B1369 - British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill 2018 Watch

This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#1
What is this?/I'm confused
Hi there. If you're confused as to what is going on here then you are probably new to this section of TSR. This is a Model House of Commons, a forum where we emulate the structure of the Real Life House of Commons as an excuse to debate politics.

If you are seeing this and you want to get involved in the debate, please feel free. You do not need to join a party, get approval or join any group to get stuck in right away. If you enjoy it and you do want to join a party then you can do so here. If you have any questions or need any help please message me. I am the current speaker of the house and part of my role involves offering impartial advice to new members so I will always be happy to answer what questions you have. Alternatively, you can read the new members guide to get advice on a wide range of issues.

Note: Please refrain from making comments about how we spend our free time. It is our free time to spend.


B1369 - British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill 2018, TSR Conservative & Unionist Party





A

BILL

TO

Amend the British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment) Act 2018 as to ameliorate the protection of national interests and security surrounding, principally, deprivation of citizenship.





BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:'

1 - Amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981
(1) S40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 is to be amended to read as follows: 'The Secretary of State is hereby compelled to deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good, to the interests of Her Majesty's Government, to the interests of national security, to the interests of international security, or to the interests of her allies.'
(2) S40(2A) shall be inserted into the British Nationality Act 1981 and read as follows: "Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive, the Secretary of State is to be required to initiate all criminal and judicial proceedings against the person, prior to the deprivation of citizenship."
(3) S40(4) and S40(4A) of the British Nationality Act 1981 are hereby repealed.

2 - Citation and Commencement:
(1) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(2) This act will come into force upon Royal Assent.
(3) This act may be cited as the British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment) Act 2018.

Notes
Spoiler:
Show





The law, specifically section 40, clause 4 of the British Nationality Act 1981, currently stands that the Secretary of State and Home Office cannot deprive an individual of their nationality when it would render said person 'stateless' - regardless of circumstances. This permits those born in the United Kingdom to go out and fight against the United Kingdom, her interests and the interests of her allies whilst retaining citizenship: citizenship is indeed a right, but. as with all rights, has responsibilities - in this case, a responsibility to adhere to, advance and support the interests of the United Kingdom.

By the same token, this Bill extends the powers conferred to the Secretary of State, broadening the aspects and situations in which he or she may act: notably, this Bill changes the working of section 40, clause 2, to a) compel the Secretary to act and b) allows the deprivation of citizenship not only in circumstances where doing so would be conducive to the public good, but to, as the Bill reads, the interests of Her Majesty's Government, to the interests of national security, to the interests of international security, or to the interests of her allies.

That being said, the deprivation of citizenship is an inherently serious matter; one that ought not to be taken lightly, in lieu of the ever present threat of extremism and international terrorism, but one that is necessary.








Posted by SpeakerBot
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 months ago
#2
DayneD89, bot missed [/field] code to end the fields.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 months ago
#3
Absolutely not!!! This is an attack on international human rights and international law.
1
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 months ago
#4
(Original post by Aph)
Absolutely not!!! This is an attack on international human rights and international law.
Sadly, it is not against international law. The provision to make someone stateless was previously part of nationality law as recently as 2003. It is consistent with the UK's obligations under international law, as set out in the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961 and the declaration the UK made on ratifying that Convention in 1966.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 months ago
#5
I think this bill may be far more draconian than the authors intend. Let's take, for example, "Tommy Robinson". Most of us would consider him a rather vile piece of work, and he is indeed a criminal - but would not go so far as to argue for him to lose his citizenship. However, taking it away could well be in the interests of a future Government - for instance, one intent on the total defeat and intolerance of fascism - and you could already argue it would be in the public interest. There are nowhere near sufficient safeguards in place for such a broad power and indeed compulsion to be given to Secretaries of State.
1
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 months ago
#6
"Public good" is a matter of speculation and not something I'd trust to one person, let alone a politician.

(Original post by Conservatives)
The law, specifically section 40, clause 4 of the British Nationality Act 1981, currently stands that the Secretary of State and Home Office cannot deprive an individual of their nationality when it would render said person 'stateless' - regardless of circumstances. This permits those born in the United Kingdom to go out and fight against the United Kingdom, her interests and the interests of her allies whilst retaining citizenship: citizenship is indeed a right, but. as with all rights, has responsibilities - in this case, a responsibility to adhere to, advance and support the interests of the United Kingdom.
Disagree. People have a right to fight against their own country, from outside or from within. No.


