Snapshot of _Court to rule on Shamima Begum appeal against citizenship removal_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/court-to-rule-on-shamima-begum-appeal-against-citizenship-removal) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/court-to-rule-on-shamima-begum-appeal-against-citizenship-removal)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Even if Begum's appeal is successful, it does not mean she can return to the UK. Notwithstanding a likely government appeal for the case to be considered by the supreme court, several British women detained in north-east Syria retain British citizenship but have not been repatriated.
This is interesting. Even if Begum retains her citizenship, this may end up doing nothing for her.
I agree. It’s an interesting case from a legal and human rights perspective. But as you say may not really change the realities for her regardless.
Even if she reattained her citizenship and somehow ended up in the UK, how would she be treated legally?
If they rule she has British citizenship and she is brought back it should be terrorism charges AND treason. She joined an entity what considered itself a state in its own right and one which we essentially declared war against.
If those individual IDF soldiers have been personally charged with war crimes or there is significant evidence that they have personally committed war crimes, sure, of course we should.
I really think we need to be prepared to bite the bullet an go for treason charges in these situations. These are, so they claim, British people who have chosen to fight for - or give aid to - an avowed enemy of the state and Crown and that is treason.
The reason she had her citizenship stripped was because it'd be very hard to actually charge her with anything. She likely wouldn't get charged if she returned.
I doubt it, it'd just be returned to court as unduly lenient and the judge who handed the original sentence will probably never be given an important case again
I think they're referencing the recent case of the women with paragliders at the Palestine rally.
Convicted but then let off with no punishment because the judge said it was just because emotions were running high.
Lets be realistic, nothing will really be pinned on her. The violins will come out, she will go through court (with no evidence being presented about the shit she did over there) and it will all be done and dusted in a year or two.
No evidence is needed of anything Begum did in the Middle East - membership in a terrorist organisation will be the likely charge, if charges are brought up.
Yep like I said, violins will come out, "she was groomed" etc etc etc. You can even see it in this thread. She will ultimately get out of any charges laid against her and be out on the streets in a year after the court case has failed. Sorry, but thats the reality of this.
I'm sort of troubled that "grooming" has now been expanded to encompass "crossing a continent and having yourself smuggled into a warzone to join a murder cult proscribed by every government on Earth who advertised *themselves* by burning people alive."
It's not as though she was spun a yarn then abducted from her home and trafficked across Europe against her will.
Could you be "groomed" into thinking murder, rape and slavery was acceptable?
Daesh wasn't hiding what it was, it wasn't pretending to be anything other than what it was - they made videos about it. Begum saw those videos and thought, "That looks like a good idea" and no amount of claims of grooming can excuse that.
This is what I wonder about. The government has been a lot harder on her than they were with many others (most british people who went to join isis haven't had their citizenship removed.) I think it's likely they worry they've got nothing that will stick.
How many British people who've joined Isis and haven't their citizenship removed have dual citizenship? That's the only circumstance where the Govt can remove it. Which means they must be able to deal with fully British people in the courts. Which is why I find this case, based solely on the fact she has Bangladeshi citizenship on paper, a little unfair. She was born here, grew up here and went to school here. I don't think we should wash our hands of responsibility just because we technically can.
I think she just has the unfortunate problem of having got media attention, and the Govt wanted to look tough.
There are some other bizarre removals too, like a British-Canadian person who grew up in the UK. Canada also has a law about removing citizenship, but the UK got there first...
Imo you shouldn't be able to have citizenship removed if you were born with it or got it in childhood.
>how would she be treated legally?
Depends what judge she gets. If she talks about how her emotions were hightened in the moment she'll probably get off with no charges.
Her husband, who is Dutch, is in the same position. He still has his Dutch citizenship but they will not lift a finger to repatriate him. IMO this is what we should have done with Begum, and saved ourselves millions in legal aid.
If you travel abroad against Foreign Office advice, to a place with no British embassy etc, the government has no obligation to assist you in any way.
That seems like a sensible end position - I.e the government can’t strip her only citizenship away and make her stateless, but it’s also under no obligation to get her out of her own mess.
That was the governments argument but Bangladesh turned around and said she hasn't got citizenship with them because they have no records of her, and she wouldn't be granted one now because of all the terrorism and shit. So since she doesn't have it (although she probably should), she *did* indisputably have UK citizenship, and the issue is the last person to withdraw... This essentially leaves the UK as the one left standing as the music stops.
Yet again, I am astonished by how willing people are to take the Bangladeshi government at its word on this point, given that the *entire premise* of the Begum case is that what the government says about your citizenship status isn’t definitive if it contradicts the actual law.
SIAC heard expert evidence on Bangladeshi law and concluded that Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship at the relevant time. As far as I am aware, she never appealed against that conclusion.
[*Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department*](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment-1.pdf) (Appeal No SC/163/2019), para. 121:
> Our conclusion, based on the evidence which we have accepted, is that article 2B(1) of the BCTP Order does not override section 14(1A) of the 1951 Act. **When Decision 1 was made, A was a citizen of Bangladesh by descent, by virtue of section 5 of the 1951 Act. She held that citizenship as of right. That citizenship was not in the gift of the Government, and could not be denied by the Government in any circumstances.** As she was under 21, and by virtue of section 14(1A) of the 1951 Act, her Bangladeshi citizenship was not affected by section 14(1) of the 1951 Act.
The court can't rule on Bangladeshi citizenship though. If Bangladesh says she was never a citizen it makes no difference what a British court says.
Really though it seems rather poor form to dump the problem on Bangladesh. She grew up in Britain. Bangladesh has had nothing to do with her.
> The court can't rule on Bangladeshi citizenship though.
What do you mean by this?
The question of whether she had Bangladeshi citizenship arose in the context of the validity of the Home Secretary’s decision or purported decision to remove her British citizenship. The court couldn’t duck the issue.
I think I see your point. The judgment of SIAC doesn’t *confer* (or purport to confer) Bangladeshi citizenship. It simply considers whether she did or did not have such citizenship by operation of Bangladeshi law. It does so because that question had to be determined in order to determine whether it was possible for the Secretary of State to exercise the relevant power under the British Nationality Act.
