Who do we think we are?

Who do we think we are? is a podcast focussed on the conversations we need to be having about British citizenship today. It tells the story of how British citizenship developed and why this matters for questions of migration, citizenship and belonging in Britain today. The trailer identifies some of the issues covered in the series, from the removal of birthright citizenship through the British Nationality Act 1981 to how Britain was made as a white nation-state through immigration and nationality legislation. The episode features contributors to the series Gurminder Bhambra, Devyani Prabhat, Elsa Oommen, Imogen Tyler, John Vassiliou and host, Michaela Benson.  Access the transcript

Recorded live at the virtual launch event hosted by the Centre for Alternatives to Social and Economic Inequalities, Lancaster University, 21 October 2021, Talking about citizenship in ‘Global Britain’ brings together Chantelle Lewis (Surviving Society, University of Oxford); podcast host and producer Michaela Benson (Lancaster University) and podcast researcher George Kalivis (Goldsmiths) to talk about the conversations we need to be having about citizenship and how social science research can help to debunk taken-for-granted understandings of who is a citizen and who is a migrant. They explore why the back story to Britain’s contemporary citizenship-migration regime matters, how the past and present of British citizenship is caught up in global inequalities, and much more. You can also watch the event on Youtube.  About the contributors: Michaela Benson is Professor in Public Sociology at Lancaster University, co-lead of the ESRC-funded project Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit, and host and producer of Who do we think we are? Tweets @michaelacbenson Chantelle Lewis is Junior Research Fellow in Black British Studies at Pembroke College, University of Oxford, co-host and founder of the anti-racist podcast Surviving Society, and Deputy Director of Leading Routes. Tweets @ChantelleJLewis George Kalivis is a doctoral researcher in Visual Sociology at Goldsmiths, artist and architect.

We’re out and about in this episode! Ala and Michaela have been on the road. And in this episode they visit Manchester Museum and a new project aimed at decolonising the museum collection. They are joined by members of the Ancient History, Contemporary Belonging research project—youth researcher Senna Yousef and Dr Caitlin Nunn from Manchester Metropolitan University—which retells the history of objects held by the Museum through archival research and young people’s experiences of migration.   You can access the full transcripts for each episode on the Who do we think we are? website.    In this episode we cover … -       Decolonising Museums -       Participatory and arts-based methods -       The Koh-i-noor Diamond and the British Monarch   Find out more about … The Ancient History, Contemporary Belonging Project Senna’s contribution to the exhibition ‘The Tale of Migrants’ Our headline ‘Camilla to wear recycled crown without Koh-i-Noor diamond at Coronation’ The Koh-i-Noor Diamond from these podcasts that we rate from Scrolls and Leaves and Empire   Call to action Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms.  To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, check out our website, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

Migrant laborers worldwide are engaged in care work, but who provides care for them? And where can they seek care? In this discussion with Ethel Tungohan, the author of 'Care Activism', we go beyond the headlines that portray migrant domestic workers as victims or heroes. By focusing on their daily lives and the experiences of migrant care workers, we explore various sites of everyday resistance, ‘dissident friendships’, and the politics of critical hope and care. You can access the full transcripts for each episode on the Who do we think we are? website. In this episode we cover … Migrant care workers in Canada and the UK Migrant agency and everyday lives Resistance and care activism Active Listening Questions What can we learn from looking at the everyday lives of the migrants? How does Ethel explain why migrant care workers’ organisations emerged? And what do they offer to migrant care workers that states do not? Why might migrant care workers resist the idea of being ‘sisters’? And what alternative ways of understanding the relationships of care between them are discussed in the episode? What does care activism make visible about migrant agency? Read … Ethel’s book Care Activism and article with Jon Careless on how Canadian news media frames temporary migrant workers Anja K. Franck’s article Laughable Borders Listen to … Academic Aunties Call to action Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms.  To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, check out our website, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

Did you know that the current definition of British citizenship is only 40 years old? Who do we think we are? starts its exploration of British citizenship by looking at the history of British citizenship, and how remembering that the question of who counts as British has changed alongside shifts in Britain’s position in the world might make us think again about these questions and their consequences in the present-day. In this episode, host Michaela Benson, a sociologist specialising in questions of citizenship and migration, draws on her family history to bring the story of British citizenship in the second half of the twentieth century to life and explores British subjecthood, a precursor to citizenship. Podcast researcher George Kalivis goes back into the archive to explore the 1961 Immigration Bill and the measures that this introduced. They are joined by guest, Gurminder Bhambra, Professor in Postcolonial and Decolonial Studies at the University of Sussex, to talk about how recognising the back story to the development of British citizenship might change the ways that we think about migration, social justice and inequality in Britain today. Access the episode transcript  In this episode we cover … The short history of British citizenship as we know it The introduction of immigration controls for Citizens of the UK and Colonies Why history matters for making sense of the inequalities at the heart of Britain’s contemporary citizenship-migration regime   Quote Citizenship is something that emerges in the mid to late 20th century as a category by way of which to stop people moving. We often think about this idea of passports as if that’s what enables us to move; actually, it was about stopping people moving. — Gurminder Bhambra   Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode? You can find out more about Gurminder’s research on her website (which includes links to freely-accessible copies of many of her published works) and follow her on Twitter @GKBhambra You can read Michaela’s full interview with Gurminder in The Sociological Review Magazine Gurminder also mentioned Radhika Mongia’s 2018 book Indian Migration and Empire. To get a bit more of a flavour of the book and its contents, you can visit The Disorder of Things Blog, who have hosted a symposium on this work.   Call to action You can subscribe to the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, visit our blog and follow us on Twitter and Instagram.

Why do changes in Britain's immigration laws matter for making sense of citizenship today? What is the relationship of these changes to Britain's shift from empire to nation-state? In this episode, host Michaela Benson explains how decolonisation and the independence struggles of Britain's former colonies set the stage for citizenship to emerge in Britain. She explores the shift from subjecthood to citizenship and what this meant for people around the British Empire. Podcast researcher George Kalivis goes back into the archive to explore the introduction of the British Nationality Act 1948. They are joined by Devyani Prabhat, Professor of Law at the University of Bristol, to talk about what citizenship means in law; how the development of citizenship in Britain was a process of inclusion and exclusion managed through immigration and nationality legislation at their intersections; and how this understanding helps us to see the entrenched racism at the heart of nationality and immigration law today, including the British Nationality Act 1981. Access the full episode transcript In this episode we cover … The shifts in Britain's nationality legislation from the British Nationality Acts of 1948 and 1981 How the development of British citizenship was caught up in Britain's decolonisation What immigration controls introduced in the 1960s and 1970s can tell us about the changing definition of what it meant to be British over time Quote Citizenship was not really defined in British Immigration and Nationality Laws for a very long time, in terms of the country.  So it wasn’t about the UK as such and the reason is very much historical, it’s based on the British empire and its relationship with colonies and former colonies and each stage of the Immigration and Nationality Laws we see certain elements being added in without actually describing who is a citizen or defining who is a citizen. Devyani Prabhat   Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode? You can find out more about Devyani's research on her University of Bristol Website (which includes links to many of her publications) and you can follow her on Twitter @ProfDPrabhat. For the themes covered in this episode, we particular recommend her recent paper Unequal Citizenship and Subjecthood: A rose by any other name..? published in @NILegalQ, and her recent edited volume Citizenship in Times of Turmoil? She has also written extensively about the people’s experiences of becoming British citizens in her book Britishness, belonging and citizenship and about several other timely issues relating to citizenship, including this piece about Shamima Begum: what the legal ruling about her return to the UK actually means:  for @ConversationUK and this for @freemovementlaw focused on Britain's unaccompanied migrant children.   For wider reading, this week's recommendation is Reiko Karatani's 2003 book 'Defining British Citizenship'.   Call to action You can subscribe to the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, visit our blog and follow us on Twitter and Instagram.

