Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Shamima Begum has her citizenship revoked

999 replies

KenAdams · 19/02/2019 18:48

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.

OP posts:
TurquoiseDress · 19/02/2019 20:42

Sounds like good news to me

Iflyaway · 19/02/2019 20:43

Isn’t her husband Dutch? I imagine she could claim Dutch citizenship.

How? They are not even legally married in the eyes of Dutch law.

Like in UK, you can't just rock up and ask for citizenship. Nor does legal marriage give you any automatic rights.

They don't even want her "husband" back.

www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/02/the-netherlands-wont-take-back-is-fighters-despite-trumps-call/

Budsbegginingspringinsight · 19/02/2019 20:44

She's had only Isis to cling to for the past 4 years and she would still be... clinging too them...had the caliphate not collapsed.

PostmanPatIsIncompetent · 19/02/2019 20:44

Because they have sharia law and that's what she wants to live under. She likes it. She likes Islam. She's no danger to them because they do what she likes.

Oh, come on. Neither Syria nor Bangladesh are sharia law countries. Bangladesh has it for marriage/divorce but it is not the legal system for criminal or the majority of civil law.

Bangladesh has a massive problem with radical Islamic terrorism. More people have died in Bangladesh from internal IS/AQ/etc inspired terrorist attacks than in the U.K.

If like a pp you think a UK govt should protect UK citizens at expense of other people than that's one thing, but don't pretend Syria or Bangladesh either deserve or would welcome her.

TheresACatInMyLaundryBasket · 19/02/2019 20:45

You don't need a passport to be a citizen of somewhere- my parent is an automatic citizen of another country through parentage but doesn't have a passport and has never visited.

I don't know that Bangladesh will be too impressed, though. Why should they have to take her? Doubt the Bangladeshi people want her there either.

Mirime · 19/02/2019 20:45

And I don't know one single person stockpiling for Brexit

They are, they're just not telling you. No point stockpiling if you advertise the fact...

Genevieva · 19/02/2019 20:46

@MadCatEnthusiast you don't need to hold a passport to have citizenship. Lets wait and see what happens. The SIAC simply interpret law enacted by parliament, which can be enacted retrospectively. The Home Office would be fools not to take legal advice before sending that letter. They were fools during the Windrush scandal, so that isn't entirely beyond the realms of possibility, but you woudl hope that they might have learnt their lesson...

Ylvamoon · 19/02/2019 20:46

I think stripping her of her acquired British Citizenship is right.
Because once you have "stripped" away all the pro / con arguments there remains one question: where are the parents in all this? Let's just be realistic, if my DD would run off to a war zone age 15, I'd move haven and earth to get her back age 15! I would not wait till she re - surfaces age 19 all smug with a DS in tow! Believing that the British public pay for her return.
She is a IS poster girl ... she has no place in our society.

bobstersmum · 19/02/2019 20:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PenniesforNothing · 19/02/2019 20:47

What precedent does this send in regards our standards of justice and fairness? We haven't even established if she committed any crimes.

  1. She joined a terrorist group.
  2. She is a terrorist sympathiser - note public admission broadcast on national television.
  3. It's perfectly fair to ban an unremorseful extremist from a country they don't want to live in, and moreover from a country whose values they do not believe in nor follow.
  4. It sets an excellent precedent, warning would be terrorists of the repurcussions of partaking in terrorist activity.
AuntieStella · 19/02/2019 20:47

"She enabled her husband who did fight. Who knows what else"

We do have some idea of what else. He was convicted in absentia in the Netherlands (after he had fled to Syria) for his part in a plot to shoot up a theme park.

The idea that she did not fully realise that families were deliberate targets does ring a bit hollow.

sagradafamiliar · 19/02/2019 20:49

Imagine sharing the opinion of people like bobster.

yolofish · 19/02/2019 20:49

I guess that's the kind of the issue though... if you do something which results in NO country to which you might have any kind of claim (spurious or not) wanting you, then really you have monumentally fucked up.

UK doesnt want her; Netherlands wont recognise the marriage (as took place in a non-recognised state); Bangladesh probably wont want her...

Personally, I'd think its me, not you!! (sorry if that seems to be trivialising but the common denominator her is Shamima, no one else)

bobstersmum · 19/02/2019 20:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

tomhazard · 19/02/2019 20:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ for repeating deleted post. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Budsbegginingspringinsight · 19/02/2019 20:51

Enticed by clever videos

Of... savagery , beheading, pain, evil actions... life in a medieval world.

She's not watched anything in isolation. ... all info was everywhere... of exactly what's going on

JRMisOdious · 19/02/2019 20:52

No time to read all, but someone reasonably authoratitive, can’t remember who, BBC paper reviews I think, suggested she had dual uk/Pakistan. No idea if that’s so?

PostmanPatIsIncompetent · 19/02/2019 20:53

The Home Office would be fools not to take legal advice before sending that letter

Yes, and any civil service advice will always include a legal opinion. But ministers can act against legal advice, and like I said above I don't think Javid would mind losing on appeal: it is win-win for him. The HO lose a shed load of their immigration decisions on appeal, they're well used to taking their chances and then blaming the courts for the decision.

explodingkitten · 19/02/2019 20:54

Even if you married a Dutch citizen that doesn't mean that you will get citizenship yourself. There are a few things that her husband will need to prove first, like having a stable job of a certain income. Bit hard if you're a terrorist in syria....

kateandme · 19/02/2019 20:54

may i ask if she wasn't ours for a while ,ss didn't get involved and take the baby therefore keeping the 'innocent' safe and it could live here.
if it was all about keeping the baby safe then would that have happened?sorry f this is really dumb thing to ask.(not being goady or purposefully stupid I promise)

BiologyIsReal · 19/02/2019 20:54

She stated she wants to live under sharia law. So why want to come back to Britain?
Perhaps the answer would be for her to seek asylum in a country run under Sharia law?

daisypond · 19/02/2019 20:55

Yes, I think the courts will overthrow the decision and then Javid will be able to blame them.

JRMisOdious · 19/02/2019 20:55

Just skimmed Through above and seen Bangladesh mentioned several times. It may have been there that I heard - that’s what you get for doing 3 things at once and listening with one ear!
Either way, perfectly legal to revoke British as long as she’s not left stateless.

HumptyDoo · 19/02/2019 20:57

may i ask if she wasn't ours for a while ,ss didn't get involved and take the baby therefore keeping the 'innocent' safe and it could live here.

Depending on whether she was actually a British citizen at birth (I don't think so?) then she probably can't pass her citizenship on to her son. But I know that the baby definitely doesn't have citizenship through the father (I've got first-hand experience of how that works under Dutch law!) so it may be that the baby IS British if it would otherwise be stateless? But I've no idea how that works in British law.

MadCatEnthusiast · 19/02/2019 20:58

Lets wait and see what happens. The SIAC simply interpret law enacted by parliament, which can be enacted retrospectively. The Home Office would be fools not to take legal advice before sending that letter. They were fools during the Windrush scandal, so that isn't entirely beyond the realms of possibility, but you would hope that they might have learnt their lesson...

The HO are known for this, they've lied and twisting law to be in their favour in many cases before and, just like a pp said, wouldn't mind going for an appeal. I will never have confidence in them unfortunately