There is an answer to that question which is independent of executive fiat or ministerial *ipse dixit*. SIAC concluded that the answer to that question was Yes. Tellingly, Begum has apparently never sought to challenge that conclusion.
Only a Bangladesh court can make that judgement. If they say she's not, regardless of the wording of the law, she's not. Nothing you, I, or the British Supreme court can do anything to override that, any more than a Bangladesh court could rule she's a British citizen.
Is that true? If a court in the UK says "actually, murder is fine" does that mean that the law against murder is null and void?
If a court in Bangladesh says "this piece of Bangladeshi law is actually not real law", does that make it true?
Yes. At least in specific cases.
If I commit murder, and a jury decides that they really like me so much I think I should get away with it, I can get away with murder.
In the US, The Supreme court has ruled many laws unconstitutional based on a very loose interpretation of the constitution. The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but Bangladesh has.
That is extremely obviously not within the jurisdiction of the UK courts to decide.
If you think it is, then you'd also have to accept that it would be within the jurisdiction of an e.g. Indian court to decide that any given Indian citizen is also a UK citizen because reasons.
Which flies in the face of literally Bangladesh themselves telling us she does not have citizenship.
It's a question of whether it's possible for one nation to claim it has jurisdiction to rule over matters of citizenship of another, which I think we can all agree the answer should probably be that it shouldn't.
The Bangladesh government presenting that opinion, while they're very welcome to say whatever they like, does appear to contradict Bangladeshi law.
Just as in the UK, the government is not the law and it's very possible for the government to says things that aren't lawful.
Sure, Bangladesh might not like it and in practical terms can make things as awkward as they like, but the law is clearly written for all to see.
There was actually a bit of a spat between the SDF and the West a couple years back; basically the SDF had ended up interning a load of foreign Islamists and their families and asked that their original countries take custody of them. The local government obviously can’t let them go but it doesn’t really have proper facilities or legal cover to hold them.
This was refused so now their is a worryingly large number of “ex”-fighters and their supporters permanently stuck in camps in North Syria.
Even if she gets her citizenship back AND is allowed back isn't "joining ISIS" still mega illegal?
"Welcome back to the UK, stand still while we cuff you. Now get in the police van"
I think it depends what "not been repatriated" means here. If it means that the UK government hasn't spent tax payer money to fly them back to Britain, that's one thing. If it means that the people showed up at the border and were not let in, that's quite a different thing.
So, if British people are detained in some foreign country for the crimes they did there, I don't see any particular reason why the UK should make any effort for repatriating them. The exception is of course if the UK government determines that the detainments have been illegal (say, someone has been arrested in Russia or China for political reasons), but clearly that doesn't apply here.
>Interesting that it's not about whether she became stateless or not, considering Bangladesh has said she's not a citizen.
Looks like that was an argument advanced in SIAC. She still lost her case.
We'll have to see what the Court of Appeal says, but my best guess is that if they comment at all it will be along the lines of that it doesn't matters what the Bangladeshi government says, because the country has rule of law. The fact they don't want Begum is irrelevant if legally she is entitled to citizenship there.
If Begum were to seek her Bangladeshi citizenship and was refused it, it would be for the local courts to make a ruling. Obviously Begum doesn't want to go down that route because she might win. But I don't think that strategy helps her in the UK courts.
The Commission's judgement was that she did have (edit: a legal entitlement to) Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the Home Secretary revoked hers. If Bangladesh subsequently revoked her (edit: right to) citizenship, it would be them and not us who left her stateless. And in that scenario we are not obliged to restore her citizenship to ensure she's not stateless; that onus is on Bangladesh.
This article makes no mention of this being a factor in the appeal, implying that her legal team have accepted this argument and are instead only appealing the rationality of the removal decision itself.
I'd just remind everyone that these appeals/judicial reviews do not ask whether the Home Secretary made the right decision or not. They ask whether the decision was made in the right way; were all legal obligations met, was sufficient evidence taken into account, was the decision itself rational (in the legal sense)? Judges rule whether the decision was lawful, not whether the decision was correct.
[https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/united-kingdom-begum-v-siac-16-july-2020-begum-v-sshd-7-february-2020](https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/united-kingdom-begum-v-siac-16-july-2020-begum-v-sshd-7-february-2020) seems to suggest that "the SIAC found that, on the basis of Bangladeshi law, when the Secretary of State’s decision had been made, the appellant had been a citizen of Bangladesh by descent."
Not that she could obtain it. That she already had it.
Because she'd lose that argument easily. She *was* a Bangladeshi citizen when we stripped her of her British citizenship. Only 2 years later did that citizenship lapse. Which, from my understanding, she can regain.
Except she *wasn't* a Bangladeshi citizen at the time, as confirmed by the Bangladesh government: https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/169559/shamima-begum-is-not-a-bangladeshi-citizen
Our government argued that she could apply for citizenship, which is apparently strong enough to treat her as if she is a dual citizen.
>Expert lawyers with experience in Bangladeshi citizenship cases have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national like Begum, if born to a Bangladeshi parent, is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen.
> That means that such a person would have dual nationality. If the person remains in the UK, their Bangladeshi citizenship remains in existence but dormant.
> Under this "blood line" law, Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make efforts to activate and retain it.
> Begum was 19 years old when she was stripped of her UK citizenship, which likely - in part - gave Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship.
The government's lawyers are saying differently, and she lost that initial case if I recall correctly.
> Rule 9 of the 1952 Rules requires a “person claiming citizenship by descent” to apply to the government; and then the government, after making such enquires as it deems fit, “shall pass orders on the application as it deems fit.”This also implies that the state is not compelled to recognize that a person is a Bangladeshi citizen and the authorities have discretion to refuse to recognize a person as Bangladeshi citizen.
> Thus, dual citizenship or citizenship by descent is not an automatic right, it needs to be granted by the government of Bangladesh based on an application from the person seeking Bangladeshi citizenship by descent. One of the factors that the government of Bangladesh looks at while granting dual citizenship is an applicant’s ties to Bangladesh.
