I thought passports can be confiscated/cancelled without any need for any legal process does it not say that inside your passport? Is the issue of the passport not at the discretion on the Home Office?

What does the 1961 convention state ?



Nigel Farage has been promoting himself as a sage on everything on TV again by declaring that there is a law still in force from the 1870s that allows the country to remove citizenship from anyone found to be guilty of aiding a foreign state, he believes it was used in the two world wars for anyone who opted to fight for Germany (for instance).



Its possible that Nigel may not have researched the subject properly though.

If the guy carrying out that execution was born and raised in Britain, and has a British passport, then he is technically Brtish, regardless of his actions.



Still a horrible c*nt, though.

[url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/statelessness.pdfThis[/url



To pick a single point

How is this relevant? It is not compulsory for any British citizen to ever hold a passport, and cancellation of a passport is irrelevant to nationality.

That's what I thought too. The Home Office or Border Agency or whoever is in charge of passports presumably could quite easily cancel their passports.



But they can't have their citizenship taken away.

I'm at a loss to understand what use cancelling passports would be.

Well it can't do any harm to try and restrict their movements should they try to. But identifying exactly who they are could be very difficult.

The 2014 Immigration Act allows those who acquired citizenship by registration or naturalisation to have it removed on the basis of certain conduct, so a full examination of this guy's past, if they ever work out who he is, would be needed. In any case it can only be done if the Home Sec believes that the person can then become a national of another country. Not sure if that has all been enacted yet but it will be soon, I think.



Cancelling a passport would restrict travel as the cancellation would come up at an airport immigration scan, and so entry to wherever, if being done properly, could be denied, and potentially the person could be arrested. Alternatively we have a load of British terrorists wandering round airside like Tom Hanks

It is in force, but the point is (and most likely the psychopath was chosen for the job for the same reason) about British-born jihadists.







Not following this; if we know who he is then he could be detained by ANY border agency which detected a flag against his name, what would cancelling his passport add? It might even make it worse, as surely if the flag said "suspected psychopath terrorist" then the relevant border agency might act in one way, whereas if all they thought they were dealing with is some guy with a cancelled passport, they might not be ready with appropriate security.

The discussion on this started with the suggestion from Dita's that:



If the chap was identified and landed at Gatwick I should imagine we'd be rather keen to keep hold of him rather than send him back anywhere. The status of his passport would be the least of his troubles. But again, there is confusion here. If a British national arrives at the border incoming, he could not be refused entry. You only need a passport to enter other countries. Having had your valid British passport cancelled whilst abroad simply is not a reason to deny a person entry. If he is British then he is our problem.

True. Wasn't aware that part was actually in force yet as a lot of the other provisions of the act start in October. As you say, British-born nutters aren't affected though.





Cancelling the passport might prevent him or anyone actually getting on a plane in the first place, but governments don't necessarily share their suspect index lists, so if they tried to get a plane in Russia for example they might not know how dodgy he was. Cancelling the passport would flag up a problem to anyone though.



It's pretty moot anyway as there may well be some sort of accident befalling him while he is being arrested, if the airstrikes don't get him first.







I'm sure they'd keep hold of him too, but he'd have to prove he was British to gain entry. With no passport, or a cancelled one, how would he do that? The current immigration climate would suggest that a person with dark skin and no proof of identity or nationality might well end up in a detention centre before being sent back whence he came. Must admit I've never tried to get through immigration without some proper acceptable proof that I'm British.

If HMG decided that all those ISIS guys out there were not welcome back in the UK, could we not simply refuse entry on terrorism grounds?



Personally, I'd ship any who tried off on the first available flight to Cuba for our american chums to play with.....

which would make us as barbaric as them.

As has been said, how can you deny statehood to a born & bred British citizen?



Where would you ship a suspected terrorist back to? It's a fair bet that any jihadists won't be flying in from Iraq or Syria and would we really simply want to turn them back to carry on their "war on the West"? Unlike the way we buggered around with Hamza and Quatada, any such listed people should be put before a court ASAP.



As an aside, [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/jihadist-radicalisation-islam-for-dummies_b_5697160.html?utm_hp_ref=ukwhat the would-be jihadist is reading before he goes to war[/url

So to be British you just need to have born and raised here - Surely if u rail against the very fabric of British society, then that qualification becomes invalid??... .... It's up there with supposed Catholics, who visit church once every blue moon, live with partners outside of marriage, and indulge in sex using contraceptives - They are not Catholics in the same way these jihadists are not British.



There are rules you should have to follow to be a member of any community, whether it be British, Catholic, a Union, etc - One of the rules of being British should be that you don't nob off to fight some holy war, threatening to wage terror on the very things that you will have learnt during your British upbringing, such as respect for others and freedom of speech and thought for everybody.



The irony is, I am not normally one for patriotic British nonsense, in a UKIP, Nigel Farage manner, however, the idea that these scum can be labelled something that millions have fought for the right to be called, is an absolute travesty... Call them terrorists, freedom fighters, or whatever, just don't call them British.

Nope. If you're born here you're British regardless of what you do. There should never ever be any rules or qualification on citizenship for people born here.

That could work in a totalitarian state and if you'd be happy to live in that, you're welcome to it. I really shouldn't but I will invoke Pastor Martin Niemoller here: "first they came for....." You know the rest



Children are not born Catholic or of any other religion, they are introduced or indoctrinated into it.



Children are born, with very few exceptions, into a nationality or statehood. That position may be renounced in later years but the numbers who are born "stateless" are infinitessimily small.



I asked previously why we do not lump British Jews who choose to undertake Israeli National Service (although they have no legal obligation to do so), in the same group as the jihadists. Perhaps you could offer a rational explanation?



What will happen here is that the state will gain ever more control over our lives, in the name of "National Security". This is despite the fact that far more women are killed by their partners, or gays killed by homophobes, than ordinary UK citizens killed by terrorists. As catastrophic as the London bombings were, more people have been killed by other means, than terrorism. Yet we see no real drive to introduce new laws and restrictions on personal liberties to combat this. If we ploughed the same amount of money into developing new anti-biotics as we do anti-terrorism, we'd see far fewer people dying from illnesses than would ever die from terrorism.



Get some fooking perspective and stop viewing illegal war-porn websites

I wonder, what is the legal status of children who have been born in the UK to parents who are detained as "refugees" or "illegal immigrants"?

How to stop IS?



Well for a start I'd stop sending arms to the Syrian terrorists fighting the Assad regime.

Alternatively you could stop removing strong men/ dictators etc from their positions where they actuallly oppose the jihadists ie Assad, Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein all of whom were the enemies of the jihadists.



As opposed to those lovely nice saudis and Quataris who all actively support the jihadists





Then again if you were nasty to those saudi sheiks who would keep the property boom in London going ( particularly as we are ing off the Russian oligarchs )

To be honest, having watched some IS atrocities on youtube, though not the murder of James Foley, I am quite happy for the Yanks to bomb IS until they can't find anything bigger than a tooth or fingernail.

have you watched any videos of the American atrocities in Vietnam/Japan/Iraq?

No doubt if we'd had social media in the times of the crusades there would be plenty to see



But it still doesnt make it ok to murder innocent communities

I bet those videos didn't stay up for long though on YouTube.

Coddy, Israeli s/Jews are not murdering scum ergo they can never be lumped in the same category as those murdering jihadist/IS/Hamas etc scum bags



HTH



Also just because you are born in a certain country doesnt make you a national of that country.

When we were stationed in Singapore in the mid 60s friends of the family had a baby girl born over there in Changi. she was British not Singaporean.

Same goes for all forces kids born abroad.They are Brits.