Expelling English Criminals With Thai Mothers From The United Kingdom

[Richard W]

Not strictly true. Naturalised British citizens can have their citizenship revoked, for example if either ILR or citizenship was obtained fraudulently or if it is considered in the public interest to do so. See Removal of citizenship obtained fraudulently (Deprivation).

As I read Section 4 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2004 and Section 56 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2006, someone born in the UK of a settled UK father and a Thai mother can, if convicted of a serious offence in the UK, be stripped of British citizenship and deported to Thailand if he has not taken the precaution of renouncing his Thai citizenship. Is this correct? Would such a person have to have obtained a Thai passport to render himself vulnerable?

When I was young, I learnt that UK citizenship obtained by being born in the UK could not be taken away. This guarantee has been removed in the past decade, no matter how long one's ancestors have lived in England.

[I Like Thai]

Is this Specific to English people, or would it affect Welsh, Scottish and N.Ireland also ?

[Richard W]

Is this Specific to English people, or would it affect Welsh, Scottish and N.Ireland also ?

I believe it affects them too, but I'm never sure about Scottish and Irish laws. Their personal status laws are generally different, but nationality laws appear to apply to the whole of the kingdom. I chose 'English' to emphasise the strong ties of the miscreants to their land of birth.

[Soutpeel]

My opinion, if the child is born in the UK to one British parent, the childs citizenship cannot be revoked in terms of the paragraphs as the child is not be nationalised per se, irrepective of the other passport they hold. However say the mother of the child obtained their citizenship fraudulently, then yes the paragraph could be used against the wife as they are the nationalised party.

[Soutpeel]

Is this Specific to English people, or would it affect Welsh, Scottish and N.Ireland also ?

Yes....they are part of the United Kingdom

[7by7]

I haven't read all the relevant parts of the Act, but as I understand it a person cannot be stripped of their British citizenship if that citizenship was acquired through birth.

If I am incorrect, Richard W, then perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a link to the relevant section of the relevant Act.

Edited September 9, 2012 by 7by7

[Richard W]

My opinion, if the child is born in the UK to one British parent, the childs citizenship cannot be revoked in terms of the paragraphs as the child is not be nationalised per se, irrepective of the other passport they hold.

The British Nationality Act 1981 Section 40(4) restricted the stripping power for serious offences to those registered or naturalised as British, and I believe that is the long-established position. The 2004 act extended the power to all dual nationals for actions seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK or a British overseas territory, apparently relinquishing the power for serious crimes in general, and the 2006 act extended the power to all dual nationals where deprivation is 'conducive to the public good', the only stripping power not relating to misrepresentation.

[Richard W]

If I am incorrect, Richard W, then perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a link to the relevant section of the relevant Act.

I provided the links in the opening post of this thread. I suggest you open them in separate windows (or print them out). They both amend Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. When reading Section 4 of the 2004 act, note that Section 56 of the 2006 act replaces the amended Section 40(2). After these amendments, the only constrain on Section 40(2) as amended ("The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.") is Section 40(4) as amended - "The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless".

As for UKBA interpretation, see Section 55.3.1.1 procedure you quoted - note that the word 'any' is underlined.

[Richard W]

It seems clear that the powers to strip British-born Britons of British citizenship are in place.

I found this at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/9164123/EU-travel-ban-cannot-stop-Assads-wife-visiting-Britain.html :

"However, The Daily Telegraph has learnt that the Home Office is in the early stages of examining the possibility of revoking Mrs Assad’s British citizenship, which was gained by birth. She left Britain only in 2000 to marry Mr Assad as he took over from his late father."

London-born Emma, as she was known at school (according to Wikipedia), has not been convicted of anything.

So far, the use has been sparing, with apparently only one British-born citizen (ethnicity unknown) being stripped of British nationality so far. The powers since 2002 have mostly been used for dealing with al-Qaida operatives, who, as we are painfully aware, may be born in Britain. I get the impression that eligibility for another citizenship is the test, so not having obtained a Thai passport would not be a defence against being stripped of British nationality for being an undesirable with Thai ancestry.

So far as I can tell, only one ethnic Anglo-Saxon has been stripped of British citizenship, namely Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks. The courts ordered the government to allow his registration as British, the government acquiesced and then immediately stripped him of his British citizenship.

