2017

Citizenship used as an anti-terrorism tool DENATIONALIZATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES LISA ERKANDER

UPPSALA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT MASTER ́S THESIS SPRING 2017 AUTHOR: LISA ERKANDER SUPERVISOR: SOFIA NÄSSTRÖM

1

ABSTRACT Denationalization, to deprive citizens of citizenship, is becoming an international trend – especially in order to fight terrorism. Public opinion is generally positive to these measures. However, few consider the consequences of denationalization. Only when investigating further it becomes clear that citizenship scholars are very concerned about this new trend pointing out that it easily becomes arbitrary, creates statelessness, threatens equality and how it is not an effective measure. This thesis investigates whether Members of Parliament in the UK address these concerns when extending denationalization powers, giving the Secretary of State the most extensive powers to denationalize among all liberal democracies. KEYWORDS: denationalization, deprivation of citizenship, citizenship-stripping, terrorism, citizenship, statelessness.

2

Tableofcontents

1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................31.1Structureofthethesis......................................................................................................................6

2.Theoreticalbackground.............................................................................................................72.1 Definitions&usage....................................................................................................................72.2 Historicalroots...........................................................................................................................92.3 Normativedebate....................................................................................................................102.4 Achangingcitizenship?............................................................................................................13

3.ResearchMethodologyandMaterial......................................................................................153.1Designandcaseselection...............................................................................................................153.2Qualitativecontentanalysis&descriptiveideaanalysis.................................................................17

3.2.1 Disadvantages&advantages..............................................................................................183.3 Operationalization....................................................................................................................19

3.3.1 Classifications.......................................................................................................................203.4Material...........................................................................................................................................21

4.Empiricalinvestigationandresults.........................................................................................234.1Revivalofdenationalization–TheNationality,ImmigrationandAsylumActof2002...................23

4.1.1Context.....................................................................................................................................234.1.2Process.....................................................................................................................................254.1.3Concernsaddressed.................................................................................................................26

4.2Respondingtoterrorism–Immigration,AsylumandNationalityActof2006...............................314.2.1Context.....................................................................................................................................324.2.2Process.....................................................................................................................................334.2.3Concernsaddressed.................................................................................................................33

4.3Introducingstatelessness–TheImmigrationActof2014..............................................................364.3.1Context.....................................................................................................................................374.3.2Process.....................................................................................................................................384.3.3Concernsaddressed.................................................................................................................40

5.Discussion................................................................................................................................465.1Howisdenationalizationjustified?.................................................................................................465.2Reflectionsontheresults................................................................................................................505.3Futureresearch...............................................................................................................................52

6.Conclusion................................................................................................................................54

7.References...............................................................................................................................55

3

1. Introduction After a century of very limited usage, banishment is back. A growing number of states are

already implementing or considering to reinstall banishment of citizens as a tool against

terrorism. In a rapidly growing number of liberal democracies, participation in a terrorist

attack or connections to terrorist networks, or acts deemed to be “prejudicial to the public

good”, can result in loss of citizenship, in this thesis referred to as denationalization. So far,

denationalization is mainly used as a response to terror acts, however it is increasingly

considered for other serious crimes as well. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK)

citizens can be denationalized for all acts the Secretary of State deem to be “seriously

conducive to the public good” (Immigration Act 2014 c.66).

The recent revival of denationalization started in the UK in 2002 in the wake of the 9/11

terror attacks in New York. Since then, denationalization as a tool against terrorism has

spread across liberal states. In fact, within the last two years it has been introduced in a long

list of countries, for example in: France, Canada, Australia, Austria, Denmark, Romania,

Montenegro, and the Netherlands (EUDO n.d.). Several countries, the United States being one

example, are debating whether they should follow their example (Gajanan 2016).

Denationalization of terrorists has received large public support in countries where it is

implemented. In countries such as France, Australia and the UK a large majority are positive

to denationalization and find it logic that those that threaten the very fundaments of society no

longer deserve their citizenship (see for example Bourmaud 2015, Holehouse 2014, Massola

2015). Still, denationalization policies have rarely been used and it is not until lately we have

seen the number of deprivation orders increase (Gibney 2014:333). If we do not look further

into the debate denationalization would seem like a rather uncontroversial policy as it is

supported by the public and used restrictively. However, plunging into the theoretical debate

it quickly becomes evident that this is a very complicated issue and many scholars are

extremely worried about the spread of denationalization, suggesting that it is changing

citizenship as we know it.

Several well-known scholars in the field of citizenship studies, argue that denationalization is

changing citizenship itself – making it less secure, stable and predictable, not only for

terrorists, but for everyone (see for example Bauböck 2015, Gibney 2015, Kanstroom 2015,

4

Macklin 2015a, 2015b). They point to four main concerns with denationalization: (i) that it

increases the arbitrary power of the state in an area previously considered beyond state

discretionary power, (ii) that it creates statelessness and put individuals in very difficult

situations, (iii) that it creates inequality as citizens are treated differently based on how they

acquired their citizenship or the number of citizenships they have and (iv) that it is ineffective

from an international perspective not encouraging international cooperation in the fight

against terrorism. These scholars suggest that the legal status of citizenship is threatened when

citizenship can be lost for misconduct, indicating that citizenship is becoming a privilege

rather than a basic right. Consequently, these scholars highly discourage the spread of

denationalization that we are currently witnessing.

The four concerns addressed by citizenship scholars puts denationalization in a complicated

issue area. It is no longer simply a punishment for terrorists but it touches upon many

sensitive issues such as migration, security, international terrorism, the role of the state and

even basic democratic principles such as justice, fairness and equality. However, it is still too

early to judge the consequences of denationalization and tell whether the scholars’ worries are

warranted. Yet, this thesis argues that the concerns and potential consequences with

denationalization should be considered.

The purpose of this thesis is to see whether politicians consider the potential problems with

denationalization in political debates when deciding to extend the powers to denationalize.

This is measured by looking at the four main concerns of scholars and how well they are

represented in the political debates. It is especially interesting to look at the UK as the

Secretary of State has more powers to denationalize citizens than any other politician or judge

in a liberal democracy (Gibney 2015:40). In extension, this will increase our understanding of

how the discussion and implementation of denationalization could affect citizenship.

The overarching research question is the following:

- How do parliamentarians in the United Kingdom justify denationalization and its

consequences?

5

In order to understand whether the Members of Parliament (MPs1) had an opportunity to

properly address these concerns the process and context of the debates will also be

considered. International and national events as well as the MPs’ own experience of the

process will give an understanding of whether there were any constraints or difficulties in

addressing the scholars’ four concerns.

More specifically, the thesis will investigate three questions:

- In what context are decisions on extending the United Kingdom’s denationalization

powers taken?

- What did the process look like when extending denationalization powers in the United

Kingdom?

- To what extent do Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom address the

scholars’ four main concerns with denationalization?

The last question is where most of the focus is concentrated as the main ambition is to

examine whether the scholars’ concerns a are present in the debates in Parliament.

To answer these questions a qualitative content analysis, and more specifically a descriptive

idea analysis of the debates in the UK parliament, will be conducted. Three legislative

proposals that drastically changed the legislation relating to denationalization are analyzed,

namely: The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002, the Immigration, Asylum and

Nationality act of 2006 and the Immigration act of 2014. These legislative changes gave the

UK the most comprehensive powers to denationalize compared to all liberal democratic

states.

Since the revival of denationalization is a relatively new phenomenon prior research is

limited. In fact, research about the loss of citizenship in general is limited as scholars tend to

focus on research related to the acquisition of citizenship. (Mantu 2015b:2) In the case of

denationalization, prior research is predominantly normative discussing whether to implement

denationalization policies or not. It is evident that further research is needed and it should be

done quickly before all liberal states adopt similar legislation. This thesis will make a 1 The abbreviation MPs will be used to refer to members of both Houses, normally Lords are called peers, but here both MPs and peers will go under the abbreviation MPs.

6

contribution to the empirical research about denationalization trough looking closely at the

debates in the UK.

This study comes to the conclusion that the risk of arbitrary decision making is the only

concern that the MPs really consider in the debates. It seems like the MPs did not have a clear

picture or enough knowledge of the concerns addressed by citizenship scholars. This might be

due to both processual and contextual constraints where the MPs had little time to debate in

light of the growing threat of terrorism. In turn, this means that the MPs have given the

Secretary of State big powers without fully addressing their consequences. As a result,

citizenship as we know it could be changing.

1.1Structureofthethesis

The remainder of this thesis is divided into four main chapters. First, in the following section,

the theoretical background is discussed with definitions, a short description of the historical

roots of denationalization as well as the normative debate presenting the scholar’s four main

concerns.

In the second chapter the thesis material and method are introduced to give a better

understanding of how the study was conducted including the study’s disadvantages and

advantages. The third chapter is dedicated to the results, presenting the debates for one

legislative bill at a time. The results are organized according to the four main concerns, first

discussing arbitrariness, then statelessness, equality and effectiveness of denationalization. In

the fourth chapter the results are discussed and analyzed in relation to the bigger theoretical

debate on denationalization and the paper ends with some concluding remarks.

7

2.Theoreticalbackground

In this section, the definition and the use of citizenship and denationalization will be

presented together with a short description of the historical roots of denationalization. This is

followed by a presentation of the normative debate about denationalization, discussing

whether the implementation of denationalization is justified or not.

2.1 Definitions&usage

Citizenship

The definition of citizenship used in this thesis is taken from the European Union Democracy

Observatory for Citizenship (EUDO) where it is defined as: “A legal status and relation

between an individual and a state that entails specific legal rights and duties”. Citizenship is

defined from a pure legal perspective, not incorporating other aspects which can be captured

under the broader concept of nationality. (EUDO “Glossary” n.d.)

There are several ways to acquire citizenship. In the UK, it is possible to acquire citizenship

in three ways: trough birth, naturalization or registration. To acquire citizenship by birth at

least one of the parents must be a UK citizen, settled in the UK or a member of the armed

forces. Citizenship by naturalization, which is acquired through application, is possible trough

marriage or residence for more than five years. It is also possible to register for British

citizenship which is an easier process than naturalization, but only some people are entitled to

do so. To be eligible for registration an existing connection to the UK is required, for example

children who have foreign parents but have lived in the UK for several years, adopted

children or citizens of British Overseas Territories (Sawyer & Wray 2014:11-14)

Citizenship in the UK has become harder to acquire over time. Originally it was given to all

those born within the empire, but now it is not even granted to all those born within the

territory of the UK (Sawyer & Wray 2014:1-2). In addition, citizenship has become easier for

the Secretary of State to remove, which is the theme of this thesis.

8

Denationalization

Denationalization, here defined as involuntary loss of citizenship (Gibney 2013a:639), can

occur in several circumstances although they vary among countries. For example, citizenship

can be lost involuntarily as a result of fraud in the application process when acquiring

citizenship, after continued residency abroad, as a consequence of parents losing their

citizenship, service in foreign army or acts of disloyalty or treason. There are also countries

with no provisions regarding loss of citizenship where citizenship cannot be lost involuntarily.

(EUDO n.d.)

The focus of this paper is denationalization as a result of unwanted behavior, such as treason

or serious crimes. Terrorism is often used as an example of an act that could lead to

denationalization and it is even directly addressed in some countries’ legislation as one of the

grounds leading to denationalization, sometimes joined by other severe crimes. (EUDO n.d.)

Throughout this paper denationalization, deprivation of citizenship and citizenship-stripping

will be used interchangeably. The notion of denaturalization is often used as a synonym to

denationalization, only referring to loss of citizenship for naturalized citizens. Nevertheless,

the notion denationalization is used in this thesis as even birthright citizens can be deprived of

citizenship in the UK.

It is important to note that denationalization does not necessarily result in statelessness as it is

normally applied to naturalized citizens that have dual citizenship. However, in the UK

naturalized citizens can be rendered stateless in some cases. Normally naturalized citizens

have a citizenship in their country of origin, but in some countries, such as Austria, Estonia

and Ireland, this can be lost when applying for a new citizenship or due to long residence

abroad (EUDO n.d.). Their only remaining citizenship can thereby be UK-citizenship

although they are not British by birth.

Denationalization needs to be distinguished from deportation, where those that have not yet

acquired citizenship status can be expelled from the territory. Deportation of non-citizens is

more common, and arguably less problematic, than to denationalize citizens who have once

lived up to the requirements in order to be granted citizenship.

