Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) went from a jihadist movement once aligned to al Qaeda to forming the official government of Syria.

It was a monumental transformation for them, their country and the wider Middle East.

But potentially too for British people who went to Syria – and who were stripped of their citizenship as a result, on the grounds of national security.

Tauqir Sharif, better known as Tox, went to Syria in 2012 as an aid worker. He was accused of being part of a group affiliated with al Qaeda, which he denies, and the then-home secretary Amber Rudd deprived him of his British citizenship in 2017.

“As of now, I am deprived of my UK citizenship but I’m not a convicted terrorist – and the reason for that is because we refused, we boycotted, the SIAC [Special Immigration Appeals Commission] secret courts, which don’t allow you to see any of the evidence presented against you,” he said.

“And one of the things that I always called for was, look, put me in front of a jury, let’s have an open hearing.”

HTS is still a proscribed terrorist organisation but the British government has now established relations with it.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy travelled to Damascus to meet the jihadist-turned-Syrian interim president – the man who swapped his nom de guerre of al Jolani for Ahmed al Sharaa.

If the UK government takes HTS off the terror list, what does that mean for those who lost their citizenship after being accused of being part of it?

People who joined HTS are only a subset among the scores of people who have had their citizenship revoked – a tool the UK government has been quick to use.

According to a report by the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee, the UK “uses deprivation of citizenship orders more than almost any country in the world”.

The peak of that was in 2017, and mainly in relation to Syria – especially in the case of people joining Islamic State, perhaps most famously Shamima Begum.

And because people cannot be made entirely stateless, and need to have a second nationality, or be potentially eligible for one, there are worries of racism in who the orders apply to.

Countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh offer dual nationality, whereas other nations do not. In 2022, the Institute of Race Relations said “the vast majority of those deprived are Muslim men with South Asian or Middle Eastern/North African heritage”.

Legal grey areas

Sky News submitted Freedom of Information requests to the Home Office asking for a breakdown of second nationalities of those deprived of citizenship, but was refused twice on national security grounds.

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, told Sky News there are issues around transparency.

“I do think there is a problem when you have people whose relationship with the country that they’re left with is really technical and they may never have realised that they had that citizenship before and may never gone to that country,” he said.

“Me and my predecessors have all said, owing to how frequently this power is used, it should be something that the independent reviewer should have the power to review. I asked, my predecessor asked, we’ve both been told no, so I agree there’s a lack of transparency.”

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Read more from Sky News:
Menendez brothers denied parole – but they could still taste freedom
What Epstein’s right-hand woman said about Trump and Prince Andrew
UK set to bask in 30C sunshine over bank holiday weekend

No automatic reversal

Even if the government does remove HTS from the terror list, it would not automatically invalidate decisions to deprive people of their citizenship.

Macer Gifford gave up a career as a banker in London to join the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) as a foreign volunteer between 2015 and 2017.

He told Sky News that decisions “made years ago in the interest of the British public have to remain”.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

“We can’t sort of go through previous cases nitpicking through it, wasting time and money to bring it up to date,” he added.

“We can’t be naive because the intent to go out, the decision to go in itself is a huge decision for them. So it shows commitment when they’re there, they then, if they take an active participation in the organisations that they’ve been accused of joining, again, that involves training and perseverance and dedication to the cause.”

But those born and raised in Britain, who joined the same cause, and lost their citizenship as a result, might reasonably ask why that should remain the case.

Criminals face being banned from pubs, sports grounds and concerts under new government plans to give judges powers to pass tougher community sentences.

The new measures, which would apply to people in England and Wales, “should remind all offenders that, under this government, crime does not pay”, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said.

Offenders’ freedom could also be curtailed with limits on driving, travel bans and restriction zones confining them to specific areas, the government said.

Similar measures could also apply to prisoners let out on licence, while drug testing would be expanded to include all those released, rather than just those with a history of substance misuse.

While judges are currently able to impose limited bans for specific crimes, such as football bans for crimes committed inside a stadium on match day, the new measures would allow for such bans to be handed down for any offence.

The justice secretary said: “When criminals break society’s rules, they must be punished.

“Those serving their sentences in the community must have their freedom restricted there too.

“These new punishments should remind all offenders that, under this government, crime does not pay.

“Rightly, the public expect the government to do everything in its power to keep Britain safe, and that’s what we’re doing.”

The proposals are part of the Labour government’s efforts to tackle overcrowding in prisons.

Back in June, it emerged that prisoners were to be transferred to lower security jails in an effort to ease overcrowding, as part of a new measure quietly unveiled by the government.

