Right of British Citizen to return to the UK when passport has expired?

[Clive Page]

There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question the law on the matter.

By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of entry changed?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who
is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired.  It may well be that our Government will
not want to renew her passport.   Without wanting to deal with the
question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would
like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have
an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport.
As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British
Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice
a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to
enter the country.  I would have thought that even an expired passport
would be pretty good evidence of one's identity.  So has the law on the
right of entry changed?

If she has dual nationality, as seems likely with Syria, the Home
Secretary can revoke her British citizenship if satisfied that
deprivation is conducive to the public good. In such an eventuality,
she would have no right to enter the UK at all, and would not be issued
with any new passport. She would retain her (presumably) Syrian
citizenship.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current
passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So
has the law on the right of entry changed?

If she were somehow to manage to present herself at immigration then
I imagine she could get in with her expired passport, notwithstanding
any issues that might arise due to her being the wife of a murderous
dictator. But the problem is presumably that she cannot get an airline
to agree to convey her here without a valid passport or visa.

[J Newman]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current
passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So
has the law on the right of entry changed?

If she were somehow to manage to present herself at immigration then
I imagine she could get in with her expired passport, notwithstanding
any issues that might arise due to her being the wife of a murderous
dictator. But the problem is presumably that she cannot get an airline
to agree to convey her here without a valid passport or visa.

I believe airlines' reluctance to fly passengers without a valid
passport or visa is because they are afraid of the costs they bear
should the passenger be refused entry.

I suppose if she were to pay them enough, or charter a private jet, this
is point becomes moot.

Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

[Tim Jackson]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

Shamima Begum is a precedent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

[J Newman]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt, and while part of me
feels she got her just dessert I would still stand by my assertion that
citizenship should not be revocable by the government.

Because while we're sliding down this slippery slope, maybe we can pick
out some of our pet hates, like those awful terrorists, pedophiles and
opposition politicians, and ship them off to the Falklands to save the
NHS and taxpayer paying for those leeches to society?

Next up, of course, those pesky contrarian journalists and human rights
lawyers.

[JNugent]

Post by J Newman

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt, and while part of me
feels she got her just dessert I would still stand by my assertion that
citizenship should not be revocable by the government.
Because while we're sliding down this slippery slope, maybe we can pick
out some of our pet hates, like those awful terrorists, pedophiles and
opposition politicians, and ship them off to the Falklands to save the
NHS and taxpayer paying for those leeches to society?
Next up, of course, those pesky contrarian journalists and human rights
lawyers.

"A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK"?

What evidence does anyone have for that?

Or are all married women to be treated as having committed (as
accessory) any crime committed by their husband?

[J Newman]

Post by JNugent

Post by J Newman

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt, and while part of me
feels she got her just dessert I would still stand by my assertion
that citizenship should not be revocable by the government.
Because while we're sliding down this slippery slope, maybe we can
pick out some of our pet hates, like those awful terrorists,
pedophiles and opposition politicians, and ship them off to the
Falklands to save the NHS and taxpayer paying for those leeches to
society?
Next up, of course, those pesky contrarian journalists and human
rights lawyers.

"A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK"?
What evidence does anyone have for that?
Or are all married women to be treated as having committed (as
accessory) any crime committed by their husband?

My post was referring to Shamina Begum, as raised by Tim Jackson.

[Norman Wells]

Post by J Newman
My post was referring to Shamina Begum, as raised by Tim Jackson.

Was she really?

[Fredxx]

Post by J Newman

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt

Please be kind enough to explain how a child can betray the UK.

[Max Demian]

Post by Fredxx

Post by J Newman

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt

Please be kind enough to explain how a child can betray the UK.

She wasn't a child except in a legalistic sense. (Under 21s used to be
classed as "infants".) She was old enough to marry and have children.

[Spike]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Fredxx

Post by J Newman

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt

Please be kind enough to explain how a child can betray the UK.

She wasn't a child except in a legalistic sense. (Under 21s used to be
classed as "infants".) She was old enough to marry and have children.

She couldn’t get married here at 15, among many other places.

