Counterterrorism coverage within the UK requires a fantastic stability between equal citizenship safety and being harsh on those that threaten nationwide safety. When taking a look at citizenship deprivation (CD) powers, nonetheless, this stability is changed with a murky battle between citizenship and state energy. As will turn into clear, CD ‘foregrounds safety over equality and echoes a colonial historical past of governing by way of a racialised conception of social order’.[1] The UK’s colonial historical past of white supremacy means we perceive Britishness as equal to being white; thus, CD coverage identifies a terrorist risk and subsequently justifies the usage of CD powers in opposition to those that don’t conform to this identification. It’s of essential significance that CD is prevented from working on this present state, because it imposes heavy penalties on the citizenship standing of (specifically) Muslim communities on a home and worldwide degree. Nevertheless, when trying to take action, coverage options comply with the identical racialised prejudices, making it clear that we should problem our white British identification whose whole existence ‘relies on not being questioned’[2] – thus, prevention will show extraordinarily tough.
This essay begins by exploring the colonial historical past and home impacts of our citizenship legal guidelines, which, when mixed with our Orientalist bias, have cemented a tiered segregation between ‘us’ because the white supremacist British identification, and ‘them’ because the Muslim terrorist risk. Occasions of the 21st century have resulted in utilizing this segregation to focus on Muslims because the victims of CD powers. The function of neo-colonialism shall be analysed in regard to the worldwide impacts of CD coverage to indicate how continued hegemonic standing within the international order encourages a breach of worldwide obligations, and dangers smaller nations formulating copy-cat insurance policies that fail to handle particular person safety pursuits. This may result in a dialogue on the suitability of short-term exclusion orders (TEOs) instead, earlier than concluding that these wouldn’t treatment CD issues. I’ll finally conclude that by way of our counterterrorism response being so grounded in a racialised and Islamophobic understanding of who could be disadvantaged of their citizenship, seeking to options just isn’t sufficient. We should query your entire foundation of our understanding of the white British identification earlier than CD is thought to be unproblematic.
Home impacts
The British Nationality Act 1948[3] redefined our understandings of British citizenship within the wake of the Second World Conflict. While showing to ‘forged the online vast’[4] and welcome colonial residents into the UK, our redefinition was to ‘safe the imperial order’.[5] Inserting residents in classes of ‘Citizenship of the UK and Colonies’ (CUKC) or ‘Citizenship of an Unbiased Commonwealth Nation’[6] led to the emergence of tiered citizenship. While strengthened within the wake of the Conflict, whiteness and Christianity because the crux of British identification could be traced again to the start of the British Empire.[7] Thus, Commonwealth residents entered a nation whereby identification and values grounded in whiteness had fortified right into a concrete perception of what constituted ‘Britishness’, and extra importantly, what didn’t. This compromised their safety as residents, as they have been misaligned with this understanding of ‘Britishness’. As a substitute of affording equal safety, our intention in increasing the definition of citizenship was fuelled by a colonial need to retain our white, hegemonic identification. Collins argues that migration was merely an ‘unintended consequence’,[8] and our response to this inflow of residents who threatened our white British identification was to introduce draconian citizenship legal guidelines within the wake of the 1948 Act.
Responding to the specter of elevated migration, the Immigration Act 1971[9] was launched. This ‘made Britishness commensurate to whiteness’[10] as solely these with a patrial or birth-right hyperlink have been afforded the fitting to abode. Demographics point out that individuals assembly such necessities have been 98% prone to be white.[11] These beforehand outlined as ‘CUKC’ and their kids noticed their proper of abode eliminated,[12] reiterating the message of our citizenship legal guidelines: to be afforded safety as a ‘British’ citizen meant being white.
The British Nationality Act 1981[13] (BNA) mirrored the hierarchical citizenship imposed by its earlier model. The Act outlined citizenship in nationwide phrases,[14] with nationals afforded full British citizenship. In a ‘vital colonial manoeuvre’[15] that ‘bolstered the racialised ethnic nationwide identification’,[16] CUKCs, who had already misplaced their proper to abode, additionally noticed their fragile citizenship standing demoted additional to a ‘British Abroad Citizen’[17] or a ‘British Dependent Territories’ nationality.[18] The message was clear: solely majority-white nationals constituted true ‘Britishness’, and thus, deserved full citizenship. Naturalised residents didn’t align with British identification, and thus, have been positioned in a category under their white counterparts. An ‘othering course of’[19] of “us” versus “them” was unambiguously driving amendments to our citizenship legal guidelines, with naturalised residents deemed inferior purely on their incoherence with white British identification. Furthermore, CD powers have been formalised within the BNA, but they have been restricted to naturalised residents.[20] This means that from its inception, CD has aligned with racialised prejudices of prior citizenship legal guidelines to focus on diasporic communities and threaten their identification and authorized standing as British residents.
