British Overseas Citizens etc.

[penanglad]

I was wondering if any British nationals without the right of abode (BOC, BNO, BS, BPP) would be interested in being members of a group that would look out for their interests and make representations to the Government and to MPs etc. about the rights of British nationals without the right of abode.

There are so many changes that the British Government brings in that affect us, and it seems as if they have no interest in looking out for our interests, despite the fees it charges for our passports and the taxes those of us who are UK-resident pay. E.g. recently the UK Government had no objection to the Schengen countries putting BOCs etc. on the list of passports that required visas to enter the participating European countries, without even asking them to distinguish between BOCs that had UK clearance or were settled in the UK. Also, when the entry clearance requirement for people staying in the UK over six months was brought in, they said it would not apply to UK passport holders, but despite this it now applies to us.

I am proposing to set up a membership organisation that would speak on our behalf. No membership fee, just so we have as many members as possible. We would rely on volunteers. The principle of the organisation would be more rights not less. I have no idea about a name yet.

[transpondia]

Have you put together an advocacy agenda? Just the broad topic of looking out for their interests doesn't resonate without more clarity of purpose. Is it just an issue of travel to the continent?

[penanglad]

The basic principle is that we should be moving towards, not away from, equality of all British nationals. While the right of registration given to British nationals with no other nationality is a huge step forwards, just in the past few years there have been a number of changes that have worsened the position of British nationals without right of abode:

- Introduction of entry clearance / residence permit requirements for employment and study
- Scrapping of the special voucher scheme and automatic ILE concessions for work permit holders and retired persons of independent means
- Stricter visa requirements for the Schengen area
- Five-year period for ILR
- Citizenship oaths, etc.

It is difficult to decide what exactly is achievable vs what is entirely unfeasible, but the following would be a start

- the right to vote and other civic rights given to BPPs
- scrapping distinction between BCs and other British nationals in public service nationality requirements
- making it easier for British nationals to get ILR than for nationals of other countries, e.g. 3 years instead of 5, automatic ILR for highly skilled / work permit holders, etc.

In the long run we would want to influence the next British Nationality Act so that we got back to a single citizenship, or as close as we could.

[transpondia]

that sounds fine. I am not a boc, but would be interested in knowing how you make out establishing a group.

[Marco 72]

Just out of interest, does anyone have any estimates of the number of BOC, BN(O) and BPP passport holders?

[JAJ]

Just out of interest, does anyone have any estimates of the number of BOC, BN(O) and BPP passport holders?

I don't think there are specific records on the number of passports, but:

BN(O) : About 3.25 million (all would have had an initial passport, not all will have renewed it).

BOC : About 1.2 million (most of whom are also Malaysian citizens and don't have British passports)

BPP : No specific figures, but numbers are small.

British subject : About 80-100,000 connected with the Republic of Ireland (plus another 800,000 who are eligible) and an unspecified number connected with former British India.

Add to that a small number of BOTCs who don't also have British citizenship:
- those connected with the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas
- those granted BOTC after 21 May 2002 who have not subsequently applied for British citizenship
- any who have renounced British citizenship and kept BOTC

[BN(O)]

I was wondering if any British nationals without the right of abode (BOC, BNO, BS, BPP) would be interested in being members of a group that would look out for their interests and make representations to the Government and to MPs etc. about the rights of British nationals without the right of abode.

There are so many changes that the British Government brings in that affect us, and it seems as if they have no interest in looking out for our interests, despite the fees it charges for our passports and the taxes those of us who are UK-resident pay. E.g. recently the UK Government had no objection to the Schengen countries putting BOCs etc. on the list of passports that required visas to enter the participating European countries, without even asking them to distinguish between BOCs that had UK clearance or were settled in the UK. Also, when the entry clearance requirement for people staying in the UK over six months was brought in, they said it would not apply to UK passport holders, but despite this it now applies to us.

I am proposing to set up a membership organisation that would speak on our behalf. No membership fee, just so we have as many members as possible. We would rely on volunteers. The principle of the organisation would be more rights not less. I have no idea about a name yet.

