There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who
is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will
not want to renew her passport.  Without wanting to deal with the
question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would
like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have
an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport.
As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British
Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice
a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to
enter the country. I would have thought that even an expired passport
would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of entry changed?
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So
has the law on the right of entry changed?
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.
On 2024-12-29, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current
passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So
has the law on the right of entry changed?
If she were somehow to manage to present herself at immigration then
I imagine she could get in with her expired passport, notwithstanding
any issues that might arise due to her being the wife of a murderous dictator. But the problem is presumably that she cannot get an airline
to agree to convey her here without a valid passport or visa.
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who
is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will
not want to renew her passport.  Without wanting to deal with the
question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would
like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have
an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport.
As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British
Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice
a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to
enter the country.
I would have thought that even an expired passport
would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of entry changed?
On 29/12/2024 23:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-29, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:I believe airlines' reluctance to fly passengers without a valid
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport.  Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current
passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So
has the law on the right of entry changed?
If she were somehow to manage to present herself at immigration then
I imagine she could get in with her expired passport, notwithstanding
any issues that might arise due to her being the wife of a murderous
dictator. But the problem is presumably that she cannot get an airline
to agree to convey her here without a valid passport or visa.
passport or visa is because they are afraid of the costs they bear
should the passenger be refused entry.
I suppose if she were to pay them enough, or charter a private jet, this
is point becomes moot.
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.
On 29/12/2024 18:54, Clive Page wrote:"Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as
well perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of
Syria, who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to
the UK as her British passport has expired. It may well be that our >>Government will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to
deal with the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or
not, I would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a
current passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law
saying that a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only
that it was in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity
and therefore one's right to enter the country.
I managed to travel to Paris on an out-of-date passport. Only on the
return journey was the out-of-dateness noticed, and I was still waved
through passport control.
I would have thought that even an expired passport would be pretty
good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of entry >>changed?
On 30/12/2024 5:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.
Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum
A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt, and while part of me
feels she got her just dessert I would still stand by my assertion that citizenship should not be revocable by the government.
Because while we're sliding down this slippery slope, maybe we can pick
out some of our pet hates, like those awful terrorists, pedophiles and opposition politicians, and ship them off to the Falklands to save the
NHS and taxpayer paying for those leeches to society?
Next up, of course, those pesky contrarian journalists and human rights lawyers.
On 30/12/2024 5:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.
Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum
A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt
On 29/12/2024 07:58 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-29, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria,
who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as
her British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government
will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with
the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I
would like to question the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to
have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she
would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current
passport. As far as I know there did not used to be a law saying that
a British Citizen needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was
in practice a good piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore
one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an
expired passport would be pretty good evidence of one's identity. So
has the law on the right of entry changed?
If she were somehow to manage to present herself at immigration then I
imagine she could get in with her expired passport, notwithstanding any
issues that might arise due to her being the wife of a murderous
dictator. But the problem is presumably that she cannot get an airline
to agree to convey her here without a valid passport or visa.
Would Aeroflot not take her at last as far as Paris, from where she
could travel by surface transport to Calais?
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be
revoked.
On 30/12/2024 10:55, J Newman wrote:
On 30/12/2024 5:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political
reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has
blood on her hands.
Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum
A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt
Please be kind enough to explain how a child can betray the UK.
My post was referring to Shamina Begum, as raised by Tim Jackson.
On 30/12/2024 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
<snip>
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian
nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be
revoked.
There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.
On 30/12/2024 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
<snip>
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian
nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be
revoked.
There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.
On 30/12/2024 18:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:55, J Newman wrote:
On 30/12/2024 5:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political >>>>> reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has >>>>> blood on her hands.
Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum
A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt
Please be kind enough to explain how a child can betray the UK.
She wasn't a child except in a legalistic sense. (Under 21s used to be classed as "infants".) She was old enough to marry and have children.
On 30/12/2024 18:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/12/2024 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
<snip>
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has Syrian nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship could be revoked.
There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.
I've explained elsewhere why she does. What I'm not clear about, however, is why she has *British* citizenship or how she obtained it.
Just being born here does not confer that on her.
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question
the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far
as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen
needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good
piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be
pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of
entry changed?
On 31/12/2024 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/12/2024 18:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/12/2024 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
<snip>
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has
Syrian nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship
could be revoked.
There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.
