British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Red Cat]

I'm not trying to do that (and, in any event, it's not really provable either way). I'm genuinely interested in what level of confidence you think we can have in such an assumption given what we know about her and this field (where I'm sure you know more than me).

I'll have to think more about how to answer this.

re. the field, I wouldn't claim to know a great deal at all, it's a specialism, but one with a lot of research behind it, well funded.

 

[Athos]

Can you post a link to this?

It was dealt with earlier.

Requirements for Renunciation of Bangladesh nationality

The following documents are required for renunciation (Cancellation) of Bangladesh nationality and obtain certificate of renunciation from the Embassy:

• Filled-in application form (02 copies) for renunciation of Bangladesh nationality
• Original Bangladesh passport
• Photocopy of Bangladesh passport (hand written 1-5 pages, MRP 1-2 pages)
• Certificate from the foreign nationality

From here: Requirements for Renunciation | Embassy of Bangladesh, Berlin

Thanks. That seems directly contradictory to what's here: Refworld | Bangladesh: Whether an individual who has renounced citizenship of Bangladesh by acquiring citizenship in Singapore is able to reclaim citizenship; the requirements and procedures for reacquiring citizenship

Which says "In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Canadian high commission in Dhaka stated that Bangladeshis who are applying for citizenship in a country that does not accept dual citizenship can obtain a renunciation certificate from the Ministry of Home Affairs or from a Bangladeshi embassy/high commission abroad (Canada 10 Jan. 2012). The official added that a person seeking to renounce Bangladeshi citizenship needs only to write a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs indicating his or her intention and a certificate will be issued (ibid.)."

 

[Pickman's model]

Perhaps she should have done so prior to joining that gang of murderers.

Ah by building a time machine. I hoped you'd be able to suggest a rather more realistic way

 

[Athos]

Ah by building a time machine. I hoped you'd be able to suggest a rather more realistic way

No, by doing it before she left.

 

[Spymaster]

It was dealt with earlier.

Yes, I just saw that.

It just looks like the requirements of renouncing citizenship for those who do have a passport. There'll likely be other methods for those who don't.

 

[maomao]

It was dealt with earlier.

The second doesn't disprove the first. It says how Bangladeshi citizens who have entered Singapore as Bangladeshi citizens (and therefore have Bangladeshi passports) can renounce their passports. It does not address what a British citizen in possession of theoretical Bangladeshi citizenship with no documents to prove it should do. Presumably while it says they merely have to write a letter they need to include some proof of ID or people could go around renouncing other people's citizenship. Do you have any proof that this can actually be done without a passport or have you just cherry picked an over-simplified explanation from a non legal document and used it to refute the actual requirements of a Bangladeshi consulate?

 

[Athos]

The second doesn't disprove the first. It says how Bangladeshi citizens who have entered Singapore as Bangladeshi citizens (and therefore have Bangladeshi passports) can renounce their passports. It does not address what a British citizen in possession of theoretical Bangladeshi citizenship with no documents to prove it should do. Presumably while it says they merely have to write a letter they need to include some proof of ID or people could go around renouncing other people's citizenship. Do you have any proof that this can actually be done without a passport or have you just cherry picked an over-simplified explanation from a non legal document and used it to refute the actual requirements of a Bangladeshi consulate?

She's not a theoretical citizen; she is a legal citizen of Bangladesh, according to that state's law (notwithstanding what some of its politicians claim).

You've misunderstood the link; it doesn't say what you think it does. But, in any event, it's fair to say I don't know the procedure is for renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship where someone doesn't have a passport. The link I posted suggests one way of doing it, but I accept that appears at odds with the other link - the position is unclear (though it'd be very strange if there wasn't such a procedure).

But, as I've said, even if a passport was required, she could've got one then renounced Bangladeshi citizenship. (Accepting that's largely theoretical as: first, she might not have known about it; and, secondly, I suspect she never anticipated the fall of IS.)

Either way, you're far from proving that I was wrong in law to say she could have renounced her legal citizenship.

 

[Pickman's model]

You've misunderstood the link; it doesn't say what you think it does. But, in any event, it's fair to say I don't know the procedure is for renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship where someone doesn't have a passport. The link I posted suggests one way of doing it, but I accept that appears at odds with the other link - the position is unclear (though it'd be very strange if there wasn't such a procedure).

But, as I've said, even if a passport was required, she could've got one then renounced Bangladeshi citizenship. (Accepting that's largely theoretical as: first, she might not have known about it; and, secondly, I suspect she never anticipated the fall of IS.)

Either way, you're far from proving that I was wrong in law to say she could have renounced her legal citizenship.

Your link concerns renunciation by acquisition of a new nationality. It therefore doesn't have any bearing on the matter at hand where no new nationality has been sought.

 

[Athos]

Your link concerns renunciation by acquisition of a new nationality. It therefore doesn't have any bearing on the matter at hand where no new nationality has been sought.

No it doesn't; that would occur inevitably as a matter of law (s it would've in her case on reaching 21). That link concerns renunciation by notification to the Bangladeshi authorities.

 

[maomao]

She's not a theoretical citizen; she is a legal citizen of Bangladesh, according to that state's law (notwithstanding what some of its politicians claim).

