1
00:00:00,030 --> 00:00:06,520
Today. We're very lucky to have Dr. Devyani Prabhat come to talk to us about her work on.

2
00:00:07,650 --> 00:00:13,560
Does that mean that with somebody else on citizenship that was later on citizenship stripping.

3
00:00:15,330 --> 00:00:18,690
Devyani is a reader in law at the University of Bristol Law School,

4
00:00:18,750 --> 00:00:25,050
which teaches immigration and nationality law and supervises students on citizenship and constitutional rights.

5
00:00:25,560 --> 00:00:31,890
She's a both a sociologist and a lawyer by training, and she studied in the US at NYU.

6
00:00:32,520 --> 00:00:36,630
Narayanan has published two monographs, which are about national security and citizenship,

7
00:00:36,900 --> 00:00:42,090
one of which won the Society of Legal Scholars Award for Outstanding Legal Scholarship in 2017.

8
00:00:42,540 --> 00:00:47,610
She's also the editor of a third book on British Citizenship, which is forthcoming later this year.

9
00:00:48,300 --> 00:00:52,410
So on her hand, over to you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

10
00:00:52,680 --> 00:00:57,210
I think it's better at this time because then I can see the slides better myself.

11
00:00:57,690 --> 00:01:01,470
So. So these are the two books.

12
00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:05,040
Anyone who is interested. What?

13
00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:11,640
This one is primarily about national security and has a lot on cancellation of citizenship as a strategy in it.

14
00:01:11,940 --> 00:01:19,709
And this one is more about belonging and citizenship. So not quite on the topic, but because it's so topical.

15
00:01:19,710 --> 00:01:23,010
I've been on media a lot talking about it today.

16
00:01:23,010 --> 00:01:24,660
I want to do something much deeper,

17
00:01:24,930 --> 00:01:33,780
not just give you soundbites on what citizenship stripping is and not just talk about Shamima Begum as a person and a human interest subject,

18
00:01:33,780 --> 00:01:42,930
which I think is important, but reflect on the situation to reflect more broadly on what the powers are and why we are having it.

19
00:01:42,960 --> 00:01:52,860
So my friend today is to talk about the legal developments, then to talk about what's new in the Shamima Begum case in terms of the use of the powers,

20
00:01:53,250 --> 00:02:00,660
and then to look at what the implications are and to then analyse that in terms of why.

21
00:02:01,020 --> 00:02:03,839
A little bit of the why question, why do we have these developments?

22
00:02:03,840 --> 00:02:08,520
How doesn't connect with past measures and the history of citizenship in this country?

23
00:02:08,790 --> 00:02:12,030
So it's a very ambitious I've got a lot to cover.

24
00:02:12,330 --> 00:02:18,090
And I'll try to go through it slowly. If it's fast, just let me know as Laura and I get quite excited.

25
00:02:18,090 --> 00:02:23,850
So that might happen. A good visual representation.

26
00:02:24,690 --> 00:02:27,990
Can you actually see from here? Well, yeah.

27
00:02:28,080 --> 00:02:31,379
Maybe I should mention this. I think if I'm here, that's good.

28
00:02:31,380 --> 00:02:39,870
I. So if you look at the this graph, I think it's a really good visual depiction of the use of this power.

29
00:02:40,140 --> 00:02:46,410
Now, the power has been on the statute books from the time of the World Wars, so it's not new.

30
00:02:46,620 --> 00:02:54,570
And again, came back in full force, probably 2002, but its use is dramatically rising every year.

31
00:02:54,810 --> 00:02:58,180
2017 there are 107 known instances.

32
00:02:58,560 --> 00:03:03,660
There are many more instances we don't know about. So this is the data that we have.

33
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:07,950
2018 further use and again, we're waiting for new stats on this.

34
00:03:08,250 --> 00:03:14,220
But I think it gives a sense of the rise and rise of cancellation powers in this country.

35
00:03:14,610 --> 00:03:23,309
And also a good thing to bear in mind is this doesn't include data on cancellation of passports, because that's a completely different power.

36
00:03:23,310 --> 00:03:26,910
That's a to power. The numbers for that we do not know.

37
00:03:27,150 --> 00:03:32,250
And it's completely different. This is the actual citizenship cancellation data that we have.

38
00:03:33,210 --> 00:03:38,940
So what then happened in the Shamima Begum case and what is happening in it?

39
00:03:39,390 --> 00:03:43,260
Shamima Begum We know she was a 15 year old at the time.

40
00:03:43,770 --> 00:03:50,459
She was born in Britain, has British parents who are of Bangladeshi origin, but they have British citizenship.

41
00:03:50,460 --> 00:03:55,020
So she's second generation and that's the relevant factor here.

42
00:03:55,470 --> 00:03:59,460
She's not holding any other citizenship. She doesn't hold anything else.

43
00:04:00,090 --> 00:04:03,900
And she is. She's gone to Syria. She's still there.

44
00:04:04,140 --> 00:04:08,700
She's in various camps being moved around between various camps in Syria.

45
00:04:08,970 --> 00:04:12,270
She cannot re-enter because her citizenship has been cancelled.

46
00:04:12,810 --> 00:04:19,650
And we can add to this mix various facts that she had a British born child at various times.

47
00:04:19,650 --> 00:04:22,160
She's with other children, none of whom have survived.

48
00:04:22,530 --> 00:04:32,879
But I'm keeping it out of this set of factual scenarios, because I think this is enough for us to look at what I'm going to emphasise,

49
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:44,310
which is the link between citizenship, ethnicity, first, second generation migrants and then how easily this PA can operate and how how does it work.

50
00:04:44,460 --> 00:04:48,000
So I'm focusing on that. So this is what I do.

51
00:04:48,510 --> 00:04:55,620
These are the kind of relevant facts for us. So what is really the concern?

52
00:04:56,070 --> 00:04:59,730
Now people frame it in various ways. They will talk about arbitrary.

53
00:04:59,960 --> 00:05:05,240
Privation of nationality and how that is banned in the international convention.

54
00:05:05,630 --> 00:05:14,600
But then when there is a process, a procedure in law by statute and it's not must be used against an entire population.

55
00:05:14,870 --> 00:05:23,070
We're not talking about a situation of cancellation of citizenship like potentially in Myanmar against the Rohingya.

56
00:05:23,090 --> 00:05:29,270
So it's a different scenario. So we are probably not talking about arbitrary deprivation.

57
00:05:29,510 --> 00:05:34,760
We are talking about who can be left without a nationality.

58
00:05:35,120 --> 00:05:45,380
Can anyone be left stateless? And Shamima Begum situation is that she does not have a surviving nationality, existing nationality at the moment.

59
00:05:45,650 --> 00:05:49,340
So in effect, she is stateless where she is in Syria.

60
00:05:50,210 --> 00:05:56,030
So this is the international framework then on statelessness and the right to nationality.

61
00:05:57,080 --> 00:06:05,180
One question comes up a lot. The UK is a signatory and has ratified both the 1954 and the 61 Convention on Statelessness.

62
00:06:05,780 --> 00:06:11,690
But did the second 161 convention where you cannot create statelessness?

63
00:06:12,110 --> 00:06:21,290
It has a reservation to it. So a question that comes up often is the reservation is that you can, for national security interests,

64
00:06:21,470 --> 00:06:29,780
strip naturalised people of their citizenship if that was allowed by the statutes on the books of signing.

65
00:06:30,230 --> 00:06:34,129
So this is the exact wording for it. So the question is,

66
00:06:34,130 --> 00:06:41,600
does that reservation then permit the UK Government now to have new laws which

67
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:46,340
allow the stripping of citizenship and leaving naturalised citizens stateless?

