, and Moscow/ Russia. The result of "unrestricted" British citizenship would have led today to hundreds of millions of people with the undeniable right to move to the UK, most of them with no cultural connection to the UK for a century or more.

Re: British by descent
 

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with your point of view. From a practical standpoint regarding multiple or hundreds of generations, yes I would agree with you somewhat, however I was only referring to British citizens by descent passing their citizenship onto their overseas born children. Other European countries such as Ireland and/or Italy seem to have no problem with this.

I wasn't referring to anything unrestricted. Many British naturalised citizens for instance still keep their original citizenship with their birth country. It doesn't necessarily mean they see themselves or their family as being completely 'British' as they have no ancestral roots or cultural ties to the United Kingdom, whereas my British ancestry in comparison goes back many hundreds of years.

I personally do not have a problem providing evidence of an uninterrupted period of living in the UK for 3 years, however I do feel the need to protest this as I find it completely unnecessary that I have to "prove" myself worthy as a British citizen of passing my citizenship onto my children simply because I was born abroad, and do so willing to satisfy bureaucrats in the Home Office and keep them dutifully employed. :sarcasm: