TheGuyFromHR:


Yes, because the law said so.
Commonwealth citizens who had arrived before 1973 had ILR.
The problem was that for many people who were not well educated or had lived lives on the fringes of society, gathering documentation to prove their residency wasn't always easy. The fault was the government's, it was well aware that many of these persons were unable to prove their residency and had maintained a record of the landing cards it used to record the names of Carribbean arrivals in those days. Then the government destroyed those records and then now moved the burden of proof to their victims.

In other words, you could be a 60 year old west Indian in the UK, and when you interface with the government, you are told you are deemed to be illegal and should prove otherwise by the very same government which is well aware that an elderly west Indian living in the UK is likely to be a Commonwealth arrival with automatic ILR. The government ignores the fact that you've got records of tax and NI payments going back decades, and asks you for documents that you had never needed before to prove you arrived before 1973.

If you have never really understood the Windrush scandal, it's not something to be explained here, you need to read up about it and understand the issues involved - the fact that you asked those questions shows you dont know the issues involved.

So your Jamo friend quoted 1973 case law when asked for his passport at the boarding gate?

Is that what you're saying?

marylandcakes:
So you guys are still arguing about the wife of the terrorist?

Her not being allowed back into the country has nothing to do about the colour of her skin. It’s more to do with the nature of her crime.
Like someone mentioned here the two British born Nigerian terrorists are black and are serving their sentence here in the uk. This lady in question is not even remorseful for her crimes. I saw the interview and she had defiance written all over her. She can go to her husband’s country of Netherlands or her parents birth country but no country wants a threat of her grooming other young women which is likely to happen. She has already pledged alliance to the state of Isis and denounced her British national by doing that. They were warned. You can’t eat your cake and have it.

The wind rush is about those commonwealth countries that came at a very tender age and never bothered to regularise their papers. All their documents were destroyed during Theresa May’s tenure as Home Secretary. These windrush kids were treated unfairly . But speak to other Caribbeans and they will say why did these people not regularise their papers? Some of them were actually deported. There’s no excuse for the way they were treated because there are white British borns who have never owned a passport. The home office has apologised and compensated most of them.
Despite this you can’t compare the two cases as they are not related.

Not quite true unfortunately, most of them are still waiting for suitable compensation.
In some cases the compensation offered was unacceptable - people lost jobs, incomes, ran up debts, borrowed money, lost homes, had to pay expensive legal fees and so forth.

nihilistjnr:

I never said it wasn't the law so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here


Anna Chapman -Russian
David Hicks - Australian
Jack Letts - Canadiian

All white btw



This is such a ridiculous statement. Shemima Begum LEFT the UK in case you've forgotten. Voluntarily. To go and become a Citizen of ISIS. And the UK government refused to let her back.
How does this relate to what you wrote up there?


Nothing you wrote here is relevant to the topic at hand. If your children go and join ISIS and are caught, even if you climb a cross and pay the ultimate price, they will get the Shemima Begum treatment.



'They' are not 'just starting' anything bro

The 1981 Act outlined the boundaries of British Citizenship, and Section 40 of the Act included conditions under which the Secretary of State could deprive citizenship to non-birth citizens – i.e. those who had British citizenship due to naturalisation or registration[/b].

I am quoting or responding to you for the last time. No, penultimate time. Can you see the bolded? That was where you started arguing off tangent. Quoting some irrelevant law for, according to you, “non-birth citizens”, which does not apply to the subject of discussion.

nihilistjnr:


Bros relax...this is the constitution of your own country

You people are busy being woke instead of focusing on the nature of Begum's offence.

A naturalised Nigerian Citizen only has to catch a 4 year jail term within 7 years of naturalising before Buhari kicks him or her out.

You don't need to give up, just dont join ISIS

Then you came up with this argument about naturalised Nigerian citizens. Again off tangent. Why did you feel the need to liken her case to that of naturalised or non-birth citizens if you were paying attention?

icon8:
[/b]

I am quoting or responding to you for the last time. No, penultimate time. Can you see the bolded? That was where you started arguing off tangent. Quoting some irrelevant law for, according to you, “non-birth citizens”, which does not apply to the subject of discussion.

