A landmark investigation has exposed how Britain’s expansive citizenship revocation authorities are systematically endangering approximately nine million residents, predominantly from Muslim backgrounds, creating what researchers term a “racialized hierarchy of belonging.” The collaborative study by Runnymede Trust and Reprieve reveals that 13% of the UK population—disproportionately those with heritage links to South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—face legal vulnerability to having their citizenship revoked at the Home Secretary’s discretion.
The analysis demonstrates staggering racial disparities: while merely one in twenty white Britons faces citizenship deprivation risk, three in five people of color inhabit this precarious status. Individuals with familial connections to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Nigeria, and North African nations emerge as particularly vulnerable groups within this framework.
Legal provisions enable the government to strip citizenship based on presumed eligibility for alternative nationality—even when individuals have never resided in or identified with those countries. Since 2010, over 200 individuals have lost citizenship under “conducive to the public good” provisions, with overwhelming majority being Muslims. The 2022 legislation further intensified these powers by permitting revocation without notification.
Campaigners draw direct parallels to the Windrush scandal, noting identical institutional failings and absence of effective safeguards. Maya Foa of Reprieve warned that “nine million people whose rights could be taken away by the next home secretary have every reason to be worried,” while Runnymede Trust CEO Shabna Begum condemned the “chilling undercurrent of citizenship stripping” disproportionately targeting Muslim communities.
The report traces how counterterrorism legislation has transformed citizenship revocation from exceptional wartime measure to routinely deployed tool. Even judicial victories prove hollow—a 2025 statute ensures citizens remain stripped during government appeals that can span years, regardless of court rulings.
Researchers document multiple cases of erroneous deprivation resulting in unlawful statelessness, with the Shamima Begum case representing the most prominent example where Bangladesh publicly denied her eligibility. The commission chaired by former Irish Lord Chief Justice Declan Morgan recently concluded that deprivation frequently proceeds based merely on presumed nationality rather than established facts.
With conservative politicians advocating expanded deportation schemes, organizations demand immediate moratorium on citizenship stripping, abolition of Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act, and restoration of citizenship to all previously deprived under these powers.