Might we be in the midst of an era in which governments feel empowered to strip citizens of their nationality? There has been an uptick of this activity in response to the war in Ukraine, as countries reconsider so-called “golden passport” schemes allowing foreign-born investors—including those from Russia—to buy citizenship abroad. Latvia’s parliament in April approved a law allowing the government to revoke citizenship for people who commit war crimes, with a clear eye on Russian oligarchs. And Cyprus has revoked the citizenship of at least eight people originally from Russia who had been placed under sanctions for their links to the Kremlin.

Similar moves are afoot elsewhere, for other reasons. The United Kingdom's Nationality and Borders Act expanded the Home Office's denaturalization powers by allowing it to strip individuals of their citizenship without notifying them. The government has said the measure, which was one of many attacked by critics, would be used rarely for individuals who cannot be contacted, such as those in a war zone or hiding from UK authorities. In recent years, hundreds of people have reportedly had their UK citizenship revoked, either for national security reasons or because they became naturalized via fraud.

Meanwhile Myanmar this year stripped the citizenship of at least 33 people, including diplomats, political opponents, and others opposed to the military-led government that took power in a 2021 coup.

Yet in other places, the government’s power to strip citizenship has been curtailed. Earlier this month, Australia’s High Court restored the citizenship of a suspected Islamic State fighter and placed curbs on future denaturalization efforts. And in Ireland, the Supreme Court overturned the revocation of citizenship for a child born there to an Afghan father who gave false information on a refugee application.

In the two decades since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, denaturalization efforts have become more common. Many countries considered the tactic in response to nationals moving to the so-called caliphate built by the Islamic State before its eventual dissolution. A recent report from the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion and the Global Citizenship Observatory found that 79 percent of countries have laws allowing citizens to be stripped of their nationality for disloyalty, military or other service to a foreign country, or other reasons, in what the authors describe as the use of denaturalization as a counterterrorism tool.

Yet as a counterextremism measure, it is unclear whether these strategies are effective. My MPI colleagues Meghan Benton and Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan previously evaluated denationalization policies in the Migration Information Source, finding that they do not necessarily prevent radicalization but allow governments to avoid intervening on behalf of suspected terrorists and others.

Whatever the impacts, efforts in recent months have made clear that governments are increasingly willing to consider citizenship revokable.

Best regards,
Julian Hattem
Editor, Migration Information Source
[email protected]