ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Matthew Best]

Can't believe I wrote that.

I can.

 

[Vixen]

I can.

I am willing to bet you did not attend the Magna Carta exhibition at the British Library, as I did.

 

[Vixen]

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




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



Utterly irrelevant.



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/



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.

You are not understanding the small technicality that Bangladesh has no official record of her so she cannot be'automatically Bangladeshi'. What happens in cases of children born abroad is that they or their parents have to apply for nationality before a set age, 18 or 21, stating the reason they qualify. After that age, there is usually a means where you can apply for nationality by declaration.

Begum has done neither of those things. She is British by birth and has never formally renounced it. Had she done so she would likely have been refused as it would have made her stateless.

It is the Home Office who has wrongly revoked her nationality under the 2014 Act, which means it has acted in retrospect.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You are not understanding the small technicality that Bangladesh has no official record of her so she cannot be'automatically Bangladeshi'.

Well, firstly, that's mightily convenient for the Bangladeshi government.
Secondly, I can find no source for this claim- do you have a link?
Thirdly, and most importantly, this is irrelevant. You are still in denial about what the relevant legislation, and its interpretations, says.

What happens in cases of children born abroad is that they or their parents have to apply for nationality before a set age, 18 or 21, stating the reason they qualify. After that age, there is usually a means where you can apply for nationality by declaration.

No. Once again, you are simply making this up. That is absolutely not what the law says.

Begum has done neither of those things. She is British by birth and has never formally renounced it. Had she done so she would likely have been refused as it would have made her stateless.

It makes no difference what Begum has or has not done. The British government has the power to strip her of her British citizenship if this can be done without making her stateless. This is the case here.

It is the Home Office who has wrongly revoked her nationality under the 2014 Act, which means it has acted in retrospect.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Begum left the UK for Syria in 2015. What action do you claim is 'in retrospect'?

In any case, all of this is completely irrelevant, as you are still making stuff up and ignoring the appropriate laws.
Here's another good summary, which hopefully will end your confusion.

[A] person is automatically a citizen of Bangladesh at birth if either of his or her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth (i.e. was born in Bangladesh).

The application referred to in Rule 9 is merely an application to obtain proof or certificate of citizenship. It has no legal effect on the status of citizenship, which has been acquired at birth.
According to the information currently available, Ms Begum was born in the UK, at least one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth. Therefore, according to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 , Ms Begum is ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’. Her citizenship is not contingent upon whether she holds a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship or whether she has submitted any application for the same, or whether she has ever visited Bangladesh. It is evident from the provisions above that holding a passport or a proof of citizenship or applying for the same or even visiting Bangladesh has no impact on the legal fact of citizenship.

It is evident that the relevant legal provisions are far from precise and efficient. However, it is abundantly clear that Ms Begum is legally a citizen of Bangladesh until she attains the age of 21 years. Thus, the claims of the Government of Bangladesh and some others that Ms Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen owing to the fact that she does not hold a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship, has never submitted any application for dual nationality, and has never visited Bangladesh, have no legal basis.

Therefore, as of February 2019, Ms Begum is legally a Bangladeshi citizen. Consequently, the decision of the Home Office to deprive her of her British citizenship does not legally render her stateless. Hence, the measure is not unlawful insofar as the issue of statelessness is concerned.

 

[Vixen]

Well, firstly, that's mightily convenient for the Bangladeshi government.
Secondly, I can find no source for this claim- do you have a link?
Thirdly, and most importantly, this is irrelevant. You are still in denial about what the relevant legislation, and its interpretations, says.



No. Once again, you are simply making this up. That is absolutely not what the law says.



It makes no difference what Begum has or has not done. The British government has the power to strip her of her British citizenship if this can be done without making her stateless. This is the case here.



I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Begum left the UK for Syria in 2015. What action do you claim is 'in retrospect'?

In any case, all of this is completely irrelevant, as you are still making stuff up and ignoring the appropriate laws.
Here's another good summary, which hopefully will end your confusion.

You are simply reciting the reasoning of the SIAC (which is located at the back of the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK). It found in favour of the Home Office (at this stage) so thus recited whatever Priti Patel's lawyers submitted.

