New bill gives powers to remove British citizenship without notice

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[najaB]

BBC world service has a long reach, as does word of mouth, from them who went before them.
How do you think they heard of the UK in the first place ?

if you want to change behaviour, you need to change the message.

If you believe that the people of the world are glued to their wireless sets, listening to the World Service then newsflash: it isn't the 1950s!

How did they hear of the UK? Sherlock, Shaun of the Dead, Doctor Who, etc. All of which paint a picture of the UK as a glamorous, exciting place to be! So yes, maybe we do need to change the message - starting with the lies we tell ourselves about life in the UK.

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[najaB]

I assume you've never been out there then?

I've lived more of my life outside the UK than in.

 

[Typhoon]

Says something if we are to now offer better standards to refugees rolling up on dingies, than our armed forces used to collect them.

i’m not against anyone using the correct route for asylum, and believe they should be treated accordingly, but those rocking up in Dover, imo are not genuinely fleeing persecution.. The French have their foibles but they have rule of law.

Napier Barracks were empty, troops were moved out some years ago, some, at least, went to Aldershot. The intention was (still is?) to knock them down for 'much needed housing' - for sale, the funds for the sale paying for the improvement of housing for the armed forces. The site was originally developed for the Napoleonic War and was used as temporary accommodation for those heading to France in both World Wars. In light of its age I don't suppose it has 'All mod-cons'. At least some of the site was used to house Gurkhas, our treatment of whom is not renowned to be of the highest order.

I do agree that it 'says something'. Hopefully you have seen the pictures, it says that we treat our armed forces pretty badly, despite depending on them for all sorts of tasks when things go wrong. And we don't offer 'better standards', they are the same buildings that were no longer of use some time ago, they were destined to be bulldozed so I don't suppose a great deal of maintenance went on in the intervening years.

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

Yes, and not even proper barracks either. There’s a reason Napier is being used and it’s because it’s a notorious dump anyway.

 

[Yew]

Yes. Rights come with responsibilities.

I do not consider that the case, rights are exactly that a right, not some sort of privilege or reward.

 

[AlterEgo]

I do not consider that the case, rights are exactly that a right, not some sort of privilege or reward.

That’s not a morally sustainable answer even if it is legally the case. Even simply being a citizen comes with moral responsibilities.

 

[Yew]

If you believe that the people of the world are glued to their wireless sets, listening to the World Service then newsflash: it isn't the 1950s!

How did they hear of the UK? Sherlock, Shaun of the Dead, Doctor Who, etc. All of which paint a picture of the UK as a glamorous, exciting place to be! So yes, maybe we do need to change the message - starting with the lies we tell ourselves about life in the UK.

If anything, the almost weekly decimation of London by aliens would surely be a deterrent?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2021 ==

That’s not a morally sustainable answer even if it is legally the case. Even simply being a citizen comes with moral responsibilities.

Moral responsibilities are in the unique conscience of the beholder, if there are clear, internationally defined and agreed legal responsibilities, then I suggest you present them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Moral responsibilities are in the unique conscience of the beholder, if there are clear, internationally defined and agreed legal responsibilities, then I suggest you present them.

As reductive an approach as “well, we are taking away your passport because you can’t say WHY you should have the right”, I’d suggest. Two ends of the same horseshoe.

 

[najaB]

I do not consider that the case, rights are exactly that a right, not some sort of privilege or reward.

I agree. Rights aren't privileges or a rewards. They do, however, come with responsibilities.

For example, the right to free speech comes with the responsibility to not scream "Fire" in a crowded cinema, or incite others to unlawful violence.

 

[Yew]

I agree. Rights aren't privileges or a rewards. They do, however, come with responsibilities.

For example, the right to free speech comes with the responsibility to not scream "Fire" in a crowded cinema, or incite others to unlawful violence.

Where is that stipulation made in legislation?

 

[AlterEgo]

Where is that stipulation made in legislation?

Where does legislation *actually* come from, if not the imperative to extend moral principles across a society to tie it together?

 

[najaB]

Where is that stipulation made in legislation?

While "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" is an analogy, incitement to violence is an actual crime in the UK. See the Public Order Act.

 

[Yew]

Where does legislation *actually* come from, if not the imperative to extend moral principles across a society to tie it together?

