The Controversial "Nationality and Borders Bill" Explained - TLDR News

Police & Crime Bill: • The Police & Crime Bil...
TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk...
X
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Discord: / discord
TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk...
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!

[@user-dg9ti5gq4e]

The UK is getting weird man, with this and the police and crimes Bill targeting protesting it really feels like we are sleep walking into a autocracy.

[@exiletsj2570]

You don't say.

[@piccalillipit9211]

YOU ARE If Thatcher tried this in the 80's there would be 2 million people on the street protesting - today NOTHING.

[@Andrew-ob5ij]

Don’t you know we left the eu, so we are completely democratic now /sarcasm

[@zylnexxd842]

Its not an autocracy. Its just gaining common sense

[@peksn]

@@piccalillipit9211 For real, the world has moved to the right in every way, and specially the western world, it's fearfull

[@MrSmeagolsGhost]

The real trick with not notifiying them is so if they leave or aren't in the country at the time. The government effectively dumps them on another country as they can't board a plane etc.

[@r1234233]

If it works it works. The French don't seem to care where they dump their unwanted

[@dwavenminer]

All in the name of "national security"... because that term is never abused by governments. On a side note: this is your daily reminder that China is still committing genocide against the Uyghurs in the name of nation security

[@0xCAFEF00D]

@@r1234233 Deliberate government action is very different from non-citizens choosing to go somewhere. Or are you actually claiming that the French government is giving these people boats to travel the channel? If so do you have any evidence?

[@RobLocksley]

@@0xCAFEF00D Might be worth mentioning that the French patrols at the channel has apprehended 4 times as many people seeking to cross the border to UK. So even if they could do more they at least are doing something and not as commentators like r1234233 say dumping their unwanted; but I guess it is easier just to blame someone else than actually making this world a better place for all...

[@wile123456]

Fascism really is on the rise

[@TenshiR]

So does this mean Boris Johnson can loses his citizenship since he was born in the US?

[@garypoulton7311]

Hope so, and get deported!

[@noticedruid4985]

I dont think that wouldn't exactly count if he was born to UK diplomats since, Children of Diplomats don't have citizenship rights in the US.

[@TenshiR]

@@noticedruid4985 I could be wrong but I believe he was considered an American Citizen up till 2016. He renounced his citizenship to avoid a $50,000 tax from the sale of his house in North London. (Funny not funny story. That was a block from my old house and stained with eggs)

[@saiyedakhtar3931]

@@noticedruid4985 his parents were NOT diplomats at the time

[@zraj3433]

Boris Johnson is not even fully white or british himself. He has Turkish roots. I am African and Turkish myself. He is a disgrace....

[@kingoliever1]

Yeah was this not like a violation of human rights to just take away someone´s citizenship and therefor rights? Funny how the real reason the UK politicians wanted to leave seems not that the EU is tyrannical but they want to be and would gotten in trouble whit the EU for stuff like this probably.

[@generaladvance5812]

Not really, the public just don't like the direction the EU is headed & aren't interested in an 'ever closer union'.

[@simmerke1111]

@Gordon Brown Yeah, they should really be worried about that. Considering there's been, what, 40 deaths since 2013 by islamic terrorist attacks? Should really be your primary concern to avoid those 40 instead of the rampant number of suicides or deaths by preventable diseases.

[@cabellones]

@Gordon Brown their country being britain in this case?

[@danielwebb8402]

UK politicians didn't want to leave. What would the EU do to stop this change? EU, not the ECHR which the UK is still part of.

[@dearhunter7206]

@@simmerke1111 suicides don't put people in constant fear but yes they should also be taken seriously... I bet these lock downs have pushed up the suicide rates though...

[@Xtrems]

The comment section is insane. "Just abide the law" - thank you Mr. Authoritarian, what if there's an immoral law passed? One that will doom you to hell if you follow it? "Having a citizenship doesn't mean you're truly British" - If it doesn't mean it, then there is nothing that makes you british except the governments temporary approval of your britishness, as long as you comply with whatever it comes up with. Noone is British, not even you, if you're reading this. "This is meant only for traitors" - and who decides who's a traitor, by what standards? There are no limits to revoking citizenships now, anyone can be a traitor now if the government is uncomfortable with them. I come from a country that was subject to both the german reich and the soviet union - believe me the government isn't to be trusted with such power. I'm not saying the government is inherently evil or good. I'm saying it shifts in being evil and good with whoever's in charge. So it's good to have a safety net in the form of limits on the power this whoever person has. Otherwise you're all doomed. If you're conservative and you support this law, imagine what will happen when socialists come to power and they have this power. If you're leftist and you support this law, first of all you're weird, second of all imagine what will happen when fa**ists come to power with this law present. Do not give your government the ability to decide who is and isn't a citizen, because when you do, you're just a temporary citizen until the opposition comes to power. The only person who should be able to revoke your citizenship is yourself. This should be ironclad, in the constitution, an irremovable priveledge of every citizenship.

[@wansichen3743]

i think the fact that you can revoke naturalised citizen is ok especially if they obtain their status through fraud, but never should someone be allow to remove someone's citizenship if they are born in the country or have parents who are of that nationality and choose to take up that nationality (although i am aware of the chain migration issue that this can cause, although as this channel mention before that is a painfully long and tedious process almost on purpose )

[@ctg4818]

The part where you can just not be a citizen on a whim is your guys' version of the American Patriot Act. Welcome to the club.

[@vinlondon8904]

I remember an American film with cia spies and stuff like that. Mat dammon played in thar movie and in the conversation with someone he said to him....." you're not an American citizen, you're just a tourist" , meaning they can strip you of everything, if they wish to. Nation-state creations were the biggest blunder the humans has ever done. Giving power to a gang like that its repulsive. It created border and passport for no apparent reason. Bring back empires with a modern perspective and get rid of borders.

[@aztekenen1]

although this is alot of authority for the government which is never good, they are talking about a very real problem here. which is the fact that people take every possible advantage of open borders and refugee status. you're guaranteed shelter, food, water and soon you'll be getting welfare if you can get citizenship. even legal help with any problems or mistakes you're facing. they often stick to their story and refuse to leave until they can truly 'get in'. they also tend to use children as a catalyst. children grow up in a western country, but the parents get send back. you can't separate children from parents, so they all get to stay despite being illegal. smart trick isn't it? western politicians set up an immigration policy that makes free labour and votes almost guaranteed, and the immigrants get guaranteed luxury. a really sweet and corrupt deal. and the people who come in here are thus not identifying as citizens at all. they don't even integrate. they just do what they need to do to stay and profit. i do agree however, politicians shouldn't play the role of the judge. let politicians who think they know better than everyone else rot. a politician's job is to serve the people, not constantly hurt and divide them and pretend they know best. if they truly wish to serve, they should hand over their cases to the courtroom.

[@praisethesun.praisedeussol6051]

@@vinlondon8904 y'know what fuck it don't give a fuck when we get our old empire border's back

[@alejandro_mery]

if a British person is accused to have committed a crime they should be judged as UK citizens, not by declaring them non-british. Pathetic.

[@johnyarbrough502]

This way government doesn't need to have a real case that could result in conviction with revocation as a possible penalty. Simply make the accusation. Then it's easy to declare this newly minted noncitizen is in the country illegally and lock them up with no trial because only citizens have process rights.

[@todortodorov940]

Yes. By removing their citizenship, you can sentence them to misery or death without having to go to court. Very handy if the government has a weak case and is unsure if it can win.

[@zilosis3794]

Just because you have a british citizenship it doesn't mean you're a british person

[@alejandro_mery]

@@zilosis3794 so you are suggesting people's right to having a proper trial depends on ethnicity or a pre-trial judgment on adherence to certain values?

[@todortodorov940]

@@zilosis3794 Are you British if you refuse to drink tea or ale and have no interest in cricket or football?

[@helgelk]

Just the fact that citizenship can be taken away by an administrative act, instead of a court ruling, is extremely worrying.

[@rdcarbonk1885]

If it does not make u stateless, provided there is good justification im not totally against removing citizenship.

[@dadikkedude]

@@rdcarbonk1885 What is justified?

[@helgelk]

@@rdcarbonk1885 The key here is administrative act versus court rulling. The power of rulling someone unworthy of citizenship should lie with the judiciary, not the executive.

