British court uses British Human Rights Act to interpret British Nationality Act to allow British Home Sec to grant British citizenship to Windrush victims.
Opposed by Home Sec - who didn’t even want the *power* to make them citizens.+
Home Office illegally refused them re-entry to UK, because they had been legally resident here so long Home Office didn’t realise they were legally resident. +
Then Home Office said it couldn’t naturalise them as British citizens because of the law saying they must have been resident on the day 5 years before the citizenship application. +
They asked the Home Office to interpret that law in a way that respects their human rights, and allowed them to become citizens. Home Office said it couldn’t be interpreted that way. +
Judges said the Claimants had an arguable case. Home Office still refused to accept they had the power. Now Mr Justice Bourne has said Home Office has the power.//
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
did national media publish this sort of legal falseness before Brexit? We can discuss what s.73 *means* but you only have to read it to see it does not “state”this.
Or is it just a feature of the Spectator becoming a blog?
I say “falseness” deliberately. It’s fine for lawyers to argue that provisions don’t mean what they say, or mean more than they say. But that isn’t the claim here. And the piece is by a lawyer, about the law. It’s not a passing comment.
But does Section 73 *mean* that Covid Regs don’t apply on Gov land? (Courts seem to behave as if they do.)
Why would a local authority’s agreement be needed to for Ministers to apply their own Regs to the land they control?
Some of you are reading Adam’s thread as if he’s said stripping citizenship is good, or should (politically / morally) be allowed. His thread doesn’t say that. Its a thread about what *law* says and (surprise!) law (made by states) isn’t that great.
But I haven’t discussed this with him, or read everything he’s written. So I don’t know if I agree with him. But what he says *in this thread* *abt human rights law* is correct.
And IMHO it’s useful for people to have that info
International human rights law instruments do not state an absolute bar on citizenship-stripping. They require it not be arbitrary and they (therefore) require due process.
I want to learn from activists in Hungary, Italy, Greece, Poland what comes next from UK Govt as they scrabble for more distraction from corruption, and step up punishment of the powerless and their allies. And how we can get resist. +
Even when populist corruption doesn’t consciously model itself on another country’s, its *nature* makes it follow similar paths. And we can borrow ideas (even if we can’t borrow situations ht @billybragg ) +
in Italy, Salvini and his allies used criminal law against those rescuing drowning people - those prosecutions aren’t over. In Greece, refugees serve decade long sentences for trying to steer a dinghy with their own children to safety. What’s next for Patel there? +
Lie 1: Immigration Act 1971 makes it “illegal to come to the UK without permission”
Straight up lie. There’s nothing in that Act which says that. Migration Watch don’t even point to a section that does. +
Lie 2: Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 makes it illegal to seek asylum without identity documentation. Of course it doesn’t. Section 3(4) (c) makes it a defence to have a reasonable excuse for not having one +
lawmaking as a similacrum, a superficial appearance of what a lawmaker does, while the operative force is not the law’s words but the political menace for which the words are a vehicle.
this clause is intended to allow Govt lawyers to pressure judges to accept that a statute means what politicians say it means, not what it says and its meaning as discerned *in the context of our constitutional tradition*.