UK: Don’t trust the government’s citizenship-stripping policy

Commentary on the UK citizenship revocation policy with respect to persons suspected of terrorist offences or other serious international crimes. While not sympathetic to most of his arguments, I share his concern over due process and the risks of giving Ministers too much discretionary power. As Canada prepares for similar legislation, we will see how the Canadian government balances the ability to revoke citizenship (the current process is unworkable) with  necessary process safeguards.

A different concern is that denaturalisation laws like the ones active in the UK are simply arbitrary, and for that reason unjust. Our legislation does not require that an individual be convicted of a crime in a court of law; indeed, one of the attractions of the current legislation for British governments is that it allows the home secretary to get rid of individuals without going through the difficult process of providing the evidence necessary for criminal conviction. To be sure, there is a statutory right of appeal, but given that most Britons are stripped of their citizenship when outside the UK, the chances for an effective appeal are minimal. Current laws define the grounds for deprivation so broadly that a successful appeal on the merits of a decision is highly unlikely.

If these moral concerns about stripping of citizenship fail to convince, there is one final and compelling reason why we should look askance at this power. Even if depriving dangerous individuals of their citizenship can be right in principle, can we really trust governments to use such a power prudently in practice? I think not.

Don’t trust the government’s citizenship-stripping policy.