‘Citizenship is not a right, it’s a privilege’ were the words spoken during the debate in the commons on the amendment of the Immigration Bill; a contentious bill which undoubtedly has Britain divided. For some who were born British, they inherited an identity many in distant countries were jealous of. After all, it is an identity which stands for tolerance; it is an identity which stands for power, and until recently, it was an identity which stood for freedom. With our red passports, British citizens were almost viewed as being armed with a shield, for this is a passport which apparently gave people protection and hope. 

Citizenship is however a social invention, created to strengthen nationalism and to help develop an understanding of what the values and expectations are of people living in a given country. However, it could be argued that as of late, citizenship is not based on facts but rather it is based on opinions as what it means to one person does not necessarily correlate with someone else. This is what has happened in the UK. Even dating back to the Cold War, the West, including the UK, has had to define and redefine what their identity means. Being British was about rejecting communism and its evils; it was about believing in a free market economy and establishing a home which conformed to the two. Of course, not everybody followed this notion and henceforth were considered as un-British. And now, the same is true but the enemy is no longer communism or Russia. Who knows actually what or who the enemy is? But what is known is that the goal posts have changed and more than ever, there certainly is a growing number of people who feel like strangers in a country they once considered as home. 

Amending the Immigration Bill does a number of things, but ultimately, it gives the Home Secretary unequivocal power to remove the citizenship of people simply considered as ‘suspects’. It is clear that the government does not want a repeat of the Abu Qatada case - where their misapplication of due process caused embarrassment and anger - but amending this bill is not a solution. There is absolutely no clarity as to what constitutes a suspect, just that the “suspect” is believed to cause a perceived risk to the country. But detention or removal of citizenship cannot be justified simply based on a suspicion. Hasn’t Guantanamo Bay or control orders and TPIMs proved that suspicion ruins innocent lives and robs people of precious time that they will never get back? Isn’t it the case that actual criminals are not even stripped of their citizenships?

It is certainly true that citizenship is not a right anymore but a privilege. If this amendment comes to power, it will slowly become clear who is considered as privileged and who isn’t. Slight glimpses emerged with the disappearance of Mahdi Hashi and the recent passport fiasco with Moazzam Begg but more than likely, a pattern will emerge as to who is being targeted. What this amendment has demonstrated is that behind that red passport is paper, not a shield.