How did changes in the UK's immigrations laws in the 1960s and 1970s set the stage for the Windrush deportation scandal? What can we learn about the racialised politics of belonging and migration in Britain today from looking at the historical transformation of immigration legislation? In this episode, we look at how immigration controls were introduced in ways that explicitly restricted the movement to and settlement in the UK of Britain's racialised colonial citizens. Host Michaela Benson explains how changes in law which made some British citizens deportable from the UK and how these transformations in law were caught up in the transformation of Britain's colonies in nation-states, how the shifting relationships between Britain and its former colonies led to some people falling between the gaps as Britain tried to restrict the settlement of their own citizens. George Kalivis goes back into the archive to remind us of the history of deportation, highlighting how deportation was introduced through the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962 to permit the deportation from the UK for those from Britain's colonies who were convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment. And they are joined by Elsa Oommen, independent scholar and visiting researcher at Goldsmiths and the University of Warwick, to discuss in more detail the historical back story to the Windrush Deportation Scandal; the legislative changes which mean that some colonial citizens living in the UK had their right to abode in the UK, their rights systematically eroded witout their knowledge; the litany of mistakes that led to the devastating and deadly effects for their lives and well-being in the context of the Hostile Environment; and what this can tell us about how questions of citizenship and migration are caught up in the contemporary politics of belonging in Britain.    Access the full episode transcript In this episode we cover … The historical back story to the Windrush Deportation Scandal The Commonwealth Immigration Acts of the 1960s and 1970s How Britain’s colonial citizens were made deportable and why this matters for making sense of the racialisation at the heart of questions of migration and belonging in Britain today Quote What has been quite stark to me is how the Government can go to extreme lengths in ensuring that some people are always made to belong and how some citizens, or some people could be citizens from the get-go, but could be made to feel like they are nothing and deportable; this what is the most striking revelation from my ongoing research, that there is really a continuum in which you can be a Commonwealth citizen but you can always be treated as a Commonwealth migrant. — Elsa Oommen   Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode? To find out more about the Windrush Deportation Scandal, we recommend consulting Wendy Williams’ Windrush Lessons Learned Review. You can find out more about Elsa and her research here. Her research funded by The Sociological Review with long-term Caribbean residents in the UK and the historical back story to the Hostile Environment is still in progress. Her wider research focuses on youth mobility to the UK, a part of the immigration regime that has not received much notice. You can read her work about the experiences of youth mobility workers in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. We’d also like to recommend her recent piece for Discover Society, which considered the Youth Mobility Scheme as a route to settlement in the UK for young Hong Kongers leaving HK SAR in the wake of political oppression. Our recommended reading of the week is Kathleen Paul’s 1997 book Whitewashing Britain, and in particular Chapter 5 Keeping Britain White.   Call to action You can subscribe to the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, visit our blog and follow us on Twitter and Instagram.

What do we think citizenship is? When you think of citizenship you probably think of it as progressive, as giving rights to people. But what if it wasn’t? In this episode, we look at the darker side of British citizenship where, over time, who has access to the rights of citizens has become increasingly restricted. Host Michaela Benson explores the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA1981) in a little bit more detail, which set the stage for British citizenship as we know it today. She highlights some of the headlines of this act from the how this mapped citizenship onto the territorial borders of the United Kingdom and stratification of citizens to how this removed some of the gender discrimination within nationality law by permitting women to pass on their citizenship to their children. George Kalivis goes back into the archives to explore the concerns raised about the proposed removal of birthright citizenship. They are joined by Imogen Tyler, Professor of Sociology at Lancaster University who talks about how the changes to nationality legislation through BNA 1981 set the stage for people to be born stateless within the UK’s borders and explores how nationality legislation is designed to exclude Britain’s postcolonial and migrant populations from the rights of citizenship.    Access the full episode transcript In this episode we cover …   The British Nationality Act 1981  The removal of the right to citizenship for those born in the UK and its racialised consequences  How citizenship is caught up in the global migration industry  Quote  When we think about citizenship, our normative way of thinking about it would be as something that is quite progressive, something that gives in a way or something within a liberal framework that gives rights to people, and that people have these fundamental rights that are protected in law and protected in a constitution.  I suppose when I was thinking about the relationship to Britain is because we don’t have that written constitution, that founding constitution, then when citizenship starts to appear in law, or in legal and parliamentary statutes, and in debates about those statutes, it really appears not in a progressive context; it starts to appear in relationship to borders and migration.  Imogen Tyler   Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode?  You can find out more about Imogen and her work here. She is on Twitter @profimogentyler.   The article we discuss in the episode is Designed to Fail, published in the journal Citizenship Studies. We also recommend her books Revolting subjects and Stigma.  If you are interested in understanding birthright citizenship and what this means in terms of global inequalities, our recommende book of this week is Ayelet Shachar’s The birthright lottery   Call to action  You can subscribe to the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed.   To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, visit our blog and follow us on Twitter and Instagram.  

