Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

I asked on here months ago if anyone could come up with a single example of that happening to a non-terrorist and so far nobody has.
Well again, can you give me a single instance of it happening to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist?
so you are fine with nonces being added, no problem, what else would be ok? It's available to use for fraud as well is that also fine ?
Your faith that Mrs Braverman can be relied upon to act with restraint and good reasoning is quite sweet really.
 
Last edited:
Haven’t read it but putting this here for later, it’s about the dubious position of this uk law when viewed internationally.
 
so you are fine with nonces being added, no problem, what else would be ok? It's available to use for fraud as well is that also fine ?
Your faith that Mrs Braverman can be relied upon to act with restraint and good reasoning is quite sweet really.

Show me that this has happened to someone I should give a fuck about. If you can’t just say so.
 
Your faith that Mrs Braverman can be relied upon to act with restraint and good reasoning is quite sweet really.
Astonishing how many supposed cynics think it's perfectly fine to encourage the use of such tactics really. I suppose it's a "meh, never happen to me" thing - not an apathy any anarchist or communist has the luxury to indulge if they've read much history. Berneri, Kropotkin, Berkman, Goldman ...
 
Last edited:
Show me that this has happened to someone I should give a fuck about. If you can’t just say so.
Oh ok I didn’t realise that’s what the most important issue is, whether you give a fuck about them or not.
What about the perfectly nice family who might end up living next door to her in Bangladesh why should they have to deal with her when she’s a 100 % made in Great Britain product.
 
There's no real prospect of that ever happening, though. Apart from anything else, there's no way of getting her there; Bangladesh wouldn't accept her. It's an entirely theoretical threat, played upon as leverage in her legal claims to return to the UK.
I think she should be allowed to return. She has offered to work with anti radicalisation efforts which i think makes a lot of sense. I find this whole situation disgusting, state bullying of hte worst kind. Of course if she were to return the gammon loons would make her life a misery as an endless well of outrage. If she were or is guilty of actual crimes then try her here. Isn't British justice meant to be the bestest in all the world?
 
Oh ok I didn’t realise that’s what the most important issue is, whether you give a fuck about them or not.
What about the perfectly nice family who might end up living next door to her in Bangladesh why should they have to deal with her when she’s a 100 % made in Great Britain product.
There's some weight to the argument about the UK's moral responsibility to others, but I suppose the UK government's position would be that it has a duty to protect the British public, not the Bangladeshi public.
 
I don't think that's right. They're not automatically Irish citizens; they're entitled to become Irish citizens (if they were born before January 2005 - the Irish constitution has been chamged). Unless and until they exercise that right, they're not dual citizens; as such, their British citizenship can't be removed (because that'd make them stateless).

In any event, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. How loyalists are treated by the British government isn't relevant to my point you quoted; it was a comment on Spymaster's/Rob Roy's argument about whether it not the left treats Begum differently from how it treats other fascists in similar circumstances. My point being there is no suitable comparator.


According to the Irish Government, who, of course, will probably defer to your exceptional expertise on constitutional law:

If you or your parent were born on the island of Ireland before 2005, you are an Irish citizen. You can apply for an Irish passport without making an application for citizenship...

So let's make all those with convictions for Loyalist terrorism or support of illegal Loyalist organisations proper Irish and nothing else.
 
In the post that you replied to. Are you denying that people had their residence removed for minor crimes?

Windrush was a scandal that happened over 60 years ago. We were still executing people then too, and homosexuality was illegal. Things move on and times change. Sinking women accused of witchcraft used to happen too. Do you have any examples of people being wrongfully deprived of citizenship this century?
 
There's some weight to the argument about the UK's moral responsibility to others, but I suppose the UK government's position would be that it has a duty to protect the British public, not the Bangladeshi public.
In the 'rwanda plan' there was at least plenty of shady money involved in getting them to agree to take on the people that the uk wanted rid of, this thing just takes advantage of countries who happen to have generous citizenship laws, using them as an excuse to wash our hands of all responsibility for our undesirables.
As well as being massively racist because these different citizenship laws end up meaning that "non-white ethnic minority residents are eight times more likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship than white residents of all backgrounds.'
 
I think she should be allowed to return. She has offered to work with anti radicalisation efforts which i think makes a lot of sense. I find this whole situation disgusting, state bullying of hte worst kind. Of course if she were to return the gammon loons would make her life a misery as an endless well of outrage. If she were or is guilty of actual crimes then try her here. Isn't British justice meant to be the bestest in all the world?
I think there are some sound arguments against this law, but her offer isn't one of the stronger ones. Apart from having no idea about how sincere she is, there's significant doubt about the efficacy of deradicalisation programmes.

It may not be possible to convict her of any crime (for the reasons discussed), and/or it may be that any sentence after conviction is insufficient to mitigate the risk she poses. Without knowing the intelligence it's impossible for any of us to assess whether the deprivation of citizenship was a proportionate response. (Not a defence of this power per se, but a recognition that it's a gross oversimplification to assert that the existing criminal law is a sufficient tool to mitigate the risks posed by some of these individuals.)

Lol re the superiority of British justice.
 
