Legally, British Nationality rests on the principle of Ius Sanguini, the right of blood, so your nationality is determined by that of your parents, not where you were born, which is Ius Soli. This fact is completely missing from the debate, yet defines the British in law. It is why it was lawful to strip Shamima Begum of her British citizenship, despite her not holding a Bangladeshi citizenship: because her parents are Bangladeshi and in the eyes of the law, so is she. This applies to everyone in Britain with foreign parents, now. It is a matter of political choice that, for example, second generation Pakistani child rapists are not stripped of British citizenship. I surmise that the reason the Ius Sangini is omertà, is due to the inconvenient implications for our elite and post-WWII immigration.
Only to an extent and only since 1981. British nationality used to be conferred to anyone who was born a subject of His/Her Britannic Majesty. It was quintessentially ius soli, an institution of English common law (adopted by most countries in the Americas and mostly by former British colonies, even if some have dropped it).
Today Britain has restricted ius soli. If you're born in Britain after 10 years you can have your British nationality recognised.
Fraser Nelson was right. Englishness is an ethnicity, but it's not just an ethnicity and most English people see themselves as such because they were born in England. My nan certainly did, even if ethnically she was Welsh.
Since 1 Jan 1983 under the 1981 Act the only factor, with very limited exceptions, is the nationality of the parents. Britain has never been Ius Soli, as it made British those subject to the Crown and during the Empire this was a lot of soil. This is why the Attlee government looked to turn the Windrush around: they could do nothing about the 800 Jamaicans if they landed, as they were British subjects. The Empire, mass travel and mass immigration made the Common Law position untenable, hence it has shifted from the mid-19th century onwards. The 1981 Nationality
Act definitively shifted Britain to a Ius Sanguinis principle, with the 2002, 2006 and 2014 Acts further strengthening this position. The 2014 Act lets the Home Secretary strip British Citizenship from anyone on the grounds of the common good, if they have reasonable grounds to believe they can become the national of another jurisdiction. The Home Office refuses to release data on how many times this has been exercised but there have been at least 40 cases related to British citizens joining ISIS.
If the second generation are, by Ius Sangini, not British, then why would the third magically become British, if their parents are not? I do not know if this has ever been tested legally. I strongly suspect, however, this a question studiously ignored by those in favour of mass migration because of the implications of the answer.
I get your point. I could just see how the libs would try and twist nationality and tie it to the citizenship of the parents. One would hope that by the time the national conversation moves in this direction, liberal positions will be untenable anyway.
It's called Integration. Go to any country in the Americas and you'll see that there no magic involved. +1 billion people over there see themselves as Argentinian, Brazilian, etc. but nature of their birth. In 1914 half of Buenos Aires inhabitants were foreign born. They saw their children as fully Argentinian.
The context is totally different there. Nationality cannot be conferred by birth, regardless of how people see themselves. Some men see themselves as women, but they're not.
Yes it can. Mine was conferred by birth. I'm not Welsh. I'm Argentinian. My son is Scottish, and very proudly so. The idea that nationality cannot be conferred by birth would make the Royals not English, which is quite nonsensical. Sex is biologically determined in a way that nationality is not.
You are confusing ethno-nationalism and civic nationalism. Of course, ethnicity is biologically determined, whereas civic nationalism is indeed a social construct - and one that doesn't really work. Are you seriously suggesting there's no fragmentation of identity along racial lines within countries like Argentina or the USA? It's rife! When race conflicts break out one can see that, in a very real sense, there is no such thing as an 'Argentinian' or an 'American' - only different ethnicities huddled beneath, or fighting for possession of, an umbrella with gaping holes in it.
No. There's no fragmentation of identity along racial lines in Argentina. Class is more important than skin colour.
The idea that there's no such thing as an Argentinian would baffle 45 million people.
Ethnicity isn't always biologically determined either. It can be cultural as well. My nan saw herself as English, because she was born in England. Her parents were 100% Welsh.
Biology counts more to closed isolated groups, but it starts to break up once contacts with the outer world become more common.
Also states create ethnicity. Most modern nations are the consequence of rather than the root of modern states. That's why today you have Malaysians and Indonesians as distinct groups, even though they are very very similar (language-wise, religion-wise, etc.)
Not just Englishness but even Britishness is under threat. We have been told that Britishness equals tolerance, but this was always a stretch at best; at worst, a downright lie. Britishness means to be constrained by a higher spirit of self-sacrifice, duty and fairness. And it also has an ethnic dimension in its recognition of the historic countries, peoples and cultures that form the United Kingdom. To say that we are defined by tolerance or (worse still) diversity is to say precisely nothing at all. Indeed, it is only to invite the kind of cultural ruin that we are now witnessing at an ever increasing speed.
I think that you hit the nail on the head when you mention the empire. Unlike continental nations, that had to assert or develop their identity through specific flash points and events that defined them (French revolution, German unification, national revolutions in the Balkans, to name a few), English identity never had to assert itself so strongly against others (wars against Scotland or Wales being distant history for pretty much everyone), but instead rode on a wave of being an integral part of the British Empire to the point it became taken for granted. That didn't mean it dissolved or it became indistinct, but rather, the decline of Britain meant that English being so "baked in" meant an automatic decline and denigration of English culture as well.