What do you know about the UK’s citizenship test? What do you think it tests for and how? What do you think it can tell us about the shape Britishness today? In this episode, we look in-depth at the developing UK’s citizenship testing regime from its introduction in 2002 to its current form. Presenter Michaela Benson explores how in 2002 the then Labour Government introduced the Life in the UK test, language testing and compulsory citizenship ceremonies for those seeking to naturalise as British citizens. She highlights in particularly how these changes took place against the backdrop of 9/11, government policies on multiculturalism, integration and community cohesion. George Kalivis uncovers the story of the first person to take the citizenship test in Welsh. They are joined by Anne-Marie Fortier, Professor of Sociology at Lancaster University, who talks about how the citizenship test is best understood as part of an ongoing process through which people are moulded into desirable and deserving citizens. As she describes, this is a deeply unsettling process that reveals uncertainty lies at the heart of the process, revealing that citizenship may not be as secure as it is so often imagined. You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website. In this episode we cover … The 2002 introduction of the UK’s citizenship testing regime What looking at the citizenship test can tell us about Britishness and belonging How the process of becoming a British citizen further consolidates the relationship between the English language and being British. Quote … citizenisation starts from the premise that migrants have a citizenship deficit, in the sense that they have to be made into citizens in order to be given then the formal status of citizenship through these different tests and other forms … in doing that it also uncitizenises them, it assumes that they are not citizens from another country, or it disregards the citizenship of another country but it also disregards the fact that these individuals might be active citizens informally, without the status; they might be active citizens, working in the country where they are residing, paying taxes in the country where they are residing, voting in the country where they are residing.   Anne-Marie Fortier Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode? You can find out more about Anne-Marie and her work here. She is occasionally on Twitter @AMFortierLancs. We were discussing her book Uncertain Citizenship, published this year by Manchester University Press. If you are interested in her work on language and citizenship testing, we recommend her 2018 journal article On (not) speaking English: colonial legacies in language requirements for British citizenship. Our recommended reading for this week is John Clarke, Kathleen Coll, Evelina Dagnino and Catherine Neveu’s Disputing Citizenship.   Call to action You can follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

  When National Security Law was imposed in Hong Kong SAR in 2020, the UK government responded by opening up a bespoke visa scheme to facilitate the migration and settlement of Hong Kongers in the UK. Upheld by the UK’s Home Office as evidence of the UK’s ‘fair and generous’ approach to immigration, on the surface it seems like an exception to the Hostile Environment. But what if all was not as it seems?   In this episode, we explore the back story to this new visa, to ask the question what can the Hong Kong BN(O) visa tell us about Britain’s borders past and present? Presenter Michaela Benson uncovers how Britain’s present-day relationship to the people of Hong Kong sits in a longer history through which the Hong Kongers had their rights eroded. George Kalivis heads into the archives to uncover how the British government responded to earlier political uprisings in Hong Kong, the 1989 protests about the Tiananmen Square massacres. And they are joined by John Vassiliou, an immigration and nationality lawyer at Shepherd and Wedderburn, who explains more about the bespoke HK BN(O) visa scheme and why it means that this is pegged to a so-called ‘useless citizenship’ status.   You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website.     In this episode we cover …   Britain’s relationship to people of Hong Kong from the 1960s onwards  The Hong Kong BN(O) visa   Useless citizenships  Quote  When we think of a typical citizen of a country they usually have certain benefits like I described—and the main one is the right to live there—and a BN(O) citizen does not.  They are not on their own, there are another four types of British citizenship status that are in a similar category to this and they’ve generally been described by courts as useless citizenship statuses in the past.    — John Vassiliou   Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode?  You can find out more about John and his work here. He tweets @john_vassiliou1.  Read his informative pieces on the Free Movement Blog about the HK BN(O) visa including this overview of the scheme and this comment on Hong Kongers applying for political asylum in the UK.  Read Michaela’s thoughts about what the case of the Hong Kongers in British nationality legislation can tell us about the racialised politics of belonging in Britain. Here’s the full piece and a blogpost with the key points if you are short on time …   We also want to give some love to this fantastic piece by Jun Pang about how the Hong Kongers in the UK are positioned as ‘good migrants’ and why this matters in the context of the new immigration plan.    Call to action  Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed.   To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.  