9

2.2 Historicalroots

Denationalization is not something new, all throughout history states have been known to

banish unwanted citizens. The political theorist Hannah Arendt discusses denationalization

that occurred after the first world war in her book Origins of Totalitarianism first published in

1951. She describes the situation that many Jews experienced of complete exclusion and

rightlessness without a home and a place where one matters and where rule of law was

undermined in favor of national interests. (Arendt 2004:275-276) She famously coined the

expression “right to have rights”, suggesting that without citizenship you become rightless as

there is no national or international body except the state, who protects human rights – a loss

of citizenship rights also meant a loss of human rights and the right to belong to humanity

itself (Arendt 2004:296-298).

Since Arendt’s time many international efforts have been introduced to decrease the amount

of stateless people in the world. The 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless

Persons, the 1961 Convention on the reduction of Statelessness, the 1997 European

Convention on Nationality and international human rights treaties all include provisions

relating to statelessness. They establish minimum rights and standards of treatment for the

stateless and aim to prevent statelessness and reduce it over time. (UNHCR 2017) The UK

has signed both the UN conventions, but has a reservation in the 1961convention stating that

deprivation of citizenship remains possible in response to conduct “seriously prejudicial to the

vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty” (UN 2017). The UK originally planned to sign the

1997 European Convention on Nationality which was made clear by the Labour government

in 2002. However, these plans were later dropped as it was unclear whether UK legislation

was in line with the convention after the legislative changes in 2006. (HC 2005-10-27,

col:272)

Deprivation powers in the UK were proposed as early as in 1870, but they were quickly

rejected by the parliament with references to how denationalization was both arbitrary and

discriminatory as it treated citizens differently. However, deprivation powers were introduced

in 1918 as a result of “Germanphobia”, distrust and hostility towards Germany, after the first

World War. In contrast to many other countries, the powers to deprive UK citizens of

citizenship have remained ever since, but they were barely used after the World Wars. It was

not until 2002 that denationalization powers were revived and yet again presented as an

10

important tool to keep unwanted citizens out. The deprivation powers from 2002 increased

significantly with the legislative changes of 2006 and 2014 (Gibney 2014:326-330), these

three legislative changes will be further analyzed in this thesis.

It is clear that the norms of denationalization and statelessness have changed over time. At

first banishment was considered a normal tool even if it resulted in creating statelessness, but

after the World Wars the norms changed and international efforts to reduce statelessness were

introduced. Today, as denationalization is introduced in a growing number of states,

international norms seem to be changing yet again, this time in favor of denationalization and

in the case of the UK in favor of creating statelessness.

2.3 Normativedebate

To fully understand the delicate and complicated nature of denationalization this section

provides a short overview of the normative debate with the principal reasons to implement

denationalization and the principle arguments against its implementation. The arguments are

effectively summarized under four main concerns: the risk of arbitrariness, the creation of

statelessness, unequal treatment of citizens and an ineffective measure.

Theriskofarbitrariness

One of the key discussions in the normative debate about denationalization relates to the role

of the state. Those who are skeptic to denationalization believe that it gives the state too much

power that easily can become arbitrary and compromise citizens’ rights. They argue that the

state should not have the authority to distinguish between good and bad citizens and to revoke

citizenship from those considered bad citizens. (Macklin 2015a:5)

Several scholars suggest that citizenship is a meta-right, an intrinsic right that guarantees all

other rights which should be above the reach of the state. Macklin is worried that citizenship

is moving from being a right to becoming a privilege and thereby dependent on performance

which makes citizenship fragile from a judicial point of view. (Macklin 2015a:2, 2015b:52)

Moreover, even if current politicians might promise to use denationalization measures

restrictively scholars are concerned that future decision-makers will use the powers more

11

extensively. In addition, scholars warn for a spill-over effect, where the powers increase over

time spreading to new areas and affecting a larger part of the population, an effect Gibney

suggests is visible in the UK. (Gibney 2015:40-41) Denationalization is suggested to be one

of many examples of how states attempt to circumscribe rule of law in order to better achieve

their policy goals (Kanstroom 2015:31).

Even scholars positive to denationalization warn for a development where the state under a

guise of security increases its discretionary power. The UK is used as an example where

denationalization powers are described as truly arbitrary since the Secretary of State as of

2006 can denationalize citizens on the loose grounds of acting “conducive to the public good”

(Joppke 2015:11). However, they believe that it is possible to create a non-arbitrary

denationalization power under tightly defined material conditions that is in accordance with

both constitutional and international law. They suggest that use of denationalization should be

limited to the most extreme attacks on the nation’s security and that a liberal constitutional

regime can control potential abuses of power by the state. (Hailbronner 2015: 9-10, Schuck

2015:25)

Creationofstatelessness

Several scholars believe that denationalization is not a proportionate punishment, especially if

it renders individuals stateless. Denationalization is even compared to the death penalty,

suggesting that it entails a “political death” where a citizen is stripped of rights and protection

associated with the former citizenship. As less rights-infringing punishments are available

they suggest that these should be used instead. (Macklin 2015ab:3-4, 53; Bauböck 2015:27)

On the other hand, some scholars believe that this problem can be overcome as each case

would be judged individually and a proportionality test would be made prior to deprivation,

looking at the severity of the crime, impact on the individual and his or her family, lapse of

time and whether they are dual citizens or not (Hailbronner 2015:23).

Apart from one scholar in the normative debate, Christian Joppke, all scholars agree that it is

problematic to create statelessness. Statelessness leaves individuals subject to a state’s power

without influence, rights, security or protection. Gibney takes this one step further when he

argues that even if one has a second nationality an individual might be rendered de facto

stateless. He explains this as a situation where an individual has citizenship, yet is “forced to

rely on a state that is unable to protect them or otherwise to deliver the fundamental rights

12

citizenship (or nationality) is supposed to guarantee”. (Gibney 2015:39) It is a situation where

a person experiences a stateless-like situation although they have a citizenship. Joppke on the

other hand, believes that terror against citizens should lead to a reconsideration of citizenship

even if this would result in statelessness. He suggests that more sympathy must be shown to

the victims of a terror attack than to its culprits (Joppke 2015:11).

Unequaltreatmentofcitizens

The fact that different groups of citizens are treated differently based on their background and

whether they have one or multiple citizenships is another common argument against

denationalization. Normally only naturalized citizens with dual citizenships can be

denationalized after committing a severe crime, often related to terrorism. All naturalized

citizens thereby have a less secure citizenship than those that acquired it through birth.

Spiro argues that denationalization arbitrarily discriminates against those with dual

citizenship. That citizens with a random non-related second citizenship could be subject to

denationalization makes their citizenship less secure, creating a type of second-class

citizenship. (Spiro 2015:7) Responding to this claim Hailbronner argues that there are

international laws prohibiting discriminatory citizenship, but that denationalization policies do

not call these into question. He suggests that interference with individual rights is justified

under clearly defined material conditions. (Hailbronner 2015:23-24) Schuck adds that as long

as denationalization does not lead to statelessness we should not be concerned over inequality

between different categories of citizens as everyone is entitled to citizenship somewhere

(Schuck 2015:10).

Anineffectivemeasure

The fourth and final major discussion in the normative debate relates to the effectiveness of

denationalization, especially from an international perspective. First of all, it is not clear

whether denationalization policies effectively deter future terrorists. Individuals ready to

commit terror attacks are usually beyond worrying about the consequences of their acts.

Denationalization might even be counter effective as terrorists are easier to control from

within the state than in a foreign country. (Paskalev, 2015:15) Some scholars argue that

denationalization is primarily used as a strategic move to win votes rather than as a tool to

prevent terror attacks (Spiro 2015:8; Bauböck 2015:27).

13

Furthermore, several scholars suggest that denationalization is not sustainable from an

international perspective as it only can remain effective if it is restricted to some states: “One

state’s authority to deem the bad citizen a non-citizen presupposes another state lacking that

same authority” (Macklin 2015a:6). If the relationship would be mutual where both countries

had equal ability to denationalize, it would become a race to strip citizenship first in order to

avoid the creation of statelessness. Furthermore, international cooperation is often seen as an

important tool to counter terrorism and denationalization policies clearly puts the authority

back in the state with a main concern of protecting its own people and borders. Macklin also

points out that many terrorist are “homegrown” and products of one specific society, and that

states should not be able to shed their responsibility by leaving dangerous individuals in the

hands of another state. (Bauböck 2015:28-29; Macklin 2015b:54)

On the other hand, there are scholars who believe that effectiveness is a secondary matter, that

whether denationalization is effective or not is not the only reason to punish wrongdoers. If

more conventional measures were to be found that better manage to deter terror attacks, these

should be used instead. However, in lack of other measures the state needs to do what it can to

protect its citizens and use all tools at its disposal. (Schuck 2015:10; Joppke 2015:12)

2.4 Achangingcitizenship?

The fact that scholars take different sides in this debate, some positive and some negative to

denationalization, is party explained by their underlining view of citizenship. If citizenship is

viewed as a contract between the state and its citizens, it is conceivable that this contract can

be broken. Serious crimes or crimes against the fundamental principles of citizenship would

break the contract and citizenship would be lost. To consider citizenship as a privilege is

similar, where certain acts might make you lose your membership of the privileged group and

the privileges that membership entails, such as protection and basic rights. Another

conception is to view citizenship as a basic right, a right that should be above the authority of

the state guaranteeing all other rights. This view is inspired by Hanna Arendt suggesting that

without citizenship you don’t only lose your civil rights but also your human rights.

According to these scholars a state should never have the authority to remove a citizen’s

citizenship. Scholars suggest that denationalization effectively moves citizenship from being

14

conceived as a right to increasingly becoming conceived as a privilege or contract. (Macklin

2015a:2-3)

As we have seen in the normative discussion a majority of scholars are worried about the

consequences of denationalization. They are worried that the state is granted arbitrary powers

to decide over citizens’ citizenship, that denationalization can render people stateless and

create unequal societies and that it could hurt international relations and all of this for no

apparent reason as denationalization has not been proved to deter terrorists or in any way

prevent terror attacks. However, it is important to acknowledge that there are also scholars

positive to denationalization, arguing that these concerns are small or possible to overcome.

Either way, the concerns with denationalization need to be addressed as several scholars, who

are experts in citizenship studies, are worried about how denationalizaiton could end up

changing citizenship.

All scholars agree that denationalization policies in the UK are arbitrary and that UK-

legislation enables the creation of statelessness contrary to scholars’ recommendations.

Inequality and discrimination might also be created as only some citizens can be

denationalized and all this could be in order to establish an anti-terrorism tool with no

documented efficiency that might hurt international relations. There seems to be reasons to

worry and further investigate what is happening with citizenship.

15

3.ResearchMethodologyandMaterial

In this chapter, the design and case selection will be presented. This is followed by the study’s

methodology and material and their advantages and disadvantages. The section ends with

presenting the operationalization of the study.

3.1Designandcaseselection

This study is designed as a case study looking specifically at denationalization in the UK and

the debates of three different legislative proposals which extended the Secretary of State’s

powers to denationalize. The four main concerns with denationalization that were introduced

in the normative debate provide the study’s theoretical framework looking at one concern at a

time and how well they are represented in the political debates.

In most countries only naturalized citizens that threaten vital interests of the state can be

denationalized. What sets the UK apart in an international perspective is its ability to both

denationalize birthright citizens and to make naturalized citizens stateless in certain cases. In

addition, the grounds for deprivation in the UK are widely defined as acts “conducive to the

public good” while most other countries use wider grounds for deprivation, for example for

acts “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests”. Consequently, the denationalization powers

in the UK are the most extensive among all liberal and democratic states. (Gibney 2014:333-

334)

Furthermore, no criminal conviction is needed prior to denationalization in the UK which is

required in several other countries. The Secretary of State can without any judicial

involvement give a notice of deprivation, however the person concerned can appeal this

decision in court. After a legislative change in 2004 citizenship is lost immediately when the

notice of deprivation is given and not kept during the appeal process. The appeal process has

been shown to be complicated as many individuals are denationalized while abroad and not

allowed to reenter the country for the appeal process, forcing them to appeal from abroad

(Anderson 2016:8).

16

It is difficult to find an exact number of denationalized individuals in the UK. Nevertheless, it

is possible to find government information for the years between 2006 and 2014 where 27

people had been denationalized on the ground that it was conducive to the public good to do

so. (Gower 2015:4). Most of the individuals denationalized since 2006 have lost their

citizenship while abroad (Ross & Galey 2014). In other countries applying denationalization

the measure is still very new and there are very few, if any, cases where a citizen has been

deprived of citizenship. For example, in France, no one has yet been denationalized and in

Australia it only happened once to a dual citizen fighting for the terror group IS/Daesh

(Norman & Gribbin 2017).

