5 ms·

Stripping someone’s citizenship sounds like a “tough penalty for the worst” kind of thing, but what is the actual point? I get that an IS terrorist is not a ni

Stripping someone’s citizenship sounds like a “tough penalty for the worst” kind of thing, but what is the actual point? I get that an IS terrorist is not a nice person to have, but arguably as a country I’d rather be able to put them in my on prison than have less control over them. You could arbitrarily strip their rights anyway with a law, and can’t do worse than basic human rights, citizen or not. My suspicion is that this is meant to be more of an “oops” law. Oh we mixed you up with a terrorist so here’s your citizenship gone. Ah well you can apply to have it reinstated in person in UK. Oh you can’t enter the country? Give us 6 months to think about it.

mananaysiempre 5y ago
> Stripping someone’s citizenship sounds like a “tough penalty for the worst” kind of thing, but what is the actual point? As a piece of prior art, the Soviet Union’s policy for revoking citizenship served as an implicit threat of “you’ll become unemployable, homeless, and not eligible for any and all social services up to and including emergency medicine if you gamble on being able to leave and lose”[1]. More recent policies, e.g. the current dual-citizenship French one, seem to be declarations in the vein of “even if you have achieved the coveted naturalized status, you’ll forever be second-class”. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otkaznik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otkaznik
belval 5y ago
I think you're tinfoiling a bit hard here. My guess is that this is just a populist move, you left the country to fight with ISIS, well guess what, we aren't paying to bring you back and don't feel the need to get your out of whatever horrible prison you're in. The real question to me is what will Canada do. The terrorist in question is "Canadian" but iirc never set foot in Canada and is only asking for asylum because the UK stripped him from his citizenship. Now that is much more interesting because this creates a clash between that most Canadian would associate with citizenship (having lived a least a bit in Canada) and the law.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  I’d agree it sounds tinfoily, but the Windrush scandal in the UK went along similar lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal TLDR is that people who had permanent right to live in the UK and arrived as children were forcibly deported to countries they never lived in, via a humiliating process. The only clear reason for it was the principle of “hostile environment”, that is that life must be made difficult for illegal immigrants at every stage; went as far as people who were actually “legal”...
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  If those were truly their goals, they could just pass a law saying they won’t provide consular services or aid to those who fight for ISIS. Stripping citizenship isn’t necessary.
- detaro 5y ago
  We're talking a system which had to be told by the courts that if the law requires to give somebody notice that the process to revoke citizenship was initiated, it can't count "we put the papers in their internal Home Office file" as "delivery of notice". We're talking the system of the Windrush scandal, which only after intense pressure cost the Home secretary her job, and which two following holders of the position haven't managed to actually effectively implement the measures promised to attempt to fix the damage done. Strong skepticism is sadly warranted.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >The real question to me is what will Canada do. The terrorist in question is "Canadian" but iirc never set foot in Canada and is only asking for asylum because the UK stripped him from his citizenship. Now that is much more interesting because this creates a clash between that most Canadian would associate with citizenship (having lived a least a bit in Canada) and the law. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience
drcongo 5y ago
With Priti Patel's involvement, this is almost certainly what you say in the last paragraph. The most pernicious, malicious minister we've ever had.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  - Veen 5y ago
Veen 5y ago
As the article hints, I think it's more to do with a tension between the Government and the courts. Home Secretaries are frequently blocked from removing citizenship or deporting terrorists/terrorist sympathisers by the courts, largely because of human rights legislation.
- janstice 5y ago
  Another way of writing that is that the courts prevent the government from taking unlawful actions. The tension is between the government and the law.
  - Veen 5y ago
    Yes, but that law is made by Parliament and the government has asked Parliament to change it.
pydry 5y ago
Terrorism is a pretext. Much like almost every other bill passed in the name of terrorism this one is about raw power. 99%+ of its intended use will be against non terrorists. I suspect they'll eventually use it to deport naturalized citizens convicted of pretty much any crime, which will scare the rest into line.

mananaysiempre 5y ago

> Stripping someone’s citizenship sounds like a “tough penalty for the worst” kind of thing, but what is the actual point? As a piece of prior art, the Soviet Union’s policy for revoking citizenship served as an implicit threat of “you’ll become unemployable, homeless, and not eligible for any and all social services up to and including emergency medicine if you gamble on being able to leave and lose”[1]. More recent policies, e.g. the current dual-citizenship French one, seem to be declarations in the vein of “even if you have achieved the coveted naturalized status, you’ll forever be second-class”. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otkaznik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otkaznik

belval 5y ago

I think you're tinfoiling a bit hard here. My guess is that this is just a populist move, you left the country to fight with ISIS, well guess what, we aren't paying to bring you back and don't feel the need to get your out of whatever horrible prison you're in. The real question to me is what will Canada do. The terrorist in question is "Canadian" but iirc never set foot in Canada and is only asking for asylum because the UK stripped him from his citizenship. Now that is much more interesting because this creates a clash between that most Canadian would associate with citizenship (having lived a least a bit in Canada) and the law.

rich_sasha 5y ago
I’d agree it sounds tinfoily, but the Windrush scandal in the UK went along similar lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal TLDR is that people who had permanent right to live in the UK and arrived as children were forcibly deported to countries they never lived in, via a humiliating process. The only clear reason for it was the principle of “hostile environment”, that is that life must be made difficult for illegal immigrants at every stage; went as far as people who were actually “legal”...
CogitoCogito 5y ago
If those were truly their goals, they could just pass a law saying they won’t provide consular services or aid to those who fight for ISIS. Stripping citizenship isn’t necessary.
detaro 5y ago
We're talking a system which had to be told by the courts that if the law requires to give somebody notice that the process to revoke citizenship was initiated, it can't count "we put the papers in their internal Home Office file" as "delivery of notice". We're talking the system of the Windrush scandal, which only after intense pressure cost the Home secretary her job, and which two following holders of the position haven't managed to actually effectively implement the measures promised to attempt to fix the damage done. Strong skepticism is sadly warranted.
TMWNN 5y ago
>The real question to me is what will Canada do. The terrorist in question is "Canadian" but iirc never set foot in Canada and is only asking for asylum because the UK stripped him from his citizenship. Now that is much more interesting because this creates a clash between that most Canadian would associate with citizenship (having lived a least a bit in Canada) and the law. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience

drcongo 5y ago

With Priti Patel's involvement, this is almost certainly what you say in the last paragraph. The most pernicious, malicious minister we've ever had.

rich_sasha 5y ago
- Veen 5y ago

Veen 5y ago

As the article hints, I think it's more to do with a tension between the Government and the courts. Home Secretaries are frequently blocked from removing citizenship or deporting terrorists/terrorist sympathisers by the courts, largely because of human rights legislation.

janstice 5y ago
Another way of writing that is that the courts prevent the government from taking unlawful actions. The tension is between the government and the law.
- Veen 5y ago
  Yes, but that law is made by Parliament and the government has asked Parliament to change it.

pydry 5y ago

Terrorism is a pretext. Much like almost every other bill passed in the name of terrorism this one is about raw power. 99%+ of its intended use will be against non terrorists. I suspect they'll eventually use it to deport naturalized citizens convicted of pretty much any crime, which will scare the rest into line.