The number of people who are rendered stateless is rapidly increasing across the globe, especially due to the high rate of civil wars and increased globalization. People who run away from their home countries because of war can easily become stateless. A significant number of countries also do not allow women to transfer the nationality of their children, making many young people be stateless. However, there is a controversial debate about the increasing number of people who have rendered stateless because of denaturalization. Many countries, primarily because of security threats and the influx of immigrants, are embracing denaturalization, which is the revocation of a citizen of a person based on a number of reasons like participation in criminal activities. As a result, a significant number of people and human right organizations are against denaturalization, as they argue that it is against human rights. Nonetheless, the major concern against denaturalization is the possibility of rendering people stateless. Contrary to people with dual nationality, denaturalization should be limited because it exposes individuals with one a single nationality to the threat of statelessness.
Denaturalization is not a new phenomenon as its history can be traced to the early 1870s when the United Kingdom (UK) introduced the Naturalization Act that gave the sectary of the state the power to execute denaturalization if a person residing outside the country for more than two years, particularly those who received their citizenship through naturalization ( Gibney, 2013) . Even though parliamentarians opposed the Act, the desire to implement denaturalization remained alive in the UK. Thus, in 1918, the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act (BNSA) was introduced, and it gave home secretary immense authority over naturalized citizens. Specifically, BNSA gave the secretary the powers to revoke the citizenship of people who are confirmed to be working with UK’s enemies, primarily during the war. The UK is now one of the countries that allow denaturalization. Apart from the UK, the US has also embraced denaturalization for many years. Rabbi Meir Kahane became the first person to suffer the fate of denaturalization in 1985 when he was stripped of his citizenship after he assumed a parliamentary seat in Israel ( Aleinikoff, 1986) . The US’s decision was based on the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Denaturalization is still being practiced in many developed countries, and it is gaining momentum across the globe. As late as 2003, the UK revoked the citizenship of Abu Hamza, which is believed to be one of the most radical Islam preachers ( Gibney, 2013) . Hamza was accused of encouraging Muslims’ violent attacks on other people in the UK. The UK is now using the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002 to execute denaturalization. At the same time, the US government, especially President Trump’s administration, is accused of using denaturalization as a strategy to stop or minimize immigration, which he aggressively opposed during the US presidential campaign in 2016 ( Gibney, 2013) .
Countries are using many reasons to justify denaturalization. However, the main issue that is now used to justify denaturalization is a security threat, particularly in this era where the rate of terrorism is high and is threatening the stability of many countries across the world. A person is likely to be stripped of his or her citizenship she or she poses a security threat to a given country. The war on terror gained momentum after the US terrorist attack that occurred on 11 September 2001 where thousands of people were killed and properties worth billions destroyed ( Aleinikoff, 1986) . The attack enhanced the war on terror across the globe and many countries are now sensitive to any terrorist threat. The US is one of the countries that can easily execute denaturalization if a citizen is found to have engaged in participating in terrorist activities. It is not only the US that is strict on terrorism but also other countries in the world. With the increasing rate of terrorism in the western world, countries such as the UK have made the act of terrorism one of the major reasons for denaturalization. For instance, the revocation of Abu Hamza citizenship in 2003 is an indication that terrorism is one of the major factors that motivate countries to execute denaturalization ( Gibney, 2013) . Hence, a threat to national security is a factor that prompting many countries to implement denaturalization.
Apart from a threat to safety and security, shifting allegiance is another factor that is used by many countries to justify denaturalization. A citizen is expected to be loyal to its country, even if he or she has dual citizenship status. Citizens are expected to support and defend his country, especially against the real or perceived enemies. Therefore, any citizen whose allegiance and loyalty is in doubt is likely to be stripped of his or her citizenship. The revocation of Kahane’s citizenship by the US in 1985 is an example to prove that allegiance is taken seriously by many countries ( Gibney, 2013) . It seemed that Kahane had shifted his allegiance to Israel where he agreed to serve as a parliamentarian. However, in many cases, it is not easy to prove that a citizen has shifted his or her allegiance, particularly when he has dual citizenship. Unlike threat to natural security that can easily be confirmed based on available evidence, shifting of allegiance cannot be authenticated with certainty. As a result, it is possible for a country to misuse the concept of allegiance or loyalty to deprive a person of his or her citizenship. A country can use denaturalization based on allegiance claim as a way of punishing its citizens ( Aleinikoff, 1986) . Sometimes denaturalization cannot be justified, especially when a country is deemed to be violating the rights of its citizens.
