British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[bimble]

I wonder why nobody gave a fuck about the hundreds of others

this thread is like being on a merry go round for particularly dim & belligerent children.

 

[B.I.G]

oh for fucks sake.
this thread is like being on a merry go round for particularly dim & belligerent children.

You could always instead argue with the judges and call them thick, dim, and belligerent as well.

 

[bimble]

You could always instead argue with the judges and call them thick, dim, and belligerent as well.

You're right, in a way, you and Russ's posts are exactly the same as the judges verdict, as how an apple is a bit like two tired donkeys.

 

[B.I.G]

You're right, in a way, you and Russ's posts are exactly the same as the judges verdict, as how an apple is a bit like two donkeys.

I can’t speak for the other but you fail to respond to any of my points in a reasonable well thought out way.

You just think that no one should be able to be stripped of their citizenship, which is fine, but lots of people including me disagree.

And for some reason you think people that say so are thick.

I find it odd that something that can be granted by the rules of a state could not be taken away by the same.

 

[MickiQ]

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

And that is a definite No No for a start no-one should effectively be condemned on the personal decision of one other person regardless of their motives.

 

[B.I.G]

And that is a definite No No for a start no-one should effectively be condemned on the personal decision of one other person regardless of their motives.

The home secretary has the power of “condemning” in various scenarios.

You can be against it morally, but its legal.

 

[bimble]

I propose a graded system whereby every British citizen should more clearly know their rights according to their status in the Hierarchy Of Citizenship:

Citizenship Grade A: 100% thoroughbred, No foreign blood going back 3 generations: Whatever stupid shit you do, you will not be exiled & will face justice here.
Citizenship Grade B: One granny from ireland. Watch yourself but don't worry too much, probably fine.
Citizenship Grade C: Legal advice is recommended.
etc.
That would be good, clear up any confusion and prevent mishaps.

 

[MickiQ]

The home secretary has the power of “condemning” in various scenarios.

You can be against it morally, but its legal.

Never said it was illegal, it clearly isn't. I'm against it morally though. My opinion which I stated back when this thread started 200+ pages ago has not changed one inch. I give not one jot for the fate of Begum personally but rock solid opposed to the removal of citizenship gained through birthright under ANY circumstances. I'm ambivalent on the removal of naturalised citizenship though.

 

[Spymaster]

And that is a definite No No for a start no-one should effectively be condemned on the personal decision of one other person regardless of their motives.

Well it's not really the personal decision of one person, is it.

The ultimate decision required his signature but there will have been scores of security service people, policy advisors, legal folk, etc..

And of course, the decision has now been upheld by 2 courts and an independent commission.

 

[B.I.G]

I propose a graded system whereby every British citizen should know their rights, according to their status in the Hierarchy Of Citizenship:

Citizenship Grade A: 100% thoroughbred, No foreign blood going back 3 generations: Whatever you do, you will not be exiled & will face justice here.
Citizenship Grade B: One granny from ireland. Watch yourself but don't worry too much, probably fine.
Citizenship Grade C: Legal advice is recommended.
etc.
That would be good, clear up any confusion and prevent mishaps.

Those in type A are protected by the UN convention on statelessness, so if you want equality the government could decide to withdraw, thereby removing the discrimination.

I suppose there could also be a UN charter on removal of any citizenship, but as 70% of the world’s countries think its acceptable, it’s unlikely to get very far.

Even a person in category A could seek additional citizenship making them open to the removal of their British citizenship. But that seems inconvenient to your general objection.

 

[Tones]

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.

What law could they have decided Javid broke?

 

[bimble]

Those in type A are protected by the UN convention on statelessness, so if you want equality the government could decide to withdraw, thereby removing the discrimination.

I suppose there could also be a UN charter on removal of any citizenship, but as 70% of the world’s countries think its acceptable, it’s unlikely to get very far.

Even a person in category A could seek additional citizenship making them open to the removal of their British citizenship. But that seems inconvenient to your general objection.

you bore me very much.

 

[B.I.G]

Never said it was illegal, it clearly isn't. I'm against it morally though. My opinion which I stated back when this thread started 200+ pages ago has not changed one inch. I give not one jot for the fate of Begum personally but rock solid opposed to the removal of citizenship gained through birthright under ANY circumstances. I'm ambivalent on the removal of naturalised citizenship though.

I respect your opinion.

Others on this thread might judge you for differentiating between a birthright and naturalised citizenship.

People disagree but it gets you called stupid by some on here.

 

[B.I.G]

you bore me very much.

Sorry that discussion of your points of view bores you. I guess we won’t be friends.

 

[bimble]

Sorry that discussion of your points of view bores you. I guess we won’t be friends.

we will not , its very sad.

 

[xenon]

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.

On your first point, you’ve been saying this all through this thread. And it’s still false.

