... else anyone with dual citizenship, however theoretical, can be exiled from the uk for quite undefined reasons ...
<div class="tenor-gif-embed" data-postid="12301767" data-share-method="host" data-width="100%" data-aspect-ratio="1.6463414634146343"><a href="Chuckle Vision Barry Chuckle GIF - ChuckleVision BarryChuckle ToMeToYou - Discover & Share GIFs">Chuckle Vision Barry Chuckle GIF</a> from <a href="Chucklevision GIFs | Tenor">Chucklevision GIFs</a></div><script type="text/javascript" async src="https://tenor.com/embed.js"></script>
Yeah if that was what the law was, fine, but it's not. It just says "if its for the public good and you wont be stateless". Plenty of people i'm sure they'd quite like to remove and dump elsewhere who could be squeezed into that completely vague principle.If you call travelling to another country to join a genocidal cult whose sworn aim is to destroy your country and others whilst raping their way across the Middle East "undefined", I suppose you have a point.
If you call travelling to another country to join a genocidal cult whose sworn aim is to destroy your country and others, whilst raping and murdering their way across the Middle East "undefined", I suppose you have a point.
If you call travelling to another country to join a genocidal cult whose sworn aim is to destroy your country and others, whilst raping and murdering their way across the Middle East "undefined", I suppose you have a point.
just copy the link of wherever it's hostedshit gif fail
And it's worse than that. It creates a precedent that every single person born in the UK to Bangladeshi parents is also potentially a Bangladeshi citizen (up to the age of 21 only, iirc), whether they want to be or not, whether they have ever expressed any interest in it or not (Begum hasn't), or indeed, whether or not they even know this is the case in Bangladeshi law (why would they), and can have their British citizenship taken away from them on that basis. It instantly creates a group of thousands of second-class citizens.Yeah if that was what the law was, fine, but it's not. It just says "if its for the public good and you wont be stateless". Plenty of people i'm sure they'd quite like to remove and dump elsewhere who could be squeezed into that completely vague principle.
There's nothing more edifying than a bunch of middle-aged men frothing about a young woman who made a mistake when she was 15.
did isis fuck your mum
Yeah if that was what the law was, fine, but it's not. It just says "if its for the public good and you wont be stateless". Plenty of people i'm sure they'd quite like to remove and dump elsewhere who could be squeezed into that completely vague principle.
poor taste or indeed no taste at all is something at the heart of the urban experienceAre you pissed? Poor taste quip that. And I expect those people who's mothers and sisters and friends have been held as sex slaves might find it even more so. Go and have a watch some of the testimonials from Yazidi women.
yeh but the principle which she decries is the one i am relying on for the transportation of the former people to the south atlantic industrial zoneYou're saying this more clearly and concisely than anyone else on this thread.
poor taste or indeed no taste at all is something at the heart of the urban experience
Are you pissed? Poor taste quip that. And I expect those people whose mothers and sisters and friends have been held as sex slaves might find it even more so. Go and have a watch some of the testimonials from Yazidi women.
no but if I wanted to hear from revenge porn fantasists and capital punishment cheerleading I would be visiting less enlightened Internet forums
it’s called moral consistency
She died of cancer 10 years before they were a thing. But thanks for that.did isis fuck your mum
I think Irish descent is reasonably generously interpreted by Ireland as well.
Don't think it creates a precedent, exactly. However absurd it may be, the way UK law already sees it is that anyone born in the UK with a Bangladeshi parent automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship at birth.And it's worse than that. It creates a precedent that every single person born in the UK to Bangladeshi parents is also potentially a Bangladeshi citizen (up to the age of 21 only, iirc), whether they want to be or not, whether they have ever expressed any interest in it or not (Begum hasn't), and can have their British citizenship taken away from them on that basis. It instantly creates a group of thousands of second-class citizens.
Yeah if that was what the law was, fine, but it's not. It just says "if its for the public good and you wont be stateless". Plenty of people i'm sure they'd quite like to remove and dump elsewhere who could be squeezed into that completely vague principle.
It creates a precedent in that this is the first time this disgusting piece of sophistry has actually been successfully used, if it is successful. There were previous cases of men over the age of 21 who argued against it successfully in court on the basis of being over 21, but this particular bit of cunty law hasn't actually been tested properly wrt someone under 21 before Begum. Sometimes important principles need to be defended in cases involving the very worst people. If reasonable law only applies to 'reasonable' people, we're in a very dangerous place.Don't think it creates a precedent, exactly. However absurd it may be, the way UK law already sees it is that anyone born in the UK with a Bangladeshi parent automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship at birth.
"A mistake" is a very mild way of describing joining a bunch of bloodthirsty religious maniac murderers.