Should we be able to deprive people of British nationality?

Thinking further on your comment about consequences, nanban, I think some people lack the imagination to as it were work out consequences (either that or they are just willing to take the risk). What I'm thinking is that such a person would not be able to imagine consequences for their family either (either that or they wouldn't care and would still be willing to take the risk). Sad that there are such people, but even sadder to blame their innocent relatives for those 'failings'.

I think if a jail sentence (loss of freedom) and/or fines (loss of wealth) for conviction are not enough to stop someone doing criminal things, then vague threats to his or her family won't either. Besides which, sanctions against innocent people would be unethical, and I hope most British nationals would be strongly opposed to such things.

Perhaps when people are directly committing purposeful crimes they should consider all the consequences and think better of it. If there is no jeopardy how can consequences have any meaning or affect.

The idea of visiting the sins of a father or mother on their children is barbaric.
So is visiting the sins of a man or woman on his or her partner. People should only be directly punished for crimes they themselves have committed. Anything else is utterly uncivilised.

Surely the point is that the partners and children of the criminal should be affected by their actions - it is their responsibility not to endanger their dependants, not that of others to pick up the pieces of their crime.

Citizenship, asylum, visiting, having a holiday I don't differentiate, if you are a serious criminal you should not be allowed through the gate.

The likes of the Janjweed militia soldier who admitted to slaughter in Darfur but is not permitted to be deported because of his human rights and is allowed to stay in this country indefinately. The Roumanian women who commited benefit fraud to the tune of 3 million pounds giving immigrants false national insurance numbers, cannot be deported. War crimes suspects etc. etc.

The question asked was a generalisation, I don't keep names!. I have no ill will to new citizens or asylum seekers but I don't think it is a system that should be abused or it loses the good intention behind it. It does an injustice to those decent law abiding new citizens and asylum seekers who genuinely want to integrate in the country they have chosen and be decent members of our society.

You say:

"We have case after case of british citizenship being afforded to the likes of those who openly admit to partaking in genocide, rapists and peadophiles etc. etc."

For example?

Lilygran

Yes I do think people should be stripped of their british citizenship and it should be clearly stated at the time of applying.

I have a view that there are distinct reasons why and I am sure I will be taken to task for saying so.

We have case after case of british citizenship being afforded to the likes of those who openly admit to partaking in genocide, rapists and peadophiles etc. etc. Why? DOES NOT THE BRITISH CITIZEN HAVE A HUMAN RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM THESE PEOPLE?

If you have applied to become a citizen of any country, forget U.K. you surely have a duty to the country to behave, work hard and certainly not commit an offence against the law of that country. We have many G.N. on this site who live abroad, whether or not they have taken out citizenship of their chosen country surely they accept that they must behave appropriately or suffer the consequences. Why would you think you have an entitlement to break the law and get away with it.

If I had a house guest for a while and he stole my belongings, committed fraud, murdered my family or neighbours, abused a child, espoused terrorism
or murder of non muslims, would I not be entitled to kick him out of my home.

There is always a circumsatance for a persons actions! If you behave in a manner that causes hate, loss of life or distress to others you should forgo the right to continue to live as a citizen of the country you have adopted as you have failed in your duty and oath of being a law abiding citizen. As for the family their circumstance should be looked at independantly but I have no qualms in saying the perpetrator had no thought nor care of his/her family did he/she. I am not particularly talking of 'low level' crime such as driving with no tax and insurance and I don't think that anybody would. No we are talking of the hardened criminals who either continued with their chosen criminal lifestyle, or those who want to do harm to their adoptive country. They probably left their birth country because they are evading justice and we are an open door.

I will now put on my hard hat.

And she's not a widow.

Coffee alert!

Sorry! Her extrodited husband!

The current widow of Abu Hamza has not been charged with criminal offences, has she? I think it would be an abuse of justice to visit on her head the crimes of her dead husband.

The red tape can get silly as well. I know someone who is German but who met a Brit in Australia whom she later married in England. They bought a house in England. She became pregnant but her husband, the father, was killed in a road accident before the child was born. That child was born in Britain and is British, even though he has a German mother. They carried on living in England. After some years, the woman got together with another man but did not marry him. They had a child. Because she was not married to the British father this time, her second child is German, even though he was born in Britain and has a British father and has always lived in Britain. The woman then got pregnant again by the same bloke. They got married while she was pregnant. So the third child is British.

Seems a bit daft to me that they can't all be British. It's just inflexible red tape that prevents it.

I suppose child no.2 will be able to apply for British citizenship when he is old enough.