Should the ability to speak English be a precondition for access to rights and belonging in Britain today? What is really tested for in English-language testing for the purposes of migration and naturalisation? How is this connected to the global dominance of English as a ‘world language’? And what links this to the increasing hostility experienced by those speaking languages other than English in public space in Britain today? It might seem common sense that to live in a country you should be able to speak the language. But looking at the relatively short history of language testing into the UK’s citizenship testing regime reveals that not all is as it seems.   In this episode, we discuss how language testing was introduced into the naturalisation process alongside the Life in the UK test in 2002. What can the back story to its introduction tell us about Britishness and belonging? Presenter Michaela Benson outlines how the stage was set for English language ability to be part of the criteria for becoming British through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We hear from George about his experiences of language testing for the purposes of coming to the UK for postgraduate study and heads back into the archives to uncover how these new provisions related to anti-terrorism legislation. And we’re joined by sociolinguistics scholar Kamran Khan to explore how testing potential citizens for linguistic proficiency emerged against the backdrop of domestic concerns about integration and community cohesion and the global rise of Islamophobia in the wake of 9/11, and what this meant for Britishness and belonging.    You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website.  In this episode we cover …    Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and 9/11 Islamophobia and Britishness The relationship between language and nation-building   Quote   What that comes down to in the end is do you think language is a precondition for access to rights nd all those things that go with citizenship? And that comes with how you see the nation. Monolingualism and English is, is really tied up with the kind of idea of nation building.   Kamran Khan Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode? Kamran tweets about his work (and other things) @securityling   His book Becoming a citizen explores many of the themes we address in the episode brought to life through the experiences of W, a Yemeni migrant in the UK, going through this process. But we also recommend his recent piece in Ethnicities that explores his ideas about the racial politics of language proficiency in the UK’s citizenship regime.    And we are recommending Nisha Kapoor’s fantastic book Deport, Deprive Extradite.   Call to action   Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed.    To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.   

Did you know that British citizenship can be cancelled or removed? And that when the Nationality and Borders Bill passes into legislation the UK Home Secretary will be able to remove citizenship from individuals without giving them prior notice? Certain conditions may accompany this, but the government’s past record on citizenship deprivation shows that these powers have disproportionately by exercised against those from Britain’s racially and religiously minoritized communities. In this episode we look in depth at how Clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill sits in a longer history of citizenship deprivation . Over time, the UK government’s powers to strip people of their British citizenship have extended and expanded. The fallout from this has been uneven, impacting Britain’s racially minoritized communities disproportionately. Michaela introduces the case of Shamima Begum and explains the back story to Clause 9. George draws attention to the concerns raised about the extension of these powers. And we talk with Zainab Batul Naqvi, Senior Lecturer in Law at De Montfort University about how in recent years deprivation powers have been used disproportionately against Muslim citizens and how such discrimination echoes the tactics used by colonial administrators and governments. You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website.   In this episode we cover … Citizenship deprivation The case of Shamima Begum Clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill Quote There's been a really big expansion of the powers that the government has to strip people have their citizenship …[It’s] something that's being weaponized by the government against certain communities, more than others … It's a really big fear for many people who are minoritized and marginalised in the UK, and it's mostly people of colour. — Zainab Batul Naqvi   Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode? Zainab tweets about these issues and more @zb_naqvi Read her latest paper in Social and Legal Studies  Head over to the Free Movement blog for Colin Yeo’s analysis of the increase in the use of deprivation powers Over at The Conversation Devyani Prabhat explains Clause 9 Our recommended reading is Luke De Noronha’s Deporting Black Britons   Call to action Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.  

Did you know that until 2014 that some of those born overseas to unmarried British citizen fathers were not eligible for citizenship? Or that even when this was amended, the provisions were not extended to those born in similar circumstances to British Overseas Territories Citizens? How would you feel if you were denied the right to nationality because your parents weren’t married when you were born? And what does this tell us about who counts as British?    In this episode we look at the human face of so-called ‘nationality anomalies’ and the struggles of the children of unmarried parents born overseas to gain equal rights to citizenship and nationality. This is an area of nationality legislation where discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, and parentage come crashing together. We explore how these outdated understandings of parental relationships at the heart of these anomalies sit in a long history of gender discrimination within nationality legislation. Michaela considers the back story to proposals in Clause 1 of the Nationality and Borders Bill that seek to address these anomalies. George reports on a complicated case of a child not entitled to the citizenship of either of their lesbian parents nor of the country in which they were born.  And we’re joined by citizenship equality campaigner, Tabitha Sprague, who successfully fought for those born overseas to British citizens fathers to be entitled for British citizenship, to explain more about this struggle and her personal history that brought this about.      You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website.       In this episode we cover …   The children of British parents denied the right to British nationality  Gender discrimination   Immigration Act 2014 and the Nationality and Borders Bill      Quote   My half sister was able to have citizenship through our dad because she was born in marriage. But I wasn’t. And I remember thinking why couldn’t I have citizenship because of the way I was born?    —Tabitha Sprague      Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode?  Tabitha tweets about these issues @ukcitequality    She also recommends the work of The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens      Call to action    Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed.     To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.    

