“British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm.”
This comment came from the Home Office to defend the Home Secretary’s announcement to propose an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill. Clause 9 gives the UK Government the right to withdraw citizenship from any UK National. The proposed change to this clause, is to allow citizenship to be revoked without having to give notice when it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so.
This is no surprise, as without exception, every Home Secretary since David Blunkett (twenty years now) has negatively fuelled the hysteria around this country needing to take control of its borders. The Home Office continuously empathises urgency of the protection of British citizens by constantly pointing out the imminent threat of Muslim terrorists. Islam, BLM, Windrush, BREXIT, racism in cricket and a whole host of other headline issues, means that for many UK citizens living in Britain frequently feels insecure enough, without the threat that the UK Government plans to extend their power to strip away the legal rights of citizens.
Setting aside all the obvious details of hypocrisy, it is the fact the Home Office defended its policy on the declaration that British citizenship is a ‘privilege’ that I find so condescendingly outrageous!
I am aware of three ways to gain UK citizenship and none of them are granted as a ‘privilege’.
The first way is to be born here. At the point when parents register the birth of a child, the child becomes a citizen. There is no exclusion, and only alternative nationalities are available in rare circumstances. Basically, every person born in the UK automatically gains citizenship. This is outside of their control and consent. Therefore, effectively, citizenship by this method has been imposed by the State. And from that point onwards, every aspect of your life is now dependent on the fact that citizenship has formally been registered. This becomes apparent should you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to prove your UK citizenship.
The conservative party in their 2010 manifesto, pledged to bring UK annual net migration down to the tens of thousands. Prime Minister David Cameron introduced new measures to control immigration. Rigorous procedures were introduced in 2012, which affected several Government departments and included detailed instructions being distributed to employers across the UK. Although the Government denied it was aware of the repercussions (outlined by Amber Rudd 2018), within several months of Cameron’s policies being implemented, it became apparent that a significant number of British citizens were having their lives destroyed. Jobs were lost; homes were lost; access to benefits were denied; free NHS care was no longer available; and within a few years the new policy saw at least 83 people being illegally deported! Although this became known as the Windrush Scandal, it affected legal migrants from across the Commonwealth and not just the Caribbean. These rules and regulation are still enforced, so if you were not already aware, take heed, and keep your UK birth certificate and your British passport safe, as without it your life is impossible to live.
Being a UK citizen is based on the relatively new concept of Nation State.
The definition of Nation State is a community of citizens that identify themselves as a nation and they deem the proximity of the territory they occupy, as their homeland. Prior to this 16th Century ideal, people simply associated themselves to certain tribes or specific places or their region of origin. For example, Sandeep may have said he was from a certain place, or from the Punjab, but he would not have considered himself as an Indian. Those that chose to travel or migrate could do so relatively freely. Without getting too complicated, the concept of Nation State gained recognition in the 17th Century after the signing of the treaty of Westphalia. Even so, it is only during the 19th and 20th centuries that it manifested into a form that we would recognise today. The propagation and implementation of the Nation State model was driven by the great European powers, and the global chieftain that imposed the necessity to uphold this principle was of course, the British. Interesting therefore, that Britain is proposing a U-turn on an international political system that they prominently established. Nation State is how the Europeans chose to organise global populations and resources, and so citizenship resulted as the imposition of identity and was not provided as a privilege.
The second means of eventually gaining citizenship is by requesting asylum. Asylum has been in existence since ancient times. During the Greek and Roman eras, an asylum referred to a place where people facing persecution sought refuge. These were usually religious institutions, such as temples and sacred sites. In Europe, from the medieval period, churches became the places that provided sanctuary. A familiar term for those aware of Victor Hugo’s novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It is well known that when Jews fled the tribulations of the Spanish inquisition and Russian pogroms, they were granted asylum by the Muslims.
After the Second World War, millions of people were displaced across the globe. A massive problem well beyond the kindness of religious establishments. Hence, it became apparent that an extensive solution was required, and one that would conform to the established Nation State protocols. Therefore, the treatment of refugees was agreed by 147 countries that signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and following on from this, by the Protocol of 1967.
As Britain agreed to this UN Convention, the UK Government is obliged to protect those people fleeing oppression. Those seeking asylum must prove that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or because of their political views. Decades ago, Britain decreed itself to be humane to seekers of asylum. Decades ago, Britain decreed it was a right for anybody that was being persecuted. So, being granted asylum is a legal right and not a privilege. The struggle of escaping a regime that endangers your life is hard enough, without the obstacles currently enforced by the UK Government. Since the Second World War, the difficulty of obtaining citizenship by these means has become increasingly burdensome year on year. Those that gain full UK citizenship after initially arriving as asylum seekers have paid a price beyond imagination.
Purchasing is the final way of gaining citizenship. There are always other specific rules and conditions before naturalisation in the UK is granted. Proving you have lived in the UK for a continuous period of 5 years, for example. After the administrative thresholds have been met, depending on your circumstances, fees of between £1,300 to £3,250 must be paid. This money is unlikely to be reimbursed, so whenever applications are rejected or examinations failed, the fees must be paid again for any subsequent reapplications. In a capitalist world money determines superiority, so by that measure, immigrants have earned more right to this country than the indigenous population!
So, it is clear, that no British citizen has been granted that status by means of privilege. The only people that have privilege in this country are those sitting in the cabinet approving policies and laws of oppression.
Abdul Aziz November 2021
Abdul’s World 