[Chittychangchang]

Where will it end 20 or 30 years down the road?

[Soutpeel]

My opinion, if the child is born in the UK to one British parent, the childs citizenship cannot be revoked in terms of the paragraphs as the child is not be nationalised per se, irrepective of the other passport they hold.

The British Nationality Act 1981 Section 40(4) restricted the stripping power for serious offences to those registered or naturalised as British, and I believe that is the long-established position. The 2004 act extended the power to all dual nationals for actions seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK or a British overseas territory, apparently relinquishing the power for serious crimes in general, and the 2006 act extended the power to all dual nationals where deprivation is 'conducive to the public good', the only stripping power not relating to misrepresentation.

But all this relates to naturalisation, in the example you give the child is British born, not naturalised and you in the other examples you give ie al-Qaida are very extreme cases and would fit the description of the person concerned being a danger to the public good..ie terrorisim.

lets face it in the examples you give about al Qaida, in another age the person wouldnt be stripped of his citizenship, chances they would be hung for "treason" in cases such as this..

One assumes these laws have been enacted as a measure to counter British born terrorists who hold other passports by virtue of being dual nationals. Now unless the Thai child born in the UK has apsirations to become a terrorist, I wouldnt be too worried about this law.

I personally think you are reading too much into this and you are assuming the "serious crimes" they are referring to relates to "run of the mill" criminal activity.

[7by7]

It does seem that the powers do exist to deprive someone of their British citizenship obtained through birth if they are convicted of a serious terrorist offence.

In Mrs Assad's case, she has not been. Hence the Telegraph saying "that the Home Office is in the early stages of examining the possibility of revoking Mrs Assad’s British citizenship." Unless she actually is convicted of such an offence, I suspect that any attempts to do so would be blocked or overturned by the courts.

David Hicks did not obtain his British nationality through birth; he did so via registration, as you say yourself. So his case does not support your argument.

As Soutpeel says, the likelihood of this effecting many people here or their children is very remote; and if they do decide to indulge in terrorism then I'd have no sympathy for them anyway.

[Richard W]

One assumes these laws have been enacted as a measure to counter British born terrorists who hold other passports by virtue of being dual nationals. Now unless the Thai child born in the UK has apsirations to become a terrorist, I wouldnt be too worried about this law.

I personally think you are reading too much into this and you are assuming the "serious crimes" they are referring to relates to "run of the mill" criminal activity.

The 2004 act gave the power to act against terrorists and traitors. (I've referred to it above as the 2002 act - sorry about that.) The 2006 act gave the power to "deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good".

When a deportation order is made against one person in isolation, the usual ground is that someone's presence is "not conducive to the public good". An example is the unnaturalised Thai from the Shetlands whom the government recently tried to deport some time after he had served his 15 month sentence for fire-raising.

The power to deprive applies to all British citizens - all that defends most of us is the lack of another nationality to turn to.

[7by7]

I fail to see how the case of Sakchai Makao is relevant to your topic; he was not a British citizen at the time. Whether he has since obtained British nationality I don't know but if he has then it is irrelevant to his case in 2006.

He was convicted of willful fire raising; arson in other words. He could have caused death or serious injury had someone been in the mobile building or car that he set fire to.

Like all foreign nationals living in the UK who commit a crime which results in a custodial sentence, he was subject to deportation. He was arrested and held in a secure facility, but not a prison, whilst his case was considered and after a decision was made not to deport him he was released.

It was not recently, it was 6 years ago.

It was not sometime after he had served his sentence. The offence was committed in 2002 and but did not come to court until 2004 when he was sentenced to 15 months. So a year at most after his release, although it would obviously be better if a decision on whether or not to deport him, and all other foreign criminals, was made before they had finished their sentence.

What defends British citizens, dual nationals or not, from being arbitrarily deported is the rule of law and the fact that the majority of people living in the UK, British citizens, dual nationals and all others, are not criminals!

Edited September 10, 2012 by 7by7

[Richard W]

I fail to see how the case of Sakchai Makao is relevant to your topic; he was not a British citizen at the time. Whether he has since obtained British nationality I don't know but if he has then it is irrelevant to his case in 2006.

The argument goes thus:

If his presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good, then the presence of anyone else who behaves like that is not conducive to the public good. If what enables a similar person to stay in the country is his British nationality, then depriving such a person of British nationality is conduce to the public good.