The UK could be interpreted as a critical or most-likely case with its extensive powers to

denationalize. A most-likely case is used were a certain theory or hypothesis have favorable

conditions to hold or be true and if it does not hold it is unlikely that it would hold in cases

with less favorable consequences, in short: “if I cannot make it here, I cannot make it

anywhere”. (Levy 2008:12) The four concerns raised by scholars are likely to be especially

big in the UK due to their extensive powers to denationalize citizens, and this should be

reflected in the political debates with many concerns addressed. If the concerns with

denationalization are not addressed in the UK, it is possible that they are not addressed in

other countries with less powers to denationalize than the Secretary of State in the UK.

There are two general objections that may be raised, firstly that the problem is marginal as

few citizens are directly affected by deprivation orders, secondly, that the UK is an outlier.

The problem is, according to several scholars, not marginal, but could change the status of

citizenship itself. Secondly, the UK is somewhat of an outlier, with much stronger

possibilities to denationalize than any other country. The results are therefore not aimed to

generalize – the UK is considered an interesting case in itself as it was in the UK the revival

of denationalization started and denationalization powers have steadily increased with each

new legislative proposal.

Mathew J Gibney, one of the prevalent scholars in the research about denationalization, has

also looked specifically at the UK. In his empirical work, he has investigated the history of

denationalization policies in the UK and shown how denationalization powers in the UK have

increased with every new legislative proposal, targeting a bigger part of the population as the

grounds for deprivation continuously have been lowered. In addition, he has looked at the

17

consequences of denationalization from a liberal perspective. He concludes that it is difficult,

if not impossible, to create a denationalization power that is in line with basic liberal

principles. (See Gibney 2013a, 2013b, 2014). A few scholars have also looked at

denationalization in the UK from a legal perspective. Sandra Mantu has written several pieces

on denationalization and examined law and practice of citizenship deprivation in the UK. She

shows how nationality legislation has been used to reach immigration and national security

goals and underlines that citizenship is no longer a secure legal status as it is turning into a

privilege. Furthermore, Mantu emphasizes how denationalization has sparked two

developments: that the state is reasserting its sovereignty in the field of citizenship and how

deprivation introduces a new model of worthy citizens. (See Mantu 2014, 2015a, 2015b)

This study will contribute to the field of empirical research, looking at whether MPs consider

the potential problems with denationalization.

3.2Qualitativecontentanalysis&descriptiveideaanalysis

In order to answer my research question of how MPs in the UK justify denationalization a

qualitative content analysis, and more specifically a descriptive idea analysis, is conducted.

A content analysis is normally used to quantify something, a notion, an argument or passage

of interest in the text. There is also a wider definition of quantitative analysis that includes a

qualitative approach and all types of analysis that systematically describes textual content. In

qualitative content analysis, the aim is not to measure or count, although there might be small

elements of that as well. Focus is instead on interpreting text, a work that requires more

judgement and consideration of the context than a pure quantitative approach. (Boreaus &

Bergström 2012:50) A qualitative content analysis is based on fewer observations and suitable

for smaller material and allows a more thorough analysis. A quantitative approach increases

the reliability of the results as it can easily be replicated if the classifications used are made

clear. On the other hand, a qualitative approach increases the validity of the results as it takes

the context into account and minimizes the risk of misinterpretations. (Beckman 2005:44-47)

A descriptive idea analysis could be described as a type of content analysis that aims to

systematically sort a material in a way that is not possible by simply reading or looking at the

18

material. Through an analytical reading, it is possible to say something about a text that is not

evident from the start. A descriptive idea analysis is sometimes used to provide a new

interpretation of a material contrary to other scholar’s findings. (Beckman 2005:49-50) As

denationalization is a rather new measure there are not many previous scholars to challenge,

instead this thesis looks at whether the concerns raised in the theoretical debate also were

present in the empirical debates in the UK parliament. The four main concerns arbitrariness,

statelessness, inequality and ineffectiveness are used as dimensions, as “lenses” while reading

the text to see if MPs address the potential problems with denationalization. This enables

comparisons to see whether the view of denationalization and its consequences addressed by

scholars and MPs correspond or not. (Beckman 2005:52-55)

3.2.1 Disadvantages&advantages

Content analysis combined with descriptive idea analysis were chosen as the methods suited

both the thesis purpose and material. The focus is on the explicit text of the debates, not latent

or hidden meanings. The material used is rather large, however the material still permitted a

qualitative approach, including more information about each observation. A qualitative

approach, paying attention to both context and process, was necessary in order to make sure

that the parliamentarians’ arguments were not misinterpreted and to see whether there were

any processual or contextual constraints in the debates impeding them from addressing certain

issues. That a concern is addressed multiple times by several MPs is also of interest, showing

that several MPs addressed these consequences prior to taking a decision. However, these

numbers will not tell us much without knowledge of what aspects of the issues they addressed

and processual and contextual constraints and opportunities.

In a qualitative approach the material is interpreted which could lead to bias and compromise

the study’s reliability. To minimize these problems the categories and questions asked when

reading the text were clearly defined before the material was read. The fact the material is

interpreted and take the context and process into account increases the validity of the study as

misinterpretations can be avoided. As the focus is on what is explicitly written in the debate it

is possible that latent or hidden meanings are missed. (Boreaus & Bergström 2012:80-81)

This is not considered to be a big problem as politicians have an interest in expressing

themselves clearly and explicitly as they represent and seek support from voters.

19

3.3 Operationalization

In order to answer the overarching research question – How do parliamentarians in the

United Kingdom justify denationalization and its consequences? – three subordinate questions

are used, as was presented earlier. Below is a discussion of how these were operationalized.

The first question – In what context are decisions on extending the United Kingdom’s

denationalization powers taken? – is in turn measured by a question: What events and

examples, national and international are referenced to in the debates and when the

government presented the Bills? When the government proposes a new bill, they have to

explain why certain changes are necessary. This gives a picture of how the government

perceives the situation at the time and important information about the context. In addition,

events and examples used, both by the government and other parties in Parliament further

helps in order to understand the context and whether certain events or cases influenced the

topics addressed in the debates.

To answer the second question – What did the process look like when extending

denationalization powers in the United Kingdom? – the focus is on MPs own experience of

the debates. Whether they considered that they had enough time for preparation and

discussion, if all the information was available and if experts could be consulted. By looking

at MPs subjective experience, only procedural opportunities and constraints addressed in the

debates can be considered. It is assumed that if no procedural concerns were addressed the

MPs were generally content. Still, it is possible that there were legal concerns with the

process of the debates which will not be considered. However, as long as MPs do not address

processual constraints or problems it is assumed that they had a chance to fully participate in

the debates. MPs certainly have own interests in a fair and just process. It is thereby unlikely

that big procedural problems will go unnoticed.

The third and most central question – To what extent do Members of Parliament in the United

Kingdom address the scholars’ four main concerns with denationalization? – is

operationalized by using the four main concerns addressed by scholars. Arbitrariness,

statelessness, equality and effectiveness are used as dimensions to see whether all the

different aspects of these concerns were addressed. Below is an explanation of how the

arguments were classified.

20

3.3.1 Classifications

Arguments that negatively referred to an increase of state power were classified as

arbitrariness. For example, statements suggesting denationalization gave a subjective power to

the Secretary of State, that citizenship is a right that should be above the authority of the

government, that denationalization could lead to an abuse of power for current and future

decision-makers or that it could have a spill-over effect and threaten the rule of law.

To consider that statelessness was addressed references to an actual increase of legally

statelessness people (de jure) or to people experiencing similar consequences to being

stateless (de facto) was needed. For example, that statelessness in not a proportionate

punishment, that statelessness puts people in very difficult and precarious situations and

references to the “right to have rights”.

An argument was classified in the equality category if there were references to different

treatment of citizens. For example, arguments related to discrimination based on background

or number of citizenships or how denationalization creates second-class citizens and fairness-

based arguments suggesting that some citizen’s citizenship is more secure than others.

Effectiveness was considered addressed if MPs addressed that denationalization is ineffective

or could in some way hurt international relations. References to other ways of handling

terrorists or preventing terror attacks, international obligations, reactions of other states or the

“race to strip citizenship first” dilemma occurring when several countries implement

denationalization were included.

In order for these issues to be considered fully addressed all aspects of the concerns had to be

included. For example, statelessness might be addressed, but not de facto statelessness (being

expelled to a country that does not guarantee civil or human rights). In addition, the concerns

need to be addressed by both Houses as they both have an important role in the legislative

process. That a concern is addressed rarely or frequently is also taken into account as it is

more likely that an issue is fully addressed when it is raised and discussed frequently.

It should be noted that some of these concerns will be more prevalent certain years depending

on what new provisions the bill introduces. This is likely to be clear when discussing

21

statelessness which certainly will be more discussed in the 2014 debates when de jure

statelessness was introduced. However, all concerns are important and raise issues each year,

and should be addressed for each legislative Bill.

It is assumed that politicians know about the potential consequences of denationalization and

that they will actively object in the debates if they do not agree with the government’s

proposals. A majority of the research on denationalization is published after its revival in the

UK, however being legislators it is a big part of the MPs job to think one step further and

consider the consequences of the legislative bills before them. In addition, MPs get expert

advice if requested and they have staff working for them to, among other things, provide

research and information in order for the MP to make an informed decision. (UK Parliament,

Working for an MP)

3.4Material

The material is both theoretical and empirical. As for the theoretical material, The European

Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship (EUDO) have published a series of working

papers to encourage academic research in new fields of citizenship. One specific paper is

about denationalization, “The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalization Policies

Weaken Citizenship?” (2015). This working paper gives a good picture of what is at stake in

the debate, addressing different perspectives with contributions from known scholars in the

field of citizenship coming from different Western universities. The EUDO website is also

useful to find information about different countries citizenship legislation and on what

grounds citizenship can be acquired and lost. (EUDO n.d.)

My main empirical material is three specific legislative bills - The Nationality, Immigration

and Asylum Act of 2002, Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act of 2006 and the

Immigration Act of 2014. These three are chosen as they brought major changes to the use and

application of denationalization in the UK. Besides these three legislative changes a smaller

change related to the appeal process of denationalization was introduced in the Asylum and

Immigration Act of 2004. As of this legislative change individuals that became denationalized

could no longer keep their citizenship during the appeal process. Those denationalized while

abroad could thereby no longer return to the UK nor access consular assistance. (Asylum and

22

Immigration Act of 2004 c.68) Due to the fact that it only discussed the appeal process and

did not change any other provisions in regards to denationalization this Act was excluded.

There were several debates in both Houses for all three legislative Bills, about 25 debates per

Bill, but all these debates did not address denationalization. All official debates were

included, both debates open to the entire House and debates in Committee discussing the bills

in more detail. The debates in the UK Parliament are documented word by word and only

corrected in case of big mistakes and repetitions (UK Parliament, Hansard), which gives me

the full content of the debates.

In addition, if available government white papers and press conferences where the legislative

proposals were introduced were used to get a picture of the context of the debates and

government motives. Citizenship scholars looking specifically at UK have also been used,

especially Gibney and Mantu, to better understand the context of the debates.

23

4.Empiricalinvestigationandresults

In the following section the results are presented one bill at a time, starting with 2002. The

sections are organized according to the three research questions, fist discussing context,

followed by procedure and lastly the arguments related to the four main concerns addressed

by scholars: arbitrariness, statelessness, equality and effectiveness.

4.1Revivalofdenationalization–TheNationality,ImmigrationandAsylumActof2002

The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002 was introduced by Tony Blair’s Labour

Government. This was the first time that deprivation powers were extended in modern

nationality legislation in the UK. (Mantu 2015b:8)

Before the 2002 Act was introduced a citizen could be denationalized as a result of specific

acts, such as disloyalty or disaffect to Her Majesty, communication or trade with the enemy,

or if a person was sentenced to prison for more than a year within five years from

naturalization. (British Nationality Act 1981 c.40) These rather specific grounds were

changed in 2002 to a wider formulation: “if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person

has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or a

British overseas territory”.

