UK's nationality Bill puts citizenship of Indian origin Britons at risk

British Home Secretary Priti Patel, who migrated to the United King­dom from East Africa as a child, has introduced a Bill in the House of Commons, which, if passed in its current form, would have the powers to strip people of their citizenship without giving them notice.

The UK authorities’ right to deprive British nationals of their citizenship was enacted in 2005 by a left-of-centre Labour party government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, after the London bombings by Is­lam­ist groups in which 52 people died in the city’s public transport system. Its use increased when the Con­servative party-Liberal Demo­crat coalition came to office in 2010 and made it more wide-ranging in 2014.

Now, Clause 9 in a Nation­ality and Borders Bill absolves a government from the need to give “notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship” if it is not “reasonably practical” to do so; or as The Guardian put it, “in the interests of national security, diplomatic relations or otherwise in the public interest” — in other words, a broad set of apparently discretionary circumstances.

Virendra Sharma, MP for the west London constituency of Southall, which overwhelmingly has immigrants from Punjab in India, said: “The Nationality and Borders Bill is a shameful piece of legislation, designed to punish the most vulnerable. The Bill is fundamentally flawed and risks breaching international law.”

Bob Blackman, MP for a predominantly Gujarati constituency in northwest London, reacted: “I support Clause 9 because it will help prevent abuse of the process by parents who choose not to obtain the nationality of their child.”

An estimated 1.5 million people of Indian origin are British citizens. Anyone among them indulging, in the eyes of the home office, in activities against the UK state, spoiling ties with a friendly country or any other pursuit deemed to be prejudicial to Britain can potentially be taken off the citizenship register, which would automatically and immediately render their passports invalid.

India’s stand — enforced into law by Congress party governments and maintain­ed by Bharatiya Janata Party regimes — debars dual nationality for an Indian. This means no one can lawfully possess citizenship of another country and also the citize­nship of India. The Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card is not a grant of citizenship. It merely provides an Indian visa for life and extends certain rights pertaining to ownership of assets and investments in India.

The age-old stance — which a section of persons of Indian origin (PIOs) object to — may come as a blessing in disguise. If Patel gets her way in the Commons — her Conservative administration led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson enjoys a significant majority in the chamber — India would not be obliged to take back a person who was originally an Indian.

However, that protection may not apply to Bangladesh and Pakistan, for instance, since both nations allow dual nationality and numerous Britons of Bangladeshi or Pakistani extraction are also nationals of Bangladesh and Pakistan, respectively.

It will be interesting to see how the British judiciary reacts, as legal challenges to the controversial clause cannot be ruled out. Frances Webber, vice-chair of the Ins­titute of Race Relations, was quoted as saying: “This amendment sends the message that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants in this country.”

Maya Foa, director of Reprieve, which fights for justice for people facing human rights abuses, reportedly said: “This clause would give Priti Patel unprecedented power to remove your citizenship in secret…. and effectively deny you an appeal.”

The British home office responded: “British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat in the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm.”