ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 57 his lawyer would be privy to the evidence and thus be able to contest it.4 He explained: Me, I’m indefinitely, without trial or process. I don’t even know the grounds [upon which my passport was removed]. If I am involved in terror-related activities, then why not put me on trial? I find that very strange … The injustice of even that law is so bad. The closed hearing, I can’t be there, even my solicitor can’t be there. I asked for their reasons and grounds, all they’re doing is making application after application to make it a closed hearing, [it] would be better for them cause they don’t have to answer to me. (Amir) Others also expressed their frustration at this process: And that’s the most extreme level in my view, is that, let’s deprive this person’s ability to travel, just in case. And he won’t be able to challenge why because we won’t tell him why, we won’t explain to him. Based – we’ll never show him the evidence for it. You can’t test or challenge that, that premise is based on classified information. (Mustafa) The resolve to maintain such powers, in spite of the lack of transparency around the process that was noted by the Home Affairs Committee (2014), was expressed by David Cameron in 2014 who in responding to the legal challenges being made to the use of royal prerogative powers in court, ensured that any judgement that threatened the operation of the power for removing passports would be quashed by the introduction of primary legislation “so that Parliament, not the courts, can determine whether it is right that we have this power” (Cameron 2014). Impact of passport removals: unmaking the citizen The material reality of passport removals in many ways leads to the creation of a new kind of denizen subject that cannot be officially expelled from the nation-state but instead internally exiled. Its significance rests perhaps in its illustration of the futuristic nature of colonial governmentalities (Gilroy 2010) exemplifying as it does the enduring presence of colonial statecraft within contemporary Britain for managing racially undesired subjects. The implications for our respondents of having their passports removed far exceeded restrictions on travel, it had implications for their relationships, employment, housing, mental health and family life: You can’t travel with your family anywhere … So recently they went to Saudi Arabia during Ramadan … all my family went, but I didn’t … When they’re making the plans, the preparations for travel abroad and whatever, they just have to count me out or somebody stays behind just so I don’t feel bad. (Mustafa) Since most of the interviewees’ had relatives abroad, their ability to connect with extended family was restricted. Others spoke of the negative implications