This is the Guardian.

Today, why is clause 9 of the Nationality and Border's Bill so controversial?

I want to address the Government's clause 9, which proposes

removing people's citizenship without notice and in effect removing their right of appeal.

You've probably seen clause 9 of the Border's and Nationality Bill in the headlines.

When people from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds raise concerns about this,

deep concerns, the response from the Government opposite is trust us.

As that bill moves through the House of Lords, it's been especially criticized on clause 9,

which its critics say creates a two-tier citizenship in Britain that is racist and unconstitutional.

But the Government's ability to strip someone's British citizenship is actually nothing new.

So deprivation I've done E3 and C7. E3, C7 and C3. They're not just codes, they're the clients of

immigration lawyer Farhad Ansari. He specialises in cases of citizenship deprivation.

So E3 is a British-born citizen. His parents migrated to the country from Bangladesh. His parents

were naturalised before he was born. E3 was born in Britain. It's his home. He has

family ties to Bangladesh. He lived his entire life in the UK. He was working here. He had an

arranged marriage to a lady over there, Bangladesh. Due to the immigration bill that required somebody

to be earning a significant amount of money in order to sponsor their wife to move to the UK with them,

he was unable to do so. And while he was looking for employment with the record salary,

he would travel back and forth to Bangladesh. He had a child over there and his wife was pregnant

with her second child in 2017. In May 2017, E3 travels to Bangladesh to be there for the birth of

his second child. He didn't know it then, but he wouldn't be coming back. He's there for about

six to seven weeks. And then just a day before he's due to travel back to the UK, his mother

...