Whether or not your babies can get your native country's passport depends
upon you native country's laws- not US laws. You have to direct that
question to your native country's laws.
As far as US laws are concerned, if your babies were born in the US they are
US citizens and they can stay in the US with you.They are not required to
have US visas- unlike you as their alien parents!

"JK" <JK@NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message
news:JiaXa.9474$iZ4.5168@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
| My babies are born here. But i want to get them my country's passport.
| Should my company apply for a H4 dependant visa once they get their
| passport ?
|

"JK" wrote:
My babies were born here. But I want to get them my country's passport. Should my company apply for an H4 dependant visa once they get their passport?

"matrix" replied:
As far as US laws are concerned, if your babies were born in the US they are US citizens and they can stay in the US with you. They are not required to have US visas- unlike you as their alien parents!

Note that the children's US citizenship in this situation is not
only automatic, but it is also =mandatory=. If they were born
in the US, they are US citizens according to US law. Even if it
happens that JK's country also claims the children as citizens,
this won't change their status in the eyes of the US.

This means, for example, that the children would not be able to
get H-4 visas (or any other kind of US visa) in their foreign
passports. I'm not just saying they would not =need= such visas
-- I'm saying they are not =eligible= for visas, and if you (or
your company) were to try to apply for them to get visas, it's
my understanding that the BCIS will reject the application on
the grounds that the children are US citizens.

Also, if JK's family want to travel abroad, the children must
have US passports. It's OK (as far as US law is concerned) if
the children also have foreign passports -- and this might be
necessary if JK's country also considers them citizens and
requires them to have its own passports -- but this doesn't
affect the US insistence that they must have US passports.

Even if it happens to be the case that JK's country objects to
dual citizenship and refuses to let the children have both US
passports and its own passports, the US basically doesn't care;
the children are US citizens, and under US law, that means they
need US passports in order to travel abroad. The only country
I'm currently aware of that takes such an extreme anti-dual-
citizenship position, even for "born dual" children, is India
-- and I understand the Indian government has announced plans
to change this ban, though (AFAIK) the change has not actually
been fully enacted into law, so nothing has changed yet.

Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Do you mean that if JK's babies get JK's country's passport and leave
USA, say for a trip home, when they come back the immigration
authorities won't let the children in ?

Rich Wales wrote: "JK" wrote: My babies were born here. But I want to get them my country's passport. Should my company apply for an H4 dependant visa once they get their passport? "matrix" replied: As far as US laws are concerned, if your babies were born in the US they are US citizens and they can stay in the US with you. They are not required to have US visas- unlike you as their alien parents! Note that the children's US citizenship in this situation is not only automatic, but it is also =mandatory=. If they were born in the US, they are US citizens according to US law. Even if it happens that JK's country also claims the children as citizens, this won't change their status in the eyes of the US. This means, for example, that the children would not be able to get H-4 visas (or any other kind of US visa) in their foreign passports. I'm not just saying they would not =need= such visas -- I'm saying they are not =eligible= for visas, and if you (or your company) were to try to apply for them to get visas, it's my understanding that the BCIS will reject the application on the grounds that the children are US citizens. Also, if JK's family want to travel abroad, the children must have US passports. It's OK (as far as US law is concerned) if the children also have foreign passports -- and this might be necessary if JK's country also considers them citizens and requires them to have its own passports -- but this doesn't affect the US insistence that they must have US passports. Even if it happens to be the case that JK's country objects to dual citizenship and refuses to let the children have both US passports and its own passports, the US basically doesn't care; the children are US citizens, and under US law, that means they need US passports in order to travel abroad. The only country I'm currently aware of that takes such an extreme anti-dual- citizenship position, even for "born dual" children, is India -- and I understand the Indian government has announced plans to change this ban, though (AFAIK) the change has not actually been fully enacted into law, so nothing has changed yet. Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/ *DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant, or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Originally posted by Rich Wales
The only country I'm currently aware of that takes such an extreme anti-dual- citizenship position, even for "born dual" children, is India



The People's Republic of China and the Republic of Singapore are two
countries that are against their nationals being dual citizens.
Singapore makes exceptions for babies, but upon reaching a certain age,
the dual citizen must choose one citizenship (either renounce the
foreign one or renounce Singaporean citizenship).



