ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Matthew Best]

I know exactly what I am talking about. Sorry to disappoint you.

Just because the above is what you do, don't judge others by your own standards.

Oh, and I'll thank you not to accuse me of wrongdoing.

Doubling down was pretty predictable too. Say something incorrect and insist you were right the whole time. Keep it up! I'm sure somebody is convinced.

(Actually I'm not sure at all.)

 

[Vixen]

Doubling down was pretty predictable too. Say something incorrect and insist you were right the whole time. Keep it up! I'm sure somebody is convinced.

(Actually I'm not sure at all.)

We were discussing Begum who is/was British with a mother who is/was Bangladeshi.

As an aside I mentioned USA/French citizenship and used the shorthand 'born in the USA' as the principle behind USA law, similar to France.

There was zero relevance for me to recite the entire USA or French nationality act and their exceptions under various subsections and byelaws.

Your pouncing on something trivial to accuse me of wrongdoing is just pure nastiness reflects on you.

The gist of what I said remains true and unchanged by your erroneous claim that it is false or that I am a ne'er-do-well who tried to deceive by failing to cite the entire breadth of the USA. French, UK, Bangladeshi nationality acts.

Fact is, Begum even if her mother was Bangladeshi, like the USA citizenship requirements of overseas born persons of a national, the person needs to claim citizenship of said country by age 18 if the parent has not done so.

There is nothing underhand whatsoever by this assertion.

I note that you make a point of trawling through my posts trying to spot typos or things that you can attack me for out of all proportion. Lucky you that I don't reciprocate in kind. But then your aim was simply to wind me up.

 

[Matthew Best]

As an aside I mentioned USA/French citizenship and used the shorthand 'born in the USA' as the principle behind USA law, similar to France.

No, you didn't.

Your exact words were:

"Usually, to get dual nationality via descent - and not all countries use bloodline descent (for example, USA and France, where you have to be born there) - you have to apply by age 18.."

You said, or at least strongly implied, that USA does not use bloodline descent, you have to be born there. This is, as you went to helpfully point out, wrong, although you did it while still insisting you were right.

You did not use the shorthand "born in the USA", which in any event is not the principle behind USA law.

Care to try again?

 

[Vixen]

No, you didn't.

Your exact words were:

"Usually, to get dual nationality via descent - and not all countries use bloodline descent (for example, USA and France, where you have to be born there) - you have to apply by age 18.."

You said, or at least strongly implied, that USA does not use bloodline descent, you have to be born there. This is, as you went to helpfully point out, wrong, although you did it while still insisting you were right.

You did not use the shorthand "born in the USA", which in any event is not the principle behind USA law.

Care to try again?

Rubbish. I was talking specifically to do with the circumstances around Begum. So it was not necessary to spell out the exceptions to US nationality law.

Born in the USA is indeed the principle that drives USA nationality laws.

Go on, bore us all about, suppose a baby is born midflight, etc, etc.

You either do not understand legal priniciples or you do but just want to be obstreperous.

Had you merely been adding to the comment or pointing out an exception, you wouldn't have needed to descend into abuse and insults on a personal level.

Lucky you getting away with it.

 

[Matthew Best]

Rubbish. I was talking specifically to do with the circumstances around Begum. So it was not necessary to spell out the exceptions to US nationality law.

It was not necessary for you to mention US law at all! But for some reason you chose to do so - and I pointed out your error. if you don't like your errors being pointed out, I have a simple remedy for you - stop making them. I suspect, from long and tedious experience, it's one you won't take on board.

Born in the USA is indeed the principle that drives USA nationality laws.

Go on, bore us all about, suppose a baby is born midflight, etc, etc.

As you already pointed out, a baby born anywhere in the world to US parents can claim US citizenship. What being born midflight has to do with it, I have no idea. I suspect neither do you.

You either do not understand legal priniciples or you do but just want to be obstreperous.

I think you meant to say "principles".

 

[Arcade22]

FIFY. So by that logic we should string up murderers and rapists by their ankles, castrate them and make them suffer a long painful death.

A very good example of a non-sequitur. Nice.

No. Dumping your criminals onto other countries to deal with is a gross abrogation of duty and constitutional rights.

She willingly defected to the "Islamic State" and set about squeezing out future terrorists, giving up the freedom and autonomy she enjoyed in Britain to become little more than a piece of meat for their men, and yet she voiced no regrets whatsoever about her actions even after she had spent years there. No regrets despite the fact that the "Islamic State" effectively declared war on the entire world and specifically organized terrorist attacks against the UK.

The main victims of her are the Syrian and Iraqi peoples, and she should own up to what she did to them.

 

[rockysmith76]

Rubbish. I was talking specifically to do with the circumstances around Begum. So it was not necessary to spell out the exceptions to US nationality law.