I agree that citizenship/nationality once granted should be honoured.

To be stateless is terrible and there were lots of cases in Switzerland because being born there or married to a Swiss entiltled you to nothing. The offspring then were stateless unles they had the privledge of having another nationality through a parent. The have now amended this law for newborn children but I don't know the details.
I accompanied a Polish woman from a German Women's refuge who gave birth to a daughter. The mother maintained she was of German descent and was divorced from a Polish man and the father of the child was Greek and she wanted a divorce from him as well which the Greek authorities wouldn't give her.
I sat with the registrar many hours as we tried to get the paperwork done. These papers were in Greek script and in Polish and were huge volumes of divorce court cases. The translation costs would have been very high.

Little Isabel was already 3 months old and eventually the registrar gave in and gave her the German citzenship and we all heaved a sigh of relief. You see it can be done It is sometimes an humane act and mostly has a good outcome. Once given it must be honoured.

America were quite happy to deport spouses and children of people killed in the Twin Towers.

As for Abu whatsisname, I doubt he'll ever get out of an American prison so his return here is not going to happen - which will save us a whole bunch of money - but it should be made possible for any assets he may have here to be used to pay off all the legal bills to get him deported. His family here should be deported as undesirables - didn't that used to be possible or am I again remembering a more sensible country?

Several times recently Australia has returned to Britain people who emigrated to Australia as small children with their parents, never got round to taking out Australian citizenship and then committed criminal offences. One paedophile in his late sixties hadn't lived in Britain for over 50 years. No idea what the UK police did when he arrived or how he supported himself over here

Yes I think i remember hearing about one of those cases Faye . I can understand why the Australian government are wary though, as they are a very attractive migration option.
And not just from europe.
But they would draw the line at chucking out criminals or suspected criminals who did have citizenship. Even if dual nationality held I think.
Greatnan you reprobate. I got told off about muddy boots but fortunately I had "fessed up" and they cleaned them immaculately in Auckland.

When I emigrate to New Zealand, my daughter and her husband will have to commit themselves to paying for any medical or nursing care I might need.
I will be paying quite a bit each month for health insurance and at the moment I am extremely fit and healthy, but who knows what the future might bring? There is nobody in Europe who could be my carer should I need one. I don't think this is unreasonable of the NZ authorities - I have not contributed to their economy as I have to the UK. I will be very careful not to break any laws! (Even trying to 'smuggle' in an apple which the stupid airline gave me just before we landed, and which I put in my bag and forgot!)

The Australian Government has deported a couple of habitual criminals that I know of JessM who were born in other countries, brought here as very young children and luckily had not bothered to get citizenship. They felt Australian and were reported as finding it very difficult left in a strange country even though they born there.

The Australian Government also deported an elderly British woman who was living with her son and his Australian wife and grandchildren. They thought she would be a drain on our health service. This poor woman had no other family in the UK, her family packed up and went to live in the UK too.

They also deported a couple who were refugees and they left their Australian born toddlers here. There is often no rhyme or reason for their decisions.

I seem to remember some news story about someone who couldn't be deported to his home country after completing a prison sentence because his home country refused to take him. Someone out there on Gransnet will know about the legal aspects of refusing to accept your own nationals.

There are people 'sloshing about the globe' who have no nationality. There was a small group of them parading in the Olympic opening ceremony who were stateless.

Your reasoning has convinced me, Jess!

Well put, jess. I've a feeling that Egypt might not want Hamza back in just the same way. If he were to apply to become an Egyptian citizen again, that would be a different matter. Otherwise, it looks as if there would be people sloshing about the globe, so to speak, with no nationality. How would we cope with them? Periodically put them on a one way rocket into space? Somehow I don't think that's an option.

Thought of a better example while having a shower.
Australia have some nasty criminals. Organised crime/biker gang/gun crime criminals. If we assume (and it is not unreasonable to do so) that some of them were born as UK nationals and at some stage gained Australian citizenship.
How would we feel if the Australian government decided that these people (who may or may not have convictions) were no longer persona grata and we could have em back on the next plane. It would be a kind of breach of international understanding about what granting citizenship means.

Yes I know you didn't *lilygran" but the thread wandered in that direction and I was just trying a "thought experiment" with an imaginary example.

If somebody lied to get citizenship there might be a case for rescinding it, depending on the severity of whatever they had concealed. For example, if a convicted sex offender failed to disclose his conviction.
I have never thought about this before, so I am not sure of the legal position, but I am wary of kneejerk reactions.