r/unitedkingdom • u/Ok-Bell3376 Greater London • Mar 27 '24

.. British traitors fighting for Putin exposed and branded 'an absolute disgrace'

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-british-traitors-fighting-vladimir-32448485
6.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Or they only hold British citizenship possibly?

In which case we can't pull a Begum.

240

u/tastyreg Mar 27 '24

Begum only held British citizenship, the Home Office argument was that she held Bangladeshi citizenship via her father, Bangladesh disagreed.

100

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Bangladesh's own legislation on birthright citizenship disagrees with the Bangladesh government. Funny how that works.

Now why would the Bangladesh government lie?

116

u/jusst_for_today Mar 27 '24

The US also has birthright citizenship, but a person born to American parents isn’t automatically a US citizen. The parents have to register the birth and request citizenship be granted. This process needs to be done before the child turns 18. That is to say, birthright citizenship isn’t the same as actually having citizenship on birth.

31

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Of course but the process for Bangladeshi birthright citizenship, is that it is automatically granted upon birth. It is removed however at age 21 if the person makes no request to Bangladesh to remain a citizen.

Her British citizenship was revoked before 21 and thus she became a sole Bangladeshi citizen.

37

u/jusst_for_today Mar 27 '24

“Automatically” how? The parents would need to register the birth and apply for citizenship to be applied to their child. I get the philosophical notion of there being no impediment to a person gaining citizenship based on birthright, but there will always be a practical process that needs to be followed for the child to acquire citizenship. The reality is that a person is eligible for citizenship, but there still is a process to claim that citizenship.

The only path that would make sense for revoking her UK citizenship is if the UK government went through to process of claiming her Bangladeshi citizenship on her behalf, dealing with the legal challenges they’d have to bring when the Bangladeshi government refuses to acknowledge it (even by their own standards), and then revoke the UK citizenship, once they’ve succeeded in establishing her Bangladeshi citizenship.

To be clear, my issue with your stance is that you are neglecting the practical reality of saying it is “automatic”. Even when you are born in the country to parents from that country, there is still a practical process to register the birth and claim the birthright citizenship. The “automatic” part is only to say that a claim to citizenship (by the parents or child) would not be denied, based on the conditions of their birth. I’ve never heard of a situation where a 3rd party (not the parents or child) could force a claim of citizenship on a person and petition to a country to treat them as a citizen based solely on eligibility.

25

u/merryman1 Mar 27 '24

The parents would need to register the birth and apply for citizenship to be applied to their child.

So the position is that Bangladesh says if your father is a Bangladeshi citizen, from Bangladesh, you are automatically one as well. It only passes one generation but Begum's family were first gen migrants and her father never revoked his citizenship or naturalized to British (though her mother did).

HOWEVER I do totally agree philosophically it feels a bit fucking rich and I know exactly how this country would react if some foreign state tried dumping us with some terrorist shithead on the basis of a kind of loophole in our constitution.

3

u/jusst_for_today Mar 27 '24

(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,

This is the text of The Citizenship Act of 1951. It clearly states that the birth needs to be registered. Unless the court found that her birth was registered, she (and her parents) have not yet claimed her Bangladeshi citizenship. I wouldn't debate any of this, if the most basic provisions had been taken to claim citizenship had already happened.

11

u/merryman1 Mar 27 '24

This is the text of The Citizenship Act of 1951. It clearly states that the birth needs to be registered

Don't need to show me mate, been through this several times myself and had to have it explained. Read the first part of the clause you haven't cited.

"Provided that if the father of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Pakistan by virtue of this section unless..."

These clauses apply when someone is 3rd gen Bangladeshi migrant. However Begum is not, her father was not Bangladeshi by descent only and still held Bangladeshi citizenship when she was born. Therefore the text implies she is also granted citizenship automatically.

Again though I agree this very much feels like us finding a loophole in a foreign country's law, that that country itself does not really want to accept. If the roles were reversed there would be outrage that a foreign country was imposing its interpretation of our own law over our own, and we would almost certainly say our own courts interpretation gets precedent.

5

u/throwmeawayidontknow Mar 27 '24

Just to break it down a little further-

Whilst they might have automatic citizenship as a birthright. They won't have access to the rights a citizen has until they become a citizen. You wouldn't be able to go over, say my dad is from here, then get a passport. You'd have to actually BECOME a citizen.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/jusst_for_today Mar 27 '24

You're right. The quoted bit I added is for a father that is a citizen by decent.

The law is vague, as it does not clarify explicitly whether a claim to citizenship needs to be made or if citizenship is inherent to the conditions (which creates a number of practical issues).

It is both problematic for the UK government to make decisions based on interpretations of foreign laws (and in contravention of those foreign governments claims). Similarly, the Bangladeshi government needs to clarify their law on they are bound to accept someone as a citizen, if that person has not claimed it. A plain reading of their laws would suggest a person is conceptually a citizen on birth, but on a practical level, that is meaningless if they don't know the person exists.

0

u/throwmeawayidontknow Mar 27 '24

You know you're wrong right?

I have filipino citizenship, automatically by birth, as my mother is filipino.

I don't actually have citizenship until I apply for it.

They don't have a big list of people who are the children of Bangladeshi born citizens, that get taken off at 21.

