What's new

U.K. pass bill to remove citizenship without notice

An indian sitting the british govt as the home minister, bet your bottom dollar most who will have their precious british citizenship revoked, would be Muslim and surprise, surprise Pakistani Muslims. With britain no longer in E.U, it doesn't need to conform to their Humanitarian Laws. So now when they are out of the E.U, they will have british interpretation of humanitarian laws.

Anyone who speaks up against the state, label him/her a terrorist and throw him/her out of the country.
 
.
Good move to fight terror.

Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut with things you no not of and not lick a white mans arse just for the color of it ignoring the taste .

terror my backside :




‘Affront to the Windrush generation’: Home Office to deport non-criminals to Jamaica for first time since scandal
Government accused of employing ‘deport-first-ask-questions later approach’


<p>Among those set to be deported is a 20-year-old woman with no criminal convictions who has been in the country since she was 13 and has no relatives in Jamaica</p>

Among those set to be deported is a 20-year-old woman with no criminal convictions who has been in the country since she was 13 and has no relatives in Jamaica


The Home Office is chartering a plane to deport Jamaicans who have no criminal record for the first time since the Windrushscandal broke, in what has been described as an “affront to the Windrush generation”.

Among those set to be forcibly removed from the UK is a 20-year-old woman with no criminal convictions who has been in the country since she was 13 and has no relatives in Jamaica.


The flight, which is scheduled for 10 November, marks the fourth mass deportation to the Caribbean since the Windrush scandal broke in 2018, when it emerged that large numbers of Commonwealth nationals had been stripped of their rights despite living in the UK for decades.

Since then, the Home Office has made a point of the fact that the charter flights to Jamaica have held only foreign national offenders who have committed what it described as “serious” crimes.

However, the upcoming flight, which is due to carry up to 50 deportees, is due to have at least three people on board who have no criminal convictions, indicating a shift in the government’s position.

One of them is a woman who came to the UK with her mother at the age of 13. They arrived on a joint visitors visa, but shortly before they were due to return her mother fell down a flight of stairs and developed a serious injury, meaning she was not fit to fly.


The woman, 20, said they tried to apply for an extension but were turned down by the Home Office. She started attending school in Britain and repeated attempts to regularise their immigration status on family life and human rights grounds since then have been refused. Both she and her mother were detained while signing on with the Home Office last Friday.

Speaking to The Independent from Yarl’s Wood, the woman, who did not wish to be named, said: “I feel confused. I haven’t been to Jamaica for years, I’ve adapted to being in the UK, everything I know is here, we have no relatives there. Going back... it will be difficult to cope.

“I had no control of what happened when I was a kid. I focused on school in the UK, I made friends and worked hard. I don’t want to go and start all over again. I never thought this could happen.”

Her older sister, 27, who came to the UK as a teenager with her father and is now a British citizen, said that she has been trying to help her mother and sister secure their immigration status for years – but that they had been given poor legal advice on a number of occasions.


“Over the years we’ve paid solicitors a lot and often they’ve really messed up. Sometimes we’ve paid them a lot of money and then tried to contact them but they wouldn’t answer their phones,” she told The Independent.

“My sister has been going through a lot mentally. She started to self-harm a few years ago. She got good grades in high school and college and wants to work in healthcare.”


Ms Roberts added: “It feels like the Home Office doesn’t think about people’s mental health. They don’t take into consideration that when they send you back with no support, people there look down on you.”

Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who has has written to the government demanding that the two women are not deported, said: “This decision typifies the way the government frequently fail to make a proper assessment of individuals’ situation and needs in their haste to deport.

“What we’re seeing is exactly the same deport-first-ask-questions later approach that led to so much suffering in the Windrush scandal. The government shouldn’t be tearing apart vulnerable families dealing with difficult personal circumstances – especially not while we have an ongoing pandemic.”

Campaign group Movement for Justice said that out of 17 among them whom it has spoken to, the majority (10) came to Britain aged 16 or younger, with five 10 or younger. Nine of them have been in the UK for 20 years or longer.


Many of the individuals are parents of British children, with at least 24 youngsters said to be at risk of losing their fathers as a result of the charter flight. Three deportees are said to have a direct Windrush connection through their grandparent or close elderly relative.