The twenty years succeeding the inception of the BNA noticed little contestation surrounding citizenship and deprivation powers. Nevertheless, the September 11th assaults reawakened consideration on nationwide safety, resulting in drastic adjustments to our citizenship legal guidelines. The International Conflict on Terror, spearheaded by the US and its allies, of which “America [had] no more true pal than Nice Britain”,[21] noticed the isolation of diasporic communities within the West to a fair additional extent. This time and within the many years following, counterterrorism efforts have been directed in direction of the Islamic religion and Muslim identification. In Bush’s landmark speech, he refers back to the Islamic attackers as “enemies of freedom”[22] wishing to “disrupt and finish [the Western] lifestyle”.[23] While reminding Muslims that “we respect your religion”,[24] Bush mirrors Naqvi’s othering course of by pitting Islamic beliefs in opposition to Western values. His language situates America and the West as ‘we’, and the terrorist, Islamic identification as ‘they’, attributing an intrinsic but exaggerated hyperlink between Islam and terrorism. The speech put in a stereotype that the Islamic religion is a risk to our white Western beliefs and nationwide safety. This turns into harmful after we take into account the ‘repetitive manufacturing and consumption of terrorism information’[25] as Orientalist conceptions of what constituted a terrorist have been persistently bolstered, regardless of being primarily based on a completely racialised idea of the ‘terrorist’.
As a substitute of reassuring our Muslim communities’ citizenship safety, we strengthened CD powers with the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002[26] (NIAA). The Act marginally strayed from its racialised predecessors by eradicating the situation of dual-nationality as a prerequisite for CD. Nevertheless, s.4[27] (inserting s.40(2) BNA[28]) concurrently widened the scope by which a person’s citizenship may very well be stripped, in situations of something ‘significantly prejudicial’ to the UK’s ‘pursuits’. This looks like a excessive threshold, however indoctrination to our colonial roots fashioned an unbreakable tie between ‘Britishness’ and whiteness, that means that it was unlikely that white Britons could be held as appearing in opposition to the nation’s ‘pursuits’. Nevertheless, appearing in peaceable assist of an Islamic spiritual motion could also be an instance of behaving in opposition to the nation’s (predominantly Christian) pursuits, successfully singling out Muslim residents as targets for the brand new wording. This possible led to a sample of repression inside Muslim communities in overtly practising their faith for worry of discriminatory therapy, resulting in the deprivation of their citizenship.[29] Due to this fact, regardless of CD making use of to each nationwide and naturalised residents, the racialised utility of the Act continued to favor white nationals on the expense of affording equal citizenship safety to all UK residents.
Worry of discriminatory therapy was bolstered following the inception of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.[30] Equally to the NIAA, this Act was launched within the wake of an assault threatening our white identification. In his speech following the 7/7 bombings, Blair ‘culturalises the terrorist risk’[31] by echoing Bush’s Orientalist rhetoric in establishing an ‘necessary separation between “us” who “need to save and enhance human life”, and “them”, who’re “intent on destroying [it]”’.[32] Blair fails to minimise Orientalist bias as he doesn’t specify that “they” are remoted, violent extremists and are unrepresentative of your entire Islamic religion. Thus, Orientalism continued to situate your entire Muslim neighborhood because the ‘Different’ indifferent from ‘us’ as a collective of ‘British’ individuals and the ‘British lifestyle’ in regard to counterterrorism coverage. That is significantly poignant after we evaluate it with acts of white terrorist violence. Instead of an ‘us versus them’ narrative, the ‘lone wolf’[33] mentality is adopted. We don’t view the attacker as appearing on behalf of British values, as is the case after they belong to the Islamic religion. Summarising Meier,[34] such an absence of response reveals that it’s only when violence is perpetrated by people/teams incongruous with white supremacy’s standing that CD is a warranted response. We don’t understand white attackers as a separate ‘Different’ who threaten the construction of our society, since whiteness is the unifying issue underpinning what it means to be ‘British’. Whereas, non-white violence ‘constitutes such shocks…[to] the hegemonic nature of white supremacy as a part of identification’[35] that draconian insurance policies similar to CD are warranted. Thus, s.56[36] decreasing the deprivation threshold from ‘significantly prejudicial’ to ‘conducive to the general public good’ made it even simpler to persecute those that do threaten our white supremacist identification. Choudhury illustrates this excellently by evaluating the (lack of) counterterrorism response to the battle with Northern Eire and the ‘denationalisation and exile…used in opposition to British Muslims’.[37] Attributable to our racialised notion of terrorists, IRA troopers weren’t topic to CD orders regardless of killing 175 individuals and inflicting near £1 billion price of injury.[38] This could solely be as a result of their white demographic meant they didn’t threaten our nationwide identification; thus, a draconian response was unwarranted.