Born in the USA is indeed the principle that drives USA nationality laws.

Go on, bore us all about, suppose a baby is born midflight, etc, etc.

You either do not understand legal priniciples or you do but just want to be obstreperous.

Had you merely been adding to the comment or pointing out an exception, you wouldn't have needed to descend into abuse and insults on a personal level.

Lucky you getting away with it.

Your semantics don't matter. The twit betrayed her country, her culture and plenty more, and joining a terrorist group has heinous consequences. She's no better than the "American Taliban" guy was from years. Traitor plain and simple, sympathy not included.

So yes, I am saying, join the terrorist become a person without a country.

 

[Vixen]

Your semantics don't matter. The twit betrayed her country, her culture and plenty more, and joining a terrorist group has heinous consequences. She's no better than the "American Taliban" guy was from years. Traitor plain and simple, sympathy not included.

So yes, I am saying, join the terrorist become a person without a country.

And that law was passed when?

 

[Seismosaurus]

The Home Office has wilfully erred as Begum is over 18 and therefore is NOT entitled to Bangladeshi nationality. To get citizenship by naturalisation means living in a country for anything five years upwards and applying for it.

This does not apply to Begum. Nor is it reasonable to argue thus.

Then she should have no trouble proving that in court.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The Home Office has wilfully erred as Begum is over 18 and therefore is NOT entitled to Bangladeshi nationality. To get citizenship by naturalisation means living in a country for anything five years upwards and applying for it.

This does not apply to Begum. Nor is it reasonable to argue thus.

I have no idea where you got this from, but it is simply not true.

Bangladesh’s 1951 Citizenship Act grants citizenship to all those born to a Bangladeshi parent. Where the parent was born in Bangladesh, as in the case of Begum, citizenship passes to the child automatically at birth.

https://internationallaw.blog/2019/...-practical-analysis-of-shamima-begums-status/

 

[rockysmith76]

And that law was passed when?

I suspect you are using that argument rather than deal with an apparent excess of sympathy for one whop doesn't deserve it.

 

[Vixen]

I have no idea where you got this from, but it is simply not true.

https://internationallaw.blog/2019/...-practical-analysis-of-shamima-begums-status/

I see where the Home Office is coming from: it is applying the de minimis style threshold to what is Bangladeshi latest nationality act. Technically you can't apply law retrospectively. For example, he same government suddenly wants to change the sentencing of several dozen convicted terrorist offenders due to be released having served their prescribed sentence. This is supposedly because of the London Bridge terrorist recently having also just been released. Priti Patel and Boris Johnson have decided that no more such offenders can be similarly released and have amended their sentences! The human rights lawyers opposing it point out it is a breach of the Human Rights Act to change a sentence once it has been ratified.

We also see the same government sending back people who thought they were British to far off countries as a a result of having served sentences of longer than one year.

The attitude in Begum's case is, 'technically her mother was Bangladeshi before she naturalised as British and her child, Shamima, was a British citizen. However, there is a possibility that Shamima could hypothetically become a Bangladeshi citizen (which she is NOT at the moment; there is nothing automatic about it if born abroad to a mother who never registered it as such [as in applying for a passport]) if she was to become a citizen 'by declaration' because of her mother's birth.

That is a far cry from actually being granted it given she has never applied for it and if she did, I feel sure there is a standard clause that rules her out as an 'undesirable citizen'.

Instead of scraping the barrel to the lowest level there was a time the UK aspired to the highest standards of justice. Now it is no better than a tinpot totalitarian republic whose laws are written on the back of an envelope.

 

[Vixen]

I suspect you are using that argument rather than deal with an apparent excess of sympathy for one whop doesn't deserve it.

Nothing to do with sympathy. The UK has criminal courts of law to deal with her alleged offences. I am the rational one, you are the one who wants to deny her basic human rights, not to mention the one as set out in the Magna Carter (=bill of rights) of the right to a fair hearing.

 

[theprestige]

Instead of scraping the barrel to the lowest level there was a time the UK aspired to the highest standards of justice. Now it is no better than a tinpot totalitarian republic whose laws are written on the back of an envelope.

When you put it that way, Begum is better off staying with ISIS.

 

[Matthew Best]

Nothing to do with sympathy. The UK has criminal courts of law to deal with her alleged offences. I am the rational one, you are the one who wants to deny her basic human rights, not to mention the one as set out in the Magna Carter (=bill of rights) of the right to a fair hearing.

And who's this Carter fellow?

 

[Steve]

And who's this Carter fellow?

Magna? She's a woman.

 

[Arcade22]

She was an idiotic idealistic 15-year-old schoolgirl.

Did you never have any idiotic beliefs when you were younger?

And looking back, do you believe that people never change their beliefs as they grow and mature?