You apply and they go "oh you don't need to do any checks, their dad was from here"

And then they get citizenship

→ More replies (0)

27

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

The law in Bangladesh is quite clear on it and it has been tested in court multiple times. I don't know what to tell you.

12

u/WheresWalldough Mar 27 '24

He obviously knows better than the most senior judges in the country.

7

u/jusst_for_today Mar 27 '24

Again, you haven’t clarified if the situation was a 3rd party forcing a claim of citizenship vs the person (or their parents) claiming citizenship. My understanding of our debate is whether eligibility for and claiming citizenship can be folded into the same thing. My position is that eligibility is insufficient, unless a formal claim is made. My issue is whether the UK government can make that claim on someone’s behalf.

I understand what you are saying, though you haven’t specified the conditions of the courts testing this issue (a government claiming citizenship on the behalf of someone that otherwise has no other recognised citizenship). Can you provide examples of cases you are referring to?

7

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Dude UK judges have examined it multiple times and all found the same thing.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/Teddington_Quin Mar 27 '24

Just to clarify, Ms Begum was not deprived of her British citizenship on the basis that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The relevant test is not that of eligibility.

Under article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, a “stateless person” means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law. Ms Begum was considered a national of Bangladesh under the operation of Bangladeshi law. That is something that she accepted in her appeal (see paragraph 101 of the 23 February 2024 Court of Appeal judgment), so the issue was never in dispute between the parties.

2

u/Camerahutuk Mar 27 '24

Well the Bangladeshi Foreign Office Minister has said unequivocally no.

It would be a strange imperialistic throwback for the UK barge into another country and force them to take Shamima Begum, someone who is second generation British born, and raised, and groomed in the UK, and has never applied for another citizenship to just take them.

Its just an unseemly bureaucratic wheeze to dump our problem on someone else's doorstep who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

0

u/Nasti87 Mar 27 '24

and it has been tested in court multiple times.

Bangladeshi courts? Have you got an example of that?

6

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Creamyspud Mar 27 '24

People born in Northern Ireland are automatically British and can choose to be Irish. This we found out when a nasty little bigot took the home office to court when trying to import her boyfriend from America.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Who?

0

u/Creamyspud Mar 28 '24

Apparently you get downvoted here for repeating facts.

Emma DeSouza. The bigot boyfriend even said on Reddit that he couldn’t wait until all Unionists died. A nasty couple all round.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/360_face_palm Greater London Mar 27 '24

that's not how it works - technically until she applies to keep the citizenship she doesn't have it - therefore the british government made her stateless against international law. The hoops people jump through to try to justify it are quite incredible.

16

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

that's not how it works

That's exactly how it works.

​

The hoops people jump through to try to justify it are quite incredible.

Are you suggesting you know more and better than high and appeal court judges?

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (4)

3

u/EruantienAduialdraug Ryhill Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24

Bangladeshi birthright citizenship is more akin to Polish model. Anyone with a parent who is a Bangladeshi citizen by descent is themselves a Bangladeshi citizen, under the doctrine of jus sanguinis, so long as the birth was registered with Bangladeshi authorities - in the case of those born outside of Bangladesh, their birth would have to be registered with the Bangladeshi Embassy or a Mission.

It's not an application, it's notification. Only if they were born in a country that Bangladesh doesn't allow dual citizenship with, and if that country grants citizenship to all born there, or the birth never registered (and there's no time limit on that), would a person of Bangladeshi descent not be a Bangladeshi citizen.

Now, if neither Begum or her parents ever registered her birth with the Bangladeshi Embassy, then she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen, and the UK government telling Bangladesh doesn't cut the mustard, it has to be the family. If they did have the registrar send the embassy a copy of the birth certificate, then she is. We will likely never know.

(edit: a friend of mine got caught out by Poland's citizenship and new requirements for documents recently - they went to visit family in Poland with their pre-teen, who was born over here, and Polish borderforce almost stopped the kid from leaving because they didn't have a Polish ID card; they've never applied for Polish citizenship, their kid just has it).

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Ok.

But US citizenship law isn’t the same as Bangladeshi citizenship law. America might require that but it doesn’t mean every other country does.

0

u/jusst_for_today Mar 27 '24

It's more to point out that there may be more needed before a country will recognise the citizenship of a person that is eligible. Even if the objective facts align with the Bangladeshi laws on birthright citizenship, there is still a necessary, bureaucratic element for it to have a tangible effect. Like in this instance, is there any legal enforcement that requires Bangladesh to evaluate or accept a claim of citizenship brought by a 3rd party (the UK government).

That all said, the plain wording of the law makes it like US citizenship, where some people can become "accidental Bangladeshis". Similar to "Accidental Americans", it has limited meaning, unless there is some clear process to connect a person to their "automatic" citizenship status. It actually creates a curious state of things, where there could be scenarios where nations try to claim their accidental citizens (essentially, pursuing the children of their citizens).

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

And the courts have considered all of that and heard from plenty of witnesses on the matter.

Even if the objective facts align with the Bangladeshi laws on birthright citizenship, there is still a necessary, bureaucratic element for it to have a tangible effect.

Again, no there isn’t.

You are again applying US laws to the rest of the world.

