ISIS teenager wants to come home

[RolandRat]

She'd obviously be in the UK, and we'd have to deal with her like we do any illegal alien.

Which is to return her back to her "home nation". Her "home nation", Bangladesh, is saying that they don't recognise her citizenship. In that case what happens? We keep her detained indefinitely? We try to fob her off onto Syria?

 

[RolandRat]

What is the justification? What did Bangladesh do to deserve her?

Going by the information provided in this thread, their laws grant citizenship to children of nationals automatically. They were too slow to disavow her themselves. We moved first and legally, that's all that matters.

edit: "Why do you think it is ok to push your problems onto someone else just because you have the legal right to do so?"

Morality is irrelevant here. The legal justification is all that is required.

 

[theprestige]

One thing I am pretty certain of is that if she had an Irish grandmother, we wouldn't even be thinking of telling Ireland she was their problem now, and none of the people so keen to say Bangladesh can take her would see any justification in palming her off on the Irish.

But, you know, she's brown. Send her to a brown country. They are all terrorists anyway.

... And there it is.

 

[Darat]

Which is to return her back to her "home nation". Her "home nation", Bangladesh, is saying that they don't recognise her citizenship. In that case what happens? We keep her detained indefinitely? We try to fob her off onto Syria?

We follow the law.

 

[Darat]

Going by the information provided in this thread, their laws grant citizenship to children of nationals automatically. They were too slow to disavow her themselves. We moved first and legally, that's all that matters.

edit: "Why do you think it is ok to push your problems onto someone else just because you have the legal right to do so?"

Morality is irrelevant here. The legal justification is all that is required.

Then the UK government should be using the Bangladesh legal system to secure her citizenship prior to removing her UK citizenship . I suspect however there is no International law Bangladesh recognises nor national law that says they have to grant her citizenship. At the moment she is not as far as Bangladesh is concerned one of their citizens and it is only them that can make that call, the UK can't make that decision. Which means the UK is in breach of laws they recognise.

 

[Steve]

Then the UK government should be using the Bangladesh legal system to secure her citizenship prior to removing her UK citizenship . I suspect however there is no International law Bangladesh recognises nor national law that says they have to grant her citizenship. At the moment she is not as far as Bangladesh is concerned one of their citizens and it is only them that can make that call, the UK can't make that decision. Which means the UK is in breach of laws they recognise.

My (possibly flawed) understanding is that there is a law on the books in Bangladesh that states that the child of Bangladesh citizens is also a Bangladesh citizen. If that is the case then Bangladesh does not have to grant her citizenship because she is already a citizen by their own laws. If this law exists then it is Bangladesh that is breaching their own laws and the UK is not in breach.

If I am wrong in my understanding of the Bangladesh law then my above statement is wrong and I will agree that you are correct.

 

[RolandRat]

Then the UK government should be using the Bangladesh legal system to secure her citizenship prior to removing her UK citizenship . I suspect however there is no International law Bangladesh recognises nor national law that says they have to grant her citizenship. At the moment she is not as far as Bangladesh is concerned one of their citizens and it is only them that can make that call, the UK can't make that decision. Which means the UK is in breach of laws they recognise.

According to this: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html

"5. 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 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:

Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-

(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or

(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."

And according to this: https://www.360lawservices.com/immi...-shamima-begum-and-the-new-precedent-it-sets/

"In the case of UK citizens of Bangladeshi heritage like Shamima Begum, Bangladeshi national law states that citizenship is given automatically at birth through bloodline (jus sanguinis), giving them dual nationality.

Unless they make an active effort to retain it, however, their Bangladeshi citizenship effectively becomes dormant at the age of 21. As it is thought that Shamima’s mother is Bangladeshi and Ms Begum is still currently under the age of 21, the Home Office can somewhat justify their decision and gain reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping Ms Begum of her UK citizenship."

It seems she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship and legally the UK has done nothing wrong.

 

[Steve]

According to this: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html

"5. 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 1[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:

Provided that if the 2[father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-

(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or

(b) that person's 3[father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh."

And according to this: https://www.360lawservices.com/immi...-shamima-begum-and-the-new-precedent-it-sets/

"In the case of UK citizens of Bangladeshi heritage like Shamima Begum, Bangladeshi national law states that citizenship is given automatically at birth through bloodline (jus sanguinis), giving them dual nationality.

Unless they make an active effort to retain it, however, their Bangladeshi citizenship effectively becomes dormant at the age of 21. As it is thought that Shamima’s mother is Bangladeshi and Ms Begum is still currently under the age of 21, the Home Office can somewhat justify their decision and gain reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping Ms Begum of her UK citizenship."

