AA_EXP09

I thought that before you became a citizen you had an ILR stamp in the passport (which is right of abode but to a foreign national?)
(I am not a UK citizen though I know people who have immigrated there. They do not use the old passport though as it has expired and they hold a UK passport as well as the passport of their other nationality.)
The other difference is that a certificate would not expire but a passport will (I cannot speak for the UK, again, but my Canadian certificate of citizenship I was told never expires (unless I renounce Canadian nationality), and my Canadian passport has an expiry date in 2018.)

Christopher

ILR is "indefinite leave to remain", which is an immigration status. That status can be lost if one ceases to live in the UK, and it is possible in certain circumstances for the status to be withdrawn and the holder of it deported from the UK.

The "right of abode" is a status that is not related to immigration but conferred through the various UK nationality Acts. People with the right of abode are not subject to immigration control and can have no restrictions of an immigration nature put upon them, and they cannot be deported from the UK. The right is life-long (unless one's circumstances change) and it is not related to whether one is in (or, indeed, has ever been to) the UK.

All British citizens have the right of abode in the UK. There are also some residual groups of Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode in the UK but who are not British citizens. Since the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983, it has not been possible to gain the right of abode without British citizenship, but non-British citizens who had the right of abode before that date retain it for life (unless, as I say, their circumstances change, the most likely change being that they somehow cease to be citizens of a Commonwealth country). Non-British citizens with the right of abode are entitled to use the UK channels at ports of entry, and they are admitted to the UK on the same basis as British citizens.

The usual way for a British citizen to prove the right of abode on arrival in the UK is by presenting a British citizen passport. However, a British citizen who is also the citizen of another country and who does not possess a British passport can apply to have a certificate of entitlement (to the right of abode) inserted in his or her non-British passport.

The only way for a non-British citizen with the right of abode to prove this status on arrival in the UK is with a certificate of entitlement in his or her passport (obviously, a non-British passport).

The certificate of entitlement does not confer the right of abode; rather, it confirms that right. Consequently, although the certificate ceases to be valid for presentation at a UK port of entry when the passport it is in expires, the right itself does not expire, any more than (as you say) one's citizenship expires when one's passport expires.

dulciusexasperis

Adding to the issue of travelling on 2 passports, let me throw this in. Travelling on an expired passport.

While the airline requires you to present an unexpired passport at check-in, you could in theory argue that they should let you board on an expired passport. Here's why and when.

In some countries such as the UK or Canada for example, an expired passport remains legal identification and proof of identity. So, it is entirely possible and I have done so several times, to enter a country on an expired passport if it is a passport from the country you wish to enter.

In other words, show up at UK Immigration with an expired UK passport and they will let you enter. That means there is no actual justification for an airline to refuse to let you board a plane to the UK in that case.

I don't know how many countries accept an expired passport as legal identification but I'm sure there are others.

Picture this scenario. You have an expired UK passport and an expired Canadian passport. You fly to the UK from Canada and enter on your expired UK passport. You fly back to Canada and enter on your expired Canadian passport. In theory if this was all the flying you ever did, you could continue to fly back and forth for decades and never pay for a new passport.

kebosabi

The same reason why anyone needs a second car. You don't need it, but it's sure nice to have one just in case, such as in case when your primary car doesn't work, maybe the second one gets better gas mileage, maybe the second one is better suited for certain trips like heading to the mountains, etc. etc.

Many US born Japanese have both US and Japanese passports. When leaving and entering the US, they go with their US passport, when entering and leaving Japan, they go with their Japanese passport. Shorter lines both ways and they can live and work legally both in the US and Japan. And certain times when going to third country one passport is better than another (i.e. China requires a visa for US passport holders, but none for Japanese passport holders, Belize requires a visa for Japanese passport holders, but none for US passport holders)

mandolino

I didn't know that - but I usually advise my son, who holds UK and Australian, to use his UK passport when entering the UK to visit us - otherwise if he could risk overstaying his visa if something meant he had to stay longer than 90 days.



+1. I've encountered this suspicious "tax evasion" attitude before. It's symptomatic of small town minds in a big world.

Christopher

Obviously that's sensible advice. I think, though, that Australians (and others) are normally admitted to the UK for 180 days (six months, in fact). It is the Schengen area where the period of admission is 90 days.

Spoddy

For decades my parents have entered the UK and Canada on their "local" passports, simply to get through the shorter/quicker lines.

I've done that myself too, and never had any questions or issues.

US - well, that's a whole different ball game.

Something that hasn't been mentioned was a test case in the Supreme Court, back in the '90s... please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Essentially, it is illegal (by constitution) for a US-born citizen to have their citizenship removed, since it's their right, by birth, to be American. Essentially, once you have it, you can't have it revoked. You can still give it up though. This is what allows US Citizens to have multi-citizenships.
Ergo, on the flip side of the coin, if you want to become American, they can still ask you to give up your other citizenships, because you don't yet have that constitutional protection.

Now here's a question for the floor. Green Card holders are told (I know; I certainly was) that they're now protected by the constitution (and I should make a point of reading it), as that's part of the law too. So is it legal for a US Authority to require a GC holding citizen seeker to renounce their other citizenships? Does the Constitution protect them here?

Christopher

There are other details in which some airlines' requirements don't accord with the "official" requirements. For example, it seems that some airlines have a blanket rule that travellers must have three or six months' validity remaining on their passport, regardless of the laws or regulations of the country they are going to. (Not all countries have any such requirement.) I presume that this is to make it as simple as possible for airline check-in staff.

Christopher

They can ask you, but the US authorities can't remove another citizenship from a person. Only the other country can do that, and whether and how that can happen depends on that country's laws.

Christopher

It's not always only a matter of convenience, though. For example, it could be for reasons of sentiment (e.g. a person whose parents hold different citizenships from each other) or practicality, particularly if prolonged stays in the "other" country are needed for whatever reason.

Also, some citizenships cannot be renounced, so it doesn't matter how much people huff and puff they cannot divest themselves of such citizenships.

mandolino

I stand corrected. I'm all for deporting him after about 21 days (hi son!).

When Australia had the "no dual citizenship" rule or people like me, I was once asked by a UK Immigration official why I didn't just get a UK passport.

"But I'd have to give up my Australian passport" I said.

"Who'd tell the Australians?" he replied. "We wouldn't"

In the end I didn't because it was expensive and I was spending too much time out of the UK each year to qualify at the time. Now I have a little chipped ID card called a "Residence Permit" - type: "Settlement" remarks: "No Time Limit" . Links to my photo and fingerprints.

I only wanted an ILTR stamp but it was during a period of great confusion in UKBA and at one point they had my passport for five months. I contacted my local MP and he said I was just one of a 250,000 backlog.

AA_EXP09

I thought Japanese nationality law disallows dual citizenship?

AA_EXP09

Not entirely true-if this is not documented in TIMATIC this is a case of IDB as there is sufficient documentation.
(I know that they do checks for this, for example, when going to the Philippines.)
The only reason why they might do this is in case of IRROPS (as you may need to enter a nation in case of a misconnect.)

Christopher

It does. As far as I know, the only exceptions may be for minors.

silvergirl

Very true... I have a European non-EU citizenship by birth, then lived in the UK for 12+ years and naturalised. Even though I temporarily live in Asia now, UK feels like home now (uni, jobs, partner, friends), citizenship gives me the security to be able to go back without potential future worry of needing to rely on a work permit tied to an employer.
I actually hadn't even thought of the convenience factor, as a matter of fact I have had the citizenship for almost 2 years and only just ordered the passport.

Definitely no tax evasion, and as someone said, it can make it pretty complicated (especially if you throw a third country into the mix as in my case).