> Shamima Begum, never having travelled to Bangladesh and never having applied for a Bangladeshi citizenship cannot be considered a Bangladeshi citizen
You are correct that it was the British government's argument, however, the Bangladesh government disagrees.
a) It's 1951 not 1952 (minor thing but it was bugging me)
b) Section 5 doesn't contain that phrasing. ["Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his [father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"](http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html)
a) Its 1952 Rules, not the 1951 act:
\> Citizenship in Bangladesh is governed by the following laws: Citizenship Act, 1951; Citizenship Rules, 1952; Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order 1972; and Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Rules 1978.
I don't have the documents for this (because I have no idea how to find Bangladeshi rules), but I am taking the work of a barrister and Special Advisor to the Bangladeshi Prime Minister: Shah Ali Farhad (linked in earlier comment).
The 1952 rules would have originally been Pakistan's, so [here](https://www.refworld.org/legal/decreees/natlegbod/1952/en/17885).
Notice that the rules are mostly for people "claiming citizenship", and that they're granted "a certificate". Rule 20 differs in that it's about the "acquisition of citizenship".
Rule 9 is one dealing with the issuing of documents that prove citizenship, not the status of citizenship itself. If the government declined to issue documents that wouldn't be refusing citizenship, because citizenship is still determined by the 1951 act.
To be charitable to Shah Ali Farhad, he was not a judge and he argued a position.
She wasn't a Bangladeshi citizen when her citizenship was stripped. It was argued she was years after the fact as a defence to her being made stateless. I agree that SIAC and the government asserted it to be the case, but the Bangladesh government said she doesn't and didn't have it.
All I can say is that legal experts and judges have disagreed with you on this.
The BBC article states that they knew about this at the point when they revoked her citizenship, and it seems the only reason it was argued after the case was because it took that long to get to court.
As far as the UK is concerned she was automatically a Bangladeshi citizen.
I defer to their wisdom as I'm not a lawyer.
That's the nub of it though. The whole issue was that the UK couldn't by an operation of its law make her stateless, so in the SIAC ruling it was agreed that she technically held it. At the same time as this, the Bangladesh government denied she had it (which is also acknowledged in the ruling).
I agree that legally in the eyes of UK courts she had another citizenship, but the UK doesn't actually decide whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship, that's up to Bangladesh which said she didn't have it.
I think the winning argument was that Bangladesh only said that in hindsight. Under their laws, she *was* a citizen until the age of 21, no need to apply.
They said this at least in 2019. Relevantly they had said it before the SIAC case, as it was mentioned there.
Edit: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid
It was automatic, all she had to do was apply. But she's left herself in a difficult position. At the time of the removing of her citizenship, it was entirely legal as she would easily not be stateless, that's the point.
Of course she’s not British either
Edit: lots of confusion for some people, it seems. She was born in the UK but of course her citizenship was removed, meaning that she’s not British. Being British isn’t some indelible privilege, it’s citizenship
If someone is both a victim and agent in an atrocity, how do you even pick that apart? Should we ever allow the removal of citizenship, given it is a power that can and will be abused like all other powers?
It’s a hard decision, with hard realities and consequences.
Fair point but I'd say he was not a child who people would argue was trafficked to syria/brainwashed.
I'm not saying she's completely innocent of all wrong doing, I just think that if this was a white British teenager, the trafficking side of thing would be spoken about a lot more and invoke a lot more sympathy/media sympathy and less likely to have citizenship removed. I don't think that's a radical statement and most people would agree with that if they are honest about our society.
She's only stateless because the state she chose to become a member of were destroyed by the West.
She chose to become a member of the Islamic State and declare jihad against the West and all non-believers. Leave her to rot. And while she's at it let all the non-ISIS member refugees in that camp know exactly who she is, too.
I’ve no issue with her frankly - much as I abhor her views she was clearly trafficked and obviously wouldn’t be allowed to pose a danger to society.shes a menace but shes our menace.
I disagree, if she's a danger to people in the uk then we'd be punishing them. Until extremism can be better fought in the uk then we shouldn't be bringing back people who believe in it
I’m a North London Jew and no fan of islamism - as my posting history illustrates - but I’m also a liberal and believe we can only change our society from within. Pandering to the hang em, flog em and deport them brigade wont improve society imho.
its hard mate, she still has incredibly extremist views based on her 2019 interview.
the only thing i an sympathetic towards is her age when she went, and the fact she was blatantly groomed by isis, which i don’t understand why she isn’t granted a return by this fact alone.
but she needs to be converted to see that beheading folks that are a ‘threat to islam’ is not OK. even about the manchester arena bombings, all she has to say was ‘i didn’t know about the children’ implying every other death was fair game.
this was in febuary 2019, when she was 19/20 years of age.
I fully see that, but she was both groomed then radicalised in the most appalling of places - the fact that she was allowed to leave with her friends (both now dead) was of itself a security failure on our part. Look, I’m not going to lose much sleep if her appeal ultimately fails (whatever happens today we’ll proceed to the Supreme Court) but the fact she is clearly imbalanced and exhibiting flashes of views wholly abhorrent to us is hardly surprising in the circumstances.
The kind of anti semitic shit we’re seeing on our streets and even projected onto parliament is illustrative of the kind of deeply worrying ignorance/ hate which we have to address head on - we can’t deport them all, many of whom feel “detached” about the fate of jews in the exact same way she feels detached from the whole of western society.
Yes we can only change our society from within but if you're too tolerant and allowing anyone in with free speech then you won't be the one changing society. It'll be the extremists spreading their views and furthering their beliefs
I see that but equally, we can’t wear the cloak of extreme right wing politics.
Take for example the anti semites projecting hate speech onto the Houses of Parliament the other night. Its an utter disgrace that the Police stood by and did nothing - whilst recently stopping the campaign against anti semitism from driving electronic billboard depicting kidnapped jewish children - They need to firmly enforce the law but we can’t deport these people - one of them was the MP Caroline Lucas!
Police definitely need to improve their handling of these incidents. They're too afraid of violent backlash free these communities which is something that needs to be educated out of them. Schools need to take some of the responsibilities so allowing certain faith schools to perpetuate negative beliefs is creating a foundation which will be hard to get rid of.