Also, a country may decide to embrace denaturalization as a strategy to address some of the issues that it is facing such as immigration and political cohesion. Currently, many countries are concerned about the increasing rate of immigration, which is facilitated by issues such as civil war and poverty. Although immigration is associated with some benefits such as improved purchasing power and cheap labor, it can also be costly to the nation. As a result, a country may use denaturalization as a way of reducing the number of immigrants. Denaturalization gives room to deportation, which is believed to be much cheaper when compared to incarceration or detention. Countries that have comprehensive welfare programs like the US may also be interested in reducing the cost of the programs by limiting the number of immigrants in the country. President Trump, for instance, has been accused by some people for using denaturalization to curtail immigration. Therefore, many factors or issues make a country to embrace and execute denaturalization.
Regardless of reasons for denaturalization, the practice is mostly viewed as a wrong and illegal way of punishing people who have violated laws or engage in undesirable behaviors and activities ( Ferracioli, 2017) . According to Ferracioli (2017), o ne of the main reasons why denaturalization is viewed as wrong is because it imposes an undue burden. Denaturalization results in undue burden because it violates the moral claims of a person who has been denaturalized. A denaturalized person is likely to be perceived as inferior when compared to other citizens. However, according to the supporters of denaturalization, some punishments are more severe than denaturalization, making the latter a better and humane way of punishing people who violated laws. They, therefore, refute the undue burden claim. The second reason why people object denaturalization is that it is used to mistreat people. Unlike citizens who acquired citizenship by birth, naturalized citizens can be denaturalized. Hence, denaturalization leads to unfair treatments of citizens with different forms of citizenship. All citizens should be treated fairly regardless of whether they are naturalized or citizens by birth.
However, one of the major arguments against denaturalization is that it can render many people stateless, primarily people with single citizenship status. According to Ferracioli, dual citizenship has many benefits, particularly in countries where denaturalization is allowed ( Ferracioli, 2017) . According to Ferracioli (2017), p eople with dual citizenship do not end up worse off when they are denaturalized when compared to persons who hold single citizenship. For examples, a person who is a citizen of the UK and US may not have difficulties in adjusting when either of the nations denaturalizes him or her. For people with dual citizenship, the threat of being subjected to statelessness is highly minimized and sometimes does not exist. People with dual citizens may only face a challenge when they are deported from a highly developed country to emerging nations. For instance, people who are denaturalized in a country like the US and move to undeveloped countries like Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) may not easily adjust in their new environment due to the high rate of poverty and violence. Nonetheless, apart from the possibility of facing challenges such as unemployment and safety issues, people with dual citizenship status do not have the risk of becoming stateless.
Denaturalization for people with single citizenship, on the other hand, increases the risks of statelessness across the globe. Denaturalizing a person who holds citizenship in that country only is increasing the dangers of being stateless significantly ( Barry & Ferracioli, 2016) . Statelessness a severe problem that is associated with adverse effects. Rendering a person stateless due to denaturalization makes it difficult for the affected people to find a place they can call home. A significant number of countries do not allow stateless or non-country people to enter their territory ( Bradley, 2015) . As a result, denaturalized people with single citizenship will be wandering from one part of the world to another without finding a place to settle or call home. At the same time, stateless people cannot easily find a job in many parts of the world because they lack proper nationality, which is a requirement to get employment in many countries. Foreign or non-citizens are always required to seek work permits before they are allowed to work in the host country, which is not possible when a person does not have a clear identity or nationality ( Ferracioli, 2017) . To survive, people who have been rendered stateless due to denaturalization may be forced to do low-paying and exploitative jobs, which may not lead to a decent lifestyle.
Denaturalization can also lead to family separation, which is highly traumatizing. There are cases when people with children have been denaturalized and rendered stateless because of their mono-citizenship status. Family separation can lead to economic and social burden to denaturalized individuals who have become stateless. Also, denaturalizing and rendering people stateless may adversely affect their human rights such as political participation. According to international laws, only people who hold citizenship of a country has a right to the political involvement and actively engage in public affairs ( Barry & Ferracioli, 2016) . Besides, poor people who are rendered stateless cannot access welfare services such as health and education that are essential for the wellbeing of any human being. Stateless people can also hardly participate in business activities, especially when they are deported and separated from the community ( Barry & Ferracioli, 2016) . Therefore, the challenges that a person is likely to go through when he is rendered stateless due to naturalization is one of the reasons why denaturalization should be limited. Beings stateless is one of the worst experience that any human being should be subjected to and the world should strive as much possible to reduce the number of people who are considered stateless.
