by
George Lee
What follows is an examination of the
legal position regarding the Real Windrush Generation.
We are
British citizens! Anyone who says otherwise need only show me the error of my
ways by quoting the legislation on which they rely.
In 1946,
the Dominion of Canada created a separate "Canadian citizenship"
apart from the status of British subject. As a result, in 1947, an Imperial (or
Commonwealth) Conference was convened of all the self-governing Dominions (i.e.
Australia, Canada, Ceylon, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Southern
Rhodesia, and the Union of South Africa) to resolve the growing confusion.
General
agreement was reached on a new scheme to reconcile the citizenships of the
individual Commonwealth countries with the overall status of British subject.
This formed the basis of the British Nationality Act 1948.
The BNA
Act 1948, which came into force on 1 January 1949, introduced the status of
citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies whilst retaining the term British
subject to cover every citizen of a Commonwealth country, including the United
Kingdom and the Colonies. Between 1947 and 1951, the 9 Commonwealth countries
which became independent (for nationality purposes) on 1 January 1949
introduced their own citizenship laws.
Persons
closely connected with the United Kingdom or existing British territories
remained British subjects but acquired the additional status of CUKC. In some
cases, both CUKC and the citizenship of one or more independent Commonwealth
countries was acquired.
The 1948
Act provided that:
• Any
CUKC or citizen of an independent Commonwealth country was a British subject
(s.1(1))
• British
subject and Commonwealth citizen meant the same thing (s.1(2))
Under BNA
s.4, persons became citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth if
they were born within the United Kingdom and Colonies, provided their
father was not a diplomat or an enemy alien in occupation.
This is the point at which all pre-1962 CUKCs became BRITISH CITIZENS.
The
British Nationality Act 1948 remained in force throughout the period 1.1.49 to
31.12.82, although it was amended by both nationality and immigration
legislation. The first modern immigration statute had been the Aliens Act 1905
which, as the title indicates, applied only to aliens. British subjects
had a right to enter and reside in the UK by virtue, simply, of their
nationality. However, the immigration entitlements incorporated within
British subject status were removed and independently developed between 1949
and 1983.
The
notion that the British Empire constituted a single territory, and that all
British subjects were free to enter the UK, came to an end with the
Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962.
This is the point at which Jamaicans residing in Jamaica lost their
automatic right to British citizenship. That did not apply to those already in
the United Kingdom and settled there as lawful British citizens.
Besides, it was the fault of Clement Atlee’s Labour government that this
was felt to be necessary, because they had invited 800 million people to the UK
without restriction, all of them as citizens. Furthermore, Mr Atlee had to be
reminded that the pioneers who had had the audacity to come to the “Motherland”
on the Empire Windrush without seeking permission to do so were British
citizens. He had wanted to force the Windrush to be diverted to East Africa.
However, he had to be reminded that only 492 of the 1,027 people on board the
Windrush were Jamaican and that the Jamaicans were British citizens. Apart from
which, more than 60 of the passengers were Jamaican RAF servicemen who had just
served the Motherland in World War II. Nevertheless, that is the primary
reason the Windrush was permitted to land at Tilbury Docks. Had there been just
Jamaicans on board, servicemen and all, the Windrush would have been
redirected. I only wish he had succeeded in his wish.
The reason he did not get his wish is because we were British citizens.
It is ironic that Atlee wanted to send us back to East Africa because the East
African Asian Case (1968) is one of the most infamous and disgraceful episodes
in UK immigration history, once again a Labour government.
The important thing to remember is that the UK government has since
performed every dirty deed possible to rid the UK of British citizens
originating from the New Commonwealth, because of the Windrush episode,
especially Jamaica. The fact that it was only possible by means of unlawful
acts was of no consequence. One group of British citizens, the legislators,
abrogated the rights of fellow citizens, the Real Windrush Generation, in order
to placate Enoch Powell. That is why I usually refer to this abominable 1971
Act as the “Enoch Powell Immigration Act”.
To demonstrate how reminiscent of Nazi Germany the actions taken by the
UK government against the Real Windrush Generation is one should read the words
of Martin Niemoeller:
“First
they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they
came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they
came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they
came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
One group of citizens abrogating the
rights of another group of citizens means that we can all become victims of
such fascism.
Except
for
"Commonwealth citizens" (a term which included CUKCs) who were born
in the UK or who were the holders of UK passports (as opposed to
British passports issued by a colonial authority), the right of entry to
the UK was fettered by the provisions of the 1962 Act. The citizens of
Commonwealth countries and CUKCs affected were thereafter subject to
immigration control, a concept which, prior to 1962, had related to aliens
only.
The Roman Catholic church spent 1,500 years killing anyone who
had a different view of what should be in the Bible claiming any version of the
Bible not authorised by them was blasphemous. The United Kingdom government
have spent every day since the coming into force of the IA 1971 unlawfully
tracking down, confiscating and destroying passports they themselves had issued
to British citizens from the New Commonwealth, in particular Jamaicans. The
grounds for them doing so was very simply Enoch Powell inspired RACISM. I hope
it is now understood why Jamaicans are considered to be easy targets.
In the
post-war years, the countries of the British Empire increasingly became
independent and enacted their own citizenship laws. This process had a crucial
effect on the citizenship status of those CUKCs connected with them. When a
colony attained independence, citizenship of the UK and Colonies was withdrawn
from all but a few (i.e. those who had an exception to loss) and
replaced by that country's own national status.
On
independence 3 things could happen:
• The
person became a citizen of the new country and lost CUKC
• The
person became a citizen of the new country and retained CUKC
Pre-1962 CUKCs were made citizens of Jamaica because this was done,
without their knowledge or consent, in the Constitution of Jamaica written as an
Order in Council by the UK government. It was not possible for them to lose any
rights obtained as they were subject to UK immigration laws in the UK, having
entered the UK lawfully prior to the passing of this legislation by the UK
government. Any attempt to do so would be retrospective action on the part of
the UK government.
Now the general rule, not merely of England and Scotland, but, I
believe, of every civilized nation, is expressed in the maxim, “Nova
constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis”
• The
person did not become a citizen of the new country and remained a CUKC (i.e.
was unaffected)
Patriality
and right of abode
The idea
of freedom from immigration control for a class of persons defined in terms of birthplace
or ancestry culminated in the concept of "patriality". This term was introduced by
the Immigration Act 1971, which replaced the 1962 and 1968 Acts in their
entirety and, together with the British Nationality Act 1948, represented the state of British nationality law from 1 January 1973 to the commencement of the BNA 1981 on 1 January 1983.
entirety and, together with the British Nationality Act 1948, represented the state of British nationality law from 1 January 1973 to the commencement of the BNA 1981 on 1 January 1983.
The idea
of patriality was that it should serve as a secondary status (e.g. an
individual CUKC would also have been either a "patrial" or a
"non-patrial"). A "patrial" was a person who had a
"right of abode" in the UK (s.2(6) of the 1971 Act) and who, as a
result, was "free to live in, and to come and go into and from the UK
without let or hindrance .....". A "non-patrial", on the other hand,
could only enter and "live, work and settle in the UK by permission
.....".
Pre-1962 CUKCs were defined by the 1971 legislation as patrials, thus
had a status which gave them right of abode. "free to live in, and to come
and go into and from the UK without let or hindrance ....." However, those
who framed this legislation decided that this status was to be removed, by
whatever means. The UK government had decided that as well as confiscating and
destroying passports lawfully obtained, they would further undertake to deny
pre-1962 CUKCs of their rights by adding the following clause to the 1971 Act
Section 3, clause 8 states:
When
any question arises under this Act whether or not a person is patrial, or is
entitled to any exemption under this Act, it shall lie on the person asserting
it to prove that he is.
This was a deliberate act of deception on the part of those who framed
this Act. Anyone doubting this should read the Cabinet Papers.
I would like to briefly explain why. It was known that a large number of
pre-1962 CUKCs had entered the UK as children, of which I am one, accompanied
by adults under the passport of said adult. As a result of this legislation,
speaking for myself alone, I have had to spend the last 45 years without any
form of identity. What that has meant to me is not for detailed explanation in
this communication. However, it will be dealt with at length when the
discussion is one of compensation and damages. I would only say that this was an
instruction to the Home Office, and treated as such, that pre-1962 CUKCs
were under no circumstances to be permitted their legal right to British
citizenship. It is certain that tens of thousands of British citizens died in a
state of being “citizens of nowhere”. Since 1st January 1973, the UK
government, through the Home Office has refused the Real Windrush Generation
their rights. What is particularly egregious is the fact that this has been
done in secret and without oversight or accountability. For example, the
Home Office have never given any reason for their assertion that the Real
Windrush Generation are not British citizens. I have repeatedly requested to be
told which legislation is being relied on for making this assertion. This
request has been steadfastly ignored. They cannot name any legislation
because none exists. The Home Office refusal to account for their actions
is rooted in Section 3, clause 8 of the IA 1971. They have been instructed by
legislation passed by the UK parliament to behave in this unlawful manner.