68
00:06:47,150 --> 00:06:51,770
So this is not a central question for Shamima Begum Case.

69
00:06:51,950 --> 00:06:59,480
Let me say why she's not naturalised. So that reservation and the scope of it doesn't apply at all.

70
00:06:59,780 --> 00:07:03,379
So let there be no doubt that we're not talking about the scope of the

71
00:07:03,380 --> 00:07:08,300
reservation and the use of that provision in the interests of national security.

72
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:13,250
Leaving that aside in other cases, maybe that is relevant.

73
00:07:13,250 --> 00:07:21,980
So we should talk a little bit about the reservation. The reservation specifically says that it is limited for national security to strip people.

74
00:07:22,220 --> 00:07:30,860
If that was permitted at the time of that signing of this of this convention, at that point of time,

75
00:07:30,860 --> 00:07:37,970
the UK was having such a provision in its statute which said that naturalised citizens can minister for national security.

76
00:07:38,300 --> 00:07:42,740
This is true. However, that was repealed in subsequent years.

77
00:07:42,770 --> 00:07:48,710
That was no longer there. And then that was reinstated only in 2014.

78
00:07:49,040 --> 00:08:00,800
So whether that reservation actually covers that or not for anybody is a matter of opinion of and there is legal opinion that it does not.

79
00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:10,000
But at the same time, potentially it could. So I will leave it open, but also make the point that that's not what is being argued initially.

80
00:08:10,000 --> 00:08:17,480
It would be the case and the government has also not been raising this reservation in most of the measures that they implement.

81
00:08:17,990 --> 00:08:22,760
So but this is kind of the legal framework and the international level.

82
00:08:24,140 --> 00:08:27,920
Okay. So when can these powers be exercised?

83
00:08:28,340 --> 00:08:34,120
So there is a pre amendment set of powers and there is a post amendment.

84
00:08:34,130 --> 00:08:40,460
The amendment happens in 2014 through the Immigration Act to the British Nationality Act.

85
00:08:40,970 --> 00:08:48,080
So you could previously only cancel the citizenship of somebody who has more than one nationality.

86
00:08:48,080 --> 00:08:51,680
So they have to be what is called a British plus something else,

87
00:08:51,980 --> 00:08:57,560
because then if you cancelled their British citizenship, they are still left with the default nationality.

88
00:08:57,860 --> 00:09:01,040
So that was the scenario that you could have it.

89
00:09:01,670 --> 00:09:07,580
The reasons is that it could be because of fraud or it could be because of their conduct.

90
00:09:09,420 --> 00:09:13,670
There is. That's just too good. So only for fraud or conduct.

91
00:09:13,970 --> 00:09:20,150
But the first one is no longer true. It's not only for dual or multiple nationality quotas anymore.

92
00:09:21,020 --> 00:09:30,050
The third thing that's notable is that prior to the amendment, this affected everybody, every citizen, in a similar manner.

93
00:09:30,080 --> 00:09:39,090
It doesn't depend much on the pathway. But for the fact that, yes, if you are born here, it's unlikely that it would be a case for fraud.

94
00:09:39,110 --> 00:09:42,709
Right. Because, you know, fraud means there would be some sort of documentation.

95
00:09:42,710 --> 00:09:46,940
So the cases about fraud are about naturalised people in general.

96
00:09:47,240 --> 00:09:55,250
That's because of the nature of the pathway. But specifically, the pathway was not different for naturalised versus people who are born here.

97
00:09:56,390 --> 00:09:59,840
So the key importance of the surviving nationality.

98
00:10:00,940 --> 00:10:09,820
Being there was to then protect against statelessness and to satisfy the requirements of not violating those two conventions.

99
00:10:10,120 --> 00:10:18,430
So that's where we were operating until 2015 when changes happened because of the cancellation.

100
00:10:19,120 --> 00:10:26,800
The other key legal thing to know is why and what's the standards of conduct for conduct cases for which you can have cancellation?

101
00:10:27,460 --> 00:10:31,840
The general standard is this. Is it good for.

102
00:10:31,870 --> 00:10:35,650
Is it is it for the public good? Is it conducive to public goods.

103
00:10:35,980 --> 00:10:45,490
To cancel the citizenship. So this those who work in immigration detention and you know, this is the exact deportation standard for foreigners.

104
00:10:45,850 --> 00:10:52,720
So it's not a very high standard we are talking about. And I think there is something about that itself which speaks to this.

105
00:10:53,140 --> 00:10:58,690
You're making someone foreign. Therefore, you treat them with that same standard of evaluation.

106
00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:06,220
So look at whether it's conducive to public good. Would you get a further explanation on what is conducive to public goods?

107
00:11:07,780 --> 00:11:18,370
Strange. Strange frontier. Sorry. It just means it's been defined as depriving the public in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in.

108
00:11:18,430 --> 00:11:29,560
And then there is all this terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, the kind of read together and then war crimes are unacceptable behaviour.

109
00:11:30,370 --> 00:11:33,790
Okay, so that's a real change over there.

110
00:11:33,940 --> 00:11:39,760
So if there is a form that goes off here unacceptable behaviour, please be aware there is this power.

111
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:43,479
I'm joking. I mean, obviously we read the words in the context, right?

112
00:11:43,480 --> 00:11:49,090
So we have to read the last bit in the context of all these other ones as well.

113
00:11:49,420 --> 00:11:54,760
But it is a really broad standard for looking at what is conducive to public good and

114
00:11:54,760 --> 00:12:00,340
can potentially expand and involve things way beyond the scope of national security.

115
00:12:01,030 --> 00:12:10,479
In fact, it is being used in other cases we know, because the gangs which are being involved in like the paedophile gangs in Rotherham,

116
00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:16,000
etc., this was the power that they were using and talking about foreign citizenship stripping.

117
00:12:16,210 --> 00:12:29,920
So it's definitely not just national security. So the conducive ground now actually allows the state to strip people of citizenship,

118
00:12:30,220 --> 00:12:35,680
even if they do not have a surviving citizenship, sort of as they are naturalised citizens.

119
00:12:36,160 --> 00:12:40,570
And what it says is that they can be left stateless.

120
00:12:41,470 --> 00:12:45,880
But there is an additional standard. It's not just conducive to public good.

121
00:12:46,330 --> 00:12:53,410
It also has to be conduct that is in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.

122
00:12:53,890 --> 00:13:00,190
This is the exact reflection of the language in the reservation to the convention

123
00:13:00,340 --> 00:13:04,690
in and I suspect that's exactly what the UK had said in its reservation,

124
00:13:04,900 --> 00:13:09,400
that if there is conduct that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK,

125
00:13:09,700 --> 00:13:14,020
it will be able to strip people and potentially leave them stateless.

126
00:13:14,230 --> 00:13:22,120
So that same standard is there. So if somebody is to be left stateless, it has to be conducive to public good to strip them.

127
00:13:22,420 --> 00:13:26,470
Plus the standard has to be satisfied. So the two are working together.

128
00:13:27,730 --> 00:13:35,800
Right. So. There are a number of cases, ten key cases which come up on this.

129
00:13:36,460 --> 00:13:47,320
And all of them turn on one key question, that the person who has to restrict, do they actually have a surviving nationality or not.

130
00:13:47,560 --> 00:13:55,389
So none of these cases so far are about whether they're being left stateless in the sense of the new amendment,

131
00:13:55,390 --> 00:14:01,540
because the new amendment allows the Home Secretary to do it and these people stateless.