S.56 can be problematic as the usual lacks statutory definition, that means the train of the facility in sustaining Britain’s colonial order of non-whites being second-tier residents acts on an unrestricted degree. Furthermore, switching the main focus from punishment to pre-emption means implementing ‘logics of suspicion, anticipation and prediction’[39] onto Muslims already residing in a quasi-contractual relationship with the state.[40] They need to proceed to earn their fragile citizenship as a ‘privilege, not a proper’,[41] by way of ‘proving’[42] their price as residents and hanging an acceptable stability between selling white British values (regardless of being rejected by them) and staying true to their religion, to keep away from suspicion of appearing in opposition to nationwide pursuits, and thus, doubtlessly being disadvantaged of their citizenship.
A last change in CD legal guidelines occurred by way of s.66 Immigration Act 2014,[43] which applied s.40(4A)[44] into the BNA. This holds that the Secretary of State (SoS) can deprive somebody of their citizenship even when it renders them stateless if there are affordable grounds to consider they will search citizenship in one other territory. This revision promotes hierarchical citizenship, as solely people holding dual-nationality can purchase citizenship elsewhere. Nationwide residents who solely maintain British citizenship shall be rendered stateless with no prospect of other citizenship; thus the facility can’t be exercised over them. S.66’s modification is, thus, ‘not supposed to have the identical results on all residents’[45] and, in apply, follows the racialised precedent of earlier provisions in solely concentrating on already marginalised, majority-dual-national communities. It’s straightforward to see why Chowdhury feels as if although ‘the pejorative command: “Return to the place you got here from”…seems to have turn into an official authorities place’.[46] The ‘differentiation of conditionality’[47] fuels suspicions about Muslims being terrorists,[48] as society falsely attributes the convenience with which they are often disadvantaged of citizenship to some hyperlink to terrorist exercise. S.40(4A) additionally ‘disrupts social cohesion’[49] because the message purveyed echoes Orientalism in that solely these superior sufficient to carry full British citizenship shall be protected to a full extent underneath the legislation.
The historical past of our citizenship legal guidelines and the train of CD powers present a extremely racialised home system. Not solely does it impose an Orientalist understanding of who constitutes a risk to our nationwide identification, and thus, ought to be disadvantaged of citizenship, however our legal guidelines additionally recommend a refusal to detach from our colonial previous. Colonialism nonetheless dictates how nationality and citizenship are considered, with whiteness being the crux of British identification. This creates racialised, tiered citizenship whereby marginalised communities, particularly Muslim on this context, ‘should continuously carry out loyalty [to the]…flimsy conceptualisation of ‘Britishness’’[50] for worry of deprivation of their citizenship.
Worldwide impacts
CD legal guidelines are additionally problematic on a world scale, significantly s.40(4A) BNA’s statelessness consequence. Underpinned by the commodification of citizenship as a ‘prize’[51] that should be earned – however solely by these present outdoors of ‘Britishness’ – s.40(4A) equips the SoS with powers to impose a punishment ‘extra primitive than torture’[52] in rendering a person stateless. In doing so, we fall outdoors of our 1961 UN Conference on the Discount of Statelessness[53] (UNC) obligations. Article 8(1) specifies that ‘a state shall not deprive an individual of his nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless’.[54] Nevertheless, many Western states retained their proper underneath Article 8(3)(ii) to deprive somebody in the event that they act in a way significantly prejudicial to the nation’s pursuits.[55] Anderson’s overview confirms that the ‘Conference doesn’t forestall the UK from utilizing the facility’.[56] This begs the query of why the UNC was launched if an exception, successfully nullifying the aim of its obligations, is permissible. Nevertheless, after we take into account the composition of the UN, it turns into apparent. Sturdy Western powers together with the UK and US train a brand new type of ‘neo-colonialism’ whereby financial and cultural domination is used to affect different international locations.[57] Thus, in acquiring the fitting to make a person stateless, neo-colonialism works in tandem with our colonial previous to permeate the worldwide neighborhood with our Western understanding of the terrorist risk. Continued standing as hegemonic international powers implies that Western nations can drive and dictate the formulation of Conventions to finest swimsuit their political agendas. These nations have been, thus, in a position to create and ratify the UNC that enables them to advertise a racialised agenda of defining who falls throughout the ambit of Article 8(3)(ii) whereas nonetheless showing to adjust to worldwide obligations.