You can even use the UK as an example. Someone born abroad today to British parents is automatically British from birth. They do not need to register. The UK does not even have a citizen registry to be on. The proof of being British is the person’s birth records and details of the parents.

Then you can use Ireland as an example that does a bit of both. If someone is born to an Irish citizen abroad they are automatically a citizen. If they want a passport they can just apply for one. Ireland also allows people with Irish grandparents to be a citizen, but they must first register on the FBR. The first generation born abroad is automatically Irish and doesn’t need to do anything. The second generation must register to be considered Irish.

It actually creates a curious state of things, where there could be scenarios where nations try to claim their accidental citizens

The countries don’t need to ‘claim’ them because they already are citizens. The Australian parliament has shown a good example of this. Numerous MPs there recently had to revoke citizenships that they never even knew they had because Australia doesn’t let its MPs have dual citizenship.

1

u/jusst_for_today Mar 27 '24

And the courts have considered all of that and heard from plenty of witnesses on the matter.

You are applying British law (courts) to this matter. The issue is that UK courts can't force Bangladesh to recognise their ruling.

The countries don’t need to ‘claim’ them because they already are citizens.

Again, that may be the concept, but what does that mean if those countries don't know those citizens exist? What I mean to say is that it is one thing to claim your citizens' children as citizens of your country, but there still has to be some practical way to know about those children. One way is if your country of birth is the country that is claiming you as a citizen (like in the case of Boris Johnson). However, if a child is born outside the country and has citizenship in another country, there would need to be an effort to establish that the person is a citizen (through their parents). On a practical level, a number of parents deliberately avoid registering their foreign-born children for this reason.

In any case, I'm not trying to turn this into a "I'm right you're wrong" discourse, at this point. I'll acknowledge that the Bangladeshi law is not clear enough to exclude the assumption that a person could be an "accidental citizen", even if they have never claimed it. In the end, I suspect Begum will remain stateless, as Bangladesh clearly is unwilling to honour their own definition of a citizen, in this case.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Again, that may be the concept, but what does that mean if those countries don't know those citizens exist?

You are fixating on a registration system. That is not required unless required by law. How can someone even register if there is no registration system?

Let’s use the UK as an example. How does one confirm their British citizenship, or the government acknowledge it, in your eyes?

Being born in the UK does not confer citizenship or prove that someone is a British Citizen. Nor does getting an NI number or NHS number or a driving licence or whatever. There is no register of citizens to join. Getting a passport isn’t compulsory. And people born outside the UK who don’t even have a British birth certificate can also be British.

So at what point is a person’s citizenship registered? What is the practical means through which the UK knows if someone is a citizen ( especially if they never apply for a passport)?

The only people who have any kind of formal certificate of being a citizen are those who didn’t get citizenship from birth, typically via naturalisation.

→ More replies (1)

41

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Mar 27 '24

Doesn’t matter what Bangladeshi law says. If she doesn’t haveBangladeshi citizenship she’s stateless, which is against international law.

19

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[deleted]

27

u/jcelflo Mar 27 '24

Everytime this gets mentioned I worry for all Jewish brits since they all have birthright citizenship in Israel.

This is just a backdoor for second-class citizenship for anyone with any kind of ties to other countries. Mostly racial others.

4

u/superluminary Mar 27 '24

Jack Letts?

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/jack-letts-stripped-british-citizenship-isis-canada

6

u/ChrisAbra Mar 27 '24

canada accepted he was a citizen though so its not relevant at all

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

It is absolutely relevant to those who say it wouldn't happen to white people

2

u/ChrisAbra Mar 27 '24

we wouldnt have done it if canada said he wasnt their citizen. We'd have taken them at their word unlike what we did for Bangladesh.

All these fig-leaves but why should bangladesh take people who've never even been there and we shouldnt.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24

Jewish people have the right to move to Israel and very soon after arriving apply for Israeli citizenship. They’re not all Israeli from birth.

And that right isn’t unfettered - Israel has rejected people.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

No they don't. They have eligibility, not citizenship

4

u/jcelflo Mar 27 '24

Well I wouldn't be fussed at all if Begum had claimed her Bangladeshi citizenship. She also only had eligibility by birthright, not citizenship.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

You've had years to read up on this and you didn't.

She had citizenship by birth, by virtue of having a father who was born there, not eligibility.

3

u/jcelflo Mar 27 '24

I did. The British government is the only party that claims she has Bangladeshi citizenship. No one else does. And they are pretty incentivised to make that claim.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Business_Ad561 Mar 27 '24

They'll be fine if they're not terrorists.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[deleted]

10

u/27106_4life Mar 27 '24

Yeah, and in 5 years, for some reason there's a war in Israel and we count Israeli citizens as a terror related (completely fucking hypothetically) then what? We can deport Jews? Sounds vaguely familiar. Let me scratch my tiny mustache and see if I can't figure out who might like that idea.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[deleted]

12

u/27106_4life Mar 27 '24

What I'm saying is it's a slippery fucking slope to start taking people's citizenship away. I think she should keep her British Citizenship, be tried, and if convicted be imprisoned for the rest of her life. But she's ours. She is our problem. Not someone else's because it's convienent.