[@rdcarbonk1885]

@@helgelk I agree.

[@rdcarbonk1885]

@@dadikkedude treasonous behavior towards the nation, engagement in terrorist activities. There arent that many. But only provided u dont end up stateless and u earned you citizenship less than 10 years prior.

[@austinbowles7500]

As an American, I find it completely insane that a single person in the executive could simply revoke someone's citizenship and rights for any reason and without trial. In the US, this would require very specific circumstances and a lengthy amount of time in court.

[@Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs.]

Domestically, British Prime Ministers, and Ministers in general, have powers far more extensive than the US President or any member of the executive. This is because they are, theoretically, enacting the will of the monarch, using derogated powers of said monarch, who the law doesn't really apply to.

[@valenrn8657]

Shamima Begum sided with a foreign Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Shamima Begum sided with a foreign power that was later defeated.

[@austinbowles7500]

@@valenrn8657 so? She was still a citizen and should be given the same right to due process. What would happen if it actually wasn't true and she was kidnapped by Isis (unlikely hypothetical but for the sake of argument). If they just noticed she was a member of isis and then removed her citizenship without a trial, we would never know

[@valenrn8657]

@@austinbowles7500 Again, Shamima Begum sided with a foreign Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Shamima Begum sided with a foreign power.

[@valenrn8657]

@@austinbowles7500 A surveillance camera image shows Shamima Begum (right) and two friends at Gatwick Airport in 2015 to join ISIS via Turkey.

[@martinstent5339]

Universal declaration of Human rights ARTICLE 15 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Didn't the UK sign this?

[@stangrange1558]

We signed out because apparently it was restricting British sovereignty 🙄

[@viperscot1]

Tories don't give a fig about it Getting that 1930 Germany feeling

[@onlinefriend3889]

So did most nations, but the trouble is that it's not law.

[@georgebodley8068]

Yep

[@Unknown-pi5ll]

@@stangrange1558 Because it does restricting British sovereignty .

[@ThomasZadro]

There is a good reason Germany has banned the option to revoke citizenship after WWII. It was used by Nazis and caused a lot of harm. Today, one can not lose it against his own will if he already holds a second one. And the reasons for revoking it are very clearly stated. It actually is in our constitution - but, well, I see, if a country has no written constitution, the government can change the rules whenever it feels like.

[@angrynoodletwentyfive6463]

in the US you can have your citizenship revoked but pretty much the only way for this to happen is if you were non-naturally born citizen who obtained your citizenship under False pretences or committed treason within 5 years of obtaining citisenship. It is pretty much only if somebody became a citizen either through knowingly false documents or to specifically to harm the US that you can have it revoked. Oh and you get a trial where there is an EXTREMELY high bar of proof that the allegations are actually true. They aren't just like "lol you aren't a citizen anymore bye"

[@gungan5822]

Emergency powers were also problematic pre-WW2, how's that working out now?

[@lucasboari9175]

There are some people who enters the country illegally don’t deserve to have citizenship or claim asylum

[@0w784g]

Germany didn't ban the option to revoke citizenship, it banned people from holding dual citizenship. It's a stark difference.

[@ThomasZadro]

@@0w784g Please have a look at our "Grundgesetz". It states that one cannot lose citizenship Art 16 GG. Also, it is not forbidden to get second citizenship if this is related to a member of the EU or Switzerland.

[@davidmcculloch8490]

The true intent of the bill is to give Patel the powers she craves: those of a mindless fascist dictator.

[@shot2x]

uk is a socialist country :) but kidding aside this should be done a lot of immigrants are just taking advantage of the uk and its unfair for everyone and im an immigrant myself.

[@dianamincher6479]

Patel will have the power of Adolf Hitler given by those hopeless and deplorable Conservatives who don't care about English law and human rights! We don't need another Adolf Hitler and the Conservatives?

[@thepedrothethethe6151]

@@dianamincher6479 What are you talking about? That's how the nazis got in power.

[@stormyprawn]

Definitely not mindless, and that's what makes it worse.

[@keyboarddancers7751]

Just visualising the image of a senior south Asian politician or leader acting in a politically oppressive manner. And then I thought of Pritti Patel...

[@steffenscheibler5849]

So if I'm at the beach and see a boat full of refugees trying to make landfall in choppy seas, then I could, according to the law, face life imprisonment for helping them onto shore?

[@YpnosGR]

Yes.

[@zurie35]

the correct thing to do is get a big stick and push them back out into french waters.

[@dougal8812]

No, you'd have to be doing it for personal gain for you to be breaking the law

[@phil2544]

@@zurie35 you clearly didn't pay attention to the video

[@willemh9434]

@@dougal8812 No, that part is removed. If you help a drowning kid come ashore, you can be imprisoned for life.

[@GR-sc3ph]

Sign petition and write to your MP expressing the dangerous Bill they are trying to bring in. The government and any government must never been given so much power in her hands. Today is for refugees but tomorrow it will be for every single citizen who disagrees with the government. If they need to tackle the issue with terrorists etc then the Bill should state that

[@matheusGMN]

This whole citizenship is crazy, it's close to one being one step away from pretty much letting the government choose who can and can't be a citizen at whim

[@greattobeadub]

Patel herself, being the child of immigrants, and presumably qualifying for another citizenship, could fall foul of this new law herself. It sounds to me though that this type of law is exactly the reason that the UK needs a written constitution that the likes of "fat arse" Patel can't tinker with at their heart's content.

[@macsmith6216]

The power has been possible for over a century, since the 1914 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act. Try educating yourself

[@markettechniques]

Im looking to sign anything that supports it, so is anyone I know. It will help us in the long run... Im sorry you cant see it yet.

[@Witnessmoo]

I’m a naturalised citizen… and this shit scares the hell out of me. I better start planning and investing my money abroad because I don’t trust the government not to burn me

[@grimgoreironhide9985]

@@blacktongued1361 Except people in the government will abuse this law.

[@wanderer10k]

@@blacktongued1361 Except the law is vague enough that they could apply it for a number of reasons. That's what makes it dangerous.

[@Jose-gc8rl]

@@blacktongued1361 Everyone that has Citizenship has gone through the legal procedures to get it, it's imposible to get it otherwhise you absolute dingus.

[@dontbothermeimjust12]

@@blacktongued1361 Just like an EU citizen living and working in the UK before Brexit had "nothing to worry about", right... Quit the BS and be honest about what you want instead of being such a coward and staying behind technicalities and eufemism. I know an asshole who's at least honest about it all, he openly says he just hates looking at browner people than him.

[@AndreiDudaupersonal]

@@blacktongued1361 Remember that in 1974 it was unlawful to have your citizenship revoked for any reason. Now we have this. In 2006 it was legal to have a smoke inside now is a criminal offence. What is legal / lawful now it would not stay the same, but the powers of the Gov will remain.

[@DavidRexGlenn]

There goes my plans to illegally immigrate to the weather paradise that is Glasgow (compared to Northern Minnesota)

[@hndrwn]

Lol, it's like moving from one pole to the other pole.

[@arx3516]

@Lock Bits Scotland can leave the UK, but she can never leave Britain, unless you dig a channel along Hadrian's wall, of course.

[@TheWtfnonamez]

This forms a consolidated assault on democracy, the rule of law, due process and any semblance of human rights in the UK. The current government is transforming their power so that they can strip people of their nationality, extradite them to anywhere, overrule the courts, deploy terror laws at will, and remain unaccountable in law. This is creating a Kafkaesque situation where an individual can end up with ZERO protection from government actors, who themselves will be accountable to no one. If all these laws come to pass, we will end up living in a totalitarian state. As an example, imagine a journalist who whistle blows on government corruption. The state would be able to classify them as a terrorist, strip them of their passport, and throw them out of the country. And if a court rules that illegal after the fact, the government can overrule that decision. If they pass all these laws we are truly going to be in a sorry condition in the UK. Already journalists and protestors are having anti-terror laws used against them, to deny them of their legal rights. Its possible that soon they can take away those rights, and everything else too

[@30035XD]

Thankfully you guys have guns as a last resort against tyranny. No, wait...Oh you gave them up I see... Well, enjoy the gulags.

[@TheWtfnonamez]

@@30035XD Haha I guess I'll see you in there mate. During Hurricane Katrina the National Guard came around and confiscated everyones guns. Nobody resisted.

