British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[cesare]

The liberal position is to trust that the State's definition of "threatening" will only sweep up those who deserve it. It has been a very long time since I believed that.

Exactly

 

[Spymaster]

As I understand it, Bangladeshi automatic citizenship is fairly similar to Ireland's? (Some expert can put me right if I've misunderstood, happy to concede if I've got it wrong.). But it's that sort of automatic which is subject to an application process against set criteria?

It's identical to Irelands, insofar that they consider children born to one or more Bangladeshi citizens, to be automatically Bangladeshi, regardless of where they are born.

Ireland is the same. If one of your parents was born on the island of Ireland (north or south), the Irish government already consider you to be an Irish citizen. You don't have to apply for citizenship. Just fill in a passport application and they'll send you one.

This is not in any way uncommon. Loads of countries have similar rules to varying degrees. It's called Jus Sanguinis.

 

[cesare]

'you libs'? fuck's sake.

Yours is the ultimate liberal position.

 

[cesare]

The liberal position is to trust that the State's definition of "threatening" will only sweep up those who deserve it. It has been a very long time since I believed that.

The State's definition of "threatening" is anything that threatens it. That's pretty non-contentious.

 

[Spymaster]

In terms of whether the outcome is unreasonable or not it doesn't matter whether Begum is a monster. The application of the law has been shown not to be consistent across Britain's citizenry – ie. if your parents are from the wrong country you face a different legal system from that of people whose parents were born in Britain.

It applies to anyone who has more than one citizenship. Not just Bangladeshi's or brown people as was suggested back in the thread somewhere.

 

[Spymaster]

Her position isn't like yours. She had absolutely no idea she had this automatic Bangladeshi citizenship. Not only had she not applied for it, she simply had no idea that she could apply for it. It had never crossed her radar. I'm sure if you went down to Bethnal Green where she grew up and asked a bunch of 15 year olds with Bangladeshi heritage about it, they wouldn't know either. Perhaps one or two would know now, actually, as a result of this case.

And given that said automatic citizenship expires aged 21 if you haven't done anything about confirming it, I would argue that it isn't really citizenship, whatever the exact wording of Bangladeshi law might be. It's an automatic right to citizenship that can be exercised upon proof of parenthood. Hence I think the entire British govt/courts stance is pure self-serving sophistry.

 

[bimble]

It applies to anyone who has more than one citizenship. Not just Bangladeshi's or brown people as was suggested back in the thread somewhere.

Wonder if it would apply to all Jews, cos of whatever the Israeli citizen laws are.

 

[Spymaster]

Wonder if it would apply to all Jews, cos of whatever the Israeli citizen laws are.

Don't think so. According to Wikipedia it sounds like it needs to be applied for unless the subject was born in Israel.

Israeli citizenship law details the conditions by which a person holds citizenship of Israel. The two primary pieces of legislation governing these requirements are the 1950 Law of Return and 1952 Citizenship Law.

Every Jew in the world has the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen. Individuals born within the country receive Israeli citizenship at birth if at least one parent is a citizen. Non-Jewish foreigners may naturalize after living in the country for at least three years while holding permanent residency and demonstrating knowledge in the Hebrew language.

 

[_Russ_]

Watching one of her interviews I did notice how she referred to the UK as "your country" Thats right you cunt its not your country any more

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It is though. Like it or lump it she's British.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Here's a useful breakdown of who is affected by the new Home Office rules to deprive citizenship without even telling people. And it appears I was wrong that having Indian parents makes you safe. Appears it doesn't. The new proposed rules allow deprivation of citizenship to anyone the UK govt thinks can get citizenship of another country.

Among others, 176,000 young people of Bangladeshi heritage are affected.

Exclusive: British citizenship of six million people could be jeopardised by Home Office plans

Not racist at all. Not targeted at ethnic minorities. Oh no. Nothing to see here. That's just Libs handwringing.

This is a nasty little fucking country.

 

[bimble]

Don't think so. According to Wikipedia it sounds like it needs to be applied for unless the subject was born in Israel.

