Nor do I but the judgement as it stands at the moment is quite clear.
Agreed, there is a lot of debate still around this complex issue. However, unless I misunderstand yours and Drood's POV (and sorry if I have), the decision on her nationality has been made free from political influence.
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.