Thread by @WindrushLives

A slightly longer explainer 🧵, breaking all this down step-by-step, because predictably, @ukhomeoffice has flooded the field with mis- and disinformation, and it deserves unpacking:

The power to take citizenship away has existed in some form for a very long time. [1/n]

https://twitter.com/WindrushLives/status/1478002756120158208

The version of the citizenship deprivation power currently in use goes back to the 1981 British Nationality Act. Section 40, clause 3 gives the Secretary of State the right take away citizenship from naturalised citizens. Take a look at the conditions in clause 3. [2/n]

The power was construed in quite a limited way - really, it related to actual treason. And it could not be applied to naturalised citizens if it would make them stateless - see clause 5, and 5(b) in particular. [3/n]

The power was expanded - a lot - in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 - i.e., under a Labour govt. That Act took away the limitation of this power to *naturalised* citizens. All citizens with the right to nationality elsewhere were now open to it... [4/n]

if they acted in a way 'seriously prejudicial to the vital interests' of the UK.

(It's clause 4 you want to look at here - the naturalisation element has been scrapped.) [5/n]

It also did away the original limitation of the power to cases of treason. All the Home Sec needed was satisfaction that the person had done something 'seriously prejudicial to the vital interests' of the UK/overseas territories.

That's a BIG leap. [6/n]

Then came the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 - again, under a Labour govt. (Further down, I link an excellent explainer on this by @fahadansari.) Here is S 56 of that Act: [7/n]

The substance of the triggering conduct broadened again. In the 1981 version, it was treason. In the 2002 Act, it was serious prejudice to our national interests, which, broadly, is akin to national security threats. [8/n]

The 'vital interests of the UK' part was removed in 2006 so the section now just reads 'conducive to the public good'.

Let's recap: we started with a power to deprive naturalised persons with right to citizenship elsewhere, for acts of treason. [9/n]

By 2006, seemingly unbeknownst to most of the population, the deprivation power was now applicable to all British citizens, in whatever circumstances the Home Sec considered 'conducive to the public good', period.

That's a helluva slide. [10/n]

In 2014 - now under the Conservatives - a bolt-on power was added to Section 40. The 2002 and 2006 revisions retained the proviso that the power could not be applied if it would make someone stateless. (The latter shows the extent of the amendment in 2006.) [11/n]

The 2014 Act took away that proviso. Here, it inserts a clause 4A to come after clause 4, which is pictured in the first screenshot of the previous tweet, and says the Home Sec cannot make the order if he is satisfied it would render the person stateless. [12/n]

What this somewhat excruciating exercise shows is very simple. Unbeknownst to most of the public, the power to take away the citizenship of Britons has steadily increased. In 1981, it was against naturalised citizens, for treason, if it wouldn't make them stateless. [13/n]

That became a power against all citizens, where there was a national security threat, and if it wouldn't make them stateless.

That became a power against all citizens, where it was 'conducive to the public good', and if it wouldn't make them stateless. [14/n]

That became a power against all citizens, if it was 'conducive to the public good' and *even if* if it would make them stateless, provided the Home Secretary had only 'reasonable grounds' for believing they had right to citizenship elsewhere. [15/n]

That is now on the verge of becoming a power against all citizens, if it is 'conducive to the public good', as long as the Home Sec has reasonable grounds to think they have a right to citizenship elsewhere, *without notice.*

Do you see what's happening here? [16/n]

This goes to the heart of the need to fight back against Clause 9 of the #NationalityAndBordersBill. @ukhomeoffice and its various mouthpieces have tried to downplay it - "the power already exists, it's just a notice provision, the right of appeal is still there..." [17/n]

Firstly, the power shouldn't exist. It should never have existed.

Secondly, the decay up to the status quo has largely happened, it seems, on the down low. Part of the reason Clause 9 is getting traction right now is that people think the power itself is new. [18/n]

It's not. And yes, Clause 9 only takes the notice provision away.

Does knowing that the bulk of this travesty had already happened while the public were largely unaware make it okay that they now want to extend it?

