How does someone born British prove citizenship?

[LondonApplicant]

It's just a curiosity, but how does someone who was born (not naturalised, not registered) British prove his British citizenship?

The most obvious way would be to show the British passport, but it is not compulsory to have one. Birth certificates do not report citizenship. Being born in the country is not, by itself, proof that you are British. So how does one prove it For example when starting a new job, and therefore the employer must verify you're eligible to work in the country?

[boloney]

It's just a curiosity, but how does someone who was born (not naturalised, not registered) British prove his British citizenship?

The most obvious way would be to show the British passport, but it is not compulsory to have one. Birth certificates do not report citizenship. Being born in the country is not, by itself, proof that you are British. So how does one prove it For example when starting a new job, and therefore the employer must verify you're eligible to work in the country?

you can send NS form and all necessary documents.
But applying for passport is cheaper.

[barnaby]

It's just a curiosity, but how does someone who was born (not naturalised, not registered) British prove his British citizenship?

The most obvious way would be to show the British passport, but it is not compulsory to have one. Birth certificates do not report citizenship. Being born in the country is not, by itself, proof that you are British. So how does one prove it For example when starting a new job, and therefore the employer must verify you're eligible to work in the country?

Presumably you can prove it from your own birth certificate plus your parents' (and possibly grandparents') birth certificates and marriage certificates. I.e., all the documents you need to get a passport.

However, to prove eligibility to work, all you need is your birth certificate and NI number: https://www.gov.uk/legal-right-to-work-in-the-uk

[LondonApplicant]

Presumably you can prove it from your own birth certificate plus your parents' (and possibly grandparents') birth certificates and marriage certificates. I.e., all the documents you need to get a passport.

However, to prove eligibility to work, all you need is your birth certificate and NI number: https://www.gov.uk/legal-right-to-work-in-the-uk

That website says that British citizens without a British passport:

need to show both:

an official letter or document from a government agency (eg HM Revenue & Customs, Department for Work and Pensions, or the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland) showing their National Insurance number

full birth, adoption certificate or naturalisation certificate

But I am confused: birth certificates, national insurance numbers and letters from HMRC do not report nor prove citizenship. Someone could have been born in the UK, and so have a British birth certificate, and have a National Insurance number without necessarily being a British citizen.

I suppose relying on parents' birth certificates would make things easier to the extent that those born in the UK before 1981 were, if I understand correctly, automatically British citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

[ouflak1]

It's a good question. And there is no definite answer. I've often wondered how anyone really could know the person standing next to them is in fact actually a UK citizen. Even a passport doesn't necessarily mean citizenship. How could an employer really vet somebody? How could that person prove themself? It's not obvious.

I often imagined scenarios where the UKBA would raid my place of work for illegal workers. Obviously they would likely ignore all of the 200+ white people with English accents. But what if they didn't? What if some UKBA agent in charge of the raid was in a really bad mood? I, and maybe two other foreign born employees at the site would be the only three people who would have papers on file there at the company that would actually prove our right to work in the country. Ok, in reality, most would have a passport (as that's very common in Europe) at home, but what about those that didn't? Would they be required to stay off the job until their ancestries could be proven, even if their family lines extended back into the Ango-Saxon invasion? I always thought that would be rather humorous to observe that ensuing chaos as people had to dig up expired passports, birth certificates, and who knows whatever other evidence to prove their Britishness.

In my home country it's so easy and obvious. Either you were born there or your were naturalized.

[LondonApplicant]

It's a good question. And there is no definite answer. I've often wondered how anyone really could know the person standing next to them is in fact actually a UK citizen. Even a passport doesn't necessarily mean citizenship.

It does. It's the whole point of the passport.
The third item, after the name, is nationality.
See for example a specimen of the new passports issued since 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/2 ... k-redesign

In my home country it's so easy and obvious. Either you were born there or your were naturalized.

In many other countries, especially those (i.e. the vast majority) with ID cards (afaik nationality is shown on all ID cards), register offices do have records of the citizenship of every resident in the country (whether a citizen or a foreigner) and often also of the citizens born and/or resident abroad.

[ban.s]

Even a passport doesn't necessarily mean citizenship.

why do you think that a passport doesn't represent nationality?

I always thought that would be rather humorous to observe that ensuing chaos as people had to dig up expired passports, birth certificates, and who knows whatever other evidence to prove their Britishness.

In my home country it's so easy and obvious. Either you were born there or your were naturalized.

