VB1369 - British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill 2018 Watch

Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many as are of that opinion, Aye (22)
48.89%
On the contrary, No (16)
35.56%
Abstain (7)
15.56%
This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1369 - British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill 2018 (Third Reading), 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(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."
(2) S40(2B) shall be inserted into the British Nationality Act 1981 and read as follows: "Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive, and the deprivation of citizenship status would result in a person obtaining ‘stateless' status, the Secretary of State is to be required to present evidence for the deprivation of citizenship to and consult with Parliament, prior to deprivation "
(3) S40(4) and S40(4A) of the British Nationality Act 1981 are hereby repealed.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 rendered 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 which is indeed a right, but as with all rights has responsibilities - in this case, a responsibility to adhere to and support the interests of the United Kingdom.

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.



Changes for the Second Reading
Spoiler:
Show

The level of scrutiny of the deprivation of citizenship, where said action would result in the person becoming stateless, has been significantly increased. The Secretary of State must now have tangible and reliable evidence and consult the PM and Foreign Secretary prior to deprivation. At the same time, the person retains the underlying right for appeal, at all times.

As to remove ambiguity, section 40(2) is no longer affected directly.


Changes for the Third Reading
Spoiler:
Show
The level of scrutiny of the deprivation of citizenship has been further increased to ‘parliamentary scrutiny' as to assuage concerns.

Posted By SpeakerBot
Report an issue | Suggest a feature
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
DayneD89 nay please
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
This Bill is a necessary piece of legislation as to ensure that those who fight against our country, and dare to seek protection under the premise of their 'rights' bestowed by the gift of citizenship can do so no longer. Terrorists are despicable; they have unequivocally contravened the responsibilities associated with the gift of citizenship - they ought to be punished to the full extent of the law, and receive no mercy whatsoever.

In senselessly killing innocent people - mothers, fathers, friends, children... - they are declaring war on the British state.
0
Unown Uzer
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by ns_2)
This Bill is a necessary piece of legislation as to ensure that those who fight against our country, and dare to seek protection under the premise of their 'rights' bestowed by the gift of citizenship can do so no longer. Terrorists are despicable; they have unequivocally contravened the responsibilities associated with the gift of citizenship - they ought to be punished to the full extent of the law, and receive no mercy whatsoever.

In senselessly killing innocent people - mothers, fathers, friends, children... - they are declaring war on the British state.
How do we know that the Government isn't going to abuse the use of this legislation by accusing peaceful, law-abiding people of being terrorists, as was done with Lauren Southern?
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Unown Uzer)
How do we know that the Government isn't going to abuse the use of this legislation by accusing peaceful, law-abiding people of being terrorists, as was done with Lauren Southern?
The Bill makes provision for evidence to be provided to and consultation with Parliament.
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
I applaud the Tory Party for putting forward a sensible bill. However, it doesn't seem to me necessary that the government should have the power to revoke citizenship, and its unclear what benefit revoking it would have other than to potentially allow some sort of kangaroo court designed for people not protected under British law to operate. I frankly have more faith in our domestic judicial system to try terrorists with the full protection of civil liberties legislation, so nay.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Gladstone1885)
I applaud the Tory Party for putting forward a sensible bill. However, it doesn't seem to me necessary that the government should have the power to revoke citizenship, and its unclear what benefit revoking it would have other than to potentially allow some sort of kangaroo court designed for people not protected under British law to operate. I frankly have more faith in our domestic judicial system to try terrorists with the full protection of civil liberties legislation, so nay.
By revoking citizenship, the subjects in question no longer have the universal umbrella protection instilled in British diplomatic ties; they will no longer be able to return to, and seek refuge in the United Kingdom.

In respect to our domestic judicial system, this Bill ensures that prior to deprivation, the subject must have judicial proceedings commenced against them, if possible, as to ensure that they are punished to the full extent of the law.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by ns_2)
By revoking citizenship, the subjects in question no longer have the universal umbrella protection instilled in British diplomatic ties; they will no longer be able to return to, and seek refuge in the United Kingdom.

In respect to our domestic judicial system, this Bill ensures that prior to deprivation, the subject must have judicial proceedings commenced against them, if possible, as to ensure that they are punished to the full extent of the law.
This Bill would only be remotely acceptable if the result was only permissible after judicial determination of human rights elements, ideally by the ECtHR.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
This Bill would only be remotely acceptable if the result was only permissible after judicial determination of human rights elements, ideally by the ECtHR.
As per Section 40A of the Act, the subject retains the right to appeal.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by ns_2)
As per Section 40A of the Act, the subject retains the right to appeal.
The sanction should not be enforced until all appeal routes have been exhausted.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
The sanction should not be enforced until all appeal routes have been exhausted.
The original Act designates that the person must be given notice to deprivation; appeals can occur during this time.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by ns_2)
The original Act designates that the person must be given notice to deprivation; appeals can occur during this time.
The notice provided is unlikely to be sufficient to exhaust all judicial procedure.

The correct procedure would be the SS making an application to court, with the requirement being to prove terrorist intent to a criminal standard and it being subject to ECHR limitations.

Any person who would make another stateless with any risk whatsoever of being wrong is not worthy of having power.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#13
The ayes have it, The ayes it!

Unlock!


Ayes

Noes


Spoiler:
Show

Independent

empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None
empty - None




TSR Conservative & Unionist Party





TSR Labour Party





TSR Liberal Party





TSR Libertarian Party





TSR National Conservative Party






Posted By SpeakerBot
Report an issue | Suggest a feature
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Why do you want to do a masters?

Great for my career (47)
36.72%
I really love the subject (32)
25%
I don't know what else to do (19)
14.84%
I can't get a job (7)
5.47%
My parents want me to (3)
2.34%
I don't know... I just do (20)
15.63%

Watched Threads

View All