What defends British citizens, dual nationals or not, from being arbitrarily deported is the rule of law and the fact that the majority of people living in the UK, British citizens, dual nationals and all others, are not criminals!

A policy of stripping dual nationality criminals of British nationality would not be arbitrary and would be in accordance with the rule of law.

It does seem that the powers do exist to deprive someone of their British citizenship obtained through birth if they are convicted of a serious terrorist offence.

Birth no longer affords any privilege. A conviction is not required, as the case of Al-Jedda shows. The court concluded that on the balance of probabilities he was connected with terrorism, so they didn't allow his appeal on the basis of unreasonableness of the attempt to strip him of British citizenship. Instead, he won his appeal at the Court of Appeal on the basis that he was not a dual national. (I think this is going to the Supreme Court, but I can't find confirmation. The point is that the case turns on whether or not losing British nationality renders him stateless.)

[Richard W]

What defends British citizens, dual nationals or not, from being arbitrarily deported is the rule of law and the fact that the majority of people living in the UK, British citizens, dual nationals and all others, are not criminals!

People can be deported for causing death by dangerous or drunk driving, e.g. as a result of answering a mobile phone while driving. For the list of offences, see http://www.legislati...schedule/5/made . For the categories of dangerous driving, see http://www.cps.gov.u...gerous_driving/ .

What currently restricts the application of the law in such cases is that the criterion was weakened to 'deprivation conducive to the public good' to exclude the likes of David Hicks. The same act added 'good character' requirements to a set of registration possibilities. Ironically, if children of British-born women had simply been retroactively granted British nationality, instead of having to register, Hicks could have been deprived of British nationality under the 2002 or 2004 acts, instead of the government grabbing excessive powers under the 2006 act.

Governments have a bad habit of regularly using powers that they said they would use sparingly. When is that temporary evil of income tax going to be dropped?

[7by7]

Makeo was not a British citizen at all, and wasn't deported anyway.

There is no requirement that deportation of foreign, i.e. non British, criminals be in the public interest. That they have been convicted of an offence which carried a custodial sentence is sufficient for their deportation to be considered. Considered, not definite; as Makeo's case shows, a custodial sentence does not mean automatic deportation. Shot yourself in the foot using him as an example.

It is removal of British citizenship which must be in the public interest (unless that citizenship was obtained by fraud or deception).

Neither Al-Jedda nor Hicks were born British. The former obtained British nationality by naturalisation and the second by registration.

Causing death by dangerous driving or causing death whilst driving drunk are both serious offences. Do you really not consider them to be so?

Mobile phones?

Research has shown that driver's reaction times are up to 50% slower than normal when driving and using a mobile phone. It also shows that your reaction times are 30% worse than when driving under the influence of alcohol. Other research suggests that if you are using a mobile phone while driving you are four times more likely to have a crash.(source)

For some reason you are simply scaremongering. Those Britons with dual nationality are in no danger of losing their British nationality and being deported, and those non Britons living in the UK too are also in no danger of being deported, if they, like the overwhelming majority, abide by the law. It is only criminals who have anything to fear; and only serious criminals at that.

This is a silly topic and you are presenting more and more desperate arguments to try and convince people that it isn't. I can't be bothered with it anymore.

Edited September 10, 2012 by 7by7

[Richard W]

Continuing to research the implications of the power to deprive British-born dual nationals of citizenship, I found some interesting statements in the ILPA compilation of ministerial statements to Immigration Aslum and Nationality Act 2006:

...the provision would apply only to people with joint nationality—not, I hasten to add, to those

who are entitled to joint nationality, such as Jewish people, who are automatically entitled to be

members of the state of Israel but choose not to be.

The deprivation of Al-Jedda's citizenship depends on the argument that any application of his for the restoration of Iraqi citizenship would be successful. British Jews, you have been warned!

Thai citizenship is transmitted at birth - one does not register as Thai to inherit Thai nationality.

...on 24 August the Secretary of State issued a statement in which he went through a series of

unacceptable behaviours. ..We have included in our thinking conduct seriously prejudicial, war

crimes, serious crimes, threat to public order and actions prejudicial to relations between the UK

and another state. We do not believe that we should set out an exhaustive list...because there might

be circumstances in which a future Secretary of State could lawfully be satisfied that deprivation

was conducive to the public good. That is why we are resisting the inclusion of a list in the Bill.

