There are a lot of people I don't want back in the country. Burglars resident in West Yorkshire. Murderers. Drug dealers. ISIS terrorists. Any terrorists. Nigel f*ing Farage. However I am not allowed to deport these pieces of sh*t on my shoes. Unfortunately. Fortunately, most of the above, with the sad exception of Nigel Piece of Sh*t, I can catch and send to prison where they belong. I might prefer to send them to Australia, never to return, but we aren't allowed to do that any more, even if we want to.
Shamina Begum Back In The UK.
- Thread starter I.D.C.
- Start date
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Steve, Cesare. If you read this link:
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/sha...ess-argument-against-citizenship-deprivation/
The finding was that under the Bangladeshi Citizenship act of 1951, because she was under 21 at the time and the child of a Bangladeshi citizen, she was a Bangladeshi Citizen. She didn't have the right to apply, she had it, under Bangladeshi law.
I think that's an important distinction; it's certainly a factor that led to he Home Secretary chose the action he did.
[edit]
Given it was found that she would not be made stateless, she could have her UK nationality removed in accordance with Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“1981 Act”), legally.
https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/deprivation-of-british-citizenship/
More reading here: https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/appeals-against-deprivation-of-british-citizenship/
The issue for me starts with the question SP-T raised earlier which is what happens now UK legal findings on her nationality is at odds with the other country and how to keep her and the UK safe while it's being decided.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
This focus on dual citizenship is fascinating.
Should it perhaps be pointed out to those British citizens with Irish or continental European ancestry (for instance the ones who remembered their other roots and applied for an EU passport after Brexit) that they are putting their rights as British citizens at risk? Or does this reasoning only apply to double citizens with a connection to the Middle East or Asia?
Should it perhaps be pointed out to those British citizens with Irish or continental European ancestry (for instance the ones who remembered their other roots and applied for an EU passport after Brexit) that they are putting their rights as British citizens at risk? Or does this reasoning only apply to double citizens with a connection to the Middle East or Asia?
Seanm
pfm Member
My main concerns are over the direction of travel here, and the political logic. The direction of travel involves legislation giving the Home Secretary more and more discretionary power to strip subjects of citizenship, and Home Secretaries using that power more and more frequently. Given such legislation it's hard to say that any given legal judgement is free from political influence: the judgement here, as I understand it, is that Patel has the legal right to deprive Begum of her right to a fair hearing, if she thinks that's in the public good.
I'm concerned about the logic at work here for lots of reasons.
1) Deprivation of citizenship is a very, very extreme measure, which is why, I guess, the bar to using it used to be so high. Even a condemned prisoner has rights. To deprive someone of citizenship is to deprive them of all rights. You may say that Begum had all this coming but the fact is she is in an utterly abject position, completely exposed to the worst kinds of violence, and without even the right to argue her case that she deserves better.
2) Recent legislation, as this judgement demonstrates, gives elected representatives the right to wield this extraordinary power with few constitutional restraints. It underlines our status as an "elected dictatorship". Whatever you think about the current mob - and they've given us plenty of evidence to show that they're prepared to act dictatorially, by e.g. proroguing parliament - I'd be more comfortable with constitutionally supported rights, rather than rights that the government can suspend or cancel more or less at will.
3) The newfound ability of the government to deprive subjects of their citizenship makes citizenship, and all the rights associated with it (which is all rights), a privilege rather than a right. That's to say it makes all these rights precarious and subject to the whim of the government.
4) But it really only applies to people who have acquired British citizenship, or people who despite being born British also have citizenship elsewhere, or people who the Home Secretary thinks *might be able to acquire citizenship elsewhere*. This clearly sets up a hierarchy between people whose citizenship is more and less secure, more and less exposed to the government's power to strip them of all rights. The logic is discriminatory and in practice racist, and the fact that people can point to one white person and say, "But he was also subject to this awful system!" doesn't change that.
Now it happens that I do consider the current mob to be extremely opportunistic, authoritarian and racist, but I don't really want *any* government to have this kind of power or to be run according to this kind of logic.
davidsrsb
pfm Member
Governments tend to be able to do that when you are not already a citizen
Thanks, read that now. I didn't know the court had judged on that. I hadn't even heard of the SIAC, I don't imagine I'm alone.
Seanm
pfm Member
Yes exactly.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
All very good points. The last one is very important, and one that people who have lived in Continental Europe are perhaps more sensitive to than people who have lived in the UK all their life. One of the first things the Nazis and their puppet governments in occupied Europe set about doing was challenging and removing the citizenship rights of people who had acquired the citizenship (be it German, Austrian, French etc.) during their lifetime. For some reason, this happened mostly to people with Jewish ancestry (even if their family had converted to Christianity several generations earlier) or people who were Communists or Socialists.
The descendants of my relations who were sent to Oz think we did them a favour!
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
And after that, you strip it from people who profiling shows might have a higher risk of becoming radicalised, even if there’s no current evidence, just in case.
droodzilla
pfm Member
If it helps, I am happy for Begum to return to the UK and stand trial for any crimes she is alleged to have committed.
I am not happy that a politician has the power to strip someone of UK citizenship with (it seems to me) relatively little scrutiny.
I'm also not happy that, having done so, the ability ofBegum to appeal against this decision has been severely compromised by not allowing her to return to the UK.
Put simply, I believe in human rights and the rule of law. That's why we fight terrorists in the first place.
Seanm
pfm Member
Already provided for by the 2014 Immigration Act:
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/british-nationals-citizenship-deprivation/
It really does add up to a very arbitrary and racialised system.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Yes. Absolutely.
We have courts to decide what happens to people who break our rules. They have processes, carefully designed to give the best chance of a fair and just outcome. And the consequences for somebody going through the court system are, even at their most severe, considerably less awful than this girl has been subjected to. If we think we need such careful checks and balances when the worst outcome would be being locked up in prison (or hospital), then why would we abandon those processes when the outcome could be far worse?
davidsrsb
pfm Member
If you were Dutch and acquired UK citizenship through naturalization, you would lose the Dutch citizenship. Then lose the UK and you cannot automatically go back. This is the way with many countries that do not allow dual citizenship
I see, so the wording of the citizenship act is being used as proof that she has citizenship, rather than has to apply for it. If we assume this is true (and there was some debate as to whether this is the intended interpretation), I wonder how it applies to the question at hand, which is of course not about citizenship, but nationality, as I believe the UN Human Rights act says:
Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality, nor denied the right to change his nationality.
(Article 15, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
So how does a country you've never set foot in that claims you as a citizen (notice without your consent!) sit with your right not to be deprived of your nationality?
The sort of mental gymnastics necessary to find that she doesn't have the right to return to the UK is beyond me. I'm a mathematician by trade, so I tend to follow the logical route and can't quite work out how you make some of these black and white statements hazy enough to drive a path through to reach the required conclusion (that she can be denied entry).
I'm also wondering how being deprived UK nationality, and having Bangledeshi citizenship enforced on you by a foreign government works within the context of other Human Rights act articles. I'd guess not very well...
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
You are not forcing citizenship on someone if they already have it.
The background for this is that Bangladesh said:
'Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and there is "no question" of her being allowed into the country, Bangladesh's ministry of foreign affairs has said.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47312207
The UK has made her stateless. She has no passport, and can't obtain one to travel (assuming Bangladesh hasn't changed it's mind of course!).