Citizenship - Are we citizens of second sort?

[maxima]

I just have read "Form AN New" (to apply for british citizenship). When you sign it you declare besides of all:

"I understand that a certificate of citizenship may be withdrawn if ... I engage in conduct which is seriously prejudicial to the public good."

That mean if you do something wrong (which depends on a judge personal opnion) then your citizenship could gone.

My point is - it is not very about equality and democracy.

"Native" citizens will never loose their citizenship and "newcomers" can.

Means - in the UK there are 2 kinds of citizens. Good and Others.

I dont like that.

Is there any organization who monitor democracy rights in this country to point out ?

[lemess]

I would suspect this sort of thing is probably open to a legal challenge.
This implies that regardless of whether the issue has anything to do with the naturalisation process, someone's citizenship can be revoked based on their actions potentially years after they become a citizen.
Why should some citizens be subject to this and not others ? I guess for similar 'not conducive to public good' type conduct citizens by birth would be subject to criminal proceedings.

I doubt very much if this sort of thing would survive a challenge in the courts if a case were to be tested there as it seems to violate the basic 'one law for all' premise.

I think the one case where David Blunkett tried to do this ( with Abu Hamza), he fell foul of the judges on various grounds - including the fact that revokation of citizenship is not allowed to make someone stateless.

[OL7MAX]

I engage in conduct which is seriously prejudicial to the public good

That could include standing outside Parliament with a placard (now illegal without prior police permission). Seems onerous to lose citizenship over that.

[maxima]

The problem is - it could be anything. Today is one tomorrow it could be dropped fag on the street.

Tomorrow after tomorrow we can get yellow triangles on a chest.

[Dawie]

It's quite simple - the UK government cannot withdraw your UK citizenship if you have renounced your previous citizenship or if it has been taken away from you (as in the case of Indian citizens who naturalise).

To do so would leave you stateless.

So if you absolutely want to make sure that your UK citizenship cannot be taken away make sure that you do not hold the citizenship of any other country.

[maxima]

No the point is - I am not the same "colour" as others.. I dont like this.

[Dawie]

You're missing the point, you're looking for discrimination where there is none.

I repeat, YOUR UK CITIZENSHIP CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY IF IT IS THE ONLY CITIZENSHIP YOU HOLD.

[maxima]

May be I missed something. If "native" british citizen will immigrate to Canada for example and recieve 2nd passport (canadian).

Will he/she be a subject of "I understand that a certificate of citizenship may be withdrawn if ... I engage in conduct which is seriously prejudicial to the public good."

??

P.S. Please - if u'd like to emphasize something - use bold. When you type in capitalised letters - you are shouting on me.. Please dont!

[tt]

maxima. If you're feeling angry, then http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2005/12/i ... tiona.html this is a good read. I came across it by accident, and I'm not sure it's my cup of tea, but it might be yours. Perhaps the power of the Secretary of State extends to ALL British citizens equally?

[OL7MAX]

tt, great site! I've bookmarked it.

[ppron747]

maxima. If you're feeling angry, then http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2005/12/i ... tiona.html this is a good read. I came across it by accident, and I'm not sure it's my cup of tea, but it might be yours. Perhaps the power of the Secretary of State extends to ALL British citizens equally?

It does, tt - I didn't say so earlier because I didn't want to ruin maxima's day.
The proviso that deprivation mustn't leave the individual stateless remains - and of course, many "native" British citizens (to use maximas terminology) have claims to other citizenships by descent - I'm about fifth or sixth generation UK-born, on my father's side, and would have a claim to another European citizenship, but for a distant forebear's decision to naturalise as a British subject, about 180 years ago.....
So it isn't only "non-natives" who "risk" being deprived of BC. I use quotes around "risk" because it isn't one that should worry the vast majority of people IMO. The government has undertaken to use the power extremely sparingly, in cases of the most serious nature, and the courts are there to keep a check on irrational use of such power. But of course that won't convince some people, will it?

[Rogerio]

This is most certainly not a question of first class or second class citizenship.

Most people will not even think for a minute that statement is discriminatory. Most will agree that it is there to actually enforce protection to all of us, and as our friend Paul has mentioned, there is proper channels to ensure this is not applied innapropriately.

If you resent the fact that by doing something seriously prejudicial to the public good *may* remove your citizenship, then my advice to you, my friend, is simple:

Don't naturalise and keep your current citizenship.

My 2p.

[JAJ]

The government has undertaken to use the power extremely sparingly, in cases of the most serious nature, and the courts are there to keep a check on irrational use of such power.

And if a future government was ever minded to use such power "irrationally" then you might not want to be a citizen anyway. The case of Zimbabwe is one that comes to mind.

[lemess]

Most people will not even think for a minute that statement is discriminatory. Most will agree that it is there to actually enforce protection to all of us, and as our friend Paul has mentioned, there is proper channels to ensure this is not applied innapropriately.

I think there is a potential to use this to discriminate under a different political climate with a strong anti-immigration agenda simply because most native born citizens would clearly not be caught in this.
I don't quite see how this 'protects' us and who from. I would've thought the existing system judicial system does that quite adequately by charging people with criminal activity if they flout the law after due process. If they fall foul they can look forward to relaxing at her majesty's pleasure.

What I also don't get is that there don't seem to be clear guidelines on whether this revocation would happen after being tried under a legal system for a specific crime - with all the safeguards present in the judicial system.
Is the revocation of citizenship a measure to be used in addition to a criminal charge, can it be invoked independently of any 'crime' etc. ? These are some of the questions that make uncomfortable pondering.

