Talk

Advanced search

Shamima Begum has her citizenship revoked

(1000 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

KenAdams Tue 19-Feb-19 18:48:54

How can this happen? I thought they aren't allowed to leave a person stateless? Not that I'm disagreeing, I'm just wondering how they managed it.

ReflectentMonatomism Wed 20-Feb-19 11:56:19

My understanding is that she has Dutch citizenship through marriage

To be clear: she isn't married in the eyes of the Dutch government, or any other government. Even if she were, very few countries grant citizenship on the basis of marriage alone. In the case of the Holland, she would need to apply for residence, live there, pass an exam (taken only, and exclusively, in Dutch) and provide extensive evidence of links to Holland. She fails on every step of that. She isn't a Dutch citizen, she is not eligible to apply for Dutch citizenship, and has no way to solve either of those problems.

Even if she somehow conjured up a recognised marriage to her husband, she cannot enter Holland, as to do so would require as a minimum a British passport which she has not held for some years. She travelled on, and then destroyed, her sister's passport, which has in any event almost certainly expired. In practice, Holland is perfectly entitled to use its version of "not conducive to the public good" to refuse her entry, EU citizen or not, and it is highly likely they would do just that.

It would take someone with a heart of stone not to laugh at her current surprise that this is playing out the way it has:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/shamima-begum-a-bit-shocked-that-uk-has-revoked-citizenship

HopeMumsnet (MNHQ) Wed 20-Feb-19 11:59:38

Hi all,
We're just posting to say that we've had reports about this thread, and we have made several deletions. Going forward, we'd like to enlist your help to keep things on track.
This type of discussion can attract subtly racist posts, which we delete.
If you see anything which breaks the talk guidelines, please do report and we'll take action. We want the conversation to flow, of course, and we do understand the very complicated feelings that this particular case provokes but where we think any poster is being disingenuous we need to act.

Humptydoo Wed 20-Feb-19 12:00:08

drspouse no the baby won’t be Dutch. I’ve posted on this elsewhere but I know this from personal experience. They’re not legally married and he won’t have acknowledged paternity of the baby prior to its birth.

In theory he could do so in the future I guess but that would require paperwork at a Dutch embassy or local town hall in the Netherlands, which is probably not something that’s high on his list of priorities.

There’s a case to be made for the Dutch government making compassionate exceptions but given that they are DNA-testing children returning from IS with their Dutch mothers, I doubt they’ll just say “ok all good, we’ll overlook it just this once.”

tomhazard Wed 20-Feb-19 12:00:57

*She should be sent back to the UK so we can put her through our justice system like all other criminals
Who’s going to send her? Or who’s going to go and get her? How many people’s lives should be risked, just so she can be sent back?
Serious question...*

You are right I phrased this badly. She should be allowed to try and make her way back under her own steam: I don't think anyone should be put at risk to fetch her.

Asta19 Wed 20-Feb-19 12:03:25

The very fact she talks about going to Holland so flippantly, just proves she doesn't want to come back here to be "British". She's happy to go to any Western country where she will get benefits, housing etc. She just doesn't want to go to Bangladesh or stay where she is. She doesn't care outside of that. She talks about "waiting" for her husband. Clearly she thinks she's in love with him so all this talk about he probably brutalised and raped her is likely nonsense. All she keeps saying to her family is "bring me back". No I love you or I miss you. I'm quite amazed that there are some here still defending her.

drspouse Wed 20-Feb-19 12:06:57

Clearly she thinks she's in love with him so all this talk about he probably brutalised and raped her is likely nonsense
Not incompatible at all.

Choccywoccyhooha Wed 20-Feb-19 12:10:21

This bothers me on so many levels and I can't see how revoking her citizenship well ever stand up in law. But Sajid Javid is holding her up as an example. It doesn't matter to him at the moment that his decision will be overturned at some point in the future, he simply wants to be seen to be revoking her citizenship in the here and now, for his own political endeavour.

At the moment she is stateless, which is against her human rights. She also has not faced due process, which is also against her human rights.

