ISI Fighter Shamima Begum Not allowed to return to the UK

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121859554#Comment_121859554

I’m aware of the different citizenship statuses. I referenced them intentionally.

You’ll notice I said “… 13m British Nationals abroad“. British Nationals being the collective term for those with one of those citizenship status.

I also referenced S. 40(1) of the Act we were discussing, which is pretty clear

(1) In this section a reference to a person’s “ citizenship status ” is a reference to his status as— 

(a) a British citizen,

(b)a British overseas territories citizen,

(c)a British Overseas citizen,

(d)a British National (Overseas),

(e)a British protected person, or

(f)a British subject.

My ballpark figure was high. But in the context of my post, I was obviously refer the (a) to (f) collectively. But comfortable enough with at least 80m on revision.

For (a) citizens proper. I’d guess closer to 75m than 70. But Id say that’s the range.

As for "rambling about the Home Secretary stripping all those entitled to Irish passports" — I haven't done that

That wasn’t direct at you. 😉

I also haven’t disputed that the Home Secretary could do it. I dispute that its possible due to this case (rather than the law above) - and not in any shape a concern

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121857771#Comment_121857771

The SIAC determined she had citizenship through her parents up until the age of 21.

From my reading of the ruling and the appeal.

As long as the Home Secretary was aware that she would struggle to obtain citizenship elsewhere and it was considered, that made it lawful.

Basically, she was a citizen of another country at the time of the judgement, tough shít if she couldn't take it up and became stateless at a later date. Not the Home Secretaries fault.

It really is near absolute power.

The courts can do nothing.

Her only hope from my reading of of it, is political.

A labour Home Secretary maybe.

Although I think Starmer has flip flopped on the issue.

Peregrinus

The estimate of 13 million British nationals living overseas dates from 2005 and, as pointed out, most categories of British National are declining, because they are closed to new entrants. So I would think the number of British Nationals (other than British Citizens) is considerably smaller now that it was in 2005. Unless there has been substantial emigration of British Citizens from the UK since 2005, more than enough to offset the fall in numbers of other British Nationals, the total number of British nationals living overseas is more likely to have fallen since 2005 than risen.

Given all that, I think it's hard to get from 62 million British citizens living in the UK to 80 millliion British nationals in total. That requires there to be 18 million British citizens and other British nationals living outside the UK, and I really don't see where that would be coming from.

So, I'll stick with my 70 million (to the nearest 10 million) estimate. But I won't fall out with you over it.

I agree with you that this case doesn't change the Home Secretary's powers; it just draws attention to them. But the powers that it draws attention to are very, very sweeping powers, and they cover many millions of British Citizens (and British nationals) whose circumstances are not remotely similar to Shamima Begum's.

The occasions on which the Home Secretary actually exercises his citizenship deprivation powers are not numbered in the millions, but they are numbered in the thousands; this power is exercised far more often than people realise. More than 300 citizenship deprivation orders were made in 2022; the 2023 figures are not yet available.

One other point is worth noting. The Home Secretary does have a less drastic alternative to cancelling someone's citizenship, which is simply to withdraw their passport. (And he can do this to anyone, whether or not they are a dual citizen.) This prevents them from travelling abroad, but doesn't deprive them of the other rights of citizenship. But in fact he does this very rarely; there are about 10 times as many citizenship deprivation orders made as there are passports withdrawn. That might suggest that the policy is to default to the most extreme sanction.

osarusan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121859787#Comment_121859787

Basically, she was a citizen of another country at the time of the judgement, tough shít if she couldn't take it up and became stateless at a later date. Not the Home Secretaries fault.

If she was a citizen of another country at the time of the judgement, then she wouldn't need to 'take it up'. Even the wording 'take it up' indicates that she had a right to citizenship, but had not yet exercised that right.

It seems to me that the UK got over the 'cannot render somebody stateless' hurdle by arguing that as she had a right (an unexercised right) to Bangladeshi citizenship, then removing her UK citizenship wasn't really rendering her stateless...or at least, only temporarily.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121863416#Comment_121863416

That is pretty much the argument the Home Secretary ran.

Basically, he pointed to a provision of Bangladeshi law under which Begum, as the child born abroad of Bangladeshi citizens, could opt to become a Bangladeshi citizen at any time up to attaining age 21. When he made the order depriving her of British citizenship, she was only 19. He argued that he was satisfied that this didn't make her "stateless" because she could become a Bangledeshi citizen, not because she was a Bangladeshi citizen.

The right to Bangladeshi citizenship was perhaps more theoretical than real, given that the Bangladeshi government said at the time that they wouldn't allow her to become a citizen and that if she came to Bangladesh they would hang her. There was obviously a risk that, if she did successfully assert her right to Bangladeshi citizenship, the Syrians — who want her even less than the UK does — would deport her to Bangladesh, there to be hanged. Doubtless motivated at least in part by these reasons, she did not opt to take up Bangladeshi citzenship. As she is now over 21, she no longer has even the theoretical option. She is now unquestionably stateless, and will remain so unless she succeeds in overturning the deprivation order.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121863416#Comment_121863416

The Home Secretary was fully aware in reality that removing her citizenship would render her stateless.

Under his powers as long as he was aware of the ramifications it was legal.

Which is rather bonkers.