Home Office bid to remove citizenship without notice

[Premi5 2,153]

Saw this on lawyer, Harjap Bhangal’s show yesterday. it can apply even to adults born and lived all life in UK 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/patels-citizenship-stripping-bill-would-accelerate-uk-race-to-the-bottom/

 

Amal De Chickera

26 November 2021, 3.19pm

 

Patel’s citizenship-stripping bill would accelerate UK race to the bottom

Britain already breaks international norms. The Home Office bid to remove citizenship without notice is a landmark on the path to authoritarianism….

Section 40 of the British Nationality Actsets out citizenship deprivation powers in a manner which, in essence, creates three tiers of British citizenship. The most secure, top tier, which cannot be taken away in any circumstances, is afforded to British-born citizens who have no other nationality.

Less secure is the citizenship of those born British, or naturalised, who also have another nationality. Section 40 states that such people can be deprived of their citizenship without leaving them stateless, if the home secretary is satisfied that such a measure is “conducive to the public 

On the least secure, bottom tier are those naturalised as British citizens who have no other nationality. They can be stripped of their citizenship even if this results in their statelessness, if the home secretary believes on reasonable grounds that the person is able to become a citizen of another state….

 

Patel’s power grab

It is in this context that Patel introduced a new clause to the already controversial Nationality and Borders Bill, which is presently at report stage in the House of Commons. If enacted, section 9 of the bill would empower the home secretary to deprive a British citizen of nationality without notice if she does not have the information needed to serve notice, deems it not reasonably practicable to do so, or believes it is in the interests of national security, relations with another state or otherwise in the public interest.

This proposed amendment thus further relaxes the procedural obligations of the Home Office, which is required under current law to give written notice before depriving a British national of their citizenship (a 2018 amendmentallows the Home Office to serve notice to the person’s last known address if their whereabouts are unknown).

 

[Premi5 2,153]

@MisterrSingh  @Ranjeet01  @jkvlondon  @dallysingh101  @kcmidlands @Kau89r8 and other UK wale and any others, what do you think ?

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/priti-patels-new-powers-to-remove-citizenship-would-turn-ethnic-minority-brits-into-second-class-citizens-1339611

Priti Patel’s new powers in the Borders Bill will create a second-tier category of British citizenship

Clause 9 of the Nationalities and Borders bill would allow the Home Secretary to strip a naturalised Brit of their citizenship without any notice at all

Patel is gambling that people won’t care about this (Photo by JESSICA TAYLOR / UK PARLIAMENT / AFP)

 

By Ian Dunt

i columnist

December 7, 2021 4:59 pm(Updated December 8, 2021 9:57 am)

 

Consider the following example, because it’s about to come true. Someone has been a British citizen for decades. They go on holiday. When they try to return, they’re told that the Home Secretary has stripped them of their citizenship. They are not told why. They are not told the charges against them. They have no functioning right of appeal. They have been made stateless, by ministerial fiat.

This would be the consequence of a new provision added to Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders bill, which goes through the Commons over the next couple of days.

Making someone stateless has long been seen as one of the most egregious actions a government can take. In the words of Hannah Arendt, the great scholar of totalitarianism, it deprives people of “the right to have rights”. It makes you an unperson: without protection, without home, without legal status.

Slowly but surely, the Government has given itself the power to impose this condition on British citizens. In certain limited conditions it can do it to people who were born here. But the worst of its powers apply to so-called “naturalised Brits” – people who secured their citizenship through immigration.

It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been citizens. It could be half a century. They have now been established as a second-class citizen by the Home Office.

 

The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allowed the government to strip someone of their British citizenship as long as they had another nationality. The Immigration Act 2014, pushed by then-home secretary Theresa May, went one step further. It allowed her to strip a naturalised Brit of their citizenship even if it made them stateless, as long as they could apply for another nationality.

Then the Home Office started doing something even more extreme. Under the 2014 Act, it had to ‘serve notice’ to the person that they were taking the action against them. This meant that they sent a letter to the person’s last known address.

 

But very quietly, using a regulation which did not have to be debated in Parliament, it gave itself the power to serve notice by putting a copy of it on the person’s file if their whereabouts were unknown. This was tantamount to not giving notice at all. They wouldn’t even know it had happened.

It was, of course, completely insane. It went against any notion of basic reason to say that you had served someone notice when there was no way for them to know it had happened. The High Court agreed. In a case this summer, it ruled that the on-file technique failed to give notice.

Patel waited until the Nationalities Bill was in committee stage and then she went to war with the court ruling. This is becoming a habit of hers. It’s precisely the same technique which she used in the Policing Bill last month to snuff out peaceful protest.