[Max Demian]

Post by Spike

Post by Max Demian

Post by Fredxx

Post by J Newman

Post by Tim Jackson
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...

Post by J Newman
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt

Please be kind enough to explain how a child can betray the UK.

She wasn't a child except in a legalistic sense. (Under 21s used to be
classed as "infants".) She was old enough to marry and have children.

She couldn’t get married here at 15, among many other places.

Presumably she got married where it was legal. (If marriage/sex is for
reproduction, puberty is the logical age.)

[Norman Wells]

Post by J Newman

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired.  It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport.   Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current
passport.  As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country.  I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity.  So
has the law on the right of entry changed?

If she were somehow to manage to present herself at immigration then
I imagine she could get in with her expired passport, notwithstanding
any issues that might arise due to her being the wife of a murderous
dictator. But the problem is presumably that she cannot get an airline
to agree to convey her here without a valid passport or visa.

I believe airlines' reluctance to fly passengers without a valid
passport or visa is because they are afraid of the costs they bear
should the passenger be refused entry.
I suppose if she were to pay them enough, or charter a private jet, this
is point becomes moot.
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.

If British citizenship is all she has, international conventions mean
we can't exclude her. No-one is allowed to be made stateless, even if
they are considered to be not conducive to the public good and would
therefore in principle be someone we'd like to exclude if we could.

Where someone has dual nationality, though, and their presence is
considered not conducive to the public good, then we (through a decision
of the Home Secretary) are perfectly within our rights to deprive that
person of the British part of the nationality she has and deny her entry
to the country. That's Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian
nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be
revoked.

While she retains any British citizenship, the principle is that she has
to be allowed in with or without a passport if she rocks up at our borders.

It's an obvious point, though, that anyone whose citizenship is revoked
on the grounds of their presence here not being conducive to the
national good will argue till they're blue in the face that the decision
was actually for political reasons. But they won't get anywhere. The
decision is ultimately for politicians to make.

[Fredxx]

On 30/12/2024 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:

<snip>

Post by Norman Wells
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian
nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be
revoked.

There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Norman Wells
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian
nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be
revoked.

There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.

It would be pretty eye-popping for the first lady of Syria born to
Syrian parents not to, wouldn't you say?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Norman Wells
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian
nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be
revoked.

There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.

I've explained elsewhere why she does. What I'm not clear about,
however, is why she has *British* citizenship or how she obtained it.

Just being born here does not confer that on her.

[Clive Page]

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be revoked.

There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.

I've explained elsewhere why she does.  What I'm not clear about, however, is why she has *British* citizenship or how she obtained it.
Just being born here does not confer that on her.

But she had a British passport, so presumably had some evidence of her British citizenship to get that. Maybe having a certificate saying that you were born here is enough for that, even if it isn't really sufficient?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Clive Page

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Norman Wells
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has
Syrian nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship
could be revoked.

There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.

I've explained elsewhere why she does.  What I'm not clear about,
however, is why she has *British* citizenship or how she obtained it.
Just being born here does not confer that on her.

But she had a British passport, so presumably had some evidence of her
British citizenship to get that. Maybe having a certificate saying
that you were born here is enough for that, even if it isn't really
sufficient?

A birth certificate showing you were born in the UK before
1st January 1983 (which she was) does pretty much prove that you
(or at least the person whose certificate it is) is a UK citizen,
because before that date, being born here did confer citizenship.

There are a couple of exceptions, but they are rare: if your
father was a diplomat with immunity, or if your father was
an enemy alien and you were born in occupied territory (i.e.
you were born on the Channel Islands during World War II and
your dad was one of the enemy).

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Clive Page

Post by Fredxx
<snip>

Post by Norman Wells
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has
Syrian nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship
could be revoked.

There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.

I've explained elsewhere why she does.  What I'm not clear about,
however, is why she has *British* citizenship or how she obtained it.
Just being born here does not confer that on her.

But she had a British passport, so presumably had some evidence of her
British citizenship to get that. Maybe having a certificate saying
that you were born here is enough for that, even if it isn't really
sufficient?