[@30035XD]

@@TheWtfnonamez I is beyond me how people believe it is a good idea to give up on guns. Apart from the US, Switzerland and probably a couple more I am not aware of, nearly the whole world gave up on our right to defend ourselves a long time ago.

[@FPSIreland2]

@@30035XD our societies developed to the point that they become unnecessary. Then the neoliberals came to power and undone the social progress made, leaving most of the western democracies fully exposed to tyranny. It hasn’t fully arrived yet but it’s very close. Besides. Most people won’t resist anyway, even if they did have the firepower. Too many British citizens (and westerners in general) agree with the policies of the fascists taking power as we comment. It must be borne in mind - the Nazi’s made it easier for “Aryans” to own guns, while confiscating those owned by the Jewish peoples. Even if they didn’t, what were they gonna do? Less than five million Jews in a nation of almost 80 million people, almost all of which agreed with the fascists.

[@30035XD]

@@FPSIreland2 That proves the guns are NEVER unnecessary mate. And I would say to the majority that would willingly walk into the ovens: be my guest. I would rather have the option of at least having a slim chance of defending myself.

[@Jotari]

5:10 That guy really sums up the entire thing well. Even if they're bad people it's still up to Britain to judge them if they're part of the British system, not fobbing them off on someone else.

[@f-86zoomer37]

Just say you support ISIS. Absolutely nobody who's sane defends her. Who among the British public really wants an ISIS terrorist to be a British citizen?

[@MemeMarine]

@@f-86zoomer37 but what if you extended that to other crimes? Who wants murderers to be British citizens? What about rapists? Domestic terrorists? Muggers, drug traffickers, wife-beaters, racists, socialists, kung-fu practitioners... Strip them of their citizenship and toss them in in English channel?

[@chaddaifouche536]

@@f-86zoomer37 I really don't understand your arguments, in this post and others… How is saying "Don't come back here, find yourself another state (that probably won't prosecute you for your crimes)." a better punishment than allowing her to return then judging her and putting her in a jail for decades as seems pretty likely if she did as much as what you're saying (and admitted it) ? It seems to me that if anyone is protecting an ISIS terrorist from fair judgment, it's people like you who favor revocation of her citizenship (and thus greatly reduce any chance of her getting a trial).

[@f-86zoomer37]

@@chaddaifouche536 Terrorists don't have rights. You're literally another ISIS sympathizer. Maybe check why, after thousands of videos coming out about ISIS beheading and raping, you're still praising and defending the group and its members?

[@SovietBear4]

@@f-86zoomer37 put her on trial lol, that's how justice works everywhere else. You are starting to look like Saudi Arabia lol

[@phillipotey9736]

What good is citizenship with rights if it can be revoked at any time for seemingly any reason?

[@michaelblower7363]

Precisely.

[@b.salazar6610]

The better question is why have UK citizenship at all?

[@michaelblower7363]

@@b.salazar6610 Well some of us have it thrusted on us through accident of birth.

[@Daniel-gs9eh]

you planing to commit treason?

[@davidbodor1762]

@@Daniel-gs9eh If there's no trial, then how can anyone decide that someone committed treason?

[@CacklingAntagonist]

I just don't understand how people can look at this bill and not be terrified of what the UK is becoming

[@MrThorfan64]

Because Murdoch doesn't tell them. And people love the cruelty towards other people.

[@Haren94]

I absolutely love it.

[@looneytoons171]

If you really knew how much the U.K spends in keeping law and order after these so called 'refugees' arrive, I wonder if you would be as terrified. We have enough problems that need fixing, we shouldn't have to deal with economic migrants that are picking and choosing which safe country they want to settle into. This government is finally (with a pinch of salt) coming to it's senses. I'm happy living in a state that has more policing as long as I am safe on the streets

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@looneytoons171 for example in Germany, the part of the national budged that is spend on migrants (this includes everything, even police operations etc) 23 billion Euros of a total national Budget of 508.1b €. The direct payments of goods, welfare etc are at 4.4b €, that is below 1% of the total Budget and one of the smallest positions in the budget. For the UK the total national spending is £842b, migration and asylum related costs is less than £1b. Get your facts straight. The UK has had 132k asylum seekers, refugees and undocumented migrants in 2020 (this includes pending asylum processes from prior to 2020), while about 37k asylum seekers apply to the UK in 2021. Germany on the other hand has had 137k applications in 2021. If you rank asylum applications and granting of asylum, the UK is on one of the lowest rankings in Europe, barely ahead of anti migrant nations like Hungary and Poland. The UK spends shit on asylum seekers

[@carlbirchall6869]

Oh I can. Look up the part about migrants in George Orwells 1984 and you'll realise that there are a lot of people here in the UK that would quite like that kind of thing to happen with our border forces.

[@thesilvanalyst6880]

Calling this a change to asylum rules is a euphemism. The goal of this is to not have to deal with asylum seekers anymore, if you say entering is illegal, but you have to enter the country to apply for asylum, how is that any different from removing the asylum rules all together?

[@valenrn8657]

*What is a refugee* The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Refugee Convention) is the key international legal document defining who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of countries that are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention.[1] Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines a ‘refugee’ as: a person who is outside his country of nationality or habitual residence has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution. A Convention ‘refugee’ is different from an ‘asylum seeker’ because the former has had their asylum claims assessed and been found to satisfy the above definition. This assessment can be done by a country that has acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention or by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). There is no such thing as a ‘genuine refugee’. A refugee by technical definition is simply someone who has been recognised as satisfying the above Convention definition. Further, a person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as they satisfy the above definition. This might actually occur before their refugee status is formally determined by a country or the UNHCR. Refugee status is therefore declaratory in nature-in that a refugee does not become a refugee because they have been recognised to be one but rather, they are recognised because they are a refugee. --------------- 1951 Refugee Convention refers to a person's safety, not picking 2nd or 3rd country with perceiving better economic conditions than the first safe country, hence "economic queue jumpers" for those who didn't stay in the first safe country.

[@dadikkedude]

@@valenrn8657 Starvation is not healthy aswell.

[@valenrn8657]

@@dadikkedude Are you claiming the EU running out of food?

[@Washpenrebel]

This bill might work in the UK but won't work on the island of Ireland. NI is still technically in the EU. A hard border is not allowed on the island. The border between NI and ROI is technically a UK border but cannot be policed like the one in Dover.

[@smilo_don]

Which basically means that if someone takes a taxi from ROi to NI and doesn't have a visa the driver can get life in prison.

[@Washpenrebel]

@@smilo_don if you look at the map of Ireland most people going from Dublin to Donegal travel through Northern Ireland as it's the shortest route. Imaging hauled off the bus and thrown in jail.

[@bothi00]

Unenforceable. Only way to do so is some mechanism for checks. And any check at the border will simply be shot at or blown up

[@alicemcpike54]

It’s almost like Westminster is completely negligent or something

[@oscarosullivan4513]

There would be war if Checks were introduced

[@woolyimage]

Thanks to TLDR for bringing some clarity to this issue.

[@stephenduke412]

I LOVE ASIAN MESSAGE PARLORS 💕 ❤️ ❤️ ❤️

[@archierch0463]

Unlike our media

[@macsmith6216]

Clarity, a word that should never be associated with this channel

[@markdowns9607]

@@macsmith6216 agreed !

[@antoniomromo]

Deprivation of citizenship to someone sounds terrible. If they are truly terrible, just subject them to the legal system. The idea that you don't actually have to notify anyone, that's just disgusting. It is 100% not something the "good guys" should do.

[@S-North]

Treason is a very serious crime. It should be dealt with in the most serious way.

[@barryburketv]

you forgot the part of the bill which means EU citizens/Other would have to apply for a evisa entering northern Ireland. Which has been heavily criticized.

[@Tom.Ireland]

does this apply to citizens of the Republic of Ireland as well?

[@barryburketv]

@@Tom.Ireland no, it does apply for anybody in the cta( ireland, Britain , isle of man and channel islands). But there lots of eu citizens living in borders regions who it would effect.

[@barryburketv]

Would also damage tourism for NI. Lot of us tourists who would fly to dublin for a tour of ireland and then be told they need another visa to go up north. Even if its simple, a lot wont be bothered

[@danielwebb8402]

So when going from one country to another. You need to do some admin. Sounds normal part of the definition of a country.

