European governments’ embrace of policy that grants stripping of citizenship

The idea of revoking citizenship for crimes threatening national security originated in the UK with support from far-right groups and has since spread globally. This shift reflects broader trends in politics, as far-right and nationalist movements gain ground, linking citizenship to crime, and potentially creating a division between citizens and marginalized groups.

In light of the emerging practice of this policy across Europe, The Guardian publication has traced this policy's roots to the early 2000s when the UK government, under Tony Blair, began portraying citizenship as a privilege to be earned rather than a right. Christian Joppke, a sociology professor at the Swiss University of Bern, explains that this concept of "earned citizenship" made it easier to revoke citizenship for criminal acts. Countries like Sweden, Finland, and Germany have taken this idea further, proposing that serious crimes could lead to citizenship withdrawal, which is a relatively new development.

Sweden recently announced plans to change its constitution, allowing the revocation of citizenship for crimes such as espionage or treason. Iceland has also started discussing similar measures for serious crimes, while the Netherlands has explored revoking citizenship for crimes with antisemitic motives. The concept even appeared in Germany's February election, when Friedrich Merz suggested revoking citizenship for dual nationals convicted of crimes.

Merz's proposal faced criticism, with commentators arguing it would make some individuals "Germans on probation," perpetuating the notion of “racist discrimination.” Merz's stance was also seen as supporting remigration—the far-right idea of deporting migrants, including those with citizenship. Joppke believes this shift is tied to the rise of the far-right, with governments focusing on physical security rather than the welfare promises of the past, such as jobs or housing.

European governments have long considered stripping citizenship from individuals convicted of terrorism, with the laws primarily targeting dual nationals due to international restrictions against creating stateless individuals. Tanya Mehra, a senior research fellow, highlights the risks of creating second-class citizens by making distinctions based on nationality. Dual nationals could be punished twice, facing both prison time and citizenship revocation. Mehra's research shows cases where individuals were stranded in a country after their citizenship was revoked because their second nationality country refused to accept them, rendering them illegal.

A prominent example in the UK was that of Shamima Begum, often referred to as a "Daesh bride" for marrying an ISIS member after leaving the UK, lost the first stage of her court appeal in 2021 against the Home Office's decision to revoke her British citizenship. Though she did not remain stateless as her parents have Bangladeshi citizenship, her British citizenship was stripped on national security grounds after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp in 2019 with her children, whom she had given birth to during her time with ISIS. Begum traveled to Syria in 2015 to join the terrorist group without her parents' knowledge, when she was still a minor.

This situation can push individuals underground, potentially increasing their vulnerability to exploitation by criminal groups. In Denmark, where citizenship revocation laws were expanded in 2021 to include gang-related crimes, there is little evidence that these changes have reduced crime. Somdeep Sen of Roskilde University notes that the policy has contributed to xenophobic public discourse, incorrectly linking immigration to crime. The long-term impact of these changes has deeply affected marginalized communities in Denmark.

By Nazrin Sadigova