ISIS teenager wants to come home

[Cosmic Yak]

Clive Stafford Smith wrote, "Shamima had her passport simply taken away from her. In her first case, the Supreme Court said that the government was not rendering her stateless since she could claim Bangladeshi citizenship. This was risible, given that she has never been there: she was born in the UK, and the Bangladeshi government assured us that she “would be hanged if she entered the country.”" Elsewhere he referred to stripping her of her passport as illegal.

I remember a lot of discussion about this earlier in the thread. She has been rendered stateless in practice, regardless of what theoretical rights she has to Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems clear that international law prohibiting making someone stateless is meant to ensure that they can actually claim citizenship of a state and reside there, otherwise it is rather pointless.

Whack-a-mole time again.
Begum's right to Bangladeshi citizenship is automatic. Not theoretical, and nothing to do with where she was born. Plus the Bangladeshi government's refusal of that right is illegal, and their threat to kill her both illegal and immoral- and STILL no-one here has the balls to say so. Why is everyone so invested in protecting the Bangladeshi government? And why do we have to keep going over the same ground, over and over and over and over and over again? Just read the thread, people, please- this is becoming tedious.

 

[Wudang]

Begum's right to Bangladeshi citizenship is automatic. Not theoretical, and nothing to do with where she was born. Plus the Bangladeshi government's refusal of that right is illegal,

This is a bit I am still unclear on. The Bangladesh Citizenship Act defines a minor as someone under 21. So as a minor they are treated as citizens/are citizens(?). If they reach 21 without applying for citizenship the right to citizenship lapses. Not is refused, lapses. If the (right to) citizenship can lapse then it can't be full citizenship, can it? There's a grey area here but the articles I can find often rely on an understanding of "de jure" and "de facto" which I am unclear on¹. I think at this point I need to wait for a court case to settle it.

In case it helps others navigate: Cosmic Yak linked to both the SIAC and SC decisions
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html see section 5

5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 2[father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:

There are exclusion but they don't apply.

1: Yes I know what they mean in theory, but in this case, not what they mean in practice.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This is a bit I am still unclear on. The Bangladesh Citizenship Act defines a minor as someone under 21. So as a minor they are treated as citizens/are citizens(?). If they reach 21 without applying for citizenship the right to citizenship lapses. Not is refused, lapses. If the (right to) citizenship can lapse then it can't be full citizenship, can it? There's a grey area here but the articles I can find often rely on an understanding of "de jure" and "de facto" which I am unclear on¹. I think at this point I need to wait for a court case to settle it.

In case it helps others navigate: Cosmic Yak linked to both the SIAC and SC decisions
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html see section 5
There are exclusion but they don't apply.

1: Yes I know what they mean in theory, but in this case, not what they mean in practice.

I think the point is that, at the time of the court rulings, Begum was under 21, and so did not need to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship.
The UK court decisions made mention of 'de jure' and 'de facto' statelessness- and I have commented on this upthread: the upshot is that Begum was 'de jure' not made stateless by the HS's decision to strip her British citizenship from her. However, that did make her 'de facto' stateless because the Bangladeshi government flatly refused to grant her her legal rights, and so there was (IIRC) 'no realistic possibility' In the court's words) of Begum going to Bangladesh.
What (I think) can lapse is the right to automatic citizenship. After the age of 21, she has to apply for it. In both cases, though, it is full citizenship- at least, I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.
As I see it, the British government and courts were legally correct: it is the Bangladeshis who are acting illegally. The latter have refused her citizenship, which is- or was- her legal right, and not run this through their courts: it's just a fiat statement from their government, contrary to their laws and not upheld by a court ruling.

 

[Wudang]

Cheers. My understanding is that she didn't pursue Bangladeshi citizenship as she was focused on UK citizenship, I believe for the better healthcare etc and parental help for her remaining child.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Children at risk

In the article "Children at risk of statelessness in the fight against terrorism," Lavinia Spiess and Louise Pyne-Jones wrote, "Two young boys, who were kidnapped by their father and taken to Syria in 2014, found themselves helpless after their father had presumably died in hostilities, and their stepmother was detained in a different camp.136 Only four years later they were reunited with their Trinidadian mother following combined efforts from The Guardian, human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith and Roger Waters.137 Until their repatriation, they had been de facto stateless, despite legally holding citizenships. Many other children face a similar fate and end up effectively stateless in Syrian camps, as states deny them repatriation or any other kind of assistance."

