No Shamima Begum Thread?

[C R]

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.

If it is like the Spanish system then it means that she was entitled to request citizenship, not that she had citizenship.

 

[winjim]

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

I thought her appeal was based on her not being able to take advantage of her Bangladeshi citizenship. So she was de facto stateless.

 

[AuroraSaab]

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.

As I understand it, it's in effect default dual citizenship by birth until 21, after which you need to apply for a certificate (DNC). Which is why the 3 other individuals were ok and Begum wasn't. They had aged out of the default citizenship.

Discussion in a law journal here:

https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/


This news report suggests they are even extending it to both 2nd and 3rd generation offspring born abroad. I had assumed it was intended to facilitate easier travel back to Bangladesh for ex pat families, but this report suggests it is to make sorting out inheritance issues easier, which makes more sense.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/2nd-3rd-gen-bangladeshi-origin-foreign-nationals-get-passports-685786?amp

 

[glasgowcyclist]

As I understand it, it's in effect default dual citizenship by birth until 21, after which you need to apply for a certificate (DNC). Which is why the 3 other individuals were ok and Begum wasn't. They had aged out of the default citizenship.

Discussion in a law journal here:

https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

Thanks for the link. I’ll take a read at that tonight or tomorrow.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

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.

Boris? He was Pm, it was Jarvid, a difference.
Above your quotes i give you a few examples why i think the decision is moral and it is needed for our national security although clearly, she is just part of a larger problem which we as the west have countered totally wrong despite earlier warnings.
We went on an did nothing to stop, procecute or manage in influx off ex-syria people.
In my view we should have organized an international tribunal so that the message would have been clear from the start, the law also applies to those who travel to a warzone to cause terror and havoc.
Sadly the reality is that some got punished for maybe 1% of the crimes that they did but most of them walked away free, and we probably also have some of the let's say not so friendly people of the Assad regime amongst us.(and yes i take that example because i known at least one example of someone being identified by other asylum seekers and then arrested because he was a Assad torturer, but that was after he got asylum etc.)

 

[glasgowcyclist]

As I understand it, it's in effect default dual citizenship by birth until 21, after which you need to apply for a certificate (DNC). Which is why the 3 other individuals were ok and Begum wasn't. They had aged out of the default citizenship.

Discussion in a law journal here:

https://www.ejiltalk.org/shamima-begum-may-be-a-bangladeshi-citizen-after-all/

The entitlement does appear to be automatic although the conclusion reached is no stronger than to say that Ms Begum may have had citizenship of Bangladesh at the time she was deprived of UK citizenship.

Even if it were agreed that she did, it would have been of no real benefit to her, and the UK government knew this.

There was no prospect of her seeking refuge from a country where she risks torture or execution for being accused of ISIS membership (and there’s no appeal against a death sentence).

 

[Bromptonaut]

One issue is that courts may have been looking at the nationality question via the question of what a reasonable minister might do, or rather one of whether the act of deprivation was one no reasonable HS could have made.

As I've pointed out before experts were heard for both sides. Hers was (IIRC) anonymous and even through the prosm of a court judgment had the look/feel of 'an odd cove'. HMG's expert wiped the floor with him.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Even if it were agreed that she did, it would have been of no real benefit to her, and the UK government knew this.

Yes, that's a fair point though as I say the law works on technicalities. It would be interesting to know if the government has sought to strip under 21 Bangladeshi offspring of citizenship before, for other crimes. I couldn't find any examples when I looked. I think her being in Syria made it feasible in a way that it perhaps isn't for others.

 

[BoldonLad]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2n8xv61x3o

European Court of Human Rights, next stop?

 

[albion]

Probably. Has a country the right to make any citizen stateless, even one with actions as repugnant as these?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, in UK law, if they have joint citizenship with another country their citizenship can be stripped because they have it elsewhere too. We say she does, Bangladesh say she doesn't.

I think she'll come back eventually. Might even be dependent on what's going on with Isis, most of which we probably aren't privy to. If they're considered a completely spent force, the hard ball attitude might soften.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Yes, in UK law, if they have joint citizenship with another country their citizenship can be stripped because they have it elsewhere too. We say she does, Bangladesh say she doesn't.

I think she'll come back eventually. Might even be dependent on what's going on with Isis, most of which we probably aren't privy to. If they're considered a completely spent force, the hard ball attitude might soften.

Yes - but she does not have citizenship with any other country

she can APPLY for citizenship with Pakistan

but she has not - and I think they said they would execute her - or imprison - her is she entered the country

so as it is we have withdrawn her citizenship in spit of her having no other to fall back on

she is our problem - and we should deal with her
not rely on a refugee camp to use its resources to look after her - as is currently the case

 

[winjim]

Yes - but she does not have citizenship with any other country

she can APPLY for citizenship with Pakistan

but she has not - and I think they said they would execute her - or imprison - her is she entered the country

so as it is we have withdrawn her citizenship in spit of her having no other to fall back on

she is our problem - and we should deal with her
not rely on a refugee camp to use its resources to look after her - as is currently the case

At the time her British citizenship was withdrawn she had Bangladeshi citizenship, although she had no means of practically exercising it. So the UK Home Secretary did not technically make her stateless, it was the lapsing of her Bangladeshi citizenship on her 21st birthday which did that.

But it doesn't sound as if those are the grounds on which she is appealing anyway.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

At the time her British citizenship was withdrawn she had Bangladeshi citizenship, although she had no means of practically exercising it. So the UK Home Secretary did not technically make her stateless, it was the lapsing of her Bangladeshi citizenship on her 21st birthday which did that.

But it doesn't sound as if those are the grounds on which she is appealing anyway.

The things I have read have specifically said that she did NOT have any other citizenship


Quote
In February 2020, a tribunal ruled that removing Ms Begum's citizenship was lawful because she was "a citizen of Bangladesh by descent". It said removing her British nationality would not make her stateless.
However, Bangladesh said that was not the case and that she would not be allowed into the country.
Unquote

link
https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53428191.amp

 

[albion]

At the time her British citizenship was withdrawn she had Bangladeshi citizenship, although she had no means of practically exercising it. So the UK Home Secretary did not technically make her stateless, it was the lapsing of her Bangladeshi citizenship on her 21st birthday which did that.

But it doesn't sound as if those are the grounds on which she is appealing anyway.

No she did not. She had the right to apply at the age of 21. There is a massive difference.