132
00:14:02,110 --> 00:14:08,980
If the Home Secretary has some reasonable grounds to think that they can actually acquire another nationality.

133
00:14:09,340 --> 00:14:14,320
So it doesn't have to be an existing nationality. It can be a future nationality.

134
00:14:14,620 --> 00:14:17,950
And that's where it's interesting from the Shamima Begum case,

135
00:14:18,340 --> 00:14:24,040
because one of the arguments in her case was that she has eligibility for Bangladeshi nationality.

136
00:14:24,220 --> 00:14:34,000
So she's not actually holding it. But according to the Bangladeshi statutes, it could be that until she's 21,

137
00:14:34,510 --> 00:14:40,989
she has a claim to her parents being of Bangladeshi origin to Bangladeshi citizenship.

138
00:14:40,990 --> 00:14:46,420
And this is being often referred to as a potential alternate nationality.

139
00:14:46,660 --> 00:14:49,780
She does not hold that. But could she acquire that?

140
00:14:49,810 --> 00:14:53,410
That's being raised. Again, this is very spurious.

141
00:14:53,680 --> 00:15:00,730
And why? Because she's not a naturalised citizen. Everything in this is actually applicable to naturalised citizens.

142
00:15:01,030 --> 00:15:07,960
So that's time. That shouldn't have been talked about in the context of someone who was actually born here in the UK.

143
00:15:08,380 --> 00:15:15,700
So I'm trying to present to you the arguments that are happening, but also whether it does or does not apply, essentially my case.

144
00:15:16,210 --> 00:15:20,290
Anyway, let's talk about Qaeda. It's a classic example of this.

145
00:15:20,410 --> 00:15:24,790
Does someone have another nationality or not? Al Qaeda.

146
00:15:25,060 --> 00:15:34,719
He came as a child to the UK and his family obtained asylum here, then has refugee status and then naturalised.

147
00:15:34,720 --> 00:15:42,550
And he's a naturalised British citizen. The question then was, does he also hold Iraqi nationality or not?

148
00:15:43,450 --> 00:15:50,740
Yes. So if he held Iraqi nationality, he could be stripped of his British citizenship and it would not leave him stateless.

149
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:56,650
And this is a pre amendment case. So it was quite central that he's not being left stateless.

150
00:15:57,400 --> 00:16:04,870
And what happened here is that the home secretary argued here that whether or not he actually had Iraqi citizenship,

151
00:16:05,200 --> 00:16:11,049
there was reasonable grounds to believe that he could have because Iraqi it was just a regime change.

152
00:16:11,050 --> 00:16:16,540
And at various points of time, the law books in Iraq, they said various things about who is a national.

153
00:16:16,720 --> 00:16:21,160
At one point in time, it said someone has to give up their Iraqi nationality.

154
00:16:21,170 --> 00:16:26,800
So they said that he should have actually given up his Iraqi nationality in order to not have it.

155
00:16:27,130 --> 00:16:31,780
So the fact that she didn't give it up means he potentially has an existing one.

156
00:16:31,780 --> 00:16:36,850
And these type of alternate arguments were raised. The Supreme Court said nothing doing.

157
00:16:37,090 --> 00:16:43,060
It's pretty clear we have heard experts evidence here he doesn't have Iraqi nationality existing anymore.

158
00:16:43,450 --> 00:16:46,900
And it's not enough to believe he could have or he could have.

159
00:16:47,170 --> 00:16:50,950
He doesn't have. The Iraqi government said he doesn't have. So it's pretty decisive.

160
00:16:50,950 --> 00:16:54,280
He will be rendered stateless. So Home Secretary lost this case.

161
00:16:54,700 --> 00:17:02,589
But this language about reasonable belief that the person can acquire some other nationality can still

162
00:17:02,590 --> 00:17:08,979
from this and found its way then to the statute and fourth amendment and it's still there existing.

163
00:17:08,980 --> 00:17:14,260
And so it still exists as a standard. It was a losing argument in this case.

164
00:17:16,510 --> 00:17:26,740
So I will now give you my chart on how it is really different for different citizens, and the consequences for them are also different.

165
00:17:27,100 --> 00:17:30,870
And it really shows how there is a categorisation now.

166
00:17:31,270 --> 00:17:36,100
So the first column is the person born here first who if they're born here,

167
00:17:36,430 --> 00:17:43,120
if they don't hold another nationality, can their citizenship be cancelled for conduct?

168
00:17:43,540 --> 00:17:51,190
No, because there is an absolute bar against making someone born here who doesn't hold another nationality stateless.

169
00:17:51,460 --> 00:17:56,250
So this is where some even big this case actually comes to squarely in this.

170
00:17:56,980 --> 00:18:01,150
Next, however, is what if they do hold another nationality?

171
00:18:01,420 --> 00:18:05,860
And this is not where we have the standards that I was talking about.

172
00:18:05,920 --> 00:18:09,580
That's just for the naturalised citizens. The reservation is for naturalised citizens.

173
00:18:09,880 --> 00:18:15,610
This is not supposed to be that. Not about eligibility for another one, but actually holding another one.

174
00:18:16,030 --> 00:18:19,270
So that's actually not Shamima situation.

175
00:18:19,600 --> 00:18:24,309
But this is where the Home Office is claiming she's actually going to be because

176
00:18:24,310 --> 00:18:29,410
of her connection to her parents and a rights which only expires at 21.

177
00:18:29,590 --> 00:18:36,380
She's 19. Now, even if that bill goes to say, by the time the SEC has heard this case, it will be another couple of years.

178
00:18:36,410 --> 00:18:43,520
She will be more than 21 by then. So whatever is the so-called kind of connection, words have gone.

179
00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:49,850
But anyway, so they would say that she doesn't come here. She comes here, and in that case she holds that.

180
00:18:50,000 --> 00:18:50,810
And therefore,

181
00:18:50,900 --> 00:19:00,290
there is no risk of statelessness if we strip her and the turban and keep bear in mind that Bangladesh has said that she has nothing to do with us,

182
00:19:00,290 --> 00:19:04,810
and if she tries to enter, we are going to try and impose the death penalty.

183
00:19:04,820 --> 00:19:12,530
So as an entire Article three, our issue over there, which is now up in big red letters,

184
00:19:12,530 --> 00:19:16,800
but sticking with just aimlessness, okay, that's what they're trying to do.

185
00:19:16,820 --> 00:19:22,250
The third one then is the person born in the UK. No, but they a citizen to the whole.

186
00:19:22,340 --> 00:19:29,210
Another nationality? Yes. And therefore there can be cancellation for conduct because they will be left with a different nationality.

187
00:19:29,810 --> 00:19:33,530
Now, you might wonder, how will this really operate in practice?

188
00:19:34,100 --> 00:19:35,660
It's not about deporting them.

189
00:19:35,690 --> 00:19:45,890
In all known instances of cancellation of citizenship, the person's already outside the country, so there is no need to deport their outside.

190
00:19:46,160 --> 00:19:50,300
If they can appeal from there to the CAA, then the issues will come up.

191
00:19:50,450 --> 00:19:55,760
Okay, so that is and there is no risk of statelessness because they have another nationality.

192
00:19:56,030 --> 00:20:00,140
The fourth one then is the most interesting one, first amendment.

193
00:20:00,680 --> 00:20:05,630
Here a person is not born. Here doesn't have another nationality.

194
00:20:06,350 --> 00:20:11,030
Their citizenship can be cancelled for conduct and they can be rendered stateless.

195
00:20:11,030 --> 00:20:16,459
And this is the post amendment scenario where you can do it on the grounds of reasonable belief

196
00:20:16,460 --> 00:20:21,980
that they might be eligible for another citizenship and might acquire that citizenship someday.

