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
The EU’s biggest banks have spent years quietly creating a new way to pay that could finally allow customers to ditch their Visa Inc and Mastercard Inc cards — the latest sign that the region is looking to dislodge two of the most valuable financial firms on the planet. Wero, as the project is known, is now rolling out across much of western Europe. Backed by 16 major banks and payment processors including BNP Paribas SA, Deutsche Bank AG and Worldline SA, the platform would eventually allow a German customer to instantly settle up with, say, a hotel in France
On August 6, Ukraine crossed its northeastern border and invaded the Russian region of Kursk. After spending more than two years seeking to oust Russian forces from its own territory, Kiev turned the tables on Moscow. Vladimir Putin seemed thrown off guard. In a televised meeting about the incursion, Putin came across as patently not in control of events. The reasons for the Ukrainian offensive remain unclear. It could be an attempt to wear away at the morale of both Russia’s military and its populace, and to boost morale in Ukraine; to undermine popular and elite confidence in Putin’s rule; to
A traffic accident in Taichung — a city bus on Sept. 22 hit two Tunghai University students on a pedestrian crossing, killing one and injuring the other — has once again brought up the issue of Taiwan being a “living hell for pedestrians” and large vehicle safety to public attention. A deadly traffic accident in Taichung on Dec. 27, 2022, when a city bus hit a foreign national, his Taiwanese wife and their one-year-old son in a stroller on a pedestrian crossing, killing the wife and son, had shocked the public, leading to discussions and traffic law amendments. However, just after the
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
RSS