Shamima Begum - In or Out

[Deleted member 15344]

When this subject came up a year or so back I looked on the Bangladeshi govt website. As she was below the age of 21 she was automatically a Bangladeshi until she was/is of age to make the choice/claim. It is a birth right enshrined in Bangladeshi law. Bangladesh does allow dual nationality, which is what she held by default. When the UK revoked her UK citizenship the default was she was already a Bangladeshi national. The UK didn't make her stateless, Bangladesh did.

Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. The relevant section is Jus Sanguinas. The short version means by blood right. If the parents are Bangladeshi, the child is, by default, Bangladeshi until the age of 21, irrespective of where they are born. On reaching 21 the person must confirm citizenship. Citizenship can only be revoked under 2 clauses. That the original citizenship was given to someone born outside the country who is not of Bangladeshi blood or that the person relinquishes it.

Begum had the right to contest Bangladesh's stance, if she wanted to, but as she is now 21 and didn't contest it, it could be argued she didn't want it.

I believe and it was something a human rights lawyer said when I was also looking - the birth would need to registered at the Bangladesh Embassy or Mission for the citizenship to be inherited

“
Note, however that the Act states that for this to be the case, if the parent from whom the citizenship is to be inherited obtained their Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (rather than birth, for example) then the birth must be registered at the nearest Bangladeshi Embassy or Mission.”

I do know that there will be only one winner this lot - the lawyers

 

[PNWokingham]

I just feel that we should be the “bigger man” here. Bring her back to the UK mainland and have her stand trial for the alleged offences.

i hope you mean "bigger person" - no reason to bring up old stereotypes here

 

[Deleted member 1418]

Perhaps she's desperate to come back to get her hands on the new PS5 that she'll undoubtedly get from the many benefits that she'll receive if she is allowed back.

After all, we're still in lockdown so she'd need something to keep her occupied.

 

[DanFST]

She doesn't hold a valid passport. And you can be a British citizen and have your passport revoked, e.g. football hooligans.

So she jumped on a plane to be part of a disgusting sub human group. Without a passport?


She's our problem, can't just ignore it because she is scum. Bring her back, arrest her for treason and put her away for the rest of her life.

 

[IanM]

I think she needs a nice big house and a new car.

 

[Dando]

So she jumped on a plane to be part of a disgusting sub human group. Without a passport?


She's our problem, can't just ignore it because she is scum. Bring her back, arrest her for treason and put her away for the rest of her life.

She travelled to Syria on her sisters passport

 

[Dando]

i hope you mean "bigger person" - no reason to bring up old stereotypes here

Doesn’t saying “bigger” discriminate against those who are vertically challenged or underweight

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Apparently the problem is that she has to claim her Bangladeshi citizenship; they've told her she isn't being granted it if she does claim it & that she will face the death penalty if she sets foot in Bangladesh because of their zero tolerance stance towards terrorism.

That isn't our problem, and as they say every action has a reaction.

 

[chrisd]

I disagree with the revocation of her citizenship. We’re supposed to be the better, more civilised society here.

It was legal and that sometimes is all that is needed in order to protect our citizens

 

[Hobbit]

I believe and it was something a human rights lawyer said when I was also looking - the birth would need to registered at the Bangladesh Embassy or Mission for the citizenship to be inherited

“
Note, however that the Act states that for this to be the case, if the parent from whom the citizenship is to be inherited obtained their Bangladeshi citizenship by descent (rather than birth, for example) then the birth must be registered at the nearest Bangladeshi Embassy or Mission.”

I do know that there will be only one winner this lot - the lawyers

Your version only applies if the parent holds Bangladeshi citizenship by acquisition, not by birth right. Your version is Jus Soli, not Jus Sanguinis.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It was legal and that sometimes is all that is needed in order to protect our citizens

..and so the 15yr old running the new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers - as a threat to our security he should have his citizenship removed?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

 

[GuyInLyon]

What do you reckon - the right decision to ban her from the country and had her Bristish nationality removed?

No.
She was, what, 15 years old when she skipped town and went to Iraq?
If every 15 year old that made a mistake was stripped of their citizenship the population of the UK would be in the hundreds.
She was a teenager, and she should be allowed to return to Britain and have her citizenship returned.

 

[chrisd]

..and so the 15yr old running the new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers - as a threat to our security he should have his citizenship removed?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

That's a matter for the judiciary to decide

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I thought we were discussing the law, not politics?

The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K. The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political. Decision may well have been legal - but it was political. But hey. Good to hear the views of the usual suspects and so I’m out on this.

 

[chrisd]

No.
She was, what, 15 years old when she skipped town and went to Iraq?
If every 15 year that made a mistake was stripped of their citizenship the population of the UK would be in the hundreds.
She was a teenager, and she should be allowed to return to Britain and have her citizenship returned.

It might just be the level of the mistake that is in question here

 

[Deleted member 25172]

..and so the 15yr old running the new-nazi terror group from his grandmothers - as a threat to our security he should have his citizenship removed?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/youngest-british-terrorist-sentenced-neo-nazi-manuals-stash

Is he also a Bangladeshi citizen? In that case I’d be in favour of that. If he doesn’t hold any dual citizenships, then no.

 

[Dando]

No.
She was, what, 15 years old when she skipped town and went to Iraq?
If every 15 year that made a mistake was stripped of their citizenship the population of the UK would be in the hundreds.
She was a teenager, and she should be allowed to return to Britain and have her citizenship returned.

“Made a mistake” ?????
Not every 15 year old joins ISIS!!!

 

[chrisd]

The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K. The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political.

No, in the end the decision was about legality, if it wasnt legal it couldn't have been carried out.

 

[GuyInLyon]

She had her citizenship revoked. She is also a Bangladeshi citizen as well from what I remember.

Not according to Bangladeshi law.

 

[Hobbit]

The law as applied by the Supreme Court is straightforward - she is not a British citizen and so has no right of access to the U.K. The removal of citizenship being at the heart of the matter was political. Decision may well have been legal - but it was political. But hey. Good to hear the views of the usual suspects.

And that removal was done by application of the law.

And why finish with an insult Hugh? What purpose does that serve other than to make a good debate sour.