197
00:20:22,250 --> 00:20:31,070
So that is where we are with this. And I really clearly see then that there is categorisation through the operation of this power,

198
00:20:31,340 --> 00:20:37,670
even in how it is formally set out in the law and definitely in how it is now playing out in practice.

199
00:20:38,330 --> 00:20:45,620
Because in practice the ethnic connection is or the parents links are now shifting people even within

200
00:20:45,620 --> 00:20:51,350
these formal categories of law which are already separate for people depending on their backgrounds.

201
00:20:53,760 --> 00:20:56,680
Okay. So I shall give you another case, which is the farm case.

202
00:20:56,690 --> 00:21:03,569
Now, this this person has completely created a lot of problems in the cancellation world because I say this,

203
00:21:03,570 --> 00:21:08,850
because he's actually in U.S. prison now for the next two years in a supermax prison,

204
00:21:09,180 --> 00:21:12,960
and he's been found to have trained in jihadi camps is from Vietnam.

205
00:21:13,410 --> 00:21:19,800
And I say it means I'm annoyed because it's not really a great case to take to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals or anywhere.

206
00:21:20,070 --> 00:21:26,160
And we're getting all these major observations on what citizenship is, content of citizenship, who what can you do,

207
00:21:26,310 --> 00:21:31,650
all of these from this type of cases which are not very sympathetic, but, you know, so be it.

208
00:21:32,040 --> 00:21:37,170
This person was born in Vietnam and it's very similar to the Algeria scenario,

209
00:21:37,410 --> 00:21:43,920
came as a child with his family from Vietnam and eventually naturalised and became British.

210
00:21:44,760 --> 00:21:50,250
The whole issue in the first round of litigation was does he have Vietnamese nationality or not?

211
00:21:50,580 --> 00:21:59,940
Which becomes basically a question of fact, according to the foreign legal statute, which has to be determined by use of expert evidence.

212
00:22:00,540 --> 00:22:04,550
And they used expert evidence here to look at it.

213
00:22:04,560 --> 00:22:08,130
And Vietnamese government again said he's not Vietnamese.

214
00:22:08,160 --> 00:22:11,250
We have no existing ties with him.

215
00:22:11,880 --> 00:22:22,110
So the British government argued there that it's it's a question of him still being Vietnamese in law, even if he is not Vietnamese, in fact.

216
00:22:22,380 --> 00:22:28,860
So you have to look at it as a matter of law and look at the statute books, not just take into account what the government is saying,

217
00:22:29,100 --> 00:22:34,350
because this it is possible for governments to simply say that various people are not their citizens.

218
00:22:34,710 --> 00:22:39,230
I mean, pretty much not just the case of the Rohingya in Bangladesh.

219
00:22:39,240 --> 00:22:44,069
So it's possible to say that and that surely cannot be the end of that.

220
00:22:44,070 --> 00:22:49,170
We still have to look at the statute. That was the argument here. So what could you say?

221
00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:50,370
Eventually,

222
00:22:50,370 --> 00:22:58,200
this went through several rounds of litigation and eventually the Supreme Court has said that actually this leaves him stateless when we do.

223
00:22:58,350 --> 00:23:03,510
But by now we have the change in the statute which potentially prohibits this.

224
00:23:03,720 --> 00:23:07,470
And he's also in supermax prison in the US.

225
00:23:07,950 --> 00:23:17,909
The latest story in this is that he challenges this again and it's come up on the grounds that he's got a present threat to the British society.

226
00:23:17,910 --> 00:23:25,770
So he argues this, that I'm not a present threat because I'm a U.S. person and I know I'm just going to I that's

227
00:23:25,770 --> 00:23:30,840
going up to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals has said there's nothing to it.

228
00:23:30,920 --> 00:23:37,230
I mean, it's conclusively prove that you've taken part in jihadi camps and you've taken up arms.

229
00:23:37,470 --> 00:23:42,990
And so this is where we then get some interesting observations.

230
00:23:44,130 --> 00:23:51,510
I will come back to that. We get some interesting observations on both the value of citizenship and unfortunately,

231
00:23:52,080 --> 00:23:58,290
on the fact that this person has actually violated duty of loyalty allegiance.

232
00:23:58,290 --> 00:24:06,090
And I think that's interesting. It brings back certain things from the past and gives me a chance to then go dipping into history.

233
00:24:06,300 --> 00:24:10,650
But let me go back to what the say about the right to nationality here.

234
00:24:11,010 --> 00:24:12,059
So in the farm case,

235
00:24:12,060 --> 00:24:19,200
the Court of Appeal and maybe Justice Arden says that it's really important the right to nationality is an important way to right.

236
00:24:19,530 --> 00:24:22,140
It is properly described as the right to have rights.

237
00:24:22,320 --> 00:24:29,820
Hannah Ireland fans here, they just say it as Hannah Arendt says, that they should have put that in there,

238
00:24:30,090 --> 00:24:35,560
such as the right to reside in the country, restaurants, consumer protection and so on.

239
00:24:35,580 --> 00:24:41,100
It's like really and so on. We could have had something more on what the rights of citizenship is.

240
00:24:41,430 --> 00:24:49,020
Fortunately, earlier case, the violence case, which is about actually naturalisation and some other cases like over here,

241
00:24:49,020 --> 00:24:57,240
the one that I've cited here, in these cases, the Supreme Court has gone more into depth into what the right to citizenship is than this,

242
00:24:57,600 --> 00:25:02,290
but pretty much it is the right to return, your right to reside consular protection,

243
00:25:02,310 --> 00:25:07,170
rights, robust debate and political processes and things like that, which we can imagine.

244
00:25:07,530 --> 00:25:18,690
But this construction is really an unhappy one here. But the question is, if families actually left stateless, as the Supreme Court had said,

245
00:25:19,020 --> 00:25:24,330
what recourse would such a person have if they're not in a maximum security prison in the US?

246
00:25:24,360 --> 00:25:27,750
Let's forget his personal situation. What would it be?

247
00:25:27,780 --> 00:25:36,780
The only clue we have is from this letter that Lord Taylor of Holbeach wrote in 24 in the report states to the

248
00:25:36,780 --> 00:25:42,450
House of Lords because the House of Lords was very concerned about this fact that people may be left stateless.

249
00:25:42,960 --> 00:25:52,800
And in this letter, he says that this is not the same as people who lose their nationality because of being rendered stateless.

250
00:25:53,210 --> 00:25:56,360
And, you know, war are when they're displaced.

251
00:25:56,660 --> 00:26:00,630
It's not that kind of statelessness when we render someone stateless.

252
00:26:00,890 --> 00:26:09,440
So the operation of this powers, they cannot get the protection of the statelessness provisions that are generally existing.

253
00:26:09,440 --> 00:26:13,250
There has to be something different for them. What would be there then?

254
00:26:13,580 --> 00:26:19,459
So this letter says we'd have to give them a period of restricted leave and there would be restrictions placed

255
00:26:19,460 --> 00:26:26,030
on them and they would have to live then subject to that and such as restrictions on employment and residency.

256
00:26:26,030 --> 00:26:32,450
So they would get a different kind of leave. And I was recently at the SRF Institute in the Netherlands.

257
00:26:33,020 --> 00:26:36,709
They have this exact thing happening right now where they have given people

258
00:26:36,710 --> 00:26:40,490
who have been rendered stateless because of cancellation and limited leave,

259
00:26:40,490 --> 00:26:44,370
which is something like a control order over here in the Netherlands.