I am still reading this thread and thinking about stuff. But your point one annoys as is still factually incorrect. You’ll probably say something about moral versus legal but whatever.

I absolutely do agree, however, that the Home Secretary or any other politician should not have the right to remove British citizenship except in cases involving terrorism, alleged, based on balance of evidence, similar to this.

I've not read the law but if it is framed to allow the home sec to effectively revoke / remove citizenship on a whim or nebulos "wrong doing," then I'm against it in whole.

 

[B.I.G]

we will not , its very sad.

You are quite dismissive, so it must be hard for you to make and stay friends with those with different views. Personally, I admire the way you put forward your arguments on brexit etc.

Not sure why you chose to be so rude on this topic but that’s the way it is.

 

[MickiQ]

I propose a graded system whereby every British citizen should more clearly know their rights according to their status in the Hierarchy Of Citizenship:

Citizenship Grade A: 100% thoroughbred, No foreign blood going back 3 generations: Whatever stupid shit you do, you will not be exiled & will face justice here.
Citizenship Grade B: One granny from ireland. Watch yourself but don't worry too much, probably fine.
Citizenship Grade C: Legal advice is recommended.
etc.
That would be good, clear up any confusion and prevent mishaps.

Might need finer granulation than that, I am 1/16th Irish (mother's great-grandfather) so I am slightly tinged especially given he was in fact deported back to Dublin in the 1880's.

One of the things about Begum is that supposedly her British citizenship could only be stripped from her if she had an alternate one but she doesn't. The UK has stripped her of her British one but Bangladesh has also stripped of her Bangladeshi one rendering her stateless after all. Just because UK law says a person can't be left stateless doesn't mean the other nation can't do just that. They didn't say sod it, the UK got there first so we have to accept her.

 

[bimble]

On the plus side, the current home secretary has stated several times that she would like to see us withdraw from the european convention on human rights, which in her view is against British Values.
Is that the thing that prevents statelessness I'm not sure? If so we may see that stumbling block removed as well.

 

[xenon]

this thread is like being on a merry go round for particularly dim & belligerent children.

I did properly LOL at this though. Even if it includes me, good line.

 

[Spymaster]

What law could they have decided Javid broke?

This is the correct question to be asking.

The issue of statelessness was just one of nine grounds in the appeal. SB's lawyers argued that the HS had failed to consider the impact that deprivation would have on her because even though she wasn't made de facto stateless, she couldn't go to Bangladesh anyway. The commission concluded that he did consider it, so the appeal failed on that ground.

This is where littlebabyjesus keeps fucking-up. It was not the SIACs job to rewrite the law in this case. It was their job to ensure that existing law hadn't been broken and that the HS had considered the facts.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

On the plus side, the current home secretary has stated several times that she would like to see us withdraw from the european convention on human rights, which in her view is against British Values.

I can think of a few circumstances where this would benefit down trodden communities. But as usual, well meaning liberals will wonder how this will be affecting those causing the problems.

 

[bimble]

I can think of a few circumstances where this would benefit down trodden communities. But as usual, well meaning liberals will wonder how this will be affecting those causing the problems.

hows that ? What do the downtrodden communities of Belarus have that we should aspire to emulate?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

hows that ? What do the downtrodden communities of Belarus have that we should aspire to emulate?

You obviously don't know much about UK downtrodden communities if you need to point elsewhere.

 

[bimble]

You obviously don't know much about UK downtrodden communities if you need to point elsewhere.

Leaving the convention on human rights would be helpful to downtrodden communities of Britain because … ?
It’s less immigrants isn’t it.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Leaving the convention on human rights would be helpful because … ?
It’s less immigrants isn’t it.

Not necessarily. But if that is your priority over and above pulling those communities out of hardship then you're part of the problem. I suppose you may not care what happens to immigrants once they get here just as long as they do.

 

[bimble]

Not necessarily. But if that is your priority over and above pulling those communities out of hardship then you're part of the problem. I suppose you may not care what happens to immigrants once they get here just as long as they do.

you said that you can think of some reasons why the UK leaving the ECHR would be a good thing.
Please name one. That would be great.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

you said that you can think of some reasons why the UK leaving the ECHR would be a good thing.
Please name one. That would be great.

Such as criminals like drug dealers and rapists who prey on working class communities using these rules to never be removed from those places. Surely you're not annoyed about that?

 

[bimble]

crikey, ok.

Such as criminals like drug dealers and rapists who prey on working class communities using these rules to never be removed from those places. Surely you're not annoyed about that?

I see. So its the same again, its not like we are talking about the thoroughly British rapists.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

crikey, ok.

I see. So its the same again, its not like we are talking about the thoroughly British rapists.

I think British rapists can argue to a right to family life. But good one trying to defend foreign ones.