[@barryburketv]

@@danielwebb8402 yes. But imagine having a border between England and Scotland. Would filling out paperwork be accepted there.

[@jantala3243]

I'm not sure how fining people who have nearly nothing will work, or if putting refugees in prison is particularly ethical or even practical.

[@lonelyone69]

lmao all of this over 0.0004% of the population

[@noahbutler9180]

It’s not but the UN’s refugee policy isn’t practical either it’s far to broad and encourages people fleeing there countries of origin instead of actually fixing them and immigration is a long term investment for a country and while that investment is almost always positive it takes several generations to see the pros out weigh the cons if the UN and the rest of the international community don’t change the way we handle a migration crisis there are only gonna be more laws like this

[@tourmelion9221]

@@josemengelez6947 103%.... Man What are you smoking and where do I find it

[@MrAlexkyra]

I think this is a very dangerous law. Even if it’s aimed at terrorists, traitors and other bad people, it creates a precedent that the government can arbitrarily deprive you of your protection under the law for reasons they don’t have to explain. It also creates two tiers of citizenship, implicitly discriminating against Britons of different ethnicities from the majority. I don’t feel comfortable with the British government having this much unchecked power. If a British citizen joins a terrorist group and betrays their country, then they should be tried under British law and punished accordingly. Depriving them of British citizenship simply makes them someone else’s problem, does not make the world safer and creates a dangerous precedent for the British government to strip away rights from its citizens.

[@monzorella1]

Has anyone notice that disproportionately affects Black and Brown as they are more likely have some claim to citizenship elsewhere.

[@MrAlexkyra]

@Bessie Hillum I didn’t even mention the asylum seeker part of the law. Under certain circumstances, yes, it can be acceptable to show up in a country without a passport, if you’re claiming asylum and are a legitimate case. My main objection is that this law creates two tiers of citizenship and gives the British government unconstitutional power to deport millions of British born citizens. But I also think this law is unreasonable and immoral because it makes it illegal to even claim asylum

[@markdowns9607]

Try Rubber Dinghy on the Kent coast, that seems to work these days ?

[@alexanderromanov737]

the truth from The Independent. JOHNSON TO PISS IN YOUR CORNFLAKES AND TELL YOU IT'S RAINING The government has given polluters the green light to dump raw sewage into rivers and the sea as Brexit disrupts normal water treatment. Brexit has disrupted imports of water treatment chemicals Some businesses have found it more difficult to get hold of water treatment chemicals because of supply chain disruption at ports blamed primarily on Britain's departure from the EU. The Environment Agency this week said companies struggling to get hold of the treatment chemicals would be allowed to "discharge effluent without meeting the conditions" of their permits, which normally require water to be treated. Rolling shortages have hit different parts of the UK economy since the government took the country out of EU's customs union and single market - imposing new border bureaucracy on importers and exporters. The ending of free movement and the creation of new red tape on doing business with Britain's largest trading partner has also exacerbated a shortage of lorry drivers, with the logistical nightmare compounded by the department of transport mismanagement. Water treatment is the latest sector to be hit, following concerns last week about a blood tube shortage hitting the NHS and reports of intermittent shortages in supermarkets across the country. In a statement released on Monday, the Environment Agency said: "Normally, you need a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 to discharge treated effluent from a waste water treatment works (WwTW) to surface water or groundwater. Permits contain conditions that control the quality of the effluent you can discharge and in who's river you can dump the shit. "You may not be able to comply with your permit if you cannot get the chemicals you use to treat the effluent you discharge because of the UK’s new relationship with the EU, other unavoidable supply chain failures, for example the failure of a treatment chemical supplier. "If you follow the conditions in this regulatory position statement (RPS) you can discharge effluent without meeting the conditions in your permit, but only in working class areas. You must get written agreement from your Environment Agency water company account manager before you use this RPS." Companies should "resume use of chemicals to treat effluent as soon as is practicable", the agency said. The regulatory relaxation will last until at least the end of next year, with an extension possible. All three grades of waste water, low risk, medium and high risk will be allowed to be dumped into rivers and seas and into the working class food chain. Amelia Womack, deputy leader of the Greens told The Independent: "Our rivers are already appallingly polluted almost as much as our parliament: water companies discharged raw sewage into UK rivers no fewer than 400,000 times last year, all in working class areas where the smell is less noticeable. "The public were rightly horrified by this failure of the Environment Agency to take action and clean up our waterways” “This is a failure of their understanding on how our country’s most basic infrastructure works and using our environment as a dumping ground rather than addressing the root causes of the problem. "To prevent further Brexit chaos and undermining of environmental protections, the government must work to mend supply chains and work to cooperate rather than trying to look 'tough'." A spokesperson for the Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, who is paid to lie for the government, said the change was “strictly time-limited and there are robust conditions in place to mitigate risks to the environment”. The spokesperson said that the “most sensitive and high-risk watercourses will not be affected and any company planning to make use of this short-term measure must first agree its use with the understaffed Environment Agency, and select rivers near to working class council estates.

[@markdowns9607]

@@alexanderromanov737 where have you cut and pasted all this crap from ?

[@BA-sf4uw]

Take responsibility of own citizens. There should be a rule that nobody should ever be deprived by anyone by their citizenship

[@sarowie]

for naturalized citizens with dual citizenship, there are valid reasons to revoke citizenship. Simple example: Application knowingly lying in the naturalization process, about a fact that would obviously result not getting citizenship. (technically that can be implemented by retroactively not granting citizenship - but the result is the same and revocation is "cleaner" then retro active changes) Note the very specific words "applicant knowingly lying obviously": A minor making statements that 10 years turn out to be false should not result in revocation.

[@R.a.t.t.y]

Does this mean I (and anyone else in the UK) could not be British as any of us could have had our citizenship taken away without us knowing? And if I then go on a day trip to France with my passport, the ferry employees could be subject to life imprisonment for bringing me into the UK illegally for profit (the profit being their pay)?

[@smilo_don]

It also basically mean that if someone takes a taxi from ROI to NI without a visa the driver can get life.

[@MatthewJBD]

No

[@boass]

It still requires that you commit treason… so no, unless you plan on assassinating the queen… No

[@j.p.vanbolhuis8678]

@@boass The bar may come to be lower like... Disliking Boris?

[@Lando-kx6so]

Have you committed treason?, committed genocide?, done anything that would harm the UK? If not you're good. In America if you commit any treasonous act you would lose citizenship despite your family being there several generations & it being your only citizenship

[@davidbates3057]

The most wonderful irony from this bill would be if, however many years down the line, Priti Patel ends up getting her citizenship revoked. It'll never happen, of course, but a man can dream.

[@isaacpowrie465]

We can only hope.

[@brummie.bill-379.]

I'm waiting for a daughter born of immigrants with the initials PP to try and return from a trip abroad,when I believe she should be made stateless for doing a really bad impersonation of a politician.

[@LonDanDoc]

Ironically she was a refugee.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

Lol

[@thebestevertherewas]

@@LonDanDoc What? Her parents immigrated to the UK legally in 1961, and her paternal grandfather( born in British India, Gujrat) was shelling for the royal army in Africa. Get your info right.

[@thebestevertherewas]

@@LonDanDoc There's a difference between a " refugee " and immigrant. Elon Musk is not a refugee , while he is an immigrant.

[@kumstuke]

I guess she is repaying for the parents Uganda experience

[@ivanashley7875]

Begum say's she knows she face justice if she comes back to the UK, well as far as I'm concerned, justice is what she's getting now.

[@ShimmerUK1]

No, it's not without a trial there is no justice it is called vigilantism.

[@ivanashley7875]

@@ShimmerUK1 I wonder what you call supporting murderers? Social conscientiousness?

[@ShimmerUK1]

@@ivanashley7875 lol 😆 so dumb made me laugh 😃 ah yes I see wanting people to be trial rather than lynched oh dare I suggest such a thing 😄 the fact you can't see why it's a good idea to trial things to know get the truth so we can prevent indoctrination of young girls in the future from this sort thing show how limited your thought process is.

[@ivanashley7875]

@@ShimmerUK1 We know the truth, she just feels she shouldn't be judged for an action she took as a teenager. Check out the prisons of America, they are crammed with youths who have "seen the light" since their crimes. Begum is a refugee, why not try for asylum in the US? They've got a Bay reserved for people like her.

