Written evidence from British Overseas Territories Citizenship Campaign (NBB0014)

Responses to Questions

Do these reforms adequately address any remaining areas of unjustified discrimination in British nationality law?

Response: No.

1. There should be an on-going scrutiny and review by the Home Office and an independent panel of legal minds to continue to identify other areas of discrimination and unfair laws, with a view of legislating to correct these further anomalies.

2. Retrospective applicants for registration for British & British Overseas Territories ‘BOTC’ citizenship should not be the subjected to any registration fees, biometric fees & citizenship ceremony fees.

3. We belief a ceremony should be optional or made available via Zoom

4. Many overseas applicants do not live close to a British Embassy, Consulate or other authorized processing/biometrics facilities to assist in their application. A solution should be found to overcome difficulties like this. Such an applicant is likely to incur very high costs in completing just the basics for their application to go forward such as travel, hotels etc.

5. The application process should be simple and straightforward. Home Office officials responsible for the processing of applications should not view & treat us applicants as if they are immigrants. We are not. We are British & British Overseas Territories citizenship applicants by descent. A completely different view and approach is therefore required. Applicants should be treated by Home Office/UKVI staff as if they had been born in mainland UK and applying for their first passport.

6. Home Office examiners/application processors should take the view of trying to help people secure the relevant documentation from government systems that will help support their applications. With the passage of time, some applicants may have issues obtaining the required proof. A helpful constructive supportive role & response by the Home Office would help applicant overcome such difficulties. Be congnisant of spelling mistakes in names, and don’t just deny applicants on small technicalities. Remember some records are held on paper and maybe hand written and deteriorate over time.

7. Good character requirement should be standardized across all forms of British nationality applicants. It should be done away with. We are not immigrants.

8. We would like to see the law changed to allow children and grandchildren deemed by descent to have a citizenship by registration route enable them to be recognised. Other progressive countries like the Irish Republic provide such pathways for grandchildren to claim their grandparent’s Irish citizenship through descent.

9. The current bill should be amended to incorporate the 3rd & 4th generation of children of Chaggosian descent born abroad. These people, through no fault of their own, are generational casualties of a major historical injustice after their parents & grandparents BIOT/BOTC citizens were forcibly removed from their home islands 1960’s. By now, every person in government should be well-aware of the generational trauma, sadness & anxiety inflicted on these families. The knock-on effects continue to this day. They have been discarded and ignored by successive governments of all parties. The children and grandchildren are treated like immigrants, they are not, they are ‘just as British’ as the next person. A special provision should be created to give them citizenship by descent.

Do proposed changes to the application and appeals process for asylum applicants provide adequate human rights protection, including provisions providing for credibility and the weight given to evidence to be affected by the timeliness of applications and supportive evidence?

Response: We are not really qualified to speak to this. No comment

Does introducing a two-tier system of rights for refugees meet the UK’s obligations under refugee law and human rights law?

Response: We are not really qualified to speak to this. No comment.

Do proposed new powers for UK Border Force to direct vessels out of UK territorial waters, and for the Home Office to return people to “safe countries” risk undermining refugees’ human rights as well as the principle that refugees should not be expelled or returned to the frontiers of territories in any manner whatsoever where they risk persecution (the principle of non-refoulement)?

Response: We are really not qualified to speak to this. No comment

What are the implications of extending the offence of helping an asylum seeker facilitate irregular entry to the UK so that it also covers those that may help asylum seekers for no benefit to themselves?

Response: We are not really qualified to speak to this. No comment

Do the changes proposed by the Bill adequately protect the right to life for those at sea?

Response: We are not really qualified to speak to this. No comment

Do the proposed powers to remove asylum seekers to “safe countries” while their asylum claims are pending, with a view to supporting the processing of asylum claims outside the UK in future, comply with the UK’s obligations under refugee law and human rights law?

Response: We are not really qualified to speak to this. No comment

Will the proposed instructions to decision-makers on how to interpret the Refugee Convention secure or restrict the protections that Convention guarantees?