This new act also gave the government the power to denationalize even British born citizens,

as long no one would be rendered stateless. In addition, the 2002 act introduced procedural

safeguards, a deprivation order could now be appealed in court. (The Nationality,

Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002 c.40)

4.1.1Context

When considering the context of this Bill two important events should be named: the

September terror attacks in New York and national race riots in Northern England.

The Bill was announced only three months after the 9/11 terror attacks which many scholars

believe influenced the revival and reuse of denationalization. (see for example Macklin

24

2015a:1; Sawyer & Wray 2014:15; Gibney 2014:330; Mantu 2015b:7) The terror attacks

created anxiety over terrorism in the UK and the UK had decided to support the US in their

“war on terror” (Mantu 2015b:7). The 9/11 terror attacks were mentioned in the

Government’s white paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven where the Bill was introduced, but not

directly in relation to the extended deprivation powers (Home Office 2002:82). Nevertheless,

it is likely that the increasing threat of terrorism affected the Bill and the proposals that were

presented.

Furthermore, there was anxiety on a national level with race riots in Northern England. In

Bradford tensions between British-Asian communities and the white majority had turned into

violent riots. Similar riots emerged in other British cities such as Oldham and Burnley. (BBC

2001) The riots were addressed by The Home Minister, David Blunkett, in the white paper:

Summer’s disturbances in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley painted a picture of fractured and

divided communities, lacking a sense of common values or shared civic identity to unite

around. The reports signaled the need for us to foster and renew the social fabric of our

communities, and rebuild a sense of common citizenship, which embraces the different and

diverse experiences of today’s Britain. (Home Office, 2002:10)

Blunkett called for the need of better integration and a clearer set of British values to create a

sense of community and a better cohesion in society. He stated that the Government wanted to

initiate “an open and constructive debate about citizenship, civic identity and shared values”

and that this debate is necessary to bring people of different cultures, race and religion

together. He wanted immigrants to be better introduced to and engaged with the “fundaments

of our democracy and society” (Home Office 2002:10-11). In this attempt to redefine

“Britishness” the official discourse linked citizenship to terrorism for the first time although

terrorism already existed (Mantu 2015b:7).

The Government wrote that in order to attach importance to British citizenship it is important

to be able to deprive a person of their citizenship. Lord Filkin, Under-Secretary of State, also

made a reference to the need of denationalization powers “in these times”, most likely

referencing to the increased threat of terror attacks or increased national tensions (HL 2002-

10-09, col:283).

25

Besides new provisions regarding denationalization other changes to citizenship were

introduced in the Bill. For example, citizenship tests in language and history, an updated oath

of allegiance, introduction of citizenship ceremonies to celebrate the acquisition of citizenship

and efforts to speed up the process of obtaining citizenship. (Home Office 2002:11)

4.1.2Process

The Bill’s process through Parliament was critiqued by all bigger opposition parties, the

Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. Some of the critique

directly concerned specific parts of the Bill where government amendments were tabled very

late, especially in the House of Commons. (HC 2002-06-11, col:730-733) The critique did not

specifically concern the clause on deprivation of citizenship, but late amendments in other

parts of the Bill could have affected chances of proper scrutiny of the Bill overall.

In a response to the critique the Government agreed to discuss the Bill one extra day in

Committee in order to make sure all MPs would have their concerns heard and considered.

(Blunkett HC 2002-06-11, col:728) Yet, several MPs in the House of Commons argued that

this was not enough and proposed an amendment in order to yet again return to Committee for

further discussion. The following quote gives a picture of what the Liberal Democrats thought

about the process:

At the conclusion of the Committee stage, 17 clauses, three schedules, 13 new clauses and 53

amendments had not been debated. More importantly, and hence the reason for the

amendment to return the Bill to Committee, the Order Paper contains 160 non-Government

amendments, 35 Government amendments and two Government new clauses for

consideration today and 49 Government amendments, six Government new clauses and two

Government new schedules for consideration tomorrow. (Hughes HC 2002-06-11, col:731)

As is clear from the quote the extra Committee debate was not considered sufficient. Those

behind the amendment were afraid that the lack of time would not let them do their job

properly when considering “the lives and liberties of some of the most needy in the world”

(Hughes HC 2002-06-11, col:733). The vote on the amendment turned out negative and the

Bill did not return to Committee for further discussion (HC 2002-06-11, col:738).

26

After passing through the House of Commons the Bill was considered in the House of Lords.

This process was not critiqued, but some MPs took the chance to criticize the process in the

House of Commons. A Liberal Democrat suggested that complicated issues such as questions

relating to human rights should be dealt with differently in the future, with more time for

scrutiny. (Lord Lester of Herne Hill, HL 2002-06-24, col:1175).

4.1.3Concernsaddressed

Arbitrariness

The by far most discussed concern in the 2002 debates was arbitrariness. All opposition

parties, and even some MPs from Labour, were concerned about the increase of the state’s

discretionary power that this Bill entailed and they continuously described denationalization

as a draconian power.

The Liberal Democrats raised three main concerns. First of all, they suggested that the

threshold in the grounds of deprivation was too low and that the “seriously prejudicial” test

was poor as it included many types of situations and cases. Secondly, they disliked that the

provision was retrospective and could apply to acts committed prior to the acquisition of

citizenship. Thirdly, they suggested that the powers were too general applying to everyone,

even those who are British by birth. The party argued that the deprivation clause was the

“most dangerous clause that we have considered so far” and hoped that the Government

would consider to change the Bill not to “take away the rights of people to citizenship”.

(Hughes HC 2002-04-30, col:51-52)

In order to circumscribe the powers of the Secretary of State several amendments were tabled.

For example, MPs attempted to change the grounds for deprivation from “vital interests of the

UK” to “national security” making it more robust, but this amendment was rejected (HC

2002-04-30, col:61-62). The opposition managed to pass one amendment that was accepted

by the Government. It was no longer sufficient that the Secretary of State “thinks that” an

individual had done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, the

amendment changed “thinks that” to “is satisfied”. This resulted in the following formulation:

“The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of citizenship status if the Secretary of

27

State is satisfied that the person has done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests

of the United Kingdom, or a British overseas territory.” (HC 2002-04-30, col:50)

Another common argument was that there are less rights-infringing ways of punishing

citizens within the existing criminal law system. The Conservative Humfrey Malins argued

that this was preferable instead of denationalization:

Can anybody think of something that a person might do that would be seriously prejudicial to

our interests but is not a crime? If they can, I will listen to their argument. However, if the act

constitutes a crime, why should the person not be charged with that crime and punished for

it? Goodness knows people do some heinous things in life. They are charged and punished,

but their citizenship remains intact. (Malins HC 2002-04-30, col:52)

Malins questioned what acts could be contrary to the UK interests, but not constitute a crime.

He argued that people should be punished and charged for their crimes, but not lose their

citizenship. Responding to the critique the Government assured the MPs that they consider

deprivation to be a serious step and that deprivation powers would be used only when the

Secretary of State is satisfied that a person holding citizenship is not conducive to the public

good2. They reminded the MPs that deprivation powers had only been used ten times since

1948 and only once during the last 30 years and emphasized that the Government did not plan

to use the powers swiftly. (Eagle HC 2002-04-30, col:53) This did not manage to convince

the opposition, not even all party members, as they argued that even if denationalization is

used restrictively today there is no guarantee that future decision makers will follow their

example (Gerrard HC 2002-04-30, col:58).

Furthermore, a number of MPs were concerned that this punishment is decided trough an

executive order freed from legal control rather than a court decision. Denationalization

decisions were described as subjective, and MPs warned that they diminish the “positive

value and worth of British citizenship” if citizenship is removed easily. (HL 2002-06-24

col:1123) In addition, MPs asked the Government to clarify that there would be a full right of

appeal and that decisions would be transparent, not hidden in secrecy. In general, several MPs

found it unconvincing that denationalization powers were necessary when other tools exist.

(HL 2002-07-08, col:497) One MP stated that he “cannot recall any other occasion where the 2 It is interesting to note that the Government is already using the formulation “conducive to the public good” which will be the grounds for deprivation used in the coming legislative change in 2006.

28

Secretary of State had been given power with such small limitations” (Lord Rees-Mogg HL

2002-10-09, col:278) pointing to the lack of judicial overview of the powers to deprive

citizenship.

In order to calm the MPs Lord Filkin, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, explained that there are

occasions where a crime hasn’t been committed, but there is still evidence of seriously

prejudicial behavior and therefore deprivation remains an important tool to “mark

abhorrence” of certain behaviors and to protect the public by making sure the individual

cannot do something similar again. He also underlined that the Secretary of State must give

written reasons for an intended deprivation and that it would be possible to appeal a decision

made by the Secretary of State. (HL 2002-10-09, col:279-283)

Statelessness

The risk of creating statelessness with an increased use of denationalization was barely

addressed in the debates. In general, it was clear that all parties wanted to avoid the creation

of statelessness. The Government repeatedly stated that the new Bill would not result in

statelessness (HL 2002-10-09 col:1170).

The Liberal Democrats showed most concern and wanted to be reassured that the new Bill

would not allow or in any way increase the creation of statelessness. With support from the

Conservatives they asked the Government about their definition of statelessness and how it

would be interpreted. Simon Hughes, a Liberal Democrat and one of the main opponents of

the Bill, raised the issue of people who had lost their original citizenship when moving to

Britain and how they might be rendered stateless if they are denationalized (HC 2002-04-30,

col:12, 51).

De facto statelessness was barely addressed in the debates. Yet, a small number of MPs

emphasized the gravity of denationalization as a punishment and the situation it put people in.

How individuals could be unable to acquire a new passport for political reasons making their

second nationality “little more than an empty shell” (HL 2002-06-24, col:1123). One example

is the following statement made by Lord Kingsland:

I can think of no worse punishment, apart from the death penalty, than being expelled from

one's country of birth with all its associations of home and family, institutions, landscape and

29

other things. Have the Government considered whether that penalty on those born in the

United Kingdom falls within Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights? (HL

2002-07-08, col:499)

Lord Kingsland suggested that denationalization was almost comparable to a death penalty

and against human rights, because it left a person stranded in another country without

everything associated with their previous life.

Equality

The fact that denationalization treats citizens differently was raised quite frequently in the

debates in the House of Lords, however not at all in the House of Commons. After the risk of

arbitrariness this was one of the most addressed concerns in the 2002 debates.

The Government motivated the Bill in terms of equality suggesting that the current legislation

unequally targeted naturalized citizens. By extending denationalization policies to all citizens,

even birthright citizens, they argued that all citizens were treated more equally in comparison

to previous legislation. (Eagle HC 2002-04-30, col:53) Citizenship was described as an

important privilege that should be implemented without discrimination of how it had been

acquired, making sure that naturalized citizens did not have a second-class status compared to

birthright citizens (Filkin HL 2002-10-09, col:283).

This reasoning was met by critique by the opposition in the House of Lords. The opposition

were concerned that the Government was not eliminating inequalities, but instead creating

new inequalities. Anyone could now be denationalized as long as the person was not rendered

stateless which effectively targeted all dual nationals. The following quote is an example of

the critique aimed at the Government’s proposal:

Many people have dual nationality as a consequence of a set of circumstances over which

they had no control. I know that one of the Government's arguments is that it is wrong to

make a distinction between birth and naturalisation. But these situations seem so distinct that

I wonder why the Government believe that is a cause for concern. In any event, surely the

Government are introducing another form of discrimination between those born without

another nationality and those born with dual nationality. (Lord Kingsland HL Committee

2002-07-08, col:500)

30

The quote above stresses how individuals often do not chose to have one or multiple

citizenships, but inherit the citizenship of their parents. Arguing that the government is not

reducing discrimination, just aiming it at a new group.

The Liberal Democrats addressed this issue several times and argued that the Government is

secretly trying to extend their power to deprive citizens of citizenship in a guise of equality

and non-discrimination (HL 2002-07-08, col:505). The conservatives agreed with the Liberal

Democrats although they were not as present in the debate on equality.

In a reply, the Government stated that they have no figures suggesting that they are targeting a

certain group. They argued that all citizens were treated equally, but in order to follow

international obligations they cannot make anyone stateless. (Filkin HL 2002-06-24,

col:1177-1178) Furthermore, they suggested that only because the Government could not

enforce deprivation against everyone it shouldn’t mean that they should not use it at all, that

they had to take action against those that they could take action against. (Filkin HL 2002-10-

09, col:282)

Effectiveness

References to the effectiveness of denationalization and consequences on an international

level were very few, almost non-existent.