Recently, that decline and denigration of England took on another aspect, as "British" identity became its own, "global" thing, seeking to retain relevance but abusing English while being parasitic on it. In effect the Empire is colonising its own former base, having run out of places to dominate and treating its own core population as a new imperial subjects that needs to be turned "British".
Thanks for a good analysis. You put your finger on the issues. The English themselves are now being managed as imperial subjects but without the right to self affirmation that is bestowed on other groups.
A nice summation. The distinction between ethnicity and nationality is well made. In a recent piece on the same debate, Eric Kaufmann suggested that nationality was akin to a civic identity in contradistinction from ethnicity. The result was that he (mistakenly) claimed Sunak was of English nationality but not ethnicity. As England has no distinct civic identity (no English passport, not English citizenship) it was a distinction without a difference. However, there is a distinction, but of a different order, and I think you have put your finger on it. To recast it: ethnicity is a state of being and nationhood or nationality is a state of expression.
I wouldn't have a great objection to it, but I would say that I'm against any further dilution of English identity, even if this only involves a small gesture. In what was a decent article, I was surprised she suggested the idea of Roman Englishman. That is a glaring error for a former cabinet minister to make.
No. If I move to Nigeria and have children there with my British wife, my children are not Nigerians (and never will be). The same ought to apply to her and those like her.
There is a YouTube channel called History with Hibbert that has the helmet with sunglasses as its logo. Staring into the real thing is quite an intense experience. There is definitely something about it.
Im fairness Suella is only conceding on the point of English ethnic identity because she needs young English boys to go die in a war for the oligarchical elite.
You can’t cobble together a functional army from the diversity imports and the alphabet people.
Legally, British Nationality rests on the principle of Ius Sanguini, the right of blood, so your nationality is determined by that of your parents, not where you were born, which is Ius Soli. This fact is completely missing from the debate, yet defines the British in law. It is why it was lawful to strip Shamima Begum of her British citizenship, despite her not holding a Bangladeshi citizenship: because her parents are Bangladeshi and in the eyes of the law, so is she. This applies to everyone in Britain with foreign parents, now. It is a matter of political choice that, for example, second generation Pakistani child rapists are not stripped of British citizenship. I surmise that the reason the Ius Sangini is omertà, is due to the inconvenient implications for our elite and post-WWII immigration.
Only to an extent and only since 1981. British nationality used to be conferred to anyone who was born a subject of His/Her Britannic Majesty. It was quintessentially ius soli, an institution of English common law (adopted by most countries in the Americas and mostly by former British colonies, even if some have dropped it).
Today Britain has restricted ius soli. If you're born in Britain after 10 years you can have your British nationality recognised.
Fraser Nelson was right. Englishness is an ethnicity, but it's not just an ethnicity and most English people see themselves as such because they were born in England. My nan certainly did, even if ethnically she was Welsh.
Since 1 Jan 1983 under the 1981 Act the only factor, with very limited exceptions, is the nationality of the parents. Britain has never been Ius Soli, as it made British those subject to the Crown and during the Empire this was a lot of soil. This is why the Attlee government looked to turn the Windrush around: they could do nothing about the 800 Jamaicans if they landed, as they were British subjects. The Empire, mass travel and mass immigration made the Common Law position untenable, hence it has shifted from the mid-19th century onwards. The 1981 Nationality
Act definitively shifted Britain to a Ius Sanguinis principle, with the 2002, 2006 and 2014 Acts further strengthening this position. The 2014 Act lets the Home Secretary strip British Citizenship from anyone on the grounds of the common good, if they have reasonable grounds to believe they can become the national of another jurisdiction. The Home Office refuses to release data on how many times this has been exercised but there have been at least 40 cases related to British citizens joining ISIS.
If the second generation are, by Ius Sangini, not British, then why would the third magically become British, if their parents are not? I do not know if this has ever been tested legally. I strongly suspect, however, this a question studiously ignored by those in favour of mass migration because of the implications of the answer.
I get your point. I could just see how the libs would try and twist nationality and tie it to the citizenship of the parents. One would hope that by the time the national conversation moves in this direction, liberal positions will be untenable anyway.
I'm putting the cart before the horse though in preempting what tactics the opposition will employ once their world view loses more purchase.
It's called Integration. Go to any country in the Americas and you'll see that there no magic involved. +1 billion people over there see themselves as Argentinian, Brazilian, etc. but nature of their birth. In 1914 half of Buenos Aires inhabitants were foreign born. They saw their children as fully Argentinian.
The context is totally different there. Nationality cannot be conferred by birth, regardless of how people see themselves. Some men see themselves as women, but they're not.
Yes it can. Mine was conferred by birth. I'm not Welsh. I'm Argentinian. My son is Scottish, and very proudly so. The idea that nationality cannot be conferred by birth would make the Royals not English, which is quite nonsensical. Sex is biologically determined in a way that nationality is not.
