What is the Nationality and Borders Bill and why is it so controversial?
The bill includes removal of British Citizenship without notice and rules changes surrounding saving people at sea
Last updated 27th May 2022
Priti Patel's Nationality and Borders Bill passed it's second reading in the House of Commons yesterday but was met with scrutiny from opposing MPS and Patel's peers, including former judges and lawyers.
The legislation has been described as "the cornerstone of the government's New Plan for Immigration, delivering the most comprehensive reform in decades to fix the broken asylum system" by Ministers.
Ministers have said the three main aims of the legislation are:
- 'To make the system fairer and more effective so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum'.
- 'To deter illegal entry into the UK breaking the business model of criminal trafficking networks and saving lives'.
- 'To remove from the UK those with no right to be here'.
But what is the Nationality and Borders Bill and why is it receiving so much scrutiny?
What is so controversial about the Nationality and Borders Bill?
Under a new clause added to the government’s Nationality and Borders Bill, which was proposed by Home Secretary Priti Patel, people in the United Kingdom could be stripped of their citizenship without any warning.
Clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill, proposed in July and updated in November, allows the government to give a person no notice of a decision to deprive them of citizenship if authorities do not have the subject’s contact details or if it is not “reasonably practical” to do so.
Concerns have been raised surrounding the bill, as it could lead to people being stripped of their citizenship regardless of how long they have lived in the country.
The Home Office has said those stripped of their citizenship could reapply.
The Nationality and Borders Bill is a step that follows 2014's Immigration Act, which was brought in by then-home secretary Theresa May.
This act allowed the Government to strip a naturalised Brit of their citizenship even if it made them stateless, as long as they could apply for another nationality.
Before this, if the government were to strip someone of their British citizenship, they had to have another nationality, according to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Life imprisonment for helping asylum seekers enter the country
Migrant crossings are once again at the forefront of British discourse, after 27 migrants died attempting to cross the channel on Wednesday 24 November last month.
However, new legislation written in the bill would ban some boats from rescuing asylum seekers out at sea.
Clause 40 states that amendments will be made to the Immigration Act 1971, so that 'imprisonment for life' would be implemented for 'helping asylum seeker to enter United Kingdom'.
This means that RNLI lifeboat volunteers, and any other search and rescue teams with an explicit mandate allowing them to rescue asylum seekers out at sea, would be able to assist if their lives are in danger.
However, those organisations or people without an explicit mandate would be breaching the law and could face life imprisonment.
Zarah Sultana, MP for Coventry South, described this clause as: 'criminalising boats rescuing people at sea'.
Ms Patel said the legislation would authorise "boat turnarounds" following a sharp rise in people making perilous journeys across the English Channel.
The Home Secretary has also said that Border Force staff will be immune from prosecution of they commit criminal offences while pushing boats back.
UN Refugee Agency have said: "The Bill revolves around the notion that refugees are required to seek asylum in the first safe country they find. To be clear, this principle is not found in the Refugee Convention".
Legality questioned by senior lawyers and former judge
The legality of Priti Patel's plans to turn back migrant boats at sea has been called into question by peers, including senior lawyers and a former judge.
The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has written to the Home Secretary, expressing "concerns" over the legal basis for the so-called pushbacks.
The letter adds to "growing concern both in and outside Parliament" over the policy proposed in a bid to curb Channel crossings, peers said.
Ms Patel insisted the plan has a "legal basis" when questioned by the committee in October, despite concerns being repeatedly raised over its legality and effectiveness which prompted campaigners to threaten her with legal action.
The bill is being scrutinised by Parliament and Amnesty International on whether it is breaching legislations related to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Refugee Convention.
Human Rights Joint Committee said: 'Plans to criminalise those arriving in the UK without a visa or immigration leave are inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention, which explicitly prohibits refugees being penalised for unauthorised entry'.
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK's refugee and migrant rights director, said: "Dangerous at-sea pushbacks should be absolutely ruled out, while other draconian measures in the Nationality and Borders Bill need to be dropped."