260
00:26:44,390 --> 00:26:49,100
So that's how it's happening there. If we want a preview of how it's happening elsewhere.

261
00:26:49,280 --> 00:26:56,480
But we haven't had anyone placed on this because we have actually I don't know if we have, but it's not known yet.

262
00:26:56,750 --> 00:27:01,880
That's the 2015 situation statute has not been used in this manner yet.

263
00:27:02,570 --> 00:27:06,080
Far in the case of Pham was in a maximum security prison.

264
00:27:06,080 --> 00:27:12,890
So we don't really get any insights into what might happen to people who are rendered stateless through the use of this power.

265
00:27:14,180 --> 00:27:18,350
Right. So this then is the firm case and its fallout.

266
00:27:18,350 --> 00:27:26,630
So we have this is the latest iteration in what is happening with cancellation powers here.

267
00:27:28,040 --> 00:27:33,980
Okay. So I want to draw your attention back to this idea of that allegiance and loyalty,

268
00:27:34,370 --> 00:27:40,820
because it is quite common for politicians to say that citizenship is a privilege and not a right.

269
00:27:41,150 --> 00:27:45,920
But it's not that common for courts to say it is conditional on anything.

270
00:27:46,310 --> 00:27:55,340
So it's interesting to get this that this person has fundamentally and seriously broken the obligations which apply to him as a citizen.

271
00:27:55,610 --> 00:28:02,810
So we're getting a focus on duties put at risk, the lives of others whom the crown is bound to protect.

272
00:28:02,840 --> 00:28:10,850
I mean, there is here is the allegiance and protection model, which harks back to many other darker periods of history.

273
00:28:11,930 --> 00:28:18,589
Let's talk about it. I do not consider that it would be sensibly argued that this is not a situation in which the

274
00:28:18,590 --> 00:28:23,880
state is justified in seeking to be relieved of any further obligation to protect the affluent.

275
00:28:23,900 --> 00:28:32,720
And I think it's fascinating that we're getting this allegiance protection model coming back, because where is this thing coming from?

276
00:28:32,840 --> 00:28:36,710
Where have we ever encountered this kind of language?

277
00:28:38,480 --> 00:28:42,290
So differential legal treatment based on pathways.

278
00:28:42,620 --> 00:28:48,350
Potentially we have the rights, least though we have potential links to Article six,

279
00:28:48,650 --> 00:28:53,720
Article six about fair trial that's never been successful in any of the cases.

280
00:28:54,230 --> 00:29:00,050
Article eight right to have family life and citizenship as part of one's identity.

281
00:29:00,270 --> 00:29:04,250
Again, not being looked into in any depth in any of the cases.

282
00:29:04,670 --> 00:29:08,120
Article 14 about discrimination because we're talking about differential treatments

283
00:29:08,120 --> 00:29:13,129
who would pay obviously of 14 would come in in those scenarios has successfully

284
00:29:13,130 --> 00:29:18,200
come in in other national security cases the case versus secretary of state's

285
00:29:18,200 --> 00:29:23,490
case in which there was a question of indefinite detention of foreign nationals,

286
00:29:23,510 --> 00:29:29,809
can we keep them indefinitely? And the court said there's no evidence that they are only providing any heightened threat to

287
00:29:29,810 --> 00:29:35,270
the country and therefore Article 14 gets triggered with Article six and issues like that.

288
00:29:35,660 --> 00:29:38,780
But you haven't had it in the context of loss of citizenship.

289
00:29:38,780 --> 00:29:46,490
So these are all potential issues that are there. Rights framework is existing instead of that, instead of looking at the differential treatment.

290
00:29:46,640 --> 00:29:50,780
We are seeing a resurgence and of the loyalty and allegiance model.

291
00:29:53,510 --> 00:29:58,100
So that's it makes me take the where and why is this coming from.

292
00:29:58,520 --> 00:30:10,129
And I think it's really because it is drawing back from something which is about of another equally flexible understanding of legal status,

293
00:30:10,130 --> 00:30:18,110
which was of subject to subject but has never been defined in law until 1948.

294
00:30:18,470 --> 00:30:27,110
And similarly, citizenship has never been actually defined in statute until 1948, when it was defined in terms of subject to it.

295
00:30:27,440 --> 00:30:32,720
So there is definitely a very strong legal connection between subject to it and citizenship.

296
00:30:33,080 --> 00:30:41,900
So if we are harking back to allegiance and protection, which is really the model which is at the heart of the subject to model,

297
00:30:42,230 --> 00:30:47,570
that we need to think about how closely Parliament now citizenship is running on.

298
00:30:47,810 --> 00:30:52,129
In terms of subject to that, is it or is it not in the past?

299
00:30:52,130 --> 00:30:52,700
That's only.

300
00:30:52,790 --> 00:31:02,510
An action that you could think of between people and the emperor, and that would connect people from various parts of the empire with the emperor.

301
00:31:02,930 --> 00:31:09,919
Now, interestingly, it was actually supposed to be subject to what was supposed to be about family quality citizenship.

302
00:31:09,920 --> 00:31:19,129
It's also about family quality, subject to it, drawing from the cousin case of 1608, which was this fascinating case about King James,

303
00:31:19,130 --> 00:31:25,250
the sixth becoming king for a King James, the first of the United States, Scotland, England.

304
00:31:25,250 --> 00:31:32,690
And then whether someone who was born in Scotland would hold Indonesia as if he is in England or what would be the

305
00:31:32,690 --> 00:31:40,909
extent of allegiance of subjects who are born outside England to somebody who is holder of the crown of hope now.

306
00:31:40,910 --> 00:31:47,000
So for the first time, extra territorially applying the concept of subject to it properly.

307
00:31:47,330 --> 00:31:54,020
And what the court in case said is that it is about formal equality and access to the protection of the sovereign,

308
00:31:54,560 --> 00:32:00,310
and therefore you are equally subject to the laws and therefore it doesn't matter where you're born.

309
00:32:00,710 --> 00:32:04,130
If the crown is then controlled, if the monarch is in control,

310
00:32:04,580 --> 00:32:13,190
they have jurisdiction over you and therefore you are subjects and you get the protection of laws and it's equally applicable whether it's in England,

311
00:32:13,190 --> 00:32:22,370
Scotland or elsewhere. And then this seemed to be a kind of solid understanding of what subject to it is.

312
00:32:22,910 --> 00:32:28,820
And this was used throughout the Empire years in many ways throughout the countries.

313
00:32:29,540 --> 00:32:39,530
Of course, it was never actually just that, and it varied tremendously from place to place in the Empire and from time to time.

314
00:32:40,190 --> 00:32:47,690
And it did so because it mattered that you had to keep it flexible in order to suit different places.

315
00:32:47,690 --> 00:32:54,710
So it meant completely different things in the Dominions, and it meant completely different things in the colonies,

316
00:32:54,980 --> 00:33:03,560
and it meant a very different thing in India, which was not supposed to be a colony, but had very much the features of being a colony.

317
00:33:03,860 --> 00:33:13,550
So it again and it varied in terms of its substance because in theory every subject could travel freely across the empire.

318
00:33:13,850 --> 00:33:18,530
They could do this now. There was no mass travel at that time, so they're not actually doing it.

319
00:33:18,950 --> 00:33:23,450
But and also in practice, if they try to do it, it doesn't operate like that.

320
00:33:23,720 --> 00:33:27,920
So people would go from one part of the empire,

321
00:33:28,040 --> 00:33:36,770
let's say they're going from India and they would go to a different part like Australia and routinely they would be refused entry.

