The Home Office replies to @JolyonMaugham on the nationality bill to say that some comments have been misleading. Yes, but the Home Office makes *two* misleading statements of its own.
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1478742913278529538
First of all, although the power of deprivation of citizenship has existed for some time, it has been expanded greatly in recent decades.
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1478742913278529538?t=9roU7eCCjdfpnb9eQWAcJw&s=19
More details of that history here
https://twitter.com/WindrushLives/status/1478037773324017673?t=9roU7eCCjdfpnb9eQWAcJw&s=19
Secondly, the Home Office implies that these are the only circumstances in which the notification of deprivation of citizenship can be waived. This is grossly misleading, to say the least.
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1478743322613141504?t=9roU7eCCjdfpnb9eQWAcJw&s=19
This is what the bill actually says about when there need not be a notification of the deprivation of citizenship. As you can see the grounds are much broader than the Home Office tweet implies. Jolyon's thread refers to the "public interest" exception, which plainly exists. 
IIRC the Home Office has been called out on a similar misleading claim about this bill before.
Frankly, Home Office staff are either incompetent to read their own bills, or are lying.
Frankly, Home Office staff are either incompetent to read their own bills, or are lying.
As I said, some critics of the bill *have* got the legal details wrong:
- the deprivation of citizenship power exists already; it's not created by the bill
- there is a right to appeal
- the notification requirement is not removed in all cases
- the deprivation of citizenship power exists already; it's not created by the bill
- there is a right to appeal
- the notification requirement is not removed in all cases
Having said that, the notification requirement could be waived in many cases, and the absence of notification will make it harder to appeal.
The bottom line is the bill makes a bad legal regime worse. It is not much of a defence to say that much of that bad law exists already.
The bottom line is the bill makes a bad legal regime worse. It is not much of a defence to say that much of that bad law exists already.
And it is understandable that people do not trust the intentions of the Home Office when its staff are obviously either lying about or unable to comprehend its own bill.
This is the Home Office "factsheet" on the bill. But as @JolyonMaugham replies, it does not reflect the wording of the bill. In my view, a govt department which tweets misleading statements has not earned the benefit of the doubt.
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1478742913278529538?t=9roU7eCCjdfpnb9eQWAcJw&s=19
Lots of good points in Maria's thread too
https://twitter.com/MariaWNorris/status/1478754264591785989?t=95mzmsZP9-h_JYNbOQomdA&s=19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