This precedent turns into harmful after we take into account the response from different nations who mannequin our citizenship legal guidelines. De Chickera highlights that this downside just isn’t restricted to smaller, Japanese international locations, as ‘many Western democracies have expanded powers in comparable methods with the UK’.[58] Our neo-colonial affect resulting in a international absorption of white superiority contradicts the Orientalist notion that it’s only the East who’re inferior and inclined to our affect. Furthermore, encouraging Western nations to undertake harsh measures and place themselves in breach of worldwide obligations threatens your entire foundations upon which Orientalism is constructed. Orientalism sees the West as ‘democratic and progressive’[59] and superior to the East on this sense, however modelling the UK’s oppressive CD powers on account of neo-colonial affect inside supranational our bodies undermines these beliefs upon which we understand Western society to be constructed. Destroying these foundations would imply unravelling centuries of perceived international order, which is one thing that the West ought to be cautious to keep away from in the event that they want to proceed imposing their ‘superiority’ over the East.
Modelling on UK coverage has additionally occurred within the East, with international locations similar to Egypt ‘severing the authorized bond with its personal residents’[60] in issues of nationwide safety. Encouraging international locations significantly liable to battle to start alienating residents is harmful, as this reinforces Orientalist stereotypes of the East being ‘barbaric’[61] while exhibiting blindness to the ironic barbarity inside our personal practices. Oando and Achieng are cautious to level out that the African Union has mitigated some Western affect in creating methods that ‘represent a pan-African response to terrorism’,[62] together with the AU Plan of Motion 2002 and Anti-Terrorism Legislation 2011. Nevertheless, the Union fashioned within the wake of 9/11, and the 2011 Act has been criticised for ‘drawing excessively from the US Patriot Act 2001’,[63] making it clear that African counterterrorism coverage is modelled on a Western-centric, racialised understanding of the terrorist risk. This has led to the ‘stigmatisation of Muslims by the general public’[64] even the place they don’t represent a urgent risk. As Alzubairi reminds us, counterterrorism coverage within the period of neo-colonialism does nothing apart from ‘preserve the established order of an unequal place of powers’[65] and reinforce the Western misconstruing of the East of Muslims as a worldwide terror risk.
The UK is setting a harmful precedent on a world scale. Neo-colonialism threatens to disrupt counterterrorism insurance policies of not solely our Western allies, who ought to align with values of freedom and development, but additionally the insurance policies of these international locations who’re ‘so enmeshed in [their] colonial relationships with the West’[66] that they’re unable to implement insurance policies extra appropriate to their particular person political climates.
Transferring ahead(?)
Logic stipulates that subsiding these penalties requires merely eradicating CD powers. A sample is rising of European choice for deradicalisation programmes, and non-Western nations, together with Russia and Central Asia, ‘have taken again a whole bunch of their nationals’.[67] An inherent irony to Orientalism once more arises; these international locations deemed as inferior within the international order appear to be much less fuelled by a racialised need to marginalise communities by preserving the exaggerated Islamic terrorist risk out. Van Waas and Jaghai iterate that states have ‘discovered methods to handle safety threats…with out denationalising [citizens]’.[68] If the UK seems to loosen up its perceived superior standing in shaping international counterterrorism coverage, we could be taught a lesson in how one can cope with the terrorist risk in a method that doesn’t unduly threaten the citizenship standing of our whole Muslim inhabitants.
