No Shamima Begum Thread?

[glasgowcyclist]

Legally, is she is the citizen of another country as well as the UK?

She was, at the time the deprivation order was made, de jure a Bangladesh citizen (by virtue of her mother) but the order made her de facto stateless because there was no realistic prospect of her being able or permitted to enter that country. (From my understanding of the decision, the Secretary of State was aware of this and went ahead anyway, knowing he could rely on that technicality.)

The Bangladesh government insisted at that time she was not a citizen:
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.

Now that she is over 21, any theoretical entitlement she may have had has lapsed forever so she is most definitely now stateless.

 

[Ian H]

She was, at the time the deprivation order was made, de jure a Bangladesh citizen (by virtue of her mother)

Is that what Bangladeshi law on citizenship says?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Try reading what I posted.

i read that, that's why i said she might be getting out of this impasse by getting an formal refusal from the banglaeshi authorities instead offf what they say to the media.

All 9 attackers were killed. 7 during the attacks, two during raids following the attacks.

''during raids following attacks'' there is a bit missing and that bit is, the two during raids where able to move arounds between many different houses because they got so much support. Yes support, whilst it might be 1% commiting these crimes there is an unknown group supporting these crimes, so it's also very hard to claim we can control it if you don't have the full data.

Salman Abedi is dead. His brother is now in prison unable to aid any further attacks. We know where he is. There were failures in intelligence due to underfunding and lack of resources.

Yes but i was giving examples, the bigger risk of course are the future ''Abedi's'' and the track record of tracking them are not great to say the least.

Our systems cope perfectly well. Terrorists who have committed an atrocity are usually either dead or in prison. We use international intelligence to track known dissidents. It's easier to do that when you know where people are and what they are doing. Shamina Begum is more of a threat outside of the UK than within it, and of more use to ISIS where she is than if she were in the UK being used as bait or to gain intelligence.

The decision to remove her nationality was pushed through by an onanistic moron who wanted favourable headlines. It had no basis in intelligence or in a desire to protect the UK.

Due to our systems off recovery, the London bridge attack happened, and with hindsight all signs that it was about to happen where there nobody on the intelligence community noticed. Or that guy a they caught with a backpack full of knives he only got caught because his family called the police, intelligence was watching but not acting.
So no i don't share your optimism.

If her removal of nationality was ''pushed trough'' like you claim, why has it been confirmed by 3 different courts? if it was some ministers ego trip that wouldn't happen, it would have been overturned.

 

[icowden]

If her removal of nationality was ''pushed trough'' like you claim, why has it been confirmed by 3 different courts? if it was some ministers ego trip that wouldn't happen, it would have been overturned.

Nonsense. You are conflating court decisions on whether it was legal to do so, with the moral decision of whether to do it in the first place. Boris did it for headlines, not for national security. All the Courts have done is to confirm that, unusually, the Government did not break the law.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Is that what Bangladeshi law on citizenship says?

Sorry, I’ve no idea. It is, however, the view of counsel for Ms Begum:

“Mr Squires KC, accepting that the appellant was not de jure stateless at the time of the decision, nonetheless argued that … the Secreteary of State failed to take account of the fact that the deprivation order would render Ms Begum de facto stateless.”

and of the Appeal Court:

”Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent but there was no realistic possibility of her being able or permitted to enter that country. […] Despite knowing that she had nowhere else to go, in all practicality, the Secretary of State nonetheless decided that to deprive her of her British citizenship on grounds that to do so was conducive to the public good and in the interests of national security.”

 

[Ian H]

Sorry, I’ve no idea. It is, however, the view of counsel for Ms Begum:

“Mr Squires KC, accepting that the appellant was not de jure stateless at the time of the decision, nonetheless argued that … the Secreteary of State failed to take account of the fact that the deprivation order would render Ms Begum de facto stateless.”

and of the Appeal Court:

”Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent but there was no realistic possibility of her being able or permitted to enter that country. […] Despite knowing that she had nowhere else to go, in all practicality, the Secretary of State nonetheless decided that to deprive her of her British citizenship on grounds that to do so was conducive to the public good and in the interests of national security.”

Ah, thanks. Strange, innit. The Bangladesh Government's statement would appear to contradict that. What would happen if any country could simply declare it's most troublesome citizens to be stateless and not their problem?

 

[Mr Celine]

OMG it's only just occurred to me that Dutchie thinks he's funny.

Do keep up, some of us have been laughing at him for years.

 

[AuroraSaab]

”Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent but there was no realistic possibility of her being able or permitted to enter that country. […] Despite knowing that she had nowhere else to go, in all practicality, the Secretary of State nonetheless decided that to deprive her of her British citizenship on grounds that to do so was conducive to the public good and in the interests of national security.”

If she'd already got back to the UK they probably wouldn't have done it imo because realistically there would be no possibility of deporting her to Bangladesh. Being in Syria made it an option, so hmg took the opportunity to play hard ball, making it look like a deterrent to others, and conveniently avoiding having to put her on trial.

I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years down the line she was allowed to return on some sort of visa.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Is that what Bangladeshi law on citizenship says?

The UK government's expert said it did. The judgment on that point goes over de facto v de jure (or de iure as the court wrote) in great detail.

 

[Ian H]

The UK government's expert said it did. The judgment on that point goes over de facto v de jure (or de iure as the court wrote) in great detail.

Jonathan Sumption (former Supreme Court justice) wrote -
When the decision was made, in 2019, Ms Begum was 19. She was a citizen of Bangladesh, but only in the most technical sense. She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country. And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...scandal-of-the-shamima-begum-citizenship-case

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Three different uk courts approve the stripping of her nationaliy

That is wrong.

The function of the courts was not to approve or disapprove the removal of her citizenship. Their job was to determine if the decision by the Secretary of State was lawful.

The courts did not decide (or express a view on) whether or not the decision was right.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Jonathan Sumption (former Supreme Court justice) wrote -
When the decision was made, in 2019, Ms Begum was 19. She was a citizen of Bangladesh, but only in the most technical sense. She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country. And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...scandal-of-the-shamima-begum-citizenship-case

All true, but the law works on technicalities and details. At any point up to 21 she could have taken advantage of the benefits of dual citizenship. The fact that she didn't doesn't really come into the legal aspect of it. Those who aged out of the Bangladeshi citizenship system fared better than Begum because the argument is a legal one not a moral one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-win-appeal-against-removal-of-uk-citizenship

 

[glasgowcyclist]

All true, but the law works on technicalities and details. At any point up to 21 she could have taken advantage of the benefits of dual citizenship.

I disagree slightly.

From the comments of the Bangladesh government, it is clear that, from the moment she aligned with ISIS at just 15years old, Bangladesh would never have allowed her to gain citizenship.

 

[AuroraSaab]

True perhaps, but isn't the argument that she had it by default until 21? There must be some advantage to the Bangladeshi government in having such a system. Visa free travel, easier for ex pats offspring to send money back, perhaps. I googled earlier to see if there were other examples of Bangladesh removing default citizenship from UK born offspring but couldn't find any.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

True perhaps, but isn't the argument that she had it by default until 21?

This is the part I’m still not clear on: is it full citizenship, or entitlement to citizenship?

It seems that if no steps are taken to secure that citizenship, and I don’t know what those might be, then the opportunity to do so lapses at age 21.

She had the possibility of it, until the Bangladesh government said she didn’t.