Note 'serious crimes' in the list.

Incidentally, the tally of deprivations of British citizenship conducive to the public good is now 15, of which 5 are British-born - http://www.theyworkf...04-16b.102921.h .

Another gem from the 2006 act is the section 59 requirement for good character of those registering as British. This is another argument for those registering children as British to do so as soon as possible, or at least before they reach the age of ten.

[Soutpeel]

Continuing to research the implications of the power to deprive British-born dual nationals of citizenship, I found some interesting statements in the ILPA compilation of ministerial statements to Immigration Aslum and Nationality Act 2006:

...the provision would apply only to people with joint nationality—not, I hasten to add, to those

who are entitled to joint nationality, such as Jewish people, who are automatically entitled to be

members of the state of Israel but choose not to be.

The deprivation of Al-Jedda's citizenship depends on the argument that any application of his for the restoration of Iraqi citizenship would be successful. British Jews, you have been warned!

Thai citizenship is transmitted at birth - one does not register as Thai to inherit Thai nationality.

...on 24 August the Secretary of State issued a statement in which he went through a series of

unacceptable behaviours. ..We have included in our thinking conduct seriously prejudicial, war

crimes, serious crimes, threat to public order and actions prejudicial to relations between the UK

and another state. We do not believe that we should set out an exhaustive list...because there might

be circumstances in which a future Secretary of State could lawfully be satisfied that deprivation

was conducive to the public good. That is why we are resisting the inclusion of a list in the Bill.

Note 'serious crimes' in the list.

Incidentally, the tally of deprivations of British citizenship conducive to the public good is now 15, of which 5 are British-born - http://www.theyworkf...04-16b.102921.h .

Another gem from the 2006 act is the section 59 requirement for good character of those registering as British. This is another argument for those registering children as British to do so as soon as possible, or at least before they reach the age of ten.

You are all over the place, I dont know what agenda you have, but agree with "7by7" all you are trying to do is scaremonger

BTW Thailand has very similar laws which would apply to the example you gave in the OP...ie a Child born in Thailand who is a Thai citizen with foreign father...they can be stripped of Thai citizenship for offenses which are to the detriment or a threat to the state....

Edited September 11, 2012 by Soutpeel

[harrry]

Continuing to research the implications of the power to deprive British-born dual nationals of citizenship, I found some interesting statements in the ILPA compilation of ministerial statements to Immigration Aslum and Nationality Act 2006:

...the provision would apply only to people with joint nationality—not, I hasten to add, to those

who are entitled to joint nationality, such as Jewish people, who are automatically entitled to be

members of the state of Israel but choose not to be.

The deprivation of Al-Jedda's citizenship depends on the argument that any application of his for the restoration of Iraqi citizenship would be successful. British Jews, you have been warned!

Thai citizenship is transmitted at birth - one does not register as Thai to inherit Thai nationality.

...on 24 August the Secretary of State issued a statement in which he went through a series of

unacceptable behaviours. ..We have included in our thinking conduct seriously prejudicial, war

crimes, serious crimes, threat to public order and actions prejudicial to relations between the UK

and another state. We do not believe that we should set out an exhaustive list...because there might

be circumstances in which a future Secretary of State could lawfully be satisfied that deprivation

was conducive to the public good. That is why we are resisting the inclusion of a list in the Bill.

Note 'serious crimes' in the list.

Incidentally, the tally of deprivations of British citizenship conducive to the public good is now 15, of which 5 are British-born - http://www.theyworkf...04-16b.102921.h .

Another gem from the 2006 act is the section 59 requirement for good character of those registering as British. This is another argument for those registering children as British to do so as soon as possible, or at least before they reach the age of ten.

actions preducicial to relations between the UK and the other starte could be pretty broad....downloading a movie torrent would just about cover it..

Edited September 11, 2012 by harrry

[Soutpeel]

actions preducicial to relations between the UK and the other starte could be pretty broad....downloading a movie torrent would just about cover it..

How so ?

[paully]

So far as I can tell, only one ethnic Anglo-Saxon has been stripped of British citizenship, namely Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks. The courts ordered the government to allow his registration as British, the government acquiesced and then immediately stripped him of his British citizenship.

Hicks was Australian, wasn't he, born in Adelaide?