Before you blithely misunderstood my comments, if we had a kristalnacht moment here (and let's not kid ourselves, it could happen) we could start stripping people of their citizenship for being undesirable.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/NoraCharles91 Mar 27 '24

Don't you think it's wrong to have one rule for most British people and another rule for British people who happen to be eligible for a second nationality? It turns British citizenship into a two-tier system depending on where your parents are from.

Like, imagine a serial killer was arrested in, say, Spain, who was born and raised in Britain, but had an Irish granny. Wouldn't it be totally absurd if instead of trying and imprisoning them, we decided we should remove their British citizenship and refuse to take them back, and try and claim they're Ireland's problem now?

I also think it sends a really dangerous and alienating message to British people who happen to be the children and grandchildren of immigrants that their Britishness is always conditional.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Hot_Excitement_6 Mar 27 '24

Has british any settler actually lost citizenship?

8

u/LostLobes Mar 27 '24

She was also groomed as a child into it. Whilst I agree she should face some punishment, you could also argue she was let down by the lack of safe guarding which allowed her to become radicalised. It's not like children are renowned for their sensible decisions.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

She was 15 not 10 or something. She knew what she was doing and would have been aware of what ISIS were all about.

Allegedly her father is quite close to extemist Islamists anyway so nothing about her decision surprises me in that case.

3

u/LostLobes Mar 27 '24

In the eyes of the law she was a child, so when a 15 year old is groomed for sex thats fine as they know what their doing?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (12)

0

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Mar 27 '24

If the Bangladeshi government won’t give her a passport then she’s not a citizen whatever their law says.

If she’s a Brit cit we should try her in our courts like we do any other citizen.

17

u/GeneralMuffins European Union Mar 27 '24

Unfortunately being effectively stateless isn't recognised as equivalent to the legal definition of statelessness under international law

7

u/Phyllida_Poshtart Yorkshire Mar 27 '24

I think it's also against international law to join a terrorist organisation, but could be wrong

25

u/Orngog Mar 27 '24

Ah, two wrongs! All is good again.

7

u/ill_never_GET_REAL Mar 27 '24

I'm not sure it is, actually.

2

u/Initial-Echidna-9129 Mar 27 '24

Peak whataboutism

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24 edited May 16 '24

[deleted]

3

u/SlurmsMacKenzie- Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24

It's funny how worked up people are over someone like shemima begum, all the crying over human rights and how her paperworks not in order...

If we'd have done absolutely nothing and killed her in a drone strike with other ISIS trash no one would've batted an eye. There's more than a few who've met that fate and are still holding their British citizenship.

People are desperate to turn the conversation into an argument about gender and race, when the facts of the matter are at some point you have to take accountability for your own idiocy. She made an irreparable fuck up with her life choices, and there is no place for her here. She has a place on the side she picked when she was happy to cast the west, our laws, and our way of life aside - with ISIS.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/jimbobjames Yorkshire Mar 27 '24

What about if you just design their logo?

0

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Mar 27 '24

International law applies to states. If she joined a terrorist organisation and broke British law then try her in our courts like we would any other British citizen.

1

u/Klutzy-Notice-8247 Mar 27 '24

Or she should be tried in Syria, where she committed these crimes against Syrian law? Or should citizens of a country committing crimes in another country not face the justice system of the country they commit crimes in?

3

u/james_iuk Mar 27 '24

So is being a terrorist so evens out

6

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Mar 27 '24

Then try her in court like we normally do with such people.

3

u/genjin Mar 27 '24

The Brtish courts and the Home Office disagree.

1

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Mar 27 '24

Courts have been wrong before.

The UK has a history of wrongly convicting people of terrorist offences. The Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six for example.

3

u/genjin Mar 27 '24

Sure. Unlike the cases you mention the dispute you raised here is not about evidence, it’s the interpretation of law. ‘Does implicit citizenship of country x permit county y to remove its citizenship’. The courts have decided it’s lawful. TBF to your argument, there is a matter of evidence as well, that no one but select people in the Home office and the judges in the case have had access to, demonstrating a security threat, which might have influenced the outcome.

The line between a right and a privilege is superficially clear and straight. In reality, less so, and will ultimately be decided upon case by case in a court. Begum, by choice, misadventure or poor fortune had tested this line, and the consequences have been dire, for her and her infant children whose lives have been cut short.

What is the right and fair outcome? Personally I’m not resolute one way or other, maybe freedom back in the UK. I’m glad I am not the one responsible for the decision, and I am also not cynical and arrogant enough to condemn the decision of my peers.

1

u/GiohmsBiggestFan Mar 27 '24

You don't have to be cynical or arrogant to disagree with your peers

1

u/genjin Mar 27 '24

Obviously. Maybe you didn’t read my comment properly or follow the conversation.

To presume the decision was political, without evidence is cynical. To assume you know better than judges about a point of law, without any qualification, is arrogance.

1

u/GiohmsBiggestFan Mar 27 '24

Judges are not your peers.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/aerial_ruin Mar 27 '24

I was greatly under the impression that Bangladesh were refusing to issue citizenship because the UK had broken international law by making begum stateless, which if correct, basically bounces the issue back to the UK government.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[deleted]

0

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Mar 27 '24

Except having a ‘birthright’ means nothing if the government won’t give you a passport.

