A history of the laws to remove citizenship and the colonial echoes in their increasing use since 2002
A significant new report authored by the former Garden Court barrister Frances Webber for the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) provides a brief history of the law and practice surrounding British nationality and its removal.
You can download the 22-page report here.
Introducing the report, Webber states: "We are taught to think of our citizenship as something completely reliable and enduring, a core part of who we are and something we generally take completely for granted. But government actions over the past few years have shaken that belief. We are now told that citizenship is 'a privilege, not a right'. Successive legal changes have made it harder to acquire – but easier to lose, for certain groups of people – and in practice, those most affected by these changes are British Muslims, particularly of south Asian heritage."
The report offers a broad look at the history of citizenship-stripping powers and the large increase in their use over the past two decades, all against the background of the colonial roots of British citizenship and the continuing colonial influence on citizenship today.
As noted in the report, issues around citizenship-stripping powers received considerable attention recently due to Clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill and the subsequent Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which allows the Secretary of State to deprive a person their British citizenship without notice.
Webber explains: "Ministers were at pains to point out that the change would affect only a tiny handful of people, that resort to deprivation was very rare. Yet, although the clause didn't change the criteria for the removal of citizenship – who could lose citizenship and for what sort of conduct – it brought home to a wider public how precarious and fragile British citizenship is for Black and Muslim citizens. For them, citizenship has become 'a privilege, not a right', as a result of changes brought in since 2002 whereby anyone with another citizenship, even if they were born and brought up in Britain and know no other country, can lose their British citizenship if deprivation is deemed 'conducive to the public good'. The 'deportation logic' on which the deprivation powers are based – get rid of them, regardless of family ties, or how long they have lived here, if they cause trouble, or can't prove their right to be here – is the same logic that deprived the Windrush generation of their livelihoods, their homes, and in some cases their freedom and their country. Now, it was realised, this same logic, which is inherently expansive, is applied to British-born citizens too – and this drove public anger."
Webber says Clause 9 made people sit up and take notice of previously little-known legal changes since the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 which have fundamentally changed the nature of British citizenship.
The report highlights the huge increase in the number of deprivations on grounds other than fraudulent acquisition of citizenship since 2002. Between 1973 and 2002, there were none. In 2017 alone, there were no less than 104.
According to the report, the vast majority of those deprived of their citizenship are Muslim men with south Asian, Middle Eastern or north African heritage. Webber says: "The extension of the logic of deportation to British citizens is racialised. The changes in the law were all made specifically to de-nationalise Muslims." The Government's assertion that "British citizenship is a privilege, not a right" is to be understood as being directed at Muslims, Webber adds. For 'native' British citizens who are sole nationals, the assertion is "nonsensical".
The report identifies how Shamima Begum, in particular, has been constructed into a hate figure, despite being a vulnerable 15-year-old when she went to Syria.
"The speed of the deprivation decision and the apparent disregard for any 'human' factors in Begum's case endorsed her treatment as a popular hate figure for whom no compassion was possible. Of course, the attitude she displayed to the crimes of ISIS in the early interviews was abhorrent – but lifelong banishment from the country of her birth and only effective nationality seems a terrifyingly disproportionate response, and one which is wrong in principle," Webber writes.
The report finds that such use of citizenship-stripping powers has set up a hierarchy of citizens which recalls the British state's treatment of its former colonial subjects in earlier times.
Webber highlights the examples of the 1968 stripping of British citizenship from some 200,000 residents of Kenya of Indian heritage – "suddenly deprived of their right to enter their country of nationality on racial grounds" – and the Windrush scandal of 2018.
The report states bluntly: "The message sent by the legislation on deprivation of citizenship since 2002 and its implementation largely against British Muslims of south Asian heritage is that, despite their passports, these people are not and can never be 'true' citizens, in the same way that 'natives' are. While a 'native' British citizen, who has access to no other citizenship, can commit the most heinous crimes without jeopardising his right to remain British, none of the estimated six million British citizens with access to another citizenship can feel confident in the perpetual nature of their citizenship."
Webber further notes that "racialised citizenship rights do not exist in a vacuum, but in conjunction with racialised 'hostile environment' anti-refugee and migrant policies and discriminatory policing practices." Such policies and practices, combined with politicians' statements targeting Muslims and sensationalist media coverage, have helped turn British Muslims into a 'suspect community'.
In concluding the report, Webber said: "The message campaigners need to put across is that citizenship is a right, not a privilege, a foundational status which must be enjoyed equally by all citizens. Those who have fallen foul of the law should be subjected to criminal investigation, and if appropriate, to prosecution – but citizenship should not be bought or sold, toyed with or weaponised."