The particulars discussed above are different from Ms. Begum's case, yet some aspects are similar. Had her children survived, their situation might have been analogous to the children mentioned above. I am bringing this passage up to illustrate one of many reasons why Mr. Smith's views carry a great deal more weight than that of anonymous commenters of unknown expertise, on issues such as the secretive procedures used by SIAC (comments #1613 and 1625) or the legality of stripping Ms. Begum of her passport.

I defer to others on whether what Bangladesh did is legal or not. Imposing the death penalty without a fair trial would be immoral. Done and dusted.

 

[Wudang]

As I said previously a number of children have been allowed to return to the UK. Even in cases where their parents were not.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

He misreads the law. As I have repeatedly shown all that is required by UK law is that the Home Secretary is "satisfied" she will not be stateless.

Yes the UK courts have clearly stated that UK law can trump international law, treaty obligations, morality or even justice. The only thing it can't do is constrain a future government from being even more evil.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yes the UK courts have clearly stated that UK law can trump international law, treaty obligations, morality or even justice. The only thing it can't do is constrain a future government from being even more evil.

We all know you hate the UK. This is not news.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

This is a bit I am still unclear on. The Bangladesh Citizenship Act defines a minor as someone under 21. So as a minor they are treated as citizens/are citizens(?). If they reach 21 without applying for citizenship the right to citizenship lapses. Not is refused, lapses. If the (right to) citizenship can lapse then it can't be full citizenship, can it? There's a grey area here but the articles I can find often rely on an understanding of "de jure" and "de facto" which I am unclear on¹. I think at this point I need to wait for a court case to settle it.

In case it helps others navigate: Cosmic Yak linked to both the SIAC and SC decisions
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-242.html see section 5
There are exclusion but they don't apply.

1: Yes I know what they mean in theory, but in this case, not what they mean in practice.

Holding the right to citizenship of a country does not mean you are a citizen. It simply means that if you apply for citizenship it will be granted, absent other disqualifying conditions.

For example I've plenty of American cousins who availed of their right to Irish citizenship. To be able to do so they had to firs establish their Irish ancestral bona fides, theng register on the registry of foreign births and then finally apply for citizenship and go through a fairly rigorous vetting process befor being granted citizenship. It's not easy to take up citizenship unless it's of the country of your birth and childhood home.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

In the article "Children at risk of statelessness in the fight against terrorism," Lavinia Spiess and Louise Pyne-Jones wrote, "Two young boys, who were kidnapped by their father and taken to Syria in 2014, found themselves helpless after their father had presumably died in hostilities, and their stepmother was detained in a different camp.136 Only four years later they were reunited with their Trinidadian mother following combined efforts from The Guardian, human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith and Roger Waters.137 Until their repatriation, they had been de facto stateless, despite legally holding citizenships. Many other children face a similar fate and end up effectively stateless in Syrian camps, as states deny them repatriation or any other kind of assistance."

The particulars discussed above are different from Ms. Begum's case, yet some aspects are similar. Had her children survived, their situation might have been analogous to the children mentioned above. I am bringing this passage up to illustrate one of many reasons why Mr. Smith's views carry a great deal more weight than that of anonymous commenters of unknown expertise, on issues such as the secretive procedures used by SIAC (comments #1613 and 1625) or the legality of stripping Ms. Begum of her passport.
I defer to others on whether what Bangladesh did is legal or not. Imposing the death penalty without a fair trial would be immoral. Done and dusted.

Re. highlighted 1: The SIAC is a public court. The only time it is not is if there is secret evidence to be considered- i.e. reports from the intelligence services.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeal-to-the-special-immigration-appeals-commission
https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.or...refworld.org/publisher,UK_SIAC,,DZA,,,10.html
Re. highlighted 2: what specific law do you consider to have been broken by this action?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Holding the right to citizenship of a country does not mean you are a citizen. It simply means that if you apply for citizenship it will be granted, absent other disqualifying conditions.

And so Begum was not rendered stateless. For the umpteenth time.