Some could look to TEOs as a viable coverage different, nonetheless, I argue that these would formulate into deprivation in disguise and thus usually are not appropriate. TEOs have been launched within the Counter-Terrorism and Safety Act 2015[69] to stop terrorist suspects from returning to the UK for a interval not than two years, often by way of invalidation of a passport. Fenwick argues that TEOs could also be preferable as they represent a journey restriction slightly than a ‘de jure elimination of nationality’.[70] Whereas that is true in principle, the symbolic significance of this argument is underestimated. Attributable to misalignment with British identification, a person’s passport stands out as the final bodily signifier of their British citizenship – eradicating it might be the ultimate straw in full alienation. This may occasionally go away remoted people with no alternative however to align with these teams/organisations who do settle for their identification. The hazard thus arises in TEOs doubtlessly ‘reinforcing the identification points that drive radicalisation’.[71]
Fenwick highlights how TEOs could assist to mitigate racialised affect by suggesting that their foremost targets are mono, slightly than twin, nationals.[72] This falters consideration positioned on dual-nationals who’re already topic to s.40(4A) BNA statelessness powers and should remind national-born residents that they fall inside some scope of the legislation. Nevertheless, to impose a TEO on a British nationwide while overseas implies that the nation they’re visiting should now soak up the problem. Appearing in a ‘unilateral sense slightly than as a part of a world wrestle’[73] by way of ‘exporting a safety risk’[74] to smaller nations who’re unlikely to own the capability nor sources to deal with the case reveals a transparent disregard for different nations, because the UK continues to place itself on an untouchable pedestal primarily based on our colonial perceptions of British superiority.
Lastly, an absence of restrictions on the variety of TEOs that may be imposed means there’s potential for them to turn into deprivation in disguise. This leaves these people in a state of citizenship limbo, resulting in the conclusion that TEOs usually are not an acceptable coverage different.
Conclusion
This essay has demonstrated that CD as a counterterrorism coverage is extremely problematic. Not solely is it constructed upon a racialised and Islamophobic notion of who threatens our white, ‘British’ identification and thus warrants being topic to CD, but it surely additionally units a harmful worldwide precedent by way of encouraging Western allies to utilise the identical oppressive practices. Neo-colonialism additionally implies that we proceed to exert appreciable affect over smaller Japanese international locations as a Western hegemony, the place they’re additionally inspired to mannequin our deprivation powers and the Islamophobic rhetoric underpinning them. That is translating right into a common understanding of Muslims as the terrorist risk, the place this isn’t at all times the case.
While a full examination of other insurance policies stays outdoors of the scope of this essay, Fenwick’s evaluation of TEOs leaves me unconvinced of their suitability as an answer. To really absolve of the problematics of CD coverage would imply acknowledging the racism that drives it and questioning our whole white British identification as the head of this racialisation. While Collins’ evaluation focuses on the Stop technique, her postulation that ‘processes of racialisation and the development of a white British identification can’t be eliminated…as a result of it’s key to its identification’[75] applies right here. Repealing CD means hanging closely on the core of white British identification, and primarily based on our colonial previous and neo-colonial future, it’s extremely unlikely that this shall be a welcome suggestion. Till we demolish our racialised understanding of who ought to be topic to CD, its existence as a counterterrorism coverage will proceed to be extraordinarily problematic.
Finish Notes
[1] Tufyal Choudhury, ‘The radicalisation of citizenship deprivation’ Crucial Social Coverage 37(2) (2017) p. 226.
[2] Anna Meier, ‘The concept of terror: institutional replica in authorities responses to political violence’ Worldwide Research Quarterly 64(3) (2020) p. 507.
[3] British Nationality Act 1948.
[4] Emily Collins, ‘Past the Race-neutrality of Stop: White Britain and the Racialised Risk’, E-Worldwide Relations, 2021 https://www.e-ir.information/2021/09/20/beyond-the-race-neutrality-of-prevent-white-britain-and-the-racialised-threat/ [accessed 10 January 2021] p. 6.
[5] Fatemah Alzubairi, Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Anti-Terrorism Legislation within the Arab World (Cambridge College Press 2016) p.8.
[6] British Nationality Act 1948, s.1.
[7] Robert A Huttenback, ‘The British Empire as a “White Man’s Nation” – Racial Attitudes and Immigration Laws within the Colonies of White Settlement’ Journal of British Research 13(1) (1973) pp. 108-137.
[8] Collins, ‘Past the race-neutrality of Stop’ p. 6.
[9] Immigration Act 1971.
[10] Collins, ‘Past the race-neutrality of Stop’ p. 6.