You said

icon8:

You may gloat all you want about this case, but they are only starting with their discrimination, and the girl’s case was just the litmus test.

And I replied with

nihilistjnr:

I
'They' are not 'just starting' anything bro

The 1981 Act outlined the boundaries of British Citizenship, and Section 40 of the Act included conditions under which the Secretary of State could deprive citizenship to non-birth citizens – i.e. those who had British citizenship due to naturalisation or registration.

I even bolded the year 1981 to show you that revoking citizenship of dual national s is something that the UK government has been pursuing for 40 years

It's not my fault if you left the signposted focus on the conversation to zoom in on the details.

You can't hold me responsible for how you comprehend things bro

nihilistjnr:


You said



And I replied with


I even bolded the year 1981 to show you that revoking citizenship of dual national s is something that the UK government has been pursuing for 40 years

It's not my fault if you left the signposted focus on the conversation to zoom in on the details.

You can't hold me responsible for how you comprehend things bro

The point is that she was never a dual national. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

icon8:


Then you came up with this argument about naturalised Nigerian citizens. Again off tangent. Why did you feel the need to liken her case to that of naturalised or non-birth citizens if you were paying attention?

Again you are trying to make me accountable for your own shortcomings.

If you don't understand context, that's on you not me.

icon8:


The point is that she was never a dual national. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Tell that to the supreme court.

nihilistjnr:


Tell that to the supreme court.

Finally realised your folly and trying to deflect now?

Cheers, and have a good evening.

icon8:


Finally realised your folly and trying to deflect now?

Cheers, and have a good evening.

UK law does not allow the UK government to make a person stateless through the revocation of British citizenship.

Begum as a child of Bengali dual nationals inherited both citizenships

Begum has challenged the home office's decision all the way to supreme court and lost to a unanimous decision

If there is a fool here, it's certainly not me.

I bid you good evening as well

What’s not to love about this thread?!!!

wow!

All these gbas gbos everywhere.
My own sha is a wrong precedent has been laid down here. Hopefully it doesn’t come back to bite in the future. Like someone said earlier let’s focus on making the money.
NB: 1. I don’t condone the girl’s actions. 2. Am not playing any yeye race card.

How do you mean by precedent? I just want to be educated, how will it affect immigrants and chdren of immigrants in the future if they don't denounce their citizenship and join a kbown terrorist organisation to fight and kill citizens of your own country and are not remorseful about it. I believe when you do this you successfully decitizened yourself if there is a word like that

What if isis had been successful? Or they had caused significant damage to the UK before they were defeated and she wanted to comeback, should they still accept her back?

deept:
How do you mean by precedent? I just want to be educated, how will it affect immigrants and chdren of immigrants in the future if they don't denounce their citizenship and join a kbown terrorist organisation to fight and kill citizens of your own country and are not remorseful about it. I believe when you do this you successfully decitizened yourself if there is a word like that

What if isis had been successful? Or they had caused significant damage to the UK before they were defeated and she wanted to comeback, should they still accept her back?

She only wants to come back because Isis has been defeated, if not she was happy to stay with them and help severe heads of Uk soldiers.

‘She doesn’t have Bangladeshi Passport’
‘She has never lived in Bangladesh’
Yen....yen....yen...yen....

Turn the tables around.
If ISIS had succeeded, and the UK became a shithole in 2014. And the streets of London was looking like Homs. And the Bangladeshi Govt arranges an evacuation flight for its people.

Guess who would have been in front of the queue?
A certain ‘non-Bangladeshi’ girl from Bethnal Green

deept:
How do you mean by precedent? I just want to be educated, how will it affect immigrants and chdren of immigrants in the future if they don't denounce their citizenship and join a kbown terrorist organisation to fight and kill citizens of your own country and are not remorseful about it. I believe when you do this you successfully decitizened yourself if there is a word like that

What if isis had been successful? Or they had caused significant damage to the UK before they were defeated and she wanted to comeback, should they still accept her back?

With my small watching of suite.

In courts when trying to win a case if something has never been done before it's makes your case s bit difficult to defend/prove etc. But once something similar or remotely similar has been done in the past, a lawyer can keep sighing it and try to find similarities or links with the previous case and it will be less difficult for the lawyer. Since the case in history has shown that it can be done and the courts have proven it to be right.

