46 N. KAPOOR AND K. NARKOWICZ which to sanction unruly subjects. While since 2002 Britain has taken the lead in updating the terms upon which citizenship can be denied, other states have followed suit and passed similar measures in recent times. Canada expanded the terms upon which citizenship could be removed in 2014 to include individuals convicted of terrorist activities (Stasiulis 2017);1 Belgium passed a provision in 2015 which allows for the removal of citizenship of dual nationals who have been sentenced to more than five years in prison for a terrorist offence (HRW 2016); Australia passed legislation in 2015 to ensure that dual nationals accused of fighting for a declared terrorist organization are stripped of their citizenship along with their children (Thwaites 2015); Germany initiated discussions in 2016 around citizenship stripping of dual nationals linked to terror groups (Huggler 2016); France attempted to expand powers to strip dual nationals of citizenship to those who were French-born if convicted of terrorism, though these proposals were later dropped (Willsher 2016); and the far-right Sweden Democrats Party has proposed similar measures though thus far they have been rejected (SVT 2015). The scope of these measures, which operate in tandem with intensifying securitization of European/Western borders to quash the inflow of refugees and migrants, comes to indicate a global shift in approaches to border policing which increasingly extends the border internally and opens up greater possibilities for unmaking citizens. In order to address the restrictions placed on the practice of citizenship deprivation directed by international conventions which inhibit the enactment of statelessness, in the UK a whole raft of measures have been passed in tandem, essentially facilitating a process of deprivation by proxy. These measures effectively operate to achieve variations of expulsion, whether that be by banishing subjects outside of state borders or through imposing forms of “internal exile”, and are used in order to deal with a range of different legal subject positions ranging from foreign nationals, to naturalized Britons and British-born citizens. Consequently, in its broader scope, the process of citizenship denial has involved both widening the terms upon which citizenship can be deprived and introducing proxy measures such as temporary exclusion orders as well as removing passports for an indefinite and unspecified period of time (Kapoor 2016). Pertinently, where the finality of the former has provoked critique for its potential violations of international human rights conventions on statelessness (Gibney 2013; Macklin 2014), the removal of passports is more ambiguous in rights terms. In contrast to the process of citizenship deprivation which has provoked lengthy litigation, at times going on for years even as the Government has sought to quash possibilities for appeal (e.g. Hilal al Jedda v UK), passport removals have not as yet been held up to the same kind of scrutiny because they do not pose the same kind of legal violations against, for example, the international convention on statelessness.