Deporting protesters is different to actual terrorist helpers though as well. If those protesters left and went to help hamas fight israel I wouldn't want them coming back either
First para fully agreed.
You don’t see pro israel campaigners our the wider Jewish community pulling this shit.
Second paragraph is fair - I see she lost her appeal and as above I’ll lose no sleep!
She’s been dealt with - shes in a refugee camp not prison. Once citizens serve their sentences, however serious the charge, they generally return (or are deported back here).
Dual citizenship yes like this case. Single citizenship yes I agree with you as we’re not allowed to make people stateless.
(Unless we want to break that rule, not like there’s any foreign courts that make us unable to do that)
She's not a naturalised dual citizen - she's a British citizen from birth. If you can strip citizenship from UK citizens from birth purely on the basis of where their parents (or grandparents, in the case of Ireland and Italy and some other countries) are from, that creates two different citizenship statuses, which is also disgusting.
It also means that every single Jewish person in the UK can have their citizenship stripped away, as they're eligible for Israeli citizenship.
I don’t agree with dual citizenship regardless of the law (personal opinion I know but not being committed to only being British leads to mixed priorities).
I suppose if an Israeli / Brit went to join isis this could also happen to them as that’s the only example we have at the moment.
I’ll reserve judgement to this being ‘disgusting’ when it’s used against non serious cases of people joining foreign terrorist death cults.
If this happens I’ll be in agreement.
>I don’t agree with dual citizenship regardless of the law (personal opinion I know but not being committed to only being British leads to mixed priorities).
You understand that you can't choose your parents? If you have an Irish parent, you're an Irish citizen from birth, it's automatic. Same for loads of other countries.
>I suppose if an Israeli / Brit went to join isis this could also happen to them as that’s the only example we have at the moment.
No, it's not the only example at all:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/jack-letts-stripped-british-citizenship-isis-canada](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/jack-letts-stripped-british-citizenship-isis-canada)
>I’ll reserve judgement to this being ‘disgusting’ when it’s used against non serious cases of people joining foreign terrorist death cults.
OK, if you're happy to leave the existence of your most fundamental right of all entirely at the discretion of someone like Suella Braverman, that's fine.
Yup can’t choose your parents, I agree. Aside from special cases like Ireland (GFA etc) we shouldn’t be offering this. Thanks for bringing up the one situation that my suggestion wouldn’t work for and not related to the other 200 countries in the world it could apply to 😂. Makes me understand your viewpoint.
Again another ISIS fighter… I genuinely don’t care what happens to them or have any sympathy for their protestations. I did a quick google on him and turns out he’s british and Canadian and still a Canadian citizen?
So same argument, surprise surprise the guardian left that out? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Letts
I don’t like the Tories never voted for them and probs never will, but I trust that our elected government should rule and make decisions for us. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.
P.S. with my suggestion she could never be Bangladeshi as she could only be British?
>Yup can’t choose your parents, I agree. Aside from special cases like Ireland (GFA etc) we shouldn’t be offering this.
We're not offering anything. Other countries have nationality laws, we do not control them. A large number of children are born as dual nationals, and nothing the UK can do can change that.
>Again another ISIS fighter… I genuinely don’t care what happens to them or have any sympathy for their protestations. I did a quick google on him and turns out he’s british and Canadian and still a Canadian citizen?
You don't need to care about what happens to him.
>I don’t like the Tories never voted for them and probs never will, but I trust that our elected government should rule and make decisions for us. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I have no idea why you would have such faith in any government of any stripe.
Yup and we can deny them the rights to hold a British passport if they ever elect to take another forgiving their rights to ever exercise those rights with a foreign nation (excluding Ireland) we’re talking about our citizenship not anyone else’s.
Would stop our beloved government from abdicating their rights in any future circumstances. Granted that’s if we trust them.
>Yup and we can deny them the rights to hold a British passport if they ever elect to take another forgiving their rights to ever exercise those rights with a foreign nation (excluding Ireland) we’re talking about our citizenship not anyone else’s.
So you'd deny my children the right to a British passport, because they are Canadian citizens by accident of their mother? I keep telling you - there's no choice here, they are dual nationals by birth, automatically.
Begum has never had a Bangladesh passport.
>How are more people not worried about this, given the rise of the right wing in pretty much everywhere in EU right now ?
Because most people are pretty right wing.
British-born. Shouldn't even be an option to remove her citizenship. If she's committed crimes she should face justice in the courts, but bc she's brown it's all 'deportation'.
Snapshot of _Court to rule on Shamima Begum appeal against citizenship removal_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/court-to-rule-on-shamima-begum-appeal-against-citizenship-removal) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/23/court-to-rule-on-shamima-begum-appeal-against-citizenship-removal) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Even if Begum's appeal is successful, it does not mean she can return to the UK. Notwithstanding a likely government appeal for the case to be considered by the supreme court, several British women detained in north-east Syria retain British citizenship but have not been repatriated. This is interesting. Even if Begum retains her citizenship, this may end up doing nothing for her.
I agree. It’s an interesting case from a legal and human rights perspective. But as you say may not really change the realities for her regardless. Even if she reattained her citizenship and somehow ended up in the UK, how would she be treated legally?
[удалено]
If they rule she has British citizenship and she is brought back it should be terrorism charges AND treason. She joined an entity what considered itself a state in its own right and one which we essentially declared war against.
Will we be trying the British Jews that return from the IDF ? Or are war crimes only real if we don’t like which side you’re on ?
> Will we be trying the British Jews that return from the IDF ? Is the IDF either a terrorist organisation or a declared enemy of the Crown?
Israel is a real country and are allies to the U.K. ISIS were a terrorist organisation and were at war with British allies.
…What’s a small war crime & ethnic cleansing between a couple of besties
Oh you're one of the "Israel should just die" people. No point arguing with you.
Its amazing these people have the mental function to wipe their own ass, honestly.
I doubt they'd be able to tell one end of a donkey from the other, let alone how to groom it.
Gaza in every thread. Nowhere is safe.