How do people in your home country prove that they were born there? I presume they also need to dig their birth certificates or something similar, don't they?

The situation is probably not that complex as you would imagine. In absence of any standard documentation e.g. passport, birth certificate, parents, grand parernt's paper it would be bit time consuming and complex but don't underestimate the volume of birth/death/marrige record currently available.

[Jambo]

It's a good question. And there is no definite answer. I've often wondered how anyone really could know the person standing next to them is in fact actually a UK citizen. Even a passport doesn't necessarily mean citizenship. How could an employer really vet somebody? How could that person prove themself? It's not obvious.

I often imagined scenarios where the UKBA would raid my place of work for illegal workers. Obviously they would likely ignore all of the 200+ white people with English accents. But what if they didn't? What if some UKBA agent in charge of the raid was in a really bad mood? I, and maybe two other foreign born employees at the site would be the only three people who would have papers on file there at the company that would actually prove our right to work in the country. Ok, in reality, most would have a passport (as that's very common in Europe) at home, but what about those that didn't? Would they be required to stay off the job until their ancestries could be proven, even if their family lines extended back into the Ango-Saxon invasion? I always thought that would be rather humorous to observe that ensuing chaos as people had to dig up expired passports, birth certificates, and who knows whatever other evidence to prove their Britishness.

In my home country it's so easy and obvious. Either you were born there or your were naturalized.

The law in the UK requires employers to hold proof of eligibility to work in the UK from ALL employees (including white British accent people). The HO has a list of acceptable documents to prove it (passport probably the most common one). See more Preventing illegal working.

[LondonApplicant]

The law in the UK requires employers to hold proof of eligibility to work in the UK from ALL employees (including white British accent people). The HO has a list of acceptable documents to prove it (passport probably the most common one). See more Preventing illegal working.

The website mentioned previously:

https://www.gov.uk/legal-right-to-work-in-the-uk

is a kind of summary of the pdf you linked.

But I reiterate my question: birth certificates, national insurance numbers and letters from HMRC do not report nor prove citizenship. Someone could have been born in the UK, and so have a British birth certificate, and have a National Insurance number without necessarily being a British citizen. And if his/her parents were born after 1981 (i.e. when being born in the country was not by itself sufficient to get citizenship), then the parents' birth certificates do not necessarily prove citizenship, either.

Am I right in understanding that, unlike most other countries, the UK does not have centralised records of who its citizens are, and that when someone is born (not registered) British, this is not recorded anywhere? Yes, there are birth records, but someone may be born in the UK without being a citizen.

[Jambo]

The law in the UK requires employers to hold proof of eligibility to work in the UK from ALL employees (including white British accent people). The HO has a list of acceptable documents to prove it (passport probably the most common one). See more Preventing illegal working.

The website mentioned previously:

https://www.gov.uk/legal-right-to-work-in-the-uk

is a kind of summary of the pdf you linked.

But I reiterate my question: birth certificates, national insurance numbers and letters from HMRC do not report nor prove citizenship. Someone could have been born in the UK, and so have a British birth certificate, and have a National Insurance number without necessarily being a British citizen. And if his/her parents were born after 1981 (i.e. when being born in the country was not by itself sufficient to get citizenship), then the parents' birth certificates do not necessarily prove citizenship, either.

Am I right in understanding that, unlike most other countries, the UK does not have centralised records of who its citizens are, and that when someone is born (not registered) British, this is not recorded anywhere? Yes, there are birth records, but someone may be born in the UK without being a citizen.

Your understanding is correct.

[ouflak1]

Even a passport doesn't necessarily mean citizenship.

why do you think that a passport doesn't represent nationality?

A passport may be issued to a person who: holds nationality but is not a citizen, is a subject of a monarchical crown, is an oversees citizen, has protected status, etc.... Not all countries have such designations, but I suspect many have some subset of cases where a person can hold a passport of that country without being a citizen.

I always thought that would be rather humorous to observe that ensuing chaos as people had to dig up expired passports, birth certificates, and who knows whatever other evidence to prove their Britishness.

In my home country it's so easy and obvious. Either you were born there or your were naturalized.

How do people in your home country prove that they were born there? I presume they also need to dig their birth certificates or something similar, don't they?

A birth certificate is proof you were born there (and are a citizen by birth). A naturalization certificate otherwise.

The law in the UK requires employers to hold proof of eligibility to work in the UK from ALL employees (including white British accent people). The HO has a list of acceptable documents to prove it (passport probably the most common one). See more Preventing illegal working.