We, BN(O)s, have formed a forum http://www.britishhongkong.com/ to fight for what we deserve. We strike for right of abode in the UK, though it is not easy.

[Dawie]

Most British nationals without the right of abode in the UK do not have the right of abode because they have no connection to the UK whatsoever. Most have never even been to the UK. So on what grounds do you propose that the UK grant these people right of abode?

[deepakmehtauk]

Most BPPs are from East Africa & Hindu Council from East Africa & UK has been very active in making representations regarding these people, I am told. I was also told that there were about 8000 BPPs in 2002-3, when the Citizenship act was changed to allow non-citizen British nationals with no other citizenship to claim British Citizenship.

[JR08]

Most British nationals without the right of abode in the UK do not have the right of abode because they have no connection to the UK whatsoever. Most have never even been to the UK. So on what grounds do you propose that the UK grant these people right of abode?

Most EU and EEA nationals also have no connection with the UK, yet they are able to live freely within the UK (with only a few restrictions).

British citizens by descent who obtain their citizenship by being born to a British citizen parent may also have no personal connection to the UK - yet they have the right of abode in the UK.

British overseas territories citizens, most of whom are now eligible for full British citizenship (and have the right of abode in the UK as a result) also do not have any direct personal connection with the UK, yet they still have the right of abode.

Clearly, the right of abode or the right to live in the UK do not always require the person to have a close personal connection with the UK.

You should not forget that all British nationals were able to enter/exit the UK before this right was removed in 1960s and 1970s. Now these people are only requesting that the UK to restore these rights which were removed. Many of these individuals are also British by birth - it is not like their British nationality just got suddenly given to them.

And you should note that under International and European human rights treaties, it is a basic right for nationals of a country to be able to enter and exit their country freely:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part III, Article 12:
4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

European Convention of Human Rights, Protocol 4, Article 3:
2) No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the state of which he is a national.

Clearly the UK is not up to current human rights standards with regards to its treatment of British nationals.

And even logically speaking, there is no reason why the UK should deny 3-4 million British nationals their rights to live in the UK when 400+ million EU nationals are free to come and go as they please.

[sakura]

Most EU and EEA nationals also have no connection with the UK, yet they are able to live freely within the UK (with only a few restrictions).

This is because they have agreements under the European Directive. It is a reciprocal agreement. It can't really be used to argue the OP's case, because they do not have right of abode (an automatic right to remain in the UK) - they can even be asked to leave the UK at any point in the future.

British citizens by descent who obtain their citizenship by being born to a British citizen parent may also have no personal connection to the UK - yet they have the right of abode in the UK.

Actually they have a very close connection to the UK - their ancestry lies in the country, they probably have British culture/customs, and most likely speak English. Ancestry visas are only given to people with at least one British-born grandparent, so they still have a very close link to the UK.

Clearly, the right of abode or the right to live in the UK do not always require the person to have a close personal connection with the UK.

I can agree with that - although I think that the argument about European nationals does not easily fit with this situation.

And you should note that under International and European human rights treaties, it is a basic right for nationals of a country to be able to enter and exit their country freely:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part III, Article 12:
4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.European Convention of Human Rights, Protocol 4, Article 3:
2) No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the state of which he is a national.

But you are not a citizen of the UK. The UK does make a distinction between 'nationals' and people with right of abode (citizenship). Even under the EU laws, they make that distinction (they write "British nationals with right of abode" or 'British citizens'). I think they even have a paragraph explaining who in the UK is a citizen of the EU and who is not.

So I do not think the UK is in breach of any human rights. Of course, using 'nationals', 'citizen', and the like, when those two words are usually very closely associated, does complicate matters.

[JR08]

Interesting reply.

I used the EU/EEA example not strictly to demonstrate ROA, but to show that the UK are very lax with their requirements for EEA/EU nationals who most often do not have English language skills, British values etc.

You should be aware that many British nationals have at least some English language skills and British values. Many would've been educated in a similar education system to that in the UK. E.g. secondary school and university in HK were all conducted in English while it was still under British rule.

The international/European treaties: The UK has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

Now, for these British nationals (some of whom are solely British), where would you define as their "own country"? It would clearly be the UK or other British territory - but these British nationalities do not generally have a right of abode ANYWHERE in the world by virtue of their British nationality. For those with another nationality, it might be slightly different, but as a British national, they still do not have a right to live in ANY British territory. There are corresponding parts of the covenant covering the right not to be removed from the territory of one's nationality. But at the moment, these British nationals may be removed from the UK - but I wonder where they'd go.

The European Convention of Human Rights is not an EU instrument - it is from the Council of Europe. The EU concepts of EU citizens and British nationals who have EU citizenship are not the definitions of "nationals" used in that instrument.

"No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the state of which he is a national."

The UK has signed this in 196X, but have not done anything to ratify it, purely because it knows that they cannot ratify it without giving 3-4 million British nationals at least a right to enter and remain in the UK.

Just because the UK or the EU likes to make distinctions between its nationals/citizens does not mean that the definition of "nationals" used in the 2 human rights treaties I have mentioned will also make these distinctions.

It's a bit of a circular argument. The UK does not want to give all British nationals (incl BOC, BNOs etc) the right to enter the UK, so it makes various definitions of its nationals so that only some would be full citizens/nationals (with the right to enter the UK), while the rest are not - and by doing so it is fulfilling its human rights obligation so that "No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the state of which he is a national"? In effect it is breaching exactly the rights these instruments are trying to protect - it's just a fancy way of doing it.

And I mention again, prior to legislation in the 1960s and 1970s, all British nationals had the right to enter/exit the UK. These rights were forcibly removed by the government of the time. In fact, prior to the British nationality act 1981, they all held the same citizenship/nationality: Citizens of the UK and Colonies.

You may like to know that these people have more to lose by being British nationals than not - they are subjected to criminal/anti-terrorism/treason type laws as British Citizens but do not have many rights associated with being a British national - few rights but many responsibilities.

Do you at least think that the UK should at least be more lenient about the entry of British nationals when 400+ million EU/EEA/Swiss nationals are able to enter the UK to work/study/live?

[sakura]

Very interesting reply! It has got me thinking...

[JR08]

Oh and just a little scenario that make no sense.

The government has maintained a situation whereby British nationals who are not full British citizens can "register" as British citizens, while those who are foreign nationals "naturalise" to become British citizens. And supposedly it is easier to "register" than to "naturalise".

But so far, I cannot see any situation whereby it is easier to register than to naturalise - it would be interesting if someone can point it out.

Ok, the scenario:
A British national enters the UK for study on a student visa (or something to that effect). Normally, a 5 year residence period is required for "registration", but one needs to be free from immigration restriction in the last year. As a student, he/she cannot obtain ILR as a student until he/she has lived in the UK for 10 years as at student. Hence, the residence requirement for a British national student to "register" as a British citizen becomes 11 years (10 years for ILR + 1 year free from immigration restriction).

For an EEA national who also enters the UK for study, he/she does not have to apply for a student visa as he/she can enter the UK for study under EU/EEA laws. Just like any other foreign national who wants to naturalise to become a British Citizen, there is a 5 year residence requirement (with 1 year minimum free from immigration restriction). As an EEA national exercising freedom of movement rights, he/she will obtain permanent residence after 5 years as a student in the UK. After an additional 1 year, he/she can naturalise to become a British citizen - this is only 6 years.

Now, both the British national and the EEA national are in the UK as a student, why should one be able to access British citizenship earlier than the other? Do you think the British national is less deserving than the legally foreign national of an EEA state?

Heck.... Had the UK not divided up its citizens into many categories in 1981 that British national may still be a full British citizen today.

[Wanderer]

I don't understand all this - people want Independence AND a British Passport - weird....

Seems like a straightforward OR situation to me...

[JR08]

The largest group of British nationals with no ROA in the UK are those who were connected with Hong Kong.

Unfortunately Hong Kong is currently not an independent country, and its citizens do not have their own citizenship - they are forcibly made to be Chinese nationals. Many of these are descendents of Chinese refugees - now which country of the world hands back refugees to the country they've escaped from?