Or does it make it worse? [19/n]

There are some additional reasons for concern. The language of 'conducive to the public good' exists in the Borders Act 2007. S 32 *compels* - no discretion - the Home Sec to deport foreign residents who have been released from prison... [20/n]

if they have served for more than 12 months, for serious crimes. This is the power that is regularly used for deportation charter flights. The flights that end up with 4 people on board bc it turns out they weren't given their basic rights to access legal advice. [21/n]

I have a few observations from the way the power is used under that Act that apply to the citizenship deprivation power. Firstly, this Home Sec, and any even more unhinged successors, will be able to use the deprivation power against ex-offenders if politically expedient. [22/n]

Secondly, by far the most common deportation charters are to Jamaica, and there is one coming up (h/t the fab work of @Nadine_Writes). Can't think why that might be. [23/n]

Thirdly, in 2020, the govt tried to expand *that* power too, reducing the triggering sentence period from 12 months to SIX (6) months. That is a sentence you can get in the Magistrates Courts, without a jury trial. [24/n]

And fourthly, as to 'serious crimes', they tried to use this power on Osime Brown, for a conviction under the joint enterprise doctrine, for theft of a mobile phone. Brown, who is autistic, has lived in the UK for all of his life, and does not have the capacity to start [25/n]

It comes down to this. Clause 9 may not, in the grand scheme of things, be the most grave of the legislative injustices that have quietly and steadily rolled back citizenship rights. But it needs to opposed, ferociously, all the same for what it represents. [26/n]

Today, tomorrow, next week, until something gives, the fight is about this clause, and this toxic #NationalityAndBordersBill. That is the scope of the immediate task, because that is the bill that is on the verge of being rubber-stamped. [27/n]

But very soon, we need to have a serious reckoning with the scale of what has happened to citizenship rights, apparently without much of the population - including the politically-minded and active - being aware. The root powers must be scrapped altogether. [28/n]

The amount of control this places in the hands of politically motivated actors, and by extension the mood of a manipulable electorate, is something we need to talk about. Should it ever be that easy to deprive someone of one of their most basic rights? [29/n]

If you've read this far, come to Parliament Square in London, 12:30, this Wednesday, 5 January, where a coalition of organisations led by @WritersofColour @SCUKofficial @MPACUK @UK_CAGE @kesrilehar and many, many others, will protest this ugly, ugly piece of legislation. [30/n]

We just can't let this happen. Again. [31/n] #StopNABB #NationalityAndBordersBill

Right at the top, I mentioned this excellent thread by @fahadansari, which makes all of these points much, much better, and replete with the political context for the evolution of this fetid morass. [32/n]

https://twitter.com/fahadansari/status/1473661888105963524?s=20

There is also a lot more detail and precision in this fantastic article by @freemovementlaw, which I've just found and realised I could've linked instead of typing out a 33 tweet thread with increasing rage. [33/n] freemovement.org.uk/british-nation…

NOTE: A missing bit here : it is a power against all citizens, where conducive to the public good, if it doesn't make them stateless; OR for naturalised citizens, even if it WOULD make them stateless, provided rsable grounds (HO's discretion) for citizenship right elsewhere

An explainer to my explainer, b/c of muddled bit in part 15/n above 💆🏾‍♀️

https://twitter.com/WindrushLives/status/1478062795962867712?s=20

On reflection, another clarification, this time to this part👇🏽 The root power from 1981, as pictured right at the top, contains 2 clauses relating to treason, but also a third, a term of imprisonment of not less than a year. [35/n]

https://twitter.com/WindrushLives/status/1478037786167025667

I’ve expressed myself imprecisely in calling it a “limitation of the power to cases of treason”. What I really mean is that the power was *construed* as relating almost entirely to treason; statute DID provide for that third (confusingly lax) trigger. [36/n]

That being said, imo, the broader point remains. The power in 1981 appears to be focussed on treason, with an oddly discordant third provision on prison sentences unconnected to any substantive specification on nature of conduct; by 2006, the bar is much lower. [37/n]

A note to legal tweeps: please do flag up any issues or inaccuracies you see; as my (at present) 3 post-scripts show, I’ve not expressed all of this perfectly in the first instance! All criticism gratefully received, with thanks to @AdamWagner1 💯 for this spot [38/n]

While I’m at it, I want to reiterate the point about statelessness. It has always been a feature of the power that UK-born citizens* cannot be made stateless; only naturalised citizens can - BUT see the spin-off mini-thread above clarifying part 15/n, re Begum. [39/n]

I say UK-born citizens* bc there is another ancillary mess to contend with - I’m referring very narrowly to those whom the *govt* would consider a UK-born citizen, which conveniently excludes those Windrush children whose parents were wrongly denied… [40/n]

and are now treated as naturalised citizens, some of them having come by their (resolved) status by way of ILR permits, for example.

Again, this demonstrates the extent to which our nationality and citizenship framework is already two-tier and racist. [41/n]