Then there is the matter of why the UK seems to think that another country should take responsibility for her. The Prevent strategy has been in place since 2003, it failed in this case (and many many others), why should either country have to deal with the fallout of the fact that our systems were unable to keep a 15 year old girl safe from radicalisation? Not to mention the fact that she was let out on a passport that didn't belong to her.

Then there is the question as to why an IS sympathiser has had her citizenship revoked when countless terrorists haven't? Not one active member of the IRA had their British citizenship revoked, despite the fact that NI nationals are eligible to apply for citizenship of the Republic, and these people were far more of an immediate danger to UK citizens than Shamima Begum.

Another issue that worries me is the fact that groups like IS will use this as an opportunity to drum up more recruitment.

The baby is a red herring to me, it is Ms Begum herself who is at the centre of this). She should be allowed back (and no, no one should go and fetch her, her family need to figure this bit out for themselves), be held and questioned, and face trial of she has been believed to have committed a crime.

Who knows, she could become a part of the solution against radicalisation, as we have seen happen in the past with those who have left extremist groups or lives of crime - for goodness sake Adams and McGuiness became politicians and instrumental players in the peace process (and rightly so).

nomad5 Wed 20-Feb-19 12:11:23

@Asta I don't see many posters defending her. I see posters wanting to defend the rule of law and the government following proper procedure. There is a huge difference.

Sarcelle Wed 20-Feb-19 12:13:26

There seems a bit of disquiet about her having to go to Bangladesh eventually, because she knows nobody there. She didn't know anybody when she took herself off to war torn Syria (on her sister's passport, she didn't have a British passport), so Bangladesh will be a breeze in comparison. She wants a peaceful life, Bangladesh will offer her that, she probably still has some family there, and in comparison to the battlefields of Syria, it will be a place of safety for her and her new child. She has seen a head in a bin, not fazed at all, so this is a resourceful and hardy young woman.

She looks well nourished and healthy.

She is not in any way remorseful, she says she has become a stronger person for the experience. She still looks like she believes in their warped ideology.

What would be the point of her coming to the UK. She may be separated from her child (probably the best outcome for the child) but in Bangladesh she could live with him. And, many people do not want her here (including me), accessing all the freedoms and benefits that she claims to have run away from to embrace the caliphate and the barbarities they carried out. And potentially indoctrinating others.

There are many causes and injustices to campaign against. This isn't one of them. I am glad this decision has been made, whether it's for the Home Sec's power play or not. I am glad to see that others have had their British citizenship revoked. Why should they live amongst us, whether they are in prisons or not. They said goodbye to us when they made the decision to fight/live for ISIS.

theDudesmummy Wed 20-Feb-19 12:17:35

Why do you assume would she not be able to live with her child here but would be in Bangladesh.

Genevieva Wed 20-Feb-19 12:19:40

There are a lot of people in a muddle about citizenship here. It isn't hard to find out the answers - UK info is all on .gov websites. Essentially, in this case, the baby's parent / legal guardian can apply for the baby to be a British citizen by descent, as the offspring of a British citizen born abroad. However, given the circumstances surrounding it's birth, it is not entirely clear how that could be done, without considerable help, as both mother and child are in a closed refugee camp, entirely without paperwork proving their identities and relationship to one another. Their case aside, it shows the problems faced by many genuine refugees, caught up in conflict through no fault of their own. People like the Rohingya are denied citizenship in their country of origin (Burma) and in the neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, where they have become long-term refugees. These people are stateless and entirely without help from the international community in gaining any form of official recognition of their existence and right to live anywhere.

Humptydoo Wed 20-Feb-19 12:20:03

At the moment she is stateless, which is against her human rights.

Is she actually stateless though? As I understood it she was automatically Bangladeshi due to being born to a Bangladeshi mother. No need to apply or claim as you do for, say, Ireland or Australia. Some countries have this type of law.

I’m with you on all the points about due process I might add. Just unsure about that point of Bangladesh nationality law.

