Laws do not emerge out of a vacuum, they are the result of historical and political processes and this must be particularly true for a central issue such as citizenship law. The legal regulations can, in fact, not be considered independent of what can been called the national identity. The latter, while fuzzy in nature (Cohen 1995, 59), is shaped in Britain by at least three core aspects, which are Protestantism, the union of several kingdoms and the Empire. The multiplicity of nations in the United Kingdom has meant that rather than Great Britain establishing itself as an ethnic nation state, it had to conceive itself as a civic nation (Bryant 1997, 166). Furthermore, because of its colonial interests, it had to include as subjects to the Crown also the population of the colonies and after their independence had a responsibility to these places and their people which influenced also legislation (Favell 1997, 187). Nonetheless, the basis of the state remains in Protestantism and Western European philosophy. Accordingly there are also ethnoreligious undertones in the conception of the British nation, particularly so as national identity receives its power from aspects which go beyond the purely civic (Jacobson 1997, 190). Both these forces one can see at work in the shaping of the modern British nationality laws. The law gradually developed from an inclusive, colonial model, where there was no doubt that anybody born in the Empire owed allegiance to the Crown, to a system where special status was given to those of British ethnic descent (Shah 1995, 57, 61). In the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 the dominant principle was still ius soli (Shah 1995, 63), but already the British Nationality Act 1948 introduced parts of ius sanguinis (Shah 1995, 64) and in the British Nationality Act 1981 the principle of ius soli was considerably weakened. Since the 01.01.1983, birth in the UK guarantees British citizenship only if either parent is a British citizen or is settled in the country (85-86). As for most births in Britain the requirements will be met for practical concerns the ius soli rule is still in force and for historical reasons citizenship has to be granted on a non-racial basis (Cohen 1995, 59). The theoretical deviation from the principle is, however, noteworthy as it reflects the attempt of the law maker to be restrictive in conceding British citizenship, in spite of Bryant (1997, 169) arguing that in general the contentious issue about migrants is not their civic rights but rather whether they will be granted entry to the Britain in the first place
It is important for the following analysis that basically all the children of South Asian labour migrants who were born in Britain automatically acquired British citizenship and were thus endowed with the same rights and obligations as their white neighbours. Only those members of the second generation who were born in South Asia itself thus experienced the legal status of a foreigner in Britain and had to consider whether they should apply for naturalisation or not.
The South Asians in Britain come mainly from Punjab, Gujarat and the Sylhet region, many with a detour via East Africa; most are Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims. Due to chain migration the settlement pattern shows certain centres such as Greater London, Leicester, Birmingham and Bradford. The typical migrant lives within a community and had to enter the labour market as unskilled or semi-skilled worker, many have established themselves as small entrepreneurs, mainly as shopkeepers. Professional and highly skilled South Asian migrants are relatively few in Britain and they are living much more dispersed than the others. While most migrants aim for educational improvement for their children, still many members of the second generation enter - for various reasons - the labour market in the lower segment. Most stay within the ethnic community of their parents, accepting the continuity of traditions like arranged marriages for themselves.