Australia allows dual citizenship but insists that her nationals use
Australian passports when entering and leaving Australian ports.





Peter


--
This post is an expression of opinion and is neither legal nor immigration advice.


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

"KS" wrote:
Do you mean that if JK's babies get JK's country's passport and leave USA, say for a trip home, when they come back the immigration authorities won't let the children in?

There are two issues.

Assuming the family does manage to get back to the US, the parents
are likely to get a lengthy grilling from US immigration officials.
However, assuming the children's identities and birthplaces can be
verified, they'll eventually be allowed back into the country.

In theory, there is a fine for leaving the US, and/or trying to
enter the US, without a valid, unexpired US passport or other
acceptable proof of US citizenship. Currently, though, it's my
understanding that this particular fine is being waived ($0).

HOWEVER, before they get the chance to do the above, they'll have
to convince an airline to take them to the US. And if the kids
don't have travel documents proving they will be admitted to the
US, the airline employees at the airport probably won't let them
board the flight. Airlines face substantial fines (=not= being
waived!) if they bring people to the US who turn out not to be
admissible, so they tend to be very careful to check documents
of would-be passengers.

Note, BTW, that US immigration regulations do permit a child with
dual US/other citizenship to enter the US without a US passport
if (1) the child is under age 12, (2) the child is listed as a
dependent in a parent's foreign passport, and (3) some other form
of proof of the child's US citizenship is provided (such as the
child's birth certificate).

However, this exemption may or may not be helpful, depending on
how paranoid the airline is. I've been told, for example, that
at least one airline routinely ignores this exemption and refuses
to allow dual US/Indian children on US-bound flights unless the
children have their own US passports (the aforementioned exemption
in the US regulations notwithstanding).

Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

"ptlabs" wrote:
The People's Republic of China and the Republic of Singapore are two countries that are against their nationals being dual citizens. Singapore makes exceptions for babies . . . .

That was my point. India, AFAIK, is the only country that refuses
to allow dual citizenship even for children.

Again, I've been told that the current government of India recently
announced plans to relax this rule. However, AFAIK, this planned
change has not yet been enacted as legislation or regulations.
. . . but upon reaching a certain age, the dual citizen must choose one citizenship (either renounce the foreign one or renounce Singaporean citizenship).

Some other countries have similar requirements. It should be
noted, though, that the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand,
and many other countries allow "born dual" citizens to keep both
citizenships for life.
Australia allows dual citizenship but insists that her nationals use Australian passports when entering and leaving Australian ports.

True -- and this could potentially put Australian-born children
of Indian citizens in a similar situation to what I described
earlier. However, it should also be noted that Australian law
(unlike US law) does =not= have a blanket rule granting citi-
zenship to all children born in the country; an Australian-born
child will normally get citizenship at birth only if at least
one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

"KS" <Karthikseetharaman@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:uqjXa.7993$td7.1848@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... Do you mean that if JK's babies get JK's country's passport and leave USA, say for a trip home, when they come back the immigration authorities won't let the children in ?

It's very simple. The children are USA citizens, like almost every
other child born in the USA. US citizens are required to use US
passports to leave and enter the USA. As long as they get US
passports and show them to leave and enter the USA, then of
course they will be allowed in.

As US citizens, they are entitled to enter the USA without
passports - but they'll have to prove they are US citizens, and
probably receive some punishment for breaking the law about
crossing the border without a passport.

The USA isn't interested in whether or not they have passports
from any number of foreign countries.

Rich,


Originally posted by Rich Wales
"ptlabs" wrote:

The People's Republic of China and the Republic of Singapore
are two countries that are against their nationals being dual
citizens. Singapore makes exceptions for babies . . . .

That was my point. India, AFAIK, is the only country that
refuses to allow dual citizenship even for children.