To quote the government:

Legislation is a law or a set of laws that have been passed by Parliament. The word is also used to describe the act of making a new law.

 

[AlterEgo]

To quote the government:

Okay… Why do we have laws, do you think? And why are our laws different to other places and cultures?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2021 ==

While "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" is an analogy, incitement to violence is an actual crime in the UK. See the Public Order Act.

Indeed, it is an immoral use of the right to free speech. And hence it is illegal. As @Yew tries to avoid confronting, laws have a cultural and moral context and do not exist in some lacuna of reason.

 

[Yew]

Okay… Why do we have laws, do you think? And why are our laws different to other places and cultures?

I struggle to see how this is relevant..

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2021 ==

It seems like you are trying to make a fallacious argument that laws are based on morals, and therefore your personal morals are law, which is clearly untrue.

 

[AlterEgo]

I struggle to see how this is relevant..

You claimed that rights exist in and of themselves and can never be qualified by moral responsibility. This is not a sustainable position.

If a person’s rights do not exist within a context of reason, culture and morality then there is nothing else to stop them being arbitrarily removed, which is something I expect you’d oppose, as do I.

 

[Yew]

You claimed that rights exist in and of themselves and can never be qualified by moral responsibility.

They exist because of legislation and international agreements that make them so. Any responsibilities or conditionalities are the result of that, perhaps subsequent legislation, and not some nebulous concept of 'moral responsibility'. If we wish to attach conditionality to such things, it should be done explicitly in law, in line with our international legal obligations, and agreed by the majority.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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?

I would imagine many would hear from friends or relatives or even friends of friends who are in the UK or have attempted to get in about the challenges involved - which will mean that changes to the system that make it easier/harder to get in will get communicated back. In my experience, people who have lived for generations in the UK tend to have smaller/weaker family/friendship ties than people in many less developed countries tend to do, and I would imagine it's therefore easy for us to underestimate just how much more easily information could spread through the grapevine amongst people thinking of illegally migrating to the UK.

 

[najaB]

I would imagine many would hear from friends or relatives or even friends of friends who are in the UK or have attempted to get in about the challenges involved...

Some would, yes. However some would not. Especially since those who make it are more likely to be able to communicate with their friends/family back home than those who do not.

 

[MattA7]

Has this law been passed yet I know the government tried to increase the number of reasons they can revoke British citizenship before and It created controversy with politicians saying banishment belongs in the medieval times.

If it has been passed or does get passed it is certainly a worrying trend when you think about the other controversial laws such as the one that can make police immune from prosecution etc.

dual/multiple citizenship is quite common nowadays so it’s a law that could concern a large number of people even if they are law abiding citizens.

 

[RSDonovan]

Link: https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...-to-remove-british-citizenship-without-notice

I wish I could say that I'm surprised but the intentions have been writ pretty large for those who cared to see it. Anyone who still holds onto the belief that this government harbours anything other than authoritarian ideology should note this particular quote from the Ms Patel's Home Office:

No. It is a right, quite literally a birthright.

...so only a right for people born here, which was probably the intended meaning

 

[najaB]

...so only a right for people born here,

Being in the UK doesn't, in itself, confer British citizenship. It hasn't since 1986 IIRC.

It is, however, a birth right for everyone eligible for UK citizenship regardless of where they were born.

 

[domcoop7]

I don't agree with this legislation, for what it's worth. But what they're proposing is actually nothing new is substance.

They can indeed revoke British Citizenship if the Secretary of State determines it would be "conducive to the public good" and can persuade a court of that if you challenge the decision. Under international law, however, you can't be left stateless, so it could only apply to somebody who has an alternative citizenship.

The change the law is making is to overturn a court decision where the power to revoke couldn't be used because they couldn't serve the person with notice of it.

The idea is they want to be able to revoke the citizenship of, for example a potential terrorist before they reach the UK. Once they're in the UK, it may be much more difficult to do, because the person can relinquish any other citizenship they hold and then use the statelessness argument to keep the British citizenship. But if the person isn't in the UK, they may be able to avoid being notified that the Secretary of State intends to revoke the citizenship. From the Home Office's point of view, by the time they can notify the person, it could be too late, since they're in the country.

