Description
In the Pham Case in Court of Appeal [2018] EWCA Civ 2064, Arden, L.J, writes, “.. the appellant has over a significant period of time fundamentally and seriously broken the obligations which apply to him as a citizen and put at risk the lives of others whom the Crown is bound to protect. I do not consider that it would be sensibly argued that this is not a situation in which the state is justified in seeking to be relieved of any further obligation to protect the appellant.” This allegiance approach to citizenship is only applicable to naturalised citizens for national security. Thus modern British citizenship, which was first explained in statutory form in close connection with subjecthood in the British Nationality Act 1949, is categorical in nature and unequal in its operation. Similarly, even when it gave an illusion of formal equality, subjecthood tended to foster tremendous inequality both in England and overseas in the colonies and dominions. The paper will look at case law not just from the centre (metropole) of Empire (in England) but also from a variety of colonies and dominions (the so called periphery and semi-periphery). The central argument of this paper is that conceptually subjecthood continues in citizenship albeit operating in a different manner than in the past to aid in expulsion and shoring up of borders rather than in extending territory through expanding jurisdiction over the bodies of people.