The situation is probably not that complex as you would imagine. In absence of any standard documentation e.g. passport, birth certificate, parents, grand parernt's paper it would be bit time consuming and complex but don't underestimate the volume of birth/death/marrige record currently available.

There's no doubt that probably 100% of the cases would be settled within hours/days. But I just think it would be humorous to see all of the British UK born people running around trying to actually prove the point! I've yet to work for a company that asked any of my British co-workers for their passport (I've inquired out of quiet curiosity). Heck, if I hadn't informed my last company that, by law, they actually had to keep a copy of my ILR on file, I don't think they would ever have known.

[dalebutt]

In countries like Germany and Netherlands , Germany for example issues a different Birth certificate to children who are not born German, and have a separate birth cert for foreign children born in Germany. Same like Netherlands, they even issue international birth cert in English

[vinny]

Holding a British passport is not conclusive.

[ouflak1]

In countries like Germany and Netherlands , Germany for example issues a different Birth certificate to children who are not born German, and have a separate birth cert for foreign children born in Germany. Same like Netherlands, they even issue international birth cert in English

That's really interesting. I wonder what they do in cases where it is not known for certain that a child is German (or Dutch), or where it is a short time later firmly established that the child is indeed a citizen by birth (or not!). Do they rescind the previous birth certificates and re-issue new ones?

[ouflak1]

Holding a British passport is not conclusive.

See also here for the list of people who qualify for a UK passport who are not citizens.

[LondonApplicant]

Holding a British passport is not conclusive.

See also here for the list of people who qualify for a UK passport who are not citizens.

But if you belong to one of those categories (British subject, British protected person etc), isn't that reported on your passport? In other words, doesn't your passport clearly identify you as not a British citizen?

[LondonApplicant]

Holding a British passport is not conclusive.

Well, doesn't that effectively mean that (quite obviously!) if a document (be it a British passport, certificate of naturalisation, or else) was either obtained fraudulently or issued following a mistake by the Home Office, then that document does not prove or grant citizenship?

In other words, it's not that the passport is inconclusive but other documents may not be: the point is that no document is 100% proof because it can have been obtained with fraud or in error.

[dalebutt]

That's really interesting. I wonder what they do in cases where it is not known for certain that a child is German (or Dutch), or where it is a short time later firmly established that the child is indeed a citizen by birth (or not!). Do they rescind the previous birth certificates and re-issue new ones?

I have not heard of a scenario where the German especially would make such mistakes, each local government have their own immigration authorities/offices, there is minimal case works available to be dealt with thus avoiding the kind of scenario described above.

More so the nationality law is not as complex from my understanding as compare to the UK, for a child to be born German, one of the parents must be a Deutscher or have a permanent residence, there isn't so many avenues to becoming a citizen.

[ouflak1]

See also here for the list of people who qualify for a UK passport who are not citizens.

But if you belong to one of those categories (British subject, British protected person etc), isn't that reported on your passport? In other words, doesn't your passport clearly identify you as not a British citizen?

Yes.

It's just that a lot of people generally assume that a passport equals citizenship. You can see that in the posts on this forum. It's such an ingrained misconception that some countries, when referring to matters of citizenship, even have their laws written such that they literally use the word 'passport', when what they really mean is citizenship.

That's really interesting. I wonder what they do in cases where it is not known for certain that a child is German (or Dutch), or where it is a short time later firmly established that the child is indeed a citizen by birth (or not!). Do they rescind the previous birth certificates and re-issue new ones?

I have not heard of a scenario where the German especially would make such mistakes, each local government have their own immigration authorities/offices, there is minimal case works available to be dealt with thus avoiding the kind of scenario described above.

More so the nationality law is not as complex from my understanding as compare to the UK, for a child to be born German, one of the parents must be a Deutscher or have a permanent residence, there isn't so many avenues to becoming a citizen.

But would it really be a mistake? I mean lets say a couple, that is obviously German, comes into a hospital and has a baby. They look German, have German names, speak the local dialect, and so on. They go and get a German birth certificate and life goes on. Where was the mistake made when it turns out, perhaps revealed many years later, that the though the couple were each born and raised in Germany, that in fact their parents were not German (nor ever permanent residents), and thus by law they weren't either, and likewise, though they were in the country legally, they themselves weren't permanent residents? Sure the fact wasn't obvious, and indeed quite the opposite; if anything, it was obvious they were German.

