British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[littlebabyjesus]

It doesn't need to be leafleting, of course. That was Bimble being silly, but there are other ways of advising people of their citizenship rights (community stuff, advice with passport applications, etc)

Given that we're often talking about children here – 20 or younger in the case of British people of Bangladeshi heritage – it would need to be done at school as part of a class. Maybe all the pupils could be asked to bring in evidence of their ancestry so that their citizenship rights can be sorted correctly. They could wear stickers, perhaps? Make a fun thing out of it.

This is the place you have reached. You happy here?

 

[B.I.G]

ok. If i think about people who were given their british status as an adult, the first example that comes to mind is my dad, who came as a refugee, i think he was 20 or so.
And yeah i think his citizenship should be as valid as the next mans.
So the answer is yes, in my opinion, you're either a citizen or not. Unless your citizenship was granted fraudulently obvs.

Thanks for your reply. As I said earlier.

Which is fine for people to believe, but then lots of people don’t agree, which is why those with dual citizenship are often treated differently around the world.

Shame you had to be so dismissive earlier and throw around insults. You just have a different view, potentially because it affects you and potentially on a moral stance. Lots of people don’t share that view, including recent governments since around 2002, hence the current situation.

Personally, I think its a different argument than that around this particular case, as people in this case tend to bring up the specifics as to whether the bangladeshi citizenship laws apply, rather than focus on the moral argument.

Edited to add as demonstrated by littlebabyjesus

 

[bimble]

Do you not think its a distinction some would make? Where people believe if you were born in the UK it is different than if it was granted based on a recent length of residency.

you're so weaselly, why do you keep talking about 'some' and 'people believe' , why not just say what you think.

What if people were born here but have foreign parents, where do they fit on the sliding scale of Britishness?
Better than foreign born but worse than just having one irish granny, right?

Maybe we need different citizenship grades, A to D or something. Could be marked in yr records next to your national insurance number, and referred to in order for the state to determine how to proceed should you ever get in trouble.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thanks for your reply. As I said earlier.



Shame you had to be so dismissive earlier and throw around insults. You just have a different view, potentially because it affects you and potentially on a moral stance. Lots of people don’t share that view, including recent governments since around 2002, hence the current situation.

Personally, I think its a different argument than that around this particular case, as people in this case tend to bring up the specifics as to whether the bangladeshi citizenship laws apply, rather than focus on the moral argument.

Edited to add as demonstrated by littlebabyjesus

What the fuck are you waffling on about?

 

[Spymaster]

Given that we're often talking about children here – 20 or younger in the case of British people of Bangladeshi heritage – it would need to be done at school as part of a class.

No it wouldn't. You're just making that up.

Most kids learn about their culture and ancestry from parents and communities. Not at school.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

We’re all guilty of holding women fascists to different standards I suppose. I remember being in a pub In Edinburgh in anticipation of an event. In walks a female Nazi who definitely needed a discussion about her pubic thoughts on what should happen to “the blacks” but it isn’t a good look. So she was afforded a clue that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and duly departed.

 

[B.I.G]

you're so weaselly, why do you keep talking about 'some' and 'people' , just say what you think.

I think that citizenship can be stripped when people meet certain criteria, e.g. those guilty of certain crimes or otherwise deemed to be involved in terrorism.

I believe the the legal system is an appropriate way to determine the legality of the actions of the government.

 

[B.I.G]

What the fuck are you waffling on about?

That you conflate the specifics of the particular case and the general principle.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think that citizenship can be stripped when people meet certain criteria, e.g. those guilty of certain crimes or otherwise deemed to be involved in terrorism.

I believe the the legal system is an appropriate way to determine the legality of the actions of the government.

Sb has only been convicted in the court of public opinion. But that's a great addition to your postcount

 

[B.I.G]

Sb has only been convicted in the court of public opinion. But that's a great addition to your postcount

She was stripped of her citizenship on national security grounds by the home secretary. Deemed to be and not convicted.

 

[Rob Ray]

've repeatedly asked lefty handwringers like Rob Ray, to provide examples that would change my mind

Multiple people have offered you examples across multiple eras. The trouble isn't with the examples, it's with your unwillingness to see anything that contradicts your position. And honestly if you think my position is "handwringing" this conversation has clearly been going in one ear and out the other.

 

[Spymaster]

Multiple people have offered you examples across multiple eras. The trouble isn't with the examples, it's with your unwillingness to see anything that contradicts your position.

Not at all.

If I ask you to show me an apple and you show me a goat, I'll consider your case unproven.

 

[Pickman's model]

She was stripped of her citizenship on national security grounds by the home secretary. Deemed to be and not convicted.

That's rather a shift of the goalposts there. Great +1 tho

 

[Rob Ray]

But I didn't show you a goat, I showed you apples. Your position seems to be that apples can't exist if one of those apples isn't a Granny Smith. And the thing is you know this is the case, but your ego is such that you're going in with all your sophistry guns blazing.

 

[B.I.G]

That's rather a shift of the goalposts there. Great +1 tho

It was always in the post you replied to

I think that citizenship can be stripped when people meet certain criteria, e.g. those guilty of certain crimes or otherwise deemed to be involved in terrorism.

I believe the the legal system is an appropriate way to determine the legality of the actions of the government.

I admire your ability to keep responding regardless.

 

[Spymaster]

But I didn't show you a goat, I showed you apples. Your position seems to be that apples can't exist if one of those apples isn't a Granny Smith.

No. You showed a goat with, at best, an apple in its mouth.

 

[Pickman's model]

It was always in the post you replied to



I admire your ability to keep responding regardless.

