Shamima Begum and the Securitisation of Citizenship

Statelessness

In February of 2023, Shamima Begum was denied the right to appeal the British government’s decision to remove her citizenship. This case brings to attention the rising trend of states stripping individuals of their citizenship in recent years. This report aims to highlight the perplexing practice of stripping individuals of their citizenship and to understand this worrying trend, the case of Shamima Begum will first be explored to explain the intricacies and issues with this.

The decision to remove Shamima Begum’s citizenship is controversial for several reasons beginning with the issue of statelessness. According to the UNHCR, a Stateless Person is defined as, “a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law”. A stateless person is not a national of any country. Despite the 1961 UN Convention aiming to prevent and reduce statelessness, individuals continue to be stripped of their citizenship. In this case, the United Kingdom removed Begum’s citizenship citing her eligibility for Bangladeshi citizenship, however, Bangladesh’s Foreign Ministry refuted this claim by stating that she never was a citizen and would not be allowed to enter the country.

The second issue that arises from rendering Begum stateless is the issue of precedent. In Great Britain, the Home Office has already stripped the citizenship of over 400 people since 2006. The case of Begum has attracted the world’s attention and risks setting a wider precedent. Ignoring the circumstances under which she was recruited by ISIS, there is a valid argument for Begum to be considered a threat to national security for partaking in terrorist activities. However, many believe there to be insufficient to prosecute her on terror charges in Great Britain. Notwithstanding this contradiction, it was deemed fit to remove her citizenship. The state is punishing Begum for a crime that she cannot be tried for in the United Kingdom. In effect, this gives the state the right to strip anyone of their citizenship on ‘reasonable doubt’ or ‘suspicion’. 

The reason this could set a worrying precedent is that should another situation arise where there is insufficient evidence to charge an individual suspected of being involved in activities threatening the United Kingdom’s national security, the solution would not be to give the individual an opportunity to defend themselves against these charges, but instead stripping them of their citizenship. Preventing an individual from having a fair trial is not only undemocratic but also shows a lack of faith in the judiciary by the legislature. This method could be misused and make it easier for the state to infringe on the rights of anyone suspected of such activities. This builds to the larger point being made here about the practice of stripping individuals' citizenship - it is a practice that should be abolished altogether. 

Finally, the issue of Begum is more complicated than it seems because she was a possible victim of child trafficking and grooming. In 2022, a cross-party group of MPs concluded that ISIS were able to traffic women and children from the United Kingdom. The Special Immigration Appeal Commission that rejected her appeal acknowledged that she may have been a victim of child trafficking. Yet, despite no certainty that she was not a victim, they decided to remove her citizenship. 

The Dangers of Statelessness

According to the UNHCR, statelessness often results from discrimination based on race, religion, gender, language, or ethnicity. States can also remove an individual's citizenship based on discriminatory changes to national law that could leave large populations stateless. An example of such laws would be the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens in India which could potentially leave millions of people stateless.  

Leaving millions of people stateless solves nothing as these people have nowhere to go and therefore, there is minimal ability to rehabilitate. This would either lead to stress on the domestic prison population or add to a region’s instability through large movements of populations. 

Stateless people have no access to legal rights, and often no access to healthcare, education, and property rights. Therefore, rendering more people stateless is counter-productive as it does not solve any issue and often leads people into situations that deprive them of basic human rights.

Securitisation of Citizenship Globally

While this case grabs the headlines, it is certainly not unique. As mentioned earlier, Great Britain had already stripped the citizenship of around 400 people of which 175 lost their citizenship on grounds of national security. Today, depriving an individual of their citizenship is seen as an instrument of counter-terrorism. Europe is at the centre of the phenomenon with 18 of the 37 countries that have expanded such powers in Europe.

A report by the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion and the Global Citizenship Observatory found that 79% had the option to deprive individuals of their citizenship on the grounds of security. The report also indicates that ‘disloyalty’ in some form or the other is grounds for denying an individual their citizenship in 134 countries and three-quarters of these countries have no policy to ensure that individuals are not left stateless.

States such as Belarus, Bahrain, Nicaragua, Russia, and Ukraine had stripped individuals of their citizenship as recently as early 2023. Similarly, in recent years Australia and Israel have passed laws making it easier to remove an individual's citizenship. 

The Problems

The right to nationality is fundamental and by stripping individuals of their citizenship, states are infringing on some of the most basic human rights. States stripping individuals of their citizenship thereby rendering them stateless goes against the very essence of the UN Convention on Statelessness which aims to prevent and reduce statelessness.

Despite being warned by security experts on the counter-productive nature of stripping individuals of their citizenship, states continue to ramp up these measures. Removing an individual's citizenship neither addresses the problem nor solves it. As seen in the case of Begum, despite there being believed to be a lack of evidence to prosecute her in British Courts, she is still considered a threat to national security.

The securitisation of citizenship and removing individuals from their citizenship is a dangerous practice that needs to be checked before this worrying trend explodes into a world full of individuals rendered stateless because of it. The only way to keep this practice ‘in check’ is by abolishing it altogether because given the circumstances, stripping an individual's citizenship is the easiest option states have in grey areas. This is evident in the case of Begum. 

The aim of this report is not to defend or attack an individual's actions. The aim is to highlight that stripping an individual of their citizenship is a problematic practice that needs to be replaced with more ethical and effective practices. This argument is evidenced by the case of Shamima Begum - a victim of grooming and child trafficking, who cannot be prosecuted on the charges brought against her and is yet punished. Today, Begum is a case study, tomorrow, this case is a precedent for states to strip an individual of their citizenship despite not having the necessary evidence to do so. States will continue to take stringent precautions regarding their domestic security, but they should not have the power to punish them for a crime that they cannot be prosecuted for.