If a person has dual nationality, one of their nationalities can be revoked. If they have only one nationality, it cannot be. That is one of the few things about international law which is pretty clear.
If people have been living in a country for generations, it is oppressive and unconscionable to deny them citizenship rights. There are a few examples around the world (e.g. the Rohingya of Burma), but only under abusive regimes.
It is a fundamental human right that a person can commit the most heinous of crimes and then be subject to punishment, under lawful process. Nothing should interfere with a person's freedom to commit a crime and then be punished for it.
That's a very good principle, but unfortunately it doesn't bite very well on suicide bombers. They have to be caught conspiring, preparing, planning, encouraging, supporting, attempting, aiding, and abetting the substantive offenses, as well as procuring, buying, smuggling, supplying, and possessing weapons and explosives. Those kinds of secondary offenses are difficult to catch and hard to prove. But once the substantive offence has been committed, it's too late to propose punishing the offenders.
No one this side of the Bosphorus has trusted the Turks since the fall of the Byzantines. There'll be a reason for that. Trouble is Turkey is a member of NATO. Imagine if it had joined the EU...? Its actions will be viewed as our actions. As you say, we (NATO) will probably find we've got a traitor in the camp, or at least an unreliable renegade and that we've lost any chance of a strategic alliance with Russia. The possibility of mollifying Russia over its (again strategic) support for Assad and reaching some accord for a post-Assad Syria has probably gone now. I expect Russia's veiled support for Assad's military will now become blatant and Putin will be happy to push Daesh into Turkey. Unless the Kurds can make friends with Russia and recruit their help in forming a Kurdish state on Turkish soil. That would be no bad thing. One thing's for sure, neither Europe nor the USA has the calibre of statesmen equal to the diplomatic task ahead. Just when you need Churchills, Eisenhowers and Kissingers you get Camerons Merkels and Obamas, all of them with a proven track record of being utterly useless in international affairs.. Its a dismal prospect.
What happens to someone who arrives on our shores with no documentation whatsoever ? Are we obliged to look after them indefinitely if their citizenship or country of origin cannot be determined ?
If their citizenship or country of origin cannot be determined, how could they be removed or deported anywhere?
So what happens to them if they can't prove a right to remain ? In reality how large a problem is this ?
Well you know the answer to that - they can't! We have let them in on mass without checking them out - we have done it to ourselves.People slaughtered Enoch Powell for his "Rivers of blood" speech - go on you tube and listen to the full thing - man was a visionary
Most of the border between Syria and Turkey was fixed by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). But the oddly shaped bit where the Sukhoi-24 was shot down (Hatay) joined Turkey only in 1939, the border having been fixed by France in 1938.
I may be wrong but in Australia I believe the procedure when someone without documents turns up illegally and can't remember where they come from is indefinite internment. That usually restores the memory eventually and they get a free plane ride home.
This sounds like a perfectly reasonable response to someone who turns up and starts off by refusing to be truthful or cooperative.
It's not a problem at all. People applying for asylum always claim to be fleeing persecution in some specific country where they previously resided. It follows that they never refuse to state some country (even if they don't have any documentation). If asylum is refused, the issues in the appeal are mainly: * Did this person really come from the country he says he comes from? * Is this person really an apostate/gay/political opponent of the regime or whatever they claim to be? * If this person is returned to that country would they really be killed/tortured etc? It can be extremely difficult to decide such matters, as there is often little to go on.
People who have barely escaped with their lives from some oppressive regime usually don't have documentation, because the regime will not issue passports to people intending to leave. E.g. East Germans crossing the Berlin Wall into West Germany never had passports. Is anyone saying they should have been returned to the East to be shot because of their lack of documentation? Really?
Am I'd be quite happy for us to adopt that arrangement. Am I right in thinking France has introduced/reintroduced laws whereby any person who goes abroad to fight for an enemy of the state automatically has their citizenship revoked, if it can be revoked (dual nationality) and is barred from re-entering the country; and if citizenship cannot be revoked are subject to arrest and put on trial for treason/sedition with the prospect of life imprisonment? I read or heard it on the news somewhere. Again an entirely reasonable and sensible policy which we should apply here.
Political correctness has got totally out of control in this country.We seem more concerned with prosecuting our own brave armed forces - a 65 year old ex Para for firing his gun at a mob throwing bricks,bottles and blast bombs while he and his comrades were coming under sniper fire! Have we totally lost the plot and all reason?Perhaps my old dad can expect the Raf police to be knocking at his door for what he bravely did over Germany? Makes you think
Britain has long striven to maintain the reputation of being the USA's most reliable and steadfast ally, and Britain has in turn depended on the alliance with USA as the principal plank in our defence policy. Strangely enough there are some people who want to destroy that reputation, reverse that policy, dump on our allies, and terminate the special relationship. Can the UK be trusted as far as we can be thrown?
"Automatically" is a strange expression to use. Revoking the citizenship of a citizen is a legal process which requires evidence, proper consideration, and a judgment, with the possibility of appeal, much like prosecution for an alleged offence. How could such a process possibly be "automatic"? How do you imagine such a judgment is reached?
