Talk:British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland

Off topic material

Unfortunately, I think this article veers off into Irish nationality law in places; that should be kept to an absolute minimum (or the topic should be redefined). 84.203.70.133 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Domestic natuure of IFS citizenship

Moreover, the caveat that Free State citizenship was only enjoyed by its holders "within the limits of the [Free State's] jurisdiction" meant that the citizenship law did not govern what the status of its holders were outside the Free State's jurisdiction.

The above is what I added to the article........I believe that is correct....RashersTierney thinks otherwise....I will have to do some research! 84.203.70.133 (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

" The meaning of 'citizenship'is defined only to the extent of saying that the citizen shall 'within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State enjoy the privileges and be subject to the obligations of such citizenship'. There appears to be here a suggestion that the status of citizen of the Irish Free State carries no privileges or obligations outside the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State: that the Irish Free State citizen when he goes to France has no 'privileges or obligations'as such. This may not have been intended at all: on the other hand it may have been deliberately inserted in pursuance of a British theory that the citizen of any Dominion, once he gets outside his Dominion, must rely for support on his 'Imperial'status as a 'British Subject'. The specific rights and obligations of the citizen within the Irish Free State, are, of course, to be defined by law and many of them have already been so defined, e.g. under the Constitution itself 'the citizen'is given certain rights (see for instance Article 7 and 8) which are not given to mere residents: by the Electoral Act 1923 citizens, only, are entitled to the vote: by the Juries Act 1927 no person who is not a citizen can be a juror." -This comes from http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=1355 (Extract from a memorandum on nationality and citizenship prepared by the Department of Justice at the request of the Department of External Affairs for the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation) and seems relevant.

"When citizens of the Irish Free State travelled abroad (including to Northern Ireland) they did so as British subjects. There was no provision in the Irish constitution, or in ordinary domestic law, for Irish passports. British passports were carried. "

-This comes from www.austenmorgan.com/.../IRISH%20CITIZENSHIP,%20NATIONALITY%20AND%20PASSPORTS.doc

(Austen Morgan BL) and also seems relevant.

"Thus, the Constitution reflected the twin intentions of the Treaty which, on the one hand, stipulated that the privileges and obligations of Irish citizenship were to be ‘within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State’ (reflecting the existence of Northern Ireland and partition) and, on the other, linked them to an external power through the Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown and common citizenship of the Commonwealth. Though unique in the Commonwealth of the day, Irish citizenship, therefore, was not an autonomous status. It was not until the 1930s that ‘an Irish citizenship for international purposes was established’,6 independently of a Treaty and Constitution enacted as British statutes. Under the power contemplated in Article 3 of the 1922 Constitution, the Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935 repealed the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (as amended in 1918).7 It specified that, under Irish law, Irish citizens (ornationals) were those born in the territory of the whole island of Ireland or those who chose to activate an inherent right to the status derived from either parent, resident or not, who had been born on the island. It drew on the conclusions of the 1930 Commonwealth Conference that each member could define for itself its own nationals while maintaining mutual recognition of common status. It was considered in both Houses from November 1933, passed on 4 April 1935 and signed by the King six days later.8 Following its enactment, and with mutuality and reciprocity in mind, Ireland introduced its own Aliens Act under which anyone who was not a citizen of Sáorstat Éireann was an alien.9 This made the British as alien as any other nationality. But an exemption Order (S.R. + O. No 80 of 1935) excluded them and the peoples of the Commonwealth from the application of the Aliens Act and, hence, permitted the continuation of their free movement into Ireland."

