• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

New bill gives powers to remove British citizenship without notice

Status
Not open for further replies.

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
It is a bill, not an act yet. Is there a significant number of decent tories who might vote against it? I hope so.

As for left-wing lawyers, Michael Mansfield springs to mind, Sir Keir of course, and surely some other labour MPs are lawyers.

Stripping someone of their only citizenship is very problematic and difficult, with good reason.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
It is a bill, not an act yet. Is there a significant number of decent tories who might vote against it? I hope so.

As for left-wing lawyers, Michael Mansfield springs to mind, Sir Keir of course, and surely some other labour MPs are lawyers.

Stripping someone of their only citizenship is very problematic and difficult, with good reason.
It's extremely doubtful that a really left-wing lawyer would ever be appointed Director of Public Prosecutions, which Starmer was.

Stripping someone of their only citizenship is contrary to the United Nations' Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights premise that ''the right to a nationality is a fundamental human right.''
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,254
Location
Grimsby
... 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...
I was only referencing that British Citizenship is an internationalised status not confined to England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but also other nations like the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Monserrat etc.
What law did they break in crossing the Channel?
It's illegal to cross the channel without passing through the customs etc at ports, it's no different to trespassing.
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.
The right to vote is beyond utterly useless, we can only vote for Red Rosette Dimwit and Blue Rosette Dimwit, it makes zero difference who we vote for or if we don't vote at all, either way a politician (expert lier with conflicted interests) claims to represent us even if 60% of a constituency voted for someone else.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,759
I suppose we should tell that to all the people who swim the channel then...
I assume they make the necessary arrangements in advance or on arrival, as would someone crossing the channel in their own craft (in a non illegal immigration sense), or flying their private plane over. I don't do any of the above but assume that those who do know what the procedures are prior to departure / on arrival. Wander straight to the harbourmasters office, airfield administration or local police station or such like. I guess it's does not involve 'run up the beach, hide behind a bush and get changed into dry clothes'!

Having said that:

By

Justin Penrose

  • 00:00, 31 Jul 2011
  • Updated20:28, 7 Feb 2012


Cross Channel swimmer has boat seized because French customs officers think she is an illegal immigrant

A CROSS-Channel swimmer was quizzed by armed customs officers... because they thought she was an illegal immigrant.



A CROSS-Channel swimmer was quizzed by armed customs officers... because they thought she was an illegal immigrant.

Hannah Noble completed a gruelling 18-hour swim from England to France when her support boat was stopped by French officials.

They boarded the vessel and ordered it to Boulogne, then questioned Hannah and her crew, icluding her father Ian, for three hours before letting them go.

Hannah, from Twickenham, West London, said: “I was absolutely shattered when the coastguards came by – so much so that when I was told people had come aboard with guns I thought it was a joke.



“We couldn’t have looked less like illegal immigrants.”

Hannah’s dad Ian said: “They came on and told us to put our hands up. I had to stop myself from laughing as it was so ridiculous.”

Chartered surveyor Hannah, 28, completed the 22-mile challenge on Tuesday for surveyors’ benevolent fund LionHeart and a hospice in Esher, Surrey.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,732
Location
Scotland
I assume they make the necessary arrangements in advance or on arrival, as would someone crossing the channel in their own craft (in a non illegal immigration sense), or flying their private plane over. I don't do any of the above but assume that those who do know what the procedures are prior to departure / on arrival. Wander straight to the harbourmasters office, airfield administration or local police station or such like. I guess it's does not involve 'run up the beach, hide behind a bush and get changed into dry clothes'!
The point is that crossing the Channel isn't, in itself, illegal. Nor is claiming asylum. So I'm still left wondering what law was actually broken? Of course, it could be that @Smokey Joe simply chose to refer to them as "people who illegally crossed the English Channel" in an attempt to dehumanise them, but I'm sure that's not the case. :|
 

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,254
Location
Grimsby
The point is that crossing the Channel isn't, in itself, illegal. Nor is claiming asylum. So I'm still left wondering what law was actually broken? Of course, it could be that @Smokey Joe simply chose to refer to them as "people who illegally crossed the English Channel" in an attempt to dehumanise them, but I'm sure that's not the case. :|
Who the hell is dehumanising anybody?
I called them people, surely that's the most humanising term there is for a collective of humans.

Anyway, folk usually can't apply for asylum if they pass through a safe country like France first. And outside of ferry operations, most boats carrying individuals across the channel are paid services run by organised criminals charging thousands, funding people smugglers is illegal, as is knowingly supporting any crime financially.

