What's new

UK government seeking new powers to remove citizenship without notice

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
17,009
Reaction score
-8
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Indian RSS type law sought by Indian origin MP who has close affinity with Israel.


UK government seeking new powers to remove citizenship without notice
Proposed law would exempt government from giving notice unless 'reasonably practicable' or due to national security or diplomatic concerns
British Home Secretary Priti Patel speaks in the House of Commons in London on 18 October 2021.

British Home Secretary Priti Patel speaks in the House of Commons in London on 18 October 2021 (AFP)
By
MEE staff
Published date: 17 November 2021 19:26 UTC | Last update: 18 hours 6 mins ago
1k Shares
facebook sharing button

twitter sharing button

whatsapp sharing button

messenger sharing button

email sharing button

sharethis sharing button

A new clause added by the UK government to a proposed new nationality and borders bill would give the government the power to strip people of their British citizenship without giving them notice.
The clause, titled the "Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship", exempts the government from having to give notice if it is not "reasonably practicable" to do so, or if stripping citizenship is in the interests of national security and diplomatic relations.
The proposed change to the current law is sponsored by Home Secretary Priti Patel. The bill is currently proceeding through the House of Commons but has yet to be considered by the upper house of the UK parliament, the House of Lords, which can propose amendments to legislation.

Man unlawfully stripped of UK citizenship reunited with family after four years
Read More »
"British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm," a Home Office spokesperson told Middle East Eye.
"The Bill doesn't extend our power to remove citizenship. The requirement to give notice of a decision to deprive citizenship will be disapplied where it is not practicable to do so."
In 2002, the UK introduced measures that allowed British-born nationals and naturalised citizens to lose their nationality rights. Successive governments gradually broadened the scope of those powers.
The government's use of the powers then rose in response to the perceived threat posed by British nationals returning from Syria.
Out of 172 people deprived of citizenship between 2010 and 2018, 104 of those cases occurred in 2017, according to Home Office figures.
The UK and citizenship-stripping powers
+ Show
Passport

The UK has been described by researchers as a “global leader in using citizenship deprivation as a counterterrorism measure”.
Historic citizenship-stripping powers targeted at naturalised citizens on disloyalty grounds had largely fallen into disuse prior to 2002, when the government introduced new measures in an attempt to revoke the citizenship of Abu Hamza, an Egypt-born cleric subsequently convicted of terrorism in the US.
The 2002 legislation allowed British-born nationals as well as naturalised citizens to lose their nationality rights. Successive governments gradually broadened the scope of the powers so that home secretaries can now deprive anyone of citizenship if they are satisfied that doing so is “conducive to the public good” and would not leave an individual stateless.
No criminal conviction is required. Letters often state that individuals are assessed to present “a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom”.
The government’s use of the powers surged to unprecedented levels in response to the perceived threat posed by British nationals returning from Syria.
Between 2010 and 2015, 33 people were stripped of their citizenship, according to Home Office figures. In 2016, 14 people were deprived, and in 2017 the number jumped to 104. In 2018, the most recent year for which figures have been released, the number was 21.
Some subjects of citizenship-stripping orders argue that they have been left effectively stateless, because the government bases its assessment that they are dual nationals on a right of citizenship to a parent’s country of birth, even if they have never taken up that citizenship or even visited the country.
In some cases the Special Immigraton Appeals Commission, which rules on citizenship cases, has agreed: it has ruled in favour of British nationals of Bangladeshi descent on the grounds that Bangladesh does not consider them citizens if they have not claimed Bangladeshi nationality before the age of 21.
Human rights organisations and lawyers have compared the powers to “medieval exile and banishment”. Critics also point out that the powers create a two-tier system in which only those deemed to be dual nationals are at risk of losing their British citizenship; a measure that discriminates against naturalised citizens, immigrants and their children.
Critics and civil liberties groups say removing citizenship is already a contentious power and scrapping the notice requirement would make the government's capacities even more draconian.
"Citizenship is the right to have rights, and stripping a person of citizenship can have life-changing and sometimes deadly consequences," said Emily Ramsden, a senior officer on migration and citizenship at Rights and Security International (RSI).
"Allowing the government to strip people of citizenship without even telling them would deepen the already Kafkaesque struggle of people deprived of citizenship – most of whom are likely from migrant communities – to protect their rights against abuses of power that are allowed to go unchecked by independent judges."

'Morally abhorrent policy'
The proposed change to the law comes after the High Court ruled against the government in a case brought by a woman, known as D4, detained in the al-Roj camp in northern Syria for the families of suspected Islamic State (IS) group fighters.
The court ruled that the UK government's decision to revoke her citizenship in December 2019 was "null and void" because she had not been notified of the decision until her lawyers asked the government to repatriate her in October 2020. She subsequently appealed the decision.
The new clause would remove the need to notify individuals that their citizenship has been revoked in a number of circumstances.
Other proposed rule changes in the bill have also attracted criticism. The current version of the bill would criminalise anyone arriving in the UK by an illegal route, and also criminalises anyone who seeks to save their lives.