The above quote comes from http://borderireland.info/pubs/BI-01169.pdf and it seems to come closest to dealing with exactly what I was talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.70.133 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Also from the above: "The UK, because of the common citizenship of the Commonwealth, had not amended its Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 (amended 1918) which specified that persons born in what was then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as well as the Commonwealth, were British subjects. There being no change in UK law until 1948 meant, as McGuinness11 points out, that British judicial opinion was able to maintain - as late as 1942 - that Ireland’s 1922 Constitution ‘did no more than confer ... a national character as an Irish citizen within the wider British nationality’; and that this remained the case despite the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1935 and the new 1937 Constitution. ‘From the British point of view the peoples of all these lands have status as British subjects, and generally there is no discrimination among British subjects as to place of birth within the Commonwealth’12 in their access to citizenship rights in the UK. This remained contentious in Ireland." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.70.133 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, a link to Morgan's 1997 'opinion' paper. I certainly hope that the author is no longer labouring under the misconception that the earliest Free State passports were first issued as late as 1935/36 per "And the Free State, presumably, began to issue Irish passports; they were certainly in existence at the time of the Spanish civil war." Irish Free State passports were went on 'general release' in 1924. The question of citizenship and 'subject status' was certainly disputed, as is the subject of this peer reviewed paper, (some extracts here, for those without JSTOR access). Irish Free State passports were issued by that government, and almost invariably accepted (initial unfamiliarity aside) by foreign authorities. Where British consular assistance was requested by Irish citizens, there was generally an insistence that the IFS passport be surrendered in exchange for a British passport. I don't recall any British insistence to foreign states that these documents were otherwise invalid 'outside the jurisdiction' . RashersTierney (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First, that's fine that Mr Morgan is no citizenship expert...but look at all the other sources I have gathered here...Yet the article is completely silent on this very important topic. You took out the one sentence I added in concerning this. Will you have a go at tackling this in the article?

Second, everything else you said in the post above (beyond that re Mr Morgan) had nothing to do with Irish citizenship. You were talking about Irish passports. Two entirely different things. Passports may be accepted even by countries that don't recognise each others existence nevermind their respective nationality (e.g. Republic of China); What we are talking about is the citizenship that those persons enjoyed. Per the postings above, it looks like until at least some time in the 1930s the general view was that they were "British subjects" plain and simple once they left the territory of the Irish Free State and IFS citizenship was merely local in its effects. Will you address this in the article?

Thanks. 84.203.70.133 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, remember this is an article on British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland (British, not Irish); clearly the emphasis should be on explaining what the British legal view was (not, primarily, the Irish one). As I say from the above, it looks like under British law IFS citizens were merely British subjects until at least the 1930s (perhaps the 1940s per the above too). 84.203.70.133 (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You clearly did not follow the link I provided to The Irish Free State Passport and the Question of Citizenship, 1921-4. You might also consider Leo Kohn's interpretation of a distinct Irish citizenship, viz p115 The Sovereignty of the People (Art. 2) - The constitutional significance of the insertion in the opening section of the Irish Constitution of a formal declaration that 'all powers of government and all authority legislative, executive and judicial in Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland.' need hardly be laboured. A pronouncement of such theoretical character and revolutionary antecedents could clearly have found no place in the Constituent Acts of the British Dominions, under which all legal authority in the latter is derived from the sovereign fount of the Parliament of Westminster. It re-embodied the fundamental postulate of the Constitution of the Republican Dáil of January 1919, but the assertion no longer constituted an 'ex parte' claim. p116 - Irish Citizenship (ART. 3) - The implications of the principle of popular sovereignty are both constitutive and functional. The primary inference drawn from it in the Constitution was the institution of a distinctive Irish citizenship. If sovereign authority in Ireland was vested in the Irish people, it was clearly from that original source, and not from any secondary association with a wider political grouping, that citizenship of the Irish Free State must be derived. Under Art. 3, a specific Irish citizenship was bestowed on every person domiciled in the in the Free State at the time of the coming into force of the Constitution who was born in Ireland, or either of whose parents was of Irish birth etc. On references within a general discussion paper to Diarmuid McGuinness' unpublished document I have no particular view. RashersTierney (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't read the Loe Kohn document; I don't have access to it; Thanks for the quotes but what on Earth did they show? They did not deal at all with the quotes above. They refer to a "specific" IFS citizenship...but don't address at all what we are taling about - the character of that citizenship...i.e. the assertionis above that it was purely domestic in character and its holders were simply British subjects outside the IFS. Also, again this is an article about British nationality law not Irish nationality law. Yet you are referring to a book on Irish law (the old IFS constitution).