322
00:33:37,010 --> 00:33:43,280
Okay, so that was it. So it wasn't about really glorious free movement and being welcomed everywhere.

323
00:33:43,280 --> 00:33:51,050
There were definitely categories there in operation of subject and so there were subjects and there were subjects that was happening.

324
00:33:51,290 --> 00:33:56,689
And again, we see a very similar kind of categorisation now happening with citizenship.

325
00:33:56,690 --> 00:34:04,820
So it's not that's far off the mark. This object to the relationship was purely one of allegiance and protection.

326
00:34:05,180 --> 00:34:12,649
You offer allegiance is completely horizontal with the source of the power in terms of yourselves.

327
00:34:12,650 --> 00:34:16,550
It's supposed to be formally equal, but there's no protection of equality anywhere else.

328
00:34:17,660 --> 00:34:22,010
Citizenship in the language of the farm case now is also the same,

329
00:34:22,010 --> 00:34:27,740
because if you're looking for protection and you're offering your allegiance, you shouldn't be engaging in conduct which breaches that.

330
00:34:27,950 --> 00:34:32,300
If it does, you're out okay? So you don't get that protection anymore.

331
00:34:32,600 --> 00:34:35,900
So very, very similar in construction again.

332
00:34:38,450 --> 00:34:46,420
So the link I said that they were all both defined in terms of each other and it's really very interesting because the first time that we get to

333
00:34:46,430 --> 00:34:57,140
definition of subjects is when in 1948 the British Nationality Act defines kinds of citizenship and it includes subjects who as one of them.

334
00:34:57,710 --> 00:35:03,240
Now, why does it do that? Because until then we had no definitions and it was just being, you know,

335
00:35:03,240 --> 00:35:08,059
as people were being designated as British protected persons in some places instead

336
00:35:08,060 --> 00:35:11,960
of subjects and depending on where right read different things were happening.

337
00:35:12,140 --> 00:35:15,350
So what was the impetus behind defining this?

338
00:35:16,040 --> 00:35:24,380
It actually happened because Canada defined British subject to it as something that's limited to its own citizens.

339
00:35:25,070 --> 00:35:29,510
And they did this in 1948 and in just actually that very year.

340
00:35:30,050 --> 00:35:36,620
And that's then for the first time legally, it violated the principle of equality and free movement,

341
00:35:36,620 --> 00:35:40,310
which was there in theory in law, even if not in practice.

342
00:35:40,740 --> 00:35:49,910
That was the first time it did that. So what it meant is that Canada had limited giving those rights only to its own citizens.

343
00:35:49,910 --> 00:35:53,550
So if anyone else came from any other part. Of the empire.

344
00:35:53,820 --> 00:35:57,360
They couldn't just claim to be British subjects and get those rights.

345
00:35:57,690 --> 00:36:02,850
Now, this is something that was happening as a matter of practice in places like Australia,

346
00:36:03,120 --> 00:36:07,470
which also denied naturalisation to other subjects who cared.

347
00:36:07,500 --> 00:36:11,130
So they even had the left, they couldn't actually naturalise and become Australian.

348
00:36:11,140 --> 00:36:14,940
So that was happening. But this is when it statutorily happens.

349
00:36:15,300 --> 00:36:20,370
Okay. And Canada then says this objects from other parts of the empire.

350
00:36:20,400 --> 00:36:26,370
Sorry. So this is subject to it, mediated through the lens of citizenship in the Dominions.

351
00:36:26,880 --> 00:36:30,830
And so that then makes the House of Parliament here.

352
00:36:30,840 --> 00:36:36,209
Then where we have this thing of what are we going to do? What if everybody in the Empire, all the Dominion,

353
00:36:36,210 --> 00:36:42,960
starts doing this as a matter of legislation in a way that's will create tremendous backlash and resentment?

354
00:36:43,470 --> 00:36:50,880
It's also at a time when the various colonies and dominions had provided a lot of support in the war efforts.

355
00:36:51,120 --> 00:36:57,780
So there was and decolonisation was happening. So it was a matter of appeasing a lot of different political interests.

356
00:36:58,050 --> 00:37:03,840
So at that time we get the British Nationality Act 1948 as a reaction to this,

357
00:37:04,410 --> 00:37:10,080
saying something completely radical and the effects of that we feel today for the first time ever,

358
00:37:10,080 --> 00:37:21,390
it's said anyone from anywhere in the Empire could actually come and live here in the UK, travel and come and settle.

359
00:37:21,780 --> 00:37:27,329
Now remember, this is before mass travel. They were not expecting the Windrush ship to come.

360
00:37:27,330 --> 00:37:30,210
They were not expecting airlines. It wasn't that.

361
00:37:30,420 --> 00:37:37,110
It was about keeping the poor interest and everything, people happy in the mix and trying to counter what happened in Canada.

362
00:37:37,290 --> 00:37:42,090
So we had the 1948. This opens the door and what happens?

363
00:37:42,150 --> 00:37:47,130
Okay, you must travel, starts the Windrush ship arrives here.

364
00:37:47,460 --> 00:37:51,180
50,000 people come in the fifties and sixties over here.

365
00:37:51,480 --> 00:37:56,450
These are the people whose progeny and whose descendants mostly.

366
00:37:56,700 --> 00:38:01,470
I mean, there are some people like me. What has rendered Britain heterogenous today?

367
00:38:01,670 --> 00:38:03,450
Right. So we are talking about multiculturalism.

368
00:38:03,720 --> 00:38:10,350
I know we have these debates about whether Britain was heterogeneous in the Middle Ages or, you know, much before.

369
00:38:10,350 --> 00:38:12,180
I'm sure all that's valid.

370
00:38:12,450 --> 00:38:21,360
But the modern heterogeneity, the present day heterogeneity we are talking about that can be traced back to this period of time, falls to 1948 ACT.

371
00:38:21,760 --> 00:38:34,410
Now that resulted in sort of people viscerally experiencing for the first time the presence of the colonies on the motherland, so to say.

372
00:38:34,680 --> 00:38:37,910
And there was this whole thing about this is the you know, it was a whole.

373
00:38:38,250 --> 00:38:45,300
This is a centre. And those were the periphery. But now you have the periphery coming into the centre and you can actually see them.

374
00:38:45,570 --> 00:38:54,810
And so there's a whole different experience of colonisation, which is felt in the parts of the former and part of it.

375
00:38:55,620 --> 00:39:03,329
So what happens thereafter is kind of the next few decades of immigration law.

376
00:39:03,330 --> 00:39:09,450
So I'm obviously not going to go to each measure and tell you that would be the most boring way to do this.

377
00:39:09,870 --> 00:39:17,550
But let's suffice to say, successive immigration acts then started redefining who can enter and who can recite.

378
00:39:17,700 --> 00:39:24,360
That's been the focus of immigration laws ever since to undo what the 1948 Act has done.

379
00:39:24,750 --> 00:39:30,210
And the latest chapter of that we are still living with the Windrush generation's deportations

380
00:39:30,630 --> 00:39:36,000
is because of the merging of those laws with our current new hostile immigration legislation,

381
00:39:36,000 --> 00:39:40,410
which requires documentation which was never required under those previous ones.

382
00:39:40,680 --> 00:39:47,219
So then the current issue is about the hostile environment and people not being able to establish who they are is

383
00:39:47,220 --> 00:39:55,860
because of a combination of those ones that tighten entry and these ones which now ask them to provide paperwork.

384
00:39:56,010 --> 00:40:00,540
So that's how we have these restrictions and confusions of statements.