Yet, the Government motivated the Bill as a way of putting UK legislation in line with the

1997 European Convention of Nationality. The convention allows deprivation of citizenship

using the same grounds as those proposed by the Government, for acts “seriously prejudicial

to the vital interests” of the state. The Labour Government suggested that it was suitable to

put UK legislation in line with the convention as they planned to sign the convention if the

Bill was enacted. (Eagle HC 2002-04-30, col:55) To further justify the Bill the Government

emphasized that to deprive citizens of citizenship was not a new measure and that it had been

used by several other countries (Filkin HL 2002-10-09, col:279)

The opposition barely addressed international consequences. The Liberal Democrats quickly

stated that it is hard to know if another state would accept an individual that had been

denationalized from the UK and that exporting a dangerous citizen adds to the instability of

the world. Furthermore, a few MPs found it unconvincing that denationalization would help

31

in the war against terrorism and that prosecuting terrorists instead of depriving them of

citizenship would better correspond with the UK’s international obligations. (Dholakia HL

2002-10-09, col:273). A Conservative added that it seems irresponsible to send dangerous

former citizens to other states and that it should be the UK’s own responsibility to deal with

dangerous citizens within their own territory (Kingsland HL 2002-10-09 col:277).

Summaryofthe2002debates

It was clear that the risk of arbitrariness worried the MPs, and it was the only concern that

was fully addressed in the debates. All opposition parties and both Houses were concerned

that the Secretary of State was getting too big powers and included different aspects of the

problem, both that it gives the Secretary of State subjective power and how there is little

judicial overview. The risk of creating statelessness was not fully addressed by the MPs. The

Government clarified that the new Bill would not create de jure statelessness and MPs seemed

content with their confirmation, and did not seem too concerned about the problem of creating

de facto statelessness.

Equality arguments were discussed in the House of Lords to a rather big extent, yet it was not

discussed at all in the House of Commons which prevented it from being fully addressed in

the debates. Arguments related to the effectiveness of the policy were barely addressed at all.

4.2Respondingtoterrorism–Immigration,AsylumandNationalityActof2006

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act of 2006 was introduced less than four years

later. Yet again, Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to change the clause on deprivation of

citizenship. The most significant change this act brought about in relation to denationalization

was a change in the grounds for deprivation from acts “seriously prejudicial to the vital

interests of the United Kingdom, or a British overseas territory”, to “if the Secretary of State

is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good” (c. 56). These were the same

grounds that previously had been used to deport non-citizens (Gibney 2014:333).

32

4.2.1Context

The Government had lived up to their promises and used deprivation powers very rarely.

Since 2002 only one attempt to denationalize a citizen had been made. In 2003, the

Government intended to denationalize Abu Hamza, a citizen described as an extremist

preacher, but this attempt failed. Egypt, where he had his original citizenship, stripped him of

citizenship first. The British court ruled that he could no longer be stripped of British

citizenship as that would make him stateless. (Gardham 2010) This has been described as

failure for the Government and sparked interest in revising the legislation (Gibney 2014: 332).

Catherine Ashton, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, referred to this case in the debates saying

that: “Speaking personally, I am affronted that Abu Hamza has British citizenship—I wish

that he did not. I think that all noble Lords would agree with me.” (HL 2006-01-19,

col:GC274).

This act must also be considered in relation to the 2005 tube bombings in London. One month

after the terror attacks Blair held a press conference announcing several new proposals,

including an extension of deprivation powers and a list of unacceptable behaviors leading to

deportation or exclusion. Referring to denationalization and deportation Blair stated that “Let

no-one be in doubt, the rules of the game are changing” and emphasized that the

circumstances of the UK’s national security had changed.

Blair also announced that a new anti-terrorism legislation would be presented the coming fall

(Blair 2005). The terror attacks in London were continuously referred to in the debates,

Catherine Ashton underlined that “Part of the rationale behind this aspect of the legislation

concerns issues that followed the terrorist attacks in London this summer” as she referred to

the denationalization clause (HL 2006-01-19 col:GC273). Interestingly, scholars have argued

that the attacks in London appeared to mute criticism of the Bill that received Royal Assent

with surprisingly little debate. (Gibney 2014:333)

Besides the recent terror attack Britain faced a growing issue with home-grown terrorists and

denationalization was increasingly framed as a counter-terrorism tool and as part of the wider

proceedings of the Terrorism Bill, which was negotiated simultaneously. (Mantu 2015b:17-

18)

33

4.2.2Process

Comments on process were rare in the 2006 debates. One comment was raised specifically in

relation to the deprivation clause. Neil Gerrard a MP from Labour criticized his own

Government when he said: It is a pity that we have such a short time to debate what, I think, is one of the most important

sections of the Bill, including a group of clauses that were added in Committee, have never

been debated on the Floor of the House and are some of the most important changes that

have been made. It is probably true that clauses 51 to 53 will affect relatively small numbers

of people. For those small numbers of people, however, they will be extremely important.

(HC 2005-11-16, col:1053)

Gerrard was concerned that the deprivation clause had not been thoroughly discussed in

the House even though it would greatly affect the lives of some UK citizens. The

message from the Government was clear, responding to Neil Gerrard the Home

Minister, Tony McNulty said: “He knows the context in which these clauses were

introduced as well as I do”. (HC 2005-11-16, col:1054) The minister added that the

clauses had been discussed on an all-party basis during and beyond the summer,

suggesting that there had been enough discussion. (HC 2005-11-16, col:1054)

Another critique brought up in the debates was that the new Terrorism Bill was debated

simultaneously and that the two debates sometimes overlapped. At one occasion, the two

Houses discussed the two different Bills at the same time, Lord Judd, another MP from

Labour, argued that this “was an extraordinary piece of parliamentary mismanagement”. (HL

2006-01-19, col:GC272)

4.2.3Concernsaddressed

Arbitrariness

Yet again arbitrariness was the concern that was addressed most frequently in the debates and

by all parties, although not even a third as often as in the debates in 2002.

34

Similar to the debates in 2002 the MPs wanted to change the Governments formulation in the

grounds for deprivation from if the Secretary of State “thinks” to “is satisfied” that an act is

conducive to the public good. The Government agreed to this change during the Committee

debates. (HC 2005-10-27, col: 262-263) Many MPs remained concerned with the new and

wider grounds for deprivation and suggested that they were subjective and didn’t allow

sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness. One Liberal Democrat argued that “…the wording

is so wide; it does not refer simply to acts of terrorism” (Harris, HC 2005-10-27, col:266).

The new grounds for deprivation were the same as those used for deportation and many were

skeptical of how the Government equated migration control with the deprivation of

citizenship. An independent MP said that: “It is appalling that the Secretary of State should be

enabled to be prosecutor, judge and jury…” referring to the different roles this would give

Secretary of State. (Hylton HL 2006-01-19, col:GC273)

Speaking for the Government Catherine Ashton assured that they also attached a lot of

importance to citizenship, and that it was important that it is not given lightly nor taken away

lightly. Yet, she clarified that people who engage in activities such as Abu Hamza should not

find shelter behind their British citizenship. (HL 2006-01-19, col:GC273-GC274)

There were also comments about a greater need of transparency and that terrorists should be

dealt with in other ways, preferably within the legal system. An MP from Labour called for a

list of behaviors that would lead to denationalization to make the legislation clear and

transparent. The Government responded that they could give examples, but to make an

exclusive list of all acts leading to denationalization was deemed impossible as the

circumstances kept changing. (HL 2006-01-19, col:GC277- GC278)

Statelessness

Statelessness was not addressed at all in the 2006 debates with a few exceptions.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats wanted the Government to clarify the

legislation, arguing that it is not enough if the Government “thinks” that denationalization

would not result in statelessness, but that they had to be “satisfied” that it did not. The

Government’s position was made clear and the legislation specifically clarified that

deprivation was only allowed when the Secretary of State was satisfied that it would not result

in statelessness. (HL 2006-01-19, col:GC274)

35

Equality

Equality arguments were also badly represented in the debates and only address twice in the

House of Lords.

The Liberal Democrat Lord Dholakia was concerned that citizenship stripping would

adversely affect or even target ethnic minorities and that this could negatively affect race

relations. She claimed that British citizens should be better protected than people subject to

immigration control. (HL 2006-01-19, col:GC269) Lord Judd, from Labour, agreed and

expressed concern over how denationalization policies treat citizens differently and said:

“Some people may be subject to this provision and some may not. Surely that is a distinction

in the quality of citizenship—potentially for everyone.” (HL 2006-01-19, col:GC276) He

argued that deprivation was only aimed at some citizens and suggested that it compromised

the quality of citizenship, possibly for all citizens.

In a reply, Catherine Ashton was quick to disagree saying that “For me the principal concept

of citizenship is that people have a right to be a citizen and not to be stateless. That is

fundamental, in my personal view, but it does not mean that you have a right to be a citizen of

more than one nation.” (HL 2006-01-19, col:GC276) In her view the policy was not unequal

as all citizens kept a citizenship in at least one state.

Effectiveness

Few concerns related to the effectiveness of denationalization were raised. Nevertheless,

some MPs expressed concern that the new grounds for deprivation no longer were similar to

those in the European Convention on Nationality, making it difficult for the UK to sign the

convention. (HL 2006-03-14, col:1188) The Government admitted that “we shall have to

reflect, in the light of all the nationality legislation in this Bill, on whether it will be possible

to do so” (McNulty HC 2005-10-27, col:272), suggesting that it might be possible to sign the

convention but that they had to look into it.

In addition, one MP wanted the Government to clarify how often deprivation powers had

been used and repeated the concern addressed in 2002, that denationalization is just a way for

the Government to shed their responsibility by exporting dangerous citizens to other countries

(Gerrard HC 2005-10-27, col:272).

36

Summaryofthe2006debates

Surprisingly few concerns were addressed in the 2006 debates. The process was barely

critiqued although there was little debate, with few concerns raised overall. Arbitrariness was

yet again addressed more frequently than the other concerns, and several aspects of the

problem were considered, however not as frequently as in the 2002 debates. The other three

concerns were barely addressed at all. The debates in the House of Lords was more nuanced,

addressing more concerns and once again it was alone in addressing equality that was not at

all mentioned in the House of Commons.

4.3Introducingstatelessness–TheImmigrationActof2014

When the Immigration Bill was introduced in 2014 Labour was no longer in power, a

coalition Government with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had taken over in 2010

led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Immigration was an important topic during the

elections and it remained an important issue for Cameron’s Government. (Mantu 2015a:198)

This bill is the latest change to denationalization and the legislation that applies today.

The biggest and most debated change in relation to denationalization was that the new Bill

permitted statelessness in certain cases. Statelessness could result in cases where “the

Secretary of State is satisfied that it would be conducive to the public good because the person

has acted in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK”.

(Immigration Act of 2014 c.66) This would have been against the 1961 Convention on the

Reduction of Statelessness if it weren’t for the reservation the Government was granted when

they signed the convention allowing them to denationalize individuals when they acted in a

way “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty”. (UN 2017)

The powers to make someone stateless were mitigated by two amendments. It was not

possible to make someone stateless unless there were “reasonable grounds to believe that the

person is able to acquire another nationality”. The powers of the Secretary of State were also

subject to a periodic review by an independent reviewer which would be presented to the

Parliament. (HL 2014-03-12, col:1664-1665)

37

With the passing of this act different rules applied for the loss of citizenship depending on

number of citizenships and how citizenship had been acquired:

- British by birth and mono citizen: secure citizenship that cannot be removed.

- British by birth and dual citizen: can be deprived of citizenship on the ground that it is

“conducive to the public good”.

- British trough naturalization and dual citizen: can be deprived of citizenship on the

ground that it is “conducive to the public good”.

- British trough naturalization and mono citizen: can be deprived of citizenship for acts

prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK if it is reasonable to believe that another

citizenship can be acquired. (Wray 2014:18)

4.3.1Context

Between 2006 and 2014, 27 individuals had been deprived of their citizenship on the

“conducive to the public good” grounds (HC 2014-01-30, col:1045). In 2010 when the

Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition took over the deprivation orders increased (Gibney

2014: 333-335).

This change to the deprivation clause is described as a direct result of the Al-Jedda case. The

Government wanted to denationalize a citizen, Al-Jedda, because of his involvement with

Islamic groups and close contact with a terrorist explosives expert. However, the Government

was stopped by the Supreme Court as this would make him stateless. The Government tried to

appeal the decision but didn’t succeed. Consequently, the Government added an amendment

to the Immigration Bill which would allow them to render naturalized citizens stateless.

