ISIS bride stripped of citizenship, banned from the UK

[Gravlen]

Because said spawn is a British citizen. He was born before her citizenship was revoked so even if that all does go through he will remain a British citizen.

He's not a British citizen. He's eligible to become one.

No, the child automatically gets British citizenship.

Because the baby boy was born while Begum was still a UK citizen, he is British, according to legal experts. The child’s citizenship is unaffected by the move to deprive her of her rights, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, indicated on Wednesday.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/21/shamima-begums-family-hope-to-bring-her-baby-to-uk

[The Archregimancy]

“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

It should be noted that they aren't directly saying that she cannot get it if she applies for Bangladeshi citizenship

This is actually an important point.

Bangladesh has been very clear that Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. However, at no point have they denied that she would have been eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship had she applied (at least before the current mess).

It's not entirely clear whether the Home Secretary's attempt to deprive her of UK citizenship was on the assumption that she automatically inherited Bangladeshi citizenship through her mother (it's since been clarified that her mother does hold Bangladeshi citizenship), or whether they simply believed her to be eligible for that citizenship on the basis of her mother's status. It's possible that they felt they were on solid ground either way given the general interpretation of the relevant UK legislation; and had it only been up to the UK to decide, these weren't wholly unreasonable assumptions. But of course Bangladesh, as a sovereign nation, is entirely within its own rights to decide who is or isn't a citizen, and is under no obligation to consider itself bound by UK judgements on the citizenship status of someone who isn't currently a Bangladeshi citizen.

It's clear that the Home Office never seems to have considered the possibility that Bangladesh might not necessarily see a need to play along; and something that seemed to be a fairly straightforward decision where (rightly or wrongly) public opinion was broadly on the Home Secretary's side has suddenly become far messier. But it's not as if we've come to expect anything resembling competence from the current government.

It all depends on what the UK government allows, what they're forced to do, and what the UK courts decide.

They'll probably try to keep her from entering, but what will they do if she just shows up at a border crossing?

That depends on whether she successfully appeals the decision to revoke her citizenship. If her appeal's successful, then there's nothing the UK can do to keep her out - though the UK is under no obligation to help her return to the country, and can arrest her (assuming relevant cause exists) the moment she returns.

If her appeal is unsuccessful, then of course she can be turned back.

I don't know what would happen if she were to turn up in the UK while her appeal was still underway.

[Gravlen]

It all depends on what the UK government allows, what they're forced to do, and what the UK courts decide.

They'll probably try to keep her from entering, but what will they do if she just shows up at a border crossing?

That depends on whether she successfully appeals the decision to revoke her citizenship. If her appeal's successful, then there's nothing the UK can do to keep her out - though the UK is under no obligation to help her return to the country, and can arrest her (assuming relevant cause exists) the moment she returns.

If her appeal is unsuccessful, then of course she can be turned back.

I don't know what would happen if she were to turn up in the UK while her appeal was still underway.

This is all true, and I was more asking about what would happen if she travels to the UK while her appeal is underway (which could be for a number of years) and if she hasn't gotten permission from the government or a stay of execution with regard to the deprivation decision.

For maximum chaos I'd like to see how that would play out.

[Trumptonium1]

He's not a British citizen. He's eligible to become one.

No, the child automatically gets British citizenship.

Because the baby boy was born while Begum was still a UK citizen, he is British, according to legal experts. The child’s citizenship is unaffected by the move to deprive her of her rights, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, indicated on Wednesday.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/21/shamima-begums-family-hope-to-bring-her-baby-to-uk

He gets British citizenship upon a next of kin applying.

That's how it works if you are born abroad.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

I only care about her baby, not so much her.

No, the child automatically gets British citizenship.

Because the baby boy was born while Begum was still a UK citizen, he is British, according to legal experts. The child’s citizenship is unaffected by the move to deprive her of her rights, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, indicated on Wednesday.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/21/shamima-begums-family-hope-to-bring-her-baby-to-uk

He gets British citizenship upon a next of kin applying.

That's how it works if you are born abroad.

Proof?

[Trumptonium1]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

I only care about her baby, not so much her.

He gets British citizenship upon a next of kin applying.

That's how it works if you are born abroad.

Proof?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_2015.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/register-a-birth

[Terruana]

Have just read on the BBC that the family lawyer is intending to travel to the Syrian refugee camp and (assuming she consents) bring the child back to the UK while her case is pending.

Hopefully she will do what's best for her son and let him go.

[Gravlen]

No, the child automatically gets British citizenship.

Because the baby boy was born while Begum was still a UK citizen, he is British, according to legal experts. The child’s citizenship is unaffected by the move to deprive her of her rights, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, indicated on Wednesday.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/21/shamima-begums-family-hope-to-bring-her-baby-to-uk

He gets British citizenship upon a next of kin applying.

That's how it works if you are born abroad.

No, under section 2(1)(a) of the British Nationality Act 1981, a person born outside of the UK and the qualifying territories on or after 21 May 2002 is a British citizen at birth if, at the time of birth, either parent is a British citizen 'otherwise than by descent'. That applies to Begum, who was born in the UK.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Have just read on the BBC that the family lawyer is intending to travel to the Syrian refugee camp and (assuming she consents) bring the child back to the UK while her case is pending.