Third point: this doesn't affect many people really either.
0
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 months ago
#7
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
There are nowhere near sufficient safeguards in place for such a broad power and indeed compulsion to be given to Secretaries of State.
This exactly. It's too open to interpretation.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 months ago
#8
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
I think this bill may be far more draconian than the authors intend. Let's take, for example, "Tommy Robinson". Most of us would consider him a rather vile piece of work, and he is indeed a criminal - but would not go so far as to argue for him to lose his citizenship. However, taking it away could well be in the interests of a future Government - for instance, one intent on the total defeat and intolerance of fascism - and you could already argue it would be in the public interest. There are nowhere near sufficient safeguards in place for such a broad power and indeed compulsion to be given to Secretaries of State.
The SoS already has the power to do so, but is not permitted to make a person stateless; this is, primarily, the purpose of this bill.
0
username1450924
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 months ago
#9
Mr Speaker, whilst I agree that the Government should have the power to deprive British citizens of their citizenship, I worry about the use of it. I do believe that parliament should have the right to vote on the issue. As such, I will be voting against this unless parliament is given the final say.
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 months ago
#10
Mr Speaker,

What safeguards are there to prevent the Government from abusing its power to revoke the citizenships of those they don't like under the excuse that it is "conducive to the public good"? As we have seen, the UK Government has previously used this line of reasoning to abuse its power by denying journalists entry into the UK, as well as charging non-terrorists under the Terrorism Act. In fact, these are not the only cases where the UK has suppressed freedom of speech in this manner. A journalist reporting on the Haut de la Garenne child abuses in Jersey was detained upon arrival into the UK, as the UK Government was conspiring with the Jersey government to silence journalists daring to expose the truth.

And guess, what? I'm going to present this article from VICE - the same publication that published hate speech suggesting that Jesus was gay. But because even I am more open to different views and free press that the UK Government is, I give merit where merit is deserved, and I believe this article demonstrates yet another example of the UK arresting journalists, just like Russia and China. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/x...ys-child-abuse
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 months ago
#11
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
I think this bill may be far more draconian than the authors intend. Let's take, for example, "Tommy Robinson". Most of us would consider him a rather vile piece of work, and he is indeed a criminal - but would not go so far as to argue for him to lose his citizenship. However, taking it away could well be in the interests of a future Government - for instance, one intent on the total defeat and intolerance of fascism - and you could already argue it would be in the public interest. There are nowhere near sufficient safeguards in place for such a broad power and indeed compulsion to be given to Secretaries of State.
Under section 40(5), the person in question must be informed of the reasons for the deprivation of citizenship and under 40A, which is unaffected by this Bill, there remains the right to appeal, expect in select circumstances, to an independent first-tier tribunal:

40A Deprivation of citizenship: appeal A person who is given notice under section 40(5) of a decision to make an order in respect of him under section 40 may appeal against the decision to the First-tier Tribunal.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 months ago
#12
LOL.

This legislation is completely contravenes article 15 of the UNDHR by giving the government the mechanism to “arbitrarily deprive of [his] nationality.” This article is enshrined into law by the Human Rights Act 1998, as such, I completely and utterly reject this draconian bill from the Conservative Party and urge the entire house to vote nay.

Appalling disregard for human rights that unfortunately doesn’t seem out of place in the TSR Conservative Party considering their prior output just this term. They’re starting to resemble more Vladimir Putin’s United Russia; then Mrs Thatcher’s Tories of old.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 months ago
#13
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
I think this bill may be far more draconian than the authors intend. Let's take, for example, "Tommy Robinson". Most of us would consider him a rather vile piece of work, and he is indeed a criminal - but would not go so far as to argue for him to lose his citizenship. However, taking it away could well be in the interests of a future Government - for instance, one intent on the total defeat and intolerance of fascism - and you could already argue it would be in the public interest. There are nowhere near sufficient safeguards in place for such a broad power and indeed compulsion to be given to Secretaries of State.
Hear, hear! I fully agree with the Rt. Hon. Saoirse and I do hope she seconds my point regarding incompatibility with the Human Rights Act.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 months ago
#14
(Original post by Aph)
Absolutely not!!! This is an attack on international human rights and international law.
Hear, hear!
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 months ago
#15
(Original post by Aph)
Absolutely not!!! This is an attack on international human rights and international law.
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
I think this bill may be far more draconian than the authors intend. Let's take, for example, "Tommy Robinson". Most of us would consider him a rather vile piece of work, and he is indeed a criminal - but would not go so far as to argue for him to lose his citizenship. However, taking it away could well be in the interests of a future Government - for instance, one intent on the total defeat and intolerance of fascism - and you could already argue it would be in the public interest. There are nowhere near sufficient safeguards in place for such a broad power and indeed compulsion to be given to Secretaries of State.
Hear Hear!

