56 N. KAPOOR AND K. NARKOWICZ Amir indicated that such interrogations were premised upon proving that one was a “good Muslim”, against the assumed normative positioning of being a “bad Muslim”, illustrating the reductive nature of “culture talk” (Mamdani 2004). The issue of character as condition of the privilege of citizenship was also related to a perceived willingness to work for the state. Most of the interviewees reported being asked to work for the security services, often on numerous occasions, and sometimes warned that it would be in their best interests to do so. In some of these cases, passports were removed shortly after the respondents had made clear they were unwilling to cooperate. As one interviewee explained: “If you don’t work with us, travelling is gonna get harder for you [they said]. [They gave me a] card, [and said] give me a call” (Mohammed). A practice that has been reported in other scholarly work on similar issues (Kundnani 2014) as well as in the media (MacAskill 2015; Verkaik 2009), and confirmed by lawyers we interviewed, it relayed a deeper meaning to the broader policy framework positioning citizenship as something to be “earned” (Cameron 2013; Home Office 2008). Where the evidentiary basis for denying citizenship was often reliant on racially informed readings of behaviour, the process via which citizenship was suspended relied on an entirely administrative, rather than judicial, system. One of the interviewees reflected this as he recalled being escorted off an aeroplane by police officers: “We got a letter from Theresa May to give to you”, [they said] … The date [on the letter] was tomorrow’s date, it was dated one day in the future, that’s weird. They were trying to be precise and vague at the same time. They said on the letter, you are a British national who is engaged in terrorism related activities, definite article here. (Amir) Even as the letters stated that respondents were charged with being “Islamic extremists”, the entire process was instigated by order of the executive – through the royal prerogative – and at the time of being removed of their passports, none of the respondents had been criminally prosecuted through the criminal justice system. In this process of charge without prosecution via an “independent” judicial system there are echoes of the authoritarianisms deeply connected to colonial and imperial projects (Arendt 1968). The implication of no official criminal charge means it is extremely difficult to “appeal” against the “conviction”. While it is possible to request a judicial review of the decision through civil proceedings, cuts to legal aid restrict the possibilities in practice. The colonial mentality of the system is echoed further in the “closed proceedings” permitted in such a review. Amir, who had initiated a review of the decision to cancel his passport stated that the government had requested that the arguments pertaining to his alleged “bad character” be heard in secret with the implication that neither him nor