If those individual IDF soldiers have been personally charged with war crimes or there is significant evidence that they have personally committed war crimes, sure, of course we should.
I really think we need to be prepared to bite the bullet an go for treason charges in these situations. These are, so they claim, British people who have chosen to fight for - or give aid to - an avowed enemy of the state and Crown and that is treason.
The reason she had her citizenship stripped was because it'd be very hard to actually charge her with anything. She likely wouldn't get charged if she returned.
[удалено]
I doubt it, it'd just be returned to court as unduly lenient and the judge who handed the original sentence will probably never be given an important case again
I think they're referencing the recent case of the women with paragliders at the Palestine rally. Convicted but then let off with no punishment because the judge said it was just because emotions were running high.
Lets be realistic, nothing will really be pinned on her. The violins will come out, she will go through court (with no evidence being presented about the shit she did over there) and it will all be done and dusted in a year or two.
No evidence is needed of anything Begum did in the Middle East - membership in a terrorist organisation will be the likely charge, if charges are brought up.
Yep like I said, violins will come out, "she was groomed" etc etc etc. You can even see it in this thread. She will ultimately get out of any charges laid against her and be out on the streets in a year after the court case has failed. Sorry, but thats the reality of this.
I mean, surely the fact that she was effectively a groomed minor would also count for something in this scenario?
I'm sort of troubled that "grooming" has now been expanded to encompass "crossing a continent and having yourself smuggled into a warzone to join a murder cult proscribed by every government on Earth who advertised *themselves* by burning people alive." It's not as though she was spun a yarn then abducted from her home and trafficked across Europe against her will.
Could you be "groomed" into thinking murder, rape and slavery was acceptable? Daesh wasn't hiding what it was, it wasn't pretending to be anything other than what it was - they made videos about it. Begum saw those videos and thought, "That looks like a good idea" and no amount of claims of grooming can excuse that.
This is what I wonder about. The government has been a lot harder on her than they were with many others (most british people who went to join isis haven't had their citizenship removed.) I think it's likely they worry they've got nothing that will stick.
How many British people who've joined Isis and haven't their citizenship removed have dual citizenship? That's the only circumstance where the Govt can remove it. Which means they must be able to deal with fully British people in the courts. Which is why I find this case, based solely on the fact she has Bangladeshi citizenship on paper, a little unfair. She was born here, grew up here and went to school here. I don't think we should wash our hands of responsibility just because we technically can. I think she just has the unfortunate problem of having got media attention, and the Govt wanted to look tough. There are some other bizarre removals too, like a British-Canadian person who grew up in the UK. Canada also has a law about removing citizenship, but the UK got there first... Imo you shouldn't be able to have citizenship removed if you were born with it or got it in childhood.
> The government has been a lot harder on her than they were with many others... The RAF and USAF killed a lot of them through airstrikes.
>how would she be treated legally? Depends what judge she gets. If she talks about how her emotions were hightened in the moment she'll probably get off with no charges.
Her husband, who is Dutch, is in the same position. He still has his Dutch citizenship but they will not lift a finger to repatriate him. IMO this is what we should have done with Begum, and saved ourselves millions in legal aid. If you travel abroad against Foreign Office advice, to a place with no British embassy etc, the government has no obligation to assist you in any way.
That seems like a sensible end position - I.e the government can’t strip her only citizenship away and make her stateless, but it’s also under no obligation to get her out of her own mess.
Did they not rule that they aren't making her stateless as she can obtain Bangladeshi citizenship by descent? Maybe I'm not up to date...
That was the governments argument but Bangladesh turned around and said she hasn't got citizenship with them because they have no records of her, and she wouldn't be granted one now because of all the terrorism and shit. So since she doesn't have it (although she probably should), she *did* indisputably have UK citizenship, and the issue is the last person to withdraw... This essentially leaves the UK as the one left standing as the music stops.
Yet again, I am astonished by how willing people are to take the Bangladeshi government at its word on this point, given that the *entire premise* of the Begum case is that what the government says about your citizenship status isn’t definitive if it contradicts the actual law. SIAC heard expert evidence on Bangladeshi law and concluded that Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship at the relevant time. As far as I am aware, she never appealed against that conclusion. [*Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department*](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment-1.pdf) (Appeal No SC/163/2019), para. 121: > Our conclusion, based on the evidence which we have accepted, is that article 2B(1) of the BCTP Order does not override section 14(1A) of the 1951 Act. **When Decision 1 was made, A was a citizen of Bangladesh by descent, by virtue of section 5 of the 1951 Act. She held that citizenship as of right. That citizenship was not in the gift of the Government, and could not be denied by the Government in any circumstances.** As she was under 21, and by virtue of section 14(1A) of the 1951 Act, her Bangladeshi citizenship was not affected by section 14(1) of the 1951 Act.
The court can't rule on Bangladeshi citizenship though. If Bangladesh says she was never a citizen it makes no difference what a British court says. Really though it seems rather poor form to dump the problem on Bangladesh. She grew up in Britain. Bangladesh has had nothing to do with her.
> The court can't rule on Bangladeshi citizenship though. What do you mean by this? The question of whether she had Bangladeshi citizenship arose in the context of the validity of the Home Secretary’s decision or purported decision to remove her British citizenship. The court couldn’t duck the issue.
If the Bangladesh court rules she has British citizenship based on the wording of the law in Britain, does that mean she has British citizenship?
Britain doesn't dispute she had British citizenship, the Bangladesh court doesn't need to rule anything, we already admit it.
I think I see your point. The judgment of SIAC doesn’t *confer* (or purport to confer) Bangladeshi citizenship. It simply considers whether she did or did not have such citizenship by operation of Bangladeshi law. It does so because that question had to be determined in order to determine whether it was possible for the Secretary of State to exercise the relevant power under the British Nationality Act. There is an answer to that question which is independent of executive fiat or ministerial *ipse dixit*. SIAC concluded that the answer to that question was Yes. Tellingly, Begum has apparently never sought to challenge that conclusion.
She’s automatically a Bangladeshi citizen by decent.