(Mantu 2015a: 210-213) The Al-Jedda case was specifically referred to by the Government as

the main reason to change the deprivation clause, suggesting that it “closes a loophole in our

law that has been highlighted by the Supreme Court” (HL 2014-05-12, col:1665-1666).

Besides the Al-Jedda case the threat of terrorism had increased all over Europe and the

Western World and an increasing amount of UK citizens were fighting abroad in Syria

(Mantu 2015a: 204). This was also addressed by John Derek Taylor, Parliamentary Under-

Secretary, in a debate in the House of Lords:

38

The limited change that the Bill contains is to allow a small number of naturalised citizens

who have taken up arms against British forces overseas or acted in some other manner

seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK to be deprived of their citizenship,

regardless of whether it leaves them stateless. (HL 2014-02-10, col:417)

Taylor used the example of naturalized citizens who take up arms against UK forces abroad

as an explanation to why the changes to the deprivation clause were needed.

There was no white paper or press conference by the Government further explaining why the

changes to denationalization were introduced. The statelessness provision, as we will see

below, was introduced last minute as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision on the Al-

Jedda case.

4.3.2Process

The process of the 2014 debates was highly critiqued especially the Bill’s quick passage

through the House of Commons.

The possibility of depriving a naturalized citizen of citizenship even if it would render the

person stateless, was not in the original Bill presented by the Government. Instead, it was

presented at a very late stage, after all the Committee debates and only 24 hours before the

Report Stage where all amendments proposed in Committee were discussed by all MPs in the

House of Commons. As they had to come to a decision the same day MPs had exceptionally

little time to prepare and there was not enough time to ask for expert advice on the matter. In

addition, the Government didn’t consult outside bodies or table explanatory statements

describing the effect and application of this clause. (HC 2014-01-30, col:1040)

The opposition asked the Government to explain why the changes to the deprivation clause

were presented at such a late stage. Home Minister Theresa May explained:

The new clause is a consequence of a specific case. The power to deprive on conducive

grounds is such that even when I consider the first and arguably the most important part of

the test to be met—that it would be conducive to the public good to deprive—I am still

prevented from depriving a person of their citizenship if they would be left stateless as a

39

result. That was the point explored in the Supreme Court case of al-Jedda. (HC 2014-01-30

col:1040)

According to the Government the judgement by the Supreme Court’s in the Al-Jedda case

was given late, just before the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. Theresa May

wanted officials to look at the case and see whether deprivation powers could be extended and

still follow the UK’s international obligations. The Government argued that they did not have

time to introduce the issue earlier then at the Report Stage as it needed to be carefully

considered within the Government. (May, HC 2014-01-30, col:1041)

Lord Pannick, a Liberal Democrat in the House of Lords, was one of many who were

unhappy with the process of the Bill and suggested that a Committee of Parliamentarians with

representatives from both Houses should be created in order to thoroughly consider the

changes proposed by the Government. While explaining his amendment he said:

A Joint Committee will need to consider the practical implications and the international

implications of implementing this power. As discussed in Committee, there are real concerns

that the proposed measure would do little to protect the national interest and may be

counterproductive. It is difficult to understand what would be achieved by taking away the

citizenship of a person resident here. (HL 2014-04-07, col:1168)

Lord Pannick suggested that implications and consequences of the Bill needed to be further

discussed. The amendment received broad support from all opposition parties in the House of

Lords and was sent back to the House of Commons for consideration. In the House of

Commons, it was clear that the Government did not plan on delaying the bill further by

installing a Joint Committee. Instead, the Government agreed to make two concessions, only

allowing statelessness if it was reasonable to believe that the person concerned could acquire

citizenship elsewhere and suggested periodic reviews by and independent reviewer evaluating

how the Secretary of State applied deprivation powers. (HL 2014-03-12, col:1664-1665)

A leaked letter from the from the Liberal Democrat Minister of State for Crime Prevention,

Norman Baker, addressed to Liberal Democrat MPs reveals how he attempted to persuade

MPs to vote with the Government as a result of the concessions the Government had made.

He wrote that if they vote against the Government, mainly consisting of Conservatives, they

might not make as many concessions in the future. Referring to the Government’s

40

concessions he wrote: “I think these two conditions in essence mean that it should not be

possible to make someone stateless, and although the formula is not as clean as we might like,

I think personally it is sufficient.” (Hardman 2014) Many Liberal Democrats were concerned

about the possibility of making people stateless, however Baker suggested no one was made

stateless as the Secretary of State had to find it reasonable to believe that citizenship can be

acquired elsewhere. Baker also wrote that if the MPs wouldn’t feel comfortable in supporting

the Governments’ amendments they should abstain. (Hardman 2014; Travis 2014)

After a lively and rather long debate in the House of Commons where the Government was

questioned by both the opposition and their own MPs, the Government got their way and the

MPs accepted the Government amendments and thereby rejected the amendment by the

House of Lords. (HC 2014-05-07, col:214) The House of Lords appreciated the Government’s

concessions, nevertheless they still complained over the process, suggesting that the bill

needed more scrutiny (HL 2014-05-12, col:1669).

4.3.3Concernsaddressed

Arbitrariness

Numerous MPs were concerned about the powers that were given to the Secretary of State,

almost as many as in the debates in 2002. Many concerns were similar to those expressed

previous years: that deprivation orders depended on the subjective opinion of the Secretary of

State giving him or her too much power, a lack of judicial overview and transparency,

problems related to that the powers were retrospective and worries that future decision makers

would abuse deprivation powers. The grounds for deprivation were also critiqued for being

too broad not requiring any consultation or scrutiny. In general, MPs were yet again

concerned over concentrating so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State. (HC

2014-05-07, col:205; HL 2014-05-12, col:1669-178)

New arguments were proposed in relation to the change of the appeal process in 2004 where a

person was deprived of their citizenship immediately when the notice of deprivation was

given, not retaining citizenship during the appeal process. It was argued that this made it

difficult for those who were abroad when denationalized as they were not allowed to reenter

the country during the appeal process. In addition, these people might not be aware of the

41

Government’s intention to strip their citizenship before the time limit for the appeal expired.

(HC 2014-01-31, col:1049; HL 2014-02-10, col:437)

Listening to some of the critique addressed by MPs the Government agreed to have periodic

reviews of the deprivation powers and present a report to the Parliament. John Derek Taylor

assured the MPs that “Ministers fully recognise that depriving a person of British citizenship

is a serious step. That is why the threshold for use of the power is set at a high level and why

decisions will be taken only after a great deal of research and careful consideration.” (HL

2014-05-12, col:1667) The amendment passed, yet the opposition didn’t find the review to be

enough and called for more time for pre-legislative scrutiny suggesting that many unanswered

questions remained. The fact that reviews were to occur every third year was also criticized

for being too rarely. (HL 2014-05-12, col:1669, 1672)

Statelessness

As might be expected, statelessness was the concern that was most frequently addressed in the

2014 debates, considerably more than previous years.

MPs in the House of Lords were not convinced that national security could justify the creation

of statelessness. As was discussed earlier, Lord Pannick proposed that a Joint Committee with

parliamentarians from both Houses should discuss the matter further. This proposal received

broad support in the House of Lords, but it didn’t pass in the House of Commons. Instead the

Government added a formulation suggesting that the Secretary of State could only

denationalize an individual if he or she “has reasonable grounds for believing that the person

is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a

national of such a country or territory.” This would only be applied when conduct is

“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom” (HL 2014-05-12,

col:1664-1665).

Lord Pannick, who was behind the amendment suggesting a Joint Committee, was unhappy

with the Governments’ plans to create statelessness, suggesting that it is a tool used by

dictators to get rid of opponents:

This country played a leading international role in the drafting of the 1961 UN Convention

on the Reduction of Statelessness. We have done much since then to encourage other nations

42

to refrain from inflicting on their citizens what Lord Wilson, in the Al-Jedda case in the

Supreme Court last year, described as “the evil of statelessness”. There are, regrettably, all

too many dictators around the world who are willing to use the creation of statelessness as a

weapon against opponents and we should do nothing to suggest that such conduct is

acceptable. (HL 2014-04-07, col:1169)

Pannick pointed to the UK’s international role in preventing statelessness and how

statelessness was an evil tool used by dictators to get rid of their opponents. Many MPs

agreed that creating statelessness was evil and a medieval tool. Statelessness was described as

“one of the most terrible things that can befall anyone” and many were concerned about

creating a new generation of stateless people (HL 2014-04-07 col:1174).

Furthermore, several MPs were concerned that the creation of statelessness violated human

rights referring to Hanna Arendt and the “right to have rights”. They argued that statelessness

is a recipe for exclusion, precariousness and dispossession. (HL 2014-05-12, col:1676; HL

2014-04-07 col:1174) The Liberal Democrat Sarah Teather criticized the Government for one

day emphasizing international obligations and humanitarian protection and the next day ask

“for a blank cheque to remove people’s rights to have rights” (HC 2014-01-30, col:1039).

Theresa May did not agree, arguing that these powers would be used in very limited

circumstances and that they followed UN conventions (HC 2014-01-30, col:1040).

Equality

The Bill was also criticized in terms of equality before the law, but his happened very rarely.

Referring to a group of Somalis in his constituency Frank Dobson from Labour said that the

reaction he had gotten from immigrants was that: “You’re not really a British citizen. You’re

only a British citizen on sufferance and the Home Secretary can take your citizenship away”

(HC 2014-01-30 col:1094), suggesting that denationalization can be a very damaging measure

where people are treated differently based on their background. On a similar note, referring to

the bill overall, Lord Bishop of Leicester suggested that the bill could “generate serious

concern, anxiety and tension among our diverse migrant communities” (HL 2014-02-10

col:430).

Alok Sharma, a Conservative MP, did not agree and supported the Government when she

said:

43

I am a naturalised British citizen and the clause therefore applies to me. I support it

wholeheartedly. There are rights as well as obligations that come with British citizenship.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend should go even further […] and introduce similar sanctions

against anyone who is British, irrespective of how they got British citizenship, if they do

something so heinous against the British state. (HC 2014-01-30 col:1042)

It is clear that Sharma considers citizenship to be a contract suggesting that citizenship should

be lost if the obligations of citizenship are violated. Sharma does not believe the policy is

discriminatory suggesting that the policy should go even farther and apply to all UK citizens.

Moreover, two MPs brought up that the Bill creates different classes of citizenship. Julian

Huppert, a Liberal Democrat argued that the bill “fosters the idea of two classes of citizen—

people whose citizenship can be taken away without them being convicted of something and

those who cannot have it taken away.” (HC 2014-05-07, col:211). They argue that since

denationalization treats citizens differently this could result in different categories of citizens,

where some citizens have a secure citizenship that cannot have it removed while others can

have it removed even without a criminal conviction.

Effectiveness

How denationalization is not an effective measure and could negatively affect international

relations was addressed several times in the 2014 debates, a lot more than previous years.

As previously stated many MPs were sceptic as to whether this new bill was in line with

international obligations. The Joint Committee proposed by Lord Pannick, was supposed to

further discuss the international implications of implementing denationalization, suggesting

that it could hurt rather than protect national interests (HL 2014-04-07, col:1168).

Theresa May replied that the new Bill was in line with international obligations and described

that the 2002 and 2006 Acts “go further than is necessary to honour our international

obligations in terms of limiting our ability to render people stateless” and continued “It was

done, as I believe, in anticipation of signing the 1997 European Convention on Nationality.

We have never signed that convention and this Government have no plans to do so.” (HC

2014-01-30, col:1042) According to May the previous Acts have gone further than necessary

44

in trying to avoid the creation of statelessness and this was no longer necessary as the

Government did not plan on signing the European Convention on Nationality. May further

clarified that the new Bill was in line with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

because of a reservation the UK was granted when signing the Convention which allowed the

UK to deprive citizenship resulting in statelessness for acts “seriously prejudicial to the vital

interests of Her Britannic Majesty.” (HC 2014-01-30, col:1042) She argued that the Bill

simply puts the UK legislation back to where it was before 2002 while still following the

requirements of the UN conventions (HC 2014-01-30, col:1040).

All MPs were still not convinced by the Government’s arguments. Baroness Smith of

Basildon from Labour pointed out the UK’s proud record in opposing the creation of

statelessness and suggested that the UK would never accept if another country denationalized

an individual while that person was in the UK and said: “Are we imposing an obligation on

other countries that we would not ourselves accept?” (HL 2014-05-12, col:1671).