What rights to citizenship do those from Britain’s 14 remaining overseas territories? What about those who through no fault of their own found themselves displaced and exiled from the territories through which they could claim this right?  In Episode 10, we look indepth at the case of the Chagos Islanders and the consequences of their forced displacement from the British Indian Ocean Territories for their access to British citizenship. Michaela Benson explains the emergence of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 and how this departed from previous transformations to the citizenship provisions for those in Britain’s overseas territories and who this excluded. George Kalivis heads into the archive to revisit how the BOTA 2002 was announced in the UK and the responses to this from the governments of these overseas territories. And we hear from Rosy Leveque and David Jerome Simon of British Indian Ocean Territories Citizens about the forced displacement of their ancestors and how this has led to unequal access to British citizenship, and their hopes for amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill.   You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website.   In this episode we cover …   1 The Chagos Islanders   2 The British Overseas Territories Act 2002  3 Nationality and Borders Bill    Quote   20 years ago, we had the British Overseas Territories act. And we thought that was a godsend. That was a really good solution. 20 years down the line, we realised that there were quite a few people were left out.  — David Jerome Simon, BIOTC  ... we can just only hope and that the House of Lords can do the right thing and grant these Chagossian descendants their British citizenship.  — Rosy Leveque, BIOTC  Find out more about the topics in today’s episode Follow BIOT Citizens on Twittter  Visit the BIOT Citizens website  Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and Amnesty International Briefing on the British Nationality Rights of Chagossians    Chagos Islanders in Mauritius and the UK by Laura Jeffrey  Last colonial citizens given full UK rights  by Anthony Browne Call to action  Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed.   To find out more about Who do we think we are? including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.  

Countries around the world have been quick to crow about the provisions they are putting in place to welcome those displaced by the war in Ukraine. Yet, all might not be what it seems. In this first episode of Beyond the Headlines, hosts Dr Ala Sirriyeh and Professor Michaela Benson are in conversation with Dr Yvonne Su, York University to examine what the headlines announcing a warm welcome to Ukrainian refugees in Poland and the UK shield from view. We explore how even among those displaced by the war, not everyone has equal access to leaving Ukraine. Race, gender and sexuality can all shape people’s fate at the border, leaving some with only unsafe routes out of the conflict-ridden country. And we consider the narrative that presents Ukrainians as ‘good refugees’, within the wider context of a politics of migration that otherwise casts many of those seeking new lives abroad as illegitimate and underserving, and within states that have readily deployed deterrents and push backs against migrants. You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website. In this episode we cover … 1 Ukraine war and refugees 2 Borders and inequalities 3 ‘Good refugees’ Quote What everyone is hearing is just the numbers of refugees that Poland's accepting or Germany's accepting, or the UK is not accepting, in this case, but then we don't like you're saying we don't look behind the headlines and into what's happening on the ground. — Dr Yvonne Su Find out more Find Yvonne on Twitter or her website Read her writing on Poland’s border propaganda and anti-immigration sentiments; the ‘good, bad and ideal’ refugees; and how standard humanitarian responses lead to LGBTQ and trans refugees falling between the cracks. Our headline ‘How European response to Ukraine refugees differs from UK’ The Guardian, 11 March 2022 Ala’s thoughts on the politics of compassion and the channel crossings Michaela’s writing (with Professor Nando Sigona) about the UK’s response to and provisions for Ukrainian refugees. For something a bit different, we recommend this episode of Academic Aunties which features Yvonne in conversation with Dr. Ethel Tungohan about Turning Red. Call to action Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