I repeat my question. Are you going to address any of this in the article? You deleted what I had put in on this topic so I think it is for you to state the position here in the article. The article is silent on all of this now and that is not good enough...that would be a very low standard. 84.203.70.133 (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Andrew Gwilliam to chip in any views he has too as I know he has been talking to you about content on this article also. 84.203.70.133 (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation appears to overlook the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922. I have now highlighted Kohn's crucial observation above at my last reply. To get back to basics, the phrase ...[a citizen] shall within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State enjoy the privileges and be subject to the obligations of such citizenship... indicates that rights such as the franchise, both parliamentary and municipal, eligibility to the legislative, administrative and judicial bodies, a claim to political protection abroad and the right to immunity from deportation (Kohn p119) could not be claimed outside the jurisdiction eg an Irish Free State citizen living abroad had no constitutional right to vote in IFS elections, nor could the IFS, for example, demand military service or jury duty of such a citizen. It most certainly did not have the novel and restrictive meaning as formulated in your edit. (ps a copy of Kohn's book can be accessed at the NLI.) RashersTierney (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't live near the National Library. To get back to basics...the commentary above on British law said that from the British legal perspecticve, IFS citizenship was basically a "local add on" to British natinoality. The article says nothing about any of this. Again, are you going to put something in it about it? 84.203.70.133 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish citizens as British subjects

In the case of Murray v. Parkes (1942), the King's Bench Divisional Court decreeed that Roscommon-born Michael Murray, then aged 33 and living in Leicester was a "British subject". The Irish Times reported on that the Court held that

Murray was a British subject and nothing had deprived him of that status. the legislation that made him a citizen of the Irish Free State did no more than confer on him a national character as an Irish citizen within the wider British natinoality. His status was that of a British subject...

(Source The Irish Times, 2 April 1940; See also http://www.jstor.org/pss/1089976)

The above and other quotes preumably need to be worked into the article...British legal opinion simply did not regard Irish citizenship in those days as a separate "non British" nationality. That much is clear. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Parkes case has been widely referenced and should be addressed in the article, perhaps under a section titled 'Case law' which would incorporate other court decisions? 'Parkes' has also been the subject of differing opinions regarding its significance in addressing the matter you raise. RashersTierney (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've started a re-draft of important aspects of the artilce, but like I said in my "edit summary" - "This will need a fair bit of tidy up work and style....but I don't want to put in all that work if it is simply going to be deleted without adequate (relevant - British law) reason (sources etc)." Hope we can make progress. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

5 N. Ir. Legal Q. 76 (1942-1943) British Nationality and Irish Citizenship; Newark, F. H. is probably a good starting point. RashersTierney (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh thats a pity - I don't know what happened my redraft of last night appears not to have saved....Must have cocked it up....Might have a bash at it again anor. day. Would love if you did some of the hard work. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good...It has saved....I do not understand how Wikipedia works any more...Often, when one makes changes, they save but then don't appear....This is the version of the Article I have prepared: "This is the current revision of this page, as edited by 84.203.74.92 (talk) at 23:10, 29 June 2011." I have done my redraft for now. No point me spending more time on this article until there is more input from others around, basically, whether they are going to let the article move on. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory article / title

This article does not deliver. The title "British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland" strongly suggests it will tell the reader what that law is. Now. Today (i.e. with a currency date).

First there should be a clear summary for the reader who wants the article to "just tell me in as few words as possible what the position is now" for various headings e.g. - citizenship (marriage, childbirth etc) - passports/travel - residency - employment - tax - etc etc and quote the sources (statute, case law etc).

It should then expand to the next layer(s) of detail as required for the above areas and more complex circumstances (maybe under the above headings), again with references to the sources.

As to the history of how the current position came about (which is where the present article is focused) perhaps this should be via links to this history for readers interested in history rather than "the here and now".

