100 civil society figures, including the heads of @samaritans, @RunnymedeTrust and @MABOnline1 described the bill as “a route to disenfranchisement and even deportation of people of colour on an unprecedented scale”.
The open letter describes clause nine as “merely the pinnacle of a raft of legislation that has already subjected the citizenship of millions of Britons of foreign heritage, including those born and raised in the United Kingdom, to the caprice of the home secretary”.
It warns that the bill “will effectively make the government unchallengeable and refuge and asylum practically impossible”, and calls on political parties and MPs to “reject it at the first opportunity”.
See our video below on the implications of Clause 9 of the Bill, would would affect the citizenship rights of an estimated six million people in England and Wales (2 in every 5 people from an ethnic minority)
The #BordersBill also targets asylum seekers. Clause 10 would create two classes of asylum seeker, based not on whether they are at risk of persecution but on how they arrived in the UK.
The Bill would allow Priti Patel to discriminate against those who arrived irregularly or via a third "safe" country. She would be allowed to restrict their access to public funds, their rights to family reunion and their rights to acquire British citizenship.
If they happen to give birth to children during those ten years, those children would also be denied citizenship (until the age of 10, or until their parents get citizenship).
The UNHCR @Refugees describes Clause 10 of the #BordersBill as “a recipe for mental and physical ill health, social and economic marginalisation, and exploitation," and says it means that “more women and children are likely to attempt dangerous journeys”. newstatesman.com/politics/2022/…
Government: "Deprivation on ‘conducive to the public good’ grounds [...] has been possible for over a century"
Reality: Deprivation purely on 'conducive to the public goods grounds' has only been possible since 2006. Before then, it was only ever an additional requirement.
E.g. The individual must have committed fraud or treason AND deprivation must be conducive to the public good.
This is untrue.
The facts on removing 🇬🇧 citizenship:
➡️ Deprivation was only possible for treason until 2002
➡️ You can't appeal a decision of which you haven't been notified
➡️ It can be used against any dual citizen if deemed "conducive to the public good"
1/ Back in March, I made a fake Facebook profile and added people on the most extreme, violent fringes of the far-right. People who posted things like this after the Christchurch massacre.
2/ Getting into these circles apparently made me a prime recruitment target. Within days a GI member tried to start a conversation by sending me their DNA ancestry test. Totally normal.