In fact, your link contradicts your claim. The author writes:

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.

Begum's parents were probably born in the UK so the latter part of the aforesaid Act applies. Begum would need to apply, on grounds of descent.

The government and the SIAC have approached it from the angle of, 'We don't want to deal with ISIS Muslims, how can we get rid of this one by shoehorning the various Acts to make it look above board?' Fact is, Begum has now been left stateless. Unless her parents are only naturalised Brits and still hold Bangladeshi citizenship there is no way Begum is 'not a British citizen'. It is said her mother is of Bangladeshi descent but that might just mean it was the grandparents who were last full Bangladeshi citizens.

The Commission in G3 (para 70) held that the aforesaid provisions make it manifest that citizenship by descent in Bangladesh arises at birth. This interpretation is also supported by the use of the phrases ‘shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’ and ‘person claiming citizenship by descent’ in Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 respectively. Therefore, a person is automatically a citizen of Bangladesh at birth if either of his or her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth (i.e. was born in Bangladesh).

This, of course, is just the Home Office's reasoning.

Others argue as follows:

The land where she was born and bred radicalised her and ultimately failed her. Lest we forget, Shamima left the UK when she was 15, after she had been extensively groomed under the noses of the very authorities tasked to protect her.

As a minor, she was effectively trafficked to Syria with three other girls her age from the same school. In Syria, Shamima sadly lost two babies to malnutrition, disease and exposure. Her third child, born in a Syrian refugee camp, also died. That child was a British citizen and should have been repatriated to the UK, as other orphaned children from these camps were in November 2019.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/this-government-has-failed-shamima-begum


The Nationality Act 2015 according to wiki:

After the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 came into force British nationals could be deprived of their citizenship if and only if the Secretary of State was satisfied they were responsible for acts seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or an Overseas Territory.

This was extended under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; people with dual nationality who are British nationals can be deprived of their British citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied that "deprivation is conducive to the public good"

However, Begum did not have dual nationality and does not now have any nationality.

his provision was modified by the Immigration Act 2014 so as not to require that a third country would actually grant nationality to a person; British nationality can be revoked if "the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory."

In effect, the current government is simply trying to work the law backwards when it speciously claims Begum fits this category.

It appears that the government usually waits until the person has left Britain, then sends a warning notice to their British home and signs a deprivation order a day or two later.[74] Appeals are heard at the highly secretive Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), where the government can submit evidence that cannot be seen or challenged by the appellant.[74]

Home Secretary Sajid Javid said in 2018 that until then deprivation of nationality had been restricted to "terrorists who are a threat to the country", but that he intended to extend it to "those who are convicted of the most grave criminal offences". The acting director of Liberty responded “The home secretary is taking us down a very dangerous road. ... making our criminals someone else’s problem is ... the government washing its hands of its responsibilities ... Banishment belongs in the dark ages."[79]

So thanks to the reasoning of this government, Jack Letts, from Oxford, is dumped on Canada because of his father's nationality.

Jack Abraham Letts (born 1995) is a British-born Muslim convert, formerly of dual British-Canadian nationality, who has been accused of being a member of ISIS.[1][2] He was given the nickname Jihadi Jack by the British media.

He is still only 23.

On 18 August 2019 it was reported that the British government had revoked Letts' British citizenship. However, the Home Office declined to comment on the case.[40] In response, Canadian Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale described the move as a "unilateral action to off-load [the UK's consular] responsibilities," leaving Canada responsible for further diplomatic assistance for Letts.[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Letts

In effect, other countries are expected to deal with UK citizens.

Think about it: it was the UK that enabled these young jihadists to be radicalised and alienated from the mainstream. It needs to deal with them in the British courts. That is what justice is about.

Your argument is circular in that all you are saying is 'Begum has Bangladeshi nationality because the government says so and it won the first stage of the appeal at the secretive SIAC'.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You are not understanding the small technicality that Bangladesh has no official record of her so she cannot be'automatically Bangladeshi'. What happens in cases of children born abroad is that they or their parents have to apply for nationality before a set age, 18 or 21, stating the reason they qualify. After that age, there is usually a means where you can apply for nationality by declaration.