[11] Nadine El-Enany, (B)ordering Britain (Manchester College Press, 2020) p.4.
[12] Immigration Act 1971, s.2.
[13] British Nationality Act 1981.
[14] Collins, ‘Past the race-neutrality of Stop’ p. 6.
[15] El-Enany, ‘(B)ordering Britain’ p. 5.
[16] Choudhury, ‘The radicalisation of citizenship deprivation’ p. 231.
[17] British Nationality Act 1981, Half III.
[18] Ibid., Half II.
[19] Zainab Batul Naqvi, ‘Coloniality, Belonging and Citizenship Deprivation within the UK: Exploring Judicial Responses’ Social & Authorized Research (2021) p. 8.
[20] British Nationality Act 1981, s.40(1)-(2).
[21] The Washington Put up, ‘Textual content: President Bush Addresses the Nation’, The Washington Put up, 2001 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html [accessed 10 January 2022].
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Deepa Kumar, ‘Terrorcraft: empire and the making of the racialised terrorist risk’ Race & Class 62(2) (2020) p. 38.
[26] Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
[27] Ibid., s.4.
[28] British Nationality Act 1981, s.40(2).
[29] See: Nisha Kapoor and Kasia Narkowitz, ‘Unmaking residents: Passport removals, pre-emptive policing and the reimagining of colonial governmentalities’ Ethnic and Racial Research 42(16) pp. 45-62.
[30] Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
[31] Émilien Fargues, ‘The revival of citizenship deprivation in France and the UK for example of citizenship renationalisation’ Citizenship Research 21(8) (2017) p. 992.
[32] Collins, ‘Past the race-neutrality of Stop’, p. 2.
[33] Boaz Ganor, ‘Understanding the Motivations of “Lone Wolf” Terrorists’ Views on Terrorism 15(2) (2021) pp. 23-32.
[34] Meier, ‘The concept of terror’ pp. 499-509.
[35] Ibid., p. 502.
[36] Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, s.56.
[37] Choudhury, ‘The radicalisation of citizenship deprivation’ p. 228.
[38] Rebekah Poole, Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson, ‘The Provisional IRA’s mainland marketing campaign’, Alpha Historical past, 2020 https://alphahistory.com/northernireland/ira-mainland-campaign/ [accessed 21 January 2022].
[39] Francesco Ragazzi, ‘Countering terrorism and radicalisation: Securitising social coverage?’ Crucial Social Coverage 37(2) (2017) p. 170.
[40] Lucia Zedner, ‘Citizenship Deprivation, Safety and Human Rights’ European Journal of Migration and Legislation 18(2016) p. 238.
[41] Alice Ross, ‘Theresa Might, citizenship and the facility to make individuals stateless’, Open Democracy, 2013 https://www.opendemocracy.internet/en/opendemocracyuk/theresa-may-citizenship-and-power-to-make-people-stateless/ [accessed 03 January 2022].
[42] Kapoor and Narkowitz, ‘Unmaking residents’ p. 52.
[43] Immigration Act 2014, s.66.
[44] British Nationality Act 1981, s.40(4A).
[45] Fargues, ‘The revival of citizenship deprivation in France and the UK’ p. 992.
[46] Shamim Chowdhury, ‘For Britons like me, citizenship comes with situations’, Al Jazeera, 2021 https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/9/24/for-britons-like-me-british-citizenship-comes-with-conditions [accessed 03 January 2022].
[47] Fargues, ‘The revival of citizenship deprivation’ p. 992.
[48] Choudhury, ‘The radicalisation of citizenship deprivation’ p. 229.
[49] Laura van Waas and Sangita Jaghai, ‘All Residents are Created Equal, however Some are Extra Equal Than Others’ Netherlands Legislation Overview 65 (2018) p. 418.
[50] Collins, ‘Past the race-neutrality of Stop’, p. 2.
[51] Sangeetha Pillai and George Williams, ‘The Utility of Citizen Stripping Legal guidelines within the UK, Canada, and Australia’ Melbourne Legislation Overview 41(2) (2017) p. 856.
[52] Chief Justice Warren, Trop v Dulles [1958] 356 U.S. 86 at [20].
[53] UN Common Meeting, ‘Conference on the Discount of Statelessness’, United Nations,1961, Treaty Sequence, vol. 989 https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-content/uploads/1961-Conference-on-the-reduction-of-Statelessness_ENG.pdf [accessed 22 January 2021].
[54] Ibid., Article 8(1), p. 11.
