One hundred civil society figures have condemned the government\u2019s proposed Nationality and Borders Bill as \u201covertly racist\u201d, in an open letter<\/a> shared with the New Statesman<\/em>.<\/p>\n Signatories include Julie Bentley, CEO of Samaritans, Halima Begum, CEO of the Runnymede Trust, the British authors Neil Gaiman and Nikesh Shukla, the historian and broadcaster David Olusoga and the barrister Jolyon Maugham, who founded the Good Law Project but signed the letter in a personal capacity.<\/p>\n The open letter, which arrives as the House of Lords begins scrutinising the Nationality and Borders Bill, describes the legislation as \u201ca route to disenfranchisement and even deportation of people of colour on an unprecedented scale\u201d.<\/p>\n The open letter was organised by CAGE and Media Diversified.\u00a0Managing director of CAGE Muhammad Rabbani said: \u201cThis bill will seek to bolster the racist and Islamophobic deprivation powers and further erode the right to a fair trial and appeal. These powers must be scrapped entirely, beginning from clause nine and ending with the two-tier citizenship regime.\u201d<\/p>\n Samantha Asumadu, founder of Media Diversified, told the\u00a0New Statesman<\/em>: \u201cMyself and up to six million people will live in fear that one wrong move, even just one unforced error or car accident could see us arrested, judged in secret and deported. This targeted, racist legislation is an existential threat to all our loved ones, neighbours, and colleagues.\u201d<\/p>\n Deprivation of citizenship<\/strong><\/p>\n Clause nine of the Nationality and Borders Bill would give the home secretary the right to deprive British nationals of their citizenship without informing them first<\/a>.<\/p>\n [See also: <\/em><\/strong>What does the Nationality and Borders Bill mean for you?<\/em><\/strong><\/a>]<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t The shadow immigration minister, Bambos Charalambous, described the clause as \u201cshameful and Orwellian in equal measure\u201d, telling the House of Commons on 7 December: \u201cThe real purpose of this rule appears to be to introduce measures that remove the right to appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n Maugham told the New Statesman<\/em>: \u201cIf you don\u2019t know that your citizenship has been removed it\u2019s very difficult to appeal against it.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe right to remove citizenship is also expressed in very, very broad terms, so there\u2019s the additional question of whether people will have grounds to appeal, even if in theory they have a right of appeal.<\/p>\n \u201cIf these rules are only going to be used for narrow reasons, then there is no reason for them to be drafted so broadly.\u201d<\/p>\n A New Statesman<\/em> analysis<\/a> last year estimated that the change would affect the rights of six million people in England and Wales, including two in every five people from a non-white ethnic minority and almost half of all British Asians.<\/p>\n [See also: <\/em><\/strong>Exclusive: British citizenship of six million people could be jeopardised by Home Office plans<\/em><\/strong><\/a>]<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The open letter describes clause nine as \u201cmerely the pinnacle of a raft of legislation that has already subjected the citizenship of millions of Britons of foreign heritage, including those born and raised in the United Kingdom, to the caprice of the home secretary\u201d.<\/p>\n The British government already has more sweeping powers to deprive its citizens of their nationality than any other government in the G20, including China and Saudi Arabia, analysis by the New Statesman<\/em><\/a> found.<\/p>\n [See also: <\/em><\/strong>New: Priti Patel\u2019s powers to revoke citizenship are the broadest in the G20<\/em><\/strong><\/a>]<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Since 2006, the home secretary has had the power<\/a> to strip British citizenship from any dual national if doing so is deemed to be \u201cconducive to the public good\u201d. Between 2006 and 2017, this power was used<\/a> to strip 199 people of their citizenship, with 104 cases in 2017 alone.<\/p>\n Since 2014 the home secretary has also had the power to<\/a> deprive non-dual nationals of their citizenship, thereby making them stateless, if they have acted \u201cin a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests\u201d of the UK and the home secretary \u201chas reasonable grounds for believing\u201d that they could acquire another nationality.<\/p>\n [See also: <\/em><\/strong>Exclusive: Appeals against being stripped of UK citizenship reach record levels<\/em><\/strong><\/a>]<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The open letter states: \u201cClause nine now goes a step further and removes even the duty of notification, leaving millions in constant uncertainty as to the status of their citizenship.