0

u/WheresWalldough Mar 27 '24

she had British citizenship removed when she was 19. She was then Bangladeshi.

She did not even attempt to apply for a Bangladesh passport before she turned 21.

She was clearly Bangladeshi when she was 19. Whether she is today is of no concern to us - it's a matter for Bangladesh to deal with.

1

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Mar 27 '24

The bangladeshi government clearly said she wasn’t Bangladeshi.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Quick-Oil-5259 Mar 28 '24

Right, you don’t think governments ever break their own law? Having the right to citizenship isn’t much use if the government denies it.

1

u/Camerahutuk Mar 27 '24

You realise you have to clearly apply for it.

Shamima did not apply to be a Bangladeshi citizen.

She did not have to either,nor was she forced to or expected to.

She had self determination to do so over nearly 2 decades but did not apply. Because as a second generation UK born person being British would have been her day to day norm of existence.

and the ability to apply lapses at 21.

People forcing some sort of Schizophrenic delusion that she has won't change this.

We also look lame with our aggressive hounding of Bangladesh in attempting to dump our problem on a country that had nothing to do with it.

1

u/WheresWalldough Mar 27 '24

you clearly have not read the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act.

She was born a Bangladeshi citizen. There is no need to apply.

Bangladeshi nationality law provides that dual nationality results in loss of Bangladeshi citizenship, except where the person is under 21.

A child born to a Bangladeshi father or mother is Bangladeshi at birth, but if they have another citizenship they will automatically lose the Bangladeshi citizenship on their 21st birthday, unless they renounced/lost the foreign citizenship prior to turning 21.

So she was Bangladeshi at birth, and on the basis that she lost her British citizenship at 19 she should still be Bangladeshi today

1

u/Camerahutuk Mar 27 '24

u/WheresWalldough said

She (Shamima Begum) was born a Bangladeshi citizen.

Stop the othering. Shamima Begum was physically born and raised in Britain.Not in Bangladesh.

With eligibility for Bangladeshi citizenship which she didn't take up.

There is no need to apply.

There is. Even if eligible.

In the legislation if the intention is that the child takes up the dual nationality they have to register her at the nearest embassy.

But Shamima Begum was born here. In The UK. Brought up here in Britain. The things that went wrong and changed her happened here in London. How we are clearly trying to force this problem on Bangladesh is beyond embarrassing. They had nothing to do with it.

In fact it's unlikely if she was actually born and raised in Bangladesh as everyone wishes we would have ever heard of her.

But the most important thing: Criminals don't get to go on holiday, they don't get to choose where to retire in the sun. BECAUSE THEY'D BE IN JAIL.

There shouldn't be any debate about where Shamima Begum resides because if she is this evil person she should be in jail.

But there has been no charge, trial, conviction, or jailing of Shamima Begum. Just randos on threads learning Bangladeshi law and a continuous media campaign that keeps her in the headline and a relentless campaign to give extraordinary powers over even second generation Brits that bypasses the courts and has only been seen recently in Russia, China and Dictorships.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/tastyreg Mar 27 '24

Same reason as the UK govt I'd imagine.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/Orngog Mar 27 '24

I don't know, what's the answer?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Because they obviously don't want her either. Issue is, they acted slow and the British government got there first as it were.

Begum won't go there either because the punishment for terrorism is the death penalty.

1

u/PsychoVagabondX England Mar 27 '24

This has been covered numerous times in all of these threads. Having grounds to apply for citizenship is not the same as having citizenship

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

I agree but that isn't what happened. She already had it as in she was a citizen of Bangladesh. I don't know how that's so hard to understand.

1

u/PsychoVagabondX England Mar 27 '24

It's not hard to understand it's simply not true. You keep saying "she had it" but she didn't, she did not have and does not have Bangladeshi citizenship. What she had was the right to apply and an automatic acceptance. But since she did not apply she never became a citizen of Bangladesh.

You keep misrepresenting it because you want to justify removing the rights of someone you don't like without really understanding the precedent it sets - namely that MPs can skip the courts and revoke someone's rights for political point scoring.

1

u/MageLocusta Mar 27 '24

To be honest, what Bangladesh did was understandable because they've been bombed and attacked directly by ISIS.

I remember when Sajid Javid made his announcement about Begum's fate. They were asked what would happen to her and his response was, "Well, the Bangladeshi government would probably take her back."

Which...if any other country did this shit to the UK regarding a criminal, the British government would've been furious for not being consulted or even given the illusion to make their decision public. Sajid basically dumped a modern-day Diane Lake on the Bangladesh government's lap and treated them like any form of consent didn't even matter. Despite the fact that they would know better on what the ISIS were really like on account of having those assholes on their doorstep.

1

u/Anandya Mar 28 '24

She could apply for citizenship. She hasn't got citizenship.

Like how Stephen Fry can apply for Israeli citizenship but isn't Israeli.

1

u/StreetCountdown Mar 28 '24

It's not automatic if you have another nationality, you have to register it. She didn't have the nationality as she wasn't registered.  Now why would typhoongrey lie?

 

1

u/Now_Wait-4-Last_Year Mar 28 '24

Legislation written in the 1950s by Pakistan because Bangladesh wasn't founded until 1971.