According to the Irish Government, who, of course, will probably defer to your exceptional expertise on constitutional law:

If you or your parent were born on the island of Ireland before 2005, you are an Irish citizen. You can apply for an Irish passport without making an application for citizenship...

So let's make all those with convictions for Loyalist terrorism or support of illegal Loyalist organisations proper Irish and nothing else.

I’m not sure if loyalist terrorists are considered a threat to UK national security. The Irish government should pull their Irish citizenships though.
 
Hasn't she totally burned her bridges now by slagging ISIS off with her hair all visible on tv and everything anyway.
 
According to the Irish Government, who, of course, will probably defer to your exceptional expertise on constitutional law:

If you or your parent were born on the island of Ireland before 2005, you are an Irish citizen. You can apply for an Irish passport without making an application for citizenship...

So let's make all those with convictions for Loyalist terrorism or support of illegal Loyalist organisations proper Irish and nothing else.
They were planting bombs in Eire :confused:
 
In the 'rwanda plan' there was at least plenty of shady money involved in getting them to agree to take on the people that the uk wanted rid of, this thing just takes advantage of countries who happen to have generous citizenship laws, using them as an excuse to wash our hands of all responsibility for our undesirables.
As well as being massively racist because these different citizenship laws end up meaning that "non-white ethnic minority residents are eight times more likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship than white residents of all backgrounds.'
I wouldn't argue with any of that.
 
Yeah yeah yeah.

Show me an example of this particular power being abused. How many times do I need to ask this?
it's the wrong question but here's a weird case for you.
Guy had his citizenship removed not for terrorism or noncery but because he pretended to be a more highly qualified doctor than he actually was, thats it. His crime was "deceiving DWP and HM Revenue & Customs".
 
According to the Irish Government, who, of course, will probably defer to your exceptional expertise on constitutional law:

If you or your parent were born on the island of Ireland before 2005, you are an Irish citizen. You can apply for an Irish passport without making an application for citizenship...

So let's make all those with convictions for Loyalist terrorism or support of illegal Loyalist organisations proper Irish and nothing else.
That website* doesn't reflect the intricacies of the legal position, contained in the legislation:


In particular, see s.7 which differentiates people born in Northern Ireland.

You also need to consider Article 9(2)(1) of the Irish Constitution.

And s.6 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004.

This Wikipedia article explains the current position quite well.


In particular:

'The Twenty-seventh Amendment was approved by referendum on 11 June 2004, and was enacted on 24 June. It inserted a new section in Article 9 of the constitution stating that, "notwithstanding any other provision of [the] Constitution", no-one would be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship unless they had at least one parent who was (or was entitled to be) an Irish citizen. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 amended citizenship law to remove the entitlement to citizenship from those born on the island of Ireland who did not have an Irish-citizen parent, or whose parents had not lived in Ireland for three of the previous four years. This law was commenced on 1 January 2005.[15]'

See here also:


In particular:

'Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoptionEdit

All persons born in the Republic of Ireland before 1 January 2005 automatically received citizenship at birth regardless of the nationalities of their parents.[72] Individuals born anywhere on the island of Ireland from that year on receive Irish citizenship at birth if they are not entitled to any other country's citizenship. Otherwise, they are entitled to (but are not automatically granted) citizenship if at least one parent is an Irish citizen or holds an entitlement to Irish citizenship, a British citizen, a resident with no time limit of stay in either the Republic or Northern Ireland, or a resident who has been domiciled in Ireland for at least three of the preceding four years.[73] Any person entitled to Irish citizenship who performs an act that only an Irish citizen has a right to do, such as applying for an Irish passport or registering to vote in national elections, automatically becomes a citizen.[55]

Individuals born in Northern Ireland from 6 December 1922 to 1 December 1999 who did not have an Irish citizen parent were entitled to become Irish citizens by declaration. Any person born in that territory from 2 December 1999 to 31 December 2004 is entitled to Irish citizenship regardless of the statuses of their parents;[74] this includes children born in Ireland between these dates to foreign government officials with diplomatic immunity, who are eligible to claim citizenship by special declaration.[75]'



Essentially, anyone born in Northern Ireland before 2005 is entitled to Irish citizenship (in addition to their British citizenship), but they're not automatically citizens from birth. It requires a positive act. I'm unaware of any Loyalist terrorists that have taken that act to obtain Irish citizenship, such that it would be an option to the British government to strip them of British citizenship. Hence the fact that's not happened isn't an indicator of inconsistent use of the power (and that's before we come to all the other potential reasons for different treatment even if the powers could be used).

ETA: * that website demonstrably incorrectly conflates being a citizen with being entitled to to apply to become one.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20221124_095502_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20221124_095502_Chrome.jpg
    89.9 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
I’m not sure if loyalist terrorists are considered a threat to UK national security. The Irish government should pull their Irish citizenships though.


They murdered, maimed and bombed in the UK and some are still involved in criminality and violence. Isn't that good enough.
 
Windrush was a scandal that happened over 60 years ago. We were still executing people then too, and homosexuality was illegal. Things move on and times change. Sinking women accused of witchcraft used to happen too. Do you have any examples of people being wrongfully deprived of citizenship this century?


Ehrm, spy... Windrush scandal explained

The Windrush scandal started in 2012...
 
Back
Top Bottom