True, and my point is that India is not unique in its refusal to
recognize dual nationality (at least until recently). The PR of China
also disallows dual nationality even for children. Officially, Malaysia
also does not permit dual nationality even for children.




However, it should also be noted that Australian law
(unlike US law) does =not= have a blanket rule granting citi-
zenship to all children born in the country; an Australian-born
child will normally get citizenship at birth only if at least
one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident.



True, Australian law only grants Australian citizenship to babies born
to parents (or at least one parent) who are permanent residents or
citizens of Australia. Australia, unlike NZ or the US, does not give
"blanket birthright" citizenship to babies born in Australia.



I recently got to know about a case where a Singaporean unmarried mother
giving birth to a baby while on a temporary visa (student visa) in
Australia. Under Australian law, the baby will not be a citizen of
Australia by birth, and will therefore automatically obtain the visa of
the parent. Under Singaporean law, a mother may not pass on Singaporean
citizenship by descent - only a Singaporean father may do so. So, it's a
weird situation where the baby is stateless while the Singapore
consulate figures out what to do with the baby. Of course, a baby born
in countries that recognize "birthright" citizenship like the US will
have no such problems.





Peter


--
This post is an expression of opinion and is neither legal nor immigration advice.


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Originally posted by ptlabs
Australian law only grants Australian citizenship to babies born to parents (or at least one parent) who are permanent residents or citizens of Australia.




Off topic, but I need to correct myself, in case anybody misunderstands:



Australian law only grants Australian citizenship to babies born *in
Australia* to parents (or at least one parent) who are permanent
residents or citizens of Australia.





Peter


--
This post is an expression of opinion and is neither legal nor immigration advice.


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

> I recently got to know about a case where a Singaporean unmarried mother giving birth to a baby while on a temporary visa (student visa) in Australia. Under Australian law, the baby will not be a citizen of Australia by birth, and will therefore automatically obtain the visa of the parent. Under Singaporean law, a mother may not pass on Singaporean citizenship by descent - only a Singaporean father may do so. So, it's a weird situation where the baby is stateless while the Singapore consulate figures out what to do with the baby.

Several countries that do restrict citizenship by birth on their
territories to only those children whose parents are either citizens
or permanent residents, do have exceptions for cases
where a child is not eligible for any other citizenship.
Although, I don't know if Australia has any such exceptions.

Stephen Gallagher

Originally posted by Stephen Gallagher
I recently got to know about a case where a Singaporean unmarried mother
giving birth to a baby while on a temporary visa (student visa) in
Australia. Under Australian law, the baby will not be a citizen of
Australia by birth, and will therefore automatically obtain the visa of
the parent. Under Singaporean law, a mother may not pass on Singaporean
citizenship by descent - only a Singaporean father may do so. So, it's a
weird situation where the baby is stateless while the Singapore
consulate figures out what to do with the baby.

Several countries that do restrict citizenship by birth on their
territories to only those children whose parents are either citizens
or permanent residents, do have exceptions for cases
where a child is not eligible for any other citizenship.
Although, I don't know if Australia has any such exceptions.




Stephen,



Off topic here again, but just to answer your question:



Australian citizenship laws do have provisions to grant citizenship to
babies born in Australia who would otherwise be stateless. However,
there is a need to prove that the baby in question (in this case, for
example) is not and has never been entitled to another citizenship. The
fact that the Singapore consulate is evaluating the case would mean that
this provision cannot kick in until Singapore's satisfied that they
don't want the baby as a citizen.



In the meantime, it'll be statelessness for the baby.



Regards,

Peter


--
This post is an expression of opinion and is neither legal nor immigration advice.


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Huh?????
Was the father's citizenship ever in question in this thread?


"blank" <blank@blank.com> wrote in message
news:J5_Xa.16077$tf.14891@lakeread03...
| What about the father's citizenship. The child must have a Dad somewhere.

AFAIK, the baby was born out of wedlock. Not sure if the father
stuck around.



Originally posted by Blank
What about the father's citizenship. The child must have a Dad somewhere.




--
This post is an expression of opinion and is neither legal nor immigration advice.


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

What about the father's citizenship. The child must have a Dad somewhere.