If these changes are not to be made then this article should be retitled "Elements of the History of British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland" because, as it stands, it "does not do what it says on the tin". Thinkstream (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger discussion 18 November 2015

I propose that British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland be merged into History of British nationality law, Common Travel Area, Ireland-United Kingdom relations, Ireland Act 1949(I), 1949, British Nationality Act 1948, British Nationality Act 1981, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, Immigration Act 1971, Representation of the People Act 1983, Representation of the People Act 1985, Representation of the People Act 2000 and British nationality law, for the following rationale, or points—

1. The very premise of the article is false, because—

a. The article, especially its title, would seem to mislead readers into thinking that the Republic of Ireland (in the current, present form) were founded as the same time as Independence in the year 1922, whereas it was only proclaimed in 1948 (which was formally recognised by the British Crown and HM Government in the United Kingdom in 1949).

b. The article contains all sorts of irrelevant stuff about Irish citizenship (citizenship of the Republic of Ireland) in Northern Ireland, or "prehistoric" stuff about the operation of British (British Imperial, or all-British-Empire) nationality law back in the Irish Free State (Eire), pre-1948/'49, and a lot of the latter are original research, and mostly either uncited at all, or not either from reliable British Government, or legal (from English [barristers who are also] QCs, the Law Society, the English Bar, the Four Inns of Court, some other (normally neutral, not advocacy) associations of solicitors or barristers, or both, or jurists or similar teaching legal scholars, from Oxbridge, or some other law schools from the Universities and Colleges of the Russell Group) sources.

c. The article, especially its title, would also seem to mislead readers into thinking that the United Kingdom still provide, through provisions contained in British law, means to acquire or assume, and claim, under a special and preferential régime or treatment, full British citizenship, or at least some other form of British nationality, to current, present citizens of the Republic of Ireland, regardless of age, or the date of birth, under certain circumstances, whereas it is actually not the case at all.

d. In fact, there is no special, expedited avenue, outside of the normal rules, from everybody else, with regards to the acquisition of British citizenship, available to citizens of the Republic of Ireland born on or after the 1st. January 1949, unless he is born in the United Kingdom and Islands (the Isle of Man, Jersey, and the Islands of the Bailiwick of Guernsey), to one parent or to both parents, who is, or who are considered as having the status of being "settled" in the United Kingdom and Islands under the British Nationality Act 1981, Chapter 61.

e. The wording of the present title of the article would seem to mislead readers into thinking that British nationality law somehow continue to operate on an extra-territorial basis over the people and the population of the territory of the Republic of Ireland (as it was the case in the Irish Free State or Eire from the years 1935 to 1949), in the same manner that the nationality law of the Republic of Ireland still operates on an extra-territorial basis over Northern Ireland.

f. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland do enjoy almost all of the immigration, and human, civil and political rights in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Islands, as British citizens, but without actually being automatically conferred or otherwise involuntarily, by default given either the name and the (actual, nominal) status of British citizenship, British nationality, the right of abode, or the status of "indefinite leave to remain" (roughly equivalent to the status of (conditional) permanent residence in the United Kingdom), or the status of "Commonwealth citizens" within the United Kingdom and other British Territory; but, those rights are not covered by British nationality law, but rather, primarily, by the Immigration Act 1971, Chapter 17, which is not usually considered part of the main body of the nationality laws of the United Kingdom. (The Home Office (United Kingdom Visas and Immigration), in fact, appears to maintain a strict, serious (pedantic it may be) distinction between "immigration" and "nationality"; and there are a set of separate "Nationality Instructions" separate from the "Immigration Rules".)

g. British subjects (citizens of the Republic of Ireland and former citizens of Eire) (under the BNA 1948) and British subjects (citizens of the Republic of Ireland) (under the BNA 1981), are what we would call, in a layman's term, as belonging to a "grandfathered", or a "preserved" special category, or class, of British nationality, closed to persons born on or after the 1st. January 1949. To quote from "the Nationality Instructions", Part IV: "British subjects"Chapter 46: "Claims to remain a British subject by certain Irish nationals", Point 46.2.3: "British subject status is not transmissible, and the question of whether a person is such a subject by descent or otherwise does not arise." [1]

2. Arguably, the topic is of such an obscure, minor and specialist interest, that, perhaps it might be worth a mention or two, perhaps with its own section, in other articles. The present article, however, is just a magnet for other less-legally-informed editors, present or future, to insert irrelevant materials.