For example I've plenty of American cousins who availed of their right to Irish citizenship. To be able to do so they had to firs establish their Irish ancestral bona fides, theng register on the registry of foreign births and then finally apply for citizenship and go through a fairly rigorous vetting process befor being granted citizenship. It's not easy to take up citizenship unless it's of the country of your birth and childhood home.

Completely irrelevant. This is about Bangladesh, not Ireland.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

limited scope and dubious procedures regarding evidence and testimony

Cosmic Yak,

Alex Papasotiriou wrote, "SIAC’s judgment is, indisputably, difficult to stomach. It has bleak consequences for a person who, in SIAC’s own conclusion, is credibly suspected to have been trafficked and whom the State failed to protect. The judgment paints a further bleak picture: it demonstrates the courts’ incredibly narrow – almost insignificant, as SIAC effectively admits at parts of the judgment – ambit in reviewing the exercise of executive powers that involve considerations of national security."

Alison Harvey wrote, "It [the SIAC] sees secret evidence not seen by the person whose case it is considering or her lawyers. The special advocate who presents her case in those secret proceedings advances arguments she and her lawyers will never hear, and without her instructions or those of her lawyers on that evidence." Clive Stafford Smith pointed out: "In Guantánamo I get to see the secret evidence, and then talk to my client about it (with certain limitations), whereupon my client can testify to his heart’s content. In SIAC, the “Special Advocate” can do no such thing, and is cut off from the client. All the more so for Shamima, who is stuck in what we have long called “Guantánamo on the Euphrates”: she has never met any of her lawyers, and was not allowed to provide any evidence herself."

To sum up, the scope of the SIAC is very limited, and within a SIAC hearing the hands of the special advocate and the defendant are tied. Do you think that these procedures are fair? On the question of the legality of taking her passport, I defer to the lawyers who brought this argument up.
EDT
"The [United Nations] experts also expressed serious concern that, as Begum is not a citizen of any other country and is not currently entitled to any other citizenship, this judgment renders her effectively stateless, in violation of international law." link

 

[Wudang]

Holding the right to citizenship of a country does not mean you are a citizen. It simply means that if you apply for citizenship it will be granted, absent other disqualifying conditions.

For example I've plenty of American cousins who availed of their right to Irish citizenship. To be able to do so they had to firs establish their Irish ancestral bona fides, theng register on the registry of foreign births and then finally apply for citizenship and go through a fairly rigorous vetting process befor being granted citizenship. It's not easy to take up citizenship unless it's of the country of your birth and childhood home.

I think there's a difference. I checked the Irish rules after Brexit as my wife is Irish and I'm not a ******* moron so voted Remain and want an EU passport. As I recall Ireland says you have the right to apply, Bangladesh says you are a citizen. I am not a lawyer.

 

[Elaedith]

Whack-a-mole time again.
Begum's right to Bangladeshi citizenship is automatic. Not theoretical, and nothing to do with where she was born. Plus the Bangladeshi government's refusal of that right is illegal, and their threat to kill her both illegal and immoral- and STILL no-one here has the balls to say so. Why is everyone so invested in protecting the Bangladeshi government? And why do we have to keep going over the same ground, over and over and over and over and over again? Just read the thread, people, please- this is becoming tedious.

We go over the same ground because people don't agree with you.
Yes, you can have automatic citizenship from birth, but it doesn't mean anything in practice until it is formally recognised and you hold documents giving the right to live in that country. I had UK citizenship by descent although I wasn't born in the UK, but I couldn't actually enter the country until I successfully applied for a passport.

I think the decision to revoke UK citizenship is morally wrong regardless of whether or not Bangladesh was willing to grant it, because there is no ethical justification for passing this problem to Bangladesh. The fact that there is no check to ensure a right to actually reside in another country simply makes it worse, since it is obvious that the intent of the international law is to ensure that everyone has a state they can actually reside safely in. And if the decision is legal, that shows that the law is wrong and the law allowing this should be repealed.

 

[Steve]

Thread title is misleading and needs updating. Although she was 19 when the thread started she is now long past being a teenager. And at 19 she was legally an adult under British law so the discussion has always been about an adult wishing to enter Britain and was never about a minor as implied by the title.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A minor problem

Thread title is misleading and needs updating. Although she was 19 when the thread started she is now long past being a teenager. And at 19 she was legally an adult under British law so the discussion has always been about an adult wishing to enter Britain and was never about a minor as implied by the title.