The scenario was using the case of unmarried mother from
Singapore as an example.

While it MAY be possible that the child would have a claim
to his father's citizenship, this would depend on the laws
of his father's country of citizenship. There are a lot of
countries that do not allow citizenship to pass from
the father to the children when they are born outside of
marriage.

Some countries require that the parents be married,
and if they're not married, then the child has no claim
to his citizenship.

Other countries will not absolutely require marriage,
but they may require that the father acknowledges his
paternity and that he agrees to support the child prior
to a certain age.

Stephen Gallagher

richw@richw.org (Rich Wales) wrote in message news:<20030804005520.P16804.richw@jessejames.Stanford.ED U>...
The only country I'm currently aware of that takes such an extreme anti-dual- citizenship position, even for "born dual" children, is India -- and I understand the Indian government has announced plans to change this ban, though (AFAIK) the change has not actually been fully enacted into law, so nothing has changed yet.

Persons in Russia are subject to Russian laws and procedures. Persons
who are citizens of both the United States and Russia should be aware
that, while U.S. immigration law requires Americans to use U.S.
passports when entering or leaving the United States, Russian law
likewise requires Russian citizens to use Russian passports to enter
and depart Russia.
http://www.usconsulate.spb.ru/citizen_dual.htm

This would seem to put paid (so far as Russia is concerned) to the
understanding under which former Soviet citizens could re-enter the
Soviet Union with a US passport and a Soviet visa, and be treated
strictly as US citizens for the duration of a short visit.
Digest U.S. Prac., 1973, p. 72; 73 Am. J. Int'l L. 678 (1979).

This does not necessarily represent an "anti-dual-nationality"
position, but rather the insistence that a person whom that country
deems to be its national concede that status and disclaim the right to
diplomatic or consular protection.

The US, of course, has thumbed its nose at international law and at
the International Court of Justice in the matter of the right to
consular notification of arrest
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh104.htm
This, however, doesn't really apply where the arrestee (and the
executed convict) also possess US nationality. It relates more to a
state-federal conflict (11th Amendment, state sovereignty), something
also commonly seen in taxes and bankruptcy (the Seminole Tribe case,
517 U.S. 44 (1996)).

There are at least three kinds of American nationality (citizen, born
in one of the 50 states or DC; national born in American Samoa or
Swain Island; citizen not subject to US federal estate tax but only
local taxes born in an outlying territory). Arguably there is yet
another category: a person who lost US nationality by means of an
expatriating act subsequently declared an unconstitutional basis of
expatriation (such persons are entitled, presumably at any time, to
reclaim American nationality and indeed have to prove that they never
claimed a "benefit" of that nationality if they want to justiry
nonpayment of US income taxes. Rev. Rul. 92-109, 1992-2 C.B. 3)

But I digress.

> > I recently got to know about a case where a Singaporean unmarried mother giving birth to a baby while on a temporary visa (student visa) in Australia. Under Australian law, the baby will not be a citizen of Australia by birth, and will therefore automatically obtain the visa of the parent. Under Singaporean law, a mother may not pass on Singaporean citizenship by descent - only a Singaporean father may do so. So, it's a weird situation where the baby is stateless while the Singapore consulate figures out what to do with the baby. Of course, a baby born in countries that recognize "birthright" citizenship like the US will have no such problems.

Australia, but not Singapore, has ratified the UN Convention for the
Reduction of Statelessness,
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/w2crs.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/Treaty/final/ts2/newfiles/part_boo/v_boo/v_4.html

But an examination of the Australian Government web sites suggests
they are ignoring their obligation to grant nationality to any child
born there who would otherwise be stateless. (Britain likewise ignored
its obligation under the BNA 1981; on the other hand, under Irish law
anyone born in Britain, British or Irish citizen or not, has the right
of abode in the Irish Republic, which creates an interesting anomaly:
if I remember correctly, it's in the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949.

"Blatt" wrote:
This does not necessarily represent an "anti-dual-nationality" position, but rather the insistence that a person whom that country deems to be its national concede that status and disclaim the right to diplomatic or consular protection.