Response: We are not really qualified to speak to this. No comment

Do the changes that the Bill would make to the law regarding modern slavery ensure appropriate protections for victims? What will be the consequences of the presumptions that compliance with procedural requirements should affect a person’s credibility as a victim?

Response: We are not really qualified to speak to this. No comment

Is Home Office decision-making in immigration matters that raise human rights concerns sufficiently independent and rigorous to ensure that human rights are properly respected?

Response: Oversight of practices by the Home Office staff should be independent to ensure compliance and carry authority to correct any bad patterns and practices. A fresh new approach is required to ensure it is fit for purpose in a modern world.

Is the Bill otherwise compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention Against Trafficking in Human Beings, and international refugee conventions that the UK has ratified?

Response: We are not really qualified to speak to this. No comment.

Trent Lamont Miller

16th August 2021

Rt. Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
Chairperson,

Joint Committee on Human Rights

Houses of Parliament
London SW1A 0AA

Dear Ms. Harman & Committee Members,

Nationality and Borders Bill 2021 Committee Stage Scrutiny

Thank you for the invitation to provide additional feedback for consideration during the scrutiny stage of this important bill.

As you are no doubt aware from our prior interactions with the committee, we have campaigned tirelessly over the past several years for nationality & citizenship equality rights for children of descent born abroad, out of wedlock to British Overseas Territories fathers (before 1 July 2006) and mothers (before 1 January 1981). We were intentionally left out after Section 65 Immigration Act 2014 came into being.

While the placement of our nationality clauses amongst other very important controversial ‘hot button’ subjects, we have always been told that in order for our issue go forth to legislation, it would need a broad-titled bill. That would likely include other nationality and immigration issues. We are quite sure that if given a choice, we would have liked to have seen our clauses stand in a separate bill.

We are quite sure that it would have had a bi-partisan swift journey through both houses. But the Home Office decided otherwise. This is where it is and the parliamentary process is now underway.

We implore the committee to continue to support our applicable nationality clauses. It is right and proper for the British Nationality Act to continue to be refined to ensure that no children are left behind and are placed on an equal footing.

We are cognizant that little attention is being paid to our clauses by some MP’s, the press, some in the legal world and many social justices campaign groups. Many of whom purport to stand for human and family rights. We are either totally ignored or referenced in passing. This kind of response demeans us and all the very hard work we have done to get our issue thus far. It is disappointing. It is important to remember the focus and goals of our campaign is also about re-uniting families, our British Overseas Territories families. Therefore, if anything is deserving of equal time, public coverage and support, we are.

It should be the case that every government has a responsibility to deliver equal and fair treatment under the law for children, and sometimes that involves going back in time and fixing things. While we are now adults, it's important to recall that we once were children. They [governments] can achieve this by taking practical steps to ensure applicable legislation is made retrospective with inclusivity in mind. It is a fact that a child is made up of two parts DNA, and two parts to its family tree. It is wrong to not officially acknowledge us when creating nationality legislation. A child has no control over its parents’ choices, and should never be punished or denied because of this. This means being treated equally and officially recognised and embraced for dual-nationality purposes.

However, there are still groups of children out there who will fall through the cracks. The 3rd and 4th generation children of Chaggosian descent are a clear example of this. They are a very special case and very deserving of inclusion and accommodation.

Many of these children have contacted us via our web site and to hear their pain, sadness and frustration in their voices is very disturbing. They have a very deep connection to the United Kingdom, and that must be honored. Even through British

nationality law does not permit the passing down to additional generations, they are the exception.

I urge your committee to support further amendments to this bill to accomplish this goal. There is room in this broad-title bill to bring them in from the cold! It really would go some way in resolving part of their historical pain, hurt and suffering.

We look forward to the day that our nationality clauses of this bill becoming law. We ask all MPs to remember us in their voting decisions and work with a spirit of compromise for the good of all.

Yours Sincerely,

Trent L. Miller

Trent Lamont Miller,

Campaign Founder.                                                       

David B. Varney

David B. Varney,

Campaign Coordinator.