What they want is to cancel the British passport of, e.g., someone sitting in Turkey so they can't even set foot in UK territory without using the passport of some other citizenship they hold (which of course would have the visa denied anyway).

Once again, I think this is wrong, but the above is the thinking behind the proposal. Indeed it was the last Labour government in 2001 who revived what by then was a dormant practice of revoking citizenships. See this link Cambridge Ethics and International Affairs Journal

The right to revoke has progressed most significantly in the United Kingdom, where laws long abandoned but still formally on the books are being reactivated and deployed. Matthew Gibney reports that only ten British citizens were denationalized between 1949 and 1973, and no one suffered this fate between 1973 and 2001.Footnote 21 Since then, however, the government has signaled its intention to redeploy its power to revoke. Citing the importance of enhancing the tools available to the government to fight terrorism, in 2002 the United Kingdom adopted legislation permitting revocation in cases where the secretary of state believes that “an individual's holding citizenship is ‘seriously prejudicial to the vital interests’ of the U.K.”Footnote 22 In 2006 the “vital interests” criterion was expanded, this time to allow the secretary of state to revoke citizenship in cases where an individual's holding British citizenship was “not conducive to the public good,” thus allowing public officials even more discretion in deciding to withdraw citizenship.Footnote 23 As a result, one recent estimate suggests that since 2006 twenty-seven British citizens have been denationalized.”

 

[najaB]

Under international law, however, you can't be left stateless, so it could only apply to somebody who has an alternative citizenship.

Perhaps you missed that the Government's position is that they can (and already have) stripped UK citizenship on the basis that someone is eligible to apply for citizenship of another country. Which very much has left them stateless.

What they want is to cancel the British passport of, e.g., someone sitting in Turkey so they can't even set foot in UK territory without using the passport of some other citizenship they hold (which of course would have the visa denied anyway).

Cancelling a passport and revoking citizenship are two very different things.

 

[domcoop7]

Perhaps you missed that the Government's position is that they can (and already have) stripped UK citizenship on the basis that someone is eligible to apply for citizenship of another country. Which very much has left them stateless.

I am aware. This has been the UK government's position up until a court decision held that a 2002 Act changed the law, and an amendment in 2014 re-asserted that position in statute law. However, in terms of ECHR rights (and also practicality that a stateless person can't be deported anywhere) the gov position is only to use it where a person has the ability to apply for another citizenship, and again for practical reasons, where the person is already abroad.

Cancelling a passport and revoking citizenship are two very different things.

I was giving an example. In practice the point is they don't want the person to be able to come back to the UK.

There's an interesting, but lengthy summary of the background and issues here:- Report of Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (too long to quote in-thread)

 

[Busaholic]

I am aware. This has been the UK government's position up until a court decision held that a 2002 Act changed the law, and an amendment in 2014 re-asserted that position in statute law. However, in terms of ECHR rights (and also practicality that a stateless person can't be deported anywhere) the gov position is only to use it where a person has the ability to apply for another citizenship, and again for practical reasons, where the person is already abroad.

I was giving an example. In practice the point is they don't want the person to be able to come back to the UK.

There's an interesting, but lengthy summary of the background and issues here:- Report of Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (too long to quote in-thread)

I await the first case of someone born in the United Kingdom to British parents, who has never been abroad or possessed a passport, having their U.K. citizenship revoked. Presumably they can then be detained because of the 'offence' of statelessness and incarcerated without trial. This Kafkaesque nightmare, or a version of it, has been played out for many decades past in both Communist and Fascist states, and some who admit to neither but happen to ape their blatant disregard for human rights.

 

[Typhoon]

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.

He is advancing an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill

The former Conservative minister David Davis is calling for controversial plans to send asylum seekers to another country while their claims are processed to be scrapped.

The government’s nationality and borders bill contains several provisions that have generated cross-party concern. These include “offshoring” asylum seekers, criminalising people for the way they enter the UK and giving a new “lower class” refugee status to some people depending on how they enter the UK.

In an amendment tabled on Tuesday, Davis is calling on MPs to remove the clause in the bill that allows asylum seekers to be removed offshore during processing.

Scrap plans to 'offshore' asylum seekers, urges David Davis - The North Atlantic League (and other places)