3. See also:
Official State or Government references on nationality matters in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (British nationality references):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/4-5/17/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/4-5/17
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/claim-by-a-citizen-of-the-republic-of-ireland-to-remain-a-british-subject
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181057/postie_passport_forme.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chapter-46-claims-to-remain-a-british-subject-by-certain-irish-nationals-nationality-instructions
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/262375/chapter46.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/262378/ch46annexa.pdf

Official State or Government references on immigration and other matters in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (British immigration and other references): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/41/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/41
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/50/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/50
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/2/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/2
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/11/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/11

Official State or Government references from the Republic of Ireland or from the Government of Ireland (Irish (Republic of Ireland) references): http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1935/act/13/enacted/en/print.html (repaled)
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1948/act/22/enacted/en/print.html

-- Urquhartnite (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just bulk reverted Urquhartnite's last several edits, including this merger suggestion. Urquhartnite has recently been indef blocked and has made odd edits to a variety of articles, so I am boldly going to dismiss the above suggestion, but I will leave the above in case there is some useful material for other editors. If I have been overly bold, feel free to revert me. Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bondegezou. I think Urquhartnite has misunderstood the article, but in any event his criticisms could be addressed by editing the article, not deleting or merging it. And his proposal to take an article which deals with a clear subject that merits it's own article and split its content up among six or eight articles is bonkers. Richard75 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Article title

I've started a discussion regarding the title of this article at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 10:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to no appetite for discussion of the title, so I have just reversed yesterday's move by the now indef-blocked editor. Scolaire (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118193556/http://www.medivisas.com/irish-nationals-eea.asp to http://www.medivisas.com/irish-nationals-eea.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Windrush Scheme: information entirely missing...?

Under the "Windrush Scheme", Irish British nationals (living in the UK pre-1983, AFAIUI) are allowed to apply for full "British Citizen" passports, as opposed to remaining on the inferior "British Subject" passports with the vignette [2] "The holder has the right of abode in the United Kingdom" printed inside their passport (image: [3]), and can be handled by the current special "Windrush Taskforce" team that the UK govt have currently set-up to handle the issue, without having to pay for the ~£1500+ naturalisation costs typically involved outside the Windrush Scheme. Note, this does not affect their Irish citizen status whatsoever, so they can still apply for or renew Irish passports in addition to the "British Citizen" one (Irish passports have one single type, unlike British ones with endless 'types' – six old and current types, AFAIUI, along with various 'abode'/'remain' statuses to go with them!).

Why is this important? It simply wasn't important until recently, but in the last decade or so, various international immigration controls across the world have been tightened in the aftermath of the perceived terrorist threats and political demands for tighter immigration controls. One major example is the United States, where "British Citizen" passport holders can simply apply online for the US's ESTA VWP (visa waiver programme) at a cost of $14, to gain entry to the US, compared to all other types of British passport holders. This unfairly includes and discriminates against many "British Subject" passport holders with that all important full abode status printed in their Subject passport, especially including Irish ones, who cannot use the simple and cheap ESTA scheme for which Citizen passport holders can, but instead have to go to the US Embassy in London to show docs & interview, and pay a whopping $190 ($160+30 postage costs) for an non-immigration B1/B2 visa – i.e. 13 times the cost and a lot more needless waste of time and trouble, for absolutely no tangible reason.

It should be noted here that originally this was not the case for "British Subject, with abode status" passport holders, but in more recent years, seemingly the UK govt have stipulated that only "British Citizen" passport holders can be checked using various visa-waiver programmes, such as the US's ESTA one, and thus the US govt is therefore forced to follow the UK govts systems by refusing ESTA to all other British passport types.

The US is not the only country with visa-waiver schemes such as ESTA, so this has therefore become a problem for "British Subject, with abode status" passport holders clearing passport controls in more and more countries. As evidence of this, my mother (born Ireland 1942, moved to UK 1969 as a nurse, married UK "British Citizen" passport holder 1973, born & raised two children here in 1970's, and lived continuously ever since!) is a classic example of this 'technicality' that continually costs her time and money. Additionally, while she personally does not want to apply for an Irish passport, whose holders could also use the ESTA programme as well, but even if she did, the current backlog for UK-based (i.e. not those applying within Ireland itself) Irish passport applications is a minimum of 3-4 months if not longer(!), meaning this method cannot be used for travel plans needed closer than this timeframe. Furthermore, fundamentally, this is a get-around to the British passport system for Irish British nationals (and others), rather than solving the underlying issue in the first place.