Karen Doyle, national organiser for Movement for Justice, said the fact that people with no criminal convictions were now being deported was an “affront to the Jamaican diaspora here in the UK, to the Windrush generation and the Jamaican government”.

She added: “The mass deportation charter flight has meant families being broken apart, children being left without parents, people with mental health difficulties and disabilities locked up.”
 
.
Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut with things you no not of and not lick a white mans arse just for the color of it ignoring the taste .

terror my backside :




‘Affront to the Windrush generation’: Home Office to deport non-criminals to Jamaica for first time since scandal
Government accused of employing ‘deport-first-ask-questions later approach’


<p>Among those set to be deported is a 20-year-old woman with no criminal convictions who has been in the country since she was 13 and has no relatives in Jamaica</p>

Among those set to be deported is a 20-year-old woman with no criminal convictions who has been in the country since she was 13 and has no relatives in Jamaica


The Home Office is chartering a plane to deport Jamaicans who have no criminal record for the first time since the Windrushscandal broke, in what has been described as an “affront to the Windrush generation”.

Among those set to be forcibly removed from the UK is a 20-year-old woman with no criminal convictions who has been in the country since she was 13 and has no relatives in Jamaica.


The flight, which is scheduled for 10 November, marks the fourth mass deportation to the Caribbean since the Windrush scandal broke in 2018, when it emerged that large numbers of Commonwealth nationals had been stripped of their rights despite living in the UK for decades.

Since then, the Home Office has made a point of the fact that the charter flights to Jamaica have held only foreign national offenders who have committed what it described as “serious” crimes.

However, the upcoming flight, which is due to carry up to 50 deportees, is due to have at least three people on board who have no criminal convictions, indicating a shift in the government’s position.

One of them is a woman who came to the UK with her mother at the age of 13. They arrived on a joint visitors visa, but shortly before they were due to return her mother fell down a flight of stairs and developed a serious injury, meaning she was not fit to fly.


The woman, 20, said they tried to apply for an extension but were turned down by the Home Office. She started attending school in Britain and repeated attempts to regularise their immigration status on family life and human rights grounds since then have been refused. Both she and her mother were detained while signing on with the Home Office last Friday.

Speaking to The Independent from Yarl’s Wood, the woman, who did not wish to be named, said: “I feel confused. I haven’t been to Jamaica for years, I’ve adapted to being in the UK, everything I know is here, we have no relatives there. Going back... it will be difficult to cope.

“I had no control of what happened when I was a kid. I focused on school in the UK, I made friends and worked hard. I don’t want to go and start all over again. I never thought this could happen.”

Her older sister, 27, who came to the UK as a teenager with her father and is now a British citizen, said that she has been trying to help her mother and sister secure their immigration status for years – but that they had been given poor legal advice on a number of occasions.


“Over the years we’ve paid solicitors a lot and often they’ve really messed up. Sometimes we’ve paid them a lot of money and then tried to contact them but they wouldn’t answer their phones,” she told The Independent.

“My sister has been going through a lot mentally. She started to self-harm a few years ago. She got good grades in high school and college and wants to work in healthcare.”


Ms Roberts added: “It feels like the Home Office doesn’t think about people’s mental health. They don’t take into consideration that when they send you back with no support, people there look down on you.”

Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who has has written to the government demanding that the two women are not deported, said: “This decision typifies the way the government frequently fail to make a proper assessment of individuals’ situation and needs in their haste to deport.

“What we’re seeing is exactly the same deport-first-ask-questions later approach that led to so much suffering in the Windrush scandal. The government shouldn’t be tearing apart vulnerable families dealing with difficult personal circumstances – especially not while we have an ongoing pandemic.”

Campaign group Movement for Justice said that out of 17 among them whom it has spoken to, the majority (10) came to Britain aged 16 or younger, with five 10 or younger. Nine of them have been in the UK for 20 years or longer.


Many of the individuals are parents of British children, with at least 24 youngsters said to be at risk of losing their fathers as a result of the charter flight. Three deportees are said to have a direct Windrush connection through their grandparent or close elderly relative.