Clause 9 of the bill would allow the Home Secretary to strip a naturalised Brit of their citizenship without any notice at all. The conditions to do this, if you can call them that, are that it would not be “reasonably practicable”, or in the interests of “national security”, or diplomatic relations, or for the “public interest”. These categories – and especially “public interest” – are so broad as to be meaningless.

The clause then takes an extraordinary Orwellian step. It retrospectively authorises the actions the Home Office took before the High Court ruling. “A failure to comply with the duty,” it says, “does not affect, and is to be treated as never having affected, the validity of the order.”

Take a moment to realise what that means. The court ruled that the Government did not follow the law. So now it is trying to pass a new law making the unlawful actions retrospectively legal.

The overall effect of this clause is simple. It is designed to prevent people from securing their right to appeal.

 

This is supposedly guaranteed in the law and nothing in the new clause nullifies that. Instead, it makes it impossible by virtue of practical reality. The people being stripped of their citizenship will very often only find out when they are trying to return to Britain. They are outside the country. And once you’re outside the country, it becomes infinitely more difficult to secure your appeal rights. Sometimes the appeals process takes so long as to be useless. It might time-out before someone is even aware the action was taken. In nearly every case it makes it very difficult to secure evidence or instruct lawyers.

Patel is gambling that people won’t care about this. After all, most of the people targeted are involved in fighting somewhere in the world. Many of them will be genuinely despicable people. The Government will insist that these powers are just to stop terrorists and jihadists.

But in reality, they apply much more broadly than that. If you were born overseas, or one of your parents was, or an aunt, or a friend – it affects you. Anyone who arrived in Britain as an immigrant and then became a citizen comes under these provisions. They can have their status removed from them at a whim, without notification and with no realistic right of appeal.

The racial implications are severe. Most people securing British citizenship are from outside the EU. The most common applications are from Pakistanis, Indians and Nigerians. Non-white Brits are much more likely to face these provisions than white Brits.

The Government has created a second-tier category of British citizenship, which applies predominantly to ethnic minorities. And it has chiseled away at its legal protections so that it can take away that citizenship at any time, without notification, on vague conditions, and with almost no legal redress.

 

First 24 mins of Harjap's show covers it well

 

[MisterrSingh 6,535]

I think I mentioned either last year or earlier how governments initially introduce this type of legislation in response to a fairly unanimous sense of there being a need for such policies at a particular moment in time owing to some great tragedy or crime, knowing that in the future this same legislation will be used to remove opponents of the State or enemies of allies of the State. In our case I expect the Indians to lean heavily on the UK to deal with "Khalistanis" using these laws. Should never have got excited when the Conservatives began stripping Musleh of their citizenship, lol. 

As Sikhs we're stuck between a rock and a hard place: do we campaign to rescind a law that f**ks off dirty Abduls who rape little girls and chop them up into kebab meat, because one day that same law might end up getting a few of us kicked out for speaking out against the Indian state? Do you prioritise between living in a country free of such barbaric Islamic savagery or your cause? 

[dallysingh101 4,437]

3 hours ago, Premi5 said:

@MisterrSingh  @Ranjeet01  @jkvlondon  @dallysingh101  @kcmidlands @Kau89r8 and other UK wale and any others, what do you think ?

I think this the most dangerous political development I've ever seen to emerge in the UK in my life. Harjap nails it in the first video. Insecurity and official 2nd class citizenship for nonwhites. 

[dallysingh101 4,437]

I told you lot these tories come hand in hand with a overt rise in racism. What's next? A return of skinheads? lol!

Just watched 24 minutes of Harjap's first video. I advise everyone to watch it (I like his Panjabi too which is a bonus). 

And a lot of you younguns, especially those who have a soft spot for the goray here. You need to stop bending over and listen to what conscious old-schoolers have to say. People from Harjap's and my generation, have seen exactly what hordes of these indig people are like, and what they'd like to return too given half a chance (which is where it's heading right now).  

I think one of Harjap's more profound statement in that video was how he's explicitly said that this is an eye opener and gives us a clear window into how the establishment and the majority of indigs view us. There is no excuse for rose-tinted anhkhaan now. We've already seen how Sikhs, specifically, seem to have been targeted almost like a test run for these panchoday. Remember Jaggi. Remember those two apnay in that van in Scotland everyone surrounded. Look at that case where brothers were being pulled up for some bull5hit attempt on the Badals years ago. Look at all the gorment sponsored 'reports' about 'Sikh extremism'. Look at the obfuscation of grooming. I know we have a lot of mota dimaags in our quom, but surely even the most oafish apnaa can smell the coffee now?   