385
00:40:01,260 --> 00:40:13,079
Anyway, so a really important case of that roll back of empire, we can say is in the sixties, early sixties, late sixties, early seventies,

386
00:40:13,080 --> 00:40:22,979
when the East Asian Africans came here and they came here from Kenya and they came here from Uganda because of the dictatorial regimes,

387
00:40:22,980 --> 00:40:30,880
their launching into African nationalism kind of project and saying minorities have to leave.

388
00:40:30,900 --> 00:40:38,190
So a lot of the people who were of Asian origin there, who had British passports which were issued,

389
00:40:38,430 --> 00:40:45,900
which made them British citizens, wanted to then exercise the right to travel with that and enter into the UK.

390
00:40:45,910 --> 00:40:50,340
So they used that and then wanted to come. They arrived here.

391
00:40:50,760 --> 00:40:57,440
But what happened was. That's you then didn't the British government didn't permit them to come and settle

392
00:40:57,440 --> 00:41:01,070
in the beginning the date and then there was a backlash against that and they said,

393
00:41:01,430 --> 00:41:06,650
no, those passports were not that really it wasn't a travel document in that sense.

394
00:41:06,920 --> 00:41:12,229
It wasn't meant to be used like that. Unsurprisingly, that was then the situation.

395
00:41:12,230 --> 00:41:17,510
Many of them were deported, then held in other countries, some in France, etc. Some were kept in.

396
00:41:18,260 --> 00:41:23,510
They didn't have proper detention centres. And then but, you know, temporary prisons and all kinds of situations,

397
00:41:24,050 --> 00:41:30,260
they took their case to the European Commission and the European Commission on Human Rights said this is degrading treatment,

398
00:41:30,260 --> 00:41:36,830
this is inhuman and degrading treatment. Actually, in very strong words said, this is racism and this is discrimination.

399
00:41:37,190 --> 00:41:46,790
This case doesn't go to the open court. Hear more from that because the UK government actually starts a new voucher system for settling the people.

400
00:41:47,060 --> 00:41:51,050
So they say, okay, we will address this, this won't carry on.

401
00:41:51,290 --> 00:41:56,030
And they then issue voucher for each head of household who wants to resettle.

402
00:41:56,510 --> 00:42:02,749
There are many more problems about that because the head of household happened to be always male and happened to be.

403
00:42:02,750 --> 00:42:09,800
So I'm not saying it was perfect, but they addressed what they perceived as the main problem with the with the commission's report.

404
00:42:10,280 --> 00:42:19,459
So again, so this is the kind of rollback that's how they give it its name, but call it a reverse decolonisation through.

405
00:42:19,460 --> 00:42:28,010
And there are the scholars who are doing this. It's not just me. It's about reverse decolonisation of migration laws because it's about the doing

406
00:42:28,020 --> 00:42:36,499
undoing the effects of decolonisation in the other parts right at the centre to using,

407
00:42:36,500 --> 00:42:39,650
you know, migration laws to decolonise the country now.

408
00:42:40,190 --> 00:42:46,360
So how do you do that then? Once you de-link like to recite from nationality,

409
00:42:46,360 --> 00:42:53,840
you make right to recite a separate thing from nationality so that having nationality doesn't automatically attach to that.

410
00:42:54,320 --> 00:43:00,530
And the way you do that then is by introducing a new concept, another legal creation, which is the right of a vote.

411
00:43:00,980 --> 00:43:06,860
The right of a vote is something that now people can get if they are patriotic.

412
00:43:06,870 --> 00:43:12,620
So this is the 1971 act, and I using it as an example to show again how race matters.

413
00:43:12,980 --> 00:43:20,960
The 1971 act creates two categories patriots who have a special connection with the country and non patriots.

414
00:43:21,680 --> 00:43:30,410
Patriots happened to be people who have a grandparent or a parent who is born within the limits of the UK is territory.

415
00:43:30,710 --> 00:43:33,320
Now that means in the islands, literally.

416
00:43:33,680 --> 00:43:41,370
So which means facially neutral, having no grandparents from the island, but in effect people from secular society.

417
00:43:41,390 --> 00:43:53,060
So you can see the continuation of this dominion versus colony dominion being the settlement places like Canada, Australia, South Africa,

418
00:43:53,330 --> 00:44:02,629
which have similar populations who are British white, whereas the other ones who will be in the colonies will not be able to provide this link.

419
00:44:02,630 --> 00:44:08,720
So they are automatically then through operational neutral law, eliminated from future migration.

420
00:44:08,990 --> 00:44:12,920
So that's another concept that you can see how it operates.

421
00:44:12,920 --> 00:44:21,140
There are very many such links. So Ancestry Links was a major one then in 1983, massively.

422
00:44:21,440 --> 00:44:28,370
It just makes an announcement that Commonwealth citizens, okay, no more free entry and residing doesn't matter.

423
00:44:28,640 --> 00:44:33,650
Connections. You'll be treated the same as alien everyone else no more special protection.

424
00:44:34,010 --> 00:44:37,640
And the 1981 Act removes birthright citizenship.

425
00:44:38,090 --> 00:44:46,280
Now, birthright citizenship has been considered one of the most equalising connections that people can have if they're migrants.

426
00:44:46,280 --> 00:44:51,770
Because even if in their own generation they cannot access naturalisation for whatever reason,

427
00:44:52,070 --> 00:44:56,800
at least the next generation, if they're born here, they can access that automatically by birth.

428
00:44:56,810 --> 00:44:58,370
So to that extent,

429
00:44:58,580 --> 00:45:08,270
I mean the entire history of the US nationality law has been about how the but citizenship has equalised access to various resources.

430
00:45:08,600 --> 00:45:15,350
And you know that's part of President Trump saying that he's going to cancel that is because of kind of a drive against that.

431
00:45:15,650 --> 00:45:21,559
But that just happened here in 1981, which means that the blood links has become really important.

432
00:45:21,560 --> 00:45:29,890
Now, it's not about just being born here. You have to have that connection to blood again that will have its own kind of racialized effects.

433
00:45:30,890 --> 00:45:34,430
So I've already told you about the Windrush and the hostile immigration.

434
00:45:34,430 --> 00:45:44,210
So all of these are then the measures that link up and try to bring a wave of the migration of Decolonised people.

435
00:45:44,480 --> 00:45:49,760
And it's kind of trying to get rid of their migration patterns to the UK.

436
00:45:51,080 --> 00:45:58,590
So what they do is they. Application for cancellation. I guess I've almost done two different talks here, one on subject ID and one on citizenship.

437
00:45:58,590 --> 00:46:02,790
And I've told you that I've been defined in terms of each other, but why is it still relevant?

438
00:46:04,440 --> 00:46:09,120
So first thing that we always hear is cancellation is a national security measure.

439
00:46:09,270 --> 00:46:13,020
It's not really so important as a national security measure.

440
00:46:13,410 --> 00:46:15,840
And I say that because until now,

441
00:46:15,990 --> 00:46:23,770
there has been no evidence provided by any government about how it has been used for what it has stopped in terms of anything.

442
00:46:23,820 --> 00:46:27,300
We haven't got it, and I can't provide that because I don't have access to it.

443
00:46:27,690 --> 00:46:31,470
It has to be provided for the people who are using it for counter-terrorism.

444
00:46:31,680 --> 00:46:37,560
They have provided it, but more importantly, what it achieves, keeping people outside the country.

445
00:46:37,860 --> 00:46:45,629
There are a whole range of powers that can do that. You can do that by simply using prerogative powers to cancel passports.

446
00:46:45,630 --> 00:46:50,850
And the government has been doing that. And you can do that by having exclusion orders.

447
00:46:50,850 --> 00:46:55,500
You can do that by subsequently putting people on trial.