[@ShimmerUK1]

@@ivanashley7875 Really then why did she leave? what was her motivation? You do not know the truth you mearly come up a with a truth that your reasoning and sense justice can accept trials are not just about justice there also about the truth and everyone is entitled that to take that away is an action of a coward who rather not know the truth but the satisfaction of vengeance instead of justice your coward who hides behind a shield of your own sense of justice without ever really wanting it.

[@Interitus1]

V for Vendetta is starting to look more like a blueprint for the UK than a fictional movie.

[@Kishanth.J]

I am just curious how the UK government thinks a refugee would be able to legally enter the UK directly from their home country. Unless their refugees from a European country, their no way a refugees from Africa or the Middle East can get the the UK. Only way they could is by a flight (which their are very few of), by going through the British embassy (which is a long bureaucratic nightmare and means you have to stay in your country until it is approved), or miraculously take a boat/ship from their country to the UK.

[@NeoLithiumCat]

That's the idea

[@Kishanth.J]

When will people realize that immigration is important to boost their population. The Western world has a birth deficiency, which means their are less people getting children and if the country solely relies on it own population growth, their wouldn’t be enough people to fill the roles of the older population.

[@The.Curious]

@@Kishanth.J Plenty of people in non-EU countries with the same cultural background who would love to move to the EU to have a better life. Zero issue assimilating.

[@Soilfood365]

It occurred to me that this might be why in many countries the UK has a high commission but no embassy, so regugees can't readily apply for asylum from their country of origin. And then the only refugees they have to process are the evicted autocrats that arrive at Heathrow on a private jet with a bank account brimming with ill-gotten gains.

[@oldbloke135]

@@Kishanth.J We don't want uneducated people who don't share our beliefs and have no intention of adapting to our way of life. Automation means we have far less need for dumb labour. Educated, intelligent people will always be welcome.

[@bothi00]

The UK media silence on this and the policing crime court and Sentencing bill is possibly the most scandalous thing of this era yet.

[@michaeldelisieux]

Silence = consent!

[@seanfaherty]

The UK also recently added some revisions to a crime bill after it was voted on. What revisions you say ? Well, it seems if the government doesn't want a particular person to go to a protest they can arrest people for going to a protest, no crime necessary. Also it is now illegal for protesters to link arms or chain themselves together. They say you need a permit for a protest BUT if you get a permit that permit can be revoked at any time for any reason. Boris and Piri have made it illegal to protest any government decision in the U.K. And the good citizens of the UK are not in the streets chaining themselves together ? Please do so. These are more of your rights being washed away with nary a whimper. All this Christmas party shit is a distraction from truly dangerous policies. Oh and it's illegal to organize so please blame me. Spread this message far and wide On Saturday December 18 2021 go to the Parliament buildings , if you can't do that go to your local post office .chain yourselves together and wait patiently to get arrested. No need to jump up and down and yell just get arrested , gum up the system and show Boris that people have no respect for his laws or himself for that matter. Bring snacks and water. And remember, blame me. Please copy and paste this. If you spread it over social media they will charge you so you might want to print it off and just put up posters but again... it would be worth getting arrested to have the government defend this law in court. Again , blame me . They can extradite me if they want. It's your country. If the government makes peaceful protest illegal you have a government that is scared of its own people... for good reason. Protest, raise your voice Chain yourself to something December 18th, bring snacks and water, lay down and make the police drag you away... They hate that but DO NOT RESIST . As soon as you react to their violence you are in the wrong ...take a beating to save the right to protest for your children. Good luck

[@user-wickedflower]

Not much point doing a copy & paste of something that is miles to long for anybody to actually want to read. I’m sure people can write their own opinions in comment sections without being so pathetically sad they need to re hash yours. Maybe write a book rather than a comment this long next time & people may want to read it.

[@truerealist2160]

With there being no written constitution in the UK and the UK following the principle of parliamentary supremacy, Parliament can literally pass any legislation it wants. Technically with a majority it can make it illegal to wear trousers on Tuesdays or in this case illegal to save a group of refugees about to drown off the coast of Dover. Prior to Brexit, Parliament needed to abide by the European convention of Human Rights among all other laws. The UK used to follow a strict code based on moral norms and tradition when governing (however it is not a law that must be followed by the govt). If you hypothetically have a govt that is corrupt there is very little stopping it from passing whatever legislation it wants (norms and traditions would mean nothing to them). Again that is hypothetical and im sure there is no cronyism or corruption in our current govt.

[@riskinhos]

actually UK made numerous violations of the code. they never strictly followed it.

[@Psyk60]

The UK is still covered by the ECHR, as it's separate from the EU. But you're right that in theory if Parliament wanted to violate the ECHR, it could, and there's not a lot anyone could do to stop them. Someone could challenge the government in court, but ultimately the ECHR doesn't have any power to enforce its rulings. The UK would just face condemnation (and possibly sanctions) from other countries.

[@MissMischy]

@@Psyk60 I was going to say the same, i.e. the ECHR is definitely independent from the EU. In principle, anyone could go to court and challenge the new bill. Although, maybe it has to pass first before that could happen. Sadly, I doubt anyone would, especially since most people don't know the UK is still bound to the human rights laid out in the convention.

[@hashtag_thisguy]

Even written constitutions can be amended to suit the political agenda of the day, it makes it more difficult but unfortunately it is all part of democracy. We have the power of universal sufferage but time and time again keep voting in the torries. We the people give them the mandate... If the nation on the whole is truly outraged then the only democratic recourse is to vote another party into power and for them to repeal the law.

[@truerealist2160]

@@Psyk60 Yes thats true, however, like you mentioned theres is no way of enforcing it and also nothing to stop the UK from removing/amending it. While as an EU member it must follow the ECHR and can be penalised by the ECtHR for not following it.

[@qaphqa]

Yes, outrage is appropriate. I dispute both you and David Davis talking about bad and good people. One can act well or poorly at any point. We have all made mistakes. We are all people.

[@LowestofheDead]

Also the government can change what is illegal at any time and call you a 'bad person'. Even protest is now illegal if it's considered "annoying".

[@macsmith6216]

Unless you’re a terrorist, a war criminal or involved in serious organised crime you’ll be ok If you are any of the above good riddance

[@ChrisfromLeedsinUK]

What actually would destroy the business model of people traffickers would be creating safe passage or allowing them to apply in France.

[@marcusaustralius2416]

They do not belong here, they are economic migrants that are breaking our laws If they die in the channel, they made their choice

[@SpoopySquid]

@@marcusaustralius2416 tell me you're a sociopath without saying it

[@marcusaustralius2416]

@@SpoopySquid actions have consequences If these people want to throw their lives away trying to break into our country, that's on them

[@User9r682]

Would the majority of the British public find such an arrangement agreeable though?

[@strategossable1366]

Yeah if only this kind of arrangement existed prior to us leaving the EU...

[@The_New_IKB]

15 is old enough to know that treason is!

[@klompb]

Isn't imprisoning a person/refugee more costly than providing social security?

[@peterpalmato467]

Racists hate it when you use numbers and facts. Messes with their feelings.

[@benfurfie1715]

Of course it is. But at the end of the day, it's not about the cost for the Tories; it's about whose pockets that money ends up in.

[@creativedesignation7880]

Imprisonment is usually the more costly alternative to basically every other option. Not only do people in prison need to be provided with space to live, food, electricity, etc, they also lead to many additional costs like wardens, cleaners, cooks, on-site medical staff, security systems etc. But we would be silly, if we really believed this had anything at all to do with being cost effective.

[@peterpalmato467]

@Gordon Brown No asylum seeker has ever received a free house or free food for life, ever.

[@nickmiller76]

Both options are expensive. Deporting them is cheap though, and good for the rest of us. Win-win, as they say.

[@ceduardopc88]

Omg after so much money y paid and all the years I’ve lived in the UK, it can all be just taken away by the home office in a moment. This government is grotesque really… 😭

[@onezerooneseven]

In the Begum case, it's not up for us to determine whether or not she is eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has stated that they won't give her citizenship, so we have to take them at their word. We are in no place to dictate other countries immigration policy. We should have to have a guarantee that another country would grant them citizenship before revoking UK citizenship. So it's a absurd logic. The likes of Begum who were born or even spent most of their lives in the UK are the UKs responsibility. I could only agree with revoking citizenship if they gained it as an adult and recently.

