Thread by @_BvdM

The government has responded to the petition to repeal Clause 9 of the #BordersBill, which has topped 314k signatures.

Thread 🧵
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/6015…

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.

Government: "Deprivation on ‘conducive to the public good’ grounds [...] comes with a right of appeal."

Reality: It's impossible for someone to appeal a decision of which they have not been notified.

Appeals frequently take place in secret SIAC courts, where individuals cannot see the evidence against them.

Government: "Deprivation on ‘conducive to the public good’ grounds [...] is used against people like terrorists to keep the public safe."

Reality: If that's the only purpose of the legislation, there would be no reason for it to be worded so broadly.

And why would leaving British terrorists in war zones, rather than bringing them to justice in the UK, keep the public safe?

Government: "It cannot be right that the proper functioning of the immigration and nationality system is impeded because an individual has removed themselves from contact with the HO, are in a war zone, or where to make contact would disclose sensitive intelligence sources."

Reality: The government already has the power to send notification to individuals' last known address.

The #BordersBill would remove the need to notify entirely, and it's not limited to them being uncontactable. Diplomatic interests and 'public interest' are included.