Only a Bangladesh court can make that judgement. If they say she's not, regardless of the wording of the law, she's not. Nothing you, I, or the British Supreme court can do anything to override that, any more than a Bangladesh court could rule she's a British citizen.
Is that true? If a court in the UK says "actually, murder is fine" does that mean that the law against murder is null and void? If a court in Bangladesh says "this piece of Bangladeshi law is actually not real law", does that make it true?
Yes. At least in specific cases. If I commit murder, and a jury decides that they really like me so much I think I should get away with it, I can get away with murder. In the US, The Supreme court has ruled many laws unconstitutional based on a very loose interpretation of the constitution. The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but Bangladesh has.
That is extremely obviously not within the jurisdiction of the UK courts to decide. If you think it is, then you'd also have to accept that it would be within the jurisdiction of an e.g. Indian court to decide that any given Indian citizen is also a UK citizen because reasons.
Not quite – SIAC held that she *in fact had* (not merely “was able to obtain”) Bangladeshi citizenship at the relevant time.
Which flies in the face of literally Bangladesh themselves telling us she does not have citizenship. It's a question of whether it's possible for one nation to claim it has jurisdiction to rule over matters of citizenship of another, which I think we can all agree the answer should probably be that it shouldn't.
The Bangladesh government presenting that opinion, while they're very welcome to say whatever they like, does appear to contradict Bangladeshi law. Just as in the UK, the government is not the law and it's very possible for the government to says things that aren't lawful. Sure, Bangladesh might not like it and in practical terms can make things as awkward as they like, but the law is clearly written for all to see.
Even if it does nothing for her, it's essential for the integrity of citizenship that it is restored.
There was actually a bit of a spat between the SDF and the West a couple years back; basically the SDF had ended up interning a load of foreign Islamists and their families and asked that their original countries take custody of them. The local government obviously can’t let them go but it doesn’t really have proper facilities or legal cover to hold them. This was refused so now their is a worryingly large number of “ex”-fighters and their supporters permanently stuck in camps in North Syria.
Even if she gets her citizenship back AND is allowed back isn't "joining ISIS" still mega illegal? "Welcome back to the UK, stand still while we cuff you. Now get in the police van"
The UK public no longer trusts the UK legal system on terrorism.
Yeah but let's face it we probably shouldn't trust "a politician just decreed it" either.
When rule of law breaks down we get rule by law instead. That’s what we’re seeing here.
A supposed dangerous terrorist **wants to give herself up to authorities** yet we're forcing her to remain free...
I think it depends what "not been repatriated" means here. If it means that the UK government hasn't spent tax payer money to fly them back to Britain, that's one thing. If it means that the people showed up at the border and were not let in, that's quite a different thing. So, if British people are detained in some foreign country for the crimes they did there, I don't see any particular reason why the UK should make any effort for repatriating them. The exception is of course if the UK government determines that the detainments have been illegal (say, someone has been arrested in Russia or China for political reasons), but clearly that doesn't apply here.
Interesting that it's not about whether she became stateless or not, considering Bangladesh has said she's not a citizen.
>Interesting that it's not about whether she became stateless or not, considering Bangladesh has said she's not a citizen. Looks like that was an argument advanced in SIAC. She still lost her case. We'll have to see what the Court of Appeal says, but my best guess is that if they comment at all it will be along the lines of that it doesn't matters what the Bangladeshi government says, because the country has rule of law. The fact they don't want Begum is irrelevant if legally she is entitled to citizenship there. If Begum were to seek her Bangladeshi citizenship and was refused it, it would be for the local courts to make a ruling. Obviously Begum doesn't want to go down that route because she might win. But I don't think that strategy helps her in the UK courts.
The Commission's judgement was that she did have (edit: a legal entitlement to) Bangladeshi citizenship at the time the Home Secretary revoked hers. If Bangladesh subsequently revoked her (edit: right to) citizenship, it would be them and not us who left her stateless. And in that scenario we are not obliged to restore her citizenship to ensure she's not stateless; that onus is on Bangladesh. This article makes no mention of this being a factor in the appeal, implying that her legal team have accepted this argument and are instead only appealing the rationality of the removal decision itself. I'd just remind everyone that these appeals/judicial reviews do not ask whether the Home Secretary made the right decision or not. They ask whether the decision was made in the right way; were all legal obligations met, was sufficient evidence taken into account, was the decision itself rational (in the legal sense)? Judges rule whether the decision was lawful, not whether the decision was correct.
She never had Bangladeshi citizenship. The Home Secretary said she could obtain it.
You're right, I skipped over that subtle yet important distinction. Post edit.
[https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/united-kingdom-begum-v-siac-16-july-2020-begum-v-sshd-7-february-2020](https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/united-kingdom-begum-v-siac-16-july-2020-begum-v-sshd-7-february-2020) seems to suggest that "the SIAC found that, on the basis of Bangladeshi law, when the Secretary of State’s decision had been made, the appellant had been a citizen of Bangladesh by descent." Not that she could obtain it. That she already had it.
Because she'd lose that argument easily. She *was* a Bangladeshi citizen when we stripped her of her British citizenship. Only 2 years later did that citizenship lapse. Which, from my understanding, she can regain.
Except she *wasn't* a Bangladeshi citizen at the time, as confirmed by the Bangladesh government: https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/op-ed/169559/shamima-begum-is-not-a-bangladeshi-citizen Our government argued that she could apply for citizenship, which is apparently strong enough to treat her as if she is a dual citizen.
>Expert lawyers with experience in Bangladeshi citizenship cases have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national like Begum, if born to a Bangladeshi parent, is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. > That means that such a person would have dual nationality. If the person remains in the UK, their Bangladeshi citizenship remains in existence but dormant. > Under this "blood line" law, Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make efforts to activate and retain it. > Begum was 19 years old when she was stripped of her UK citizenship, which likely - in part - gave Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship. The government's lawyers are saying differently, and she lost that initial case if I recall correctly.
> Rule 9 of the 1952 Rules requires a “person claiming citizenship by descent” to apply to the government; and then the government, after making such enquires as it deems fit, “shall pass orders on the application as it deems fit.”This also implies that the state is not compelled to recognize that a person is a Bangladeshi citizen and the authorities have discretion to refuse to recognize a person as Bangladeshi citizen. > Thus, dual citizenship or citizenship by descent is not an automatic right, it needs to be granted by the government of Bangladesh based on an application from the person seeking Bangladeshi citizenship by descent. One of the factors that the government of Bangladesh looks at while granting dual citizenship is an applicant’s ties to Bangladesh. > Shamima Begum, never having travelled to Bangladesh and never having applied for a Bangladeshi citizenship cannot be considered a Bangladeshi citizen You are correct that it was the British government's argument, however, the Bangladesh government disagrees.
a) It's 1951 not 1952 (minor thing but it was bugging me) b) Section 5 doesn't contain that phrasing. ["Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his [father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth"](http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html)
a) Its 1952 Rules, not the 1951 act: \> Citizenship in Bangladesh is governed by the following laws: Citizenship Act, 1951; Citizenship Rules, 1952; Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order 1972; and Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Rules 1978. I don't have the documents for this (because I have no idea how to find Bangladeshi rules), but I am taking the work of a barrister and Special Advisor to the Bangladeshi Prime Minister: Shah Ali Farhad (linked in earlier comment).
You're wrong. See the most recent decision. Give it up
The 1952 rules would have originally been Pakistan's, so [here](https://www.refworld.org/legal/decreees/natlegbod/1952/en/17885). Notice that the rules are mostly for people "claiming citizenship", and that they're granted "a certificate". Rule 20 differs in that it's about the "acquisition of citizenship". Rule 9 is one dealing with the issuing of documents that prove citizenship, not the status of citizenship itself. If the government declined to issue documents that wouldn't be refusing citizenship, because citizenship is still determined by the 1951 act. To be charitable to Shah Ali Farhad, he was not a judge and he argued a position.
Confidently asserted nonsense.
See the quote elsewhere. This isn't me asserting it, it's the government's lawyers and the judge in that case agreed back in 2020.
She wasn't a Bangladeshi citizen when her citizenship was stripped. It was argued she was years after the fact as a defence to her being made stateless. I agree that SIAC and the government asserted it to be the case, but the Bangladesh government said she doesn't and didn't have it.
All I can say is that legal experts and judges have disagreed with you on this. The BBC article states that they knew about this at the point when they revoked her citizenship, and it seems the only reason it was argued after the case was because it took that long to get to court. As far as the UK is concerned she was automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. I defer to their wisdom as I'm not a lawyer.
That's the nub of it though. The whole issue was that the UK couldn't by an operation of its law make her stateless, so in the SIAC ruling it was agreed that she technically held it. At the same time as this, the Bangladesh government denied she had it (which is also acknowledged in the ruling). I agree that legally in the eyes of UK courts she had another citizenship, but the UK doesn't actually decide whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship, that's up to Bangladesh which said she didn't have it.
I think the winning argument was that Bangladesh only said that in hindsight. Under their laws, she *was* a citizen until the age of 21, no need to apply.
They said this at least in 2019. Relevantly they had said it before the SIAC case, as it was mentioned there. Edit: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid
What the Bangladeshi government "say" doesn't matter. It's what is written in their laws and constitutions.
Which say what on the matter?
As everyone else has said, that she was a Bangladeshi citizen by birthright, at the time of the UK citizenship being stripped away from her.
You have to apply for it if you have another nationality, and she hadn't. She never had the citizenship.
It was automatic, all she had to do was apply. But she's left herself in a difficult position. At the time of the removing of her citizenship, it was entirely legal as she would easily not be stateless, that's the point.
Of course she’s not British either Edit: lots of confusion for some people, it seems. She was born in the UK but of course her citizenship was removed, meaning that she’s not British. Being British isn’t some indelible privilege, it’s citizenship
If someone is both a victim and agent in an atrocity, how do you even pick that apart? Should we ever allow the removal of citizenship, given it is a power that can and will be abused like all other powers? It’s a hard decision, with hard realities and consequences.
I cant help but think if a 15 year old, Sarah Bennet had gone to Syria, the narrative would be completely different.
What about a Jack Letts? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/jack-letts-stripped-british-citizenship-isis-canada
Fair point but I'd say he was not a child who people would argue was trafficked to syria/brainwashed. I'm not saying she's completely innocent of all wrong doing, I just think that if this was a white British teenager, the trafficking side of thing would be spoken about a lot more and invoke a lot more sympathy/media sympathy and less likely to have citizenship removed. I don't think that's a radical statement and most people would agree with that if they are honest about our society.
She's only stateless because the state she chose to become a member of were destroyed by the West. She chose to become a member of the Islamic State and declare jihad against the West and all non-believers. Leave her to rot. And while she's at it let all the non-ISIS member refugees in that camp know exactly who she is, too.
I’ve no issue with her frankly - much as I abhor her views she was clearly trafficked and obviously wouldn’t be allowed to pose a danger to society.shes a menace but shes our menace.
I disagree, if she's a danger to people in the uk then we'd be punishing them. Until extremism can be better fought in the uk then we shouldn't be bringing back people who believe in it
I’m a North London Jew and no fan of islamism - as my posting history illustrates - but I’m also a liberal and believe we can only change our society from within. Pandering to the hang em, flog em and deport them brigade wont improve society imho.
its hard mate, she still has incredibly extremist views based on her 2019 interview. the only thing i an sympathetic towards is her age when she went, and the fact she was blatantly groomed by isis, which i don’t understand why she isn’t granted a return by this fact alone. but she needs to be converted to see that beheading folks that are a ‘threat to islam’ is not OK. even about the manchester arena bombings, all she has to say was ‘i didn’t know about the children’ implying every other death was fair game. this was in febuary 2019, when she was 19/20 years of age.
I fully see that, but she was both groomed then radicalised in the most appalling of places - the fact that she was allowed to leave with her friends (both now dead) was of itself a security failure on our part. Look, I’m not going to lose much sleep if her appeal ultimately fails (whatever happens today we’ll proceed to the Supreme Court) but the fact she is clearly imbalanced and exhibiting flashes of views wholly abhorrent to us is hardly surprising in the circumstances. The kind of anti semitic shit we’re seeing on our streets and even projected onto parliament is illustrative of the kind of deeply worrying ignorance/ hate which we have to address head on - we can’t deport them all, many of whom feel “detached” about the fate of jews in the exact same way she feels detached from the whole of western society.
