ISI Fighter Shamima Begum Not allowed to return to the UK

ha ha caught out again with the bs most people would stop digging . when your caught bluffing about one thing your credibility on others is effected

did you see the link to the times ? with the same info

I think the details are not relevant too. Which is interesting, because when people starting added irrelevant details to their posts. It’s usually an appeal to authority.

And when they get those details wrong. (Such as mistakenly thinking the UK handles AKs).

It’s pretty clear they were making it up. 🤥

The MoD were testing .22 rimfire along with the cannons? In case the UK was invaded by parachuting bunnies I guess

Just remember based on this decision there are 7 million britons who could have their UK citizenship revoked because they qualify for an Irish passport but never envoked it.

That's one hell of a Pandora's box this case opens for anyone worried about an authoritarian government taking hold

They have set precedent. It is now legal, in the UK, to do this. Of course the argument is valid.

They've set a precedent and can do so again. They've massively weakened the legal safety of their immigrant citizens and their grandkids for any topic the HS of the day chooses.

You apply the law equally yo your best and worst. That's how it works. They've changed that

What new legal precedent do you think this say set? Hundreds of British people have been stripped of citizenship over the course of history. The legal mechanism has existed in law for 50 years. How does her situation apply to a ranson law abiding citizen with an Irish granny?

Claiming somebody citizenship could be stripped for no reason other that the fact that qualify for another citizenship is an exaggeration.

Legally that cannot be done. The criteria to revoke a citizenship is significantly more arduous.

Post above claimed based on this decision 7 million could have their UK citizenship revoked. I replied that figure is an exaggeration, as the decision was based on joining terrorist group, not the availability of a dual passport. I'd have though that was pretty obvious exaggeration.

And you replied that "it's actually not an exaggeration at all". Now you're claiming the post you said was not an exaggeration, was not stated. 😂

Not having to publish a reason publicly isn’t the same as being able to do it without a reason (as was claimed).

It’s outlined in the British Nationality Act 1981. Relevant section below, 4A. There’s various criteria and conditions. This is not a new precedent.

Saying 7m people could have their citizenship removed is scaremongering. They would not meet the criteria.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40

The Act has been amended several times since then.

they would if the home secretry decided they were a threat to national security.

they are if the home secretry decides they are.

Which is the case for 100m+ British citizens. This case changes nothing.

And Which he hasn’t and won’t be doing. Hence why it’s exaggeration. not sure why you’re struggling with that.

We’re talking about reality, not a hypothetical dystopia. When you’re ready to take your meds and come back to reality let us know.

Nitpick: there aren't a hundred million plus British citizens.

But, even if there were, this wouldn't be the case for most of them. If you're a British Citizen by birth or descent, the Home Secretary cannot deprive you of your citizenship unless he considers that you have, or have access to, some other citizenship.

Thus the UK has two classes of British Citizen — those who can be deprived of British Citizenship by order of the Home Secretary, and those who cannot. The former group is a mixed bag, but it will include, among others:

• British Citizens born in Northern Ireland (entitled to Irish citizenship);
• a large number of British Citizens who have a parent, or in some cases a grandparent, born outside Great Britain (if, as a result, they have, or have access to, the citizenship of their country of ancestry);
• British Citizens who are Jews or who have have a Jewish parent or grandparent (entitled to Israeli citizenship).

(It doesn't take a genius to work out that the first-class citizens, whose descent for the past two generations has been purely in Great Britain, will be overwhelmingly White British, while the second-class citizens will be a more ethnically diverse group. So that's all right, then.)

Fun fact: The current Home Secretary is himself a second-class citizen — he is entitled to citizenship of Sierra Leone through his mother, who was born there. The Prime Minister is also a second-class citizen. But the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are both first-class citizens.

She technically could become a citizen of Bangladesh before she turned 21, but it would have to involved her travelling there. Although the Bangladesh Minister disputes this.

The Bangladeshi authorities said she would be executed if she came near the place any, so it didn't really matter.

The horror in that is Javid knew this and stated it to the court.

So technically lawful in what he did, the net effect was always going to be statelessness. He in full knowledge made a victim of child grooming stateless. Tories gonna Tory!!!

The Judges who have ruled on this so far have all sounded the alarms, but were only charged with looking at the lawful remit of the Home Secretary.

The OP is very much correct in stating that Britain has 2 classes of citizen.

It's an absolute fact and an extremely dangerous precedent going forward.

For him to be technically lawful in what he did, would he not have had to make the argument that she was a Bangladeshi citizen, not just that she had entitlement to it.

This is what has always confused me about the judgement - a few days after the original decision, the Bangladeshi govt said she wasn't one. That seems to have been disregarded, and a contorded idea of 'theoretical citizenship' has been conjured up.

Hi Mellor

Number: SFAIK there is no official count of British citizens. The population of the UK is 67 million; not all of them are British Citizens. It has been estimate that there are about 5 million non-citizen migrants living in the UK; that would suggest 62 million British citizens living in the UK. Add to that British citizens who were born in the UK but no longer live there, or who were born abroad to a British citizen born in the UK. There's no official estimate of that, SFAIK, but if you wanted to estimate the number of British citizens to the nearest 10 million, I'd say 70 million would be your safest guess.