448
00:46:55,620 --> 00:47:03,240
Now, there are some efficacy reasons people get like if you put them on trial, will we be able to use the evidence from war zones, etc.?

449
00:47:03,540 --> 00:47:09,030
But by and large, the same thing that you can do by cancellation of citizenship, you can do by a measures.

450
00:47:09,420 --> 00:47:20,340
So that's not really as much a national security measure as a further measure where ethnicity is becoming, again, another source of tension.

451
00:47:20,640 --> 00:47:25,710
So it is about these certain populations who need to be managed, who go to Syria,

452
00:47:25,860 --> 00:47:34,439
who take part and who are by and large the progeny of the people who came in the sixties and seventies to this country.

453
00:47:34,440 --> 00:47:43,620
I mean, factually, that is true. They have been radicalised and not everyone who becomes a target and who is radicalised is linked to that.

454
00:47:44,220 --> 00:47:49,709
And the interesting contrast, which I find is not just the same as subject to it,

455
00:47:49,710 --> 00:47:58,710
obviously it's it's if we compare and see the difference as to subject to it was very useful for extending jurisdiction when the

456
00:47:58,710 --> 00:48:07,530
empire was expanding subject to it was used as a means of exercising control over the bodies of the people on whom the law applied.

457
00:48:07,830 --> 00:48:16,860
So it was important to say that this person can be in this country, but they are still subject to the laws of the centre of the empire.

458
00:48:17,250 --> 00:48:24,030
So it was actually used as a means of extending jurisdiction, whereas now after the loss of empire,

459
00:48:24,210 --> 00:48:29,760
translation is really about saying we will not exercise jurisdiction over our citizens,

460
00:48:30,090 --> 00:48:36,660
we will expel you, we will not exercise jurisdiction over you because we are not actually territorially expanding anymore.

461
00:48:36,780 --> 00:48:41,370
We are consolidating the boundaries of the country, we are safeguarding the borders.

462
00:48:41,610 --> 00:48:47,600
So the internal border in practice and I think there are really strong parallels here with Mary's work here.

463
00:48:47,610 --> 00:48:58,080
So I've always tried to read more on that is about really shoring up the borders and expelling people and not excising jurisdiction over them.

464
00:48:58,290 --> 00:49:02,880
So that's a very significant difference. So when I say that we need to look at subject to it,

465
00:49:03,270 --> 00:49:11,550
it's also to understand how in operation it is decolonisation in the sense we're done with this phase, we're not expanding.

466
00:49:11,700 --> 00:49:19,410
Let's not accept to exercise jurisdiction over these people anymore because it doesn't it doesn't affect materially anything in terms of territory,

467
00:49:19,590 --> 00:49:29,280
so it's not worth it. So in a, you know, how many sideways end of the multicultural project, the end of the heterogeneity through that.

468
00:49:30,540 --> 00:49:39,550
So if I read this without that headings something which is flexible and indeterminate, not quite well-defined,

469
00:49:40,080 --> 00:49:49,170
probably equal in principle, but differentiated in practice, categorical in nature and differentiated in categories and allegiance base.

470
00:49:49,170 --> 00:49:55,800
These are all traits of subject and you can transpose them now and say these are traits of citizenship.

471
00:49:55,980 --> 00:50:04,440
And I think that is really scary to have that in a modern day concept where we have gone through an entire phase of human rights.

472
00:50:05,490 --> 00:50:08,309
I mean, we are almost in a post human rights phase, we can say,

473
00:50:08,310 --> 00:50:16,860
but of course the human rights phase wouldn't have made it possible to say subject is equal to citizenship, but we're reaching that situation now.

474
00:50:18,510 --> 00:50:22,950
Okay, so I shall leave you with further thoughts because these are things that I haven't cut out,

475
00:50:22,950 --> 00:50:29,009
but they're happening as we speak because just before I thank Sajid Javid I was it yesterday has made new

476
00:50:29,010 --> 00:50:34,670
announcements about new counter-terror measures and they are a bit different from cancellation of citizenship.

477
00:50:34,770 --> 00:50:40,020
I don't know how different this is about. Well, first of all, this is not just such a legacy.

478
00:50:40,020 --> 00:50:44,700
Some various European powers are talking about setting up what tribunals in Syria.

479
00:50:46,050 --> 00:50:52,220
If they set up war tribunals in Syria, the idea is to then try the foreign.

480
00:50:52,370 --> 00:50:58,339
Fighters who are there over there and decide on criminal liability.

481
00:50:58,340 --> 00:51:03,200
So they don't need to be allowed to return and they can be there.

482
00:51:03,410 --> 00:51:06,600
So, again, I don't know what the implication of that is.

483
00:51:06,620 --> 00:51:13,790
You are exercising some jurisdiction over them, but not the kind of jurisdiction that you would normally exercise over your citizens.

484
00:51:13,820 --> 00:51:18,680
You are trying them through a tribunal system which is outside the territorial limits.

485
00:51:19,430 --> 00:51:24,350
The second is that Sajid Javid has said that we need to use more treason laws.

486
00:51:24,740 --> 00:51:29,540
Now the truth of the matter is treason laws actually require criminal prosecution.

487
00:51:29,840 --> 00:51:36,890
So in a way, the other cancellation of citizenship is just cancellation through a secret tribunal.

488
00:51:37,190 --> 00:51:43,030
I mean, actually, it's actually cancellation by a minister's order and then can be appealed only in a secret tribunal.

489
00:51:43,040 --> 00:51:49,700
So it's treason laws as they stand are probably better in terms of court procedure.

490
00:51:49,970 --> 00:51:53,420
But he's talking about shoring up that power and using it more.

491
00:51:53,750 --> 00:52:00,140
If that happens, then probably I don't know if it's in addition to this kind of cancellation powers.

492
00:52:00,170 --> 00:52:05,480
I'm guessing it's in addition to it. So I don't know if it's replacing that or it's adding to it,

493
00:52:06,020 --> 00:52:11,630
but that's something that's not about saying we won't exercise jurisdiction, but actually saying will prosecute.

494
00:52:12,260 --> 00:52:16,880
The third one is he's saying that people who enter remain certain parts of Syria.

495
00:52:16,940 --> 00:52:19,220
That will be a separate criminal offence.

496
00:52:19,580 --> 00:52:27,670
So that seems to be it is further moderate saying you cannot go here and there and if you've gone there will be consequences.

497
00:52:27,680 --> 00:52:31,220
But it seems to indicate there will be criminal punishment there.

498
00:52:31,430 --> 00:52:36,770
It's a crime. So presumably they will have to come back inside to serve sentences.

499
00:52:36,770 --> 00:52:42,230
But we don't know. So this is where I'm going into a zone of speculation, just like everyone else.

500
00:52:42,530 --> 00:52:51,050
But what you actually think about is this whole lengths of extra territoriality and jurisdiction of who do we exercise jurisdiction over and how?

501
00:52:51,260 --> 00:52:59,540
And I think thinking about citizenship through subject to it helps one reflect on issues of extraterritorial,

502
00:52:59,720 --> 00:53:05,510
extraterritorial ity and who is someone we exercise jurisdiction over and how and where.

503
00:53:05,900 --> 00:53:08,660
So I would leave you with those thoughts.

504
00:53:09,020 --> 00:53:14,870
I haven't said much about, you know, being them because I think it's a complete legal misfit in terms of the law.

505
00:53:15,020 --> 00:53:19,460
And I expect that to come up in the appeal. But feel free to ask.

506
00:53:20,330 --> 00:53:21,070
It's just.