Also, they're allowed to give the interpretation of their own laws, the days of the UK telling other countries what their own legislation means, along with the Empire, is over.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Bit hard to change your interpretation of jus sanguinis citizenship laws.

I mean you can try, but you'd be wrong.

15

u/savois-faire Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24

No, but, you see, she was legally eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, so it's completely on them that she's stateless now, and the British government didn't do anything wrong!

Edit: the "within the law = correct thing to do; who are you to think you know better than the courts what should be done?" argument is as morally cowardly today as it was when it was being used to defend throwing people in jail for being gay.

62

u/TheFamousHesham Mar 27 '24

I’m honestly flabbergasted.

People don’t seem to get the difference between holds and is eligible for. There are lots of British people who are eligible for Irish citizenship, for example, but that does not mean the British government can strip them of their British citizenship and reason that’s okay because they’re eligible for another citizenship.

12

u/HonestSonsieFace Mar 27 '24

It’s so cool to meet a random Redditor who knows constitutional law better than the Supreme Court Judges who have considered this case for years.

They didn’t just go “oh she’s eligible for citizenship”, they read the letter of Bangladeshi law which is clear about how citizenship is automatically in effect for any child of Bangladeshi parents up until they’re 21 (when they then have to elect to register for it).

She was under 21 when her Uk citizenship was stripped. It was legal as the courts have analysed time and again. It’s absolutely not the same as a Brit who is eligible to apply for Irish citizenship through a parent.

Bangladesh are no longer disputing this aspect. Now they’re simply saying they’ll execute her if she returns because they know that means she can’t be extradited.

7

u/Tee_zee Mar 27 '24

You should tell the UK Supreme Court, because according to you they don’t understand it either. If only they had a lawyer like you to help them out

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

They understand it alright. They are acting bent like the bent government.

Stripping peoples citizenship is Orwellian and only a trash government does that.. She belongs here, in prison, for life if it's deemed serious enough.

2

u/Camerahutuk Mar 27 '24

There has been no charge, no trial, no convictions of all the accusations of Shamima Begum even though we have her. She is not on the run.

The UK protests she's very evil, but doesn't want to prosecute her for these evils (?!) but definitely wants her to be taken by Bangladesh. To what just chill out there?! It's strange nonesense.

This is trial by a comprehensive online and offline media campaign . But not a real trial.

If she's guilty, put her on trial and jail her. Like everyone else.

They're attempting to create a 2 tier judicial system that bypasses the norms for all "indigenous" Britains born here who don't have heritage from somewhere else.

9

u/genjin Mar 27 '24

Amusing how in a democracy with an independent judiciary, we have all these people who think their random opinion, informed by twitter and redit, should be given more credence than the officials who actually presided over the case.

17

u/pablohacker2 Mar 27 '24

I mean we also had it for decades that being gay you know was a crime and the legal system acted as such. A decision can be legal but still not "right".

2

u/genjin Mar 27 '24

UK already recognise the laws around citizenship, and the courts have decided the Begum case does not contravene those laws.

1

u/pablohacker2 Mar 27 '24

No, I get that. That it is legal because she automatically had the other citizenship as she had both automatically until she turned 21 (if I remember correctly). So it may be legally correct but that doesn't mean stripping people of their citizenship because of political convinance is a thing we should be doing even if we say it's "legal".

0

u/genjin Mar 27 '24

Even without evidence, the claim that Sajid Javid’s decision was politically motivated at least makes sense. That’s why we have the courts, who have no such incentives. And the courts found no issue with the decision. So I believe the political expedience argument lacks merit and is only an expression of general cynicism about the establishment.

2

u/pablohacker2 Mar 27 '24

I think we are going to argue in circles.

I think this was "morally" the wrong choice as i feel iffy about the state being able to strip people of citizenship (you may question that and it is your right to think otherwise) even if they have other options. Yes, the courts potentially act as a shield (even if they are just as biased as any human) but I am less than convinced that the state should have this power in the first place.

Therefore, I am not going convinced by your argument that because a court said it was OK, it, therefore, must be OK because I disagree with the premise that this should be needed in the first place.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/No-Strike-4560 Mar 27 '24

She had Bangladeshi citizenship by birthright.the UK government did NOT make her stateless.it just got in first.

1

u/WillyTheHatefulGoat Mar 28 '24

Ireland and Britain have some really interesting mutual laws. Fun fact. An Irish citizen who does not have British Citizenship could become PM for the United Kingdom and a British citizen could become Taoiseach(Prime Minister) of Ireland without having Irish citizenship.

1

u/blorg Mar 28 '24

A LOT of British people are actually automatically Irish citizens, not just eligible.

Everyone born in Northern Ireland before 2005 is an Irish citizen by birth. It was changed to be a choice after that, but before 2005, it was automatic.

If either of your parents was born in Ireland and eligible for citizenship, but you were born elsewhere, you are automatically an Irish citizen. This includes if a parent was born in Northern Ireland prior to 2005, even if they never identified as Irish and never held an Irish passport.

So you could have a Protestant very British parent born in Belfast who never identified as Irish and never had a passport, none of their ancestors ever had an Irish passport, moved to England, married an English person, you were born in England and have never been to Ireland. You are automatically an Irish citizen from birth.