Having lived for couple of years in both Germany and Austria, I can tell you that they are human just like the rest of us, and have their own set of cultural preconceptions built in. I just wonder how far they dig into the backgrounds of people to find out which birth certificate gets issued? If somebody looked the part, said all the right things, had the right names, what clues would a registrar have that maybe, just maybe, this couple isn't truly German?

[dalebutt]

But would it really be a mistake? I mean lets say a couple, that is obviously German, comes into a hospital and has a baby. They look German, have German names, speak the local dialect, and so on. They go and get a German birth certificate and life goes on. Where was the mistake made when it turns out, perhaps revealed many years later, that the though the couple were each born and raised in Germany, that in fact their parents were not German (nor ever permanent residents), and thus by law they weren't either, and likewise, though they were in the country legally, they themselves weren't permanent residents? Sure the fact wasn't obvious, and indeed quite the opposite; if anything, it was obvious they were German.

Having lived for couple of years in both Germany and Austria, I can tell you that they are human just like the rest of us, and have their own set of cultural preconceptions built in. I just wonder how far they dig into the backgrounds of people to find out which birth certificate gets issued? If somebody looked the part, said all the right things, had the right names, what clues would a registrar have that maybe, just maybe, this couple isn't truly German?

They do have confirmation before they issue Birth certs, as you have lived in Germany yourself, you will understand there isn't hospital registration of birth, the parents have to visit their local (Auslanderamt ) immigration office to register their child's birth.

It's in that process that all the checks will take place, it's quite easy for the Germans, in that they have the registration process, and when one registers, their nationality is recorded. When I lived there years ago, if I moved from one local government to another, even within the same state, my new local immigration office will request for my complete immigration file to be moved to them.

They have access to all the information they need, they have access to know who is a Deutscher or ho qualifies to be issued permanent resident, and it will be really difficult for them to make mistake with the formation they have adopted. They keep it rather simple for themselves.

[ouflak1]

They do have confirmation before they issue Birth certs, as you have lived in Germany yourself, you will understand there isn't hospital registration of birth, the parents have to visit their local (Auslanderamt ) immigration office to register their child's birth.

There's something not quite right about this. Why would a native German family have to register the birth of the native-born child at the International office? This doesn't make any sense. Time to brush off my German and do some research....

edit: Done


Ok, did some googling.de. Curiously, the process seems to be the same no matter what the nationality of the child (or the parents) is. I will provide the German version and then a rough translation/summary.

"Eine Geburt in Deutschland muss dem Standesbeamten, in dessen Bezirk das Kind geboren wurde, binnen einer Woche angezeigt werden . Zur mündlichen Anzeige der Geburt sind nach in folgender Reihenfolge verpflichtet:

jeder Elternteil des Kindes, wenn er sorgeberechtigt ist,
jede andere Person, die bei der Geburt zugegen war oder von der Geburt aus eigenem Wissen unterrichtet ist.

Eine Anzeigepflicht nach Nummer 2 besteht nur, wenn die sorgeberechtigten Eltern an der Anzeige gehindert sind.

Bei Geburten in Krankenhäusern und sonstigen Einrichtungen, in denen Geburtshilfe geleistet wird, ist der Träger der Einrichtung zur Anzeige verpflichtet.

Bei der Anzeige ist eine Reihe von Angaben zu der Geburt (Ort, Datum, Zeitpunkt), zu dem Kind (Geschlecht, Name) und zu der Mutter und, soweit zu diesem Zeitpunkt bekannt, dem Vater (Name, Wohnanschrift) zu machen und durch geeignete Nachweise (ggf. Eheurkunde, Geburtsurkunde, Personalausweis usw.) zu belegen.

Bei ausländischen Staatsangehörigen ist ein Nachweis dazu notwendig (z. B. Reisepass) und fallweise weitere Nachweise."

So basically the child's birth must be reported within a week of the birth to the local 'Standesamt' (registrar's office). There are many details taken including, interestingly, religion, though you can opt to have this left out. Any non-citizen parent(s) must bring proper identification (for example a passport).

There is no mention of a separate birth certificate for Germans and non-Germans on any of the local government websites I visited. Besides the requirement for a non-citizen parent(s) to bring proper ID, there doesn't really seem to be anything at all different for the registration requirement for non-citizen children. There is no special interrogation of the parents, and no nationalities are recorded on the birth certificates. You can request a birth certificate in another language, depending on whether that particular registrar offers this service.

I tried to find out if registration of non-citizen children is required at all. Took some digging this did....

