Report on United Kingdom 2. Historical background and changes Historically, Britain has been a country of individual rather than national membership expressed through a vertical relationship with the Sovereign. There was substantial movement between different parts of the Empire and also substantial emigration from the United Kingdom, as well as the coming and going of expatriates generally, but – as one might expect in a system with largely imperceptible territorial boundaries – this is relatively little regulated or discussed in relation to citizenship rights. 2.1 The link between immigration and citizenship in Britain Because of the historical lack in Britain of a concept of the nation as defined by blood and descent, nationality has always been seen as the logical consequence of immigration. Identifiable waves of immigrants could historically be identified with a push factor in the country of origin as well as, frequently, positive encouragement for them to come to Britain as traders or craftsmen. Immigration was also thus entwined with the idea of asylum, the UK being unusual in still considering the two together into the twenty-first century. A system of immigration control was first instituted only in 1905, as a response to unwanted immigration mostly of poor Jews from Eastern Europe and Russia but with an exemption for political and religious refugees.16 Although immigration was not restricted until the early twentieth century, aliens did not always have the same rights as subjects but but the difference between those who belonged and those who did not was not always significant. The concept of denizenship, which operated from the late thirteenth to the early nineteenth centuries, is reflected even today in the remnants of the idea of settlement, rather than citizenship, as the fount of belonging. This is reinforced by the very high cost of naturalisation and recent legal changes that have made citizenship easier to lose; holding ‘indefinite leave to remain’ rather than citizenship suits many people who prefer not to naturalise but need to have a firm status of formal belonging in daily domestic life. 2.2 Historical ideas of allegiance The establishment of a Church of England in the sixteenth century identified allegiance to the monarchy with adherence to religious practice, but was directed principally at anti-Catholicism, reflecting the political background and the break with the Roman church.17 In the absence of any developed sense of formal tribalism, while ius soli persisted, the British-born children of immigrants could be as British as anyone. But an ambiguous citizenship may also be unexpectedly fragile. Borders open to immigration and emigration may be easily overlooked as boundaries to exclusion as well as inclusion. The exclusion of subject populations is not new. There is a right not to be exiled in Clause 29 of Magna Carta (1225), but the expulsion of Jews who were born British subjects in 1292 is still reflected over 700 years later in the exile of 16 Aliens Act 1905. Notably, although it is often said that the 1905 Act was designed to prevent poor refugees from Eastern Europe from arriving in Britain, the Act contains an exemption for refugees, in recognition of the common law of asylum (sect. 1 (3)). 17 Thus, for example, early domestic legislation as to the recognition of religious-based personal laws of marriage included Quaker and Jewish ceremonies as well as those of the Church of England, but excluded Catholics, whose allegiance to Rome engendered specific political fears (Lord Hardwicke’s Act 1753). The monarch, who of course is defined by a different ius sanguinis from the ordinary citizen, still may not be, or marry, a Catholic (Act of Settlement 1701), though this is currently under review. Because the monarch is also Head of the Church of England, resolution of this does present difficulties. RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2014/1 - © 2014 Authors 7