Even though the threat of statelessness for people with single citizenship is the main reason why denaturalization should be limited, some people maintain that individuals with dual suffer as well when they are denaturalized. People choose dual citizenship for some reasons and depriving them citizenship of one country is likely to be costly. The decision to want to live in one country after enjoying dual citizenship is costly, as it subjects people to the coercive choice situation ( Barry & Ferracioli, 2016) . A person may hold dual citizenship, and one of the countries is not willing to protect his or her fundamental rights, or the country is politically unstable. Thus, there will be no significant difference between individuals who are rendered stateless and those who are forced to live in a country where their rights are violated, and their life is in constant danger. For instance, a stateless person who resides in the US is a better offer than a citizen of countries such as Somalia where people are engaging in constant war. Dual citizenship, therefore, may not protect people from various challenges when they are denaturalized.
Still, a denaturalized personal with single citizenship cannot be compared with his counterparts with dual citizenship. Sometimes being stateless is more painful than living in a country that is faced with problems like political instability, civil war or poverty ( Barry & Ferracioli, 2016) . Apart from meeting basic needs, have a sense of belonging is critical to the health and wellbeing of any human being. The need to associate and belong is considered to be some of the basic needs that every human being should enjoy at any given time. As a result, denaturalized persons with dual citizenship are better off than those with sing citizenship because the former can find a place to call home. Denaturalization is highly traumatizing to people with single citizenship, and it should only be used as a last resort when a person has violated the law or expectations of a given country.
Citizenship should be viewed as right and not a privilege. Beings a citizen of a country should be an entitlement, as this will help in limiting the power of a country to execute denaturalization. Right-based definition of citizenship should be entrenched in the constitution of countries across the globe ( Ferracioli, 2017) . Currently, many countries treat citizenship as a privilege, giving government excess power to approve or disapprove the status of their citizens. The privileged-based definition of citizenship has made countries to introduce laws that make it easy to denaturalize their citizens, even when the justification is invalid and not based on concrete evidence.
Besides, it is important for the denaturalization process to be non-political and the affected individuals to be part of the process to ensure that it is fair and transparent. For instance, the decision by the US Supreme Court to eliminate the powers of the US law-makers to terminate the citizenship of citizens of the country was logical, and it limited denaturalization significantly. According to the Supreme Court, expatriation should not be used to deny a person his or her citizenship. Naturalized citizens who have the opportunity to serve another country should not be stripped of their citizenships because they are serving another nation. In the case of Kahane in 1985, for example, could not have led to denaturalization because Kahane was only serving Israeli people while marinating his allegiance to the US by being a loyal citizen ( Aleinikoff, 1986) . Besides, allegiance should not be used as a basis to implement denaturalization because this will render many people stateless. Allegiance is based on political interests, which are not always objective. Basing denaturalization on politics may make some people lose their citizenship because of the political rivalry between two nations.
Denaturalization should be limited to security issues such as terrorism. People who pose a lot of security threats to a country should be denaturalized. Terrorism affects millions of people and can lead to massive destruction of property ( Bradley, 2015) . Further, Bradley (2015) argue that i t is a threat to individuals, countries, and the whole world. Thus, only citizens who engage in terrorist activities should have their citizenship withdrawn. However, there should be valid evidence to prove that a person is engaging in terrorist activities. It should be the responsibility of the state to use evidence to show that a person is participating in terrorist activities. Besides, people accused of terrorism should be given the opportunity to defend themselves, especially through a legal process. Also, people who are involved in serious political crime should be subjected to denaturalization. Political stability is important for any country and any person who engages in a political crime does not deserve to live a civilized country.
In conclusion, denaturalization affects people with single citizenship than those with dual citizenship. A person who has single citizenship automatically becomes stateless after denaturalization, which is not the case for persons with dual citizenship. Stateless people can hardly find a place they can call home while at the same time they may face many social and economic difficulties. Thus, the primary reason why denaturalization should be limited is to protect persons with single citizenship, as this will assist in reducing the number of stateless people in the world. Relevant laws should be used to limit the powers of nations to execute denaturalization. Denaturalization should mainly be based on the threat to national security, including serious political crimes that can result in political instability or conflict.
References
Aleinikoff, T. A. (1986). Theories of loss of citizenship. Michigan Law Review , 84 (7), 1471- 1503.
Barry, C., & Ferracioli, L. (2016). Can Withdrawing Citizenship Be Justified? Political Studies , 64 (4), 1055-1070.
Bradley, M. (2015, December 3). How can you lose your citizenship? Let me count the ways. ABC New . Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-03/bradley-how-can- you-lose-your-citizenship/6996496
Ferracioli, L. (2017). Citizenship allocation and withdrawal: Some normative issues. Philosophy Compass , 12 (12).
Gibney, M. J. (2013). ‘A very transcendental power': Denaturalisation and the liberalization of citizenship in the United Kingdom. Political Studies , 61 (3), 637-655.