But the law says that, since 2014, they can do it to you "if the home secretary has reasonable grounds to believe" you are "eligible for foreign citizenship", which is pretty broad isn't it.

 

[Spymaster]

But the law says that, since 2014, they can do it to you "if the home secretary has reasonable grounds to believe" you are "eligible for foreign citizenship", which is pretty broad isn't it.

I'd need to read the law, but being eligible for foreign citizenship doesn't matter if you don't have it does it. The UKG can't strip your Brit status because it'd leave you stateless.

 

[Rob Ray]

It applies to anyone who has more than one citizenship. Not just Bangladeshi's or brown people as was suggested back in the thread somewhere.

I've not said it only applies to brown people, however it would manifestly be accurate to say it applies disproportionally often to ethnic minority groups and therefore has systemically racist outcomes.

 

[bimble]

but being eligible for foreign citizenship doesn't matter if you don't have it does it. The UKG can't strip your Brit status because it'd leave you stateless.

i dunno. Its a weaselly loophole that the gov are using so its not really clear is it, thats how come there's all this legal wrangling.

"Since 2014, the measures have also applied to naturalised UK citizens who the home secretary “has reasonable grounds to believe” are eligible for foreign citizenship, even if they do not currently possess dual nationality."

 

[Spymaster]

i dunno . Its a weasely loophole that the gov are using so its not really clear is it which is why all this legal wrangling.

"Since 2014, the measures have also applied to naturalised UK citizens who the home secretary “has reasonable grounds to believe” are eligible for foreign citizenship, even if they do not currently possess dual nationality."

Dunno. Can you post a link to wherever that came from?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd need to read the law, but being eligible for foreign citizenship doesn't matter if you don't have it does it. The UKG can't strip your Brit status because it'd leave you stateless.

It can if you're a naturalised citizen, can't if you're not. Prior to 2003, only naturalised citizens could be deprived of citizenship.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06820/SN06820.pdf

There has been an explosion of this happening in recent years. It used to be extremely rare. As the paper says,

Before Abu Hamza, there had been no deprivation of citizenship for 30 years. A Government white paper published in 2002 stated “the last time someone was derived of British citizenship was in 1973”.

 

[bimble]

Can you post a link to wherever that came from?

link from lbj up there somewhere Exclusive: British citizenship of six million people could be jeopardised by Home Office plans

 

[Spymaster]

It can if you're a naturalised citizen, can't if you're not. Prior to 2003, only naturalised citizens could be deprived of citizenship.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06820/SN06820.pdf

There has been an explosion of this happening in recent years. It used to be extremely rare. As the paper says,

I'll hope Athos reads that lot later.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Like many of the shittier developments in this country over the last 20 years, a trend started by Blair and continued with gusto, taking it to a new level, by the Tories.

 

[xenon]

Blimey. I thought this was a "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" situation. You obviously think differently. Genocidal rape cults across two countries is a long stretch from that I need to read more about it.

TBF no nothing like that at all. No one's defending the Islamist inspired horrors Begum was party to or Isis in any way. Whereas of course many maybe most, including myself, have time for Irish unification, if not the methods to attempt bringing it about.

I se thread is moving on a bit anyways.

 

[xenon]

In terms of whether the outcome is unreasonable or not it doesn't matter whether Begum is a monster. The application of the law has been shown not to be consistent across Britain's citizenry – ie. if your parents are from the wrong country you face a different legal system from that of people whose parents were born in Britain. That, in my view, is as unreasonable here as it was in the Windrush scandal. I am suggesting Spymaster's rejection of this argument stems from his dislike of the person it was applied to, and his protestations about legal technicalities are in aid of that position rather than having any real sense of interrogating the justice system or a wish to render it fair.

The reason it's important here is the same as for every extension of political power - there's little to stop it being used on people you do like. Maybe not today or even tomorrow, but as long as it's on the books, it's a problem.

But such people also have the right should they wish to exercise it to avail themselves of the rights afforded to citizens of the other country too. i.e already starting from a non equal status and the only reason this legal move is even possible.