Fair enough, but she was fifteen when she left. In addition, she has not been convicted of any criminal act in open court, unless I am mistaken. My present position is that she should be given back her citizenship upon return, then tried and (if convicted) sentenced according to whatever guidelines exist.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Cosmic Yak,

Alex Papasotiriou wrote, "SIAC’s judgment is, indisputably, difficult to stomach. It has bleak consequences for a person who, in SIAC’s own conclusion, is credibly suspected to have been trafficked and whom the State failed to protect. The judgment paints a further bleak picture: it demonstrates the courts’ incredibly narrow – almost insignificant, as SIAC effectively admits at parts of the judgment – ambit in reviewing the exercise of executive powers that involve considerations of national security."

Alison Harvey wrote, "It [the SIAC] sees secret evidence not seen by the person whose case it is considering or her lawyers. The special advocate who presents her case in those secret proceedings advances arguments she and her lawyers will never hear, and without her instructions or those of her lawyers on that evidence." Clive Stafford Smith pointed out: "In Guantánamo I get to see the secret evidence, and then talk to my client about it (with certain limitations), whereupon my client can testify to his heart’s content. In SIAC, the “Special Advocate” can do no such thing, and is cut off from the client. All the more so for Shamima, who is stuck in what we have long called “Guantánamo on the Euphrates”: she has never met any of her lawyers, and was not allowed to provide any evidence herself."

To sum up, the scope of the SIAC is very limited, and within a SIAC hearing the hands of the special advocate and the defendant are tied. Do you think that these procedures are fair? On the question of the legality of taking her passport, I defer to the lawyers who brought this argument up.
EDT
"The [United Nations] experts also expressed serious concern that, as Begum is not a citizen of any other country and is not currently entitled to any other citizenship, this judgment renders her effectively stateless, in violation of international law." link

That post was in reponse to these two points:

Re. highlighted 1: The SIAC is a public court. The only time it is not is if there is secret evidence to be considered- i.e. reports from the intelligence services.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeal-to-the-special-immigration-appeals-commission
https://webarchive.archive.unhcr.or...refworld.org/publisher,UK_SIAC,,DZA,,,10.html
Re. highlighted 2: what specific law do you consider to have been broken by this action?

Point 1: Do you accept that the SIAC is a public court, apart from when classified information needs to be examined? Your post does not really address this.
Point 2: This was not answered at all, What specific law do you consider to have been broken by this action? I know you quoted some "experts", but the simple fact remains that no laws were broken. Indeed, the ECHR upheld the legality of depriving citizenship. And, for the umpty-zillionth time, THE UK GOVERNMENT DID NOT RENDER BEGUM STATELESS. BANGLADESH DID.
Jeez, how many times?

 

[Darat]

She never had Bangladesh citizenship, she had British citizenship. She had from the reading of Bangladesh law the potential of Bangladesh citizenship up to the age of 21, potential and actual are not the same thing.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

She never had Bangladesh citizenship, she had British citizenship. She had from the reading of Bangladesh law the potential of Bangladesh citizenship up to the age of 21, potential and actual are not the same thing.

Nope- at least, not what it says here:

3. At the commencement of this Act every person shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh-
(a) who or any of whose parents or grandparents was born in the territory now included in Bangladesh and who after the fourteenth day of August, 1947, has not been permanently resident in any country outside Bangladesh.

Note the actual wording. Not "has potential citizenship": it says quite clearly "shall be deemed to be a citizen".
If you disagree, perhaps you could highlight the word "potential" in that, or any other, part of the law.

 

[Darat]

Nope- at least, not what it says here:


Note the actual wording. Not "has potential citizenship": it says quite clearly "shall be deemed to be a citizen".
If you disagree, perhaps you could highlight the word "potential" in that, or any other, part of the law.

Yep - that is indeed your reading of their laws, one that is disputed by the Bangladesh government. And when it comes to national legislation it is the government it belongs to that determines what it means, we cannot tell the Bangladesh government how they have to interpret their laws, no more than they can tell us how we have to interpret our laws.

Mulberry bushes come to mind.


ETA: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

...snip....


“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahriar Alam, the state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s intention to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports.

“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.”

...snip...