A birth certificate showing you were born in the UK before
1st January 1983 (which she was) does pretty much prove that you
(or at least the person whose certificate it is) is a UK citizen,
because before that date, being born here did confer citizenship.

Really? Under which Section of what Act please?

[JNugent]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current
passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So
has the law on the right of entry changed?

If she were somehow to manage to present herself at immigration then
I imagine she could get in with her expired passport, notwithstanding
any issues that might arise due to her being the wife of a murderous
dictator. But the problem is presumably that she cannot get an airline
to agree to convey her here without a valid passport or visa.

Would Aeroflot not take her at last as far as Paris, from where she
could travel by surface transport to Calais?

[jon]

Post by JNugent

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current
passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So
has the law on the right of entry changed?

If she were somehow to manage to present herself at immigration then I
imagine she could get in with her expired passport, notwithstanding any
issues that might arise due to her being the wife of a murderous
dictator. But the problem is presumably that she cannot get an airline
to agree to convey her here without a valid passport or visa.

Would Aeroflot not take her at last as far as Paris, from where she
could travel by surface transport to Calais?

...Or hop on rubber boat.

[J Newman]

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who
is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired.  It may well be that our Government will
not want to renew her passport.   Without wanting to deal with the
question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would
like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have
an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport.
As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British
Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice
a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to
enter the country.  I would have thought that even an expired passport
would be pretty good evidence of one's identity.  So has the law on the
right of entry changed?

In fact British citizens are allowed to renounce their citizenship and
get it back under some circumstances - usually if the purpose of the
renunciation was to acquire another citizenship which doesn't allow dual
citizenship.

[GB]

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who
is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired.  It may well be that our Government will
not want to renew her passport.   Without wanting to deal with the
question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would
like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have
an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport.
As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British
Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice
a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to
enter the country.

I managed to travel to Paris on an out-of-date passport. Only on the
return journey was the out-of-dateness noticed, and I was still waved
through passport control.

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that even an expired passport
would be pretty good evidence of one's identity.  So has the law on the
right of entry changed?

[Ian Jackson]

Post by GB

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as
well perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of
Syria, who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to
the UK as her British passport has expired.  It may well be that our
Government will not want to renew her passport.   Without wanting to
deal with the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or
not, I would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a
current passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law
saying that a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only
that it was in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity
and therefore one's right to enter the country.

I managed to travel to Paris on an out-of-date passport. Only on the
return journey was the out-of-dateness noticed, and I was still waved
through passport control.

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that even an expired passport would be pretty
good evidence of one's identity.  So has the law on the right of entry
changed?

"Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
They have to take you in."
[Robert Frost - 'The Death of the Hired Man']

[Theo]

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is
seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not
want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of
whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question
the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an
absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far
as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen
needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good
piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the
country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be
pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of
entry changed?

I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the
The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019:
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual

However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.

Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

Theo

[Norman Wells]

Post by Theo
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK?

No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport to
go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK passport
to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be encouraged and
welcomed by the UK government.

She is rather gorgeous though, even though that has nothing to do with it.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Theo
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
sanctions, the
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/
Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not.  Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she
would be stuck in the UK?

No.  She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport to
go with it on which she could travel.  She wouldn't need a UK passport
to leave the UK.  In fact, her leaving would probably be encouraged and
welcomed by the UK government.

And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left
only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law
to let her in.

[JNugent]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/
Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not.  Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?

No.  She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel.  She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK.  In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.

And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left
only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law
to let her in.

Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?

[Norman Wells]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/
SYR0022/ Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not.  Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?

No.  She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel.  She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK.  In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.

And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice
but to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be
left only with her British one and we will be obliged under
international law to let her in.

Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?

That's a matter for the government, which only has to justify to itself
that deprivation of her UK citizenship would be 'conducive to the public
good'.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/
Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?

No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.

And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left
only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law
to let her in.

Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?

I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?

No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.

And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left
only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law
to let her in.

Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?

I think we should always admit our citizens.

We already have to. So, what are you saying?

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/
Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?

No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.

And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left
only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law
to let her in.

Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?

I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/
Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?

No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.

And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left
only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law
to let her in.

Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?

I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Theo
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/
Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?

No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.

And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left
only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law
to let her in.

Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?

I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.

But that is predicated on an "if".

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.

I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.

I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 2 Jan 2025 at 15:31:04 GMT, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.

I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
Mark

On reflection, I agree with that.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.

I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.

So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of
second-class treatment based on ethnicity.

Look at the nasty treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW II: most
of them were *not* loyal to Japan --- one of the significant causes of
emigration from Japan was dissatisfaction with the militaristic
government.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.

So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of
second-class treatment based on ethnicity.

Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come here,
and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is entirely
possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a serious
mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that mistake.

Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by renouncing
their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at a time when we
are at war with their country of alternate citizenship, then it is, again,
entirely reasonable to expect them to make the choice of whether to be fully
on our side or remain on the fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that
their choice may have consequences.

Post by Adam Funk
Look at the nasty treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW II: most
of them were *not* loyal to Japan --- one of the significant causes of
emigration from Japan was dissatisfaction with the militaristic
government.

The fact that "somebody else did it badly" isn't a reason for us not having
the ability to do it. Dictatorships have police, courts and prisons, but
that's not a reason why we shouldn't have them. What matters is not having
the powers, but how we use them.

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship.

If that's possible. At one time it wasn't possible to renounce your
British citizenship - as William Joyce discovered.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship.

If that's possible. At one time it wasn't possible to renounce your
British citizenship - as William Joyce discovered.

AIUI, the problem was sort of the opposite: that he had in fact
applied for and obtained a British passport.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of
second-class treatment based on ethnicity.

Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come here,
and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is entirely
possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a serious
mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by renouncing
their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at a time when we
are at war with their country of alternate citizenship, then it is, again,
entirely reasonable to expect them to make the choice of whether to be fully
on our side or remain on the fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that
their choice may have consequences.

None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to this
country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is nothing
to stop another country giving you another citizenship without your
consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you renouncing it
even if you do know about it.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of
second-class treatment based on ethnicity.

Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a
serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that
mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at
a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship,
then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the
choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and,
if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.

None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to this
country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is nothing
to stop another country giving you another citizenship without your
consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you renouncing it
even if you do know about it.

There are a number of accidental US citizens who only find out when they
get a tax demand. Ask Boris Johnson.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of
second-class treatment based on ethnicity.

Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a
serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that
mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at
a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship,
then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the
choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and,
if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.

None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to this
country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is nothing
to stop another country giving you another citizenship without your
consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you renouncing it
even if you do know about it.

There are a number of accidental US citizens who only find out when they
get a tax demand. Ask Boris Johnson.

It could be worse --- some countries send demands for military
service.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of
second-class treatment based on ethnicity.

Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been
a serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct
that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK
at a time when we are at war with their country of alternate
citizenship, then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to
make the choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the
fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have
consequences.

None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to
this country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is
nothing to stop another country giving you another citizenship without
your consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you
renouncing it even if you do know about it.

There are a number of accidental US citizens who only find out when
they get a tax demand. Ask Boris Johnson.

It could be worse --- some countries send demands for military service.

Tell me about it.

Having had my birth registered with the Italian embassy, I was liable for
national service. A fact my Dad only thought about when I was planning a
trip there as an adult. And sure enough, checking with the consulate,
there was a warrant out for my arrest had I attempted to enter Italy.
Nice.

Obviously the Italian state would have had no interest in holding a UK
citizen for 2 years to enforce military service, however the bureaucracy
that would have been needed to deal with it once it had happened was not
something I was going to risk,

So I contacted the consulate in London, and booked a trip to get the
exemption noted and actioned. Seemed to work.

My Dad actually did his national service despite (in his words) "not
having to, if I didn't want to" - law and order in Sicily being something
of an option. However he also said he didn't want to live running away
for the next 50 years. (Which would have been entirely possible, as
certain recent cases have highlighted).

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.

So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of
second-class treatment based on ethnicity.

Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come here,
and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is entirely
possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a serious
mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by renouncing
their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at a time when we
are at war with their country of alternate citizenship, then it is, again,
entirely reasonable to expect them to make the choice of whether to be fully
on our side or remain on the fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that
their choice may have consequences.