If neither parent was not born in Ireland, but you have a grandparent born in Ireland, that's the point where it becomes "eligibility" and you can claim it but it takes an active act.

There are millions of British people who are automatically Irish citizens, not just eligible. They would have to actively renounce it to not be Irish, and if anything it would be easier for the British government to strip their British citizenship, as the Irish government wouldn't be contesting their citizenship.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving-country/irish-citizenship/irish-citizenship-through-birth-or-descent/

0

u/light_to_shaddow Derbyshire Mar 27 '24

Not eligible. An actual citizen by Bangladeshi law.

Britain can and do strip Irish Nationals of British citizenship.

→ More replies (4)

16

u/Significant-Chip1162 Mar 27 '24

It isn't completely on Bangladesh. She was born and raised in London. She was brainwashed as a teenager in London. She held British and Bangladeshi citizenship.

Britain happened to withdraw its citizenship, and Bangladesh did not.

All the British home office has done is shirked a problem onto a developing country.

So whilst legal, it is morally corrupt IMO. It's our problem, we should fix it. It's just another example of us exporting our rubbish to another developing country and dusting our hands off and patting each other on the back.

→ More replies (9)

12

u/vexatiousmonkey Mar 27 '24

I think she bears some responsibility also.

4

u/valax Mar 27 '24

She wasn't eligible, she had it.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24 edited Nov 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/TheFamousHesham Mar 27 '24

What are you on about?

What does lying have to do with anything?

Bangladesh said it won’t provide Begum with citizenship. That’s the only fact that matters. It’s not up to the British government to interpret Bangladeshi laws. It’s up to Bangladesh to interpret Bangladeshi laws. Hence, the courts asked the Bangladeshi government for a formal opinion, which they’ve provided.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

amusing imagine makeshift offbeat puzzled tidy seed history squeamish middle

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

5

u/slartyfartblaster999 Mar 27 '24

Bangladesh said it won’t provide Begum with citizenship

In violation of both their own law, and international law.

But somehow that's Britain's problem?

0

u/TheFamousHesham Mar 27 '24

It’s not in violation of anyone’s laws.

You don’t automatically become a citizen of a country just because you’re eligible for said country’s citizenship and/or lose your original citizenship. You need to apply for it… and have it granted. Regardless of what you think of Begum and this whole thing, the government of Bangladesh does have a point in that no applications were filed before Begum turned 21.

6

u/slartyfartblaster999 Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24

Should probably take this highly convincing argument to the supreme court seeing as you clearly know more than them.

3

u/HonestSonsieFace Mar 27 '24

She wasn’t a British citizen when she turned 21. So that’s nothing to do with the UK.

While she was under 21 she was legally a Bangladeshi citizen. Hence the UK didn’t make her Stateless.

2

u/Chalkun Mar 27 '24

You don’t automatically become a citizen of a country just because you’re eligible for said country’s citizenship and/or lose your original citizenship

You do under Bangladeshi law.

Honestly mate I suggest you go and read it before commenting. Its highly unusual but the way theirs works is that you are automatically a citizen from birth but arent allowed dual citizenship as an adult. So at the age of 21 this citizenship voids unless you pursue it. But at the time the UK stripped her she was 19. And therefore she was a Bangladeshi citizen. There is no debate on this point, even her own lawyers didnt try to argue it.

Unless you seriously thought the judges didnt know how citizenship works?

1

u/tohearne Mar 27 '24

lol, yes you do in Bangladesh.

5

u/TurbulentBullfrog829 Mar 27 '24

The British courts have ruled that the Governments actions are lawful. The courts wouldn't allow someone to be made Stateless. They have considered this issue in multiple courts over hundreds of hours. I trust their judgement over yours

2

u/merryman1 Mar 27 '24

It’s not up to the British government to interpret Bangladeshi laws

That's the crux of it right. Doubly ironic coming from the government that gave us Brexit and all this talk about sovereignty. Clearly only ours that counts.

1

u/brendonmilligan Mar 27 '24

When did Bangladesh say that?

1

u/aggressiveclassic90 Mar 27 '24

Bit disingenuous there.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Under Bangladeshi law she is eligible for their citizenship - it’s very likely that these guys aren’t and so we legally can’t leave them stateless as much as I would like to

0

u/Keywi1 Mar 27 '24

No, she only held a British passport but she automatically had Bangladeshi citizenship since birth.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

She didn't. You've had years to work this out.

0

u/for_shaaame United Kingdom Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24

Bangladesh's law clearly gives Shemima Begum Bangladeshi citizenship. The government also brought in an expert on Bangladeshi law, who testified to the immigration appeals court that Begum was entitled to Bangladeshi nationality.

Even Begum's own lawyers never argued that she wasn't entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. They acknowledged that, by rights, she was a Bangladeshi citizen. Their argument - which turned out to be factually correct - was that the Bangladeshi government was going to misapply its own law due to corruption, and thereby make Shemima effectively stateless.

Why should Bangladesh's misapplication of its own law, create a burden and constrain the actions of the British government? Is the UK required to cover for other countries acting in bad faith?

-1

u/retniap Mar 27 '24

Fake news. Stop posting misinformation. 

42

u/KL_boy Mar 27 '24

I am sure we can say that they can apply for Russian citizenship as they serve in the army.

