Shabina Begum can come back to UK

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I don't believe that is correct. I believe she was entitled to citizenship because of her age and heritage. No concept of her being denied under their laws.. apparently.

She had not made any application. Bangladesh had not granted her citizenship. How could UK know that Bangladesh would guarantee her citizenship.
If UK can break international law, why should Bangladesh feel obliged to follow their own procedures? They could justifiably refuse her citizenship on the grounds that she was a member of a terrorist group.
She had no other citizenship when her UK citizenship was revoked.

 

[motorbiking]

She was entitled to it. Just like her British citizen status, before being removed.
To deny her claim, would have made her stateless

see where this is going and why the independent review found it lawful to remove her citizenship?

First country to reject her, made it the others problem.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

She was entitled to it. Just like her British citizen status, before being removed.
To deny her claim, would have made her stateless

see where this is going and why the independent review found it lawful to remove her citizenship?

First country to reject her, made it the others problem.

Bangladesh had some procedures for citizenship. They can easily change those procedures, should Shabina apply. (just for Notch7) They would not be making her stateless, she already was due to the UK's actions.
If UK can make someone stateless, why should any other country grant her citizenship?
It is a circular argument.
You cannot take away someone's sole citizenship, and certainly not on the grounds that they might be entitled to citizenship elsewhere.

The Independent Review is unfinished business. Shabina ( ) now has a right to challenge that ruling.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Cannot? The UK gov HAVE taken away her UK citizenship. She's already lost one appeal, because she has NOT been left stateless (according to UK court) because she is entitled to Bangladesh citizenship through her mother. She is being allowed back in the UK to let her fight that decision, as fighting it in a camp is difficult, that is the only reason she's coming back.

 

[Munroast]

will she continue fighting for isis though? she seems to have a deep hatred of western values so why does she want to come back ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Surely she does not have to come back to 'fight' her case. What can she say?

It just needs A lawyer, any lawyer, contesting the legality of the Government's decision.

 

[sodthisforfun]

will she continue fighting for isis though? she seems to have a deep hatred of western values so why does she want to come back ?

Because a short prison sentence in the UK, with TV and free bed & meals, visits from family & friends is a lot easier than a Syrian camp.

 

[Notch7]

so why does she want to come back

I guess UK jail is better than a refugee camp.

 

[Notch7]

Because a short prison sentence in the UK, with TV and free bed & meals, visits from family & friends is a lot easier than a Syrian camp.

You beat me to it

 

[sodthisforfun]

Surely she does not have to come back to 'fight' her case. What can she say?

It just needs A lawyer, any lawyer, contesting the legality of the Government's decision.

Agree - but I also can see that communication between lawyer and client must be very difficult via a camp. I agree also, why she is needed in person to challenge the decision, a lawyer surely knows the law.. I guess once she's back on British soil, it will be very hard to get rid of her, no matter the outcome of the second appeal.

 

[motorbiking]

Bangladesh had some procedures for citizenship. They can easily change those procedures, should Shabina apply. (just for Notch7) They would not be making her stateless, she already was due to the UK's actions.
If UK can make someone stateless, why should any other country grant her citizenship?
It is a circular argument.
You cannot take away someone's sole citizenship, and certainly not on the grounds that they might be entitled to citizenship elsewhere.

The Independent Review is unfinished business. Shabina ( ) now has a right to challenge that ruling.

With respect, you are projecting your understanding as fact. I'm afraid you haven't quite grasped it.

1. UK cannot make someone stateless -> She was entitled to citizenship elsewhere. hence she was not stateless
2. why should any other country grant her citizenship ? -> because they have to abide by their laws, just as we have to. Plenty of undesirables claim a right to live in the UK every year. We don't like it, but its the laws we agreed to.
3. You cannot take away someone's sole citizenship, and certainly not on the grounds that they might be entitled to citizenship elsewhere.
-> correct, see point 1.

 

[delmel]

But the crimes were not committed in the UK as far as I know.. so why should they be done here?

She can have citizenship overseas on her mothers side. Was she made stateless? Or was it just that Bangladesh didn't want her either?

Even the Devil wouldnt want her

 

[EFLImpudence]

Agree - but I also can see that communication between lawyer and client must be very difficult via a camp. I agree also, why she is needed in person to challenge the decision, a lawyer surely knows the law..

Yes, but isn't it the Government that is on trial and whether they can legally do what they have done?

She, personally, is irrelevant.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Cannot? The UK gov HAVE taken away her UK citizenship. She's already lost one appeal, because she has NOT been left stateless (according to UK court) because she is entitled to Bangladesh citizenship through her mother.

OK, they cannot legally (according to International law)

She is being allowed back in the UK to let her fight that decision, as fighting it in a camp is difficult, that is the only reason she's coming back.

Plus the stress, pressure and influence she is under in the camp.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

With respect, you are projecting your understanding as fact. I'm afraid you haven't quite grasped it.

1. UK cannot make someone stateless -> She was entitled to citizenship elsewhere. hence she was not stateless
2. why should any other country grant her citizenship ? -> because they have to abide by their laws, just as we have to. Plenty of undesirables claim a right to live in the UK every year. We don't like it, but its the laws we agreed to.
3. You cannot take away someone's sole citizenship, and certainly not on the grounds that they might be entitled to citizenship elsewhere.
-> correct, see point 1.

With respect, you are projecting your understanding as fact. I'm afraid you haven't quite grasped it.
1. Bangladesh is not a signatory of the '54 nor the '61 Convention. UK is. Shamima did not have Bangladesh citizenship prior to her being made stateless by UK. Bangladesh can refuse her citizenship if they so wish.
2. They are at will to change their laws, if they so wish. If the UK can put their own interpretation on the International Convention, to which they signed, Bangladesh can do whatever they like because they are not signatories to the Convention.
3. Glad you accept, that you cannot rescind citizenship on the grounds that they might be entitled to citizenship elsewhere. If they have that other citizenship, UK can perfectly legally rescind UK citizenship, but not until. If Shamima is entitled to Bangladesh citizenship, why did UK not wait until Shamima had Bangladesh citizenship? If she has no desire to apply, is there any way of forcing Shamima to seek citizenship elsewhere? I suspect not, especially as the Convention states that

Perhaps the most important provision of the convention establishes that children are to acquire the nationality of the country in which they are born if they do not acquire any other nationality. It also sets out important safeguards to prevent statelessness due to loss or renunciation of nationality and state succession. The convention also sets out the very limited situations in which states can deprive a person of his or her nationality, even if this would leave them stateless.
https://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statelessness.html

Edit: Bangladesh could, perfectly legally refuse Shamima citizenship.

​

Shamima has never resided in Bangladesh and she has not always been stateless.
Bangladesh can apply whatever ruling they feel applies.

Edit 2:
The UK has not followed the convention.

They have not allowed for a fair hearing, until they've been forced to allow it.

​