In fact your nasty remark is a slanderous insult implying that I don't see foreigners as human. This is a downright lie and slur. I never insulted you personally so why are you trying to make me look like an evil git?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
5,123
Location
County Durham
Stripping someone of their only citizenship is contrary to the United Nations' Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights premise that ''the right to a nationality is a fundamental human right.''
The UK has already done that once in recent years, without this bill to help them.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,126
Location
Redcar
Anyway, folk usually can't apply for asylum if they pass through a safe country like France first.

I mean that's not true. The UN Convention on Refugees places no such requirement on those seeking refugee status to see asylum in the first safe country they come to. Indeed such a requirement would rapidly become unworkable as countries on the edges of areas of humanitarian crisis become overwhelmed whislt countries in safer locations see no asylum seekers whatsoever.

And outside of ferry operations, most boats carrying individuals across the channel are paid services run by organised criminals charging thousands, funding people smugglers is illegal, as is knowingly supporting any crime financially.
This is slightly more open to interpretation as the Convention states that they cannot be penalised for entering a country illegally as long as they're coming directly from where their life or freedom was under threat and present themselves promptly to the authorities. Therefore there is an argument that they aren't coming directly if they've come via France (or elsewhere) but UK caselaw is fairly settled that there is an element choice in where they seek refuge and that as long as any stopovers on route are not lengthy then they do not forfeit their rights to apply for refugee status in the UK. Again, this is as it should be in order to avoid putting all the pressure on countries closest to the crisis area that's generating the people seeking refuge.

Also worth noting that we really do not get that many in the grand scheme of things:

Does the UK have more asylum-seekers than most countries?

No, it does not. In the year ending March 2021, the UK received 26,903 asylum applications from main applicants only.

Over the same period,  asylum applications to other EU countries have also seen a decrease.In 2020, the highest number of asylum applicants received in the EU+ were received by Germany (122,015 applicants) and France (93,475 applicants). In the same period, the UK received the 5th largest number of applicants (36,041) when compared with the EU+ member states, around 7% of the total asylum applicants in the EU+ and UK. This would represent only the 17th largest intake when measured per head of population.

These four Members States account for around three quarters of all first-time applicants in the EU-27. These figures include  all asylum applicants, not just main applicants (i.e. including  children and other dependents). World-wide  around  85%  of all refugees live in developing regions , not in wealthy industrialised countries.

(Source:  Home Office,  EuroStat)

 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Anyway, folk usually can't apply for asylum if they pass through a safe country like France first.
I mean that's not true. The UN Convention on Refugees places no such requirement on those seeking refugee status to see asylum in the first safe country they come to. Indeed such a requirement would rapidly become unworkable as countries on the edges of areas of humanitarian crisis become overwhelmed whislt countries in safer locations see no asylum seekers whatsoever.
To be fair, that line about passing through a safe country (usually named as France, although they almost certainly have been through several other countries first) is often rolled out by politicians although they are careful not to say that they have to apply there while giving the impression that you do. In Kent, Natalie Elphicke and Craig McKinlay are usually front-and-centre spreading the message on a regular basis (other Kent MPs usually have the sense to keep their heads down), and if you hear it often enough, you believe it.

Living near the (North) Sea, there is a notice about being alert for incoming dinghies about 10 minutes walk away when anyone landing is more likely to have made the perilous trip from Canvey Island! Whether it is intentional or not I don't know but some residents (are given and) do have the impression that we are being overwhelmed. Not helped by (probably accurate) reports that Children's social services probably are - because HMG seem to do absolutely nothing about sharing the burden.
Mr Gough said that after taking advice from its Director of Children’s Services, the council would “no longer be able meet our statutory duty to safely care for the children we support” and no further arrivals could be accepted until “sufficient transfers have been made outside of Kent bringing our numbers back to safe levels”.

The council said the government’s recommended maximum number of under 18-year-old UASC that Kent should care for is 231.

Kent’s number of under-18 UASC in care has risen from 274 to more than 400 since the beginning of the year and the numbers are rapidly increasing on a daily basis, according to KCC.
Roger Gough is council leader. Unfortunately, they seem to get very little support from the Home Office (they threatened to take Priti Patel to court earlier). I would suggest that in her heart, the Home Secretary is quite agreeable to this situation continuing.

UASC = Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

(Quote: Council says its children’s services are ‘significantly overwhelmed’ - Northern Ireland news - NewsLocker)
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,471
Location
Glasgow
The right to vote is beyond utterly useless, we can only vote for Red Rosette Dimwit and Blue Rosette Dimwit, it makes zero difference who we vote for or if we don't vote at all, either way a politician (expert lier with conflicted interests) claims to represent us even if 60% of a constituency voted for someone else.
Regardless of how much you think it's a waste of time, it is a benefit of naturalisation that is important to many people.