Future cases might not be allowed to move to appeal or supreme based on this lady's case as precedence.

A lawyer will argue no need to waste time, tax payers money by going to appeals etc.

NB: I have watched suites complete series multiple times. And my brother is a lawyer

Dear Nigerian Immigrants who have British-born children,

Kindly train up your children to respect the core values of their British home. Train them to be like Anthony Joshua. Get newspaper clippings of the Shemima Begum Supreme Court ruling and show show your children. Tell the little ones that denouncing their British citizenship to go fight for a terrorist organisation ain’t cool.

Train your children to trust you. Train your minors to be so open to you- in that way, you will be able to detect very early any signs of grooming by terrorists.

umarwy:


With my small watching of suite.

In courts when trying to win a case if something has never been done before it's makes your case s bit difficult to defend/prove etc. But once something similar or remotely similar has been done in the past, a lawyer can keep sighing it and try to find similarities or links with the previous case and it will be less difficult for the lawyer. Since the case in history has shown that it can be done and the courts have proven it to be right.

Future cases might not be allowed to move to appeal or supreme based on this lady's case as precedence.

A lawyer will argue no need to waste time, tax payers money by going to appeals etc.

NB: I have watched suites complete series multiple times. And my brother is a lawyer

Thank you for the explanation on precedence. I'm sure there have been British citizens who fought with enemies of the country and were caught and were sent to the tower of London to be executed.

Can we then argue she should be brought back and sent to the tower of London?

RalphJean:
Dear Nigerian Immigrants who have British-born children,

Kindly train up your children to respect the core values of their British home. Train them to be like Anthony Joshua. Get newspaper clippings of the Shemima Begum Supreme Court and show show your children. Tell the little ones that denouncing their British citizen to go fight for a terrorist organisation ain’t cool.

Train your children to trust you. Train your minors to be so open to you- in that way, you will be able to detect very early any signs of grooming by terrorists.

And finally, ensure their passports are not within easy reach............

Ladywinterfell:
What’s not to love about this thread?!!!

Seun should be held responsible for all this gbas gbos........

It’s 3 days now and we are still on this topic....
If you really want to help bring her back to the Uk, you can smuggle her through Dover ports or on the back of a lorry.
There’s no other legal loophole for her anymore....

deept:


Thank you for the explanation on precedence. I'm sure there have been British citizens who fought with enemies of the country and were caught and were sent to the tower of London to be executed.

Can we then argue she should be brought back and sent to the tower of London?

Universal human rights.

You can't kill someone

If you have the UHR subscription plan

Lexusgs430:



Seun should be held responsible for all this gbas gbos........

I’m sure Seun sneaks in once in a while to enjoy the gbas gbos here

deept:
How do you mean by precedent? I just want to be educated, how will it affect immigrants and chdren of immigrants in the future if they don't denounce their citizenship and join a kbown terrorist organisation to fight and kill citizens of your own country and are not remorseful about it. I believe when you do this you successfully decitizened yourself if there is a word like that

What if isis had been successful? Or they had caused significant damage to the UK before they were defeated and she wanted to comeback, should they still accept her back?

I help you out...

This is their argument... we hate and detest what she did BUT don’t take her citizenship away because it could affect our grandchildren in the future, we know she is a terrorist, we know she has joined a group that killed, raped and destroyed a country but you see .. because of our grandkids future let her in, yes we know that she poses a threat, yes we know we all have to pay to keep her on benefits, 24hrs monitor by security agencies... we can live with all that purely because of grandkids.

justwise:


I help you out...

This is their argument... we hate and detest what she did BUT don’t take her citizenship away because it could affect our grandchildren in the future, we know she is a terrorist, we know she has joined a group that killed, raped and destroyed a country but you see .. because of our grandkids future let her in, yes we know that she poses a threat, yes we know we all have to pay to keep her on benefits, 24hrs monitor by security agencies... we can live with all that purely because of grandkids.

Let me help you out...

