Link: https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice
No. It is a right, quite literally a birthright.
It will be played out as anti-terrorist, and the event in Liverpool has come at just the wrong time. I wish I could say that Labour would mount an effective opposition. My only hope in that direction is Yvette Cooper. I have tried to find other references but they just seem to be repeats or close copies of The Guardian piece. I really do want to hear moderate Tories mounting a defence, I don't want to know who it can be used against but who it can't. 'reasonably practicable' are just weasel words, I suppose locked up in a foreign jail is "not 'reasonably practicable'" as I suppose is locked up in a foreign jail when you have done nothing wrong.
I don't know how moderate they can be considered to be, but David Davis famously triggered a by-election in his own seat in 2008 to try and spark a debate around civil liberties after proposals to extend the period of detention without charge under the Terrorism Act. I doubt he'd do the same thing now, but he should at least disagree with this move.
compared to Patel, very!!
As things already stand, someone can be deprived of British citizenship if it is deemed to be conducive to the public good. This encompasses not only the more obvious things like terrorism. murder and organised crime but also 'unacceptable behaviours'. To Patel this might just be someone not voting Conservative!
My reading of it is that they can become stateless only if they have obtained British nationality by fraud. There are other reasons that they can have their British nationality revoked, but only if they have another nationality that they hold or can claim: if they don’t have the right to another nationality, they can’t lose their British one.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that, to be clear.
And until that claim is granted (or if it's denied)?
Agreed. The point did seem to be a bit of a loophole (for the government).
Surely that is the issue here. Looking at the those who can claim Irish nationality, it includes (most of) those who were born on the island of Ireland (including Northern Ireland), and those with a Irish grandparent. If other countries are anywhere near as generous, there will be stacks of people who could claim citizenship abroad - and not just the obvious ones; some descendants of those who came to defend this country in time of war (as well as descendants of those we welcomed in the immediate pre-war years as they fled racial 'cleansing' in Europe) would also 'qualify'.
It is pretty harsh, especially if it renders you stateless. I am also puzzled by what you mean by "home nations" I've always taken that to be a reference to the constituent parts of the UK and if you're from the UK then typically you'll have citizenship at birth (or can usually apply for it even if it isn't granted automatically). So, er, I'm not sure how this is a criticism of Government policy. Unless we're using a different definition of "home nations"?
Sounds like a Home Office issue to me. They should be following up on their legal options to remove people who are here illegally. I note that the Liverpool bomber lost his appeal back in 2015 and yet somehow the Home Office still hadn't got around to removing him. I wonder how many other people are here having exhausted their appeal rights and therefore should have been removed!
I'm not an expert but it doesn't sound like a loophole to me. Someone claims they've converted but the Home Office would still have to be satisfied that that such a conversion is actually a firmly held belief. If they are then they'd grant Asylum (in which case the issue is, again, the Home Office). If they're not granted asylum then they would appeal and need to convince a Tribunal that the belief was firmly held. It isn't like they can just go "Yeah man it's like praise Jesus! Hallelujah! He is risen!" and get their asylum application rubber stamped. And if it is then it sounds like the Home Office are failing to do their job.
Unless I've missed a trick it only required Sajid Javid to make an order as Home Secretary to strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship. No court action needed. It then required a legal challenge to get it back. It seems pretty damn simple to be quite honest to strip it from someone. Especially when all they have to allege is that a person could claim citizenship in another country not that they actually have to hold that citizenship.
It is leftie human rights lawyers to blame. Apparently.
. I don't however see an issue with saying that, the person doesn't have to be notified upfront if the Government has made all reasonable efforts, but it's proved impossible to contact that person (for example, because they're abroad in the middle of a civil war zone), as long as that person can exercise a right to appeal once they become contactable.
I suspect you know this already, but I doubt many lawyers exist on the left, they're probably more centrist. However, the current crop in charge are so far to the right that most lawyers will be to the left of the Government's intentions. Either that, and/or they just need an excuse to stoke divide and rule to help further their bad intentions.
Agreed wholeheartedly!However, it seems to me that that kind of decision should always rest with courts and trained judges, never with politicians, and there should always be a right of appeal (which should include being able to travel to and remain in the UK in order to conduct your appeal), so to that extent I'm not comfortable with the current situation where the Secretary of State seems to get to decide - and obviously these proposals don't rectify that
I agree with this as well actually but the problem is the proposed amendment is wider than just "we've tried everything we can and just can't reach them":
To me that's a pretty wide ranging power to not inform someone that they've been stripped of their citizenship! (a) is fair enough if the Government don't have the information to contact someone fine but (b) and (c)? Those are really quite broad.
This was featured on South East Today. I can't vouch for the thousands, I can vouch that they quoted '5', The reason being that last year the Dublin III Regulation applied, and this year it doesn't.
From the House of Commons Library (dated December 2020) so I am assuming it is pretty accurate. Brexit: the end of the Dublin III Regulation in the UK - House of Commons Library (parliament.uk)
What, that a person gains citizenship at birth*? I would've thought that was a pretty clear concept.
Yes. Rights come with responsibilities. And someone can justifiably lose their right to citizenship of a country, chiefly by taking up arms against that country. However the decision to revoke that citizenship should lie with the courts and, as much as is practical, the process should be done in public.
The government has been "granting" it to people who have become eligible for it and who have successfully applied to be granted it. The applicant pays for this process (as an example, the current fee to naturalise from ILR status is £1,330 per person). The only people who are granted British citizenship without having to go through the full application process are the people who are entitled to claim it by way of birth or descent, who must by definition have some connection to the "home nations".
This is true - it is possible to have Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK and never decide to seek naturalisation. This doesn't however mean that naturalisation is pointless; in particular, it is the only way by which a person who doesn't already have citizenship of Ireland or a Commonwealth country can gain the right to vote in the UK.
Given that refugees who have had their claims denied and illegal entrants are already unable to acquire British citizenship by long-term residence, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
There's not only the direct financial cost, but also the fact that they need to be net contributors to society (or at least have no recourse to public funds) for several years before they're even able to apply. So they have a demonstrated commitment to life in the UK.
What law did they break in crossing the Channel?
To me that's a pretty wide ranging power to not inform someone that they've been stripped of their citizenship! (a) is fair enough if the Government don't have the information to contact someone fine but (b) and (c)? Those are really quite broad.
Nationality and Borders Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament
Current version of Nationality and Borders Bill with latest news, sponsors, and progress through Housesbills.parliament.uk
You are being generous, sir. The emboldened reason is little more than a synonym for 'we can't think of a reason that won't be treated with disdain'. The very reason why the courts or a balanced tribunal should decide, not some minister whose electoral future will depend on the popularity of the party leader, whether the popular press is still with them, and whether they've been able to secure a seat that changes hands less often than the occurrence of a blue moon, not whether they are good at their job.
Yes. You did misunderstand me.
The Home Secretary's opinion of what's in the public interest given that the role is a political appointment rather than a civil service appointment will often not align with what's genuinely in the public interest. Being able to strip without notice somebody's citizenship under the guise of "in the public interest" is not a power that should be given to any home secretary, regardless of political allegiance.