Those who
acquired the right of abode under s.2 of the 1971 Act can be summarised as
follows:
•
CUKCs by birth, adoption, naturalisation or registration in the United Kingdom
or Islands (s.2(1)(a))
Pre-1962 CUKCs are British citizens by birth, just the same as CUKCs
born in the UK.
• CUKCs
born to a parent who, at the time of their birth, had right of abode under
s.2(1)(a) (s.2(1)(b)(i))
• CUKCs
born to a parent who, at the time of their birth, had right of abode under
s.2(1)(b)(i) (s.2(1)(b)(ii))
• CUKCs
who had been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period
of 5 years or more whilst a CUKC (or a British Subject if any part of the
period of residence was before 1949). Although the 5-year period could include
time spent in the United Kingdom on immigration restrictions (periods of
unlawful residence did not count), these had to be lifted by the end of the
period. The 5-year period had to be completed by 31 December 1982 (s.2(1)(c))
Persons
who had right of abode through being a CUKC normally ceased to have right of
abode if they lost CUKC (e.g. on independence). However, persons who renounced
CUKC could retain right of abode if they were also Commonwealth citizens
Over the
years, it became increasingly urgent to find a ready means, expressed in terms
of nationality, of knowing who had the right of entry and settlement in the UK
and who had not. The aim of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to create a
new law which would give all existing CUKCs a citizenship status which
reflected their circumstances, particularly the strength of their connection
with the UK.
The BNA
1981 received Royal Assent on 30 October 1981. Its main provisions came into
effect on 1 January 1983. The Act amended the 1971 Act so as to cast the right
of abode in terms of citizenship, and replaced citizenship of the United
Kingdom and Colonies with 3 separate citizenships:
• British
citizenship, for people closely connected with the United Kingdom (including
the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man)
• British
Dependent Territories citizenship, for people connected with the dependencies;
• British
Overseas citizenship, for CUKCs who did not acquire either of the other
citizenships at commencement
British
citizenship
All CUKCs
who had the right of abode acquired British citizenship automatically at
commencement, except
stateless persons who had been registered as CUKCs by virtue of their mother's
CUKC - these persons acquired whichever of the 3 new citizenships their mother
did.
Here, I shall simply restate the law: All CUKCs who had the right of
abode acquired British citizenship automatically at commencement.
No-one
who was formerly a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies was left without
a citizenship, and the Act contains provisions which comply with the United
Kingdom's obligations under the UN Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness.
The
Act did not adversely affect the position under the immigration laws of anyone
who was lawfully settled in the United Kingdom. The special voucher scheme under
which certain United Kingdom passport holders, originally from East Africa, may
be admitted to the Unite Kingdom for settlement, continues
Once again, I only need to point out: The Act did not adversely affect
the position under the immigration laws of anyone who was lawfully settled in
the United Kingdom.
The Act
provides that where the Home Secretary is required to exercise his discretion,
he shall do so without regard to the race, colour or religion of the person
concerned.
The excuse given by the UK government for the improbity of the treatment
we have received is that we are not able to assimilate. After hundreds of years
of subjugation, it must be said that you must be dreadful teachers. Why? You
treat your pupils like dogs! What do you think a dog will do if you continually
mistreat it? It WILL bite you!
To
behave in this manner towards the Real Windrush Generation, admit that you have
done wrong and then permit those who have wronged us to act as court judge and
jury against us shows who you are. To then continue to deny us our rights, give
us a “Windrush Day” to celebrate shows moral and ethical turpitude.
The only thing left to say is that Enoch Powell’s prophecy was in a way
self-fulfilling. There will be “rivers of blood” if the UK government continues
to treat the descendants of the Real Windrush Generation the way they have
treated the Real Windrush Generation.
To Reginald Maudling and Enoch Powell I say:
In Rights of Man, published in 1791, Thomas Paine
argued that: “Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in
all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. The vanity and
presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent
of all tyrannies.”
When the night is over, comes day. From this day forward, any decisions
regarding the Real Windrush Generation must be made in the light of day. We
have suffered 45 years of home Office decisions made in secret and if the UK
government forces me into a court of law, I shall be seeking aggravated damages
because of unreasonable behaviour and the insult of the Windrush Day while
continuing to deny our rights and seeking to manipulate the process by
unlawfully trying to limit our rightful compensation. Instead of £10 million
compensation, I shall demand £20 million. Furthermore, any attempt to cap
compensation by the UK government will be tested in a court of law as it is
illegal.
Final question, by which legislation was the Home Office given dictatorial
powers similar to those given to Adolf Hitler?