In addition, some MPs brought up practical problems of what would happen if other states

refused to accept a prior UK-citizen that had been denationalized. They suggested that this

could be especially complicated when a citizen is denationalized while abroad and no longer

could return to the UK, forcing another state to keep the individual. Several MPs agreed that

“dumping citizens abroad” would not make the UK any safer, it might instead make it more

difficult to control the movements of dangerous prior citizens when they are in a foreign

country. Instead, they argued that terrorism is better fought internationally and globally. (HL

2014-04-07, col:1175)

Like in the previous debates it was also argued that it is not fair for the UK to shed their

responsibility by sending dangerous prior citizens to other states and potentially threatening

diplomatic relations. Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood argued that any gain in national

security would not compensate for the reputational damage and damage it would cause to the

UK’s soft power. (HL 2014-04-07, col:1175)

Summaryofthe2014debates

The 2014 debates addressed all of the concerns with an exception of equality to a rather big

extent. Statelessness was addressed most frequently, both de jure and de facto statelessness.

Arbitrariness was like previous years also addressed covering all different aspects of the

45

problem. Effectiveness and the international perspective was addressed more than in previous

debates, focusing mainly on how the new Bill could violate international obligations and how

other countries would react. Equality issues were brought up in both Houses, but still very

rarely and by a small number of MPs.

46

5.Discussion

In this section, the results are discussed in relation to the bigger debate about

denationalization. This is followed by a reflection on the results as well as recommendations

for future research.

5.1Howisdenationalizationjustified?

The purpose of this thesis was to see whether politicians consider the potential problems with

denationalization in political debates when deciding to extend the powers to denationalize. In

extension, this can also increase our understanding of how the discussion and implementation

of denationalization could affect and even change citizenship.

The risk of arbitrariness was the only concern that was continuously addressed in the debates

of the three Bills. All scholars in the normative debate agree that denationalization powers in

the UK are indeed arbitrary because of the loosely defined grounds “conducive to the public

good” that were introduced in 2006. Nonetheless, in the debates 2006 only a few MPs

expressed concern, much less criticism was raised compared to the debates of the two other

Bills. The new grounds for deprivation were wide and gave the Secretary of State big leeway,

yet this was rarely addressed in the debates. The 2006 debates are interesting, not primarily

because of what MPs addressed in the debates, but rather because of the lack of debate.

Scholars have suggested that this was due to the London terror attacks in 2005. It seems

plausible that all MPs were affected by the recent events and that they wanted to support the

Government in their efforts to extend tools against terrorism, such as denationalization.

The process and context of the debates, at first included to make sure that the MPs were not

constrained in addressing their concerns, turned out to be very interesting and important to

fully understand the debates. Surprisingly, the process of both the 2002 and 2014 debates was

highly critiqued and at times the process seemed to concern MPs more than the actual content

of the Bills. The House of Commons in particular repeatedly complained about a lack of time.

In the debates in 2014, the changes to the deprivation clause were introduced latest possible,

the night before the House of Commons had to come to a decision. This late amendment

received a lot of critique, but the Government still managed to pass the Bill despite minimal

47

scrutiny in the House of Commons. The process of the three bills in the House of Lords

seemed better and fairer as no complaints were raised, this could also explain why they

addressed more issues and seemed to have more nuanced debates than the House of

Commons. Consequently, it is possible that the House of Commons would have raised more

issues in the debates if the process had been better and if they had more time to debate.

Besides the concern of arbitrariness, the MPs did not consistently address the scholars’ other

three concerns. Statelessness was only fully addressed in 2014 when de jure statelessness was

introduced. This suggests that MPs did not find de facto statelessness to be a big concern.

When de jure statelessness was introduced MPs were worried that it would hurt the country’s

reputation since the UK have had an important role in forming international conventions

against statelessness. MPs also referred to the “rights to have rights” and that the UK should

not participate in the creation of a new generation of stateless people.

In Baker’s letter to Liberal Democrat MPs he suggested that the new provision did not really

create stateless people as the Secretary of State must find it reasonable to believe that

citizenship can be acquired elsewhere. However, in international law you are either stateless

or not, there is no official status for people who are stateless but have good chances of finding

citizenship elsewhere (Mantu 2014:200-201). The law actively creates stateless people.

Nevertheless, it seems as though Baker managed to convince some MPs, at least to abstain, as

the law passed. The 2014 debates were also the first time that the MPs really addressed the

international perspective, worrying about how creating statelessness would be perceived by

other countries and whether the UK still could uphold its international obligations.

Equality was addressed more in 2002 than during the debates of the two other bills, but

almost exclusively by the House of Lords. As the group targeted for denationalization policies

have changed over time the equality arguments have also changed. Initially only naturalized

citizens could be denationalized, but Blair’s Government extended this to include all citizens,

even birthright citizens with dual citizenship. The Government argued that by doing this they

ended discrimination against naturalized citizens. Nevertheless, the new Bill effectively

targeted dual nationals which was emphasized by the opposition. In 2006, the Blair

Government continued to defend denationalization suggesting that it treated citizens equally

as everyone was guaranteed citizenship somewhere. However, when Cameron’s Government

48

took over and introduced statelessness for naturalized citizens they went back to a policy that

the previous Government had considered discriminatory.

The different Governments, especially Blair’s Government, have extended their powers to

denationalize and made a bigger part of the population subject to denationalization, trough

arguing in terms of equality although the policy didn’t necessarily treat citizens more equally,

but rather targeting a new group. Yet, as some scholars have pointed out, to create a fully

equal policy denationalization should not be implemented at all, as the punishment will be

experienced differently depending on whether the individual has a second citizenship or not

(risking statelessness), and if they do it still depends on the other country of citizenship and

how well it can provide protection and human rights (risking de facto statelessness).

Arguments related to the efficiency of the policy were few. One concern that scholars

addressed that never was considered in the political debates was what Macklin calls “the race

to strip citizenship first” occurring if several states have the ability to denationalize and

thereby compete to denationalize a dangerous citizen first as countries normally avoid making

a citizen stateless. Even though this actually happened in 2003 with the case of Abu Hamza,

where Egypt stripped him of citizenship first, no one expressed concern over this in the

debates. However, by introducing the possibility to make naturalized citizens stateless the UK

Government managed to somewhat bypass this constraint, as they can denationalize a citizen

even though the person concerned already lost his or her original citizenship. In any case, it

was surprising that the MPs did not question how other states would react to their decision to

denationalize, it was only when introducing statelessness that MPs really started to worry

about how other countries would react.

Interestingly, the two Governments rarely argued in favor of denationalization by suggesting

that it was an important tool to protect British citizens. Although denationalization was

presented as an anti-terrorism tool it seems like efficiency arguments were not considered

important, this is in line with some scholars that suggest that effectiveness is a secondary

matter. On the other hand, it is possible that the Government considered that denationalization

was symbolically important showing that certain behavior is not acceptable. Another

possibility that other scholars have suggested, is that denationalization has been implemented

as a tool to win votes and show that the state is responding to the increasing threat of

terrorism, even if the policy itself might not be effective in preventing future terror attacks.

49

In the 2014 debates all concerns were more or less addressed. It is possible that MPs were

more concerned as they had more knowledge about denationalization and its consequences,

however it seems more likely that this was due to the controversial introduction of

statelessness. It is logic that statelessness was addressed more in the debates in 2014 than

previous years as citizens could be rendered de jure stateless. However, statelessness

arguments also spilled over to arguments about effectiveness as MPs were concerned about

how this could affect international relations addressing what other countries would think and

whether creating statelessness would be in line with the UK’s international obligations.

References to efficiency were thereby raised as a result of the introduction of statelessness.

Consequently, it seems reasonable to believe that the MPs were not more concerned about

denationalization as such in 2014, but merely concerned about how denationalization was

extended to enable the creation of statelessness.

Coming to an end of the discussion, denationalization seems to have spurred two different

developments. In line with the opinion of several scholars, it is important to emphasize that

the power of the state is increasing in an area previously considered a human right. Even

though the risk of arbitrariness was addressed in the debates the power of the state kept

increasing. The rule of law is tampered with by a strong state which is granted increased

discretionary powers in new areas, even in areas related to human rights. These powers are

not just any powers, the Secretary of State can deprive citizens of citizenship, not only for

terrorists but all dual nationals who act in a manner “conducive to the public good”. In some

cases, the Secretary of State can leave people stateless, which liberal states have not done

since the end of the World Wars. Citizenship, that many take for granted as a human right, is

now increasingly under the discretionary power of the state and used as tool to keep unwanted

citizens out, in an increasing number of liberal states.

Moreover, denationalization measures have been rushed through the UK Parliament

embedded in emotional arguments characterized by an anger and frustration with terrorism.

This seems to have impeded the chance of MPs to fully consider the consequences of

denationalization and the bills passed through Parliament without addressing all of the main

concerns of scholars. This was especially clear in 2006 when the recent terror attacks in

London made it possible for the Government to significantly extend the grounds for

deprivation with minimal critique from the MPs. Public opinion has clearly favored

50

denationalization measures, and it is possible that MPs found it hard to raise human rights

arguments when a large number of citizens recently had become victims of a terror attack.

Either way, due to the sensitive context national security arguments have continuously

triumphed over human rights arguments.

5.2Reflectionsontheresults

When interpreting and categorizing the results and MPs arguments in the debates there is a

risk of a potential bias. However, as politicians normally try to convey their opinions to the

public, most arguments were clearly articulated and relatively easy to categorize. In order for

a concern to be considered addressed all aspects of the concerns needed to be included, they

needed to be addressed rather frequently and in both Houses. If the concerns were addressed

in both Houses all MPs should have had the possibility to join the discussion and express any

disagreements. Furthermore, all observations were weighed equally even if party leaders

might be speaking for a bigger group, maybe even the entire party. Yet, if not directly stated,

it is difficult to know who supports different statements, thereby all statements were

considered equally important.

If the 2004 Act would have been included, where it was decided that citizenship would be

revoked immediately when a deprivation order was given, it is possible that we would have

seen even more arguments related to arbitrariness. However, as arbitrariness was the only

concern considered fully addressed in all debates it is not likely that including the 2004

debates would have changed my results.

Even though the UK could be seen as a most-likely case with their extensive powers to

denationalize it is difficult to generalize the results. The results are very context dependent

which became clear when comparing the three debates. National and international events as

well as processual constraints seem to considerably affect the results. However, all of the

concerns addressed by scholars were not fully addressed by the MPs although the UK have

more extensive powers to denationalize than any other liberal democracy, this suggests that

politicians do not consider the problem with denationalization to be as big or important as

scholars do. It is possible that this is the case also in other countries where denationalization

has been implemented in a similar context influenced by terror acts.

51

Judging by the study’s results UK parliamentarians did not address all the problems that

scholars warn could change citizenship. It was assumed that politicians had all the

information needed to be able to foresee these consequences, but it is possible that time

constraints impeded them from addressing all issues, especially MPs in the House of

Commons. It is also possible that MPs did not know about the potential consequences of

denationalization, especially as research on denationalization is new. However, predicting the

consequences of different legislative bills is a big part of MPs job and they have recourses

available to be able to do so. Another possibility is that the MPs did not consider these issues

to be important and thereby did not feel the need to address scholar’s concerns in the debates.

Either way, it is possible that the MPs agreed to create a whole new power, were the Secretary

of State can revoke citizenship when it is deemed to be “conducive to the public good”,

without fully considering its consequences.

In addition, it is important to acknowledge that two different governments have been involved

in the creation of UK’s denationalization power. Since both Labour, the Conservatives and

the Liberal Democrats have been in power when denationalization powers have been

extended it is clear that denationalization has broad support from all major political parties.

However, as Gibney clearly stated it was not until 2010 when the Conservative/Liberal

Democrat coalition took over that the powers really started to be used and the number of

deprivation orders increased. Many MPs from Labour criticized the introduction of

statelessness in 2014 and it is possible that statelessness would not have been introduced if

Labour would have stayed in power. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that it is

always easier to criticize the government when in opposition. All through the debates the

Liberal Democrats have been the biggest critics of denationalization, which is in line with

Gibney’s research as he found that denationalization is difficult to unite with liberal values.

Being a minority in a coalition Government they were encouraged to settle with Government

concessions. It is likely that statelessness would not have been introduced if the Liberal

Democrats were in majority in the Government.