This sort of approach is, in fact, fairly common around the world.
In general, a person who is claimed as a citizen by two or more
countries cannot expect any of these countries to treat him/her
any differently by virtue of some other country's citizenship
claim.

It is sometimes said, in this sense, that the US doesn't "recognize"
dual citizenship. However, this expression can easily result in
confusion, because it's also used by people who incorrectly believe
that the US doesn't allow its citizens to hold citizenship in other
countries.

Rich Wales richw@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Originally posted by Blatt
I recently got to know about a case where a Singaporean unmarried mother
giving birth to a baby while on a temporary visa (student visa) in
Australia. Under Australian law, the baby will not be a citizen of
Australia by birth, and will therefore automatically obtain the visa of
the parent. Under Singaporean law, a mother may not pass on Singaporean
citizenship by descent - only a Singaporean father may do so. So, it's a
weird situation where the baby is stateless while the Singapore
consulate figures out what to do with the baby. Of course, a baby born
in countries that recognize "birthright" citizenship like the US will
have no such problems.

Australia, but not Singapore, has ratified the UN Convention for the Reduction of Statelessness,

But an examination of the Australian Government web sites suggests they are ignoring their obligation to grant nationality to any child born there who would otherwise be stateless.



Actually, I've answered this point before....



: Off topic here again, but just to answer your question:

:

: Australian citizenship laws do have provisions to grant

: citizenship to babies born in Australia who would otherwise be

: stateless. However, there is a need to prove that the baby in

: question (in this case, for example) is not and has never been

: entitled to another citizenship. The fact that the Singapore

: consulate is evaluating the case would mean that this provision

: cannot kick in until Singapore's satisfied that they don't want

: the baby as a citizen.

:

:In the meantime, it'll be statelessness for the baby.



The Australian Citizenship Act, as I've mentioned, does have provisions
to prevent statelessness for babies born in Australia.





Peter


--
This post is an expression of opinion and is neither legal nor immigration advice.


Posted via http://britishexpats.com

>On 9 Aug 2003 09:47:19 -0700, blatt987@hotmail.com (Blatt) wrote:Australia, but not Singapore, has ratified the UN Convention for theReduction of Statelessness,http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/w2crs.htmhttp://www.un.org/Depts/Treaty/final/ts2/newfiles/part_boo/v_boo/v_4.htmlBut an examination of the Australian Government web sites suggeststhey are ignoring their obligation to grant nationality to any childborn there who would otherwise be stateless.

Section 23D of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provides a route
for otherwise stateless Australia born children to acquire Australian
citizenship:
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/381/0/PA000370.htm


(Britain likewise ignoredits obligation under the BNA 1981; on the other hand,

There are a variety of provisions to prevent statelessness in Schedule
2 of the BNA 1981, as amended.


under Irish lawanyone born in Britain, British or Irish citizen or not, has the rightof abode in the Irish Republic, which creates an interesting anomaly:if I remember correctly, it's in the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949.

I would be very interested to know what Irish statute creates a right
of abode for people on the basis of UK birth rather than British
citizenship.

It's not in the (Irish) Republic of Ireland Act 1948, nor does it
appear to be in the Aliens Act 1935.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA22Y1948.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA14Y1935.html

Jeremy



This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

There are some consular agreements in existence, which provide that if
a citizen of Country A enters Country B as a tourist using Country A's
passport, then Country B will accept the person is under the consular
protection of Country A even if they might have grounds to claim the
person as a citizen of their own.

Australia seems to have recently concluded an agreement with Vietnam
along these lines:
http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2003/fa096_03.html

Jeremy
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 18:37:49 +0000 (UTC), richw@richw.org (Rich Wales) wrote:"Blatt" wrote: This does not necessarily represent an "anti-dual-nationality" position, but rather the insistence that a person whom that country deems to be its national concede that status and disclaim the right to diplomatic or consular protection.This sort of approach is, in fact, fairly common around the world.In general, a person who is claimed as a citizen by two or morecountries cannot expect any of these countries to treat him/herany differently by virtue of some other country's citizenshipclaim.

