The Tardis has just turned up to rescue him...
You must log in or register to see images
leave her there
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
The Tardis has just turned up to rescue him...
I would agree, but i think he has made a point incredibly well without actually realising it. I claimed when Javid made this move, that the government were asserting not only political but financial pressure on Bangladesh with them being a poor country. Hence why Javid will not attempt the same stunt with the Canadian dual national. Not only do i think his move was illegal it was also obscene with the underlying tones of his thoughts towards another nation. Whether that has anything to do with the fact he comes from parents of Pakistani descent is also something else for debate...
https://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/2018/04/26/pakistan-cannot-say-sorry-bangladesh
Last edited:
You know it’s not illegal to do what he’s done right? I’m not sure if you’re making assumptions or you’ve misunderstood the information.
All you need to revoke the person’s nationality is reasonable grounds to believe they could acquire citizenship in another nation. They don’t have to have dual passports.
Javid hasn’t done anything illegal.
It's illegal (under international law) as he should have known that her birth was not registered in Bangladesh with the High Commission. He cannot just make an assumption, it would have taken a simple check. Also Javid has overlooked the fact that the baby is legally British as Begum's citizenship was not removed until after the birth. As i said at the time, this is going to come back and bite him in the arse big style. Also dual citizenship lapses after the age of 21, so the government may not wish to delay this case as much has some think, considering the girl is 19.
Last edited:
Her birth doesn’t need to be registered, all the govt need is reasonable grounds to suggest she could obtain nationality from another country. There doesn’t have to be anything other than that.
There are reasonable grounds, regardless of what Bangladesh say she could legitimately apply for citizenship there and that’s all our govt needed to make that call, like they do when they make this same call with other terror suspects.
He’s also said the baby is British and would be eligible to come here.
That's incorrect Tel. She has never applied for citizenship, and she has never even visited Bangladesh. The right to apply for a dual national of Bangladesh lapses at the age of 21, and considering she is now 19, she had no intention of doing so. Javid based his stance on Bangladeshi law of bloodline, but he overlooked that for it to be bloodline, the birth still had to be registered with the Bangladesh High Commission, it was not. You have your opinion and i have mine, I believe Javid will lose this case.
Where do we draw the line, this will open up a massive Pandora's box by going this route. Already we have Jack Lett's as an example of a dual national.
Interesting example here from the UK Parliament site;
I thank the Home Secretary for his reply. On the legal grounds to remove citizenship because it would be
“conducive to the public good”,
can he set out the criteria he must use to make such judgements on the public good?
As the Home Secretary knows, the law prevents him from making someone who is British by birth stateless. In November, the Home Secretary lost a case before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on a similar decision made by his predecessor to strip two terror suspects of their British citizenship. Then, as now, the Home Office contended that the two had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent, but the court ruled that that was not the case and that stripping them of British citizenship was therefore unlawful. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what changes have been made to the decision-making process since that case to give him confidence that he is acting lawfully now?
In removing British citizenship, the Home Secretary is essentially saying, “She’s somebody else’s problem”, but in the words of the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne:
“Which other country is supposed to look after her on our behalf?… Can you imagine the fury here if we took a French or Italian citizen who joined Islamic State?”
Surely a British citizen, born in Britain, is a British responsibility. The Home Secretary mentioned national security in his answer. Can he explain what evidence he used to conclude that this 19-year-old mother and her new-born baby would be a threat to national security? Will he confirm that the evidence required to prosecute Ms Begum for supporting terrorism is readily available from the media? Will he explain why he is so unwilling to bring her to justice?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House what he expects to happen to Ms Begum’s new-born baby boy? This child is an innocent British citizen, and we have a clear responsibility to ensure his wellbeing. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to uphold that important responsibility?
I thank the Home Secretary for his reply. On the legal grounds to remove citizenship because it would be
“conducive to the public good”,
can he set out the criteria he must use to make such judgements on the public good?
As the Home Secretary knows, the law prevents him from making someone who is British by birth stateless. In November, the Home Secretary lost a case before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on a similar decision made by his predecessor to strip two terror suspects of their British citizenship. Then, as now, the Home Office contended that the two had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent, but the court ruled that that was not the case and that stripping them of British citizenship was therefore unlawful. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what changes have been made to the decision-making process since that case to give him confidence that he is acting lawfully now?
In removing British citizenship, the Home Secretary is essentially saying, “She’s somebody else’s problem”, but in the words of the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne:
“Which other country is supposed to look after her on our behalf?… Can you imagine the fury here if we took a French or Italian citizen who joined Islamic State?”
Surely a British citizen, born in Britain, is a British responsibility. The Home Secretary mentioned national security in his answer. Can he explain what evidence he used to conclude that this 19-year-old mother and her new-born baby would be a threat to national security? Will he confirm that the evidence required to prosecute Ms Begum for supporting terrorism is readily available from the media? Will he explain why he is so unwilling to bring her to justice?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House what he expects to happen to Ms Begum’s new-born baby boy? This child is an innocent British citizen, and we have a clear responsibility to ensure his wellbeing. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to uphold that important responsibility?
The dopey bint stripped herself of British citizenship when she ****ed off to Syria. As it's stands, she's Syrian.
All the bleating about human rights, seems to ignore human obligations.
All the bleating about human rights, seems to ignore human obligations.
It's nowt to do with arguing human rights, it's about what is legal, i've clearly given the aspects of what I'm arguing around law that i am debating in this thread.
Which are;
She has never applied for Bangladesh citizenship
She has never visited Bangladesh
Her birth was not registered with the Bangladesh High Commission
Her right to even apply for Bangladesh Citizenship would have lapsed at the age of 21 (current age 19)
The British government have already lost similar cases involving Bangladesh citizenship
The baby is British as Javid did not make his decision until after it's birth
She has not be known to commit any criminal offences other than to join a terrorist organisation through grooming online at the age of 15...
Therefore what criteria was used that will also be used against other dual national in regards to 'conducive to the public good'
She was Born British...she is British responsibility
Why is Javid so scared to bring her to British justice?
Last edited:
Wow. Does this mean I’m Spanish if I do a week in Ibiza this summer?
This really is one of your worst attempted wums ever.
Shall we wait and see what the courts decide, before pretending to be Rumpole of the Bailey?
- Status