People should only be punished for their actions, not what additional
passports they have.

As Jon pointed out, not all countries allow renunciation. Some
countries are very nasty to ex-citizens and make it difficult for them
to visit family and friends.

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk
Look at the nasty treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW II: most
of them were *not* loyal to Japan --- one of the significant causes of
emigration from Japan was dissatisfaction with the militaristic
government.

The fact that "somebody else did it badly" isn't a reason for us not having
the ability to do it. Dictatorships have police, courts and prisons, but
that's not a reason why we shouldn't have them. What matters is not having
the powers, but how we use them.
Mark

[J Newman]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.

I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
Mark

The Torah, on which Judeo-Christian civilisation is built upon, says
regarding foreigners:


Leviticus 24:22 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and
the native-born. I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 12:49 The same law will apply to both the native and the
foreigner who resides among you.


In short, any kind of double standards is absolutely forbidden. A
naturalised citizen should be equal in all regards to one born in the UK.

And even more so - a foreigner visiting or passing through should have
the same rights as a citizen.

While this is true in some respects even now (for example a foreigner
can call the emergency services and expect an equal response than if a
citizen did), I believe it should be the same even in terms of residency
and working rights.

I suspect many will disagree with me but that's my view.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by J Newman

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.

I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
Mark

The Torah, on which Judeo-Christian civilisation is built upon, says
Leviticus 24:22 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and
the native-born. I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 12:49 The same law will apply to both the native and the
foreigner who resides among you.
In short, any kind of double standards is absolutely forbidden. A
naturalised citizen should be equal in all regards to one born in the UK.
And even more so - a foreigner visiting or passing through should have
the same rights as a citizen.
While this is true in some respects even now (for example a foreigner
can call the emergency services and expect an equal response than if a
citizen did), I believe it should be the same even in terms of residency
and working rights.
I suspect many will disagree with me but that's my view.

Avowedly Christian, Jewish and Islamic governments notably fail to honour
that, both historically and currently. I believe the Koran specifically
disagrees with it in some respects, but aims to treat minorities more
favourably in at least some respects.

But I agree it is the only civilised principle to follow.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Avowedly Christian, Jewish and Islamic governments notably fail to
honour that, both historically and currently. I believe the Koran
specifically disagrees with it in some respects, but aims to treat
minorities more favourably in at least some respects.

There is the concept of "people of the book" in Islam. Which directs that
it is incumbent on followers to protect and respect Christians and Jews
within their jurisdiction. As practiced in Moorish Spain for centuries.

[JNugent]

Post by J Newman

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed
crimes under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.

I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).

I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we
are at war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have
to deal with any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual
citizenship.

I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British
citizenship was acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal
behaviour after acquiring citizenship is sufficiently egregious to
warrant the withdrawal of citizenship as part of the judicially
imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if
justified by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that
country (eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc)
irrespective of their British citizenship. That would not, though,
extend to permanent expulsion.

The Torah, on which Judeo-Christian civilisation is built upon, says
Leviticus 24:22 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and
the native-born. I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 12:49 The same law will apply to both the native and the
foreigner who resides among you.
In short, any kind of double standards is absolutely forbidden. A
naturalised citizen should be equal in all regards to one born in the UK.
And even more so - a foreigner visiting or passing through should have
the same rights as a citizen.
While this is true in some respects even now (for example a foreigner
can call the emergency services and expect an equal response than if a
citizen did), I believe it should be the same even in terms of residency
and working rights.
I suspect many will disagree with me but that's my view.

I think you're right: many will certainly disagree that merely visiting
another country for a holiday, family visit or under transit
atrrangements should confer upon the traveller the same right of
residency as is possessed by a natural-born citizen of the relevant
country, born of many generations of undisputed citizens.

[JNugent]

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is
seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not
want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of
whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question
the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an
absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far
as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen
needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good
piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the
country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be
pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of
entry changed?

I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.

Or look for a job.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.

And then her Winter Fuel Allowance in 2038


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is
seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not
want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of
whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question
the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an
absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far
as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen
needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good
piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the
country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be
pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of
entry changed?