The chances of the UK government stripping a British-born national of their UK citizenship are remarkably small. If you're not a dual national, I don't believe it would be possible as you would then be technically stateless. That would certainly be against your human rights.

[Soutpeel]

So far as I can tell, only one ethnic Anglo-Saxon has been stripped of British citizenship, namely Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks. The courts ordered the government to allow his registration as British, the government acquiesced and then immediately stripped him of his British citizenship.

Hicks was Australian, wasn't he, born in Adelaide?

The chances of the UK government stripping a British-born national of their UK citizenship are remarkably small. If you're not a dual national, I don't believe it would be possible as you would then be technically stateless. That would certainly be against your human rights.

Even as a dual national the chances of being stripped of your citizenship are remarkably small under these laws, as they have been enacted for terrorism/treason type offenses....the OP is scaremongering

[Richard W]

Even as a dual national the chances of being stripped of your citizenship are remarkably small under these laws, as they have been enacted for terrorism/treason type offenses....the OP is scaremongering

Read the [snip] law. Read the ministerial statements from when the 2006 bill was going through parliament. The Labour government did not rule out its use for 'serious crimes'.

[Eff1n2ret]

Read the [snip] law.

Calm down, dear. They can always go and live in the Ecuadorian Embassy...

[Soutpeel]

Read the law.

Calm down, dear. They can always go and live in the Ecuadorian Embassy...

He must of forgot to take the meds this morning.......the OP has yet to provide a case in law, personally speaking as a dual national, do I think I need to start taking paranoia meds because of this law (s) and give up my other passport/citizenship ?...No...

[Richard W]

... the OP has yet to provide a case in law, personally speaking as a dual national, do I think I need to start taking paranoia meds because of this law (s) and give up my other passport/citizenship ?

You'd be unlucky to be the first victim of an application to criminal law. However, British governments are getting into their stride with stripping people of their nationality. Last year the total stood at 11 with one born in Britain, now the cumulative total stands at 15 with five born in Britain.

A work around might be to backdate a renunciation of Thai nationality - but I'm not sure that that's feasible.

As a test of the law, perhaps you would care to consider why, if you flew off the handle and killed someone in the UK, and 'got away' with a manslaughter charge, you would not be stripped of your British nationality. The only reason I can think of is that it seems that Britons are not being deported for manslaughter yet. However, the UK government is urging a greater willingness to recommend deportations, and thinking of dropping the threshold below 12 month sentences.

I notice France is moving towards deporting naturalised French criminals. In British law, there is now no legal distinction between citizens by naturalisation and those British by birth in the UK - those British by descent from birth would now appear to have uniformly lesser rights than either.

[Soutpeel]

... the OP has yet to provide a case in law, personally speaking as a dual national, do I think I need to start taking paranoia meds because of this law (s) and give up my other passport/citizenship ?

You'd be unlucky to be the first victim of an application to criminal law. However, British governments are getting into their stride with stripping people of their nationality. Last year the total stood at 11 with one born in Britain, now the cumulative total stands at 15 with five born in Britain.

A work around might be to backdate a renunciation of Thai nationality - but I'm not sure that that's feasible.

As a test of the law, perhaps you would care to consider why, if you flew off the handle and killed someone in the UK, and 'got away' with a manslaughter charge, you would not be stripped of your British nationality. The only reason I can think of is that it seems that Britons are not being deported for manslaughter yet. However, the UK government is urging a greater willingness to recommend deportations, and thinking of dropping the threshold below 12 month sentences.

I notice France is moving towards deporting naturalised French criminals. In British law, there is now no legal distinction between citizens by naturalisation and those British by birth in the UK - those British by descent from birth would now appear to have uniformly lesser rights than either.

You do know Thai has similar laws for Thai nationals "borne of foreign fathers" even if the child conderned was born in Thailand ?

Once again in your example, you are interpreting "Serious crimes" in wrong manner..deportation, stripping of citizenship completely different matters...french law has nothing to do with this issue, it British law under discussion

Like "7by7" not going to comment on this further you are all over the place and I still cant fathom your agenda

[theoldgit]

Like "7by7" not going to comment on this further you are all over the place and I still cant fathom your agenda

I agree, this thread is going round in circles, I cannot see that it's serving any useful purpose so time to draw a line under it and close it.