Nationality and Borders bill

[papasmurf]

As far as I can tell, this new bill is entirely within the constraints of the UN human rights charter. 

Are you a qualified expert in international law?

[Baff]

No ,its the opinion of the supreme court . A bill can not break international law as domestic law over rides it .

International law is nothing more than a number of identical national laws across multiple countries.


International law can't be broken as it isn't a law in and of itself.
The treaty to use the same law can be broken.

As far as I can tell, this new bill is entirely within the constraints of the UN human rights charter. But it doesn't matter if it isn't. The job of governments is to change laws if they are not working for the electorate who are governed by them.

[cromwell]

She got it by being born to an American father married to a British mother. She was destined to go to the States with both her parents, but her mother died of TB when she was still a baby. It was then agreed that her father would return to the States without his daughter - my mum - who remained here to be raised by her grandparents. But whilst his wife was still alive her father had ensured that his daughter - my mum - had US nationality as well as British.

If you must know.

No I didn't need to know,I was joking Duel you put as in pistols at dawn as opposed to dual as in .......oh never mind.

[srb7677]

Did she win it by pistols at dawn or a sword fight?

She got it by being born to an American father married to a British mother. She was destined to go to the States with both her parents, but her mother died of TB when she was still a baby. It was then agreed that her father would return to the States without his daughter - my mum - who remained here to be raised by her grandparents. But whilst his wife was still alive her father had ensured that his daughter - my mum - had US nationality as well as British.

If you must know.

[srb7677]

As a dual national myself I welcome it  and see nothing in it that would effect anyone but those deemed a threat to the UK 

You are way too trusting,

[Streetwalker]

It can't pass an opinion on legislation in progress.

It wouldn't need to would it  ?

[papasmurf]

No ,its the opinion of the supreme court . 

It can't pass an opinion on legislation in progress.

[Streetwalker]

In your opinion.

No ,its the opinion of the supreme court . A bill can not break international law as domestic law over rides it . 

[papasmurf]

It doesn't break international law

In your opinion.

[Streetwalker]

That you can't see a problem with it is frankly worrying.  Removal of nationality without being informed about it is beyond nasty.

To be honest with you papa there have been times when I would have welcomed it 

[Streetwalker]

Some of that bill breaks international law, so I can see it getting  kicked back to the House of Commons by the House of Lords.

It doesn't break international law though it may be in conflict with it .  Any International law to become law in the UK needs to be legislated through Parliament . 

The UK  supreme court made this clear in the Miller v the state case (European union treaties) when they said '' Although international treaties  are binding on the United Kingdom international treaties are not part of UK law and give no legal rights or obligations on domestic law ''.  (or words to that effect) 

The Lords will no doubt send it back to the commons where it will be sent straight back and so forth (Is it three times ? ) before it will be passed 

 

[papasmurf]

As a dual national myself I welcome it  and see nothing in it that would effect anyone but those deemed a threat to the UK

That you can't see a problem with it is frankly worrying.  Removal of nationality without being informed about it is beyond nasty.

[cromwell]

This is a potential sticking point for me. Firstly, what constitutes up to no good? Breaking the law encompasses everything from mass murder to doing 31 in a 30mph zone and everything in between. At what point does a crime become serious enough to remove nationality and who decides, with what checks and balances and what legal rights to appeal?

And duel nationality includes a lot of people who were born and raised here and have never lived anywhere else. My own mother has duel nationality since her father was an American soldier here during the war, yet she was born and raised here and has never once set foot in the USA.

Yes there will be some who were born and raised elsewhere and migrated here as adults and only gained citizenship much later. Revoking that citizenship for serious crimes makes sense in such cases. But doing so for anyone born here or who were brought here as very young children would be shirking our responsibilities.

And it does tend to pander to the "go back to your own effing country" brigade who so often say this to the children and grandchildren of immigrants who were themselves born here, largely due to skin colour and ethnicity racism. It is a dog whistle law potentially.

I would be fully in favour of this law if it's application were restricted to people not born here and who were adults already when they came here, and that any revocation of citizenship in such cases be at the discretion of a judge rather than a politician. And any offence committed ought to be serious enough to have merited a prison sentence for revocation of citizenship to be a consideration.

Without such limitations we could at it's worst see people who were born and raised here being deported to a country they have no personal experience of for doing 32mph in a 30 zone. If a politician gets to decide they are potentially open to all kinds of partisan considerations, eg is he politically with us or against us, for example. Or has he donated anything to us or our opponents? And so on.

Did she win it by pistols at dawn or a sword fight?

[Streetwalker]

This is a potential sticking point for me. Firstly, what constitutes up to no good? Breaking the law encompasses everything from mass murder to doing 31 in a 30mph zone and everything in between. At what point does a crime become serious enough to remove nationality and who decides, with what checks and balances and what legal rights to appeal?

And duel nationality includes a lot of people who were born and raised here and have never lived anywhere else. My own mother has duel nationality since her father was an American soldier here during the war, yet she was born and raised here and has never once set foot in the USA.

Yes there will be some who were born and raised elsewhere and migrated here as adults and only gained citizenship much later. Revoking that citizenship for serious crimes makes sense in such cases. But doing so for anyone born here or who were brought here as very young children would be shirking our responsibilities.

And it does tend to pander to the "go back to your own effing country" brigade who so often say this to the children and grandchildren of immigrants who were themselves born here, largely due to skin colour and ethnicity racism. It is a dog whistle law potentially.

I would be fully in favour of this law if it's application were restricted to people not born here and who were adults already when they came here, and that any revocation of citizenship in such cases be at the discretion of a judge rather than a politician. And any offence committed ought to be serious enough to have merited a prison sentence for revocation of citizenship to be a consideration.

Without such limitations we could at it's worst see people who were born and raised here being deported to a country they have no personal experience of for doing 32mph in a 30 zone. If a politician gets to decide they are potentially open to all kinds of partisan considerations, eg is he politically with us or against us, for example. Or has he donated anything to us or our opponents? And so on.

The problem with having degrees of what's a good reason to remove nationality status is that it plays into the hands of lawyers and various human rights organisations . I for one has had enough of the delay and piss taking of those people .

After due consideration by the home office is good enough for me and I don't really care  if they were born here or abroad . Removing nationality is a tool we can use in the fight against various criminal activities and terrorism and it should be used wherever it is deemed necessary .

As a dual national myself I welcome it  and see nothing in it that would effect anyone but those deemed a threat to the UK 

[papasmurf]

Some of that bill breaks international law, so I can see it getting  kicked back to the House of Commons by the House of Lords.