To wonder why Sajid Jarvis was so quick to remove Shamima Begum’s British nationality

[MrsSchadenfreude]

But has done nothing about removing Asma Assad’s? Asma Assad is a dual British-Syrian National, so why not deprive her (and her kids) of British nationality? I can’t quite believe that the government hasn’ Done this. Why on Earth not?

Presumably our politicians would much rather annoy other, less wealthy countries, than (if people return here) deploy UK resources to assess and monitor any returners who may be dangerous and annoy a sizeable number of UK voters, who regard (short term) UK security as more important than how we treat other nations.

She was raised here. She was (presumably) radicalised here. She should face justice for any crimes here. We should also be attempting to de-radicalise her AND learn anything and everything we can from her that will help us stop terrorist activity in the UK in future. Yes, all of that has a cost associated with it. Maintaining a safe democracy is expensive. Allowing people to hold different opinions is part of that democracy, hence the debate we are having here.

The bit I'm worried about is the slow movement from "this citizen is less valuable to us because of her political beliefs" towards "all citizens are less valuable to us if the don't share our political beliefs".

I worry about what our country is becoming. We certainly aren't the responsible mature superpower we would like to be. It isn't just here either, many countries are moving politically to the right and it worries me.

Presumably our politicians would much rather annoy other, less wealthy countries, than (if people return here) deploy UK resources to assess and monitor any returners who may be dangerous and annoy a sizeable number of UK voters, who regard (short term) UK security as more important than how we treat other nations.

Sure and that’s a dumb approach to take if we want any respect or reciprocity on the world’s stage.

Though it’s not at all clear that we do want that and it’s worrying.

Hmmm, why could he possibly have removed the passport of a high profile female returnee who made the news, when 400 other male returnees who didn’t make the news were able to keep their passport?

It can’t possibly be politically convenient, could it?

Hmmm, why could he possibly have removed the passport of a high profile female returnee who made the news, when 400 other male returnees who didn’t make the news were able to keep their passport?

She isn't the first case though. They have removed the passports of other dual citizens though or at least tried to. If they haven't tried then they were probably not dual citizens so they couldn't.

The bit I'm worried about is the slow movement from "this citizen is less valuable to us because of her political beliefs" towards "all citizens are less valuable to us if the don't share our political beliefs".

You do realise that the problem with ISIS is a bit more than they "don't share our political beliefs" don't you?

Most people in the country don't want her back nor any of the many many others with dual nationality who have lost their right to come back to the UK which is a precious very special right that she has abused big time.

I didn't say you were making an assumption that they consulted lawyers - clearly they did. However, you are making an assumption that the Home Office's lawyers told them they could revoke citizenship, or indeed that they told them it was arguable.

I not making the assumption that they said it was arguable. It has been stated in the media that they have been advised it is arguable. Although the media could have got that wrong, some (although not all) lawyers who specialise in this have also stated it is arguable. It may just be a delaying tactic though.

People being “problem citizens” for the UK doesn’t make it right for us to expect other countries to give them residence and incur costs.

Dungeondragon15, I do realise that. So much so, in fact, that I'm saying I would rather live in a democracy that spends money punishing and protecting people in her situation, rather than risk allowing a slippery slope away from democracy, where the ruling party gets to decide who is acceptable and who is not, outside of established law. You know, like has happened and is happening in various places around the world. But not here, not in my name.

PrincessButtockUp They ruling party doesn't get to decide ultimately though. It will be up to the courts. They will be overruled. At the most, all that will happen is that her returned. I am not really concerned with "protecting people in her situation", given that you are talking about protecting a member of ISIS. The only reason I am against this is that it is unfair to Bangladesh and in the future other people and countries with dual citizenship.

At the most, all that will happen is that her returned. At the most, all that will happen is that her return will be delayed.

The ruling party doesn't get to decide ultimately though. It will be up to the courts.They will be overruled.

Not necessarily overruled - and it could take years.

Since 2015, Siac (the Special Immigration Appeals Commission) has heard seven cases involving loss of citizenship, of which two were successful

But it can take years before a case is brought to Siac - so there could be a lot of cases that are still waiting to be heard

If her family disagreed with the panel's decision, they could appeal on a point of law to a higher court, and ultimately to the UK Supreme Court.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47310206

Expert lawyers with experience in Bangladeshi citizenship cases have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national like Ms Begum, if born to a Bangladeshi parent, is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen.That means that such a person would have dual nationality.

If the person remains in the UK, their Bangladeshi citizenship remains in existence but dormant.

Her Bangladeshi citizenship, if established, would remain intact until she reaches 21, even if she has never visited the country or made active efforts to retain her citizenship.

