54 N. KAPOOR AND K. NARKOWICZ counterinsurgency techniques as the appropriate disciplinary response. Since this in part stems from a particular colonial genealogy in which the trope is rooted, where terrorism has been a way of disavowing anti-colonial and anti-imperial resistance (Kapoor 2018) and validating military force, the growing use of counter-terrorism policing as part of everyday domestic policing in Britain provides opportunity to re-orientate colonial governmentalities. Notable particular features here are mass surveillance, racial profiling and preemptive policing, as well as the dispensation of justice through administrative measures that operate outside of the ordinary criminal justice system. In the practice of passport cancellation, this was apparent. The initial experience of passport confiscation varied between participants. For some, it came after they had been stopped and questioned on one or a number of occasions. In Karim’s case, he was subject to a number of schedule 7 stops before the third time when the police seized some of his personal possessions including his passport as permitted under investigatory counter-terrorism powers. On the eve of the day that authorities were obliged to return it, a police officer came to his family home and informed him that the Home Office would be cancelling his passport which, he was reminded, was the property of the crown. The letter that he presented to us during the interview stated: “There is no entitlement to a passport” and proceeded to lay out justifications for its cancellation. Similar incidents and turns of phrase were reported by others. Shamim applied to the Passport Office to have his passport renewed but did not hear back. On a later visit to a police station he was handed a letter which did not provide detailed reasons for the passport refusal, but stated that a passport was not an entitlement. In another case Mustafa had his passport taken from him at the airport, before reaching passport control and told “that having a passport is not a right, it’s a privilege”. While the mode of the delivery of the letter varied – it was usually hand delivered at the airport, or another public space, sometimes delivered to their home – it typically stated that the participant had been assessed to be an “Islamic extremist” or involved in “Islamist activity”. A line consistently written in all the letters we saw, read: You are therefore considered a person whose past, present or proposed activities, actual or suspected, are so undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities is believed to be contrary to the public interest. The range of activities regarded as being suspicious were almost entirely dependent on a particular bio-cultural reading of traits and behaviours which connected Muslims to terrorism, rationalizations which have been given much ideological weight in cultural and political representations over the last fifteen years (Bhattacharyya 2008). In Karim’s case the behaviours cited as sufficient cause to justify the removal of his passport included