[kcmidlands 317]

The whole thing is absolutely disgusting, they've tried to test the waters with this in the past with the like of Shamima Begum and this is the next evolution of that, when politicians in the USA are calling this clause a step back into the dark ages you know somethings wrong.

It essentially means if two people commit the same offence, protest or speak out against the UK government the guy with the brown skin is potentially going to get kicked out of the country even if he was born and bred here and the white guy either get's a slap on the wrist or a jail sentence and yet they insist it's not racist, the whole "Christmas Party" nonsense from last week, while important in it's own place, was just used as a decoy to make sure people didn't question this clause too much.

Harjap's video's are a must watch for anyone who doesn't understand this clause or it's implications, we all need to tell these MP's to go do one when they come knocking for votes at home or at our religious institutions, they're all a bunch of self serving twats bar a few.

[Ranjeet01 2,859]

8 hours ago, Premi5 said:

@MisterrSingh  @Ranjeet01  @jkvlondon  @dallysingh101  @kcmidlands @Kau89r8 and other UK wale and any others, what do you think ?

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/priti-patels-new-powers-to-remove-citizenship-would-turn-ethnic-minority-brits-into-second-class-citizens-1339611

Priti Patel’s new powers in the Borders Bill will create a second-tier category of British citizenship

Clause 9 of the Nationalities and Borders bill would allow the Home Secretary to strip a naturalised Brit of their citizenship without any notice at all

Patel is gambling that people won’t care about this (Photo by JESSICA TAYLOR / UK PARLIAMENT / AFP)

 

By Ian Dunt

i columnist

December 7, 2021 4:59 pm(Updated December 8, 2021 9:57 am)

 

Consider the following example, because it’s about to come true. Someone has been a British citizen for decades. They go on holiday. When they try to return, they’re told that the Home Secretary has stripped them of their citizenship. They are not told why. They are not told the charges against them. They have no functioning right of appeal. They have been made stateless, by ministerial fiat.

This would be the consequence of a new provision added to Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders bill, which goes through the Commons over the next couple of days.

Making someone stateless has long been seen as one of the most egregious actions a government can take. In the words of Hannah Arendt, the great scholar of totalitarianism, it deprives people of “the right to have rights”. It makes you an unperson: without protection, without home, without legal status.

Slowly but surely, the Government has given itself the power to impose this condition on British citizens. In certain limited conditions it can do it to people who were born here. But the worst of its powers apply to so-called “naturalised Brits” – people who secured their citizenship through immigration.

It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been citizens. It could be half a century. They have now been established as a second-class citizen by the Home Office.

 

The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allowed the government to strip someone of their British citizenship as long as they had another nationality. The Immigration Act 2014, pushed by then-home secretary Theresa May, went one step further. It allowed her to strip a naturalised Brit of their citizenship even if it made them stateless, as long as they could apply for another nationality.

Then the Home Office started doing something even more extreme. Under the 2014 Act, it had to ‘serve notice’ to the person that they were taking the action against them. This meant that they sent a letter to the person’s last known address.

 

But very quietly, using a regulation which did not have to be debated in Parliament, it gave itself the power to serve notice by putting a copy of it on the person’s file if their whereabouts were unknown. This was tantamount to not giving notice at all. They wouldn’t even know it had happened.

It was, of course, completely insane. It went against any notion of basic reason to say that you had served someone notice when there was no way for them to know it had happened. The High Court agreed. In a case this summer, it ruled that the on-file technique failed to give notice.

Patel waited until the Nationalities Bill was in committee stage and then she went to war with the court ruling. This is becoming a habit of hers. It’s precisely the same technique which she used in the Policing Bill last month to snuff out peaceful protest.

Clause 9 of the bill would allow the Home Secretary to strip a naturalised Brit of their citizenship without any notice at all. The conditions to do this, if you can call them that, are that it would not be “reasonably practicable”, or in the interests of “national security”, or diplomatic relations, or for the “public interest”. These categories – and especially “public interest” – are so broad as to be meaningless.

The clause then takes an extraordinary Orwellian step. It retrospectively authorises the actions the Home Office took before the High Court ruling. “A failure to comply with the duty,” it says, “does not affect, and is to be treated as never having affected, the validity of the order.”

Take a moment to realise what that means. The court ruled that the Government did not follow the law. So now it is trying to pass a new law making the unlawful actions retrospectively legal.