Begum has done neither of those things. She is British by birth and has never formally renounced it. Had she done so she would likely have been refused as it would have made her stateless.

It is the Home Office who has wrongly revoked her nationality under the 2014 Act, which means it has acted in retrospect.

Let me start by noting that you have apparently ditched almost everything you said in the above post.
Interesting.

You are simply reciting the reasoning of the SIAC (which is located at the back of the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK). It found in favour of the Home Office (at this stage) so thus recited whatever Priti Patel's lawyers submitted.

Neither of my sources is attached to the SIAC, so there is no parroting involved.
There is an alternative explanation: all these people have looked at the relevant laws and come to the same conclusion. Has it occurred to you that all these lawyers might be right, and you might be wrong?

In fact, your link contradicts your claim. The author writes:

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.

My link supports my claim, as we will see shortly.

Begum's parents were probably born in the UK so the latter part of the aforesaid Act applies. Begum would need to apply, on grounds of descent.

From my link:

According to the information currently available, Ms Begum was born in the UK, at least one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth. Therefore, according to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 and Rule 9 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Rules 1952 , Ms Begum is ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’

I can find no source for your claim about where Begum's parents were born.
Do you have any evidence for this? Every source I have looked at supports the idea that her mother, at least, is Bangladeshi. Begum herself, then, is Bangladeshi according to Bangladeshi law, which I have repeatedly cited.

The government and the SIAC have approached it from the angle of, 'We don't want to deal with ISIS Muslims, how can we get rid of this one by shoehorning the various Acts to make it look above board?'

Personally, I have no problem with that. If we can use the law to punish wrongdoers and protect the innocent, then it is fulfilling its function.

Fact is, Begum has now been left stateless.

Not a fact at all.

Unless her parents are only naturalised Brits and still hold Bangladeshi citizenship there is no way Begum is 'not a British citizen'. It is said her mother is of Bangladeshi descent but that might just mean it was the grandparents who were last full Bangladeshi citizens.

More fantasy. She was a British citizen. Now she is not. The government has that right.

This, of course, is just the Home Office's reasoning.

Others argue as follows:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/11/this-government-has-failed-shamima-begum

Nothing in that article says that the decision was unlawful. The moral grounds are another issue, one which we are not discussing here.

The Nationality Act 2015 according to wiki:



However, Begum did not have dual nationality and does not now have any nationality.



In effect, the current government is simply trying to work the law backwards when it speciously claims Begum fits this category.

All of this legislation was passed before Begum went to Syria. Moreover, as your own quote shows, it applies to all British citizens, not just those of dual nationality. Begum was a British citizen, so these laws apply to her.

<deleted red herring>
Think about it: it was the UK that enabled these young jihadists to be radicalised and alienated from the mainstream. It needs to deal with them in the British courts. That is what justice is about.

Yet you are the one arguing that British laws do not apply in this case. You have also rejected the decision of the only court to have examined this case so far.

Your argument is circular in that all you are saying is 'Begum has Bangladeshi nationality because the government says so and it won the first stage of the appeal at the secretive SIAC'.

Absolute strawman. I am saying Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship because Bangladeshi law says so. The fact that so many lawyers and courts agree with this rather adds strength to this argument, wouldn't you think?

 

[Vixen]

Let me start by noting that you have apparently ditched almost everything you said in the above post.
Interesting.



Neither of my sources is attached to the SIAC, so there is no parroting involved.
There is an alternative explanation: all these people have looked at the relevant laws and come to the same conclusion. Has it occurred to you that all these lawyers might be right, and you might be wrong?


My link supports my claim, as we will see shortly.



From my link:


I can find no source for your claim about where Begum's parents were born.
Do you have any evidence for this? Every source I have looked at supports the idea that her mother, at least, is Bangladeshi. Begum herself, then, is Bangladeshi according to Bangladeshi law, which I have repeatedly cited.



Personally, I have no problem with that. If we can use the law to punish wrongdoers and protect the innocent, then it is fulfilling its function.





Not a fact at all.



More fantasy. She was a British citizen. Now she is not. The government has that right.




Nothing in that article says that the decision was unlawful. The moral grounds are another issue, one which we are not discussing here.