It seems she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship and legally the UK has done nothing wrong.

Seems to provide evidence that my post is basically correct. Of course in law nothing is straightforward or there would be no need for lawyers.

 

[theprestige]

You could give some reason as to how you think it's ok to drag Bangladesh into it. You just keep saying that it's legal, so it's ok. Why do you think it is ok to push your problems onto someone else just because you have the legal right to do so?

Again, what moral judgement are you using to claim that someone who comes to your country to try and overthrow the government by force becomes your responsibility and cannot be repatriated to their country of origin? What sequence of thoughts in your mind makes this seem reasonable? "It's fine by me" gives me no information as to your thought proceses. These positions go against all common sense, so need explaining.

Nope. You ran out of arguments and threw the race card to disparage everyone who disagrees with you. A cowardly play. Others might continue the discussion, but from me you get nothing more except repudiation.

 

[PursuedByABear]

Nope. You ran out of arguments and threw the race card to disparage everyone who disagrees with you. A cowardly play. Others might continue the discussion, but from me you get nothing more except repudiation.

Not liking Begum and wanting her prosecuted - not racist.

Thinking she should be "kept out of the UK" or that somehow Bangladesh are more responsible for her than the UK - racist.

British criminals need to be dealt with by British justice.

 

[PursuedByABear]

Going by the information provided in this thread, their laws grant citizenship to children of nationals automatically. They were too slow to disavow her themselves. We moved first and legally, that's all that matters.

edit: "Why do you think it is ok to push your problems onto someone else just because you have the legal right to do so?"

Morality is irrelevant here. The legal justification is all that is required.

And that's it? They were too slow, so they can clean up our mess?

What sort of a person can stand there and say that with a straight face? It's primary school logic.

 

[Vixen]

I appreciate your optimism in imagining that if she were 25 she'd see the foolishness of joining ISIS, and none of this would be happening.

But imagine just for a moment that a 25 year-old did choose to leave the UK and join the Caliphate? Do you think, at that age, the UK would be justified in holding her to her choice and making her effectively stateless due to her tying her fortunes to the Caliphate?

I don't tend to answer hypothetical questions because it is a pointless exercise. However, I do not generally believe the government should strip people of their nationality without giving them the right to be represented in court and if it makes that person stateless. Simply stripping someone of nationality because you do not like their behaviour subverts from the constitutional premise that if you hold citizenship of a country, you are entitled to have free entry to it.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks. I think we were converging on the same conclusion. And actually that might be a sound legal argument for denying her entry to plead her case. If there's no way to evict her again regardless, then admitting her at all grants exactly the claim under dispute.

It'll be interesting if the government makes that argument, and if the court agrees.

And what gives any individual in government the right to impose their own personal view on a constitutional right? IMV the government is merely being vexatious in appealing to the Supreme Court .

Or maybe Dominic Cummings is now in charge of the judiciary.

 

[Vixen]

What you are missing is that under International law, the only thing that makes it possible for the UK to withdraw citizenship is their claim that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. You can not make a person stateless. Withdrawing British citizenship is, overtly, saying that we consider her Bangladeshi.

Also, she is in Syria. Syria is not our enemy.

But under the control of Kurdish authorities (acting with Turkey).

 

[Vixen]

I guess it's down to technically correct after all. If she has a legal claim to Bangladeshi citizenship, then she's not stateless. UK obligations under the law are satisfied.

Also, "international law" isn't binding. The UK is a sovereign nation. The only laws that apply are laws that the UK has ratified as UK law. If the UK has ratified the relevant international "laws" as actual UK laws, then fine. But appeal to the actual UK laws, please.



She's in Syria now, because the Caliphate is a failed state and Syria reclaimed possession of their territory. I think this is a decent legal (or at least ethical) argument for Syria being responsible for her. A territory rebels, secedes, and declares themselves sovereign. You invade, defeat them, and reclaim their territory. I think this means you take responsibility for everyone and everything in the territory you're reclaiming. You're welcome to try to repatriate the secessionists' fellow travelers and foreign legions if you can. But if their nations of origin don't want them either, tough noogies. It's your territory. You claimed it, you conquered it, you own it. The people in it are now effectively your people, for better or worse.

No. Prisoners of War are also protected under international law.

 

[Vixen]

No, Vixen.

Let's start again here, shall we?

Firstly, you wrote this:

"So now the British government are taking it to the Supreme Court, so Begum can't return until that is decided."

See how you're stating that it is the British Government that is "taking it (the case) to the Supreme Court"?