You are confusing ethno-nationalism and civic nationalism. Of course, ethnicity is biologically determined, whereas civic nationalism is indeed a social construct - and one that doesn't really work. Are you seriously suggesting there's no fragmentation of identity along racial lines within countries like Argentina or the USA? It's rife! When race conflicts break out one can see that, in a very real sense, there is no such thing as an 'Argentinian' or an 'American' - only different ethnicities huddled beneath, or fighting for possession of, an umbrella with gaping holes in it.
No. There's no fragmentation of identity along racial lines in Argentina. Class is more important than skin colour.
The idea that there's no such thing as an Argentinian would baffle 45 million people.
Ethnicity isn't always biologically determined either. It can be cultural as well. My nan saw herself as English, because she was born in England. Her parents were 100% Welsh.
Biology counts more to closed isolated groups, but it starts to break up once contacts with the outer world become more common.
Also states create ethnicity. Most modern nations are the consequence of rather than the root of modern states. That's why today you have Malaysians and Indonesians as distinct groups, even though they are very very similar (language-wise, religion-wise, etc.)
I'm glad that Englishness has yet to be fuĺy bureaucratised.
Not just Englishness but even Britishness is under threat. We have been told that Britishness equals tolerance, but this was always a stretch at best; at worst, a downright lie. Britishness means to be constrained by a higher spirit of self-sacrifice, duty and fairness. And it also has an ethnic dimension in its recognition of the historic countries, peoples and cultures that form the United Kingdom. To say that we are defined by tolerance or (worse still) diversity is to say precisely nothing at all. Indeed, it is only to invite the kind of cultural ruin that we are now witnessing at an ever increasing speed.
I think that you hit the nail on the head when you mention the empire. Unlike continental nations, that had to assert or develop their identity through specific flash points and events that defined them (French revolution, German unification, national revolutions in the Balkans, to name a few), English identity never had to assert itself so strongly against others (wars against Scotland or Wales being distant history for pretty much everyone), but instead rode on a wave of being an integral part of the British Empire to the point it became taken for granted. That didn't mean it dissolved or it became indistinct, but rather, the decline of Britain meant that English being so "baked in" meant an automatic decline and denigration of English culture as well.
Recently, that decline and denigration of England took on another aspect, as "British" identity became its own, "global" thing, seeking to retain relevance but abusing English while being parasitic on it. In effect the Empire is colonising its own former base, having run out of places to dominate and treating its own core population as a new imperial subjects that needs to be turned "British".
Thanks for a good analysis. You put your finger on the issues. The English themselves are now being managed as imperial subjects but without the right to self affirmation that is bestowed on other groups.
Really interesting subject.
A nice summation. The distinction between ethnicity and nationality is well made. In a recent piece on the same debate, Eric Kaufmann suggested that nationality was akin to a civic identity in contradistinction from ethnicity. The result was that he (mistakenly) claimed Sunak was of English nationality but not ethnicity. As England has no distinct civic identity (no English passport, not English citizenship) it was a distinction without a difference. However, there is a distinction, but of a different order, and I think you have put your finger on it. To recast it: ethnicity is a state of being and nationhood or nationality is a state of expression.
Saul Boyle's podcast, "The Story of London" covers much of the period when the identity of "England" as a nation and community of like minded peoples originated, condensed, and took off. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-story-of-london/id1645316215
Consistently quality content.
Many thanks Dangerfield. I hope you're on the mend.
I saw someone - I forget whom - claim that for her honesty, we should give Mrs Braverman the title of honorary English woman.
I don't object.
What say you?
I wouldn't have a great objection to it, but I would say that I'm against any further dilution of English identity, even if this only involves a small gesture. In what was a decent article, I was surprised she suggested the idea of Roman Englishman. That is a glaring error for a former cabinet minister to make.
Indeed, the more I think about the Roman flub, the more important it seems. It’s probably an honest misunderstanding on her part,
Yes, but a big one for one of her attainments.
Knowing the Tory party, she probably got in through two forms of affirmative action - race and sex.
She may, in fact, be an overachiever for knowing that the Romans invaded at all. (At least by the standards required of her.)
Whether any MPs/ministers reach the minimum of basic history knowledge that we should require of them is another question.
It was Edward Dutton “The Jolly Heretic” who said it
No. If I move to Nigeria and have children there with my British wife, my children are not Nigerians (and never will be). The same ought to apply to her and those like her.
Btw, the Sutton Hood helmet in the photo appeared at first glance to be wearing sunglasses, and now I can't unsee them! Quite cool, though!
There is a YouTube channel called History with Hibbert that has the helmet with sunglasses as its logo. Staring into the real thing is quite an intense experience. There is definitely something about it.
Im fairness Suella is only conceding on the point of English ethnic identity because she needs young English boys to go die in a war for the oligarchical elite.
You can’t cobble together a functional army from the diversity imports and the alphabet people.
Don’t forget 1066