Meijers Committee standing committee of experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law context of citizenship, nationality and immigration status.86 The Special Rapporteur points out that racial and ethnic minority groups are often excluded from the enjoyment of human rights on account of their citizenship or immigration status, and that such exclusion violates international human rights law.87 Regarding deprivation of nationality, the Special Rapporteur recalls that access to citizenship and immigration status has historically been used by States to discriminate against marginalised groups, and that ‘institutional and indirect discrimination based on race, colour, ethnicity and religion’ continues also in the absence of explicitly discriminatory policies.88 However, the Rapporteur notes that ‘Law, policies and practices that disproportionately exclude or have a negative impact on a particular racial, ethnic or national group should also be considered as a breach of the prohibition of racial discrimination’.89 Finally the Rapporteur observes that concerns over national security and threats of terrorism typically fuel racially discriminatory policies, including on citizenship withdrawal.90 In October 2018, the Special Rapporteur sent an amicus brief to the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service in the case of a dual citizen whose Dutch nationality had been withdrawn after he travelled to Syria and joined a terrorist organisation.91 The Special Rapporteur took the stance that the Dutch policy of differentiating between single and dual nationals when withdrawing citizenship in response to alleged terrorist activities violates international human rights law, including Article 5(d)(iii) CERD and Article 26 ICCPR. According to the letter, such differentiation is discriminatory as it creates unequal, less secure citizenship for dual nationals.92 The Rapporteur observed that the differentiation between single and dual nationals is not required in order to protect single nationals against statelessness, as the sanctions applicable to single nationals could be equally applied to dual nationals.93 Lastly, the Special Rapporteur considered that the Dutch legislation on citizenship deprivation was indirectly racially discriminatory, because Dutch citizens of Moroccan or Turkish national origin are overrepresented amongst those with dual nationality. The Special Rapporteur repeated this position in the report on her 2019 visit to the Netherlands: ‘Although being neutral on the face of it, the Netherlands citizenship-stripping legislation, policies and procedures apply only to citizens with dual nationality and therefore disproportionately affect Netherlanders of Moroccan and Turkish descent. Because of its limited applicability, citizenship-stripping legislation in the Netherlands aggravates stereotypes of terrorism by associating terrorism with people of certain ethnic and national 86 Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to the Human Rights Council at its 38th session, 25 April 2018 (A/HRC/38/52). 87 Idem, paras 6-11. 88 Idem, para 11. 89 Idem, para 27. 90 Idem, para 57. 91 Amicus brief presented by the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service, 23 October 2018, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Racism/SR/Amicus/DutchImmigration_Amicus.pdf. 92 Idem, para 39. 93 Idem, para 40. 17