All of this legislation was passed before Begum went to Syria. Moreover, as your own quote shows, it applies to all British citizens, not just those of dual nationality. Begum was a British citizen, so these laws apply to her.




Yet you are the one arguing that British laws do not apply in this case. You have also rejected the decision of the only court to have examined this case so far.


Absolute strawman. I am saying Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship because Bangladeshi law says so. The fact that so many lawyers and courts agree with this rather adds strength to this argument, wouldn't you think?

Appealing to the crowd doesn't cut mustard with me.

From today's Guardian/Observer:

“Will the minister confirm that British citizenship is a privilege, not a right,” asked Suella Braverman, the new attorney general, during last week’s Commons debate on the deportations to Jamaica. Home Office minister Kevin Foster was happy to confirm that it was.

In 1870, MPs viewed citizenship as a right that should not be arbitrarily removed by the state. Today, it is viewed as a privilege, which many possess only under sufferance. Houghton recognised what many no longer do: that the revocation of citizenship is an extraordinary step that not only shatters lives but can tear at the moral fabric of the nation.

I take it you are a Suella Braverman supporter, someone who makes Tommy Robinson look like a communist...?

Because these changes apply primarily to jihadists or to criminals, most people support them. But the powers acquired by the state, and the discriminatory system being established, effect us all. MPs in 1870 understood that. We should do too.

So let's hope the Supreme Court will stop this abuse of citizenship rights.

 

[Arcade22]

Had it been 1870 Begum would have with all certainty been executed irrespective of her citizenship. If anything British citizenship was a liability given that her actions are very likely to constitute treason.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Appealing to the crowd doesn't cut mustard with me.

That is most interesting, and thank you for sharing that with me.
Luckily for both of us, that's not what I'm doing.
In case you had missed this, what I've been doing is addressing your claims about Begum's legal status, by use of informed sources to support my ideas.
It would be nice if you could do the same.

From today's Guardian/Observer:

I have made it, I think, abundantly clear that I am discussing the legal circumstances around this situation, and not the moral ones. The legal circumstances are objective, whereas the moral ones are relative and subjective. There are moral arguments to be made on both sides of this debate, but to do so would be futile, as neither of us can prove the other wrong, nor are we likely to change each others' minds. This is why I am sticking to the legalities, and resisting your attempts to sidetrack the conversation.

I take it you are a Suella Braverman supporter, someone who makes Tommy Robinson look like a communist...?

Cheap shot, strawman, personalising the debate.

So let's hope the Supreme Court will stop this abuse of citizenship rights.

The courts will rule on matters of law, not whether that law is being applied in a way that fits your personal moral code.
Which is as it should be.
From the sound of it, the court has been doing its job properly.
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/sha...ess-argument-against-citizenship-deprivation/

 

[Arcade22]

William Joyce^WP, also known as Lord Haw-Haw, is a good example of how "generous" the "protection" offered by ones allegiance to the British monarch, as a British subject^WP, was for people accused of treason.

His role is comparable to Begums.

 

[Architect]

My grandparents would talk Lord Haw-Haw on the radio.


I don't think Begum was making such blatant propoganda on the airwaves or interweb every night, was she?

 

[Elaedith]

William Joyce^WP, also known as Lord Haw-Haw, is a good example of how "generous" the "protection" offered by ones allegiance to the British monarch, as a British subject^WP, was for people accused of treason.

His role is comparable to Begums.

However, we don't now have the death penalty in the UK. If we did, it would only apply after a trial and conviction. I think it's extremely unlikely that Begum could be successfully prosecuted for treason (and I believe that there have not been any successful prosecutions for treason since 'Lord Haw-Haw). She could possibly have been prosecuted under the Terrorism Act if she had returned.

In this and similar cases, the ability to make somebody de facto stateless can plausibly result in their death. This happens without any trial or conviction. It is unlikely that somebody living in Syria in a refugee camp can participate effectively in an appeal process. In essence, somebody is severely punished without trial, conviction, or anything regarded as essential for normal due process.

