B1465 – British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#1
B1465 – British Nationality Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill 2019, TSR Government
A
BILL
TO

Amend the British Nationality Act 1981 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, unless for reasons for national or international security, have tangible and reliable evidence and present such to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, or equivalent, and the Prime Minister, 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(3) S40(4) and S40(4A) of the British Nationality Act 1981 are hereby repealed.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) Bill 2019.

Notes
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.

This Bill is particularly important given the media attention surrounding Miss Shamina Begum - a British national - who wishes to return to the United Kingdom.

0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 months ago
#2
I’m dubious about whether or not this is compatible with the Human Right Act 1998 and the various articles on statelessness and the right to a family life.

If the government is willing to include HRA Repeal in this then I will support it, however as it stands the dubious legal status of this bill will lead me to vote no.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 months ago
#3
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
1
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 months ago
#4
(Original post by Connor27)
I’m dubious about whether or not this is compatible with the Human Right Act 1998 and the various articles on statelessness and the right to a family life.

If the government is willing to include HRA Repeal in this then I will support it, however as it stands the dubious legal status of this bill will lead me to vote no.
ECtHR said that you can revoke citizenship; it has to be a proportional infringement on right to fam/private life.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
We have a reservation under the Convention for naturalised persons.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 months ago
#5
(Original post by Connor27)
I’m dubious about whether or not this is compatible with the Human Right Act 1998 and the various articles on statelessness and the right to a family life.

If the government is willing to include HRA Repeal in this then I will support it, however as it stands the dubious legal status of this bill will lead me to vote no.
The Human Rights Act makes no provisions for 'citizenship'.

In terms of other international obligations, JD is right to cite the 'UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961' which states under Article 8...

(1) A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.

That being said, the convention goes onto say:

(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.

The United Kingdom made a declaration upon ratification - thus, the action of depriving citizenship even in the case of causing statelessness is permitted under international obligations. This Bill simply confers the power back to the SoS to act upon the reservation given to the convention.
0
Lord Vitiate
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 months ago
#6
(Original post by ns_2)
The Human Rights Act makes no provisions for 'citizenship'.

In terms of other international obligations, JD is right to cite the 'UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961' which states under Article 8...

(1) A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.

That being said, the convention goes onto say:

(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.

The United Kingdom made a declaration upon ratification - thus, the action of depriving citizenship even in the case of causing statelessness is permitted under international obligations. This Bill simply confers the power back to the SoS to act upon the reservation given to the convention.
It is limited interpretation time, I see.
1
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 months ago
#7
Isn't this already covered by the Immigration Act 2014?

Real life Act btw, section 66.
Last edited by DayneD89; 6 months ago
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 months ago
#8
(Original post by DayneD89)
Isn't this already covered by the Immigration Act 2014?

Real life Act btw, section 66.
This Bill concerns the removal of citizenship once acquired; not the process of acquisition itself.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 months ago
#9
(Original post by ns_2)
This Bill concerns the removal of citizenship once acquired; not the process of acquisition itself.
Unless both myself and several media sources are reading it wrong, that's exactly what the section I pointed at refers to, the removal of UK citizenship in cases where it would make the person stateless.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 months ago
#10
(Original post by DayneD89)
Unless both myself and several media sources are reading it wrong, that's exactly what the section I pointed at refers to, the removal of UK citizenship in cases where it would make the person stateless.
That section simply amended the British Nationality Act - which this is always amending.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 months ago
#11
(Original post by ns_2)
That section simply amended the British Nationality Act - which this is always amending.
I'm aware of that, both this bill and the existing Act amend the same section. The existing Act allows for the SoS to revoke a persons citizenship, even when that would lead the person stateless, if 'the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom'.

Can you tell me why your bill is better than the existing legislation?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 months ago
#12
I'm against this.

Declaring someone not-British so that they can't come to the UK simply forces another country to have that person within their borders, because we're refusing to accept them, even if they are British and therefore has nowhere to go. That's not fair on other countries. If we believe that individuals are a threat to our country then we have a criminal justice system aimed at protecting the people. I don't see why said system cannot be applied to cases where an individual with British citizenship wishes to re-enter the UK, rather than stripping them of any claim to belong to any country at all.