What is the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act? How does it relate to previous acts concerned with nationality and immigration legislation? What is the back story to some of the central changes that this act introduces? We cover all of this and more in this bumper episode to mark the start of Series 2 of Who do we think we are? Presenter Michaela Benson introduces the Nationality and Borders Act and how this sits in a longer history of Acts which considers changes to nationality and immigration legislation alongside one another. She also joins podcast researcher George Kalivis in the archive, where they discuss the behind closed doors responses of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about what Britain should do in respect to the resettlement of refugees from Vietnam in the 1970s and 80s. We’re joined by Trent Lamont Miller and Dave Varney of the British Overseas Territories Citizenship campaign to discuss the impetus behind this campaign and the journey to get legislation changed to allow the children of British Overseas Territories citizens born outside of marriage abroad to be entitled for this citizenship status. But as our conversation with Fizza Qureshi (CEO of Migrants Rights Network) reveals, the success of this campaign for BOTCs is bittersweet in the context of the predominantly bleak consequences of this act. You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website. In this episode we cover … Nationality and Borders Act Resettlement of Vietnamese Refugees British Overseas Territories Citizens Refugee and migrant rights Quote When you have no effective safe routes to come to the UK, or where you have those routes, and they're measly, in terms of the numbers that are available to people, or they're really narrow in their scope, I mean, what other ways are people going to have to resort to, apart from getting on a boat to entering the UK? —Fizza Qureshi, CEO Migrants Rights Network   This just makes no sense to me because my British BOTC father did not marry my foreign born mother ... every child has copies of both parents DNA, they have two sides of the family tree for the UK Government to take a pair of scissors and cut away one part of that DNA and family tree and then say you're not valid, you're not welcome, go away. It's deeply hurtful.— Trent Lamont Miller, BOTC Campaign   Find out more BOTC Campaign on Twitter and Online Migrants’ Rights Network Online, Twitter and Instagram   Read more Rieko Karatani, Britishness Reconsidered Margaret Thatcher reluctant to give boat people refuge in Britain   Call to action Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

Mass shooting in the US have been headlines news over the past month. The pattern? White gunmen opening fire in supermarkets, schools and public spaces, killing and injuring black, brown and hispanic people going about their daily business. Journalists, commentators and politicians have rallied to try and explain these horrific incidents, identifying the role of the ‘Great Replacement’ theory in motivating the actions of lone shooters. But what do these explanations overlook and shield from view?  In this episode of Beyond the Headlines, Michaela Benson and Ala Sirriyeh are joined by Aaron Winter, who researches racism, hate crime, the far right and right-wing extremism and terrorism, to take a close up look at the headlines reporting on shootings in Buffalo, where a white man opened fire in a supermarket in a predominantly black neighbourhood murdering 10 people. We discuss the history of the ‘Great Replacement’ theory and related white supremacist conspiracy theories as they plays out in different historical and political contexts. The problems with the narrative of the ‘lone, white, gunman’. And we consider the relationship between these horrific incidents, structural and institutional racism, and the mainstreaming of illiberal approaches to migration in the US and UK, including thinking about Brexit and the Hostile Environment.  You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website.   In this episode we cover … 1 Mass shootings as racist violence 2 The ‘Great Replacement Theory’ and white supremacy 3 Mainstreaming the far right and illiberal political approaches to migration   Quote Why do they never call it terrorism when white people do it? Well they do. They often do to remove it to compartmentalise it and to remove it from all the mainstream systemic and institutional white supremacy that needs to keep going. Aaron Winter   Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode? Find Aaron on Twitter or Google Scholar If you want to find out more about mainstreaming the far right, we recommend his book Reactionary Democracy co-authored with Aurelien Mondon Our headline Great Replacement: The Conspiracy Theory racist violence by Jillian Kestler-D’Amours was published in Al Jazeera 18 May 2022 You might also be interested in Michaela’s writing on Brexit focussed on the question what’s wrong with the narrative of the left behind And we also wanted to give some love to this excellent paper by Maria Cecilia Hwang and Rhacel Salazar Parreñas about the Atlanta shooting where eight people, predominantly Asian women, were murdered.   Call to action Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

Commonplace understandings of citizenship equate it with equality – at least among those holding the same citizenship. But looking the processes by which national citizenships develop shows that gaining equality for some was achieved at the expense of others, who might never be considered as equal.  How might shifting scale to the global transform how we think about the development of British citizenship? Join us as we explore the relationship between the development of national citizenships and global social inequalities. Presenter Michaela Benson reflects on what is overlooked in the focus on the equalising potential of citizenship. George Kalivis dusts off reports relating to Margaret Thatcher’s visit to India in 1981, and how proposed changes in British nationality legislation were received there. And Michaela’s joined by Manuela Boatcă, Professor in Sociology and Head of the Global Studies Programme at the University of Freiburg to discuss how the formation of nation-states and the development of citizenship was caught up in the production of global social inequalities that persist in the present-day. And we discuss a range of examples that include investment citizenship, Brexit, the European Union and much, much more.  You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website.    In this episode we cover …  1 Citizenship and the production of global inequalities past and present 2 Gender, race and citizenship 3 Brexit and the European Union   Quote  What a Western passport does is it grants visa free access to the vast majority of countries in the world. Basically, it's a ticket to global social mobility. Now in turn, it is much more difficult for women for LGBTQ individuals and for racial minorities to escape. The limitations are of the citizenship that they receive at birth, especially when they're born in a poor country. Unlike these investors, they women and feminised others have no option or to get access to visa free travel — Manuela Boatcă   Find out more Find out more about Manuela on her website and on Twitter  Read her paper Thinking Europe Otherwise and her work on the coloniality of citizenship with co-author Julia Roth Rieko Karatani, Defining British Citizenship Kathleen Paul, Whitewashing Britain Gurminder Bhambra, Citizens and Others Call to action Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

In May 2012 Home Secretary Theresa May vowed to create ‘a really hostile environment for illegal migrants’, heralding in a set of policies which require landlords, employers, healthcare workers and others to check people’s immigration documents, which creates a barrier to accessing work, housing, healthcare, banking and other services. Most of these measures were introduced through the Immigration Act 2014 and expanded in the Immigration Act 2016. But what has been the impact of the decade-long political project to make the UK ‘tough on immigration’?  In this episode Michaela Benson and Ala Sirriyeh are joined by Zrinka Bralo, CEO Migrants Organise. From a starting point of recent headlines focussed on 10 years of the Hostile Environment, they discuss how this made visible structural racism within the UK, brought borders into the everyday lives of migrants, and how it has become normalised, working insidiously through the language used to talk about migration. From the Rwanda plan and channel crossing pushbacks, to the public welcome of little Amal and outpouring of charity around Grenfell, Zrinka calls for migrant justice and the need to build bridges not walls. You can access the full transcripts for each episode over on the Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit website. In this episode we cover … The Hostile Environment Everyday bordering Migrant justice Quote What happens to immigrants is just a dress rehearsal to what happens to all of us. And if we're not awake, and alert and acting, the human rights are going to be taken and taken away from us, and we're not going to be paying attention. — Zrinka Bralo Where can you find out more about the topics in today’s episode?   Find Zrinka on Twitter at migrants organise an award winning grassroots migrant justice platform or in this article on ‘Little Amal, Channel deaths and cruelty by design’ For more about the hostile environment: Kamila Shamsie’s lecture on a decade of the hostile environment  Colin Yeo’s blog  ‘Go home, The politics of immigration controversies’ a book by Hannah Jones et al  This book by Maya Goodfellow Our headline ‘Home Office still has no evidence to show hostile environment policy is working, report finds’ by May Bulman was published in The Independent 17 June 2020 Find more from Michaela on the Windrush Deportation Scandal in this episode of Who do we think we are? To discover more about the concept of everyday bordering we suggest this article by Nira Yuval-Davis, Georgie Wemyss and Kathryn Cassidy. Call to action Follow the podcast on all major podcasting platforms or through our RSS Feed. To find out more about Who do we think we are?, including news, events and resources, follow us on Twitter,Instagram or Facebook.

For our first episode swap, we’ve partnered up with Surviving Society, the antiracist podcast that explores the local and global politics of race and class from a sociological perspective. We’re featuring this episode where hosts Chantelle Lewis and Tissot Regis are joined by public historian Aleema Gray to discuss her journey through academia and the initial findings from her PhD project - Bun Babylon: Rastafari movement in Britain. Exec prod: George Ofori-Addo Theme music by Joey PenaliggonDesign by Amber Jones Designs Find out more about Aleema’s research with the Rastafari movement in Britain in her piece for History Workshop.  Listen to Surviving Society wherever you get your podcasts via pod.link. You can also support them via Patreon and follow them on Twitter and Instagram