• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

Elaedith said:
That is assuming that at least one of her parents is a citizen of Bangladesh by birth, not descent. I'm not sure if that was ever definitely confirmed. If her parents had citizenship by descent, then her birth would also have to be registered at the Bangladesh consulate.
Click to expand...


"Shamima Begum’s father, Ahmad Ali, a Bangladeshi national who has returned to his ancestral town of Sunamganj after emigrating to Britain in the mid-1970s, said the family was working with an English solicitor to weigh the legal options left in his daughter’s case."

Is all I can find apart from the previous article I linked which contain comments by the father.

https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/bengali/citizenship-issue-02112020162921.html
 
Planigale said:
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.
Click to expand...

Usually when you have automatic citizenship by descent you do not have to apply for it. I was not born in the UK but my parents were. When I wanted to move to the UK to take up a job offer, I just applied for a UK passport and provided a parent's birth certificate as well as my own to show that I was a citizen and entitled to one. There was no separate application for citizenship and as far as I recall, no additional screening for passport applicants who had never lived in the country. The only other process I had to go through was an interview to get a National Insurance number after arrival.

If the same applies to Bangladesh, then she would need to get to somewhere where she can apply for a Bangladeshi passport, and provide proof that one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen other than by descent. Whether Bangladesh could refuse her a passport according to their own law would depend on whether they have some provision to refuse a passport under certain circumstances to those not already in the country. But even if their law doesn't allow this, if they simply refused to acknowledge citizenship it would be difficult in practice for somebody in her situation to do anything about it.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
...snip...

If the same applies to Bangladesh, then she would need to get to somewhere where she can apply for a Bangladeshi passport, and provide proof that one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen other than by descent. Whether Bangladesh could refuse her a passport according to their own law would depend on whether they have some provision to refuse a passport under certain circumstances to those not already in the country. But even if their law doesn't allow this, if they simply refused to acknowledge citizenship it would be difficult in practice for somebody in her situation to do anything about it.
Click to expand...


For me there is a much more important matter of morality and responsibility rather than being "technically correct" in the finessing of the law of either country or both.

If she is suspected of being guilty of a crime then let her be returned here to be prosecuted fairly. Then if she is found to be guilty she can be subjected to the appropriate punishment and rehabilitation. This idea that we can wash our hands of her because "technically she doesn't have to be stateless" is a shirking of our responsibility as a fair and just nation.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
More to the point: Would she be denied if she did?
Click to expand...

Yes.

It is strange given that the very act that allows the UK to rescind her UK citizenship would also stop someone like her gaining British citizenship regardless of whether she "technically" meets the criteria, for example like Elaedith described. Yet people are arguing that Bangladesh must grant her citizenship! I would be very surprised if other countries don't have such a legal power somewhere in their system (to refuse to grant citizenship to undesirables and so on). And even if they didn't they could probably cobble together some quick legislation to say they do!

But in this instance we already know that Bangladesh has stated she will not be granted Bangladesh citizenship. So all the arguing that she must be granted Bangladesh citizenship is rather moot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47312207

...snip...

Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said.


...snip...
Click to expand...

ETA: There is a later article from June of this year where Bangladesh reiterates she is not a Bangladeshi citizen.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/shamima-begum-uk-bangladesh-ban-entry-british-citizenship-appeal

...snip...
"The clear position of the government of Bangladesh is British citizen Shamima was never a Bangladeshi citizen," Bangladeshi's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement to the Dhaka Tribune.

"[Shamima Begum] doesn't have any rights in this regard and there is no scope to allow her to enter Bangladesh."

snip...
Click to expand...

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangla...mima-won-t-be-allowed-in-bangladesh-says-govt

...snip...

Foreign Minister Dr AK Abdul Momen has repeatedly said that Shamima has nothing to do with Bangladesh.

Neither is she a Bangladeshi citizen nor a dual citizen of the two countries; her father was once a Bangladeshi and then took the British citizenship, he said.

But they never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh, he said.

Referring to the relevant provision of the Bangladesh citizenship law, the foreign minister said if the parents are Bangladeshi, they can apply for citizenship of their children within seven years of the birth.

In Shamima's case, it was not done, he said.


...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
For me there is a much more important matter of morality and responsibility rather than being "technically correct" in the finessing of the law of either country or both.