As I'm only a 'punter' dealing with this issue and not an immigration legal professional, I have not added anything to the article, as I believe there are yet more details for which a professional with fuller knowledge should know about and be able to detail better in the article. But nonetheless, it should appear in this article, and it currently does not. --Jimthing (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Writing as yet another uninformed bystander, but I really wonder whether this question is more theoretical than real. I have great difficulty understanding why anyone who had a choice would bother with such a useless status. Yes, Brexit could certainly turn the whole thing on its head when scapegoats are being sought for the disaster of a no-deal, but certainly as things stand, Irish citizens in the UK are consistently defined as not 'foreigners within the meaning the Act". The Windrush issue is a serious one and I have to question whether a 'me too' on very marginal grounds would be justifiable. --Red King (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The reason for doing this is for those who do not wish to have any ROI passport – this is a personal matter, concerning ones own views on which nationality(s) they wish to identify as. Furthermore, even for those that do want to apply for Irish passports, there is currently a long backlog in the non-Irish residents application queue of around 6 to 12 months to obtain one, meaning many applying from fresh cannot obtain one before travel. So obtaining a British Citizen passport under Windrush Scheme may have been a better route.

However, all this has proven to be wrong. After a huge 9-month wait under a Windrush Scheme application, my mother (as will most other Irish British nationals) was denied British nationalisation and so is stuck with a British Subject passport (unless she goes through naturalisation via the normal non-Windrush Scheme channels at huge expense!). Reasoning was that the rules of the Scheme actually dictate that the ROI's independence on 01 Jan 1949 makes them NOT applicable under the Scheme's rules, as not only being non-Commonwealth, but crucially, also a non-associated Territory of a Commonwealth country). So Windrush is a dead-end for Irish British persons to obtain full British Citizen passports, and they are stuck with only having free access to British Subject passports – again, unless they apply like anyone from any other country, for naturalisation under normal channels, with at the current fee structure in being £1200-£1350 for the privilege! Clearly under these circumstances, the huge costs difference means that going for an Irish passport may be more logically practical for travel purposes, even if one didn't actually want an Irish passport in the first place. Article updated accordingly. --Jimthing (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jimthing: I revised your revision even more, because IMO the text should just state the bare facts, not have a lot of complicated sub-clauses on what people thought might have been the case and, had their assumption been correct, that this other would have been true but it now turns out that it isn't. I understand your annoyance over the misunderstanding and its consequences but it has to stay on the talk page. (BTW, your estimate of the lead time for an Irish passport seems very high: what I have read is less than half that. I wonder if you are adding in the time to register a foreign birth, which applies to UK-born grandchildren but wouldn't apply to 'Irish British' people). Incidentally, Ireland has been independent since 1922, it just ceased (in UK law) to be a Dominion in 1949. --~~

@Red King: Yeah fair enough, your article text may be clearer. ;-) The timeframes for obtaining Irish passports even at half the time I stated still mean 3-6 months, so may still affect many people. Re. 'independence', the Home Office used this phrase on the denial letter (and in other docs on the HO websites) "you were not a citizen of the UK and Colonies following the independence of Ireland on 01 January 1949." (see her denial letter PDF here: https://imgur.com/a/skAHbm3 ).

What makes it worse, is that the UK govt doesn't seem to offer a fast-track/cheaper naturalisation process anymore for Irish British nationals? A senior official I spoke to at the UK Passport Office seemed to intimate there was one or used to be one in the past and to contact the Home Office to check, but after contacting the HO, I got nowhere with such a thing existing now or ever? :-| Jimthing (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

British Nationality Act 1948

1. The article says that "Following Canada's enactment of the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 (in force from 1 January 1947), the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference agreed that every member state, except Ireland which declined to participate at the Conference, would enact its own citizenship law while retaining the common status of British subject." The Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 was assented to on June 27, 1946 and the British Nationality Act 1948 was assented to on 30 July 1948. According to Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, there was no such conference between 23 April 1946 – 25 May 1946 and 11–22 October 1948. It therefore appears that the decision cannot have been made at such a conference. I propose to amend the article to read that "Following Canada's enactment of the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 (in force from 1 January 1947), it was agreed that ..."

