Stripping someone of their British citizenship is contentious, so a new clause allowing the government to revoke it without notice has reinvigorated the debate on how the Home Office views citizenship. Analysis by Laura Hutchinson of Dods Political Intelligence
Before the government stripped London-born Shamima Begum of her British citizenship in 2019 for joining Islamic State in Syria, many were unaware the home secretary had such powers at their disposal.
In fact, aspects of this authority have existed in some form since 1914. New powers included in the nationality and borders legislation have brought the subject back under parliamentary scrutiny, with concerns raised about the impact this practice could have on ethnic minorities.
Human rights groups insist the new powers will disproportionally impact non-white Britons
Clause nine specifies new powers to allow a home secretary to remove citizenship without prior notification. Previously the government had to notify individuals of its intention, thereby allowing ample time to appeal.
The Home Office argues this change is purely administrative and the powers are vital for national security. Human rights groups insist the new powers will disproportionally impact non-white Britons, and could punish individuals who have been groomed, trafficked, or coerced into criminal activity.
The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) argues the powers are “draconian” and could lead to unequal treatment for British-born citizens with dual nationality, or sole nationals who acquire another nationality.
Frances Webber, vice-chair of the IRR, tells The House the no-notice revocation clause “builds on discriminatory citizenship-stripping measures” and reminds dual nationals â€` mostly ethnic minorities â€` that “even if born here, they are not citizens by right, only by withdrawable privilege”.
The Home Office stresses it restricts the option of removing British citizenship to those who have obtained it by fraud or pose a threat to the UK, and failing to inform people their citizenship is being revoked will occur only in exceptional circumstances.
“That is not a policy change; the grounds on which that decision can be taken and the statutory right of

appeal from it remain unchanged,” former justice minister Lord Wolfson of Tredegar told Parliament.
Regardless, the change has reinvigorated the debate on how the Home Office views citizenship.
Speaking to The House, the Muslim Council of Britain says the new powers threaten Britain’s historic tradition of being a welcoming place, arguing the legislation presents an “affront to human rights that will have devastating consequences on a cross-section of our communities and wider society”.
“Nationality and citizenship are not a privilege but a human right. They cannot be removed, as this allows for, by the government and without question or appeal,” a spokesperson adds.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has a right to a nationality, but the government is clear the new powers, and its use of citizenship-stripping more widely, are consistent with international obligations.
Regardless, human rights groups argue the Home Office already has the broadest powers to strip citizenship of any G20 nation, and in recent years has deprived more people than any country in the world, with the exception of Bahrain.
Speaking to The House, Reprieve argues the government is moving in the wrong direction with these new powers.
“Rather than seek to extend these vast executive powers still further, it should reflect on how it has come to be so out of step with its allies on this key issue,” a spokesperson tells The House.
Responding to the criticism, a Home Office spokesperson says: “Our priority is to ensure the safety and security of the UK. Deprivation of citizenship is used against those who have acquired citizenship by fraud and against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists and serious organised criminals.
“Deprivation of citizenship only happens after very careful consideration of the facts and in accordance with international law. Each case is assessed individually on its own merits and always comes with the right of appeal.”
www.samigration.com V.4140

One of the highlighted topics: Critical Skills Visa.

- Key Insight: Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast track to working in South Afr...
- This matter relates to critical skills visa and its broader implications.
- Individuals are advised to seek professional guidance.

Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast trac V.6139
Click here for full article

One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, became a victim of identity theft in 2012 when fraudulent transactions occurred, using her personal details.

-The Pretoria High Court found that the department of home affairs had violated constitutional rights without due process.
-Only half of Lawyers for Human Rights` test group has been unblocked, while 385 000 identities remain blocked nationwide.
-LHR appeals extension, urges affected people to seek help now.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) are intensifying pressure on the department of home affairs over the national ID-blocking crisis, accusing the state of acting too slowly to unblock qualifying individuals despite a landmark court ruling.

In January last year, the Pretoria High Court found that the department`s practice of blocking IDs without due process was unlawful and unconstitutional. One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, a Swati citizen and South African permanent resident since 1998, fell victim to identity theft in 2012 when fraudsters used her personal details.

 V.6133
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6128
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6129
Click here for full article

A Washington state mother and her 6-year-old son have been released after spending more than three weeks in US immigration detention due to a brief trip to Canada and a small paperwork mistake, her attorney told CNN on Saturday.

Sarah Shaw, a New Zealand citizen who has lived legally in the US since she arrived in 2021, was detained at the Blaine, Washington, Customs and Border Protection checkpoint when returning home after dropping her two oldest children off at the Vancouver airport for a flight to visit their grandparents in New Zealand. Shaw, 33, chose the flight out of Vancouver because it was direct and she didn`t want her children to have to navigate a layover alone, her attorney Minda Thorward, told CNN.

 V.6130
Click here for full article

On 22 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court dismissed Sitrusrand Boerdery`s review of the Department of Employment and Labour`s refusal to issue a Working Conditions and Salary Benchmarking Certificate, an essential precondition for obtaining corporate visas under the Immigration Act.

Acting Judge Kekana AJ held that the Department`s decision was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. This judgment illustrates how businesses can - and must - structure their corporate visa applications to meet statutory requirements, and how legal practitioners should prepare robust review challenges when administrative authorities decline to recommend foreign-work permits.

 V.6131
Click here for full article

The United States could forfeit an estimated 9.4 billion dollars in visitor spending over the next three years following the introduction of a new 250 dollars `visa integrity fee,` according to industry groups, who warn the policy risks undermining tourism and costing thousands of jobs.
The United States’ decision to introduce a 250 dollars `visa integrity fee` on international visitors has triggered sharp criticism from the global tourism industry, with officials warning that the measure could deter millions of travellers and cost the U.S. economy billions.
The 250dollar `visa integrity fee,` part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed on July 4, 2025, will take effect later this year. According to immigration law firm Envoy Global, it applies to all nonimmigrant visa holders which include students, tourists, temporary workers, and business visitors particularly from African countries. V.6132
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6127
Click here for full article

1. Right to Legal Representation•You have the right to consult with a legal representative.•Contact an immigration practitioner, legal aid clinic, or attorney urgently.•Do not sign any documents without understanding them fully. 2. Section 34 of the Immigration Act•You must be brought to court with 48 hours to confirm arrest but you can remain locked up very long as courts figure out what to do with you •If you`re found to be illegally in South Africa, you may be detained for up to 30 days (extendable by a magistrate) pending deportation.•BUT this cannot happen arbitrarily. You must be informed of your rights, and Home Affairs must follow due process.- becomes a nightmare , you could lose your job , business , place to stay V.6121
Click here for full article

Driving for Bolt, Uber, Mr D, or Checkers Sixty60?If you`re undocumented, you`re risking more than just your income.The Risks if You`re Not Legal: - Vehicle impoundment - Heavy fines - Arrest & deportation - Permanent bans from working in SA V.6122
Click here for full article