Karen Doyle, national organiser for Movement for Justice, said the fact that people with no criminal convictions were now being deported was an “affront to the Jamaican diaspora here in the UK, to the Windrush generation and the Jamaican government”.

She added: “The mass deportation charter flight has meant families being broken apart, children being left without parents, people with mental health difficulties and disabilities locked up.”

Isn't Africa closer than West Indies?
 
.
Cancelling their citizenship is against basic human rights.
I thought you don't believe in human rights as envisioned in the West?

The UK is going into a tyrannical mode. I believe even simple protesting can land you in prison for many years.
Have you been to Pakistan? Run into Pakistani police and you will learn the meaning of 'tyranny'.

Oh, and can we agree that this is aimed at non-white people?
It's aimed at trouble causers within the context of UK. Right now this tends to be Pakistani's, Somalis etc. It is NOT aimed at Indians or Turks or Japanese so your 'non-white people' is not accurate reflection.
Cancelling their citizenship is against basic human rights.
I thought you don't believe in human rights as envisioned in the West?

The UK is going into a tyrannical mode. I believe even simple protesting can land you in prison for many years.
Have you been to Pakistan? Run into Pakistani police and you will learn the meaning of 'tyranny'.

Oh, and can we agree that this is aimed at non-white people?
It's aimed at trouble causers within the context of UK. Right now this tends to be Pakistani's, Somalis etc. It is NOT aimed at Indians or Turks or Japanese so your 'non-white people' is not accurate reflection.
 
. .
This bill got its pros and cons, but I can see priti Patel abusing it, I hope it doesn’t end something like what happened in Kenya in the future, funny that this bill Was introduced by someone who was kicked from Kenya due to her ethnicity.
 
.
:coffee:
This bill can make large demographic , un British really fast and create a major divide
Seems to be geared towards WWIII and possible relocation of minorities over

Otherwise why would a country develop a law to revoke citizenship

The conditions in world are very similar to how things were around WW1

  • Pandemic hitting world economies
  • Disruption in Employment / Protests on street for Jobs
  • Unknown economic forecast
  • Tension globally between West / Eastern (Far East ) , and Europe divided in between
  • FATF creating a polarized world , Isolating Russia & China and their allies


World War 1 :

One Side

Germany , Austria , Bulgaria , Turkey (Which expanded all of Africa & Middle East)

Side Two
USA , Italy , Japan , UK (Included Sub Continent), France , Russia

Flu Pandemic

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current World Situation

One Side

China , Russia , Central Asia , North Korea , Iran

Undecided
  • France
  • Germany
  • Turkey
  • Korea
  • Egypt
  • Middle East
  • Pakistan
  • India
  • Ukraine
  • Spain

Side Two
USA , UK , Australia , Japan , Israel

Covid Pendemic



There is a great tussle at Sea between Russia/China and growing US involvement in Pacific
FATF is a an attempt from US to align it's interest to pressurize Russia & China


But I could be wrong ..what do I know? :coffee:
 
Last edited:
.
Terrorists don't get the same rights as normal citizens. Stripping the citizenship will allow the UK government to deal with the terrorists accordingly.
What if the terrorist is an Anglo Saxon white person, where will they deport him or her after stripping him or her of their nationality? Maybe to India because India is the cradle of the white civilization. BTW remember the IRA.

As I always say Indians are not deep thinkers.
 