If she is suspected of being guilty of a crime then let her be returned here to be prosecuted fairly. Then if she is found to be guilty she can be subjected to the appropriate punishment and rehabilitation. This idea that we can wash our hands of her because "technically she doesn't have to be stateless" is a shirking of our responsibility as a fair and just nation.
Click to expand...

I find the use of this legislation to revoke citizenship morally repugnant as I said before. I also have a problem with the legislation itself as it seems to be worded in a way that allows the government to make people stateless in practice while pretending not to.

That's a separate issue from whether or not she does in fact already have Bangladeshi citizenship by descent and by refusing to acknowledge it Bangladesh may not be following it's own law.
 
The discussion seems to be going around in circles to be honest. I've pointed out the actual law so I don't see any value in continuing to repeat what I've already said.
 
Elaedith said:
Usually when you have automatic citizenship by descent you do not have to apply for it. I was not born in the UK but my parents were. When I wanted to move to the UK to take up a job offer, I just applied for a UK passport and provided a parent's birth certificate as well as my own to show that I was a citizen and entitled to one. There was no separate application for citizenship and as far as I recall, no additional screening for passport applicants who had never lived in the country. The only other process I had to go through was an interview to get a National Insurance number after arrival.

If the same applies to Bangladesh, then she would need to get to somewhere where she can apply for a Bangladeshi passport, and provide proof that one of her parents is a Bangladeshi citizen other than by descent. Whether Bangladesh could refuse her a passport according to their own law would depend on whether they have some provision to refuse a passport under certain circumstances to those not already in the country. But even if their law doesn't allow this, if they simply refused to acknowledge citizenship it would be difficult in practice for somebody in her situation to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Do you mind my asking if your parents lived abroad as members of the armed forces, as that of course would automatically confer citizenship on their children. As you know British Armed Forces abroad are technically considered to be UK-resident.
 
RolandRat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why was this not applied to white children entitled to dual citizenship?

Article 2B(1)(i) of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order 1972, states that, a person shall be disqualified from citizenship of Bangladesh if he or she ‘owes, affirms or acknowledges, expressly or by conduct, allegiance to a foreign state’.

It could be argued (in a Bangladeshi court), that by affirming allegiance to ISIS her Bangladeshi citizenship was terminated, leaving her solely as a UK citizen. UK courts cannot legislate on Bangladeshi law. If the UK government thinks that the Bangladesh government is wrong in how the Bangladesh government interprets Bangladesh law on Bangladeshi citizenship then they can bring a case in a Bangladeshi court.
 
Elaedith said:
I find the use of this legislation to revoke citizenship morally repugnant as I said before. I also have a problem with the legislation itself as it seems to be worded in a way that allows the government to make people stateless in practice while pretending not to.

That's a separate issue from whether or not she does in fact already have Bangladeshi citizenship by descent and by refusing to acknowledge it Bangladesh may not be following it's own law.
Click to expand...

That is something that needs legislating in a Bangladeshi court not a UK court. I think the responsibility is on the UK government to prove she is not rendered stateless, and that may require the UK court to bring a case in the Bangladeshi courts. UK courts cannot interpret and enforce Bangladeshi law. The reality is whether the Bangladeshi government has correctly interpreted Bangladeshi law, she in not currently recognised as a citizen by any country, therefore she is stateless, therefore the action of the UK government is contrary to UK law. This may got to ECJ (if the UK has not withdrawn), and I suspect the UK will lose.
 
RolandRat said:
The discussion seems to be going around in circles to be honest. I've pointed out the actual law so I don't see any value in continuing to repeat what I've already said.
Click to expand...
And I've pointed out what the foreign minister of Bangladesh has said. Do you really think you know better than him if Bangladesh will grant her citizenship? You still have not produced any evidence that Bangladesh has to grant her citizenship.

Given the wording of the legislation that gives the HS the power to remove UK citizenship the statements from the Bangladesh government means one of the tests fails so the HS can't revoke her citizenship.

The UK government should have worked with the Bangladesh government or Bangladesh legal system from the start. It is quite apparent that they didn't because they knew the Bangladesh government wouldn't grant her citizenship, it was an attempt to get around the very legislation that they had proposed and then passed through the HOC. The reason was to appease the media created outrage. And we know that is what prompted this as the UK could have revoked her citizenship literally years before they did if they were truly concerned about her ever returning as a British citizen.

