But why? What purpose does that serve, that incarceration does not? What can only be achieved through those ends?
And if that's the case, then do you feel that punishment should apply to anyone convicted of the same crime? Because I don't see why it shouldn't. Yes, that will leave some people completely stateless. But that's not London's problem, is it? The important thing is look out for our own, right? What happens to them wherever they wind up is completely irrelevant and the only thing that matters is keeping others safe from them, by any means necessary, so if that means some people become stateless, that's terribly sad, but it's a necessary cost to keep everyone else safe, using the exact same logic, right?
Or is that not necessary after all, and there's never a good enough reason to make a person stateless? In which case, what's the difference here? What end can only be served by revoking their citizenship, and what positive does that bestow that can only be obtained that way, and not through alternative options such as simple incarceration?
Because I can't think of any positive that this accomplishes that isn't already accomplished by actions such as incarceration, but I can see lots of negatives, such as making those who have dual-citizenship feel like a lower tier of citizens compared to natural born Brits, lowering integration, increasing resentment, and making radicalization by nefarious groups all the more simple. What benefits come from revoking the citizenships of these men that can't be obtained through other options and are worth those kind of risks and trade-offs? Because at least personally, I can't think of anything. I can't think of anything this accomplishes other than just channeling rage and vengeance, but not actually accomplishing anything that wouldn't already be accomplished by just locking them away, and certainly not anything that justifies the trade-offs for this kind of approach on top of that.