[@SshadykK]

this makes me ashamed to be british, its a feeling i have become more and more familiar with since 2016

[@f-86zoomer37]

oh hey, here's someone who's shedding tears for ISIS terrorists

[@macsmith6216]

How many other European Governments have these powers already It will surprise you

[@tennesseejacks]

Give up your citizenship and take a boat to somewhere else. Shame gone.

[@DCFunBud]

This law is a fundamental violation of due process: the right to notice and the right to be heard in a court of law.

[@tanyapavlova4758]

As a naturalized citizen I am outraged at the bill as a whole and section 9 in particular. I was sold a bill of rights that doesn't seem to exist. It does not matter who you are or what you did, human rights are inalienable. We have a legal system to deal with criminals. We also have a courts system which could deliberate on whether someone can be stripped of citizenship (i don't agree with it, but we can have an argument there). But for one political entity to be able to unilaterally revoke the citizenship with no due process, no appeals process and not even notice is outrageous. The stripping of Shemaima Begum citizenship was an act of populist, racist mob "lynching", because 1. she committed her crimes underage (15 when she left), and we do treat crimes by minors differently because they don't have the capacity to fully understand their crimes and 2. no one was calling for stripping Sally-Anne Johne's from her citizenship, while she was alive, despite her being an isis recruiter. I see a lot of comments about doing things to decrease terrorism recruiting and I can safely postulate that this bill will marginalise certain communities even more, and cause more kids to radicalise, but as long as racists feel good about themselves, i guess it's all good.

[@michaeldunham3385]

How can you claim to be British when you do not know how our legal system works? Criminal responsibility begins at 10 years. Also don't bother playing the racist card, it's a cheap shot nothing more

[@tanveerhasan2382]

Sad

[@Soilfood365]

@@michaeldunham3385 I think you'll find plenty of people who *are* British are not lawyers. Besides, many over the age of 10 are still tried as minors, even if they are held to be responsible for their actions. In a country with laws aa convoluted as the UK, it depends quite heavily on the nature of the crime. And the racism card might be a cheap shot, but only because it's hard to miss with it.

[@looneytoons171]

what a pile of rubbish, no one will be stripping your citizenship if you abide by the law and live like a normal human being. Once again, if you are that enraged, oppressed and do not agree, move back to where you're from. We have had enough of rampant crime on our streets and I for one am happy that the government is finally growing a pair.

[@michaeldunham3385]

@@Soilfood365 you don't have to be a lawyer to know what's legal or not, that argument just doesn't cut it in the courts No they throw the racist card out there every time people suggest that we need to take a careful look at who we are allowing into the country. It's their way of trying stifle discussions on the subject

[@wallywaldo5638]

Bloody hell never thought I’d agree with David Davis!

[@letfelicityfly]

I know - I need a bath now, I feel dirty by association

[@MarkusLinnala]

So can 👑 lose their British citizenship as they can be citizen of any other country of commonwealth? Also British government just need to have agreement with some country that specific named persons can be made citizens there and then if I understand it correctly government can revoke citizenship from any current citizen? That would be amazing tool during elections etc.

[@talesoftorque]

Interestingly, the Queen is not really a citizen per se. She can't vote, she has no passport, she can't hold (common) public office, etc. The Office with the power to take a citizen's passport is HM Secretary of State. The HM mean's "Her Majesty's", therefore the Office is hers - she is above it, and its laws.

[@MarkusLinnala]

@@talesoftorque Quite special circumstances. Thank you.

[@antonioguerreiro1615]

and people used to ask me "why you not a British Citizen after living in the UK 38 YEARS!!!....................answer they used to tell me so often I was not really one of them that ......I BELIVED AND AGREED WITH THEM !!! now happily back in Portugal.........screw them !!!

[@hh8982]

Priti Patel being a stain on humanity aside. i am so curious to know what Priti Patel thinks will happen when the UK treats anyone from other countries like a criminal and then ends up being on the economic and geopolitical back foot in a few decades. like this isn't the 1930s anymore, the UK doesn't have the power it used to. it really isnt the shit.

[@rotor7726]

They'll never acknowledge it. China is already in that stage but they just pretend they aren't

[@owl-arm7545]

If I saw someone drowning in the channel, and I was in a position to help them, I would help them (unless of course it was Priti Patel, in which case I'd probably take a piss in the sea to help speed up the process)! If they turned out to be an asylum seeker, would I therefore be liable to face a life sentence? But then how would they know anything about who helped them anyway? Apparently, there's not enough evidence that a Christmas party happened (when there was photos, witnesses and confessions), so how are they meant to find who helped arranged their travel from the EU? Does that not mean they'd require assistance from the governments of EU countries? I'm sure they'd all be bending over backwards to help them out!

[@SovietBear4]

if this law came into effect, that means Priti can have her citizenship revoked aswell lmao, what the fuck is happening in the UK

[@richard127gm]

@Johann Sebastian Bach I'm pretty sure they were saying the opposite.

[@gems4u411]

@@SovietBear4 She's probably angling for a free ticket home at the taxpayers expense. There will probably be loads of dual citizens behaving badly to take advantage of a freebie. LOL

[@gems4u411]

How could you know for certain that a capsized boat of drowning people was being trafficked or seeking asylum? So, now if you are British, best have your passport if you go sea swimming or sailing, to wave in the air in case you get into any difficulties as passing boats that could rescue you are now most likely to sail right on by to avoid the risk of a life sentence. Not sure where this leaves drowning children without their own passports or legal tourists though. For the majority of us, it is a normal reaction to try to help someone in an emergency. How are we supposed to switch off that much? That must be why the life sentence deterrent is threatened. The Govt. makes decisions for the security of Britain and sensibly, we just can't keep taking the world's refugees on this rather small island. It is sad that things have reached this point, but something had to give before Britain sinks under the strain of being too popular with refugees or targetted by traffickers.

[@adrianosousamendes2948]

What is worrisome is how easy it is to become a British citizen. Look at London 60% of foreign decedents.

[@dougmorris2134]

There is more than a hint of what happened in Germany in the 1930s to the Jews, Roma and other non aryan peoples. Patel’s approach appears to be very similar to people attempting to enter the UK to claim asylum and to those that attempt to rescue those from peril at sea. This woman approves of capital punishment so will she insist that these people are to killed in the same way as those attempting to escape from East Germany. She appeared in the press dressed to give the impression of being in the police force. Is she trying to make the British police into a version of the Stasi or Gesapo. This women should frighten you. She is dangerous.

[@Killy6900]

Oh give over

[@macsmith6216]

Not as much as you are stupid Read the bill The power has been possible for over a century, since the 1914 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act. It’s for these reasons national security including espionage and acts of terrorism unacceptable behaviour such as the ‘glorification’ of terrorism war crimes and serious and organised crime

[@EduardoBicelisGarcia]

I thought the UK needed a younger population growth. On the other hand, It looks like this law design is to prevent solely the channel crossing. However, It is spilling somewhere else... I believe the UK is still debating this policy design.

[@markdowns9607]

I agree with you... Just another stick that the lefty T*ssers and arch remainers are employing to beat the Pro Brexit camp with over the head with... Reality is I don't think they care who dies in the channel otherwise they would go all out to stop it ?

[@bluecrescent1200]

I used to laugh at my parents telling me that this will happen. I had a feeling that Shamima begum case was just to test the waters.

[@markettechniques]

@Bessie Hillum Blair was the reason were stuck with all the immigrants in the first place hes a laughing stock. I for one think its a great thing us taking back our borders and being able to stop the kent beach 'tourists' coming over

[@gusttavocardoso108]

I am not certain how this will be done, but something has to be done! There are some parts of the UK where you don´t hear a word of English. These people who come to the country aren´t looking to integrate themselves into the English culture, but to create ghettos, small ballons of their country inside the UK. Often this leads to religious extremism, arranged marriage, female genital mutilation and so forth. I am Brazilian and I do live in London, even between Brazilians there is some feeling of anti-English being born and cultivated as "their culture". Also, there are a few people here speaking that rich people are bad and working-class people are "the good ones". Now, who is discriminating and judging here? How can, the amount of money someone has in the bank, define character?