The overall effect of this clause is simple. It is designed to prevent people from securing their right to appeal.

 

This is supposedly guaranteed in the law and nothing in the new clause nullifies that. Instead, it makes it impossible by virtue of practical reality. The people being stripped of their citizenship will very often only find out when they are trying to return to Britain. They are outside the country. And once you’re outside the country, it becomes infinitely more difficult to secure your appeal rights. Sometimes the appeals process takes so long as to be useless. It might time-out before someone is even aware the action was taken. In nearly every case it makes it very difficult to secure evidence or instruct lawyers.

Patel is gambling that people won’t care about this. After all, most of the people targeted are involved in fighting somewhere in the world. Many of them will be genuinely despicable people. The Government will insist that these powers are just to stop terrorists and jihadists.

But in reality, they apply much more broadly than that. If you were born overseas, or one of your parents was, or an aunt, or a friend – it affects you. Anyone who arrived in Britain as an immigrant and then became a citizen comes under these provisions. They can have their status removed from them at a whim, without notification and with no realistic right of appeal.

The racial implications are severe. Most people securing British citizenship are from outside the EU. The most common applications are from Pakistanis, Indians and Nigerians. Non-white Brits are much more likely to face these provisions than white Brits.

The Government has created a second-tier category of British citizenship, which applies predominantly to ethnic minorities. And it has chiseled away at its legal protections so that it can take away that citizenship at any time, without notification, on vague conditions, and with almost no legal redress.

 

First 24 mins of Harjap's show covers it well

 

I believe that Harjap has a Portuguese passport  (taken around Brexit time) so if the sh1t hits the fan he will have somewhere to go.

This government says one thing and does another.

Priti Patel talks tough (she is f'n useless) and yet there are thousands of people coming over the channel in boats.

So potentially there are millions of non-white people who will have their citizenship stripped away but the government cannot even control the borders. 

So what are they going to do, are they going to put us in camps? 

[dallysingh101 4,437]

What the heck!!! Rishi Sunak is Panjabi!!!!!!

[dallysingh101 4,437]

18 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I believe that Harjap has a Portuguese passport  (taken around Brexit time) so if the sh1t hits the fan he will have somewhere to go.

This government says one thing and does another.

Priti Patel talks tough (she is f'n useless) and yet there are thousands of people coming over the channel in boats.

So potentially there are millions of non-white people who will have their citizenship stripped away but the government cannot even control the borders. 

So what are they going to do, are they going to put us in camps? 

No but they'll make examples of people. Just to satisfy the indigs. It'll be the perfect way to placate them about the boat migrants. 

[Suchi 347]

17 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

What the heck!!! Rishi Sunak is Panjabi!!!!!!

Actually they're all just slaves to the NWO and part of the Not Great Reset. 

[kcmidlands 317]

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I believe that Harjap has a Portuguese passport  (taken around Brexit time) so if the sh1t hits the fan he will have somewhere to go.

This government says one thing and does another.

Priti Patel talks tough (she is f'n useless) and yet there are thousands of people coming over the channel in boats.

So potentially there are millions of non-white people who will have their citizenship stripped away but the government cannot even control the borders. 

So what are they going to do, are they going to put us in camps? 

She may be useless but what her cronies are getting her to do set's a very dangerous precedent, if they get away with it the person who is having their citizenship revoked has no right to appeal, even someone convicted of murder has a right to appeal, someone gets booted out and people will think twice about protesting because Priti and her gang are planning new anti-protest laws.

If this Clause get's through without change, the first time they try it on with someone, the shits well and truly going to hit the fan in this country.

Remember the suitcases our grandparent's used to keep packed just in case, remember what they used to tell you when you asked them, that generation knew what they were talking about/

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

What the heck!!! Rishi Sunak is Panjabi!!!!!!

He's about as Punjabi as a Jamie Oliver Punjabi Chicken Curry mate.

[Premi5 2,153]

2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

We've already seen how Sikhs, specifically, seem to have been targeted almost like a test run for these panchoday. Remember Jaggi. Remember those two apnay in that van in Scotland everyone surrounded. Look at that case where brothers were being pulled up for some bull5hit attempt on the Badals years ago. Look at all the gorment sponsored 'reports' about 'Sikh extremism'. Look at the obfuscation of grooming. I know we have a lot of mota dimaags in our quom, but surely even the most oafish apnaa can smell the coffee now?   

