A recent ruling, by the UK high court has created uncertainty regarding the British citizenship status of a significant number of individuals who were under the impression that they were British. The judgment, delivered on January 20 2023 in the case of Roehrig v Secretary of State for the Home Department has sparked a debate surrounding how the British government interprets its citizenship laws.
The case revolves around Antoine Lucas Roehrig, who was born in the UK on October 20 2000. His mother, a citizen who had been residing in the UK for five years under EU law prior to his birth claimed that he should have British citizenship. However the Home Office disputed his mothers eligibility. Subsequently denied his application for a passport.
The crux of this matter lies in how the government defines being “settled” in the UK for EU nationals. The courts ruling supports the Home Offices stringent interpretation which has been enforced since 2000. This decision could potentially impact individuals who have long considered themselves to be citizens.
It is worth noting that prior, to 1983 anyone born in the UK was automatically granted citizenship.
However in 1983 the British Nationality Act of 1981 was introduced, which stated that for a child to be considered British, at one parent must be either a citizen or “settled” in the UK. Until the year 2000 EU nationals were regarded as “settled” by the Home Office under the free movement rules. This allowed their UK born children to obtain citizenship. However in 2000 there was a change in regulations that required EU nationals to acquire leave to remain in order to be considered “settled.”
The crucial point of contention was whether EU nationals without leave to remain could still be classified as “settled.” The court concluded that being a ” person” under EU free movement law did not equate to being settled.” This interpretation carries implications as it means that numerous EU nationals who resided in the UK under EU law without applying for leave to remain were not considered as having settled status.
This ruling has ranging consequences. Could potentially impact tens of thousands of individuals. The Home Offices policy, implemented since 2000 is now viewed as the interpretation of the law.
However if Roehrigs appeal proves successful it would establish that the lenient approach prior to 2000 was indeed correct. It’s worth noting that these determinations regarding citizenship are governed by policy, than legislation introducing uncertainty into the equation.
Many individuals, including those who have already passed their citizenship to their children are now confronted with a future. It might be necessary to pass laws that confirm their citizenship retroactively in order to resolve this matter. Meanwhile there is a prevailing sense of uncertainty, among those who had always believed themselves to be citizens.