I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

Might be difficult if she is dying of leukaemia.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by Clive Page
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is
seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not
want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of
whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question
the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an
absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far
as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen
needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good
piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the
country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be
pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of
entry changed?

I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

Might be difficult if she is dying of leukaemia.

Is that her current situation?

[Theo]

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

Where the financial sanction is an asset freeze, it is generally prohibited to:

deal with the frozen funds or economic resources, belonging to or owned,
held or controlled by a designated person or to a person who is owned or
controlled directly or indirectly by the designated person

make funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to,
or for the benefit of, a designated person or to a person who is owned or
controlled directly or indirectly by the designated person

engage in actions that, directly or indirectly, circumvent the financial
sanctions prohibitions

The funds and economic resources are to be frozen immediately by the person
in possession or control of them. An asset freeze does not involve a change
in ownership of the frozen funds or economic resources, nor are they
confiscated or transferred to OFSI for safekeeping."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-sanctions-general-guidance/uk-financial-sanctions-general-guidance#what-financial-sanctions-restrict


ie sanctions would prevent her being paid, even in cash.

Theo

[JNugent]

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

Post by Theo
deal with the frozen funds or economic resources, belonging to or owned,
held or controlled by a designated person or to a person who is owned or
controlled directly or indirectly by the designated person
make funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to,
or for the benefit of, a designated person or to a person who is owned or
controlled directly or indirectly by the designated person
engage in actions that, directly or indirectly, circumvent the financial
sanctions prohibitions
The funds and economic resources are to be frozen immediately by the person
in possession or control of them. An asset freeze does not involve a change
in ownership of the frozen funds or economic resources, nor are they
confiscated or transferred to OFSI for safekeeping."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-sanctions-general-guidance/uk-financial-sanctions-general-guidance#what-financial-sanctions-restrict
ie sanctions would prevent her being paid, even in cash.
Theo

[Theo]

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like
housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.

No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to
have.

Theo

[JNugent]

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like
housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to
have.

How does that apply to a British citizen?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like
housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to
have.

How does that apply to a British citizen?

I doubt if you can sanction a citizen living in Britain if they have
relinquished all other citizenships. In that case, of course, other, criminal,
sanctions are available.

[Theo]

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like
housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to
have.

How does that apply to a British citizen?

She is named (including British passport number) in the UK sanctions
legislation that enacts a freeze of her assets and prevents anyone giving
her economic resources. She doesn't get out of that by being a British
citizen.

Theo

[JNugent]

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like
housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to
have.

How does that apply to a British citizen?

She is named (including British passport number) in the UK sanctions
legislation that enacts a freeze of her assets and prevents anyone giving
her economic resources. She doesn't get out of that by being a British
citizen.

I don't accept that that means she would be allowed to starve within the UK.

Do you?

[Max Demian]

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK?  Due to the asset freeze she has no access
to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK
problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like
housing benefit).  Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named
individual, to
have.

How does that apply to a British citizen?

She is named (including British passport number) in the UK sanctions
legislation that enacts a freeze of her assets and prevents anyone giving
her economic resources.  She doesn't get out of that by being a British
citizen.

I don't accept that that means she would be allowed to starve within the UK.
Do you?

She could rely on charity, except the idea of charity has been overtaken
by the welfare state on one hand, and the commercialisation of charities
on the other. ("Charity" executives with their large salaries, company
cars and generous pension packages.)

[Jeff]

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK?  Due to the asset freeze she has no access to
financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

Surely any bank account that the benefit was paid into would then be
frozen???

Catch 22

Jeff

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

Surely any bank account that the benefit was paid into would then be
frozen???
Catch 22
Jeff

Assuming sanctions are to prevent unacceptable behaviour rather than as
personal punishments then it seems unlikely that there is any point in
continuing them now that the people concerned are no longer in power in Syria.

[JNugent]

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo

Post by JNugent

Post by Theo
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK?  Due to the asset freeze she has no access to
financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.

She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.

"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do

A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.

Surely any bank account that the benefit was paid into would then be
frozen???
Catch 22

Would it?