Theoretical is absolutely the right word. She has those rights but the Bangladeshi state is unaware of her existence and she has no papers to prove it. In fact when asked, the Bangladeshi state (rightly or wrongly according to their own law) denied she was a citizen. I can't think of a better word than theoretical to describe that. Can you? If the state won't give her citizenship then it's obviously not actual citizenship.

 

[maomao]

No it doesn't; that would occur inevitably as a matter of law (s it would've in her case on reaching 21). That link concerns renunciation by notification to the Bangladeshi authorities.

It's not a legal document, it's reported speech.

 

[Athos]

It's not a legal document, it's reported speech.

The other link wasn't a 'legal document' either.

 

[Athos]

Theoretical is absolutely the right word. She has those rights but the Bangladeshi state is unaware of her existence and she has no papers to prove it. In fact when asked, the Bangladeshi state (rightly or wrongly according to their own law) denied she was a citizen. I can't think of a better word than theoretical to describe that. Can you? If the state won't give her citizenship then it's obviously not actual citizenship.

That's the difference between de jure and de facto citizenship; under English law only the former is significant for the purposes of the stripping her British citizenship.

 

[maomao]

The other link wasn't a 'legal document' either.

It was the detailed instructions on how to renounce citizenship from the Bangladeshi consulate in Berlin. Yours is reported speech by another party. Do you genuinely believe that citizenship can be renounced by a simple letter with no proof of identity?

 

[Pickman's model]

No it doesn't; that would occur inevitably as a matter of law. That link concerns renunciation by notification to the Bangladeshi authorities.

only it's not a Bangladeshi website, it's not a legal website (you'll notice it doesn't cite any pesky laws), it is based on a Canadian diplomat's correspondence, you've adduced no evidence to show that this 2012 view obtained in 2015 (or if it was even valid when put on the internet)

 

[maomao]

That's the difference between de jure and de facto citizenship; under English law only the former is significant for the purposes of the stripping her British citizenship.

I wasn't discussing the results of the court case, those have been widely publicised. I was discussing the fundamental dishonesty of your posting style. My next point was going to be your regular and fallacious appeals to the authority of the courts to back up tangentially related points but you've demonstrated it nicely yourself.

 

[Athos]

It was the detailed instructions on how to renounce citizenship from the Bangladeshi consulate in Berlin. Yours is reported speech by another party. Do you genuinely believe that citizenship can be renounced by a simple letter with no proof of identity?

I've explained I don't know the process for renouncing without a passport. And adduced evidence to show its not altogether as clear as you'd claim. But, in any event, even on your version of the law, she could have renounced (by applying for a passport first).

 

[Athos]

I wasn't discussing the results of the court case, those have been widely publicised. I was discussing the fundamental dishonesty of your posting style. My next point was going to be your regular and fallacious appeals to the authority of the courts to back up tangentially related points but you've demonstrated it nicely yourself.

I don't appeal to the authority of the courts. You make false aims about what the law says, which I correct.

 

[maomao]

I don't appeal to the authority of the courts. You make false aims about what the law says, which I correct.

What was my false claim?

 

[Athos]

only it's not a Bangladeshi website, it's not a legal website (you'll notice it doesn't cite any pesky laws), it is based on a Canadian diplomat's correspondence, you've adduced no evidence to show that this 2012 view obtained in 2015 (or if it was even valid when put on the internet)

I could say the same about the procedural rules of the Berlin embassy!

 

[Athos]

What was my false claim?

You've made a number of false claims about the law, throughout the thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

I could say the same about the procedural rules of the Berlin embassy!

your ascent to whataboutery is your best contribution to the thread

 

[Athos]

your ascent to whataboutery is your best contribution to the thread

Something for you to aspire to.

 

[maomao]

You've made a number of false claims about the law, throughout the thread.

Not recently, certainly not this year. But you referred to the court case on this page to correct my use of the word 'theoretical'. Whatever the position of the racist UK state and its courts there's a fundamental difference between citizenship which is actively held and citizenship that isn't.

 

[Athos]

Not recently, certainly not this year. But you referred to the court case on this page to correct my use of the word 'theoretical'. Whatever the position of the racist UK state and its courts there's a fundamental difference between citizenship which is actively held and citizenship that isn't.

Yes, I agree that there's a significant difference between de jure and de facto citizenship; never said otherwise. From the outset, you suggested this was legally significant in the English court proceedings; as things stand, rightly or wrongly, it's not.

 

[maomao]

Yes, I agree that there's a significant difference between de jure and de facto citizenship; never said otherwise.

You implied otherwise by using a fallacious appeal to authority. And I don't speak Latin.

 

[Pickman's model]

Something for you to aspire to.

Your best contribution to this thread, if physical, would be the sort of thing people swerve to avoid treading in.

 

[BillRiver]

Yes, I agree that there's a significant difference between de jure and de facto citizenship; never said otherwise.

When my brother was becoming a solicitor in the 90's (and I was his study buddy) we used to play a game where we only spoke in legalise, for no other reason than that it amused us and annoyed others.

With all due respect it appears to me that my learned friend Athos has been playing the aforementioned game on this thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

You implied otherwise by using a fallacious appeal to authority. And I don't speak Latin.

Nor does Athos, like Boris Johnson he just likes dropping a phrase in here and there for the air of authority he thinks it provides

 

[Athos]

You implied otherwise by using a fallacious appeal to authority.

I'm afraid this is another example of you misunderstanding the point.