Talk:UK Immigration Service

I think the Immigration Service is something that deserves a better history than this. We need more contributors to say how it came about.Catfish61 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

British Nationality Act 1948
The British Nationality Act 1948 wasn't relevant to the "Windrush" migration from the British West Indies to the United Kingdom. Firstly, the Act didn't even come into force until around six months after the Empire Windrush arrived. Secondly, and more generally, the 1948 Act didn't confer any rights on British subjects in the West Indian colonies that they didn't already have: they had the same legal status with people from the UK before the Act was passed, and they had the same status with them after it came into force. The provisions of the Act only became relevant with the passage of the first Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, which wasn't aimed at people from British colonies anyway, but those from newly independent Commonwealth countries! Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Which is not to say that the article shouldn't cover the old system of shared nationality and undifferentiated immigration control status. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Airships
There must have been some immigration control of airships arriving in the UK such as the R101 but I can find no record of it. Any information gratefully received Agent1135 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Remarks
Remarks in the text are made that seem to be untrue. Indians in East Africa might well have acquired Indian citizenship by descent. See Indian nationality law. See Pakistani nationality law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.253.163 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article size
This is a very comprehensive article - almost too comprehensive, as its length makes it somewhat slow to load and edit. I've added the verylong template for that reason. Would it be possible to break sections of this article off into sub-articles, per WP:Summary style? Or do other editors disagree that this article is too long? Robofish (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Certainly it istoo long; in fact, I think even the history section by itself may be too long, but the first step will be removing it to a separate article. I also note problems with unsourced opinion, e.g. .. "prescient observations"  DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a division into articles on the UKIS and the History of the UKIS would be called for. Philip Jelley (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)