This land we call home is recognized by the United Kingdom as a British Overseas Territory. This connection with the United Kingdom gives us a status as British Overseas Territories Citizens to the outside world. But what does that really mean? We may be belongers of Anguilla, Anguillian, British Overseas Territories Citizens and British Citizens, all at the same time. Yet our different statuses are independent of each other and our eligibilities are impacted by a myriad of circumstances, cultures and disparate laws. We are led to question who we are as a people and our place in the world.
On 6 April, 2019, the case of Romancia Rogers, a belonger, demonstrated why we should know our rights and consider whether or not we are truly British or EU Nationals.
Romancia Rogers was born to a Kittitian mother, holding citizenship in St. Kitts and an Anguillian father, holding British citizenship and a passport at the time she was born in 1988. Her father, Paulivar Rogers, became a British Dependant Territories Citizen in 1983 under Section 23 of the British Nationality Act 1981. Therefore, Paulivar was a British Dependent Territories Citizen at the time of Romancia’s birth and the United Kingdom Home Office stated that holding such status would not allow him to pass on British citizenship at that time. Currently, Paulivar Rogers is a British citizen, with a British Passport which says ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” and furthermore, he is a EU citizen by virtue of holding that passport. Additionally, Romancia’s Kittitian grandmother immigrated to the UK during the Windrush era and received British citizenship.
According to the MSN Journalist, Ashley Preece, Romancia left Anguilla in January to spend time with family in the UK. She subsequently applied for British Citizenship under section 4G of the British Nationality Act 1981 and was rejected. Section 4G(1) of the Act is what the UK Home Office appears to have relied on to deny Romancia British citizenship. This sub-section states that “[a person] is entitled to be registered as a British citizen on an application made under this section if – (a) [the person] meets the general conditions; and (b) at any time in the period after commencement, [the person] would have automatically become a British citizen at birth by the operation of any provision of this Act ….., had [the person’s] mother been married to [the person’s] natural father at the time of [the person’s] birth.”
The Home Office stated that Romancia did not meet the requirements. They further listed those requirements as: (1) Being born before 1 July 2006, (2) Becoming a British citizen automatically if your parents were married, and (3) Having good character. It is clear that the first and third requirement must apply to the ‘general conditions’ that are stipulated in the Act and the second requirement applies to marriage at any time after commencement of the Act. Romancia may have been born in Anguilla, but British legislation is the only international determinant of the status of each individual. The passport is merely evidence of that right.
Romancia was seeking to become a British citizen and move to Birmingham, England. However, as an Anguilla belonger, with an Anguilla passport only, she was only granted permission to remain in the UK for six months. The rejection of Romancia’s citizenship application and denial of her rights to British citizenship has caused expected controversy, and begs the question: Of what value is our British status?
The Romancia Rogers case will cause significant uncertainty to our people, particularly in the aftermath of the Windrush saga and what appear to be arbitrary and unfair immigration practices in the UK. Many Anguillians will worry whether British passports they secured will be withdrawn, especially in the context of the current Brexit impasse. In all instances, Romancia’s case should cause us to enquire as to our real identity.
There must be an acknowledgement of the differences between status and how the laws have categorised our people. Who are we? Are we Anguillian, British Citizens, British Overseas Territory Citizens, Belongers? Do we hold certain rights because of birthright, descent, marriage, naturalisation, or registration? What evidence are we holding of citizenship and what authority do we rely on? Authority, in this case, legislation, demonstrates how we have to rely on various laws and their sources just to understand our identity and nationality.
To answer these questions we must look at the Anguillian Constitution Order 1982, the British Nationality Act of 1981, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, the Partnership for Progress and Prosperity 1999 White Paper, The Anguilla Belonger Commission Act – and Government sites that provide the process for passport applications, naturalisation, and registration.
It is critical to look at how our history unfolded and understand how certain measures to ensure protection of persons are quite arbitrary while others are quite definitive. When we first think about what it means to be Anguillian, we must examine our constitution. There is shockingly only one reference to citizenship in our 52 page Constitution Order of 1982. Section 4 of the Constitution addresses citizenship by only referring to the protections that people who were born in St. Christopher or in Nevis are provided. There a provision that recognizes what it means to be Anguillian. Those of us born in Anguilla are identifiably just belongers of our country, because there is no law stipulating what an Anguillian is. We must recognize our history and where our identity has not been safeguarded. We may be Anguillian by culture, but legally we are not ensured this identifier by birthright, marriage, or descent.
The Constitution regards an individual as belonging to Anguilla if that person is a British Dependent Territories Citizen (which has since been changed to British Overseas Territory Citizen) by birth right, adoption, registration, naturalisation; domiciled privileges; father or mother descent privileges; and no less than 3 or 5 years of marriage to a belonger.
Furthermore, there are three ways in which belonger status can be obtained through application. Either by virtue of parents being born in Anguilla or Belongers of Anguilla, by virtue of marriage to “an Anguillian” / Belonger of Anguilla, and by 15 years of residence in Anguilla. If you apply for belongership by virtue of your parents, you also must ensure that the father’s name is included in the birth certificate of the applicant. When applying for belongership or when registering a child, it is vital that the father’s name is included to prove paternity.
It is clear that while the Constitution defines rights according to a mother and father, there are certain status distinctions that prioritize the connection to one parent over another. Belongership applications must include the father’s name on the birth certificate if the application is by virtue of descent. The Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriage Act requires that the father of every legitimate child register that child within 30 days after birth and give notice of the child to the Registrar-General.
These parental distinctions prove how our Anguillian children are not always guaranteed certain rights. Romancia Rogers case highlights that marriage and cultural norms for how our children receive rights are still not settled. Now marriage provides more access and privileges for children but that does not make it right.
What makes Anguillians British Citizens? Before we address that question we should understand how the British Nationality Act 1981 determines what status and citizenship our people possess. The Act went into force in 1983 and changed the meaning of what it meant to be a British Overseas Territory Citizen and British Citizen in the qualifying British territories. If you were born before 1 January 1983, you became a British Overseas Territory citizen on 1 January 1983 if both applied: you were a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on 31 December 1982, and you had connections with a British overseas territory because you, your parents or your grandparents were born, registered or naturalised in that British overseas territory.
As Anguillians, British Overseas Territory Citizens, and British Citizens it is evident that we have to rely on various bodies of work and legislation to prove our identity. We must be cognizant of those who do not receive British citizenship through birth right, and we must be aware of our status. Are our people who moved to the UK for work ever going to appear to have their rights to British Citizenship come into question, as the Windrush era did? We must ensure security and make sure that Anguillians in the UK do not become the new controversial group of persons fighting for British acceptance. Romancia Rogers should push us to question how our citizenship applies to the necessary authorities. A spokesman in the UK Home Office stated, in the article on Romancia’s case, that “We recognise the difficulties the British Nationality Act 1981 presents for some British Overseas Territories citizens who wish to pass on their citizenship to their children.”
This demonstrates how our present reality provides a lack of equality and offers varying statuses for those who reside among us and abroad. It should not be acceptable to continue this cycle of uncertainty when determining if our children receive the rights that we as parents possess. It is important that we elect Governments that will protect the rights of our Anguillian people at home and abroad. We must always remember our culture as Anguillians and ensure our constitution safeguards those rights. If our people are only legally referenced as belonging to Anguilla then we must also make sure that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not impose laws upon us without understanding how our people are affected. The recommendation to do away with belongership and allow residents of the UK and British Overseas territories citizens to be able to vote, and hold office, would change what it means to belong to Anguilla and represent Anguilla. We must make sure that our people are continuously being provided with sufficient and effective governance by means of necessary laws, regulations, and policies.
At least one historian claims that the Anguillian identity evolved out of the need to be distinguished from persons brought in from St. Kitts and Nevis. That would be supported by the reference to citizenship in the 1982 Anguilla Constitution Order. Further, it is claimed that the assertive positioning was no mark of international or legal consequence. Locally, the efforts were marked by the symbolic “A” on the vehicle registration plates and by highlighting certain national properties and achievements, including Webster’s Park. In recent years these national adages have fallen into disrepair.
Many social and political activists regularly argue for reviewing these developments and reconstructing our Anguillian identity. They regard this as a prerequisite or rite of passage to a more independent status. As the recent Foreign Affairs Committee Report to the UK Government has emphasized, “Peculiarities of status – that is to say belonger status- will not carve out any preferential placement in the British family of nations.” The fact that in Anguilla we have many children born to parents who are not married and who require to be protected and valued, as other children born to married parents, may not concern the UK Government unduly. Our Government needs to rise to the challenge and advocate for these protections.
Our leaders, when it comes to matters of status, have traditionally been prompted only by a desire to add ‘belongers’ on the voters list, to vote for their party. It will be interesting to watch developments in this space; but the Government’s responsibility to act now, in line with UK Government directives, will hopefully receive full attention in the coming months.