We know that she chose to join a terrorist organisation and she may have committed heinous and unspeakable crimes, but like every accused, she should have the right to face her accuser. We denounce her and condemn her choice in its entirety, but, bring her home, charge her, try her, sentence her (if she’s found guilty), and lock her up forever (if that’s what she gets). No one cares. Let justice be done, but in the right way!

We also know that it is reprehensible and illegal to render someone stateless. She only has (well....like someone pointed out yesterday, had) British citizenship, and taking that away from her effectively rendered her stateless, which is a violation of her fundamental human rights and against the United Nations Human Rights Convention. But Her Majesty’s Government’s argument was that even though she only had British citizenship, she could potentially be able to acquire the citizenship of her parents’ birth country, if she applied. Therefore, taking her British citizenship away technically should not render her stateless, since she can apply for the citizenship of her parents’ birth country, to which the Bangladeshi government responded as not possible, which makes her stateless as we speak!

Now, this is the point and our concern for our children and their children after them. The British State has created a 2-tier natural citizenship, and with it, 2-tier rights and privileges, which should be a source of concern for every new generation immigrant. The first tier is for those who can only trace their roots to Britain (3 generations maybe) with its own set of laws - including not being able to revoke their citizenship even if they commit terrorism, because they have no other country to potentially claim. The second tier is for those who could trace their roots to somewhere else (possibly up to the 3rd generation) and the fate of this people (including all our children and their children’s children) is that their citizenship, which they acquired as a right when they were born (like every other natural born British citizen) could be taken away from them unilaterally (without trial, without fair hearing, just by the order of the Home Secretary) if they commit an act deemed terrorism by whoever is in charge at that point. This has now been challenged up to the Supreme Court and the Government has won.

Now, this is the danger. It is terrorism they are using today - and we all agree that terrorism is a heinous and abominable crime - but it could be applied to any crime tomorrow or in 50 years. Imagine the government removing your grandchildren and repatriating them to Nigeria (which they possibly never lived or even visited) on some trumped up charges, simply because their grandparents’ roots can be traced to Nigeria. Yes, it is a possibility. Anything is possible in an unjust society, and what happened to the Jews in Hitler’s Germany started as a noble cause. Then it went on and on until it was used to target a specific set of people, and the rest is history.

No one is holding court for the girl. No one here is in support of terrorism. We are only looking beyond the thin veil of this litmus test case, and expressing our concern for the dangers it portends for the future of our children, and their children after them, just because their forebears were recent immigrants. The only reason the government was able to take Shamima’s citizenship away was because her parents were immigrants. Maybe not racism, maybe not islamaphobia, but it certainly has discrimination written all over it, whatever name you choose to call it. And that should concern you, because of its potential future implications.

Hope this helps?

icon8:


Let me help you out...

We know that she chose to join a terrorist organisation and she may have committed heinous and unspeakable crimes, but like every accused, she should have the right to face her accuser. We denounce her and condemn her choice in its entirety, but, bring her home, charge her, try her, sentence her (if she’s found guilty), and lock her up forever (if that’s what she gets). No one cares. Let justice be done, but in the right way!

We also know that it is reprehensible and illegal to render someone stateless. She only has (well....like someone pointed out yesterday, had) British citizenship, and taking that away from her effectively rendered her stateless, which is a violation of her fundamental human rights and against the United Nations Human Rights Convention. But Her Majesty’s Government’s argument was that even though she only had British citizenship, she could potentially be able to acquire the citizenship of her parents’ birth country, if she applied. Therefore, taking her British citizenship away technically should not render her stateless, since she can apply for the citizenship of her parents’ birth country, to which the Bangladeshi government responded as not possible, which makes her stateless as we speak!

Now, this is the point and our concern for our children and their children after them. The British State has created a 2-tier natural citizenship, and with it, 2-tier rights and privileges, which should be a source of concern for every new generation immigrant. The first tier is for those who can only trace their roots to Britain (3 generations maybe) with its own set of laws - including not being able to revoke their citizenship even if they commit terrorism, because they have no other country to potentially claim. The second tier is for those who could trace their roots to somewhere else (possibly up to the 3rd generation) and the fate of this people (including all our children and their children’s children) is that their citizenship, which they acquired as a right when they were born (like every other natural born British citizen) could be taken away from them unilaterally (without trial, without fair hearing, just by the order of the Home Secretary) if they commit an act deemed terrorism by whoever is in charge at that point. This has now been challenged up to the Supreme Court and the Government has won.