I am very confident when this gets to (UK) courts the HS decision will be declared unlawful, so all we will have done is spend literally millions to gain a quick "popular" headline or two.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
UK courts cannot legislate on Bangladeshi law.
Click to expand...
Courts can't legislate in general.

UK courts can, however read Bangladeshi law and issue a ruling on a question of UK law based on the court's interpretation of Bangladeshi law.

For example, if UK law says you can't make someone stateless, it's perfectly cromulent for the court to say that based on their reading of Bangladeshi law, Begum would not become stateless and therefore the decision to depatriate her is legal in the UK.

One might then argue that the UK court is not competent to read Bangladeshi law, and that a ruling from a Bangladeshi court is necessary for the UK court to reach its own conclusion. That argument would take the form of an appeal to a higher UK court, which might then rule that the lower court's decision was invalid, based on the argument. On the other hand, the appeals court might then rule that the lower court is sufficiently competent to read Bangladeshi law, and that the lower court's ruling stands under UK law.
 
Vixen said:
Do you mind my asking if your parents lived abroad as members of the armed forces, as that of course would automatically confer citizenship on their children. As you know British Armed Forces abroad are technically considered to be UK-resident.
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed seeing this question before. No, my parents emigrated permanently from the UK and were not in the armed forces. The UK has automatic citizenship by descent for one generation for children born outside the UK. That means I was a citizen of the UK from birth without having to do anything, although of course that doesn't mean much in practice until confirmed by granting of a passport.

From what I can see the laws of Bangladesh are much the same, which is why I suspect that Begum has or had Bangladeshi citizenship de jure from birth regardless of what politicians say. But again that doesn't mean anything in practice until a document confirming it is issued, and there are various possible ways that might be avoided. However, the UK legislation seems to be worded, and I believe has been interpreted in previous cases, as meaning that citizenship de jure of another country is sufficient to revoke UK citizenship. In my view that is wrong. There is no way to revoke citizenship without either making somebody stateless, or implying that it is the responsibility of another state to look after them. Therefore I think citizenship should never be revoked unless somebody has never lived in the UK (e.g. it is unused dual citizenship being revoked) or has already left and is living as a recognised citizen of another state.
 
Last edited:
So Shamama Begum's case is back in the courts today. So far, Sir James Eades, for the government is pleading that it would be dangerous for Begum to return to the UK, and quotes her saying last year that she didn't regret going to Syria. However, that was when she was first interviewed and could be said to suffer 'Stockholm Syndrome' as she has since retracted that claim. Eades also claims that the revocation of her British Citizenship was to do with the threat of terrorism. I see this as a dishonest argument as it was applied in retrospect to uphold the government refusing to let her return, when she was a full British citizen. It would be rather like a government official beating someone up and then bring in a Bill making it legal to do so in retrospect.

At the start of today's hearing Government lawyer Sir James Eadie QC spoke about what could happen if ISIS members returned to the UK, using a threat assessment report.

He said: 'The fact is the threat is real and serious, despite the age of the individual when they travelled.

'The assessment is that those who have travelled to align and have aligned pose a clear and serious threat specifically on return.'

He then referenced Begum's interview with a newspaper back in 2019 and how she said she did not regret going to Syria.

Sir Eadie added: 'Serious concerns about threats on return underpin the deprivation of citizenship

'The aim of that measure includes especially making it very difficult for them to return, on the basis of if they do so they pose the sorts of risks you have seen

'The responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens from the threat of terrorism as best they can.'
Click to expand...
 
The Governments reasoning seems more compelling to me:

"Eadie repeating that the impediments to Ms Begum receiving justice are not the fault of the Home Secretary, but because she went to Syria. They are impediments of her own making. That is relevant, he says.

Points to a number of precedents that recognise that fact.

Eadie: "There is no dispute about the existence of the appeal right, or that the appeal needs to be fair."

The point, he says, is that those "trite" arguments do not answer the current situation. Namely, the consequences for national security of allowing her back into the UK.

Eadie now attacking Pannick's argument that Begum may not pose a threat. He says the authorities had to act on the basis of the information they had.

He refers again to interviews given by Ms Begum, one in which she said the Manchester bomb was justified.

Eadie says the obvious solution for the whole problem is that Shamima Begum could apply for a stay of proceedings until she was in a position to effectively participate in her trial. But she refuses to do so.

The solution is not, he says, to compel the Govt to bring her here."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom