@JamesGreyX@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 You are a dual citizen so neither would take priority. Not that you wouldn't have full rights. You're not fully British or fully Jamaican as a dual national as your genealogy would be mixed. Perhaps you are intentionally missing the point. Which was not about citizenship rights
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 Are Native American native or are the Clovis people Native American. Because you said original settlers are indigenous. This would mean going back a few thousand years to confirm genealogy. Why am I white British and black Afro carribean mixed race? Using current uk definitions.
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 No you have expected me to know your definitions and then questioned the intelligence of those who don't know where Nigeria was. You've then stated you must be born and bred to be of a nationality. You still haven't answered many questions.
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 Ad hominem attacks always show that the poster has lost their argument and now resorts to throwing insults. Well done. Simon says you need to look at what you posted before you contradict yourself.
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 I stated my lineage. You wanted to try and make a point about indigenous people and that somehow I couldn't be genetically Jamaican. Which then undermined your own Nigerian lineage. You seem to have missed that contradiction. And I don't understand simple English. Ok
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 No I used your settler definition. I was questioning your definition of settlers being indigenous. Not the dictionary definition. Which dictionary by the way. The Oxford dictionary the Collins dictionary? So
Are slaves settlers?
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 I made the same point and you criticised it. Nationality being separate from a persons genetics/geneology. Why did we even engage in the debate??
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 Yes I said that did you not read the post where I stated we are descended from various African tribes. But are now Jamaican as we pooled there. Using your definitions of pooling of people. But there haven't been indigenous Jamaicans since arawacks.
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 You just said the only people who can be indigenous of that nation are the original settlers. So you aren't Nigerian if you are then born there but not an original settler. How do you know they were Nigerian by your own definition without birth right evidence?
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 I already answered the same as your Nigerian genealogy. Or when you said it's where people pooled borders don't matter. But they aren't indigenous as that's the Arawak Indians. And obviously they are descended from various Africa tribes who now are modern day Jamaicans.
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 Really I've seen the Angles mentioned as well as other historical genotypes. Did you not pay for an actual test just a cheap one from Amazon? And the truth comes out. It's not Nigeria it's actually more specific.
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 I'm following fine. You're now avoiding answering. You're changing your definitions more frequently than the British weather. Now countries merely reflect where people pooled ok. Genetically Jamaican would be the same as your Nigerian genealogy. Does that help.
@slmd8787@LBC@TomSwarbrick1 I mentioned Jamaica and you spoke of arawak Indians to then not recognise Africas own tribal heritage seems to be a tad intellectually dishonest. I thought this was an honest debate. So when I say Jamaican isn't that obvious?