[55] Ibid., Article 8(3)(ii), p. 12.
[56] David Anderson QC, ‘Citizenship Removing Leading to Statelessness: First Report of the Unbiased Reviewer on the Operation of the Energy to Take away Citizenship Obtained By Naturalisation From Individuals Who Have No Different Citizenship’, GOV.UK, 2016, https://property.publishing.service.gov.uk/authorities/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518120/
David_Anderson_QC_-_CITIZENSHIP_REMOVAL__web_.pdf [accessed 02 January 2022] p. 5.
[57] Alzubairi, ‘Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Anti-Terrorism Legislation within the Arab World’, p. 4.
[58] Amal De Chickera, ‘Patel’s citizenship-stripping invoice would speed up UK race to the underside’, openDemocracy, 2021 https://www.opendemocracy.internet/en/opendemocracyuk/patels-citizenship-stripping-bill-would-accelerate-uk-race-to-the-bottom/ [accessed 13 January 2022].
[59] Leti Volpp, ‘The citizen and the terrorist’ UCLA Legislation Overview 49(5) (2002) p. 1586.
[60] van Waas and Jaghai, ‘All Residents are Created Equal’ p. 419.
[61] Volpp, ‘The citizen and the terrorist’ p. 1586.
[62] Samwel Oando and Shirley Achieng, ‘An indigenous African framework for counterterrorism: Decolonising Kenya’s strategy to countering “Al-Shabaab-ism’ Crucial Research on Terrorism 14(3)(2021), p. 363.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid., p. 359.
[65] Alzubairi, ‘Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Anti-Terrorism Legislation within the Arab World’, p. 9.
[66] Oando and Achieng, ‘An indigenous African framework for counterterrorism’, p. 370.
[67] BBC Explainers, ‘Who’s Shamima Begum and the way do you lose your UK citizenship?’, BBC Information, 2021 https://www.bbc.co.uk/information/explainers-53428191 [accessed 07 January 2022].
[68] van Waas and Jaghai, ‘All Residents are Created Equal’, p. 425.
[69] Counter-Terrorism and Safety Act 2015, Chapter 2.
[70] Helen Fenwick, ‘Terrorism threats and short-term exclusion orders: counter-terror rhetoric or actuality?’ European Human Rights Legislation Overview 3 (2017), p. 270.
[71] Rachel Olding, ‘Stripping twin citizenship ‘fully counter-productive’ to preventing terrorism: UK skilled’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2015 https://www.smh.com.au/nationwide/nsw/stripping-dual-citizenship-completely-counterproductive-to-fighting-terrorism-uk-expert-20150721-giha2k.html [accessed 24 January 2022].
[72] Fenwick, ‘Terrorism threats and short-term exclusion orders’, p. 253.
[73] Ibid., p. 254.
[74] van Waas and Jaghai, ‘All Residents are Created Equal’, p. 425.
[75] Collins, ‘Past the race-neutrality of Stop’, p. 1.
Bibliography
Alzubairi, F., Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism, and Anti-Terrorism Legislation within the Arab World (Cambridge College Press 2016).
Anderson, D., ‘Citizenship Removing Leading to Statelessness: First Report of the Unbiased Reviewer on the Operation of the Energy to Take away Citizenship Obtained By Naturalisation From Individuals Who Have No Different Citizenship’, GOV.UK, 2016 https://property.publishing.service.gov.uk/authorities/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
518120/David_Anderson_QC_-_CITIZENSHIP_REMOVAL__web_.pdf [accessed 02 January 2022].
BBC Explainers, ‘Who’s Shamima Begum and the way do you lose your UK citizenship?’, BBC Information, 2021 https://www.bbc.co.uk/information/explainers-53428191 [accessed 07 January 2022].
British Nationality Act 1948.
British Nationality Act 1981.
Choudhury, T., ‘The radicalisation of citizenship deprivation’ Crucial Social Coverage 37(2) (2017), pp. 225-244.
Chowdhury, S., ‘For Britons like me, citizenship comes with situations’, Al Jazeera, 2021 https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/9/24/for-britons-like-me-british-citizenship-comes-with-conditions [accessed 03 January 2022].
Collins, E., ‘Past the Race-neutrality of Stop: White Britain and the Racialised Risk’, E-Worldwide Relations, 2021 https://www.e-ir.information/2021/09/20/beyond-the-race-neutrality-of-prevent-white-britain-and-the-racialised-threat/ [accessed 10 January 2021].