[@DissociatedWomenIncorporated]

Dude but what about areas of the UK where English isn’t the primary language because it’s Welsh or Irish or Scottish? We’re not a one language nation here, England is but one of several countries within the UK. Also it’s a well known psychological phenomenon that having large amounts of wealth tends to decrease how compassionate and empathic you are towards others.

[@exiletsj2570]

This will only be used to remove "undesirable" citizens in the Orwellian future.

[@gamermapper]

1984

[@peterpalmato467]

Nazism

[@Jajalaatmaar]

Half the reason for Breixt is that a lot of Brits hated the restrictions the EU put on getting rid of on undesirable immigrants.

[@Jajalaatmaar]

​@JZ's Best Friend I was brought up with the idea that we had a functioning asylum system. But we don't. 19% of rejected asylum seekers actually leave the EU, says the EU supreme auditor. I think it's a legit problem for the EU. Wish we had done something about it before the Brexit vote.

[@tommyradko1563]

Hypothetically Piri Patel some day may face it coming from abroad. She may hear - Sorry Ms but your citizenship was revoked, you can go to India bye bye...

[@spyboy0076]

She is ugandan not indian

[@tommyradko1563]

@@spyboy0076 Border officer may not know it. xd

[@AzadHind572]

@@spyboy0076 she's racially an Indian. Her grandparents were taken to Uganda from British India. And her parents migrated to UK when idi aamin started Asian expulsion in Uganda

[@davidjma7226]

But will the legal system prosecute those who break it? Nope. The current law says they get prosecuted and jailed. But you put them up in hotels

[@frasersteen]

What I really want to know is what the opposition would do if elected about this and other human rights legislation.

[@markettechniques]

Theyd classify refugees as protected class and invite more over and supply dinghys. UK needs to take back its borders

[@lorgar87]

All of a sudden, getting my UK passport has lost a lot of attraction....

[@littlekinguk]

You planning on committing treason or something?

[@angelikaskoroszyn8495]

@Reece Clarke What does "commiting treason" mean? Helping refugees from drowning? Being a political activist who disagrees with the goverment? Being a part of opposition? This shit is too easy to abuse to be acceptable

[@macsmith6216]

@@angelikaskoroszyn8495 Read the bill educate yourself Instead of listening to this politically motivated bull💩

[@ems7623]

Taking away citizenship is something that, historically, only the worst authoritarian regimes and police states have done. The fact that this is even being considered in the UK should cause a great deal of concern. In extreme cases of citizens who have done something like joining a foreign terrorist organization or, I don't know, sell nuclear secrets to enemy regimes, there are other, normal procedures that can be applied. These are situations that have always fallen, historically, under the legal category of "treason." If the UK no longer has treason laws that are working for its needs, then those are the laws that need to be revised. It is good to see that at least on Tory MP is taking a stand against this.

[@allawrence3217]

My mother was a Canadian citizen born in Canada And because of this I'm recognised as a Canadian citizen and hold a Canadian passport. But despite being born in the UK and living here all my life I am now technically deportable.. Thanks priti !!!

[@williamevans7454]

might not happen with Canadians

[@mtssman]

So can RLNI pick up a refugee from sea and bring him/her back to the UK? Does that constitute "helping someone to arrive in the UK "? Or in such situation RLNI is not allowed to bring the refugee back, which means after a dry towel and hot cup of tea the refugee will be dumped back into the sea?

[@PeterPete]

I'm British by birth, can the Government deport me to another country so I can live a better life and not have to put up with bigots?

[@stevencallow2545]

I think the Bill makes sense. We need to stop the border crossings for human safety. As far as I am aware, they came across from France, that's a lovely safe Country!! 😊 I hope to re-visit there soon!

[@soccerguy325]

Refugees can only apply for asylum in the UK if it's their first stop? But how can the UK be any refugee's first stop unless they're from France?

[@quatreunhuit]

That's the point...

[@hugebartlett1884]

She needs to be reminded that she too is born of immigrants. Her citizenship could come to an end if the public tire of her before long.

[@pebblepod30]

That is either a dishonest argument, or you didn't watch the video. She herself did not illegally come by Forced Entry & Settlement (FEAS), did she? She was born in the UK, wasn't she? In fact, did her parents commit FEAS? No, right? FEAS is the issue. FEAS, FEAS, FEAS. If they came by CONSENTUAL Entry & Settlement, and then they are law abiding productive Citizens, that is a totally different thing. Just the same as if you welcomed a homeless person to live on your big property VS they forced you to accept it, and then that attracted more. Consent is the issue. We have the same problem in my country (Australia) as well as many other countries. Many countries just SHOOT YOU the moment you try to commit FEAS. In Australia, our solution or rejecting FEAS worked wonders, and instead Govt Officials go to real Refugee Camps with Real Refugees (that didn't reject 10 other countries first, nor are economic migrants), and people committing FEAS don't take their place. Even the well known Refugee Advocate Prof Robert Mann admitting the Govt's stance against both FEAS & On-shore processing worked very well, in bringing down numbers drastically (which is the opposite of the "lying for a good cause" that the FEAS Advocates had been telling for years).

[@pebblepod30]

And if you support FEAS, then how the hell would that be sustainable (since the more you solve it, the bigger the problem gets, in any country that does it)? Can you give any country where it worked, or explain what practical solution you stand for? Or is it all bleeding heart? The Australian Govtrs solution also means much less people drowning in long term, much, much less wasted legal resources & Public money wasted too on court cases. Go, TRY & give a practical solution please? Not just looking good or feeling good.

[@pebblepod30]

No offense intended, I am trying to point out that you don't have a practical solution to offer here.

[@hugebartlett1884]

@@pebblepod30 What is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander. Here is a descendant of immigrants setting herself up as a judge of other immigrants,denying them the right of British citizenship,which she herself so comfortably enjoys.

[@pebblepod30]

@@hugebartlett1884 Of course what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But there is ZERO hypocrisy, because she personally did not force entry & settlement & then continue it illegally either. So what are you talking about? What is the hypocrisy? Unless you mean that you believe consent for entry & settlement doesn't matter, but to me it does. And I also reject arguments based on racial guilt, because i consider that racist.

[@welshmouse]

Most countries have a provision in which joining a foreign army can mean a loss of citizenship. If a person chooses to take up arms against the country that was once their home, they have given up their citizenship in spirit. Others should not be endangered in order to protect a persons 'right' to return to a place they have declared themselves an enemy of.

[@haikaloronsentnel138]

D0N'T BE S!LLY!!! IT'S D!FFERENT!!!

[@Yutani_Crayven]

First safe country makes perfect sense. Any other rule enables human trafficking.

[@arnaldobermudez8894]

Well we have seen that the current government of the UK only respects international law and conventions when it is convenient for them. They broke the Brexit agreement, now the refugee conventions, it's sad to see.

[@markettechniques]

But we dont talk about all the rule bending done against the UK, its only us thats done that am I right? Your worse than one of the people that picks and chooses bits of history to make a point. Lets look at what the EU didnt want to back down on, lets look at what the lefty lawyers that stop chid rapists being deported do that harms the country.... at some point we have to stand up for ourselves and thats exactly what we are doing with this bill and also with how we treated the EU (exactly as they treated us btw)

[@maxwellweiss9849]

Man us Americans gotta step up our game as the most hated country. Those damn Brits are really giving us a run for our money

[@abinyturbo4x476]

The UK is done. That's why they exited the EU. Now people will wake up. All this doesn't make Britain any safer. Don't we have sensible politicians. 🙄....youth please go into politics and make the UK a democracy again. Thank you! 🙏

[@tamere88077]

Even I am supporting conservatives I find this worrying that an appointed official can revoke citizenship this is unlawful unconstitutional and a worrying amount of executive power without a check from the judiciary I hope the upper house of Lords reverts it back to the Commons

[@Domhangairt]

EGH KIM. The problem is the enormous threat facing European countries from the Third World. I grew up in Africa, and I can tell you that most Africans would move to Europe tomorrow if they could. Europe and Britain faces the risk of being completely overrun. But I agree that Citizenship should be decided by referendum, not some appointed Govt official.

[@wile123456]

Someone wants to be tried in court and go through the lawful process but they deny her that? What? Why? What happened to the law and order slogan?