IS never shied away from documenting and publishing the atrocities it was regularly committing, seemingly relishing in the infamy they gained. They also never shied away from its rigidly enforced oppression of women.

Taking that into account she willing decided to join a group of mass-murdering terrorists in the only role she was allowed to serve: as a prize for some terrorist to have sex with and knock up. The only real productive thing she could do was raise future terrorists, although given the precarious conditions that she was in that was highly unlikely to be realistic.

It might easy to dismiss that as being caused by "grooming" or "brainwashing", but the fact that she continued to defend IS and was among the last groups of holdouts is indicative that she continues to agree with IS.

It's like someone deciding to defect to Nazi Germany after watching a movie showing them slaughtering a bunch of defenseless peasants in Eastern Europe, not that the Nazis ever tried to glorify their war-crimes and atrocities unlike IS.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I see where the Home Office is coming from: it is applying the de minimis style threshold to what is Bangladeshi latest nationality act.

No, it isn't. The act dates from 1951, as I said in my post.

Technically you can't apply law retrospectively.

They aren't. As I said in my post.

For example, he same government suddenly wants to change the sentencing of several dozen convicted terrorist offenders due to be released having served their prescribed sentence. This is supposedly because of the London Bridge terrorist recently having also just been released. Priti Patel and Boris Johnson have decided that no more such offenders can be similarly released and have amended their sentences! The human rights lawyers opposing it point out it is a breach of the Human Rights Act to change a sentence once it has been ratified.

We also see the same government sending back people who thought they were British to far off countries as a a result of having served sentences of longer than one year.

Utterly irrelevant.

The attitude in Begum's case is, 'technically her mother was Bangladeshi before she naturalised as British and her child, Shamima, was a British citizen. However, there is a possibility that Shamima could hypothetically become a Bangladeshi citizen (which she is NOT at the moment; there is nothing automatic about it if born abroad to a mother who never registered it as such [as in applying for a passport]) if she was to become a citizen 'by declaration' because of her mother's birth.

That is a far cry from actually being granted it given she has never applied for it and if she did, I feel sure there is a standard clause that rules her out as an 'undesirable citizen'.

What on earth are you talking about? This is pure fantasy on your part, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual law in question.

Just in case you decide to read it this time:
https://internationallaw.blog/2019/...-practical-analysis-of-shamima-begums-status/

Instead of scraping the barrel to the lowest level there was a time the UK aspired to the highest standards of justice. Now it is no better than a tinpot totalitarian republic whose laws are written on the back of an envelope.

Irrelevant ranting.

Once more, for clarity: Begum is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. Neither she nor her mother need to apply for anything.
If you want to fight for justice, I suggest you turn your attention to the Bangladeshi government, which is busily disowning one of its citizens, and threatening to execute her should she return there.

 

[Vixen]

And who's this Carter fellow?

Can't believe I wrote that.

 

[Vixen]

IS never shied away from documenting and publishing the atrocities it was regularly committing, seemingly relishing in the infamy they gained. They also never shied away from its rigidly enforced oppression of women.

Taking that into account she willing decided to join a group of mass-murdering terrorists in the only role she was allowed to serve: as a prize for some terrorist to have sex with and knock up. The only real productive thing she could do was raise future terrorists, although given the precarious conditions that she was in that was highly unlikely to be realistic.

It might easy to dismiss that as being caused by "grooming" or "brainwashing", but the fact that she continued to defend IS and was among the last groups of holdouts is indicative that she continues to agree with IS.

It's like someone deciding to defect to Nazi Germany after watching a movie showing them slaughtering a bunch of defenseless peasants in Eastern Europe, not that the Nazis ever tried to glorify their war-crimes and atrocities unlike IS.

First of all, it is illegal in Germany to glorify Nazi war crimes or even Nazi symbolism. Secondly, there are plenty of people who signed up to help the Waffen without being aware of the atrocities taking place in the main land. In one of the war magazines here some Finnish guy says he wanted to join the Nazis when he was aged 16 but once he realised what they were about he turned his back on them. So, should the Finnish government revoke his nationality on the grounds of his naive 16-year-old self? Or what about the Germany government and its allies (for example, Norway and Italy) should they strip tens of thousands of their citizens, together with their children and grandchildren (as most will be dying off now) of their nationality as having once supported Hitler and his abominable ideas?

In any case, until Begum stands trial, you don't know what atrocities she has committed.

I presume you have heard of Stockholm Syndrome? For example, heiress Patty Hearst claims she carried out armed bank robberies with the Symbion (_sp?) Army because as a hostage she became psychologically identified with them.

I can remember in my schooldays being 100% conservative with the attendant views. It was only as an independent adult I realised I only had those views because of the environment and culture I was in. Should I be judged for having once been head of the 'Britons' house, our theme being 'Rule Britannia'?