The more I think about it the less happy I am with this legislation and the way it is being used. The legislation itself is not recent, but its use in this manner has increased dramatically in the last few years. The wording of the legislation is very broad and effectively gives the Secretary of State the power to administer severe punishment without due process, especially in the absence of any safeguard requiring actual citizenship of another country as opposed to just de jure citizenship. There is nothing in the legislation that confines its use to terrorism. There was talk recently about extending its use to other criminal offences.

 

[PursuedByABear]

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.

What the bloody hell does any of that have to do with Bangladesh? What did they do to deserve having British terrorists foisted on them?

 

[Elaedith]

What the bloody hell does any of that have to do with Bangladesh? What did they do to deserve having British terrorists foisted on them?

That is the other aspect I find problematic. She grew up in the UK and was groomed (radicalised) in the UK. The police had information that she and her friends were being groomed, they sought permission to question them, the letters were not passed on to the parents, and the police didn't follow up.

Bangladesh may not be doing the right thing by refusing to acknowledge citizenship, but what is the moral basis for pretending that any of this is the responsibility of Bangladesh? It is just shrugging all responsibility on the grounds of getting in first and being the first to remove citizenship.

 

[Arcade22]

What the bloody hell does any of that have to do with Bangladesh? What did they do to deserve having British terrorists foisted on them?

They chose to allow her to have citizenship. As far as I know that decision was not forced upon them.

 

[Elaedith]

They chose to allow her to have citizenship. As far as I know that decision was not forced upon them.

If she has Bangladeshi citizenship by descent she has had it from birth. How can that be described as a choice? The only way they could avoid her having it is by revoking it first, which is somewhat impossible if she has never been there and they are unaware of her existence.

The other way is to deny her de facto citizenship even if she does have de jure citizenship, leaving her effectively stateless in practice. International law against making people stateless is surely intended to prevent de facto statelessness.

 

[Steve]

If she has Bangladeshi citizenship by descent she has had it from birth. How can that be described as a choice? The only way they could avoid her having it is by revoking it first, which is somewhat impossible if she has never been there and they are unaware of her existence.

The other way is to deny her de facto citizenship even if she does have de jure citizenship, leaving her effectively stateless in practice. International law against making people stateless is surely intended to prevent de facto statelessness.

The choice is embedded in the citizenship laws of Bangladesh. The laws were chosen by the Bangladeshi government. They could choose to have different laws that would exclude people in her position from citizenship. They have not done so.

 

[Elaedith]

The choice is embedded in the citizenship laws of Bangladesh. The laws were chosen by the Bangladeshi government. They could choose to have different laws that would exclude people in her position from citizenship. They have not done so.

They should do away with the whole process of citizenship by descent (which is standard practice in many states, including most European countries) and deny citizenship to countless innocent people with family in Bangladesh, to avoid this unpredictable incident foisted on them by a wealthy Western country? That is truly a bizarre attempt to defend the indefensible.

 

[Planigale]

That is the other aspect I find problematic. She grew up in the UK and was groomed (radicalised) in the UK. The police had information that she and her friends were being groomed, they sought permission to question them, the letters were not passed on to the parents, and the police didn't follow up.

Bangladesh may not be doing the right thing by refusing to acknowledge citizenship, but what is the moral basis for pretending that any of this is the responsibility of Bangladesh? It is just shrugging all responsibility on the grounds of getting in first and being the first to remove citizenship.

This is an important issue. This happened when she was a child. She left the UK when she was a child. The UK actually had a legal responsibility to protect her and failed. Once in the caliphate then she had little choice, almost certainly she would have been subject to 'Stockholm syndrome'. She was married off and sprogged. If we just redefined our viewpoint slightly and say that she was groomed to be trafficked for sexual purposes (all of which was true), then we are saying we are blaming a child victim of sex trafficking. We are removing her citizenship because she was groomed, trafficked and sexually exploited.

 

[Steve]

They should do away with the whole process of citizenship by descent (which is standard practice in many states, including most European countries) and deny citizenship to countless innocent people with family in Bangladesh, to avoid this unpredictable incident foisted on them by a wealthy Western country? That is truly a bizarre attempt to defend the indefensible.

Not sure what you are trying to say. This rambling sentence makes no sense.

The laws exist as they do. Bangladeshi law recognizes her as a citizen. Actions of Western European countries have no effect on that.