[@plerpplerp5599]

Pratti Pitel is at it again. Now, there is a surprise.

[@youknow6968]

This law smells like a law passed in India, where people have to prove their citizenship. There are few loopholes, so essentially it's the minority groups that will be effected, as the proof of burden on the majority group is a lot easier. This British law is ridiculously insane.

[@fil2337]

Sounds more and more like the plot of Watch Dogs Legions 😭😭

[@Cybonator]

This is the scariest new law passed in any democracy, far more troubling than anything in Hungary or Poland

[@keyboarddancers7751]

It's shocking to see Britain on the verge of proposing even more concerning laws than those of two EU states!

[@gungan5822]

No, the scariest new law is permanent emergency powers in Australia. I'd rather be told to leave than be a prisoner in my own country.

[@tonyb9735]

It is just one part of a systemic attack on UK democracy. Our own government is the biggest danger to democracy in the UK since the second world war.

[@gungan5822]

@@tonyb9735 Your woke institutions aren't helping. When police arrest you for Twitter posts, your country is over.

[@lonelyone69]

I mean, no, Poland dissolved their judiciary.

[@dharmani_youtube]

Wow and Brits complained about India's legitimate Citizenship Amendment Act

[@edgardebruin8398]

not going to work in Northern Ireland

[@Simonmc78]

or the common travel area

[@Eskatunna]

When I watch that video, I remember Samantha Lewthwaite, a British jihadist in the World's Most Wanted documentary in Netflix. That law could get her a "swift, unmaned justice" for her doings. The law that needed to pass.

[@Hunter664yt]

for everyone who is mad at this new bill remember we still have the power to vote them out of power or complaine to the lords or house of royals as they hold more power than house of commons

[@Perl88]

Even if they get voted out it’s too late. When the political needle is moved in a certain direction it’s very hard to move it back in the opposite direction as you risk losing votes by doing so. Yes Labour may reverse some parts of the bill if they got into power but they won’t be able to revoke it all entirely without political fallout.

[@jajajajajajaja11]

50.000 on a watched list which is rising and terrorist attacks here in there …….what more can we do.

[@lind1359]

If illegally in the country then you have no rights

[@stephaniebarr507]

She knew what she was doing. IT didnt work out the way she expected and so wants to come back. You makes your bed, and then lie in it!

[@Isanion]

She was 15, a minor. She's prepared to accept punishment for her actions. We British are supposed to have a developed sense of justice; a sense of justice that our court system would subject her to. But apparently an awful lot of people aren't actually so happy with our civilised justice system and would prefer to see people they don't like arbitrary subjected to whatever the worst punishment they can find. If a gov minister, or anyone else, is allowed to pick and choose who faces UK justice and who gets dumped into another country's system, completely bypassing due process within our legal system, then our system and it's supposed standards don't mean shit. This isn't about giving Shamima another chance, this is about taking responsibility for our mess. She was a British Citizen, a product of our country and an aspect of our culture. And it went wrong, really wrong. If she'd taken a knife to someone in the street, or burned down a school then she would be on trial, here, for her crimes. Regardless of what she did, she should be on trial, here, for her crimes. The only reason she isn't is not because our justice system has deemed her deportable. It's because some politicians decided to arbitrarily hand out a punishment without due process. That's the issue! It's not about what her punishment is, it's about who decided on it. Actions like that shouldn't be found in democratic governments; it's the sort of thing you see commonly in dictatorships.

[@williamhutchinson7]

True mu thoughts too, she screwed up big time, she has only denouncesd isis after her husband and kids were killed, if they were alive she wouldn't have bothered trying to get home

[@rowejon]

Apply this act to the ancestors of the current cabinet!

[@Iolis]

Thus anyone born in the Northern Ireland my be deprived of citizenship since they are eligible for citizenship of the Irish Republic. Similarly, a man born in Liverpool to mother born in Ireland and a father born in London is also eligible for deprivation of citizenship for the same reason. Taken together with the restriction on judicial review to challenge the decision of a government department taken illegall or irrationally, and the restriction of Article 8 of the European Convention incorporated into s1 Human Rights Act closes off any challenge to the State by the individual.

[@addl7340]

This country is, and continues to be, a world leader in privilege. The press owns our political attention undividedly and from a young age we've been conditioned to praise heartlessness. I would argue we're actually better at it than the US

[@brettalmeda3880]

Why do you feel the need to slander my country to make your ridiculous argument. We take in more immigrants than anyone so shut up.

[@carlbirchall6869]

@@brettalmeda3880 Might want to check those figures again Brett, because you are way off the mark with that statement.

[@brettalmeda3880]

@@carlbirchall6869 According to the United Nations, in 2019, the United States, Germany, and Saudi Arabia had the largest number of immigrants of any country. So Carl, unless you're German, where does your country fall on the list?

[@lpk6372]

I would argue you just a longer more richer history of heartlessness

[@brettalmeda3880]

@@lpk6372 What?

[@briumphbimbles]

Something needs to be done. This is not it. This is terrifying.

[@katarzynakrynska4205]

Feeling so trapped in the UK. These new laws don't represent democrasy and makes it easier to disrespect government

[@Ratkill]

I can't decide whether I'm surprised or not at the clumsy legalese of a rough and ready UK bill to address a pressing issue. Obviously there is a problem, and even the the bleeding heart humanitarian understands full well what that problem is. It needs to be persecuted with great specificity however, and the wide-ranging language used in the bill really seems to highlight how little the phenomena is understood by it proponents.

[@christophercook9693]

Imagine the executive having the power to remove citizenship in the US. I can only imagine one way that would go, poorly

[@macsmith6216]

They already do, so do many other European Governments Educate yourself

[@pistolen87]

The asylum system is broken. Good for UK for having the balls to try something new.

[@heartlesscapitalist5985]

Considering that the UN often gives China compliments, a country that is currently actively commiting genocide, maybe being criticized by the UN is not that bad of a thing.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

If that is how you think about things, how bad must the uk have become to be critisesed by an institution that doesn't bother to be critical about things as bad as genocide. That would put the uk a few steps beyond china on the evil scale.

[@musman6453]

This women is playing with the UK's future. Court should ban this type of people's.

[@valenrn8657]

UK's "nationality and borders bill" are similar to Australia's "Stop the Boats". 😅 UK's immigration laws are being synchronised with Australia's. LOL

[@nullnull7495]

I don't even recognise The UK anymore. Tueh

[@gouki006ishere]

Not gonna lie, as a Bangali Londoner myself, I'm disgusted at what Begum did. She's a disgrace to both the British and Bangladeshi people.

[@Cassp0nk]

This legislation sounds great. We need to stem the tide of economic refugees and we don’t need people like Begun - she is responsible for her choices and did some horrible things in Isis. The refugee conventions were designed for the early 20th century, not the modern day with easy travel where billions of people would rather live in Europe that where they are from.

[@davidmurphy7332]

If they can do it to Shamima Begum, who was British-born and had full citizenship, then they can do it to anybody - are you comfortable with that?

[@yucol5661]

Thats like a drop in the bucket. This law has nothing to do with economic refugees. But to be fair. We don’t take away the citizenship of serial killers. So why take it away from terrorist? To look good to the voters? To get support form xenophobic voters who won’t bother to read more than a “this politician is tough on immigration” headline?

[@Zonca2]

Pretty reasonable laws against ilegal immigration, more countries need to adopt it.

[@fizzy3949]

You have murders on less sentences than what's being proposed as punishment in this bill. The law and order is taking an odd turn..

[@DGAMINGDE]

I think the british government has the goal to take the empathy from british people towards refugees. While it does not criminalize working with many immigrants back in their head everyone will be worried that interacting with foreign citizens or even people that maybe have an accent could be illegal. I actually think refugees (even economic refugees) should get more protection from the government. They should be able to have legal job opportunities as many of them are forced into illegal job sectors and they will fear people could call them out. This leads to both sides not trusting each other. If there was more trust I believe even people growing up in "regressive" societies that go to britain or the west will naturally liberalize their views. Christianity in the past has lead to many regressive politicies but there are also many good christians that have a liberal view on religion. Even illegal immigrants change from the culture they grew up in and would probably feel out of place in their country of origin.

[@lisaeriksson1081]

Your comment brings me hope

[@DGAMINGDE]

@@lisaeriksson1081 The chilean election brought me hope