Deprivation of citizenship: Under the legislation, as regards deprivation on the (rather vague) "conducive to the public good" ground, the position is slightly differen for (a) British citizens by birth or registration, and (b) British citizens by naturalisation.

The Home Secretary can deprive any British citizen (by birth; by descent; by naturalisation) so long as he is satisfied that (1) depriving you is conducive to the public good (British Nationality Act 1981 s. 40(2)), and (2) this will not make you stateless (s. 40(4)).

But if you're a citizen by naturalisation, the Home Secretary can deprive you even if that would make you stateless (s. 40(4A)), so long as (1) he is satisfied that you have conducted yourself in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, and (2) he has "reasonable grounds" for believing that you are able, under the law of another country, to become a national of that country. (Having "reasonable grounds for believing" something is a lower standard than being "satisfied" as to something.)

Shamima Begum was a citizen by birth (as are all the other people I mentioned in my earlier post, and as are the great majority of British citizens), so we are not really concerned here about the extended standards for depriving naturalised citizens. "Stateless" isn't defined in the British Nationality Act or, so far as I can find, anywhere else in UK legislation, but the UK government considers you to be "stateless" if (a) you're not a citizen of any other country and (b) you're unable to live permanently in any other country. Thus if you have the right to obtain citizenship (or indeed permanent residence) of another country you're not "stateless" so far as the UK is concerned, and the Home Secretary can deprive you of British citizenhip. The Home Secretary was evidently satisfied that Begum had such a right.

But, as pointed out, a great many British citizens have such a right - many millions of British citizens either have or are entitled to obtain another citizenship, never mind those who have or are entitled to permanent residence in another country. The Home Secretary can deprive any or all of them, if he is satisfied that doing so is conducive to the public good. (He does not have to be satisfied that they have conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK; that test only applies if he wants to make a naturalised citizen stateless.)

So I don't think it's an overstatement to say that there are two classes of British citizens - those who cannot be deprived because that would make them stateless, and those who can be deprived (on extremely broad, vague grounds). And it's certainly true to say that there will be a marked ethnic distinction between the two classes.

On the citizenship numbers — the UK has multiple different kinds and classes of citizens, and they keep changing them. You've got your British Citizens; your British Overseas Citizens; your British Overseas Territories Citizens; your British Nationals (Overseas); your British Subjects; your British Protected Persons.

The only UK citizenship status that really counts for much is British Citizen status; that carries with it a right of entry to, and a right of abode in, the UK. Oversimplifying a bit, to get British Citizen status you need to be born in the UK, or have a parent who was.

The other statuses are relics of empire. You get them by having an association with a present or former British colony/territory/possession. They carry limited rights, and in particular typically do not carry a right of abode in the UK.

Those born in Hong Kong, by way of example, are not British Citizens. If born before 1997, they are British Nationals (Overseas) — unless they have no Chinese ancestry, in which case they had a one-off chance in 1997 to upgrade to British Citizen status. Birth in Hong Kong after 1997 does not result in any kind of UK citizenship. British Nationals (Overseas) are entitled to BN(O) passports but relatively few apply for one, because they are not much use; few countries accept BN(O) passports because, if you want to deport a BN(O) passport holder, there is no guarantee that the UK will recieve them. Hong Kongers therefore mostly travel on Chinese passports, which are much more acceptable internationally. BN(O) status is not heritable; the children of a BN(O) do not qualify for any kind of UK citizenship and the status will eventually die out when the last Hong Konger born before 1997 dies.

So, the notion of multiple classes of citizenship with varying levels of rights is not a novelty for the UK; it's pretty much baked into the system. My estimate of 70 million is just for British Citizens. I'm not aware of any estimates for the numbers in other UK citizenship classes — probably because nobody cares very much; the other UK citizenship classes are not very signficant in terms of rights or obligations, so the number of people in each class is not very important, even to the UK. Several of the lesser UK citizenship statuses are closed to new entrants, and are not heritable, so they are getting smaller and smaller over time as the existing holders die off.

As for "rambling about the Home Secretary stripping all those entitled to Irish passports" — I haven't done that. I have just pointed out that he can, if he thinks it would be "conducive to the public good", strip British Citizenship from anyone who is entitled to an Irish (or any other non-British) passport.

And, your mileage may vary, but I think if your citizenship can be removed from you at the whim of the executive, that's a pretty signficant limitation on your citizenship. I think it certainly justifies the claim that your citizenship is second-class, when compared with someone over whom the Home Secretary has no such power.

(Fun fact: British Subject status is available to people born in Ireland or India before 1949 who do not hold citizenship of any Commonwealth country. As India is itself a Commonwealth country there are very few British subjects by virtue of birth in India. Nearly all remaining British subjects are Irish, and they are all at least 75 years old, so the category is nearly extinct. Even now the status is more or less useless, since most of its holders enjoy greater rights in the UK as Irish citizens than they do as British Subjects.)

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.

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.

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.