Last edited:
.
The British government is escalating its assault on democratic rights, quietly introducing new amendments into its authoritarian Nationality and Borders Bill as it passes through report stage.
The latest update, noted in the UK’s media only by the Guardian, would further strengthen the state’s ability to revoke citizenship, without even needing to give notice of their actions. The new provision could be applied retrospectively to people deprived of citizenship before it became law.
The 111-page Bill is at committee stage ahead of its third reading in the House of Commons. It is due to receive royal assent in the spring and become law.
The power to strip citizenship has been steadily extended over the last two decades. Although provision existed in law prior to the Labour government’s Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in practice no deprivation powers were used between 1973 and 2002. Before 2002, the law only allowed deprivation of citizenship from naturalised citizens, not citizens by birth.
Tony Blair’s 1997-2007 Labour government extended the power to all British citizens, including birth citizens, in cases deemed “prejudicial” to national interests.
Since then, successive governments have further relaxed the legal constraints and broadened the range of justifications. Labour led the way. A 2006 amendment authorised deprivation of citizenship if it was “conducive to the public good.”
This has formed the basis for attacks on rights over the last decade, with successive Tory administrations linking the provision ever more closely to immigration. For the first time, the 2014 Immigration Act allowed for citizenship deprivation even where it might cause statelessness.
It set three conditions if statelessness might result: it only covered naturalised citizens; it applied to “seriously prejudicial” conduct; and the Secretary of State should have “reasonable grounds” for thinking the person can acquire citizenship elsewhere.
The number of deprivations of citizenship has risen drastically as a result. A Freedom of Information (FoI) request revealed that 81 deprivation orders were issued between 2011 and 2015. There were 14 in 2016, followed by 104 in 2017.
The government has already signalled its intentions. In 2019, then Home Secretary Sajid Javid revoked the citizenship of Shamima Begum, who had left Britain in 2015 as a 15-year-old schoolgirl to join, after being groomed online, the Islamic State (IS) group in Syria. Rendering her effectively stateless was justified on the grounds that she would be entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship.
The Bangladeshi government rejected this, as she had never visited the country, had no Bangladeshi passport, and had never applied for one. They said if Begum had been involved with IS in Pakistan she would face the death penalty: “If anyone is found to be involved with terrorism,” said Abdul Momen, Bangladeshi Minister for Foreign Affairs, “We have a simple rule. There will be capital punishment. And nothing else.”
Her case was used to generate a xenophobic and anti-Muslim storm and was a test case for further attacks. Israeli journalists have noted that all Jews, who are entitled to Israeli citizenship if they emigrate, could easily be deprived of British citizenship under the terms of the amendment.
Clause 9 of the current Bill, which was added without any discussion earlier this month, extends the provision, allowing the government to evade “Notice of a decision to deprive a person of citizenship” if that is not “reasonably practicable.” It also exempts the government from responsibility for notifying the person if this is deemed in the interests of national security, diplomatic relations or otherwise in the public interest.
This discretionary approach would augment the Home Secretary’s draconian powers. It was presaged by a 2018 provision allowing the government to “notify” someone simply by placing a copy of the order on their file if their whereabouts were unknown.
Now the requirement for notification has been eliminated altogether in cases where the home secretary deems it necessary. From the wording in the Bill, it seems this provision can also be applied retrospectively if an individual was not notified before the clause became law, which casts doubt on the possibility of appealing the decision.
May Foa, director of human rights organisation Reprieve, said the new clause would give Home Secretary Priti Patel “unprecedented power to remove your citizenship in secret, without even having to tell you, and effectively deny you an appeal. Under this regime, a person accused of speeding would be afforded more rights than someone at risk of being deprived of their British nationality. This once again shows how little regard this government has for the rule of law.”
Emily Ramsden of advocacy group Rights and Security International told Middle East Eye, “Allowing the government to strip people of citizenship without even telling them would deepen the already Kafkaesque struggle of people deprived of citizenship—most of whom are likely from migrant communities—to protect their rights against abuses of power that are allowed to go unchecked by independent judges.”
It is a deliberate removal of those rights. The Nazis stripped Jews and political opponents of their regime of their citizenship to deprive them of their basic legal and democratic rights. In the post-war period, there has been a consensus view of citizenship, cited by Ramsden, as “the right to have rights.”
Johnson’s government explicitly rejects this. In a typically underhanded statement, a Home Office official described British citizenship as “a privilege, not a right.” The Home Office justified amending the law “so citizenship can be deprived where it is not practicable to give notice, for example if there is no way of communicating with the person,” although this repressive condition already exists in law.
The government denies the Bill extends its scope to deprive citizenship, but the amendment is part of a raft of measures that tear up international legal obligations. The Bill is draft legislation of an autocratic despotism. A team of leading immigration lawyers have called it the “biggest legal assault on international refugee law ever seen in the UK,” breaching international and domestic law in at least 10 ways.
Patel has seized on last weekend’s terrorist bombing in a carpark at Liverpool hospital to attack both the asylum system and any rule of law based on democratic rights. The bombing, she said, reflected “how dysfunctional” the asylum system is, and how “we need to change” a “professional legal services industry [that] has based itself on rights of appeal, going to the courts day in, day out at the expense of the taxpayers through legal aid.”
The attack by the Home Office on lawyers emphasises there is to be no legal recourse for anyone. The Bill would criminalise anyone arriving in the UK by “irregular means” and “illegal routes.”
This is already in violation of the UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention of Human Rights. The Bill further criminalises anyone who seeks to save the lives of those in trouble during such perilous journeys. Its fascistic “ pushback ” policy will grant immunity to Border Force staff if migrants die in the English Channel in the process of its enforcement. In breach of all maritime laws, the provision demonstrates the government’s determination to make deliberate acts of murder official policy.
The Home Office is seeking to impose even more sweeping attacks on the right to asylum, as part of its declared “hostile environment” against refugees. The immediate deportation of detained migrants to a processing centre in Albania is being proposed, according to plans leaked to the Times on Thursday. This emulates the Australian government’s so-called “ Pacific solution ” —cruel, indefinite detention in remote locations. The Times reported, “Albanian ministers played down the report of an agreement today, although The Times understands that the talks are continuing. Edi Rama, the Albanian prime minister…”
“Offshore processing” is significantly more expensive even than detention in Britain but is part of attempts to tear up legal obligations. Detaining migrants at centres against their will would breach international law. The newspaper said that “Plans to fly illegal Channel arrivals out of the UK within seven days would cost £100,000 per asylum seeker.”

