British nationality essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Why did the concept of British citizenship emerge so recently in the history of the United Kingdom?...

Description

Why did the concept of British citizenship emerge so recently in the history of the United Kingdom? The concept of a form of British citizenship initially emerged in the late 1940s, within the British Nationality Act 1948. However, a specific UK citizenship, did not emerge until the 1980s. Considering that most countries have ‘citizenship’ as a natural consequence of having natural born inhabitants, the fact that British ‘citizenship’ is technically a fairly recent development is a consequence of the residual effects of the British empire. The desire to retain the illusion of a unified ‘empire’ for as long as possible resulted in a reluctance to express and narrow down a clear definition of a ‘British citizen’, as that would also require an expression of what being a British citizen meant and entitled you to. Prior to the 1948 Act, the label of ‘British citizen’ did not exist. Rather, there was the blanket term of ‘British subject’, which applied to all people who lived in and were born in the United Kingdom and any of its colonies. The 1948 Act established the status of Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC), the national citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies on 1 January 1949. This was largely sparked by 1946 citizenship Act in Canada, which declared that all Canadian citizens would become British citizens through their British subjecthood. This completely changed the dynamic of British subjecthood, and consequently, a new label was required to describe what was previously a more simplistic dynamic between the King and his subjects. Hansen argues that it was a matter of constitutional importance: ‘With regard to both these movements, and to the constitutional structure that sustained them, policy-makers in 1948 believed that the enactment of the BNA amounted only to a continuation of the status quo as it had existed over the previous two decades’1. This holds weight, as following the actions of the Canadians, it stood to reason that as countries followed suit in gaining independence, they would consequently develop their own frameworks for citizenship, complicating the relationship with the United Kingdom. Though the suggestion that ‘citizenship’ was required to restore constitutional order is a strong one, it may be naïve and ahistorical to suggest that it is the sole reason, especially given the clear desperation for Britain to hold onto a crumbling empire. Hansen notes this, stating: ‘The BNA was a direct response to Canada's action, but it was also a reflection of the political landscape in the late 1940s’. He, rather positively, describes this as being reflective of a ‘profound cross-party enthusiasm for the Commonwealth’. However, it is clear, that with the six categories of citizenship outlined in the Act, that there was a desire to maintain a status quo while simply giving it statutory grounding: ‘The six categories covered all British subjects in1948, and their fluidity ensured that any change in citizenship status, including its loss, would not affect British subjecthood’2. In this way it can be argued that the concept of citizenship emerged so ‘late’ because it was only created as a reaction to concerns that the ‘empire’ was starting to considerably shrink. Citizenship was consequently used as the gateway to subjecthood—asserting ‘Britishness’ above the individual country’s character or national identity. ‘Citizenship’ emerged as a confirmation for many, of their rights as citizens —particularly, their right of abode and ability to enter and exit the UK freely without immigration control. Though it was not necessarily appreciated when this right was exercised, particularly by non-white ‘citizens’ from the colonies. By the 1950s, a vast majority of the UK’s ‘immigrants’, were in fact citizens. Indeed, asserting an unwillingness to create a specific UK citizenship, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Shadow Home secretary as of 1 Hansen, R., 1999, The Politics Of Citizenship In 1940s Britain: The British Nationality Act. Twentieth Century British History, 10(1), Pp.67-95. 2 Ibid

1948, ‘Accept[ed] that other parts of the Commonwealth could enact their own citizenship laws, he insisted that Britain should not do so, in order to ‘maintain our [British] great metropolitan tradition of hospitality to everyone from every part of our [British] empire’3 The CUKC status can therefore be seen as a clear re-assertion of the slowly crumbling empire. By the 1980s, the desire to control immigration clearly outweighed the desire to preserve the illusion of an empire. This changing in priority is why, after years of evading the creation of a specific UK citizenship, one was created. This is evidenced by the abandonment of jus soli— the acquisition of citizenship by birth. Rather than the previous idea that everything within the monarch’s lands—including the people—belonged to the monarch, there was now a need for a more tangible link to the UK. Where the initial expression of citizenship had a more constitutional basis, and was arguably an expression of power, a specifically British citizenship was introduced as an immigration measure. The BNA 1981 has been described as an immigration measure to fulfil the 1979 manifesto promises4. The fact that the BNA reclassified citizenship into 3 categories is clear evidence of a desire to limit the number of people able to assert a ‘right of abode’. Furthermore, prior to the BNA 1981, right of abode and who was subject to immigration control was controlled through the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. The Act specified that all Commonwealth citizens, including citizens of the UK and Colonies (CUKCs), without a relevant connection to the UK were subject to immigration control. A person was exempt from immigration control if the person was a Commonwealth citizen born in the UK; a Commonwealth citizen holding a passport issued by the UK government in either the UK or Ireland; a CUKC holding a passport issued by the UK Government (not including colonial governments) anywhere; and their family members. The Immigration Act 1971 further restricted immigration by introducing the concept of ‘right of abode’, limiting the right to enter and live in the United Kingdom to certain subsets of Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with ties to the UK itself. This journey shows that the government did not decide to create citizenship just to outline who ‘belonged’ to the United Kingdom—it had been doing that for years but doing so by immigration control. Ultimately, it is clear that creating a specific British citizenship would be cede that the ‘empire’ as it had existed before, no longer existed. By the 1980s, following the independence booms of the 1960s, there was not as much of an attachment and winsomeness for retaining an empire. The governing party, as well as the nation, had generally shifted its priorities sometime in the 1960s towards the racial tensions caused by mass immigration. It was therefore understood at this point that there was nothing to lose with creating British citizenship. In conclusion, the concept of British citizenship emerging so recently is a result of the changing priorities and sentiments of the British government and people from retaining the empire; to limiting immigration and the number of people who would be able to claim full civic rights and right of abode in the UK.

Bibliography 3 Karatani, R., 1999. Defining British citizenship, 1900-1971. 1st ed. University of Oxford, p.147. 4 Ibid, p.186

1.

Hansen, R., 1999, The Politics Of Citizenship In 1940s Britain: The British Nationality Act. Twentieth Century British History, 10(1) 2. Karatani, R., 1999. Defining British citizenship, 1900-1971. 1st ed. University of Oxford...