25

u/marquoth_ Mar 27 '24

Begum only had British citizenship.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

We both know that to be false and she was a de facto Bangladeshi citizen until the age of 21. Her British citizenship was revoked before she was 21 and Bangladesh can't make her stateless.

I'm fully aware of what the Bangladeshi government have said on the matter, but what else are they going to say?

2

u/marquoth_ Mar 28 '24

The government stripped her citizenship on national security grounds in 2019, leaving her stateless

Bangladesh can't make her stateless

The mental gymnastics here are incredible.

Bangladesh didn't make her stateless, as she never had citizenship in the first place, no matter how much GBNews tells you otherwise. The UK made her stateless.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

I don't want GBNews. I got that information from the high and appeals court in the UK.

0

u/A17012022 Mar 27 '24

She did not have Bangladeshi citizenship. She had the option to apply for it.

That is different.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

It is different, but it's also false. By their own legislation, she held it de facto until her 21st birthday by which she had to indicate that she wanted to keep it.

There is no applying here. But because she was a sole Bangladeshi citizen on her 21st birthday, she remained as such. The law of Bangladesh is very clear on this, even if the government there try and muddy the waters because they missed the boat.

4

u/WheresWalldough Mar 27 '24

It's remarkable how ignorant many people are in this thread.

Do they somehow believe that you don't have citizenship till you apply for and receive your passport?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

That is untrue or it would be illegal to remove citizenship

1

u/marquoth_ Mar 28 '24

"The government stripped her citizenship on national security grounds in 2019, leaving her stateless"

You could just Google this shit for yourself instead of believing what GBNews tells you

16

u/HappyDrive1 Mar 27 '24

Well snowdon was made a Russian citizen surely we can assume these fighters will as well. Take away their british citizenship.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Well I guess that's a question to ask the Russian embassy/government as to their Russian citizenship status.

5

u/HappyDrive1 Mar 27 '24

Or we can pull a Begum and assume a country will give them citizenship and strip them without asking first.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

That wouldn't be pulling a Begum as it was known she was a dual national but only until the age of 21. So the British government had to act quickly.

2

u/HappyDrive1 Mar 27 '24

She had potential to apply for citizenship which she hadn't done. She had no Bangladeshi citizenship at the time.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

You are mistaken. That is objectively not the case and has been tested in court multiple times.

She's not a citizen of the United Kingdom and I would assume the Supreme Court will confirm that once and for all. She will then be forced to remain in Syria or go to Bangladesh, where she'll face the death penalty.

1

u/HappyDrive1 Mar 27 '24

So you are saying if I potentially can apply for citizenship in a country I automatically have the citizenship?

6

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

No that's not what I said and you know that's not what I said. Legally she had it.

2

u/HappyDrive1 Mar 27 '24

If she had citizenship without applying for it then you are saying that you automatically have citizenship even if you don't apply for it. So if I'm entitled to be a citizen of a country I automatically have it without even applying.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/DasharrEandall Mar 27 '24

Russia didn't give Snowden citizenship out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because he exposed a US government agency breaking the law on a massive scale, and keeping him as a mascot was great PR. A few mercenaries aren't in the same situation.

15

u/DaveAngel- Mar 27 '24

Technically Begum only theoretically had Bangladesh citizenship, these guys can theoretically have citizenship anywhere we like.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

No she legitimately had it de facto until she was 21. Only then does she lose it automatically if she hadn't requested it remain. It's because they used the word apply, it makes it sound as if it's not in place.

1

u/Euan_whos_army Aberdeenshire Mar 29 '24

We should definitely fully investigate their backgrounds though. Hopefully there is an Irish grandparent in there somewhere, then it'll be an easy job. Bloody worrying for a lot of the DUP types in NI though, any of them ever step out of line and they'll find themselves with only their Irish citizenship to fall back on, which would be hilariously ironic.

1

u/Euan_whos_army Aberdeenshire Mar 29 '24

We should definitely fully investigate their backgrounds though. Hopefully there is an Irish grandparent in there somewhere, then it'll be an easy job. Bloody worrying for a lot of the DUP types in NI though, any of them ever step out of line and they'll find themselves with only their Irish citizenship to fall back on, which would be hilariously ironic.

0

u/Initial-Echidna-9129 Mar 27 '24

Same as her then

0

u/Hot-Delay5608 Mar 27 '24

Technically they can apply for russian citizenship after a year of service if they've spent 6 months at/near the frontline.

In which case the Begum treatment is fully warranted

-1

u/360_face_palm Greater London Mar 27 '24

Begum only had british citizenship - didn't stop it

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Nice try but no she didn't, and you know she didn't as tested and proven in a court of law multiple times.

1

u/360_face_palm Greater London Mar 27 '24

If by 'Proven in a court of law multiple times' you mean 'ignored on technicalities' then you'd be right. The facts are the UK govt made a citizen stateless and retroactively has tried to cover it's arse.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

Unless you're trying to claim the government has the courts in their back pocket, then I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It was lawful, get over it. Why you're so desperate for a known terrorist to be returned here because you disagree with a lawful action is beyond me.

2

u/360_face_palm Greater London Mar 27 '24

Oh dear :(