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction

1. My copy of the BNA 1981 up to date in digital format does not
include the schedules. In my copy of the BNA as enacted in 1981 (as
reprinted in Stanbrook) which does have Schedule 2, the statelessness
reduction provisions apply only to BOCs, BSs and other nationals
without right of abode in the UK. Of course, post-Bancoult, [2001] 2
WLR 1219, (QBD 3 Mar. 1999), and pursuant to the White Paper, all
those varieties of nationality have been consolidated. I will look in
the library in a couple of weeks.

2. The comment about British-born non-citizens having right of abode
in Ireland is attributable to JP Gardner, former Director of the
BIICL. I thought it came from his Hallmarks of Citizenship (n.d., but
probably 1999) but leafing through that I don't find it now. Elsewhere
I see a cite to Aliens Act, 1935, c. 14 (Ireland). I don't have a copy
of that here. I will check, eventually. It is wildly improbable that
Gardner was mistaken. He's been quoted elsewhere on it, and I must
have looked it up at the time.

3. I am always glad to be corrected, if the correction is true.

4. The UK had said (at the time the BNA 1981 was enacted) that it
would never deport British-born children, implying it would give them
a chance to acquire nationality by registration after ten years. I
never believed them, and have sent two (legally resident but not
settled) women to Belfast to give birth. At least their babies are now
Irish citizens (Irish Nartionality & Citizenship Act 1956 s 7).
(Actually one is not a baby anymore; she's a student at Cambridge.)
Now the UKG deports and threatens to deport babies at will, and shrugs
its shoulders at the commitment formally announced in Parliament by a
former government.



jaj116@hotmail.com (JAJ) wrote in message news:<3f39fa4c.2646273@news.syd.ihug.com.au>...On 9 Aug 2003 09:47:19 -0700, blatt987@hotmail.com (Blatt) wrote:Australia, but not Singapore, has ratified the UN Convention for theReduction of Statelessness,http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/w2crs.htmhttp://www.un.org/Depts/Treaty/final/ts2/newfiles/part_boo/v_boo/v_4.htmlBut an examination of the Australian Government web sites suggeststhey are ignoring their obligation to grant nationality to any childborn there who would otherwise be stateless. Section 23D of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provides a route for otherwise stateless Australia born children to acquire Australian citizenship: http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/381/0/PA000370.htm (Britain likewise ignoredits obligation under the BNA 1981; on the other hand, There are a variety of provisions to prevent statelessness in Schedule 2 of the BNA 1981, as amended.under Irish lawanyone born in Britain, British or Irish citizen or not, has the rightof abode in the Irish Republic, which creates an interesting anomaly:if I remember correctly, it's in the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949. I would be very interested to know what Irish statute creates a right of abode for people on the basis of UK birth rather than British citizenship. It's not in the (Irish) Republic of Ireland Act 1948, nor does it appear to be in the Aliens Act 1935. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA22Y1948.html http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA14Y1935.html Jeremy

>On 14 Aug 2003 14:58:06 -0700, blatt987@hotmail.com (Blatt) wrote:BNA 1981 without the schedules is athttp://snurl.com/BNA1981seemingly with 2000 Act updates

It incorporates amendments made by the British Overseas Territories
Act 2002, but not the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
(which are quite significant)
Apparently any sort of British national (except theones who aren't nationals because they have no right of abode in anyBritish sovereign territory) can now move to British and become, indue course, EU citizens.

Most British overseas territories citizens (BOTCs) are now also
British citizens. They have the right to live in the UK as British
citizens, not BOTCs.

It is quite possible to hold BOTC status, have acquired British
citizenship on account of this in May 2002, and yet not have a right
of abode in any British overseas territory.

I understand that British citizens from the Territories have the same
EU free movement of labour rights as British citizens from anywhere
else, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man excluded. This applies
whether they move to the UK or not. Of course, those who do not wish
to make use of their British citizenship can continue to travel on
BOTC passports that do not carry any 'EU' designations.

Jeremy

This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction