Racist borders bill

Support us and go ad-free

The Nationality and Borders Bill is the latest piece of authoritarian legislation that shows the Tories’ slide towards outright fascism. We must stop this before it’s too late. 


Video transcript

The Nationality and Borders Bill that passed through the Commons last week is incredibly reactionary and the biggest threat to our basic human rights we have seen for decades.

The bill was first introduced in July this year, and is currently in its second reading in the House of Lords.

What exactly is this bill, and why is it so dangerous?

The biggest concern of the bill is Clause 9. Within it, the government can strip citizenship from individuals without informing them first.

According to the New Statesman, nearly six million people would be in a position in which they could be stripped of citizenship as the government sees fit with people who have come from India being the largest group. That’s just under 635,000 people of Indian heritage at risk of being deported.

Also at risk are 408,000 people who were born in the UK.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

This essentially creates a two tiered society with those potentially affected becoming second class citizens.

The government has claimed that no-one can have their citizenship taken away if it renders them stateless, but this… is a lie.

The home secretary has been able to do this since 2014.

On the government website, it’s claimed that decisions are made in accordance with international law including the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. 

The 1961 convention “aims to prevent statelessness and reduce it over time”. 

Yet, if the government has been able to make an individual stateless since 2014, and this new bill gives the secretary of state even more powers to do so, then it clearly flies in the face of the UN ruling.

In-fact, this bill may breach international and domestic law 10 times! Raza Husain, who is a QC human rights lawyer, led a team of four barristers who looked into this piece of legislation.

In their 95 page document, they conclude that the “bill represents the biggest legal assault on international refugee law ever seen in the UK”.

Former Brexit secretary David Davis has expressed concern the bill could create a “British Guantánamo Bay”. He highlights the fact asylum seekers would be sent to a foreign country when they are being processed. His worry is that this could potentially create a detention center that parallels the notorious US-run facility in Cuba.

Why is the government doing this?

Well of course the easy answer is because this government is becoming increasingly reactionary and authoritarian in it’s style of governance in order to generate populist appeal with voters. The Tories believe they can carry on whipping up fear and hatred as they continue to fail to manage the pandemic and bounce from scandal to scandal.

There’s also the case that Priti Patel has an unhealthy hunger for stripping us of our basic human rights.

But let’s be incredibly charitable here, and take on their claims as to why they are doing this.

Number one: Stop the practices of people smuggling.

By increasing criminal sentences, and adding more border controls, ministers claim the stricter controls would be a deterrent to those seeking financial gain by smuggling people across borders.

This doesn’t address the problem of said practices, and according to Amnesty International this will have an opposite effect. All it will do is create more dangerous conditions  which smugglers will use to exploit desperate people.

This is similar to the way the harsher drug laws have failed to reduce the use of drugs, and instead have had an overwhelmingly negative impact on users and wider society. 

Number two: Better protect those in need of asylum.

Once again, Amnesty claims the bill will have the opposite effect. There is nothing in the bill that talks about making it safer for those seeking asylum. The policy makers say that criminalising those that risk their lives getting here will simply stop or ameliorate the issue. This couldn’t be further from the truth. People are willing to risk their lives for a reason, therefore trying to deter people who are in a desperate situation won’t stop them. A better way is to make it safer to get here; that is how you protect them.

Number three: The Bill is in accordance with international law 

As I explained before, the stripping of citizenship breaches international and domestic law according to human rights lawyers.  The UNHCR states that, “The Bill would create a two-tier asylum system that undermines international co-operation and delivers unjust penalties to refugees in need of protection”.

Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor, a representative of UNHCR says: The bill is based on the notion that asylum-seekers should seek sanctuary in the “first safe country” they arrive in – however the UNHCR said there was no such requirement under international law, and the principle was not in the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The case of Shamima Begum was a precursor to this. Regardless of your personal view of her, as soon as the government broke international law to strip Begum of her citizenship, with no repercussions, it was only a matter of time until they would do it again on a wider scale.

The slide into authoritarianism always begins with the pretext of national security. Once successfully orchestrated, governments will radically change laws that clamp down on our civil liberties.

We have seen recently the government attacking free speech with the assault on our right to protest; now they are gunning for more of our hard-fought for human rights. We must stop this slide toward fascism before it’s too late.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. It has happened before that a people assured of its humanity, its cultural attainment, its position at the peak of modern civilisation, and with confidence in a well-established democratic system has stood by and done nothing as all these good things were swept away, and finally the people were themselves swept along with the rushing torrents of a new fascism.

      If we do not oppose it as it is born furtively, how will we stop it as it reaches its full strength?

      Fascism and the negation of human rights may come to power not through fanfares and speeches, but through stealth and democratic changes.

      Will we let all these things pass, thinking ‘it will be alright’, as others did almost a century ago?

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.