I just don't feel comfortable having provisions such as these on the books as they seem to be a cop out at best and a convenient way to introduce more sinister agendas at worst. If a citizen is doing something which can be established in courts as being not conducive to public good, surely the thing to do is to try them as you might any criminal.

[Rogerio]

With all due respect, we all (who will naturalise, or have naturalised) have (had) the option not to. Very simple. No one is forcing that legislation down anyone's throats. Besides, one could live here very well on ILR, as we all know only too well.

I do not see anything wrong with the new legislation, and as said before a million times, if this is the only citizenship you hold, it cannot be taken back from you.

Seems to me that many people are looking for reasons to say that they can be subjected to discrimination. I guess this is the price that we all pay for living in a society that has taken political correctness to, in my view, a ridiculous extreme.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about.

What, in my view, we should be doing, is being proud of having been accrepted as citizens of one of the most welcoming nations in the world, and trying to contribute to the integration that certainly happens in many spheres of this society, and not looking for reasons to slap that hand that has fed us.

Again, we all have (had) the option not to naturalise if we so fundamentally disagree with the policy.

My very humble opinion, and I shall say no more.

R

[basis]

Seems to me that many people are looking for reasons to say that they can be subjected to discrimination. I guess this is the price that we all pay for living in a society that has taken political correctness to, in my view, a ridiculous extreme.

Good one. Summarises the entire discussion.

[lemess]

With all due respect, we all (who will naturalise, or have naturalised) have (had) the option not to. Very simple. No one is forcing that legislation down anyone's throats. Besides, one could live here very well on ILR, as we all know only too well.

I do not see anything wrong with the new legislation, and as said before a million times, if this is the only citizenship you hold, it cannot be taken back from you.

Seems to me that many people are looking for reasons to say that they can be subjected to discrimination. I guess this is the price that we all pay for living in a society that has taken political correctness to, in my view, a ridiculous extreme.

We are merely debating if this stipulation is necessary that's all. i think you are overreacting a wee bit. No one is suggesting that we are all victims but the fact is the history of some western countries suggests that such requirements can be twisted. I refer you to the 'White Australia" policy, the polcies in Nazi Germany etc. I don't think there is any harm in speculating about whether certain areas of immigration policy can be abused in another political climate that perhaps looks unlikely at the moment.

It's not a matter of "if you don't like it tough - that's the way rules are" in my view. Some recently introduced elements of the naturalisation process are open to question and debate - to waive aside any of this with a simple "it will never happen here" view that you seem to be espousing is fair enough but so is the right of anyone who chooses to debate the issue with an alternate viewpoint.

[maxima]

we all ... have (had) the option not to.

If you see someone being beaten by yobsters or being raped in a bush. You Rogerio can choose to dont look at. I choose to call the police and get involved.

I dont require advice of loser... And please - it is sooooo predictive. If you dont like it dont eat it.... Sure. Very intelligent.

My very humble opinion, and I shall say no more.

Please.

P.S. I am not your friend BTW.

[maxima]

http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2005/12/i ... tiona.html

Thank you. I've found the answer on my question:

"It would apply to even British borne UK Citizens, not just those who have been granted British Citizenship through naturalisation."

Will verify that though. But if it is true than I have no more objections.

Discussion is closed for me.

Clearly flame will grow. But please dont address it to me. I've sorted out everything disturbed me.

Cheers.

[maxima]

Good one. Summarises the entire discussion.

This is my discussion. And as author I can say that here wasnt a bit about politcorrectness.

It is totally separate issue of global value. And I have no intention to discuss it. Please open new thread for that. And thank god you are not in US (there politcorrectness is at ridiculous level)

[OL7MAX]

Since there is an invitation for flames to continue...

and the courts are there to keep a check on irrational use of such power

Isn't it a core point of that legislation to bypass the courts and put this power in the hands of the Home Secretary? I don't know about political correctness but it's certainly a quest for political power gone mad. Who is 100% sure a politician will always exercise common sense in the use of this power?

[ppron747]

I think, with respect, that although the discussion may be closed so far as you are concerned, there is one unresolved issue. That is that people who don't share your views, maxima, are not necessarily "loosers" - or even losers...

[ppron747]

Since there is an invitation for flames to continue...

and the courts are there to keep a check on irrational use of such power

Isn't it a core point of that legislation to bypass the courts and put this power in the hands of the Home Secretary? I don't know about political correctness but it's certainly a quest for political power gone mad. Who is 100% sure a politician will always exercise common sense in the use of this power?

All decisions of this nature would be open to challenge in the courts. We see it happening all the time

[basis]

Good one. Summarises the entire discussion.

This is my discussion. And as author I can say that here wasnt a bit about politcorrectness.

It is totally separate issue of global value. And I have no intention to discuss it. Please open new thread for that. And thank god you are not in US (there politcorrectness is at ridiculous level)

What do u mean by 'my discussion' and 'open new thread for that'. Never did I witness such language on this MB. I thought no poster owns any thread and in case of issues / complaints about any post one can go to moderators who are doing an excellent job here. Moderators can decide to delete, bar any user or stop multi posts or require for mulit posts. Lets not take Board Rules in our hands......

[OL7MAX]

All decisions of this nature would be open to challenge in the courts

Once your British Citizenship is withdrawn you can't sue the government easily. And you're unlikely to get Legal Aid if you don't have your own funds. There are other complications eg you might even have to leave the UK.

The crux of the matter is that decisions like withdrawing citizenships are best left to the considered decision of judges rather than the political convenience of Home Secretaries. And it should be evidence and arguments before the punishment rather than after. Even in the case of terrorist suspects ... because the operating word is "suspect", not "terrorist". Not all suspects are terrorists, as the family of the Brazilian shot on the tube would point out.