As a British citizen, Ms Begum's child would have a right to enter the UK. However the British government has no consular staff in Syria to help get him out of the country.

The home secretary has the power to strip an individual of their British citizenship on the basis that it is "conducive to the public good", as long as the person would not become stateless as a result.

Whether or not SB is technically entitled to Bangladeshi Citizenship becomes immaterial if Bangladesh refuses to allow her into the country. Presumably they have their own 'conducive to the public good' clause to strip/refuse citizenship? She is now therefore 'de facto' stateless, by virtue of Sajid Javid's action, which renders it illegal under British law, doesn't it?

The fighting will soon be over and when the US withdraws, the Kurds have better things to get on with than be benevolent carers for Daesh. They have no resources and lives to rebuild.

Daesh women and children are so violent to Syrian and Iraqi ones they have to be separated. These latest ones are die-hards who have been told to return and restart the war. Much much much importantly they all have to face up to Syrian and Iraqi justice, never mind their citizenships. Million and millions of lives have been destroyed, and each one of these has more rights to be heard and supported than Daesh perpetrators.

Life or multiple lifetime sentences for Daesh membership is the best SB can hope for. That judicial process will trump any we have here about her citizenship. Tis a good diversion from Brexit though.

And the thing about Asma Assad is that I can't really see her being fazed about citizenship. Trump wants out of the region, How far back does one go to unwind the meddling the west has done there, both recently and further back? The priority for the region is their lives and our best option is to let them get on with it in this imperfect world. Many problems will be solved without strife that way.

and we can't really count on any political party either.
Not so long ago, Labour wanted to strip UK citizenship from British-Israelis who had done national service. Assuming they don't think that is more risky to the UK than joining Daesh, they are only making a fuss to distract from their MPs leaving the party.

Whether or not SB is technically entitled to Bangladeshi Citizenship becomes immaterial if Bangladesh refuses to allow her into the country.Presumably they have their own 'conducive to the public good' clause to strip/refuse citizenship? She is now therefore 'de facto' stateless

Has she made a formal application to Bangladesh? I guess we got there first as it were.

Most people in the country don't want her back nor any of the many many others with dual nationality who have lost their right to come back to the UK which is a precious very special right that she has abused big time

Probably true, but "what most people want" doesn't override our obligations under international treaties. Overall, I'd rather that we didn't ignore those obligations, because it's the sort of conduct that could come back and bite us with catastrophic effects.

Let the courts decide. There is too much emotion swirling around this woman. One day I'm full of compassion for her and the baby and the next I think she's an evil traitor who should be jailed for life.

Similar case in Australia last month (with Fiji):

www.4bc.com.au/government-followed-the-law-when-stripping-citizenship-of-accused-is-recruiter-neil-prakash/

Immigration Minister David Coleman says the government is acting in accordance with Australian law, in stripping accused IS recruiter Neil Prakash of his citizenship.

The government believes Prakash is a dual national because his father is Fijian.

But immigration officials in Fiji say he’s not a citizen of the country and hasn’t entered the country or applied for citizenship since birth.

The news could cause problems as Australia can’t revoke citizenship if it’ll leave a person stateless.

Immigration Minister David Coleman tells John Stanley they’ve followed a process in line with Australian law.

“We’ve followed the law of Australia and [to] this individual the law has been applied.

“And as a consequence, he has lost his Australian citizenship.”

The age requirement for loss of citizenship in Australia is 14 although in this case the man concerned is older.

I find the idea of “first and second class” citizenship very worrying- not least because I am second class myself.

I also see no reason why any other country should have to deal with this woman. She was born, raised, educated and radicalized here. Surely she is our responsibility.

Incidentally, has she actually committed a crime that’s on the statute book?

Australia as a model for the U.K. judicial system?

Forgive me if I skip the leaping for joy ...

www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2018)625116

Extract from a European Parliament Think Tank briefing July 2018;
Terrorism and deprivation of citizenship

Recent terrorist attacks on European soil and the subsequent intensification of security concerns among citizens and policy-makers have pushed a number of states to reactivate and expand legal provisions on deprivation of citizenship in order to deter, punish and discredit terrorists.

The United Kingdom gradually expanded the grounds for deprivation of citizenship. Whereas before 2006, deprivation of citizenship was triggered by acting against the UK's 'vital interest', after 2006
the Secretary of State can withdraw citizenship if this is conducive to the public good. ^According to the UK Home Office, between 2006 and 2014, 27 deprivation orders were issued on grounds that
they were conducive to the public good.^

I thank god Labour party aren't in power, as Jeremy Corbyn would be letting all of ISIS in and offering them therapy and tea and sympathy along with that joker Diane Abbott.