Citizenship - Are we citizens of second sort?

[ppron747]

1. You don't have to be British to go to the law

2. In any case, deprivation cannot happen without the person being given due notice. When they do, they seek legal advice, if they're sensible. They then seek judicial review, which stays the hand of the Home Secretary until the courts have reached a decision.

[basis]

Oops ....relax guys. the op has declared his / her thread is closed. If u need to discuss further please open a new thread.

[JAJ]

[ I refer you to the 'White Australia" policy, the polcies in Nazi Germany etc.

The "White Australia" policy does not bear the remotest comparison to the policies of Nazi Germany.

[lemess]

The point was that the pretext on which certain immigrants were excluded were based on a dubious "european language" requirement for white australia and obviously being a non-aryan in the case of nazi germany. Although neither explicitly stated it, the effect in australia's case was to keep non-white immigrants out and in Germany's case in the 1930s it was to sanction pogroms against jews and indeed keep them out.

Key point being some political regimes can exploit innocuously worded laws to suit a sinister political agenda.You are welcome to peruse these links :

White Australia. Key quote from the link:


The main rationale of the policy was to keep Australia racially "pure". "I am prepared to do all that is necessary to ensure that Australia shall be free for all time from the contamination and the degrading influence of inferior races." (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12th Sept 1901 p.4845) . You're right, no similarities to nazi germany whatsoever

facial policy inNazi germany.

I can certainly see the similarities of discrimination based on ethnic origin there. Obviously nazism was more overt and blatant. The point about different political climates remains.

[lemess]

1. You don't have to be British to go to the law

2. In any case, deprivation cannot happen without the person being given due notice. When they do, they seek legal advice, if they're sensible. They then seek judicial review, which stays the hand of the Home Secretary until the courts have reached a decision.

Accepted but I still don't understand the need for citizenship revocation. What purpose does it serve that can't be serve by the normal 'law of the land' ?

[ezh]

maxima and lemess are absolutely right from my (democratic) point of view...

[ppron747]

Accepted but I still don't understand the need for citizenship revocation. What purpose does it serve that can't be serve by the normal 'law of the land' ?

Well I suppose that, for naturalised/registered people, it would unmake whatever decision that was made that resulted in their becoming British and enable them to be deported to where they originally came from, so they're no longer able to do whatever they're doing from within the UK.

In the case of those who are British by birth, and whose other citizenship is by descent, I'm not so sure, tbh. In many cases, they're going to be a product of British society, and Britain should retain responsibility, IMO.

But what about people who have acquired BC by fraudulent means? For instance, the spouse who wasn't actually married to a BC, or whose marriage was invalid because he/she was a bigamist? Or the naturalised person who managed, by deception, to convince IND that they had completed the residence requirement when they'd actually scarcely been here at all? Or who had managed to conceal a serious criminal record that they had in another name? Shouldn't it be possible to unmake those decisions?

It may not involve national security or the continued functioning of democracy, but surely it isn't right that someone who shouldn't have acquired British nationality should continue to hold it, because the law doesn't allow it to be taken away? To me, that's like catching a bank robber and not trying to get the money back...

[ezh]

ppron747,

with respect to you, I think the discussion is not about people who have acquired BC by fraudulent means - it is all clear with such people; they have to lose their BC as it could actually be understood from reading the naturalization guide... In my opinion the discussion is about those people who have naturalized by deserving to be a BC (working hard, paying taxes etc.). The criterium for such people to be stripped off their BC is not clear and this is why it attracts comparison with "white Australia etc". I agree with lemess that a normal law of land has to be applied to such people - that's enough. After all, after let say 20 years in Britain a naturalized person can not always easily go back to the country of origin and forceing them to do it may violate the human rights... Sue them instead...

[lemess]

ppron,
As ezh has pointed out, I was not referring to the act of obtaining naturalisation by fraudulent means but to the fact that any citizen who in theory can be stripped of nationality for any act deemed not conducive to public good - even if that act is totally unrelated to the naturalisation process.
I don't have an issue with revocation based on misrepresentation of facts during naturalisation - that is fair enough.

Ezh has summarised my point of view succintly.

[ppron747]

Apologies. I was answering

Accepted but I still don't understand the need for citizenship revocation. What purpose does it serve that can't be serve by the normal 'law of the land' ?

But I think we'll have to agree to differ on this particular issue, then....