Hopefully she will do what's best for her son and let him go.

Insha-Allah.

[Great Nepal]

That depends on whether she successfully appeals the decision to revoke her citizenship. If her appeal's successful, then there's nothing the UK can do to keep her out - though the UK is under no obligation to help her return to the country, and can arrest her (assuming relevant cause exists) the moment she returns.

If her appeal is unsuccessful, then of course she can be turned back.

Where would she be returned to? Normally it's to origin country because person has the right to be in that country but she has no right to go back to Syria, or really any other country. With deportation government needs to identify what country the person is from because otherwise they don't have anywhere to deport to, wouldn't same apply if say she somehow got on a plane and turned up at Heathrow?

[Yusseria]

Have just read on the BBC that the family lawyer is intending to travel to the Syrian refugee camp and (assuming she consents) bring the child back to the UK while her case is pending.

Hopefully she will do what's best for her son and let him go.

Insha-Allah.

Insha-Allah indeed. Hopefully without her around he will be raised moderate and secular.

[Confederate States of German America]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

The baby is chill, bring him back. She can get fucked and die in a damn hole.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Insha-Allah.

Insha-Allah indeed. Hopefully without her around he will be raised moderate and secular.

That's not what I meant.

[Trumptonium1]

He gets British citizenship upon a next of kin applying.

That's how it works if you are born abroad.

No, under section 2(1)(a) of the British Nationality Act 1981, a person born outside of the UK and the qualifying territories on or after 21 May 2002 is a British citizen at birth if, at the time of birth, either parent is a British citizen 'otherwise than by descent'. That applies to Begum, who was born in the UK.

uh huh

[Confederate States of German America]

Insha-Allah indeed. Hopefully without her around he will be raised moderate and secular.

That's not what I meant.

For once, we're in general agreement on a matter.

[Yusseria]

Insha-Allah indeed. Hopefully without her around he will be raised moderate and secular.

That's not what I meant.

Actually, scratch that. Hopefully he will be raised moderate and Christian, but I'd be fine with secular.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Actually she was trafficked and forced into a marriage she was too young to consent to. Try again.

Prove it

Uhmm, Amin, I think he is only memeing.

Have just read on the BBC that the family lawyer is intending to travel to the Syrian refugee camp and (assuming she consents) bring the child back to the UK while her case is pending.

Hopefully she will do what's best for her son and let him go.

Good for the baby. At least the little thing won't be in a war zone anymore.

The baby is chill, bring him back. She can get fucked and die in a damn hole.

I understand the sentiment, but let just hope that she get a fair trial and punishment.

[Terruana]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

The baby is chill, bring him back. She can get fucked and die in a damn hole.

Would it be fair to say that you don't think deradicalisation is worth trying? (Either for her specifically, or in a general sense)

[Christian Confederation]

That's not what I meant.

For once, we're in general agreement on a matter.

Same here, j expected people to want the terrorist let back in.
Thankfully we all agree that the defector is a terrorist and has no right to return home because her Side lost.

[Vassenor]

Prove it

Uhmm, Amin, I think he is only memeing.

Is that your response to any argument you don't like?

[Vassenor]

For once, we're in general agreement on a matter.

Same here, j expected people to want the terrorist let back in.
Thankfully we all agree that the defector is a terrorist and has no right to return home because her Side lost.

So what acts of terrorism has she committed?

[Gravlen]

I only care about her baby, not so much her.

Proof?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t_2015.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/register-a-birth

Section 3, Acquisition by registration, only applies to situations where the parent in question was a British citizen by descent at the time of the birth. That does not apply to Begum, who was born in the UK and got her citizenship by birth through her naturalized parents (Section 1).

(It could be noted that even if she had been naturalized herself, under section 6, that would still mean she would have gotten her British citizenship 'otherwise than by descent'. See also Section 14 for the definition / Meaning of British citizen (by descent).

Registration does not determine citizenship in this case.

[Thanatttynia]

For once, we're in general agreement on a matter.

Same here, j expected people to want the terrorist let back in.
Thankfully we all agree that the defector is a terrorist and has no right to return home because her Side lost.

So then where should she go? She can’t just fade into nothingness, she has to exist in some place. Why not her country?

[Samudera Darussalam]

Uhmm, Amin, I think he is only memeing.

Is that your response to any argument you don't like?

No. I think it's already clear that she went there on her own, not by 'trafficking and forced marriage' that the other poster said some posts above. I guess that it's only a joke, but well.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That's not what I meant.

Actually, scratch that. Hopefully he will be raised moderate and Christian, but I'd be fine with secular.

Better, but still not what I meant.

Uhmm, Amin, I think he is only memeing.

Is that your response to any argument you don't like?

Why so mean?

For once, we're in general agreement on a matter.

Same here, j expected people to want the terrorist let back in.

Why?

Thankfully we all agree that the defector is a terrorist and has no right to return home because her Side lost.

1: What Vassenor said.
2: So what are you saying, if her side won she should've been allowed to return to Britain?