Shamima Begum: Runaway IS bride to find out if she can return to UK
- Thread starter Richard - London
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,753
- Location
- Welling, London
**** her.
That’s about the strength of it for me.
That’s about the strength of it for me.
According to the Home Secretary, Begum was a dual British/Bangladeshi national. My daughter was born in the UK, and was also a dual national before she moved to Australia. You don't need to be born in a country to be a national of that country. Nationality can be inherited.
However, the Bangladeshi government has said Bangladeshi citizenship by descent is not an automatic right (so Begum was never a dual national) and even if she'd applied for it, she would have been rejected on the grounds of national security.
Any way you look at it, Begum has brought this little mess on herself.
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong - I don't sympathise with her. I just think it's bad that we've been able to render her stateless.
It is true that she made her own bed (albeit at 15). Again, I'm not playing the "Think of the children" card. I just don't like how we've effectively washed our hands of any responsibility, and made her someone else's problem.
Other than that, yeah I have no issue with people disliking her.
Nearly. She had provisional citizenship which expired when she was 21. Bangladesh has also said on record that if she'd tried to acquire full citizenship, she would have been denied.
It's not a grey area, but it's a loophole. It is known, and the Home Secretary acknowledged, that she could never have actually become a Bangladeshi national. But that wasn't important, legally. So he knew, and everyone knew, that she would be stateless.
yea denied any chance of ever getting brutish citizenship.
she played the odds and lost
Just replying to your edit and then I'm done.
We all know what she did. That's not being debated. What's important is that the UK sticks to its obligations, both to its own citizens and to the rest of the world.
Our obligations don't just extend to the things we like and want to do. Some of those obligations include dealing with our own offenders.
Given what she's done, few people will shed a tear if she ends up dying in Syria. Many might even cheer for that. I wouldn't lose sleep, but I'd continue to think it reflected poorly upon us.
The fact that she's a wrong-un (putting it nicely) should not give the UK free reign to do whatever it likes. And crucially wouldn't have if her parents were both Brits.
And as a few people have commented, here and elsewhere, this also creates a clear divide between Brits with British parents, and everyone else. Effectively, if your parents weren't themselves British nationals (and perhaps not even dual nationals?) there is a chance you can be stripped of your British nationality.
So clearly she's an awful person, but that was never enough. It's what she's done coupled with who her parents were, plus an opportunistic Home Secretary making political capital from it all. Anyway, I'm just repeating myself now. Seems most people are happy with the outcome in this case.
Yes. That's what I'm saying should happen in this case. After her trial in Syria, transport her back here then we can try her here.Wasn’t he returned to the UK and executed for high treason?
We could have allowed him to be hanged in Germany.
You're right about his history. Which makes our position even more strange.
Then we took in someone not a citizen, and now it is our citizen we don't want to know.
What the government did was wrong, there's no question of that. But it was also well deserved.
Odd that her parents never bothered to get British citizenship in all the years they've lived in the UK, but I guess they've learned a lesson too. Yes, there's a divide between Brits with British parents and everyone else. It's the same in every other country, and rightly so. Otherwise citizenship would mean nothing. If people are too lazy to apply, that's on them.
Last edited:
Then Bangladesh has made her stateless, she lost her British Citizenship years ago as a result of being openly hostile to the UK and our way of life; she's the daughter of Bangladeshis and that's where she belongs now... or she can stay in Syria.
Nah. Bangladesh can't be said to have made her stateless by not offering her their citizenship when the offer itself is discretionary. That just plain doesn't make sense.
She had full British citizenship, and no other, when she was made stateless by the Home Sec.
It doesn't make sense because it's not what has happened, she was born to Bangladeshi parents, that makes her Bangladeshi, the UK has revoked her citizenship, if Bangladesh does so after that then it is Bangladesh that has made her stateless.
Shamima Begum: What is her legal status?
The UK has stripped the IS bride of her British citizenship - so what happens now?
www.bbc.co.uk
She lost her UK citizenship years ago, she was then Bangladeshi... if they allow that to lapse then she's gone from being Bangladeshi to being stateless... not our problem!
Last edited:
Bangladesh hasn't revoked anything. She never applied for Bangladeshi citizenship and was indeed never able to do so. Had she been able they would have refused, as is their right. They are not obliged to give foreign nationals Bangladeshi citizenship.
The fact remains that the only citizenship she ever had was British.
Her parents were Bangladeshi but she was as much British as anything else, having been born and raised here, and having full British citizenship.
She didn't need to, read the link that was already posted!
Nope, that's false, see the link above.
This is a hideous fudge used by the government at the time to make a decision that appealed to their base. She is a British problem and we should man up and deal with it properly.
“The Guardian” said:
@dowie
You clearly don't know what provisional means.
When you apply for a provisional driver's license, you have a set time before it expires, in which to obtain a full driver's license.
If you fail to apply for, or qualify for, a full driver's license, then your provisional license expires. Would you then say the govt had "revoked" your full driver's license? No, of course not. You never had one.
You clearly don't know what provisional means.
When you apply for a provisional driver's license, you have a set time before it expires, in which to obtain a full driver's license.
If you fail to apply for, or qualify for, a full driver's license, then your provisional license expires. Would you then say the govt had "revoked" your full driver's license? No, of course not. You never had one.
The exact location wasn't the problem. We had to argue he was British to kill him for treason or he would walk as an American by birth. I don't think the americans tried too hard to protect him.
I say the important difference is we really wanted Joyce's head on a stick. Guy had been talking trash over the radio all war and there was a real mission to kill him for it even if justice had to be bent.
The govt doesn't give a toss about this girl dead or alive but it is a show of power to revoke citizenship and have it stick. Someone begging to be let back in just to live in a jail is a hell of a warning.
We're not talking about driver's licences though; there isn't some second class of citizenship that she'd have had before turning 21, she was a citizen of Bangladesh ergo why UK law permitted her British Citizenship to be revoked.
Calling it "provisional" doesn't change that fact, you were wrong to state "The fact remains that the only citizenship she ever had was British." as she had Bangladeshi citizenship too, that she doesn't anymore is not our problem.
Last edited:
She did not have Bangladeshi citizenship. She needed to apply to have a full, proper, continuing citizenship into adulthood, and that is discretionary. And would have been denied.
She had provisional citizenship (for children) which is not the same. Yes, I can call it provisional because that's what it was, and what it has been referred to in many publications, including The Guardian piece linked above. Provisional citizenship for children is not the same as full citizenship, fairly obviously.
Provisional citizenship expires and must be converted to proper citizenship with a discretionary application, which can and would have been denied.
At the time of her British citizenship being revoked, the Home Sec already knew her application for Bangladeshi citizenship would be denied. Which somewhat contradicts your assertion that she had citizenship. The appeals board stated that no appeal was could be made on the grounds that the Home Sec was not in possession of the facts, or realise that she would not be granted Bangladeshi citizenship. He did know, and it wasn't his problem. And legally that was fine, but most of us are reasonable enough to call that a "loophole".
She did have Bangladeshi citizenship!
Shamima Begum: What is her legal status?
The UK has stripped the IS bride of her British citizenship - so what happens now?
www.bbc.co.uk
She needed to apply to stop her citizenship from lapsing. She had Bangladeshi citizenship and British citizenship, she had the British citizenship revoked, at the time it was revoked she had Bangladeshi citizenship... that she allowed that to lapse is not our problem!
Calling it "provisional" citizenship doesn't negate that she had citizenship.