If the UK were removing cizitenship from people deemed not to be a threat with respect to terror offences, I'd be against it. Otherwise my position is basically the same as Spymaster's.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But such people also have the right should they wish to exercise it to avail themselves of the rights afforded to citizens of the other country too. i.e already starting from a non equal status and the only reason this legal move is even possible.

If the UK were removing cizitenship from people deemed not to be a threat with respect to terror offences, I'd be against it. Otherwise my position is basically the same as Spymaster's.

Are they already starting from a non-equal status if they don't know they have the right to other citizenship, as is undoubtedly the case for thousands of young people of Bangladeshi heritage?

As for your second bit, you are trusting that the government is only removing citizenship from people deemed to be a threat with respect to terror offences. They don't have to prove anything in a court of law wrt that. Giving governments arbitrary powers of that kind is only a bad thing.

 

[Rob Ray]

If the UK were removing cizitenship from people deemed not to be a threat with respect to terror offences, I'd be against it. Otherwise my position is basically the same as Spymaster's.

My own political tendency has been subject to repeated efforts to define it as inherently terroristic, so forgive me for not being particularly sanguine about what the government "deems".

 

[Dystopiary]

But such people also have the right should they wish to exercise it to avail themselves of the rights afforded to citizens of the other country too. i.e already starting from a non equal status and the only reason this legal move is even possible.

If the UK were removing cizitenship from people deemed not to be a threat with respect to terror offences, I'd be against it. Otherwise my position is basically the same as Spymaster's.

That's the problem as I see it, sets a precedent.

 

[xenon]

Are they already starting from a non-equal status if they don't know they have the right to other citizenship, as is undoubtedly the case for thousands of young people of Bangladeshi heritage?

As for your second bit, you are trusting that the government is only removing citizenship from people deemed to be a threat with respect to terror offences. They don't have to prove anything in a court of law wrt that. Giving governments arbitrary powers of that kind is only a bad thing.

Well rights can exist whether an individual is aware of them or not in all sorts of legal matters.


Second point, if true, that no such high bar exists and British citizenship can be arbitarily removed, I do not agree with that no. So far as I'm happy, more accurately not wholly against this happening, it is in cases with a high bar of evidence suggesting risk re terrorism.

 

[bimble]

Well rights can exist whether an individual is aware of them or not in all sorts of legal matters.


Second point, if true, that no such high bar exists and British citizenship can be arbitarily removed, I do not agree with that no. So far as I'm happy, more accurately not wholly against this happening, it is in cases with a high bar of evidence suggesting risk re terrorism.

That’s not what the law says though. Just has to be conducive to the public good , as deemed by suella braverman, to get rid of you.

 

[krtek a houby]

Watching one of her interviews I did notice how she referred to the UK as "your country" Thats right you cunt its not your country any more

She's less dangerous than you are, you antisemitic bigot.

 

[Riklet]

But Wat about are OWN BRITLISH homeless/?

Come on you know perfectly well this is a shit false equivalency. Don't be that person.

That is one rubbish comparrison.

Youre comparing me to some "racist thicko" (nice) because I would simpathise with a displaced refugee who wasnt a murderous unrepentant terrorist over one who was? On the contrary this is a globally minded attitide. Begum was not just some wifey making sandwiches in the kitchen for her hubby she was tricked into marrying she played an active role in ISIL and the morality police. Imagine what happened to the people who they arrested etc.

I do have some major qualms about the government stripping people of nationality and banning them from entering the UK. But if there was ever a situation where you think the Daily Mail has got it right, this has to be it. Even her family spoke out against her unrepentant awfulness!

 

[belboid]

Oh well how sad never mind.

Maybe all these concerned people can focus on helping the thousands of people (some just on our doorstep in Calais) who didnt make catastrophic and selfish life choices but whose lives have still been ruined since 2015. Oh wait they dont happen to be British so who cares right?

but it all feeds into each part, doesn't it? They're illegals, we can't trust them, they don't deserve the rights we agreed to decades ago. If we can do this to a British citizen, then we can do anything to these foreign crooks. It's all part of the process of dehumanisation and look after number one.