I then responded to that statement by telling you that in fact it was the Court of Appeal judges who had sent the case to the SC. They did so entirely of their own volition, since they judged that the principle at stake here ought to be decided by the highest court. The British Government had nothing whatsoever to do with the case going up to the SC (save for the fact that they appealed to the Court of Appeal in the first place, of course....).

So your statement was false, Vixen. I showed you how and why it was false. Yet (where have I seen this before....?!) you seem unable to clock up an error and move on. That's Argumentation From Chutzpah indeed

If you have been following the thread, one doesn't need to keep explaining everything in fine detail to those who haven't followed. We are at the stage where Begum won her appeal to come to England to plead her case for ciizenship and the Home Office has successfully wont he right to appeal to the Supreme Court about this decision. I offered the opinion that I considered their argument 'in the public interest' - that she aligned herself [as a minor] with a foreign enemy' - as being a weak one. I am not going to write 3,000 words on the UK court system each time there is an update.

You are absolutely wrong that the High Court (Appeals section) sent the case to the Supreme Court 'of their own volition'. Courts do not have the power to do anything unless someone has made an application for a decision. In this case, the Home Office applied for an appeal and the High Court granted it. The next level of appeal is the Supreme Court and the High Court only grants such an appeal if it considers it to be worthy of legal clarification generally (=to apply to all future cases as a precedent).

Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

Going by the information provided in this thread, their laws grant citizenship to children of nationals automatically. They were too slow to disavow her themselves. We moved first and legally, that's all that matters.

edit: "Why do you think it is ok to push your problems onto someone else just because you have the legal right to do so?"

Morality is irrelevant here. The legal justification is all that is required.

No, it is not automatic. Children born abroad have to apply.

 

[RolandRat]

No, it is not automatic. Children born abroad have to apply.

Rubbish. I just quoted the actual law of Bangladesh on this issue.

http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7472.html

In-case you missed it.

 

[Planigale]

Going by the information provided in this thread, their laws grant citizenship to children of nationals automatically. They were too slow to disavow her themselves. We moved first and legally, that's all that matters.

edit: "Why do you think it is ok to push your problems onto someone else just because you have the legal right to do so?"

Morality is irrelevant here. The legal justification is all that is required.

I think the law says that one cannot make a person stateless. When she had her UK citizenship removed she became stateless, she was not a Bangladeshi citizen. She might be entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, but that does not alter the fact she is currently stateless. Bangladesh is no longer a colony and UK courts cannot interpret Bangladeshi law and say she is a Bangladeshi citizen. That is a decision for the Bangladeshi courts. The UK could bring a case in the Bangladeshi courts to argue that the Bangladeshi government must recognise her citizenship. However currently the Bangladesh government says she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.

This does stink of racism and neo-colonialism.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you have been following the thread, one doesn't need to keep explaining everything in fine detail to those who haven't followed. We are at the stage where Begum won her appeal to come to England to plead her case for ciizenship and the Home Office has successfully wont he right to appeal to the Supreme Court about this decision. I offered the opinion that I considered their argument 'in the public interest' - that she aligned herself [as a minor] with a foreign enemy' - as being a weak one. I am not going to write 3,000 words on the UK court system each time there is an update.

You are absolutely wrong that the High Court (Appeals section) sent the case to the Supreme Court 'of their own volition'. Courts do not have the power to do anything unless someone has made an application for a decision. In this case, the Home Office applied for an appeal and the High Court granted it. The next level of appeal is the Supreme Court and the High Court only grants such an appeal if it considers it to be worthy of legal clarification generally (=to apply to all future cases as a precedent).

Clear now?

My word, how wrong you are.

I'll repeat myself (again) with the (perhaps forlorn) hope of comprehension:

1) The appellant in this case is Begum. Not any arm of the UK Government.

2) Begum appealed the Govt's decision not to allow her to come to the UK in order to appeal the Govt's earlier decision to strip her of her British citizenship and ban her from re-entering the UK.

3) The Court of Appeal sat to hear this appeal.

4) The Court of Appeal decided that the core issue at stake here was of sufficient importance that it should instead be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

5) Therefore the Supreme Court will now sit in judgement on the matter of whether the UK Govt can lawfully prevent a person in Begum's situation from entering the UK in order to appeal a revocation of citizenship and a banning from entering the UK.


Key take-home points:

- The British Government is not the appellant in this case.

- The British Govt had zero input into the decision of the CoA to send the matter up to the Supreme Court.

- The decision to send the matter to the Supreme Court was taken by the CoA judges alone.


Erm...... Clear now? (Almost certainly not, based on recent posts - but hope springs eternal)