I'd also mention again that asylum seekers are not actually relevant to this topic because they're categorically not being given British citizenship when they land.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
The UK has already done that once in recent years, without this bill to help them.
Can you provide a reference please? If it's the case I think you may be referring to, it's by no means cut and dried yet.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
16,793
Location
UK
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.
The test is, in fact, even weaker than that.

If this Bill makes it into law, for someone to lose their British Citizenship the Home Secretary will merely have to consider it conducive to the public interest, and to consider that they have the right to obtain another nationality. And they could do so without the subject even being notified, if they consider it in the public interest not to tell them.

That gives the Home Secretary so much latitude that it might as well say "the Home Secretary can strip someone of their citizenship if they feel like it".

It is symbolic of everything that is wrong with politics in this country that the government even feels able to make such a horrific proposal.

In my view, stripping someone of their citizenship is an exceptionally severe measure which should only be contemplated in the most extreme of circumstances.

For example after someone has been convicted of treason, if they hold another nationality by birthright or descent, and obtained their British citizenship through naturalisation.

In no circumstances should it render someone temporarily or permanently stateless (regardless of whether they might be eligible for another citizenship), and in no circumstances should it be at the discretion of the Home Secretary.

The Home Secretary should have to apply to Court and a full hearing should be held; if it's not possible to contact someone or they just decide not to turn up or represent themselves, the matter should be heard ex parte in the same way as most applications for a search warrant.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
If this Bill makes it into law, for someone to lose their British Citizenship the Home Secretary will merely have to consider it conducive to the public interest, and to consider that they have the right to obtain another nationality. And they could do so without the subject even being notified, if they consider it in the public interest not to tell them.
Of course the 'other nation' might consider that the person has no right to claim their citizenship, or it is not in their public interest to grant it (should that be what their laws allow).

This has the potential to lead to diplomatic conflict with other nations. In many cases, HMG probably don't care but there will be some for which a dispute might have serious implications for citizens of this country, should these other nations take reprisals. We are acting as though we are still a great colonial power, able to dump our problems on to others. I have looked back at past Home Secretaries and I struggle to find many so unsuited to the job. She'll stay because the 'blue rinse brigade' like her.
 
Last edited:

chorleyjeff

Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
677
No. It is a right, quite literally a birthright.
My D in L from South America has been paying high rate tax and NI here for nearly 10 years. She applied for UK citizenship and passed all necessary tests. A technical fault with her existing visa was revealed when applying for citizenship ( surely subjectenship ). Has had to leave UK and reapply which will take months at a cost of thousands of £s. Certainly seems getting a UK passport is an obstacle course with no rights attached. Maybe she should step off a boat at Dover without documentation and no possibility of deportation then be given permanent right to stay then UK passport.
But being born here makes it a birthright but otherwise is certainly not unless undocumented.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,126
Location
Redcar
Maybe she should step off a boat at Dover without documentation and no possibility of deportation then be given permanent right to stay then UK passport.
Only that's not even remotely how it works is it? :rolleyes:

It sounds ridiculous the way that your daughter-in-law is being treated but lets not pretend that somehow you just have to rock up at Dover or on a nearby beach and you get handed a passport, a tenancy agreement to a house and an iPhone 13. Because this is abject nonsense.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Only that's not even remotely how it works is it? :rolleyes:

It sounds ridiculous the way that your daughter-in-law is being treated but lets not pretend that somehow you just have to rock up at Dover or on a nearby beach and you get handed a passport, a tenancy agreement to a house and an iPhone 13. Because this is abject nonsense.
Go to Napier Barracks, go direct to Napier Barracks. Do not pass Go. Collect £39.63.

Even those put up in hotels are likely to find that the only redeeming feature the review sites come up with is 'budget friendly'. That is the priority for the Home Office.