Sarcelle Wed 20-Feb-19 12:22:22

Why do you assume would she not be able to live with her child here but would be in Bangladesh.

Because I would hope she would be in a prison somewhere.

theDudesmummy Wed 20-Feb-19 12:27:17

OK I see what you mean. But although I know nothing about Bangladesh's family law or social services, I would hope that nowhere would she be alllowed unsupervised custody of a child, without a lot of further process and investigation.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale Wed 20-Feb-19 12:29:24

At the moment she is stateless

No she isn't. The Home Office has announced its intention to remove her citizenship. She has the right of appeal.

AnnaComnena Wed 20-Feb-19 12:41:20

At the moment she is stateless

AIUI, she automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship through her mother.

MillytantForceit Wed 20-Feb-19 12:48:43

At the moment, she is still British.

BaconAndAvocado Wed 20-Feb-19 12:53:03

they said their goodbyes to us when they went to Syria and IS

Quite right.

Choccywoccyhooha Wed 20-Feb-19 13:08:03

*At the moment she is stateless

No she isn't. The Home Office has announced its intention to remove her citizenship. She has the right of appeal.*

As of yesterday (19th February), "the order removing her British citizenship has-been made."

Yes, she has a right to appeal, but that isn't the same thing as you are suggesting.
Prisoners have a right to appeal, but that doesn't mean they are technically free, they are still in custody. Having a right to appeal doesn't change a person's current status.

theDudesmummy Wed 20-Feb-19 13:10:54

I am actually feeling, not sorry for her, not at all, but sad at how silly and stupid she comes across (especially as a product of our educational system). Spouting nonsense about going to the Netherlands and waiting for her Dutch "husband" to do a prison sentence there, without the slightest thought about why and how the Dutch would accept her, what the husband's position there would be as a known IS fighter, who would pay for her and her child to get there and live there...etc etc. And the child-like "it's unfair!" , not "well, I am asking my solicitor to look into my legal position etc" ...

theDudesmummy Wed 20-Feb-19 13:12:55

FWIW my opinion is that we should take her back, investigate and potentially prosecute, and certainly immediately start care proceedings and take her child into care.

Aridane Wed 20-Feb-19 13:22:19

This type of discussion can attract subtly racist posts, which we delete MNHQ

subtly racist posts?!?

SoupDragon Wed 20-Feb-19 13:22:48

there is the matter of why the UK seems to think that another country should take responsibility for her. The Prevent strategy has been in place since 2003, it failed in this case (and many many others), why should either country have to deal with the fallout of the fact that our systems were unable to keep a 15 year old girl safe from radicalisation? Not to mention the fact that she was let out on a passport that didn't belong to her.

This.

Why do we think we can just dump our problems on a country who has had nothing to do with it?

AnnaComnena Wed 20-Feb-19 13:23:14

And the child-like "it's unfair!"

Quite. As I said on the other thread, isn't it it what she wanted and intended - to reject her British citizenship and cut all ties with Britain? And now that's what she's got, it's not faaaaiiir! Most ten year olds would know better than to try that on when things didn't go their way.

And she's really only got herself to blame. If she'd kept her mouth shut, other than perhaps asking the Times if they would pass on a private message to her family, she might not be in this situation now.

bigKiteFlying Wed 20-Feb-19 13:35:36

So if I understand correctly, he hasn't revoked her citizenship based on actual dual nationality but on the prospect she's eligible to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. He's used special powers which apparently has only been done once before.
That was my understanding - it may well not hold up in the courts.

I saw part of an interview with her Dad and it was all the British Government needs to go get her - (when they’d have to help her when she got to a consulate but not go get her putting others in danger) -and then someone on radio 4 this morning making endless excuses for her and my sympathy for her very much waned. It’s everyone else fault and everyone else needs to sort it out.

I’m pretty sure she was still a British citizen when she gave birth so Britain still has a duty of care towards the baby – when they can safely get to him.

I wonder if it’s a delaying tactic – she’ll probably end up back here eventually possible being charged and possibly being separated from her child but it will all take longer.

This thread is not accepting new messages.