Under what law are Jews allowed to live in England nowadays? King Edward passed a law ("Edict of Expulsion") in England expelling all Jews from England. According to Wikipedia, Oliver Cromwell permission of resettlement was revoked, and the right of Jews in England is only "implied." Does this mean that the Jewish settlement in England is technically illegal?
Under several laws passed between 1835 and 1890. In 1890 all religious restrictions on Jews (or indeed on anyone of any given faith) were lifted for all offices in Britain except the monarch, The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (abolished 1922), which, as ecclesiastical positions within the Anglican church still require the office holder to be of that faith.
Currently there is nowhere in the USA where polygamy is legal. So regardless of their sexual or gender expression or orientation, being married to MORE THAN ONE person at the same time is illegal. If, however, it turned out that someone had more than one spouse at their death, I'm sure that property distribution would be a matter for the probate court to sort out. As far as legally-married &quot;trans spouses&quot;, for lack of a better term, I don't see why that would that impact inheritance in any way?
Anti-discrimination laws apply to certain protected classes only. Homelessness (real or assumed) is not one of them, so it is perfectly legal to bar such people from your premises. It is also perfectly legal to bar people with red hair (assuming this is not indirect discrimination against certain racial groups). Nobody is required to serve everybody who comes in; what you are not allowed to do is ban women, homosexuals or other groups set out in the applicable statutes.
There's no law as such; it's just an age-old mark of respect that a visiting Royal not sit on your throne. The Queen has encountered other royal families so it makes sense that she'd know this tradition, and was likely just being humorous on the Game of Thrones set. That or she decided the Iron Throne didn't look very comfy!
No, given McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 and In Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582. The principle is that laws with religious origins are constitutional if they have a secular purpose. In Braunfeld, the defendants who were Orthodox Jews could not operate their business from sunfall to sunfall on Friday-Saturday, and sought to operate on Sunday contrary to a Pennsylvanis law prohibiting retail sales of their commodities on Sunday. The court rules that the law &quot;does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor constitute a law respecting an establishment of religion, and it does not prohibit the free exercise of appellants' religion, within the meaning of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment&quot;. Their argument was based on the fact that to comply with the requirements of their religion plus the statutes of Pennsylvania, they would suffer economic loss. The court historically reviewed blue laws and concluded that the requirement to be closed on Sunday is not necessarily tied to religion, noting for example that in 1776 Virginia seemed that &quot;all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion&quot; and repealed laws penalizing expression and observations of religions, but also maintained laws prohibiting Sunday labor. Restrictions are possible on &quot;people's actions when they are found to be in violation of important social duties or subversive of good order, even when the actions are demanded by one's religion&quot;. The matter has not come before SCOTUS since then (the constitutionality of blue laws is now &quot;established law&quot;, until these rulings are overturned, analogous to Dobbs overturning Roe).
The only applicable law is the local trespassing law. If he wants, the proprietor can demand that the patron leave, and if the patron does not leave, he can be arrested for trespassing. It uncontroversial that the First Amendment protects racist declarations.
You are a British citizen: Born in the UK between 1 January 1983 and 1 October 2000 Whether you’re a British citizen depends on where your parents were from and their circumstances. There are different rules if, when you were born: at least one of your parents was a British or Irish citizen at least one of your parents was a citizen of an EU or EEA country neither of your parents was a British, Irish, EU or EEA citizen You’re automatically a British citizen if you were adopted by a British citizen in a UK court. If at least one of your parents was a British or Irish citizen when you were born You’ll be a British citizen if when you were born at least one of your parents was either: a British citizen an Irish citizen living in the UK If the parent that meets these conditions is your father, he must have been married to your mother when you were born. Source: https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizenship/born-in-the-uk-between-1-january-1983-and-1-october-2000 Anyway, to live and work in the UK, you don't need British citizenship, because Irish citizens automatically have that right independent of European Union law (which is why children of Irish citizens born in the UK gain British citizenship). When I answered her question about my parents, and told her neither of them are English, she was instantly dismissive. Did you tell her that they were Irish? If so, she shouldn't have been so dismissive. If she was, then she was wrong. But I just want to know for sure what my rights are regarding the following: getting an English passport As a British citizen, you are generally entitled to a British passport. getting dual citizenship Legally speaking, you already have it. was the lady being truthful She was probably not lying. She probably said what she said because she misunderstood the facts or the law. if I were from a 3rd country, would my birth cert be enough to allow me to live and work in the UK? (Ex. common travel area) Ireland has different rules, but the UK does not have, as others have noted, absolute _jus soli _ If you had been from a third country, you would have been a British citizen only if your parents had had indefinite leave to remain.
A law which punishes a specific person – a "bill of attainder" – is unconstitutional. Private laws, which benefit an individual, are legal. An example is Private Law 112-1, which says Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Sopuruchi Chukwueke shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application for such adjustment of status. Nothing prevents such a bill from being made law, where the benefit is a grant of citizenship. Of course, it has to be signed by the president, or else congress must override his veto.