Napier Barracks - Napier Barracks: Housing migrants at barracks unlawful, court rules - BBC News
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,732
Location
Scotland
In fact your nasty remark is a slanderous insult implying that I don't see foreigners as human. This is a downright lie and slur. I never insulted you personally so why are you trying to make me look like an evil git?
I suspect you may have misunderstood what I actually meant by "dehumanisation" in this context. It doesn't mean seeing people as not human, it's the antonym of "personification". It means using language that minimises and abstracts away individuality and instead groups people into classes. The questionable dehumanisation is in stressing "illegal" - cf many people using the term "illegal immigrant" vs "undocumented immigrant". Neither slanderous, nor nasty. The questionable dehumanisation is in stressing "illegal" - cf many people use the term "illegal immigrant" vs "undocumented immigrant" in order get their audience to focus on the fact that they arrived "illegally" rather than consider the reasons why they might have left where they were.
My D in L from South America has been paying high rate tax and NI here for nearly 10 years. She applied for UK citizenship and passed all necessary tests. A technical fault with her existing visa was revealed when applying for citizenship ( surely subjectenship ). Has had to leave UK and reapply which will take months at a cost of thousands of £s. Certainly seems getting a UK passport is an obstacle course with no rights attached.
One presumes she is a citizen of another country. Perhaps the one in which she was born? And that she didn't have to submit an application, it's almost like it was a right granted at birth?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,732
Location
Scotland
At the end of the day, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this.
I envy your confidence. You're only a "law abiding" citizen if you don't break the law - and guess who creates the law? Oh yes, the same people who are trying to give themselves the power to remove your citizenship without notice or due process.
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
Dont forget a passport is not an automatic right either.
The real test would be if an Identity Card system was ever introduced here, which I fervently hope never happens, and someone of British nationality living in this country was denied one by the authorities, thus effectively becoming a 'non person.' This scenario is played out in many countries, effectively denying citizens access to any services beyond the most basic, or even gaoled for the 'crime.'
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,169
Location
Elginshire
At the end of the day, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this.
Its aimed at hostile actors who dissapear off radar, and hence the process cannot find them, and its likely they will only surface when it suits them, by which time it might be too late.

I think law-abiding citizens have quite a lot to fear from this. Someone who may not be considered a "hostile actor" now might well find themselves in that position in the future, especially with Priti Patel at the Home Office.

What worries me most is how little I've seen or heard about this in the news - I read it here first.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
I envy your confidence. You're only a "law abiding" citizen if you don't break the law - and guess who creates the law? Oh yes, the same people who are trying to give themselves the power to remove your citizenship without notice or due process.
I'd regard it as merely a slight exaggeration to say that it might well be only law abiding citizens who have to worry about it. We have the money laundering regulations as a warning here, where the rich, famous or just plain criminal, from many nations, seem to get away with anything whereas a little old lady gets hassled by her bank as to how she's got £200 to pay into her personal account of forty years standing.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,471
Location
Glasgow
The real test would be if an Identity Card system was ever introduced here, which I fervently hope never happens, and someone of British nationality living in this country was denied one by the authorities, thus effectively becoming a 'non person.' This scenario is played out in many countries, effectively denying citizens access to any services beyond the most basic, or even gaoled for the 'crime.'

This has already happened in the UK, to scores of people - it's the core of the Windrush scandal:

The Windrush scandal was a 2018 British political scandal concerning people who were wrongly detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation, and in at least 83 cases[1][2][3] wrongly deported from the UK by the Home Office. Many of those affected had been born British subjects and had arrived in the UK before 1973, particularly from Caribbean countries, as members of the "Windrush generation"[4] (so named after the Empire Windrush, the ship that brought one of the first groups of West Indian migrants to the UK in 1948).[5]

As well as those who were deported, an unknown number were detained, lost their jobs or homes, had their passports confiscated, or were denied benefits or medical care to which they were entitled.[3] A number of long-term UK residents were refused re-entry to the UK; a larger number were threatened with immediate deportation by the Home Office. Linked by commentators to the "hostile environment policy" instituted by Theresa May during her time as Home Secretary,[6][7][8] the scandal led to the resignation of Amber Rudd as Home Secretary in April 2018 and the appointment of Sajid Javid as her successor.[9] The scandal also prompted a wider debate about British immigration policy and Home Office practice.

The March 2020 independent Windrush Lessons Learned Review[10][11] conducted by the inspector of constabulary concluded that the Home Office had shown "ignorance and thoughtlessness" and that what had happened had been "foreseeable and avoidable". It further found that immigration regulations were tightened "with complete disregard for the Windrush generation" and that officials had made "irrational" demands for multiple documents to establish residency rights.[12]

Further, I would recommend this article to anybody who feels that the Home Office can be trusted to wield its powers correctly, let alone fairly and proportionately:
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,732
Location
Scotland
Says something if we are to now offer better standards to refugees rolling up on dingies, than our armed forces used to collect them.
While this is a popular talking point on the hard right, the situation - at least as I understand it - is that the amount of space used to house one serviceman is now being used to house four or more migrants.
without needing to pay £k’s on a dingy, this is what needs to be discouraged, and the best way to do this is via the stick approach to encourage the carrot approach.
I agree that we should do as much as possible to discourage people smuggling, but the place and time to do that is back in the home countries of the people being smuggled. By the time they've reached the French coast, or even worse are in the Channel, it is far far too late to even pretend to be preventing the problem.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,732
Location
Scotland
But they might think about if they understand there is a disreward to doing so.
How many people, living in sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East are going to even hear what the dis-reward is or believe a random news story over the lies peddled to them by the human traffickers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top