Sky News reported earlier this month how the prison system was close to collapse on a number of occasions between autumn 2023 and summer 2024, according to an independent review by former chief inspector of prisons, Dame Anne Owers.

The report said there was a systemic problem which has led to recurring prison capacity crises over the last 18 years.

Mass deportations. Prison camps. Quitting the Refugee Convention and the UN Convention on Torture.

A shrug of the shoulders at the idea of the UK sending asylum seekers back to places like Afghanistan or Eritrea, where they could be tortured or executed.

“I’m really sorry, but we can’t be responsible for everything that happens in the whole of the world,” says Nigel Farage.

“Who is our priority?”

The Reform UK leader has been setting out his party’s new plans to address illegal migration in an interview with The Times newspaper – a set of policies, and a use of language, which would surely have been seen as extreme just a few years ago.

Only last autumn the Reform leader repeatedly shied away from the concept of “mass deportations”, describing the idea as “a political impossibility”.

But now he’s embraced Trump-style immigration rhetoric.

It’s not surprising that Reform want to capitalise on the outpouring of public anger over the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. The policy was started by the previous Conservative government, in response to housing shortages – and Labour has failed to make significant progress on its promise to stop it.

But all the major parties have shifted firmly to the right on this issue.

There’s been very little political criticism of the aggressiveness of Farage’s policy suggestions, and the premise that the UK should no longer offer sanctuary to anyone who arrives here illegally.

The Tory response has been to complain that he’s just copying the ideas they didn’t quite get round to implementing before calling the general election.

“Four months late, this big reveal is just recycling many ideas the Conservatives have already announced,” said Chris Philp MP, the shadow home secretary.

“Labour’s border crisis does urgently need to be fixed with tough and radical measures, but only the Conservatives have done – and will continue to do – the detailed work to deliver a credible plan that will actually work in practice.”

Read more from Sky News:
Menendez brothers denied parole – but they could still taste freedom
Five killed after tour bus returning from Niagara Falls crashes

Certainly, the ambition to arrest and deport everyone who arrives in a small boat – regardless of whether or not they have legitimate grounds for asylum – has clear echoes of the Tories’ Rwanda policy.

Despite spending £700m on the controversial idea, only four volunteers were ever sent to Kigali before it was cancelled by Sir Keir Starmer, who branded it a gimmick.

Labour have suggested they’ve diverted Home Office resources that were freed up by that decision into processing asylum claims more quickly and increasing deportations.

They’re hoping tougher action against the criminal gangs and the new “one in one out” deal with France will help deter the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats in the first place, currently at record levels.

But rather than offering any defence of the principle of offering asylum to genuine refugees – Labour’s Angela Eagle MP, the border security minister, has also focused on the feasibility of Farage’s policies.

“Nigel Farage is simply plucking numbers out of the air, another pie in the sky policy from a party that will say anything for a headline,” she said.

“We are getting a grip of the broken asylum system. Making sure those with no right to be here are removed or deported.”

Even the Liberal Democrats have taken a similar approach.

“This plan sums up Nigel Farage perfectly, as like him it doesn’t offer any real solutions,” they said.

“Whilst Farage continues to stoke division, we Liberal Democrats are more interested in delivering for our local communities.”

It’s been left to the Refugee Council to defend the principle of asylum.

“After the horrors of the Second World War, Britain and its allies committed to protecting those fleeing persecution,” said CEO Enver Solomon.

“The Refugee Convention was our collective vow of ‘never again’ – a legal framework ensuring that people who come to our country seeking safety get a fair chance to apply for asylum.

“That commitment remains vital today. Whether escaping conflict in Sudan or repression under regimes like the Taliban, people still need protection.

“Most find refuge in neighbouring countries. But some will seek sanctuary in Europe, including Britain.

“We can meet this challenge by upholding a fair, managed system that determines who qualifies for protection and who does not.”

But with Reform leading in the polls, and protests outside hotels across the country – politicians of all stripes are under pressure to respond to public frustration over the issue.

A recent YouGov poll found half of voters now believe immigration over the last ten years has been mostly bad for the country – double the figure just three years ago.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

While the government has made some progress in reducing the cost of asylum hotels – down from £8.3m a day in 2023/4 to £5.77m a day in 2024/5 – the overall numbers accommodated in this way have gone up by 8% since Labour took charge, thanks to the surge in new claims.

Sir Keir has previously said he won’t make a promise he can’t keep.

But current efforts to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029 are clearly not working.

That’s a credibility gap Farage is more than ready to exploit.