And the HK island and Kowloon were not leased from China - they could remain British had the government wanted to keep it. Obviously the threat of a hostile invasion from China would probably preclude that happening (the Chinese leader at the time "nicely" reminded Lady Thatcher of that possibility in their negotiations over HK), and that was part of the reason why the whole territory was handed over, rather than just the part that was leased. (It was probably impossible to just return part of the city anyway).

Had the threat of a hostile invasion occured for another British territory and an agreement was made to hand over that territory to the foreign power, would you strip those people of their British nationality? Almost all the people of the current British overseas territories have an entitlement to British citizenship, so will you strip them of that, then give them a defunct British nationality status?

Actually the exact opposite happend with the Falkland Islands in the 1980s - they were one of the few colonies where citizens had access to full British citizenship back when the citizens of British overseas territories generally did not have automatic access to full British citizenship, due to the Falkland wars. What a big difference in treatment!

And those with British Overseas Citizenship etc - some of them may also be a citizen of the newly independent country (e.g. those in Malaysia), but a lot of the time it is for those people who did NOT become citizens of the independent country or are children of these people.

[JR08]

I don't understand all this - people want Independence AND a British Passport - weird....

Seems like a straightforward OR situation to me...

Independence isn't even relevant here. I want to make this clear:

These people DO have a British passport. The governments of the time obviously thought that they should retain some form of British nationality.

The people who become citizens of newly independent territories generally have their British nationality completely removed. There are only a few exceptions to this (I think with Malaya and Penang and the independence of Malaysia). So the people we are talking about are NOT citizens of these newly independent countries.

[JAJ]

Now, for these British nationals (some of whom are solely British),

Most of those who are solely British have a right (since 2003) to register as British citizens.

As for those who are citizens of another country, the view of successive British governments is that they should "throw in their lot" with their country of citizenship, not the United Kingdom.

[JR08]

Now, for these British nationals (some of whom are solely British),

Most of those who are solely British have a right (since 2003) to register as British citizens.

As for those who are citizens of another country, the view of successive British governments is that they should "throw in their lot" with their country of citizenship, not the United Kingdom.

Well, just because that is the government's view does not mean that it is necessarily in accordance with principles of human rights. The UK still has obligations under the previously-mentioned human rights treaties to ensure a right of entry for these British nationals.

And if you think that it is correct for the British government to "throw in their lot" with the other country of citizenship, maybe the British government should also deprive all dual British nationals (esp those not in the UK) of their British citizenship and leave them with the country of their other nationality. Maybe you are suggesting that the UK should disallow dual nationality?

One should not forget that for many of these British nationals, they were British nationals at birth, and may have been solely British at birth. E.g. the three or so million British National (Overseas) who are dual British/Chinese nationals became Chinese only because of the involuntarily acquisition of Chinese nationality at the handover of Hong Kong.

[penanglad]

The UK obviously feels it is in a unique situation, because of its imperial past, and has sadly not chosen to accede to the treaties you quoted without reservation.

Personally, I think that simply asking for right of abode at this stage is unrealistic. It would be more productive to work for realistic and incremental steps that preserve and expand the rights of British nationals without ROA.

I also think it unfortunate that most campaigning has hitherto been done on a purely communal basis, e.g. Hong Kong Chinese, Nepalese, East Africans, etc. What we need is a group that encompasses all British nationals without ROA.

[ben_scaro]

I wonder at this point, with immigration being so Europe-focussed whether any wider group would make much progress on the concerns of the various groups.

However, at the moment, these issues seem to be a series of competing ethnically based agendas . . . making it easy for any Home Secretary or HO spokesperson to shrug the agendas off as sectarian and 'alien' to broader British concerns.

There's also the ability for HO to divide on the basis of who's 'deserving' and who's not, which may appeal to an electorate in an increasingly anti-immigration mood.

Do you have a view on what will happen under the recent immigration reform proposals?

I'd heard that the fourteen year rule is out the door, not so sure of the ten year rule . . . or whether the desire to make citizens of everyone who lives here will apply to BOCs or other like groups. Can't see anything in the text of the proposals that bears on this issue.

My fear is that the HO will see it as useful to keep a certain proportion, most likely Malaysian, in perpetual limbo as a warning to the 'only' one million BOCs not to try it.

Ben