Counter-Terrorism and Safety Act 2015.
De Chickera, A., ‘Patel’s citizenship-stripping invoice would speed up UK race to the underside’, openDemocracy, 2021 https://www.opendemocracy.internet/en/opendemocracyuk/patels-citizenship-stripping-bill-would-accelerate-uk-race-to-the-bottom/ [accessed 13 January 2022].
El-Enany, N., (B)ordering Britain (Manchester College Press, 2020).
Fargues, É., ‘The revival of citizenship deprivation in France and the UK for example of citizenship renationalisation’ Citizenship Research 21(8) (2017), pp. 984-998.
Fenwick, H., ‘Terrorism threats and short-term exclusion orders: counter-terror rhetoric or actuality?’ European Human Rights Legislation Overview 3 (2017), pp. 247-271.
Ganor, B., ‘Understanding the Motivations of “Lone Wolf” Terrorists’ Views on Terrorism 15(2) (2021), pp. 23-32.
Huttenback, R A., ‘The British Empire as a “White Man’s Nation” – Racial Attitudes and Immigration Laws within the Colonies of White Settlement’ Journal of British Research 13(1) (1973), pp. 108-137.
Immigration Act 1971.
Immigration Act 2014.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
Kapoor, N. and Narkowitz, Ok., ‘Unmaking residents: Passport removals, pre-emptive policing and the reimagining of colonial governmentalities’ Ethnic and Racial Research 42(16), pp. 45-62.
Kumar, D., ‘Terrorcraft: empire and the making of the racialised terrorist risk’ Race & Class 62(2) (2020), pp. 34-60.
Meier, A., ‘The concept of terror: institutional replica in authorities responses to political violence’ Worldwide Research Quarterly 64(3) (2020), pp. 499-509.
Naqvi, Z B., ‘Coloniality, Belonging and Citizenship Deprivation within the UK: Exploring Judicial Responses’ Social & Authorized Research (2021), pp. 1-20.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Oando, S., and Achieng, S., ‘An indigenous African framework for counterterrorism: Decolonising Kenya’s strategy to countering “Al-Shabaab-ism’ Crucial Research on Terrorism 14(3)(2021) pp. 354-377.
Olding, R., ‘Stripping twin citizenship ‘fully counter-productive’ to preventing terrorism: UK skilled’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2015 https://www.smh.com.au/nationwide/nsw/stripping-dual-citizenship-completely-counterproductive-to-fighting-terrorism-uk-expert-20150721-giha2k.html [accessed 24 January 2022].
Pillai, S. and Williams, G., ‘The Utility of Citizen Stripping Legal guidelines within the UK, Canada, and Australia’ Melbourne Legislation Overview 41(2) (2017), pp. 845-889.
Poole, R., Llewellyn, J. and Thompson, S., ‘The Provisional IRA’s mainland marketing campaign’, Alpha Historical past, 2020 https://alphahistory.com/northernireland/ira-mainland-campaign/ [accessed 21 January 2022].
Ragazzi, F., ‘Countering terrorism and radicalisation: Securitising social coverage?’ Crucial Social Coverage 37(2) (2017), pp. 163-179.
Ross, A., ‘Theresa Might, citizenship and the facility to make individuals stateless’, Open Democracy, 2013 https://www.opendemocracy.internet/en/opendemocracyuk/theresa-may-citizenship-and-power-to-make-people-stateless/ [accessed 03 January 2022].
The Washington Put up, ‘Textual content: President Bush Addresses the Nation’, The Washington Put up, 2001 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html [accessed 10 January 2022].
Trop v Dulles [1958] 356 U.S. 86.
UN Common Meeting, ‘Conference on the Discount of Statelessness’, United Nations,1961, Treaty Sequence, vol. 989 https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-content/uploads/1961-Conference-on-the-reduction-of-Statelessness_ENG.pdf [accessed 22 January 2021].
van Waas L. and Jaghai, S., ‘All Residents are Created Equal, however Some are Extra Equal Than Others’ Netherlands Legislation Overview 65 (2018), pp. 413-430.
Volpp, L., ‘The citizen and the terrorist’ UCLA Legislation Overview 49(5) (2002), pp. 1575-1600.
Zedner, L., ‘Citizenship Deprivation, Safety and Human Rights’ European Journal of Migration and Legislation 18 (2016), pp. 222-242.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
