British Prime Minister Theresa May has, of her own volition, stripped her Conservative Party of its governing parliamentary majority by calling an early election. If she stays on as prime minister, she will also strip British citizens of the political and economic rights conferred by membership in the EU.
However, May’s habit of stripping away people’s rights and powers is not new. For years, she has been normalizing the practice of stripping certain Britons of their citizenship altogether, even at the risk of rendering them stateless “citizens of nowhere.”
During the UK’s just-concluded election campaign, May promised to change or nullify any human-rights laws that “get in the way” of fighting terrorism.
This is a credible threat. May herself has pioneered the practice of revoking individuals’ citizenship, usually in the name of national security, but sometimes as a form of symbolic punishment.
Depriving people of their citizenship is immoral — and ineffective. It has a dark history.
During the 20th century, totalitarian states set records in denationalization — 1.5 million people in the Soviet Union alone were stripped of their citizenship.
However, this practice was not confined to undemocratic regimes.
As French academic Patrick Weil has shown, laws passed in the US in the early 20th century led to at least 140,000 cases of denationalization.
Officially, these laws were meant to prevent people from acquiring citizenship through fraud; in reality, they were also used to enforce loyalty to the state.
In 1909, anarchist and feminist Emma Goldman became the first American to be denaturalized for essentially political reasons.
Before World War II and the Holocaust, few were overly concerned about the fact that denationalization could leave people stateless and without what Hannah Arendt called “the right to have rights.”
However, after 1945, new international legal instruments were forged to eliminate statelessness.
In a series of landmark decisions, the US Supreme Court made it effectively impossible for the government to remove a person’s US nationality against their will.
As US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said in 1967: “In our country, the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.”
Yet calls for denationalization have proliferated across the West, with many politicians coming to regard it as a legitimate counterterrorism policy.
For example, after the November 2015 attacks in Paris, then-French president Francois Hollande tried, but failed, to insert a denationalization provision into the French constitution — an effort he came to regret, because it proved to be more divisive than unifying for the country.
However, no nation has gone further than the UK in making denationalization a routine counterterrorism measure.
According to Weil, between 2006 and 2015, the Office of the UK Home Secretary stripped 53 British citizens of their nationality; at least two were subsequently killed by US drone strikes.
Today, the UK has an extremely low bar for revoking citizenship. The home secretary need only be “satisfied that such deprivation is conducive to the public good.”
Since 2014, the home secretary has been able to denaturalize British citizens even if doing so immediately renders them stateless, as long as there are “reasonable grounds” for believing that the person could possibly acquire citizenship elsewhere.
When May was home secretary between 2010 and last year, she usually stripped Britons’ citizenship while they were out of the country, leaving them with no way to challenge the grounds of the decision.
To be sure, denationalization policies have been popular; even Hollande’s proposed constitutional reform was supported by 80 percent of the French public at one point.
This undoubtedly reflects a widespread impulse to mete out some kind of punishment against those who commit terrorist acts. Many people believe that anyone who commits such a crime has already reneged on the social contract.
However, this is precisely why punishment should be a matter for the criminal justice system, which guarantees due process in a way that a government office following vague criteria cannot.
Any signatory to international conventions against statelessness should technically limit denationalization to those with dual citizenship; and yet if it does that, it will be acting discriminatorily.
Denationalizing “failed citizens” who have committed terrorist acts is also inappropriate as a symbolic gesture.
As Austrian political theorist Rainer Baubock said, it would have been utterly perverse for Germany or Austria to denationalize Adolf Hitler posthumously.
Denationalization is also impractical. Rather than assuming responsibility for their citizens and punishing them for their crimes, countries such the UK are dumping potentially dangerous individuals into other countries’ laps.
When someone has multiple passports from countries with denationalization laws, such provisions can trigger a race in which, as Audrey Macklin of the University of Toronto puts it: “To the loser goes the citizen.”
This is not to say that countries must never restrict individual rights in pursuit of a counterterrorism strategy, but other measures, such as confiscating someone’s passport, are far more effective than denationalization.
The latter might be emotionally satisfying, but there are high costs associated with what Peter Spiro of Temple Law School has derided as “security-related theater.”
Denationalization undermines the concept of citizenship generally, by framing it as a privilege that can be revoked without due process, rather than as a basic “right to have rights.”
Despite its aggressive approach to counterterrorism, the US, like France and Germany, has so far adhered to former US Supreme Court chief justice Warren Burger’s dictum that “citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior.”
Although US President Donald Trump has demanded “consequences — perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail” for those who burn the US flag, it is unlikely that he will get his way.
Still, Trump can look admiringly to the UK, if May or others continue to hone and normalize the British government’s authoritarian approach.
Jan-Werner Mueller is a professor of politics at Princeton University and a fellow at the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
As Taiwan is engulfed in worries about Chinese infiltration, news reports have revealed that power inverters made by China’s Huawei Technologies Co are used in the solar panels on the top of the Legislative Yuan’s Zhenjiang House (鎮江會館) on Zhenjiang Street in Taipei. However, what is even more worrying is that Taiwan’s new national electronic identification card (eID) has been subcontracted to the French security firm and eID maker Idemia, which has not only cooperated with the Chinese Public Security Bureau to manufacture eIDs in China, but also makes the new identification cards being issued in Hong Kong. There might be more