Somewhat related, good news, the UK is still favourable to Sikhs sometimes. Cannot be coincidence that one of the High Court judges is, but I am confused why he would have been allowed to be involved

Pushpinder Saini

https://www.geo.tv/latest/386878-uk-high-court-turns-down-indias-appeal-to-extradite-sikh-secession-activist

 Friday Dec 10 2021

Murtaza Ali Shah

UK High Court turns down India's appeal to extradite Sikh secession activist

• Indian govt filed a plea seeking permission to challenge district court's order refusing Kuldeep Singh's extradition.
• UK High Court rules that the district judge's order is comprehensive and clearly reasoned and cannot be faulted.
• India accuses Singh of conspiring with others to commit terror activities in Punjab in 2015-16.

---

 

The High Court in England on Thursday rejected the Indian government's petition seeking permission to challenge a district court's order turning down the extradition of Khalistan movement activist Kuldeep Singh on humanitarian grounds, giving a huge blow to India's efforts to suppress pro-Khalistan activities in the United Kingdom.

Singh — most wanted in India as an alleged senior member of the banned Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF) — who is also known as Keepa Sidhu, has been charged by the Indian authorities with allegations of conspiring with others to commit terror activities in Punjab in 2015-16. The Indian government has also accused Singh of plotting to assassinate the then chief minister and deputy chief minister Parkash Singh Badal and Sukhbir Singh Badal, recruiting young Sikhs from Indian Punjab in the KZF through bribery, and arranging meetings of Khalistan activists in Gurdwaras.

On Thursday, the UK High Court judged, Nicola Davies and Pushpinder Saini, maintained the decision issued by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court and ruled that the district judge's order is comprehensive and clearly reasoned and cannot be faulted.

 

Read more: Sikh secessionist group meets UN officials over Modi govt’s attempts to criminalise Khalistan Referendum

 

“There are no grounds upon which it would be appropriate for this court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the district judge,” the high court concluded while rejecting the Indian government's appeal.

In January 2021, District Judge Gareth Branston at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruled that as the offenses carry maximum sentences and “no possibility of a review of such a life sentence with a view to its commutation, remission, termination or conditional release”, extraditing Singh would go against Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Justice Branston had penned the verdict that Singh was not treated badly in India and that there was undisputed evidence of a "conspiracy to commit criminal offenses" in India against him, but questioned the proportionality of a life term without parole. judgment, if such a sentence were imposed upon Mr Singh in the context of this case, then such a sentence would plainly be grossly disproportionate to the offending alleged.

“Whilst clearly very serious allegations, Mr Singh is alleged to have been involved in the funding and recruitment of terrorist activity. As is observed, there is no evidence that anyone was actually killed as a result of his alleged activities. He is accused of acts preparatory to terrorist offences," the judge stated.

Besides the human rights issue relating to a life sentence without parole, the court also found that there is “insufficient evidence to make a case requiring an answer by Kuldeep Singh”.

The high court decision is being deemed a serious setback for India's efforts to not only curb the pro-Khalistan activities in the UK but also to criminalise the Khalistan Referendum leaders including Sikhs For Justice General Counsel Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, Khalistan Referendum coordinators for UK-EU and Canada, Paramjeet Singh Pamma and Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

A few years ago, the Indian government got Pamma arrested in Portugal only to fail in securing his extradition to India. Pamma continues to actively work and campaign for the Khalistan Referendum in the UK and EU.

India claims that it will get the SFJ — a lawfully registered entity — and its Khalistan Referendum activities banned by the UK, Canada and US. 

It is understood that India is trying its best to criminalise the SFJ leaders and activists recognized by the western countries on account of their non-violent secessionist activities such as holding an unofficial ballot for carving a sovereign country Khalistan out of the Indian territory which is seen as a legitimate political expression.

 

 

[Premi5 2,153]

Just looked at gov website on voting for this bill, which MPs voted 'aye'/'noe'

https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1175?byMember=False#notrecorded

None of the Conservative MP's voted against, even all the colored ones. Rishi Sunak and Alok Sharma did not put a vote

[kcmidlands 317]

1 hour ago, Premi5 said:

Just looked at gov website on voting for this bill, which MPs voted 'aye'/'noe'

https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1175?byMember=False#notrecorded

None of the Conservative MP's voted against, even all the colored ones. Rishi Sunak and Alok Sharma did not put a vote

I think with bills like this they are all expected to tow the company line otherwise they face the party whip, it's still no excuse for not having any morals.

[dallysingh101 4,437]

3 hours ago, kcmidlands said:

I think with bills like this they are all expected to tow the company line otherwise they face the party whip, it's still no excuse for not having any morals.

So what happens next? 

Is the bill passed or is it yet to be discussed?