Now, this is the danger. It is terrorism they are using today - and we all agree that terrorism is a heinous and abominable crime - but it could be applied to any crime tomorrow or in 50 years. Imagine the government removing your grandchildren and repatriating them to Nigeria (which they possibly never lived or even visited) on some trumped up charges, simply because their grandparents’ roots can be traced to Nigeria. Yes, it is a possibility. Anything is possible in an unjust society, and what happened to the Jews in Hitler’s Germany started as a noble cause. Then it went on and on until it was used to target a specific set of people, and the rest is history.

No one is holding court for the girl. No one here is in support of terrorism. We are only looking beyond the thin veil of this litmus test case, and expressing our concern for the dangers it portends for the future of our children, and their children after them, just because their forebears were recent immigrants. The only reason the government was able to take Shamima’s citizenship away was because her parents were immigrants. Maybe not racism, maybe not islamaphobia, but it certainly has discrimination written all over it, whatever name you choose to call it. And that should concern you, because of its potential future implications.

Hope this helps?

I don’t know why this is so difficult for some of you to comprehend.

Same thing TheGuyFromHR and LagosismyHome have been emphasizing on.

icon8:


We also know that it is reprehensible and illegal to render someone stateless. She only has (well....like someone pointed out yesterday, had) British citizenship, and taking that away from her effectively rendered her stateless, which is a violation of her fundamental human rights and against the United Nations Human Rights Convention.

according to section 5 and 14 of Bangladesh’s Citizenship Act 1951, people born in the UK to parents with Bangladeshi citizenship would, at the time of their birth, be Bangladeshi citizens and would at least remain so until the age of 21.

Her Dad is not even a British Citizen and only moved to the UK when she was 8 years old

Shemima Begum was stripped of her British Citizenship in 2019 - when she was 20 years old.

She was never stateless.

This simple fact, upheld by the Supreme Court invalidates the rest of your essay.

http://old.bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/sections_detail.php?id=242&sections_id=7472

nihilistjnr:


according to section 5 and 14 of Bangladesh’s Citizenship Act 1951, people born in the UK to parents with Bangladeshi citizenship would, at the time of their birth, be Bangladeshi citizens and would at least remain so until the age of 21.

Her Dad is not even a British Citizen and only moved to the UK when she was 8 years old

Shemima Begum was stripped of her British Citizenship in 2019 - when she was 20 years old.

She was never stateless.

This simple fact, upheld by the Supreme Court invalidates the rest of your essay.

http://old.bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/sections_detail.php?id=242&sections_id=7472

But do you know more than their own foreign ministry

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.

It was thought Ms Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship through her mother.

But the ministry of foreign affairs said the government was "deeply concerned" she had been "erroneously identified" as a Bangladeshi national.

In a statement, it said Ms Begum had never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh and had never visited the country.


https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/government-affairs/2020/06/16/isis-bride-shamima-won-t-be-allowed-in-bangladesh-says-govt

Hello guyss... quick one please does anyone need naira?? I need some pounds

LagosismyHome:


But do you know more than their own foreign ministry

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.

It was thought Ms Begum had Bangladeshi citizenship through her mother.

But the ministry of foreign affairs said the government was "deeply concerned" she had been "erroneously identified" as a Bangladeshi national.

In a statement, it said Ms Begum had never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh and had never visited the country.


https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/government-affairs/2020/06/16/isis-bride-shamima-won-t-be-allowed-in-bangladesh-says-govt

If you follow the case closely, you will find that Shemima lost her case at Supreme Court specifically because of a private admission from their foreign ministry to the UK high commission in Dhaka that she was a Bangladeshi Citizen.

It was after that admission, that their foreign ministry changed tack from saying she's not a citizen to she would tried as s terrorist and sentenced to death if she returned to Bangladesh.

Edit: it's interesting to note that Shemima legal team(funded by UK taxpayers btw) never even attempted to argue to the appeals court that the UK government has made her stateless thus breaching her human rights

Instead, she was arguing that she should be allowed to come to UK so that she could continue her appeal process

See below