For many, citizenship feels like a right seemingly inherited from birth, which reaffirms our belonging within our home nation. However, it is increasingly becoming a contractual agreement with the government. This places citizenship statuses as highly precarious, especially for ethnic minority groups. The latest change under Clause 9 of the nationality and border bill seeks to further strengthen the governments’ ability to strip individuals of their citizenship. Currently being negotiated at the House of Lords for two weeks, this bill sends the unequivocal message that second-generation immigrants are nothing more than second-class citizens.
Removing citizenship is no new phenomenon, with each Home Secretary deciding on every case personally. Ever since Theresa May announced that “citizenship is a privilege not a right” it has been clear that only the government can determine one’s suitability for citizenship. The Home Secretary already possesses the power to strip citizenships when it is “conducive to the public good” and if the individual is eligible for citizenship within another country. This became particularly prominent in recent years with cases of Islamist terrorism. Clause 9 furthers this political agenda, granting the government power to strip citizenships from individuals unknowingly. This grants immense power to the government, whilst omitting the opportunity for individuals to appeal this decision, as they would be completely oblivious. Consequently, this positions the citizenship of minorities as extremely precarious and conditional. It seems entirely inhumane that one’s citizenship can be stripped away without any knowledge of it. Surely, even if citizenship is not a right, possessing the knowledge of our citizenship status should be?
Placing this much power in the government’s hands certainly does seem dangerous given their history of making mistakes. Most notably, The Windrush Scandal, which occurred in April 2018, resulted in the false targeting of hundreds of legal Caribbean immigrants in the UK by immigration enforcement. Consequently, they lost access to employment, healthcare, and benefits, despite being active members of society. This ‘hostile environment,’ under Theresa May, has been said to encourage racial discrimination, and this would go under the radar if individuals were not told about their loss of citizenship.
Furthermore, the most recent case involves a British man being stranded in Bangladesh between 2017 and 2022 after being made stateless by the Home Office. After traveling to Bangladesh from the UK, his citizenship was stripped on the basis that he was “an Islamist extremist who had previously sought to travel abroad to participate in terrorism-related activity.” Despite providing no evidence of what this activity may have been, he was unable to defend himself as he was not arrested or questioned. Although now having had his citizenship reinstated, his case highlights the dangers of stripping citizenships unknowingly. How can he ever truly feel like a British citizen again when his own country wrongly turned him away, relegating him to a second-class citizen? Clause 9 would only increase the chances of this happening, with many innocent people being stripped of citizenship without any chance of defending themselves. And given that the government is more than capable of making mistakes, how can we trust they won’t abuse this power?
Protests surrounding the bill centre around fears that ethnic minorities will be disproportionately affected compared to their white counterparts. Despite everyone having a right to nationality under international law—preventing statelessness—the British government can strip citizenships if individuals are dual national, or can gain citizenship from somewhere else. Thus, minority groups fear becoming second-class citizens, believing White British individuals would not be equally punished as they lack eligibility for citizenship elsewhere. This diminishes their sense of Britishness, seemingly asserting their citizenship as easily replaceable.
It is estimated that 6 million people, including 40% of non-white ethnic minority subjects, could see their citizenships being stripped without legal debate. Combined with cases, such as the Windrush Scandal, highlights how precarious citizenship does not seem to be universal, with ethnic minorities feeling the full brutality of its effects. This would have a massively fracturing effect on the nation as minorities would be in constant fear of alienation. The government should be more concerned with protecting minorities’ safety and sense of belonging, rather than alienating them, using the façade of national security.
The vagueness of the government’s grounds to strip individuals citizenships heightens fears as some minorities believe the government could take advantage. They could use these powers in less serious situations when it suits them, for instance, during protests conflicting with their political agendas. Thus, their ability to use it whenever it suits them creates a very uncertain and fearful prospect for many minorities.
Longstanding Human Rights campaigners, who are also members of the House of Lords, have united in opposition against the government’s plans. They have supported an amendment removing Clause 9 from the committee stage discussion at Lords, whilst also supporting other restrictions to current citizenship stripping powers. They acknowledge that whilst they are used to inequality and injustice within Britain, this “feels like a very personal insult.” It blatantly disregards any involvement and impact of minorities within Britain due to the ease with which their citizenship can be taken by the government at any moment. This personal offense is highly justified, as it not only reinforces the notion that not all citizens are equal, but that many are not even worthy of belonging within the country.
Still in the discussion phase, it’s hopeful this is the furthest Clause 9 will go. The citizenship of British citizens, and more specifically ethnic minority citizens, is becoming drastically more precarious. We cannot ignore the devastating consequences this could have for thousands of minority groups. Complete faith and trust in our government is necessary for this Clause and in a climate of already great unease and uncertainty, who would want this much power placed in their hands? Whilst citizenship may rely on our individual loyalty and contribution to the nation, depriving individuals of the knowledge of their removed citizenship is just barbaric. Therefore, ignorance for minorities appears to be far from bliss.
Words by Hannah Robinson
Support The Indiependent
We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.