Source: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/11/19/nabb-n19.html

UK plej dont cancel visas for corrupt politicans, mafias, fugitives etc from third world country other wise it will be violation of human rights. You know like nawaj is very important agent who brings billions of looted money to ur old fart royal banks.
 
.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'you could have Indian citizenship'. An Indian origin person who takes foreign nationality is no different from a European or African person if he wants to acquire Indian citizenship again. Indian citizenship law is very restrictive. India wants less people by any and all means :laugh:

What I mean is "if you could be eligible for".

Do a quick Google for "how to get Indian citizenship" and you'll find descent is one of those paths.

Do you might move to Canada and give up your Indian nationality, but your children are legally able to apply for Indian nationality, assuming they gave up thier Canadian nationality in the process.

The UK govt, is abusing this system to potentially strip people of thier nationality.
 
. . .
If you remove a person's nationality, where does he go?

Which other country is legally obliged to accept him?
 
.
If you remove a person's nationality, where does he go?

Which other country is legally obliged to accept him?

The purpose if stripping the citizenship is to put the person behind bars and not to allow the person leave the UK.
 
.
The onus is the citizens to prove that they are patriotic and faithful towards the UK.
the tide can turn in the next election when labor wins and decides that gujrati people are terrorists or North Indians are terrorists because of Kashmir ….. its upper dangerous to allow politicians to decide who is a good citizen and who is not ….. this same rule can be used against polish who speak against the Goverment …… so removing a naturalized citizen is an extremely bad idea


Terrorists don't get the same rights as normal citizens. Stripping the citizenship will allow the UK government to deal with the terrorists accordingly.

read the above response depending on who is in power this equation can change

It depends on citizenship... in most cases it is a naturalised person; hence correct, the citizenship can be revoked - this is not only in UK but many countries.

However to revoke citizenship of a natural born citizen is a complete violation of UN charters.

in case of a natural born Uk resident it was decided to move th,e back to Bangladesh …… this could happen to any of you including Indians irrespective of what you think

No, as per international laws - no one can be stateless.

Canadian conservatives also tried to implement such a law. But even the most hawkish law makers had to acknowledge that this law will only apply to dual nationals to abide with international law.

yes we remember those black days when the conservatives thought it was ok to strip nationalities of people who had a dual nationality of France and supported Quebec independence.….. the idea that you can strip citizenship without a judge and a legal process is preposterous! In Canada history only 2-3 people have lost their citizenship and those people were convicted of war crimes. Otherwise we as a society should deal with the people who have lived here and have different thinking then the main stream. Alternatively let’s deport all the anti Vaxers …… this law should be fought at every level.

imagine if they start deporting citizens back because they got traffic tickets to show some politicians ability to look though

k


k
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom