Yesterday’s Daily Mail reported upon Mrs May’s desire to remove citizenship on terror suspects. Herewith: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2502717/Terror-suspects-lose-UK-citizenship-stateless-says-Theresa-May.html
There are many who would agree with her. However, do pursue this course of action she and her colleagues would have to do certain things:
They would have to restore the sovereign authority to the United Kingdom. This would mean leaving the European Union, renouncing the European Convention of Human Rights and also the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
Of course British Gazette readers can imagine the furore that this would provoke amongst such as Sharmishta Chakrabarti (the director of Liberty, the British civil liberties organisation) would not be a happy bunny! Angry would not even begin to describe Sharmishta Chakrabarti’s reaction.
The United States, which is not a signatory to the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons nor the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, is one of a small number of countries which will allow its citizens to renounce their citizenship even if they do not hold any other. The Foreign Affairs Manual instructs State Department employees to make it clear to Americans who will become stateless after renunciation that they may face extreme difficulties (including deportation back to the United States) following their renunciation, but instructs employees to afford such persons their right to give up citizenship. Former Americans who have voluntarily made themselves stateless as a form of political protest include Garry Davis, Thomas Jolley, Joel Slater, and most recently Mike Gogulski.
To forcibly remove (that is, without consent) citizenship on a person possessing no other citizenship however would be a pointless exercise as they would not be accepted in any other country. It is an impractical policy.
In order to make Mrs May’s proposal effective, there would have to be a means of enabling citizenship (of another state) to be acquired at the same time as British citizenship is removed. This would of course require the co-operation of another Sovereign State. This is not an unrealistic expectation. There are many states across the world who let us say can be regarded as repressive. Sudan is an excellent example. So, how could such an arrangement work?
Possibly like this: Sudan as we know is a repressive Muslim state. Within its prisons there are people Sudan would rather be rid of; Christians for instance. The UK as we know is not a repressive state but it too has people it would rather be rid of, Muslim extremists plotting to murder fellow British citizens for instance. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the government of Sudan could be persuaded to “do a swap” for a “consideration” of course! They would be happy to swap one of their Christian prisoners (who probably committed no more heinous offence than to fail to cover up in public) for one of our troublesome Muslim extremists.
Of course, this will not happen.