ISIS teenager wants to come home

[RolandRat]

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.

She was automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. I have linked the relevant law twice now. She doesn't need to apply. Bangladesh is breaking their own laws. The UK is following the law.

At the time the UK revoked her citizenship, She, under Bangladeshi law, wasn't stateless. Claiming racism is kinda silly.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I actually think that the bad smell here is more to do with the hysterical overreactions to anything even remotely related to Islamist terrorism (cf The War On Terror). Of course, wrapped up within that hysteria is very probably an undercurrent of religious and ethnic discrimination/intolerance (particularly with regard to Middle Eastern and South Asian muslims), but I believe the main driver here is the desired perception of a zero-tolerance approach to anything Islamist-terrorism-related.

 

[RolandRat]

I actually think that the bad smell here is more to do with the hysterical overreactions to anything even remotely related to Islamist terrorism (cf The War On Terror). Of course, wrapped up within that hysteria is very probably an undercurrent of religious and ethnic discrimination/intolerance (particularly with regard to Middle Eastern and South Asian muslims), but I believe the main driver here is the desired perception of a zero-tolerance approach to anything Islamist-terrorism-related.

I can only speak for myself, but the bolded words are the driver for me. I don't care about the ideology or (dual) ethnicity of the perpetrator.

In this particular instance, I fully support my Governments stance on this.

 

[PursuedByABear]

I can only speak for myself, but the bolded words are the driver for me. I don't care about the ideology or (dual) ethnicity of the perpetrator.

In this particular instance, I fully support my Governments stance on this.

The stance of trying to send your terrorists to a third-party, completely innocent country as long as you can find a legal loophole that allows this.

I really don't see why you can't try and offer why, morally, you think the citizens of Bangladesh should have to deal with our problems. Your stance seems to be "**** morality, I'll do the best for me", in which case why can't I just hit you over the head and take your money by the same principle?

 

[RolandRat]

The stance of trying to send your terrorists to a third-party, completely innocent country as long as you can find a legal loophole that allows this.

I really don't see why you can't try and offer why, morally, you think the citizens of Bangladesh should have to deal with our problems. Your stance seems to be "**** morality, I'll do the best for me", in which case why can't I just hit you over the head and take your money by the same principle?

Bangladesh is breaking their own law. Take it up with them.

 

[theprestige]

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

International law is not a thing. Prisoners of war are protected by the laws of whatever nation that actually cares to enforce them.

 

[Darat]

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.

As you can see the article isn't quite so sure of itself and what it argues.

This is because Bangladesh is an independent sovereign nation, it is up to them who they grant citizenship to or deny it, no other country can make her a Bangladesh citizen. At the moment she is not recognised by Bangladesh as a citizen so she isn't one no matter what claim she may have under Bangladesh law. Which is why I said the UK government should be ensuring she is a Bangladeshi citizen by using the Bangladesh legal system if we want to use our laws in a just manner and strip her of her UK citizenship.

It is appalling sophistry by the UK government to try and get around our own laws (as drafted by and then passed through the HoC by Tory government) as we know very well she does not - at the moment at least - have Bangladesh citizenship.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip...

Ninja'd!

 

[Darat]

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.

The supreme arbitrator of the constitution of the UK.

 

[RolandRat]

As you can see the article isn't quite so sure of itself and what it argues.

This is because Bangladesh is an independent sovereign nation, it is up to them who they grant citizenship to or deny it, no other country can make her a Bangladesh citizen. At the moment she is not recognised by Bangladesh as a citizen so she isn't one no matter what claim she may have under Bangladesh law. Which is why I said the UK government should be ensuring she is a Bangladeshi citizen by using the Bangladesh legal system if we want to use our laws in a just manner and strip her of her UK citizenship.

It is appalling sophistry by the UK government to try and get around our own laws (as drafted by and then passed through the HoC by Tory government) as we know very well she does not - at the moment at least - have Bangladesh citizenship.

https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/bengali/citizen-appeal-07162020180120.html

"Ali, a Bangladeshi, first went to London in 1975.

“I have not taken British citizenship due to my family problem. I live both in London and Bangladesh and my wife is a British national,” he said."

Shamima Begum's father, who is currently living in Bangladesh after re-marrying and, according to his own words, has always been a Bangladeshi citizen.

"Shafique Ahmed, a member of the ruling Awami League who served as the law minister, said Begum would be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship because of her father."

