'Statelessness' amendment: Is citizenship a right or a privilege? Last week the House of Commons passed an amendment to the government's Immigration Bill which the Home Secretary announced at the last minute to give her the power to render terrorism suspects stateless by removing their British citizenship. At present, the Home Secretary already holds the power to take citizenship from dual nationals, but the amendment would see this extended to naturalized British citizens. Those who are declared stateless can be denied the right to own land or the right to vote, they can also be denied access to healthcare and education, and be detained without reason. The move was seen as a last ditch attempt to head off rebellion by backbench MP's demanding a number of amendments to the Immigration Bill that many would call unconstitutional, and impossible given Britain's commitments under the European Court of Human Rights. Among many critics to the amendment, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association stated that by enacting the amendment "the UK risks losing a proud position" as a standard bearer for human rights. A spokesman for the human-right's organization Reprieve also condemned the move, and said that it makes those who are rendered stateless much easier to target with drone strikes, as part of the ongoing War on Terror. But the government line on the amendment is that it is both a reasonable and necessary, with ministers at the Home Office stating that citizenship is a privilege, not a right. So is this a reasonable step, or an attack on the civil-liberties of terror suspects Joining Jonathan Steele to discuss this is Nic Conner, Director of Campaigns at the Bow Group, Omar Faruk, a lawyer and member of the Conservative Muslim Forum, and Patrick Galey of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

• published: 07 Feb 2014
• views: 55