@phoog @Dorothy a very important Tribunal decision published last week that can be of vital usefulness for your activities in the Expats site. I don't like Expats because it is too closely aligned with my former activities in the field, but here's a significant link for you to ingest tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2017-ukut-162

To all: Tag Definition travel.stackexchange.com/edit-tag-wiki/4676

@GayotFow Am I correct in concluding that the decision holds that children can never derive British citizenship at birth by virtue of being born in the UK to an EEA national parent, even if that parent has a right of permanent residence?

@phoog That sounds about right for nationality, but I am reluctant to go into interpretations. ILPA's case note is 4 pages of dense material that gives Alison's conclusions following input by about a dozen lawyers. The interpretation itself is pay-walled, but Colin has put his OWN interpretation at freemovement.org.uk/…

Take careful note that nationality law is by regulation whereas immigration law is by rules. I am always careful to write either regulations or rules depending on the topic and suggest you and @Dorothy do it also. It may be insignificant to the untrained eye, but an informed person can tell if you know your stuff or not when they see what you wrote. Big difference!

Why is SheikPaul making off-the-wall comments that are variously uninformed or outright wrong?

@JoErNanO @JonathanReez please add your answers to the a + c question! It is silly to miss out on a bounty!!! Just plain silly... So add your stuff

@GayotFow Which comments are those?

@phoog It appears to me that the issue in that particular case is with the fact that the Appellants parents weren't "settled in the UK", meaning they were living under EEA rules, rather than holding ILR

however (and @GayotFow - please correct me if I'm wrong) - EEA nationals may in fact obtain ILR status after 5 years of residence

@GayotFow Thanks for the link. I see a different flaw in the decision that Colin doesn't go into: the phrase "without being subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he may remain" is held as not applicable to EEA nationals because immigration laws do not apply to EEA nationals. But this only reinforces the conclusion that such people are not subject to restrictions under the immigration laws.

and if they have ILR, their children are UK citizens

@JonathanReez No, they acquire a right of permanent residence, which is not the same as ILR.

in any case it would no longer be subject to time restrictions

and therefore their kids should be fine

Read Colin's piece

just did

@JonathanReez Did you read the decision?

yes the decision

oops, let me read the second article

@JonathanReez The decision holds that "It follows that EU citizens can never satisfy the second part of the definition."

If this is correct, then EU citizens can never be considered "settled" under the BNA.

@JonathanReez Colin points out that the reasoning in the decision arguably leads to the conclusion that naturalized EU citizens were not lawfully naturalized.

So it's even worse.

man, this is going to be insane if the UK decides to go nuts and take away all the British passports from EEA kids

Yeah I don't see it.

but I guess the real fun part is the future status of UK citizens in the EU and vice versa

Even if we accept the proposition that EEA regulations are not immigration laws, the BNA says that the parents must not be subject to a restriction under the immigration laws. It does not say that their presence in the UK must be authorized by immigration laws.

@phoog @JonathanReez they have a history of referring to the precedent-based scenarios handbook for these types of problems and they will no doubt do it again. The handbook is the only recourse because as i pointed out, nationality law is REGULATIONS and not RULES. Fortunately, this is an Expats thing and not our stuff, but I would be HAPPY to raise a relevant question on Expats for you chaps to hash it out there :)

@GayotFow you keep mentioning this distinction between regulations and rules, but I don't understand the significance of that distinction. What does it mean? And isn't the BNA primary legislations? Doesn't that mean that it isn't "regulations"? It's all terribly confusing and I can't find a source on the web that lays it out clearly.

@MarkMayo My dad has a story about a colleague who just played stupid in the customs line in some African country. When it became apparent that playing stupid would not be enough, he pretended suddenly to understand, and said very loudly, "Oh! A bribe! You want a bribe!" He was promptly waved along.