\u201d<\/p>\n Maugham added: \u201cIt raises a guillotine over the necks of black and brown people in the UK. It raises the threat that for trivial breaches of law, or even transitory standards of moral conduct drawn up by government agencies, people could lose their citizenship and indeed be left stateless.\u201d<\/p>\n For example, the Court of Appeal ruled in 2019<\/a> that the Home Office\u2019s policy of deporting migrants for tax discrepancies was legally flawed. At least 1,000 working migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain in the UK \u2013 including doctors, engineers and scientists \u2013 were facing deportation in 2018<\/a> for simple mistakes such as errors in tax returns.<\/p>\n \u201cIt doesn\u2019t take much imagination to see that these powers will create very harsh sanctions, including statelessness, for actions that many of us would regard as being entirely proper,\u201d warned Maugham.<\/p>\n \u201cIt embeds inequality of treatment by saying that those who have only UK citizenship are subject to one sanctions regime and those who may be entitled to citizenship of another state are subject to a completely different sanctions regime. Once you appreciate who falls into the former class and who falls into the latter class it becomes very difficult indeed to avoid describing the legislation as racist in effect and intent.\u201d<\/p>\n A Home Office spokesperson said: \u201cRemoving British citizenship has been possible for over a century, and is used against those who have acquired citizenship by fraud, and against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists and serious organised criminals. <\/p>\n \u201cThis change in the bill is simply about the process of notification and recognises that in exceptional circumstances, such as when someone is in a war zone, or informing them would reveal sensitive intelligence sources, it may not be possible to do this.\u201d<\/p>\n The right to asylum<\/strong><\/p>\n The Nationality and Borders Bill would also curtail the rights of asylum seekers who arrived in the UK irregularly or through another \u201csafe\u201d country.\u00a0<\/p>\n Clause 11 of the bill would give the home secretary the right to discriminate against asylum seekers who do not meet the new criteria, even if they are accepted as refugees. The home secretary would be allowed to restrict their access to public funds, their rights to family reunion and their rights to acquire British citizenship.<\/p>\n Refugees who do not meet the new criteria would also have no possibility of settlement for at least ten years. Children born to such refugees while in the UK could be denied British citizenship for ten years, or until their parents are granted citizenship.<\/p>\n The Law Society<\/a> has said that clause ten is \u201cincompatible with the UK\u2019s obligations under the Refugee Convention 1951\u201d, while the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has described<\/a> the clause as \u201ca recipe for mental and physical ill health, social and economic marginalisation, and exploitation\u201d.<\/p>\n The UNHCR has also warned<\/a> that the restriction of rights to family reunion will mean that \u201cmore women and children are likely to attempt dangerous journeys\u201d.<\/p>\n Schedule three of the Nationality and Borders Bill, meanwhile, would set the groundwork for the offshore processing of asylum claims. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has previously considered<\/a> transferring asylum applicants to remote islands in the South Atlantic.<\/p>\n The bill would also make it a criminal offence for asylum seekers to enter the UK without a visa if coming from a country where visas are required for travel to the UK, with a maximum sentence of four years\u2019 imprisonment. Anyone facilitating such entries, including humanitarians and refugees themselves, would risk life imprisonment.<\/p>\n The UNHCR has noted<\/a>: \u201cGiven that there is no possibility under UK law of applying for entry clearance in order to claim asylum, no one from a country whose citizens normally need a visa would be able to come to the UK to seek asylum without potentially committing a criminal offence.<\/p>\n \u201cNinety per cent of those who are granted asylum in the United Kingdom are from countries whose nationals must hold entry clearance (a visa) to enter the UK.\u201d<\/p>\nContent from our partners<\/h6>\n
![\"Feel](\"https:\/\/www.newstatesman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/12\/shutterstock_1841422096-464x348.jpg\" "\\"Feel")
<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n![\"Is](\"https:\/\/www.newstatesman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/12\/shutterstock_1364854793-464x348.jpg\" "\\"Is")
<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n![\"Bubblr\u2019s](\"https:\/\/www.newstatesman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/12\/shutterstock_696395281-464x348.jpg\" "\\"Bubblr\u2019s")
<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n