Threat to national security is not the same as terrorism. I'd admire your contributions more if you managed to keep your story straight over two successive posts

 

[Rob Ray]

Ugh, whatever. If you're going to insist on refusing to engage with relevant information and then claiming no-one offered you any then there's zero point in continuing this.

 

[B.I.G]

Threat to national security is not the same as terrorism. I'd admire your contributions more if you managed to keep your story straight over two successive posts

Indeed. One is what I have said should be the case and one is what the home secretary said was the case.

You made it about whether SB had been convicted or not, which was irrelevant apart from adding to your post count.

 

[Spymaster]

Ugh, whatever. If you're going to insist on refusing to engage with relevant information and then claiming no-one offered you any then there's zero point in continuing this.

I genuinely do try to respond to anything relevant and sensible but sometimes might miss something due to the weight of incoming fire.

If you think you've posted something that I've not engaged with, please requote it and I'll take another look. But I don't think you have.

 

[Pickman's model]

Indeed. One is what I have said should be the case and one is what the home secretary said was the case.

You made it about whether SB had been convicted or not, which was irrelevant apart from adding to your post count.

Clearly you're only on this thread because of your post count obsession, as now you're saying responding directly to a point you've made is irrelevant. E2a you didn't say anything should be the case btw, as you'll see if you rewind our exchange.

 

[andysays]

"But there SHOULD be downsides to having foreign parents / grandparents". Come on. There must be something better out there to argue about, thin pickings.

I don't really want to get too deep into some of the bollocks that's going on in this thread, but having dual nationality is not the same as having foreign parents or grandparents, and it's frankly dishonest to equate the two.

I know many, many people who have the latter without having the former.

(and on the subject of this thread, I'd tend to argue that SB never had dual nationality in any meaningful way, that's just and administrative trick by the UK government to wash their hands of a problem)

 

[bimble]

I don't really want to get too deep into some of the bollocks that's going on in this thread, but having dual nationality is not the same as having foreign parents or grandparents.

I know many, many people who have the latter without having the former.

(and on the subject of this thread, I'd tend to argue that SB never had dual nationality in any meaningful way, that's just and administrative trick by the UK government to wash their hands of a problem)

well, exactly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There are at least three distinct issues being deliberately conflated.

The first is the Begum case. She never had dual nationality. It is sophistry on the part of the UK government to say that she did, and taking that line has disturbing consequences for millions of people in the UK, many of them children.

The second is the Letts case. He did have dual nationality. And he was also an adult at the time he joined ISIS. I don't agree with the stripping of his British nationality, which would not have been possible before rule changes that were brought in by the Blair government Cos Terrorism. He's far more British than he is Canadian and it was a weaselly act to do this. But it is a distinct case - it is possible to agree with the Letts decision while disagreeing with the Begum one.

The third is the stripping of nationality of naturalised citizens. This is something that has long been possible but was incredibly rarely done except in cases of fraudulently obtained citizenship. I also don't agree with a policy of stripping them of nationality on the basis of anything other than fraud, but again, it is possible to disagree with both the Begum and Letts decisions and to think that the principle shouldn't extend to naturalised citizens.


Anyone arguing the government's case here is arguing for the extension of arbitrary government powers. Be better than that.

 

[Spymaster]

There are at least three distinct issues being deliberately conflated.

If they're being conflated they're being conflated by you. Let's not forget you spent two days earlier this week arguing from a position that completely misunderstood the scope of the siac hearing.

It's really not unreasonable to feel ambivalence towards the plight of someone who travelled thousands of miles to join a rape cult, and allow space to feel more sympathetically for others who find themselves in a similar position less deservingly. It's just that nobody has yet provided an example of the latter yet.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If they're being conflated they're being conflated by you. Let's not forget you spent two days earlier this week arguing from a position that completely misunderstood the scope of the siac hearing.

It's really not unreasonable to feel ambivalence towards the plight of someone who travelled thousands of miles to join a rape cult, and allow space to feel sympathetically for others who find themselves in a similar position less deservingly. It just that nobody has yet provided an example of the latter.

I didn't misunderstand it at all. Various courts have declared the action legal. They could have decided otherwise based on the law - chosen to be persuaded by different arguments in order to set a different precedent. You have a weird understanding of how law works, as if it were already decided whether it was legal or not in some Platonic sphere and the judges merely needed to discover this pre-existing truth.

But you've repeatedly introduced Letts into the conversation, so I thought I'd explain the difference to you one last time in simple terms.

 

[bimble]

oh give it up Spymaster you're singlehandedly keeping this sad thread alive and its plain to see your heart's not in it.

As a note for the future, if you ever find yourself writing 'see above i think the same as wot BIG just said' its a reliable indicator that it's time to just exit the auditorium put your veg-splattered clothes in the machine and pretend the whole thing never happened.

 

[Spymaster]

They could have decided otherwise based on the law - chosen to be persuaded by different arguments in order to set a different precedent. You have a weird understanding of how law works, as if it were already decided whether it was legal or not in some Platonic sphere and the judges merely needed to discover this pre-existing truth.

You are completely wrong about this. You don't understand the appeal process at all. I thought you'd finally got your head around it when I posted very clear excerpts from the hearing.

Let me make it even more simple. Did SJ act illegally (in UK law, not LBJ law) when he revoked her citizenship?

 

[_Russ_]

I wonder why nobody gave a fuck about the hundreds of others
How many people have been stripped of their British citizenship? - Free Movement

 

[B.I.G]

You are completely wrong about this. You don't understand the appeal process at all. I thought you'd finally got your head around it when I posted very clear excerpts from the hearing.

Let me make it even more simple. Did SJ act illegally (in UK law, not LBJ law) when he revoked her citizenship?

Do you not understand that the judges don’t have to follow the relevant legislation and case law, and can instead just makeup whatever they think is the correct decision?