I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise if this bill wouldn't be doing this, but I'm disappointed at the lack of link to the original legislation regardless.
2
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 months ago
#13
(Original post by DayneD89)
I'm aware of that, both this bill and the existing Act amend the same section. The existing Act allows for the SoS to revoke a persons citizenship, even when that would lead the person stateless, if 'the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom'.

Can you tell me why your bill is better than the existing legislation?
This Bill revokes 40(4):

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 months ago
#14
(Original post by ns_2)
This Bill revokes 40(4):

(4)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
Again, the Immigration Act 2014 introduces section 4A, which allows the SoS to revoke citizenship even if that leaves someone stateless. I feel like we're doing circles here xD Try googling 'Immigration Act 2014 stateless' and you'll find plenty of media sources commenting on that change.

Or, y'know, look at the Act I originally pointed you towards
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 months ago
#15
(Original post by DayneD89)
Again, the Immigration Act 2014 introduces section 4A, which allows the SoS to revoke citizenship even if that leaves someone stateless. I feel like we're doing circles here xD Try googling 'Immigration Act 2014 stateless' and you'll find plenty of media sources commenting on that change.

Or, y'know, look at the Act I originally pointed you towards
Section 4A includes the following clause, thereby preventing true statelessness.

(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 months ago
#16
(Original post by ns_2)
Section 4A includes the following clause, thereby preventing true statelessness.

(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory
True, though this will be the case for most people. The only people your bill would effect would be British people with no link to any other nation. People with duel nationality or who have family in a different country are already effected by current legislation.

What your bill does is extend these powers to people who will be in the worst possible position with simply nowhere to go. In cases where they have some link to another country I think it is completely reasonable to revoke citizenship, but existing legislation does that. For people born and raised within the UK and who have no links to any other state I think it is irresponsible to make them stateless.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#17
Report 6 months ago
#17
no. we're not a third world country and we shouldn't live like a third world country. we don't leave our citizens stateless for another country to deal with. we also do justice and treat our citizens fairly. if prosecution is deserved, then we must prosecute. but we don't deny citizens basic civil rights instead of, or in the meantime.
Last edited by Joleee; 6 months ago
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 months ago
#18
(Original post by Joleee)
no. we're not a third world country and we shouldn't live like a third world country. we don't leave our citizens stateless for another country to deal with. we also do justice and treat our citizens fairly. if prosecution is deserved, then we must prosecute. but we don't deny citizens basic civil rights instead of, or in the meantime.
Basic civil rights have basic civil responsibilities.

For example, if you fight against and support the view of the 'destruction of the West', you are unequivocally violating your allegiance to your country; to that end, you cannot have the protections of that country.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 months ago
#19
(Original post by DayneD89)
True, though this will be the case for most people. The only people your bill would effect would be British people with no link to any other nation. People with duel nationality or who have family in a different country are already effected by current legislation.

What your bill does is extend these powers to people who will be in the worst possible position with simply nowhere to go. In cases where they have some link to another country I think it is completely reasonable to revoke citizenship, but existing legislation does that. For people born and raised within the UK and who have no links to any other state I think it is irresponsible to make them stateless.
If they think it's right to destroy their own country, I believe they do not deserve the rights of said country.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 months ago
#20
(Original post by ns_2)
If they think it's right to destroy their own country, I believe they do not deserve the rights of said country.
Note the wording of the amendments made in the Immigration Act. The SoS only needs reasonable grounds that they are able to get citizenship in another country, so not that they have citizenship anywhere else, just that we think they would be able to apply to at least some other nation. For your bill to apply where existing law doesn't the person would need to have no ties to any other state at all. In these cases it is our problem alone to deal with, we can't simply absolve ourselves of responsibility.

As was shown in the news yesterday (right? Days are blurring together atm) the existing Act can be used, and I see no reason to extend that into the minority of cases that your bill would target.
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

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (143)
24.49%
Pop (142)
24.32%
Jazz (26)
4.45%
Classical (32)
5.48%
Hip-Hop (103)
17.64%
Electronic (42)
7.19%
Indie (96)
16.44%

Watched Threads

View All