2. The section History_of_British_nationality_law#Acquisition_of_Citizenship_of_the_UK_and_Colonies currently says that "For the purpose of the 1948 act, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was defined on its post-1922 borders. Hence, birth in the Republic of Ireland before 1922 was not sufficient in itself to confer citizenship of the UK and Colonies. Persons born in the Republic of Ireland before 1949 became Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent in British law on 1 January 1949 if they had a father born in the United Kingdom or a place that was a colony at that date (provided father was married to the person's mother)." Am I right in thinking that the reference to "a father born in the United Kingdom" means "a father born in the UK defined on its post-1922 borders"? The relevant legislation appears to be Sections 12(2) and 12(1)(a) of the 1948 Act. (In case it is of interest, see also Ireland Act 1949 - Citizenship of the UK & Colonies - as at 12:28, 13 February 2009. If so, would it be best for the article to make that clear?

Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

1. agreed by whom?

In a debate in the House of Lords on 11 May 1948 at column 770 the following was said "John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon So far as I can understand it, this has come about as a result of what is called an experts' conference—a conference of experts. I do not doubt that they are experts, but it has come about, in the first instance, on departmental level. Apart from the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who is bound to have known about it at all stages, I wonder a little how much time the Cabinet, as a Cabinet, have addressed to this subject, or how many people in the Cabinet really had command of this subject until quite recently.

Christopher Addison, 1st Viscount Addison (Leader of the House of Lords) May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I am sure he does not wish to give a misleading impression. 771 Of course, as is obvious, this is a highly technical subject, and it was therefore necessary to assemble a considerable body of experts. That was done with complete good will and common consent, and they sat for a long time discussing the various issues concerned. At the same time, however the issues concerned were freely discussed with Ministers and with one another.

William Jowitt, 1st Earl Jowitt (Lord Chancellor) May I add to that, because there is a contribution I can make? I myself spent nearly a morning discussing this with Field Marshal Smuts (Prime Minister of South Africa), and I also discussed it with Mr. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister of Canada). The idea that this was merely a departmental matter, discussed on that level, is quite erroneous."

2. The RoI didn't exist before 1922. So in any event it needs to be rewritten to say "birth before 1922 in that part of Ireland that became the Irish Free State".

Agreed - I will amend accordingly.

There is still a problem because anyone born in any of the Dominions at any time (up to the Ireland Act 1949 in the case of Ireland, specifically not 1922) was a British citizen* in UK law - whether Australian, Canadian, Hong Konger, Irish, Jamaican, New Zealand, South African, whatever.(see British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914). Thus anyone born anywhere in the world after 1949 to a father born in one of the Dominions or Colonies before 1949, has the right to claim British citizenship by descent. I think! (But wasn't that the basis of the Windrush scandal?) It's complicated! Really reliable sources needed and the Home Office website is not reliable :-( In the absence of such sources, we shouldn't indulge in wp:OR.

But yes, in the 1948 Act, references to the United Kingdom mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which came into existence in 1922 (previously it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland). --Red King (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

* See also British subject. --Red King (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it,

1. "anyone born anywhere in the British Empire/Commonwealth at any time (up to the British Nationality Act 1948 in the case of Ireland, specifically not 1922) was a British subject (not a British citizen) in UK law - whether Australian, Canadian, Hong Konger, Irish, Jamaican, New Zealand, South African, whatever.(see British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914).

2. - British Nationality Act 1948, Section 1(1) "Every ... citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or ... citizen of [Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon - but *not* Eire] shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject."

3. British Nationality Act 1948, Section 2(1) "Any citizen of Eire who immediately before the commencement of this Act was also a British subject shall not ... be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject if at any time he gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State"

4. So citizens of the Dominions born post-1948 were British subjects by virtue of that citizenship but citzens of Eire/Republic of Ireland born post 1948 were not British subjects by virtue of that citizenship.

Alekksandr (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Where we use quotes, a supporting citation is essential - not just the Act in general but the specific section of it. I have tagged in the section where such is needed. --Red King (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)