I'm disappointed that the Conservative Party feel that it's perfect acceptable to completely undermine Human Rights Law
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 months ago
#16
(Original post by Connor27)
LOL.

This legislation is completely contravenes article 15 of the UNDHR by giving the government the mechanism to “arbitrarily deprive of [his] nationality.” This article is enshrined into law by the Human Rights Act 1998, as such, I completely and utterly reject this draconian bill from the Conservative Party and urge the entire house to vote nay.

Appalling disregard for human rights that unfortunately doesn’t seem out of place in the TSR Conservative Party considering their prior output just this term. They’re starting to resemble more Vladimir Putin’s United Russia; then Mrs Thatcher’s Tories of old.
The provision to make someone stateless was previously part of nationality law as recently as 2003. It is consistent with the UK's obligations under international law, as set out in the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961 and the declaration the UK made on ratifying that Convention in 1966. The UK retained the right to deprive persons of their British nationality and leave them stateless in certain circumstances This power was retained until 2003 when the it was removed it via the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 – in anticipation of signing the 1997 European Convention on Nationality – which explicitly prevents the UK from leaving a person stateless in these circumstances. However the UK never signed or participated in this Convention.

The UK being the UK pushed for an 'opt-out' clause from the UN Convention: we had this 'opt-out'/power in national law (required by the Convention) until 2003, when we decided to relinquish it (by removing it from national law). This would simply return the conferred power.

UN Convention on the reduction of Statelessness - Article 8
(1) A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless

[...]

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time:

(a) that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the Contracting State, the person
(i) has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or
(ii) has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State;

(b) that the person has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of allegiance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 11 months ago
#17
(Original post by Connor27)
LOL.

This legislation is completely contravenes article 15 of the UNDHR by giving the government the mechanism to “arbitrarily deprive of [his] nationality.” This article is enshrined into law by the Human Rights Act 1998, as such, I completely and utterly reject this draconian bill from the Conservative Party and urge the entire house to vote nay.

Appalling disregard for human rights that unfortunately doesn’t seem out of place in the TSR Conservative Party considering their prior output just this term. They’re starting to resemble more Vladimir Putin’s United Russia; then Mrs Thatcher’s Tories of old.
May the Right Honourable Gentleman kindly point to me the clause within the HRA 1998 that stipulates that the deprivation of citizenship is explicitly impermissible?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 months ago
#18
(Original post by ns_2)
May the Right Honourable Gentleman kindly point to me the clause within the HRA 1998 that stipulates that the deprivation of citizenship is explicitly impermissible?
The HRA fully transcribes the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, the right to citizenship is a part of that convention
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 11 months ago
#19
(Original post by Connor27)
LOL.

This legislation is completely contravenes article 15 of the UNDHR by giving the government the mechanism to “arbitrarily deprive of [his] nationality.” This article is enshrined into law by the Human Rights Act 1998, as such, I completely and utterly reject this draconian bill from the Conservative Party and urge the entire house to vote nay.

Appalling disregard for human rights that unfortunately doesn’t seem out of place in the TSR Conservative Party considering their prior output just this term. They’re starting to resemble more Vladimir Putin’s United Russia; then Mrs Thatcher’s Tories of old.
#FakeLibertarian, justifying opposition with "but the HRA"
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 11 months ago
#20
(Original post by Connor27)
The HRA fully transcribes the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, the right to citizenship is a part of that convention
I am fully aware of that fact. The HRA goes above and beyond in its transcription, putting the Convention into statute.

That being said, the ECHR, and by virtue the HRA, does not have a clause stipulating the deprivation of citizenship.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (165)
18.46%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (91)
10.18%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (148)
16.55%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (131)
14.65%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (85)
9.51%
How can I be the best version of myself? (274)
30.65%

Watched Threads

View All