 

[Darat]

https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/bengali/citizen-appeal-07162020180120.html

"Ali, a Bangladeshi, first went to London in 1975.

“I have not taken British citizenship due to my family problem. I live both in London and Bangladesh and my wife is a British national,” he said."

Shamima Begum's father, who is currently living in Bangladesh after re-marrying and, according to his own words, has always been a Bangladeshi citizen.

"Shafique Ahmed, a member of the ruling Awami League who served as the law minister, said Begum would be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship because of her father."

Again she is not as it stands today or when the UK made the decision to rescind her citizenship a Bangladesh citizen.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem is the things you are saying are by no means exaggerated. There's no way to distinguish you from many of the other posters here and elsewhere saying those things seriously.

Exactly these are proven techniques to get rid of undesirables.

 

[RolandRat]

Again she is not as it stands today or when the UK made the decision to rescind her citizenship a Bangladesh citizen.

The Bangladeshi law was linked above. Based on the information provided, she automatically received Bangladeshi citizenship through her father at the very least. I'm not sure how this can be disputed.

 

[theprestige]

I guess Bangladesh isn't involved after all. So there's that sorted.

 

[Darat]

The Bangladeshi law was linked above. Based on the information provided, she automatically received Bangladeshi citizenship through her father at the very least. I'm not sure how this can be disputed.

Because it is up to Bangladesh to say who is their citizen or not, just like it is up to the UK to decide who is a citizen and who isn't.

So far they have not granted her citizenship.

That she may be eligible for citizenship does not confer citizenship, that is in the gift of the state.

This is why I have said the UK government should have been working with the Bangladesh state to get her Bangladesh citizenship, then we could according to our laws strip her of her UK citizenship.

At the moment we are breaching our own laws if her UK citizenship is revoked as that renders her stateless.


ETA: Let me use an example closer to home: many people in the UK (and other countries) are eligible for citizenship in the Republic of Ireland because of their ancestry. That does not mean they are Irish citizens as they have to apply for that citizenship and it has to be granted before they become citizens. So say I was eligible for Irish citizenship and the UK revoked my British citizenship I would be stateless as I have not been granted Irish citizenship and the UK cannot say Ireland must give me citizenship.

 

[Darat]

I guess Bangladesh isn't involved after all. So there's that sorted.

Apparently they can not determine who is a citizen of their country or not, that decision is up to the UK government!

 

[PursuedByABear]

Bangladesh is breaking their own law. Take it up with them.

I have nothing to take up with them. I want to know why you think palming your criminals off to an innocent country is morally justifiable, or whether you just think morals don't apply to this case, in which case, why is this different from anything else?

 

[Darat]

I have nothing to take up with them. I want to know why you think palming your criminals off to an innocent country is morally justifiable, or whether you just think morals don't apply to this case, in which case, why is this different from anything else?

This is what I really don't understand. How can anyone think it is morally right for us to say she isn't anything to do with us after she was born here, schooled here and it was here she decided to break the law. How does all that make her Bangladesh's problem?

Not only that say it was the other way around, she was a Bangladesh citizen, was born there, was schooled there and made the decision to support ISIS at the age of 15 there, but was eligible for UK citizenship. Would we "allow" Bangladesh to drop her off at Stansted and say "she's nothing to do with us as she is eligible for UK citizenship". Do you (plural) really think we would grant her citizenship?

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is what I really don't understand. How can anyone think it is morally right for us to say she isn't anything to do with us after she was born here, schooled here and it was here she decided to break the law. How does all that make her Bangladesh's problem?

You said "Not IT!" first of course.

 

[PursuedByABear]

This is what I really don't understand. How can anyone think it is morally right for us to say she isn't anything to do with us after she was born here, schooled here and it was here she decided to break the law. How does all that make her Bangladesh's problem?

Not only that say it was the other way around, she was a Bangladesh citizen, was born there, was schooled there and made the decision to support ISIS at the age of 15 there, but was eligible for UK citizenship. Would we "allow" Bangladesh to drop her off at Stansted and say "she's nothing to do with us as she is eligible for UK citizenship". Do you (plural) really think we would grant her citizenship?

Well I (singular) don't, but I suspect you knew that. And I also, as I said before, don't think we would be even trying to get away with it if she had potential Irish, German or US citizenship. And I am happy to say that's due to racism, no matter how many people decide they are offended by that.

The reason they think it's ok to push her off to Bangladesh is because "She's Bangladeshi, in she, not English. Look at her!" Denying racism in this case makes any discussion pointless.