9/11 attacks 20 years on: How the 'war on terror' turned full circle
Read More »
On the other hand, it would give immunity to Border Force staff if people die in the English Channel during operations to push migrant boats out of British waters.
"The US government has condemned citizenship-stripping as a dangerous denial of responsibility for your own nationals. Ministers should listen to our closest security ally rather than doubling down on this deeply misguided and morally abhorrent policy," Maya Foa, the director of Reprieve, told the Guardian newspaper.
A Home Office spokesperson told MEE that the decision to deprive a person of citizenship "must be reasonable and proportionate", and that it would work "in accordance with international law".
It is illegal to revoke someone's citizenship if the measure would leave them stateless, meaning that those targeted must be dual nationals or legally entitled to claim citizenship of another country.
In 2019, the UK revoked the citizenship of Shamima Begum, the British woman who at 15 travelled to Syria to join IS.
Earlier this year, Middle East Eye reported on the case of a British man who was able to return to the UK after four years stranded abroad, after the government was found to have wrongly assessed that he was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship.


Recommended

'Silent execution': Palestinian authorities slam Israel after prisoner dies in custody
'All I did was help people': From refugee to rescuer, one Syrian woman's struggle for freedom
Israeli forces pull Palestinian children out of bed to illegally photograph them
 
.
These stupids have made British Citizenship a Glorified visa which can be cancelled anytime without giving any reasons.
No wonder most of non white population, specially Muslims keep a door open for themselves and stay connected to country of origin.
They won't tell you why they kicked you out and won't give you a chance to explain yourself and defend your case.
Fair trial anyone?
 
.
These stupids have made British Citizenship a Glorified visa which can be cancelled anytime without giving any reasons.
No wonder most of non white population, specially Muslims keep a door open for themselves and stay connected to country of origin.
They won't tell you why they kicked you out and won't give you a chance to explain yourself and defend your case.
Fair trial anyone?
My impression is they (UK gov) are preparing for something, not sure what, where they may expect a reaction and use this as a means to repress and subdue. It could be a possible full scale assault on Gaza synchronised with genocide on Indian Muslims or a brutal assault on Iran.
 
.
Britain is a sinking ship. Brexit made that very clear. Frankly, no one really cares what Boris or his team does from this point forward. This is all expected.
 
.
My impression is they (UK gov) are preparing for something, not sure what, where they may expect a reaction and use this as a means to repress and subdue. It could be a possible full scale assault on Gaza synchronised with genocide on Indian Muslims or a brutal assault on Iran.
No, they are just barking mad paranoid.
 
. .
@Meengla must be writing to Priti every day quoting posters for their support to Kashmiris narrating the national security threat to the UK.
 
.
Britain is a sinking ship. Brexit made that very clear. Frankly, no one really cares what Boris or his team does from this point forward. This is all expected.
I opened the news on London in my phone app and was sickened to the core what I read : knifings , murders, rapes, assaults, etc. wasn't this bad before. a lot of people with mental issues caused by drugs roaming the streets randomly killing people, wtf.
 
. .
People will no longer need to be notified that they are being stripped of their citizenship, thanks to a clause smuggled into the nationality and borders bill last week. This is an unfair and draconian measure that MPs ought to be ashamed to pass into law. How can a person challenge a decision that they do not know about? It is hard to imagine that the home secretary, Priti Patel, who has agitated for the death penalty, would lose any sleep over enacting such an unjust, authoritarian measure. But she should think again.
The principle of rule of law is that an individual has a right to know of a decision before their rights can be adversely affected. Currently, the Home Office has to make some effort to contact someone before depriving them of citizenship. Ministers think this legal requirement should be dropped in favour of executive discretion because of the threat, and crucially the fear, of terrorism. The new power is exceptionally broad: notice will not be needed if it would not be “reasonably practicable” to give it; or in the interests of “national security” or diplomatic relations; or for other “public interest” reasons.

The home secretary can revoke British citizenship when it would be “conducive to the public good”, but would not make that person stateless. There is a wrinkle: naturalised citizens could lose their British nationality if the government has “reasonable grounds” for believing they could acquire citizenship of another country. Removing the citizenship of such persons without telling them signals a retreat from one of the law’s most fundamental values.
It also sends a message to a group of Britons, especially non-white citizens and particularly Muslim ones, that despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, their citizenship is far from secure. It seems the lessons from the Windrush scandal have not been learned. Citizens with links to other nations are being told they could be at risk of being deprived of their British nationality without warning and for reasons deemed so security sensitive that they may never be made public.
Ministers have argued that they are ultimately democratically accountable and that this is grounds for judicial deference. But there is no or very little democratic accountability for national security decisions that are shrouded in secrecy and made with little oversight. Between 2006 and 2018, 175 people lost their citizenship on national security grounds – but 100 of those instances occurred in just one year, 2017. There seems little cause to give ministers more leeway about delaying and perhaps even denying information about deprivation of British citizenship.
This policy is also potentially counterproductive – allowing the UK to dodge its international responsibilities by exiling people whom it considers security risks. Britain ought to be dealing with such people at home, not offloading them for others to handle. The increased use of deprivation powers and the expanding categories of people against whom action can be taken suggests this is the thin edge of the wedge. Citizenship may now be revoked for serious crimes, and has been used against the members of “grooming gangs”. The public may have little sympathy, but once the precedent is established then others perhaps guilty of less odious crimes could also be targeted. In a seminal House of Lords judgment on notice in 2003, Lord Steyn wisely said that “surprise is regarded as the enemy of justice”. MPs ought to reject the clause. Citizenship isn’t a privilege dependent on ministerial whim, but a status on which legal order is built.

 
.
How popular is this MP in the conservative party ranks?
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom