Reply to: Three British-Bangladeshis win appeal against removal of UK citizenship

[SueEllen]

Yep you missed the fact he skipped the awkward piece of law beyond mentioning it as an aside - and I didn't.

Either way the problem the Government has is that they have zero evidence beyond a legal opinion that Ms Begum is a could be a Bangladeshi Citizen and the Bangladesh Government have continually stated that she isn't.

It really would be so much easier if she was allowed home to spend the 10 or so years in jail she would likely serve.

More likely life sentence with certain number in prison and the rest on license with severe restrictions. Hopefully the restrictions are harsh enough to stop her successfully procreating.

[eek]

Well lke I said - her gaining her UK citizenship back would be a matter of total indifference unless, and only unlesss, she came back here and was jailed for a while.

And I did read the whole thing, and I did come to a conclusion on what it said. Just that mine is different to yours. Tant pis...

Yep you missed the fact he skipped the awkward piece of law beyond mentioning it as an aside - and I didn't.

Either way the problem the Government has is that they have zero evidence beyond a legal opinion that Ms Begum is a could be a Bangladeshi Citizen and the Bangladesh Government have continually stated that she isn't.

It really would be so much easier if she was allowed home to spend the 10 or so years in jail she would likely serve.

[malvolio]

It's a shame that you didn't read the article and notice that while this bit is mentioned it's then completely ignored in the rest of the argument



As that wasn't done by the parents (who would wish their child to have a Bangladesh passport when they qualify for a British one and you can't hold both) the only passport she is entitled to is the British one she got at birth.

Now there is a difference between the cases above and Ms Begum as she was under 21 at the time but I actually don't think it changes the fundamentals regardless of what the end conclusion may say because if the bit above.

And thanks for confirming that you don't read articles enough to miss the fundamental flaw in the argument...

Well lke I said - her gaining her UK citizenship back would be a matter of total indifference unless, and only unlesss, she came back here and was jailed for a while.

And I did read the whole thing, and I did come to a conclusion on what it said. Just that mine is different to yours. Tant pis...

[eek]

I was reading this article/blog on the subject. I'm with the UK position on her.

That said, I don't really care what happens to her.

It's a shame that you didn't read the article and notice that while this bit is mentioned it's then completely ignored in the rest of the argument

Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 states that, a person born outside Bangladesh ‘shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’ if either of his or her parents is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his or her birth. Additionally, if both the parents are only citizens of Bangladesh by descent then the birth of their child must be registered at the Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country in order for the child to claim Bangladeshi citizenship.

As that wasn't done by the parents (who would wish their child to have a Bangladesh passport when they qualify for a British one and you can't hold both) the only passport she is entitled to is the British one she got at birth.

Now there is a difference between the cases above and Ms Begum as she was under 21 at the time but I actually don't think it changes the fundamentals regardless of what the end conclusion may say because if the bit above.

And thanks for confirming that you don't read articles enough to miss the fundamental flaw in the argument...

[vetran]

I was reading this article/blog on the subject. I'm with the UK position on her.

That said, I don't really care what happens to her.

Yep one for the judge. if she comes back here she should be in prison.

[malvolio]

I would check that if I were you - as Begum needed to apply by a certain date to qualify for Bangladeshi citizenship and as far as the articles I saw when checking this a while back she no longer qualified.

Hence my original statement about her as I believe you will find that the Home Office have continually lied about her secondary option - as these appeals confirmed.

I was reading this article/blog on the subject. I'm with the UK position on her.

That said, I don't really care what happens to her.

[SueEllen]

I would check that if I were you - as Begum needed to apply by a certain date to qualify for Bangladeshi citizenship and as far as the articles I saw when checking this a while back she no longer qualified.

Hence my original statement about her as I believe you will find that the Home Office have continually lied about her secondary option - as these appeals confirmed.

Boris, Priti and Co lying? Well I never.....

[eek]

Worth remembering that Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship under their laws by virtue of having Bangladeshi parents. The fact that the country won't let her in is irrelevant. So in her case, she hasn't been made stateless.

As for "personal responsibility", she was 15 and listening to all sorts of stupid advice when she left so may be forgiven. She is a lot older now, has lived a lot and should presumably be aware of why she is in such trouble. So perhaps a recognition of the mistake and a retraction of the support for ISIS might be a good first step...

I would check that if I were you - as Begum needed to apply by a certain date to qualify for Bangladeshi citizenship and as far as the articles I saw when checking this a while back she no longer qualified.

Hence my original statement about her as I believe you will find that the Home Office have continually lied about her secondary option - as these appeals confirmed.

[NotAllThere]

Worth remembering that Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship under their laws by virtue of having Bangladeshi parents.

They lose it when they're 21. She was under 21 when she was stripped of British citizeship. If it came to court in Bangladesh, what are the chances that they'll declare not giving her Bangladeshi citizenship to be lawful? If they don't, then the Home Secretary's action did render her stateless.

Anyway - it'll be a for a judge to decide. I'd bet on the Home Secretary having acted unlawfully. There's a bit of track history for the office holder acting beyond their powers for temporary political gain.

[malvolio]

Worth remembering that Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship under their laws by virtue of having Bangladeshi parents. The fact that the country won't let her in is irrelevant. So in her case, she hasn't been made stateless.

As for "personal responsibility", she was 15 and listening to all sorts of stupid advice when she left so may be forgiven. She is a lot older now, has lived a lot and should presumably be aware of why she is in such trouble. So perhaps a recognition of the mistake and a retraction of the support for ISIS might be a good first step...

[mattster]

Does the individual take no responsibility? Are you saying that she was unaware that taking her sisters passport and going to join a blood thirsty terrorist group that was killing British soldiers may not be popular with the law?

None of that is relevant, and she will certainly be punished if she returns to the UK. The issue is that international law states that you cannot strip someone of citizenship if that would leave the person stateless. As the judge in this case said, "for that reason, and for that reason alone" the case is decided. It shouldn't really be controversial.

[vetran]

Not really as this case is all about Shamima Begum the only difference is that she currently isn't in the UK.

But the idea that we screw up telling people the difference between what is right and wrong and then try to offload our failures to a country they've never been to is just wrong

Does the individual take no responsibility? Are you saying that she was unaware that taking her sisters passport and going to join a blood thirsty terrorist group that was killing British soldiers may not be popular with the law?

[eek]

But I'm fairly sure the judges didn't omit that fact, as it was the key point that the Home Secretaries decision relied upon.

The fact that it isn't in the article is entirely irrelevant. The judges have ruled on the law. The matter is closed.

Not really as this case is all about Shamima Begum the only difference is that she currently isn't in the UK.

But the idea that we screw up telling people the difference between what is right and wrong and then try to offload our failures to a country they've never been to is just wrong

[NotAllThere]

It looks that although they may not have had Bangladeshi citizenship they were in fact eligible to apply, but simply chose not to. The article omits this important fact.

But I'm fairly sure the judges didn't omit that fact, as it was the key point that the Home Secretaries decision relied upon.

The fact that it isn't in the article is entirely irrelevant. The judges have ruled on the law. The matter is closed.

[mattster]

It looks that although they may not have had Bangladeshi citizenship they were in fact eligible to apply, but simply chose not to. The article omits this important fact.

Perhaps the article omits it because it is not relevant? Being eligible to apply for citizenship is not equal to having citizenship, therefore as a simple matter of law they would have been stateless if stripped of British citizenship. That's really all there is to it.