Besitzt ein Elternteil zur Zeit der Geburt des Kindes eine Aufenthaltserlaubnis oder eine Niederlassungserlaubnis, ist dem Neugeborenen ebenfalls eine Aufenthaltserlaubnis zu erteilen.

Ist ein Elternteil zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt im Besitz eines Visums oder darf sich visumfrei im Bundesgebiet bewegen, ist der Aufenthalt des neugeborenen Kindes in der Bundesrepublik bis zum Ablauf des Visums bzw. bis zum Ende des visumfreien Aufenthalts erlaubt.

Auch wenn die ausländischen Eltern keinen Pass besitzen, haben sie ein Recht darauf, ihre neugeborenen Kinder in das Geburtenregister des Standesamtes eintragen zu lassen. Dies ist zum Teil erforderlich, um z.B. staatliche Leistungen beantragen zu können.

Das Kind erhält normalerweise die Staatsangehörigkeit der Mutter oder des Vaters. In bestimmten Fällen kann es auch die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit erhalten (link to government website).

So to summarize: Any children born in Germany to parents who have leave-to-remain, also acquire their parents' leave to remain. If the parents had a temporary visa, or could be there visa-free, the child can stay until the parents' respective legal stay ends. The child will normally take on the citizenship of the mother or the father, but may in some cases be a German citizen. To summarize that link, if one of the parents have been a legal resident in Germany for eight years and is a permanent resident of the EU/Switzerland, or one of the parents a permanent resident of Germany, the child is also a German citizen by birth.

I can find no requirement that a non-citizen child born in Germany must register with the International Office (Auslandsamt). In fact, I couldn't even find any evidence that the Auslandsamt even deals with births (foreign or domestic) at all.

[dalebutt]

Sorry it was indeed not right, it isn't Auslanderamt, I was meant to say Meldeamt, as it's usually is in the same building as Auslanderamt and Burgeramt

[FighterBoy]

If your parents are immigrants you're screwed because the Home Office deletes records after 10-15 years. They treat the children of immigrants as scum, by law and in real life practicality.

Britain had birthright citizenship for nearly a 1000 years too, until the 80s. beloved has been increasing since, a design of the government to divide people and create failed groups.

Britain also doesn't keep any permanent record of who its citizens are, who's permanently settled here and who's illegal. In a few generations time people will need swathes of paperwork linking themselves to an ancestor born in the UK pre-83.

/Rant-over

[secret.simon]

Was there any specific reason to revive a two year old thread, apart from having a rant?

Britain had birthright citizenship for nearly a 1000 years too, until the 80s.

Depends on what you mean by birthright. Citizenship generally is decided by either the place of birth (jus soli) or by parentage (jus sanguinis).

It is useful to remember that the the process of creation of a concept of a nation state only started with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Before that, there were no nations, only allegiances to individual monarchs. So, citizenship in the modern sense of the word did not exist.

The English common law on acquisition of allegiance at birth was only articulated in 1608, in Calvin's Case. So, it is not a 1000 years old.

Indeed, till 1949, the British Empire had just one common allegiance, to the King-Emperor. It was with the dissolution of the Empire that different citizenships came into play. And even then, a common status of Commonwealth citizen lasted till 1980s (and still exists in the UK).

Britain also doesn't keep any permanent record of who its citizens are, who's permanently settled here and who's illegal.

One of the many distinguishing features between us and continental Europe is that there carrying identification at all times is mostly compulsory and be definition, everybody must be issued with identification.

Conversely, that would be seen as a massive breach of privacy this side of the Channel. The last Labour government did introduce a law to issue ID cards, but it was swiftly got rid of by the Coalition, primarily because it was so unpopular.

Remember that the GRO does keep copies of the birth, death and marriage certificates of people born in the UK and the National Archives keeps copies of the naturalisation and registration records.

[FighterBoy]

I felt it to be an interesting thread and worth a reply. Well there isn't much difference between jus soli and sanguinis, the latter just refers to ancestry born there; in the UKs case determined by cut-off dates.

I've read jus soli was in the UK for about 900 years, even if it's 400 or so, my point stands. The fact the UK changed this in the 80s due to immigration speaks volumes.

Yes there are birth/marriage records and some level of naturalisation records; but no full, permanent, accessible record of citizenship, settlement and illegality.

People are left to try and 'prove' their nationality to offices with the bits of materiable available. For a 21st century western nation that's poor, but the system is poor here.