Deprivation powers have steadily increased with each legislative proposal, but so has the

threat of terrorism. As long as the threat of terrorism remains or increases it is likely that we

will see more of denationalization, both in terms of number of individuals denationalized and

the spread of denationalization across countries. An increased threat of terrorism can always

be used to justify denationalization, but that is why it is important to think one step further

52

and see past purely emotional arguments. As we have seen denationalization can have serious

consequences and it is important that they are considered.

In a growing number of countries denationalization is also considered for crimes other than

terrorism. This is a troubling development. As we have seen with the scholar’s four concerns

denationalization is already difficult to justify as a punishment for terrorist acts and to justify

denationalization for normal criminal acts would significantly increase the concerns addressed

in this thesis, especially issues relating to inequality as naturalized citizens’ citizenship would

become very insecure compared to birthright citizens. For some citizenship would become

similar to a normal residence permit which can easily be lost, while others keep a secure

citizenship that never can be lost for misconduct.

This thesis addressed four main concerns with denationalization, however there are also some

concerns that were not addressed in this paper. For example, denationalization does not allow

rehabilitation or reintegration in society, it is not aimed at curing the criminal or terrorist, but

rather to get rid of the person concerned. That the denationalization is not a proportionate

punishment was discussed some in relation to statelessness, however many believe that it is

not a proportionate punishment even if the person is not rendered stateless. (Macklin 2015a:3;

Bauböck 2015: 27)

5.3Futureresearch

Denationalization is spreading quickly, and it is important that research about

denationalization catches up. More knowledge about the consequences of denationalization

and how it could change citizenship as we know it today is needed. It is important to point to

potential problems with this development and bad or good practices in order for politicians to

know what power they are creating and how to minimize potential problems.

Looking further into the case of the UK, it would be interesting to investigate why MPs did

not address all concerns with denationalization. If it was due to the quick process, a context

characterized by the threat of terrorism, a lack of knowledge, a lack of interest or simply if the

MPs do not agree with the scholar’s concerns and thereby did not feel a need to address them.

53

As we have seen in the theoretical debate several scholars suggest that citizenship is

increasingly becoming a privilege rather than a right. It would be interesting to investigate

this further and see how citizens experience their citizenship. For example, if naturalized

citizens or citizens with dual citizenship feel more insecure in their citizenship, and less like

UK citizens, compared to citizens born in the UK with only their UK citizenship.

This thesis has focused on deprivation of citizenship in liberal states, however deprivation

powers are also implemented in a number of African countries and several South American

countries have recently introduced denationalization powers, to further investigate

denationalization outside the Western perspective would give new and interesting

perspectives.

54

6.Conclusion

This thesis has shown that politicians in the UK parliament are not considering the four main

problems with denationalization highlighted by scholars, with the exception of how the

powers could become arbitrary. It seems as though MPs in the UK have given the Secretary

of State the most extensive powers to denationalize citizens among all liberal states, without

fully considering the consequences of the power. As we have seen, it is possible that

contextual and processual constraints impeded the MPs from fully addressing all concerns.

The growing threat of terrorism favored a quick legislative process and the MPs continuously

complained about a lack of time. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether and to what

extent these concerns will become reality and how much they will change citizenship as we

know it today.

As citizens, we need to be observant of two developments. Firstly, a development where the

state is increasing its power over our basic rights and undermines the rule of law, making

citizenship less secure and predictable. Secondly, a development where a quick legislative

process characterized by emotional augments manage to hide consequences that circumscribe

human rights. Denationalization measures are not necessarily bad, and some problems with

denationalization might be possible to overcome, but the concerns and their consequences

need to be acknowledged. It is important that politicians as well as citizens understand that

denationalization is not simply an anti-terrorism tool, but a measure that could change the

foundation of citizenship, whether we like it or not.

55

7.References Anderson, David. 2016-04-21. Citizenship removal resulting in statelessness, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/citizenship-removal-resulting-in-statelessness (Downloaded: 2017-04-10) Arendt, Hanna. [1951] 2004. The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man. In The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken Books. Asylum and Immigration Act of 2004. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/19/contents (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). Bauböck, Rainer. 2015. Whose bad guys are terrorists? In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 27-29. BBC. 2001-12-11. Race ‘segregation’ caused riots”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1702799.stm (Downloaded: 2017-04-27). Beckman, Ludvig. 2005. Grundbok i idéanalys: Det kritiska studiet av politiska texter och idéer. Stockholm: Santérus förlag. Blair, Tony. 2005-08-05. PM s Press Conference - 5 August 2005. The National Archives. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060715135117/number10.gov.uk/page8041 (Downloaded: 2017-04-28). Boreaus, Kristina; Bergström, Göran. 2012. Textens Mening och Makt – Metodbok I samhällsvetenskaplig text och diskursanalys. 3rd ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Bourmaud, François-Xavier. 2015-12-31. Sondage: 85 % des Francais favorable à la déchéance de nationalité. Le Figaro. http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2015/12/30/01002-20151230ARTFIG00156-sondage-85-des-francais-favorables-a-la-decheance-de-nationalite.php (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). British Nationality Act 1981. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61(Downloaded: 2017-03-15). European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship. Comparing Citizenship Laws: Loss of Citizenship. http://eudo-citizenship.eu/databases/modes-of-loss (Downloaded: 2017-03-18). European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship. The EUDO Glossary on Citizenship and Nationality. http://eudo-citizenship.eu/databases/citizenship-glossary/glossary#Cithip (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). Gajanan, Mahita. 2016-11-29. Here Are the Only Times the U.S. Government Can Revoke Your Citizenship. Time. http://time.com/4584784/donald-trump-flag-burn-citizenship/ (Downloaded: 2017-05-13).

56

Gardham, Duncan. 2010-11-05. Abu Hamza Keeps British Citizenship. Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8113979/Abu-Hamza-keeps-British-citizenship.html (Downloaded: 2017-03-04). Gibney, J. Matthew. 2013a. A Very Transcendental Power’: Denaturalisation and the Liberalisation of Citizenship in the United Kingdom. Political Studies. Vol 61, No 3. p. 637–655.

Gibney J. Mathew. 2015. Beware states piercing holes into citizenship. In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 39-41. Gibney, J. Matthew. 2013b. Should Citizenship be Conditional? The Ethics of Denationalization. The Journal of Politics, Vol 75, No 3, p. 646–658.

Gibeny, J. Matthew. 2014. The Deprivation of Citizenship in the United Kingdom: A Brief History. Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law, Vol 28, No 4. p. 326-335. Gower, Melanie. 2015. Deprivation of British citizenship and withdrawal of passport facilities. House of Commons Library. SN/HA/6820. Hailbronner, Kay. 2015. Revocation of citizenship of terrorists: a matter of political expediency. In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 23-25. Hardman, Isabel. 2014-05-07. Exclusive: Leaked Lib Dem letter reveals changes to controversial ‘stateless’ plan. The Spectator. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/05/exclusive-leaked-lib-dem-letter-reveals-changes-to-controversial-stateless-plan/# (Downloaded: 2017-05-04).

Holehouse, Matthew. 2014-09-01. Strip British jihadists of citizenship, demand public. Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11067321/Strip-British-jihadists-of-citizenship-demand-public.html (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). Home Office. 2002-02-07. Secure Borders, Safe Haven. White Paper. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secure-borders-safe-haven-integration-with-diversity-in-modern-britain (Downloaded: 2017-04-26). House of Commons. 2005-10-27. Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. Committee. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/e/st051027/am/51027s01.htm#end (Downloaded: 2017-03-20). House of Commons. 2005-11-16. Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. Report Stage. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo051116/debtext/51116-04.htm#51116-04_head2 (Downloaded: 2017-03-20). House of Commons. 2014-05-07. Immigration Bill. Ping Pong.

57

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140507/debtext/140507-0002.htm#14050791000003 (Downloaded: 2017-03-21). House of Commons. 2014-01-30. Immigration Bill. Report Stage and Third reading. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140130/debtext/140130-0001.htm#14013058000001 (Downloaded: 2017-03-21). House of Commons. 2002-04-30. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Standing Committee E. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmstand/e/st020430/pm/20430s01.htm (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Commons. 2002-06-11. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Third reading. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020611/debtext/20611-07.htm#20611-07_head0 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2014-03-12. Immigration Bill. Committee. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140312-0001.htm#14031265000436 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2014-05-12. Immigration Bill. Ping Pong. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140512-0001.htm#14051211000467 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2014-04-07. Immigration Bill. Report Stage. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140407-0001.htm#14040716000863 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2014-02-10. Immigration Bill. Second reading. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140210-0001.htm#1402104000322 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2002-07-08. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Committee. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo020708/text/20708-03.htm#20708-03_head2 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2006-01-19. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Grand Committee. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo060119/text/60119-28.htm#60119-28_head1 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2002-10-09. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Report Stage. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo021009/text/21009-06.htm#21009-06_spnew5 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2002-06-24. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Second Stage. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo020624/text/20624-10.htm#20624-10_head0 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). House of Lords. 2006-03-14. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Third reading.

58

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo060314/text/60314-18.htm#60314-18_head0 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). Immigration Act of 2014. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/22/contents/enacted (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). Joppke, Christian. 2015. Terrorists repudiate their own citizenship. In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 11-13. Kanstroom, Daniel. 2015. Human rights for all is better than citizenship rights for some. In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 31-34. Levy, S. Jack. 2008. Case studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Vol 1, No. 25 p. 1-18. Macklin, Audrey. 2015a. Kick-Off contribution. In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 1-6. Macklin, Audrey. 2015b. On producing the alien within: A reply. In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 51-56. Mantu, Sandra. 2014. Citizenship Deprivation in the United Kingdom. Tilburg Law Review. p. 163-170. Mantu, Sandra. 2015b. Citizenship in times of terror: citizenship deprivation in the UK. ECPR Standing Groups 2015. p. 1-20. https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/2ab106b5-1c2a-4be4-9313-8d858890cb39.pdf (Downloaded: 2017-04-24). Mantu, Sandra. 2015a. Contingent Citizenship: The Law and Practice of Citizenship Deprivation in International, European and National Perspectives. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill Massola, James. 2015-07-06. Poll shows huge support for stripping sole nationals of Australian citizenship. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-shows-huge-support-for-stripping-sole-nationals-of-australian-citizenship-20150706-gi6416.html (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). Norman, Jane and Gribbin, Caitlyn. 2017-02-11. Islamic State fighter Khaled Sharrouf becomes first to lose citizenship under anti-terror laws. ABC. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-11/islamic-state-fighter-khaled-sharrouf-stripped-of-citizenship/8262268 (Downloaded: 2017-05-13).

59

Paskavel, Vesco. 2015. It’s not about their citizenship, it’s about ours. In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 15-16. Ross, Alice and Galey Patrick. 2014-02-13. Home Secretary waited until terror suspect was abroad before stripping citizenship. Bureau of Investigative Journalism. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2014-02-13/home-secretary-waited-until-terror-suspect-was-abroad-before-stripping-citizenship (Downloaded: 2017-05-13). Sawyer, Caroline and Wray Helena. 2014. Country Report: United Kingdom. European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/33839/EUDO-CIT_2014_01_UK.pdf?sequence=1 (Downloaded: 2017-03-06). Schuck, Peter. 2015. Should those who attack the nation have an absolute right to remain its citizens? In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 9-10. Spiro, Peter. 2015. Terrorist expatriation: All show, no byte, no future. In Macklin & Bauböck, The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship? EUI Working papers. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. p. 7-8. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act of 2006. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/13/contents (Downloaded: 2017-03-17). The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/41/section/4 (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). Travis, Alan. 2014-05-07. MPs back Theresa May plan to strip terror suspects of UK passports. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/07/mps-back-theresa-may-strip-terro-suspects-uk-passports (Downloaded: 2017-03-15). UK Parliament. Hansard. http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/publications/hansard/ (Downloaded: 17-03-28). UK Parliament. Working for an MP. http://www.parliament.uk/about/working/mp/ (Downloaded: 17-05-13). UNHCR. UN Conventions on Statelessness. http://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html (Downloaded: 2017-03-20). UN Treaty Collection. 2017-05-14. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-4&chapter=5&lang=en#EndDec (Downloaded: 2017-05-14). Wray, Helena. 2004-06-28. The new powers of deprivation of citizenship in the UK. http://eudo-citizenship.eu/news/citizenship-news/1160-the-new-powers-of-deprivation-of-citizenship-in-the-uk (Downloaded: 2017-05-01).