Yes we can only change our society from within but if you're too tolerant and allowing anyone in with free speech then you won't be the one changing society. It'll be the extremists spreading their views and furthering their beliefs
I see that but equally, we can’t wear the cloak of extreme right wing politics. Take for example the anti semites projecting hate speech onto the Houses of Parliament the other night. Its an utter disgrace that the Police stood by and did nothing - whilst recently stopping the campaign against anti semitism from driving electronic billboard depicting kidnapped jewish children - They need to firmly enforce the law but we can’t deport these people - one of them was the MP Caroline Lucas!
Police definitely need to improve their handling of these incidents. They're too afraid of violent backlash free these communities which is something that needs to be educated out of them. Schools need to take some of the responsibilities so allowing certain faith schools to perpetuate negative beliefs is creating a foundation which will be hard to get rid of. Deporting protesters is different to actual terrorist helpers though as well. If those protesters left and went to help hamas fight israel I wouldn't want them coming back either
First para fully agreed. You don’t see pro israel campaigners our the wider Jewish community pulling this shit. Second paragraph is fair - I see she lost her appeal and as above I’ll lose no sleep!
Not really. We don’t usually repatriate people who commit crimes in other countries - we leave them there to be dealt with.
She’s been dealt with - shes in a refugee camp not prison. Once citizens serve their sentences, however serious the charge, they generally return (or are deported back here).
No politician should have the power to strip a citizen of their citizenship. The whole principle is disgusting.
Dual citizenship yes like this case. Single citizenship yes I agree with you as we’re not allowed to make people stateless. (Unless we want to break that rule, not like there’s any foreign courts that make us unable to do that)
She's not a naturalised dual citizen - she's a British citizen from birth. If you can strip citizenship from UK citizens from birth purely on the basis of where their parents (or grandparents, in the case of Ireland and Italy and some other countries) are from, that creates two different citizenship statuses, which is also disgusting. It also means that every single Jewish person in the UK can have their citizenship stripped away, as they're eligible for Israeli citizenship.
I don’t agree with dual citizenship regardless of the law (personal opinion I know but not being committed to only being British leads to mixed priorities). I suppose if an Israeli / Brit went to join isis this could also happen to them as that’s the only example we have at the moment. I’ll reserve judgement to this being ‘disgusting’ when it’s used against non serious cases of people joining foreign terrorist death cults. If this happens I’ll be in agreement.
>I don’t agree with dual citizenship regardless of the law (personal opinion I know but not being committed to only being British leads to mixed priorities). You understand that you can't choose your parents? If you have an Irish parent, you're an Irish citizen from birth, it's automatic. Same for loads of other countries. >I suppose if an Israeli / Brit went to join isis this could also happen to them as that’s the only example we have at the moment. No, it's not the only example at all: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/jack-letts-stripped-british-citizenship-isis-canada](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/jack-letts-stripped-british-citizenship-isis-canada) >I’ll reserve judgement to this being ‘disgusting’ when it’s used against non serious cases of people joining foreign terrorist death cults. OK, if you're happy to leave the existence of your most fundamental right of all entirely at the discretion of someone like Suella Braverman, that's fine.
Yup can’t choose your parents, I agree. Aside from special cases like Ireland (GFA etc) we shouldn’t be offering this. Thanks for bringing up the one situation that my suggestion wouldn’t work for and not related to the other 200 countries in the world it could apply to 😂. Makes me understand your viewpoint. Again another ISIS fighter… I genuinely don’t care what happens to them or have any sympathy for their protestations. I did a quick google on him and turns out he’s british and Canadian and still a Canadian citizen? So same argument, surprise surprise the guardian left that out? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Letts I don’t like the Tories never voted for them and probs never will, but I trust that our elected government should rule and make decisions for us. Doesn’t mean I have to like it. P.S. with my suggestion she could never be Bangladeshi as she could only be British?
>Yup can’t choose your parents, I agree. Aside from special cases like Ireland (GFA etc) we shouldn’t be offering this. We're not offering anything. Other countries have nationality laws, we do not control them. A large number of children are born as dual nationals, and nothing the UK can do can change that. >Again another ISIS fighter… I genuinely don’t care what happens to them or have any sympathy for their protestations. I did a quick google on him and turns out he’s british and Canadian and still a Canadian citizen? You don't need to care about what happens to him. >I don’t like the Tories never voted for them and probs never will, but I trust that our elected government should rule and make decisions for us. Doesn’t mean I have to like it. I have no idea why you would have such faith in any government of any stripe.
Yup and we can deny them the rights to hold a British passport if they ever elect to take another forgiving their rights to ever exercise those rights with a foreign nation (excluding Ireland) we’re talking about our citizenship not anyone else’s. Would stop our beloved government from abdicating their rights in any future circumstances. Granted that’s if we trust them.
>Yup and we can deny them the rights to hold a British passport if they ever elect to take another forgiving their rights to ever exercise those rights with a foreign nation (excluding Ireland) we’re talking about our citizenship not anyone else’s. So you'd deny my children the right to a British passport, because they are Canadian citizens by accident of their mother? I keep telling you - there's no choice here, they are dual nationals by birth, automatically. Begum has never had a Bangladesh passport.
[удалено]
How will we identify muslims - should we make them wear some kind of armband, perhaps?
Nah, they’ll just want to ban anyone who’s vaguely brown just in case
Just out of interest, did you support banning Irish immigration back in the 80s?
How are more people not worried about this, given the rise of the right wing in pretty much everywhere in EU right now ?
>How are more people not worried about this Possibly because there are independent appeals available, such as Begum is exercising now.
>How are more people not worried about this, given the rise of the right wing in pretty much everywhere in EU right now ? Because most people are pretty right wing.
British-born. Shouldn't even be an option to remove her citizenship. If she's committed crimes she should face justice in the courts, but bc she's brown it's all 'deportation'.