A reminder of why we’re here, and why resisting the #NationalityAndBordersBill is urgent and pressing - now with added threat of nuclear attack, jic anyone was getting bored. 👇🏽
Borders, how we view them, and our sense of self-importance have coagulated into a poison.
From next month, Biometric Residence Permits will no longer be accepted as proof of Right to Work/Rent. The card itself will be useless; you have to do an additional online registration to prove right to rent/work.
There are a few 'beyond-parallels' here: first, this is unnecessary, as were many of the contortions that led to the Windrush scandal. There is no good reason to scrap use of BRPs. It is entirely possible to phase into a digital world without making *existing* docs useless. [2/9]
They have been told - by other parts of government no less - that a snap-over into digital-only proof to work/rent is likely to prove a nightmare.
But this is @ukhomeoffice! Making up nonsense and doing as it damned well pleases since 1782. [3/9]
What @pritipatel and @ukhomeoffice are actually doing: 1. Required visa for Ukrainians trying to join family, therefore refused entry 2. Family’s MP intervened after publicity - did not waive 3. Still need to apply for visa; has taken a PREMIUM PAYMENT for expedited processing
Believe *nothing* that comes out of @pritipatel and @ukhomeoffice about what’s actually happening.
NABB will make this much worse; and oh yeah, they’ve been treating Black, brown and racialised grps, Windrush victims, GRT community, with this lvl of undisguised contempt forever
We are an organisation that benefit from this. We are made up of and represent some of the most marginalised people, whom the Home Office would like to simply paper over, out of existence. Without GLP, we would be light years behind where we are now.
A lot of the noise over the past 24 hours has come from mouths which would neither know Windrush victims existed, nor care to do anything to help them. Advocacy for the marginalised does have to be aggressive at times; the institutions who do the marginalising sure as sh*t are.
So while it may be fun (and maybe useful, but let’s face it) to have the intellectual arguments, do also bear in mind that we, and a lot of groups like us in other sectors, need people like GLP in our corner breathing fire at those that try to stomp us into the ground.
🌹Roses are red,
This hellscape is the opposite of irie,
The Home Office is expanding the Windrush scandal,
We urgently need an Inquiry.
🧵🚨: docs.google.com/forms/d/1Y6-AE…
1/34
(On account of the amount of swearing and rending-of-garments in this thread - I'm @JaidevRamya. Blame no one but me for what follows.)
Last week, we sent a version of this👇🏽letter, a sign-able version of which is linked above, to many MPs.
2/34
@JaidevRamya You may recall that in December, together with @GoodLawProject, we opened the process of seeking judicial review of @ukhomeoffice’s decision to keep control of the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
To explain a little futher, i.e. a meta-explainer, those two things remain distinct in statute. The power to basically *make* someone immediately stateless is only for naturalised citizens, where there the HO has rsable grounds to believe they can have citizenship elsewhere.
The confusion in discussion arises because Begum is not naturalised, and yet seems to have been made stateless.
Begum was born in the UK, to Bangladeshi parents. She is (was) in the first bracket, i.e. a UK citizen, therefore can't be made stateless.
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]
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]