I've explained elsewhere why she does. What I'm not clear about,
however, is why she has *British* citizenship or how she obtained it.
Just being born here does not confer that on her.
But she had a British passport, so presumably had some evidence of her British citizenship to get that. Maybe having a certificate saying
that you were born here is enough for that, even if it isn't really sufficient?
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 30/12/2024 18:26, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/12/2024 10:55, J Newman wrote:
On 30/12/2024 5:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:19:47 +0400, J Newman wrote...
Despicable as her husband is, it is a dangerous precedent if the
government can exclude or deprive people of citizenship for political >>>>>> reasons. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that shows she has >>>>>> blood on her hands.
Shamima Begum is a precedent?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum
A deplorable woman who betrayed the UK no doubt
Please be kind enough to explain how a child can betray the UK.
She wasn't a child except in a legalistic sense. (Under 21s used to be
classed as "infants".) She was old enough to marry and have children.
She couldn’t get married here at 15, among many other places.
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019: https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would be stuck in the UK?
On 2024-12-31, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/12/2024 18:28, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/12/2024 09:05, Norman Wells wrote:
<snip>
I assume that, besides her British citizenship, she is also has
Syrian nationality, so the British part of her current citizenship
could be revoked.
There is no evidence she has Syrian nationality.
I've explained elsewhere why she does. What I'm not clear about,
however, is why she has *British* citizenship or how she obtained it.
Just being born here does not confer that on her.
But she had a British passport, so presumably had some evidence of her
British citizenship to get that. Maybe having a certificate saying
that you were born here is enough for that, even if it isn't really
sufficient?
A birth certificate showing you were born in the UK before
1st January 1983 (which she was) does pretty much prove that you
(or at least the person whose certificate it is) is a UK citizen,
because before that date, being born here did confer citizenship.
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is >> seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not >> want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of
whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question
the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an >> absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far >> as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen
needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good
piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the >> country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be
pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of
entry changed?
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019: https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
On 31/12/2024 18:21, Theo wrote:
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
sanctions, the
The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019:
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/
Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she
would be stuck in the UK?
No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport to
go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK passport
to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.
On 31/12/2024 18:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:21, Theo wrote:
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
sanctions, the The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019:
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/
Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?
No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.
And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left
only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law
to let her in.
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would >> be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial >> resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well
perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is >>> seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not >>> want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of >>> whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question >>> the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have
renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an >>> absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far >>> as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen
needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good
piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the >>> country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be
pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of
entry changed?
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the >> The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019:
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would >> be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial >> resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
On 01/01/2025 02:13 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:21, Theo wrote:
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
sanctions, the The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019:
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/
SYR0022/ Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?
No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.
And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice
but to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be
left only with her British one and we will be obliged under
international law to let her in.
Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?
On 1 Jan 2025 at 15:10:42 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 02:13 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:21, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?
No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.
And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left >>> only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law >>> to let her in.
Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?
I think we should always admit our citizens.
On 1 Jan 2025 at 13:02:53 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
There is a news item in today's Sunday Times (and other papers as well >>>> perhaps) saying that Asma Al Assad, wife of the ex-leader of Syria, who is >>>> seriously ill in Moscow will not be able to return to the UK as her
British passport has expired. It may well be that our Government will not >>>> want to renew her passport. Without wanting to deal with the question of >>>> whether the UK should welcome her return or not, I would like to question >>>> the law on the matter.
By all accounts she is British by birth and she does not appear to have >>>> renounced her citizenship, so I would have expected that she would have an >>>> absolute right to enter the UK with or without a current passport. As far >>>> as I know there did not used to be a law saying that a British Citizen >>>> needed a passport to enter the UK, only that it was in practice a good >>>> piece of evidence of one's identity and therefore one's right to enter the >>>> country. I would have thought that even an expired passport would be
pretty good evidence of one's identity. So has the law on the right of >>>> entry changed?
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian sanctions, the >>> The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019:
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a travel ban but
she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial >>> resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
Might be difficult if she is dying of leukaemia.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:21, Theo wrote:
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
sanctions, the The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019:
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/ >>>>> Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would be stuck in the UK?
No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport
to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.
And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it
doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but
to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left >>> only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law >>> to let her in.
Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial >>> resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
Where the financial sanction is an asset freeze, it is generally prohibited to:
deal with the frozen funds or economic resources, belonging to or owned, held or controlled by a designated person or to a person who is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the designated person
make funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to, or for the benefit of, a designated person or to a person who is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the designated person
engage in actions that, directly or indirectly, circumvent the financial sanctions prohibitions
The funds and economic resources are to be frozen immediately by the person in possession or control of them. An asset freeze does not involve a change in ownership of the frozen funds or economic resources, nor are they confiscated or transferred to OFSI for safekeeping." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-sanctions-general-guidance/uk-financial-sanctions-general-guidance#what-financial-sanctions-restrict
ie sanctions would prevent her being paid, even in cash.
Theo
On 01/01/2025 07:04 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:21, Theo wrote:
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
sanctions, the The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019:
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/ >>>>>> Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a
travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case >>>>>> she would be stuck in the UK?
No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport >>>>> to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.
And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it >>>> doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but >>>> to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first
and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left >>>> only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law >>>> to let her in.
Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes >> under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all convinced that this would be one of those).
On 2 Jan 2025 at 11:06:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 07:04 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 31/12/2024 18:21, Theo wrote:
I would have said she's an individual named under the Syrian
sanctions, the The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019: >>>>>>> https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations/SYR0022/ >>>>>>> Individual
However it seems that the other Syrian individuals listed have a >>>>>>> travel ban but she does not. Her UK passport expired 22 Sept 2020.
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case >>>>>>> she would be stuck in the UK?
No. She has Syrian nationality too, and presumably a Syrian passport >>>>>> to go with it on which she could travel. She wouldn't need a UK
passport to leave the UK. In fact, her leaving would probably be
encouraged and welcomed by the UK government.
And, if the UK government won't renew her passport, which indicates it >>>>> doesn't really want her here, I think it may be left with no choice but >>>>> to revoke the British part of her dual citizenship, as it did with
Shamima Begum. The consequence if the Syrian government gets in first >>>>> and revokes the Syrian part of her citizenship, is that she will be left >>>>> only with her British one and we will be obliged under international law >>>>> to let her in.
Would that be such a bad thing? Do we have any knowledge that she has
committed any crimes, let alone atrocities?
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes >>> under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.
On 2 Jan 2025 at 11:06:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 07:04 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes >>> under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at >war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with >any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.
On 2 Jan 2025 12:54:37 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Jan 2025 at 11:06:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 07:04 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes >>>> under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at >> war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent expulsion.
Mark
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to
financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.
On 02/01/2025 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to
financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.
Surely any bank account that the benefit was paid into would then be frozen???
Catch 22
Jeff
On 02/01/2025 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case
she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to
financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.
Surely any bank account that the benefit was paid into would then be frozen???
Catch 22
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.
A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to have.
On 02/01/2025 08:21 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she wouldShe'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic. >>>>>
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.
A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like >> housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to
have.
How does that apply to a British citizen?
On 02/01/2025 08:21 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she wouldShe'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic. >>>>
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.
A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to have.
How does that apply to a British citizen?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/01/2025 08:21 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the expired >>>>>>> passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which case she wouldShe'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK problematic. >>>>>>
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money:
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does
not require the applicant to have money.
A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant
money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover things like >>> housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named individual, to >>> have.
How does that apply to a British citizen?
She is named (including British passport number) in the UK sanctions legislation that enacts a freeze of her assets and prevents anyone giving
her economic resources. She doesn't get out of that by being a British citizen.
On 03/01/2025 08:36 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/01/2025 08:21 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 05:15 pm, Theo wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2024 06:21 pm, Theo wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that she could return to the UK on the
expired
passport but the UK could refuse her a new passport, in which
case she would
be stuck in the UK? Due to the asset freeze she has no access >>>>>>>> to financial
resources in the UK, which would make staying in the UK
problematic.
She'd be able to claim Universal Credit.
Or look for a job.
Both of those would be somewhat difficult with no access to money: >>>>>>
"3.1 Asset freezes
3.1.1 What they do
A claim for Universal Credit (or any other means-tested benefit) does >>>>> not require the applicant to have money.
A successful benefit claim involves the government giving the applicant >>>> money (or 'economic resources' 'indirectly', which might cover
things like
housing benefit). Which is not allowed under sanctions.
No point claiming a thing the law forbids you, as a named
individual, to
have.
How does that apply to a British citizen?
She is named (including British passport number) in the UK sanctions
legislation that enacts a freeze of her assets and prevents anyone giving
her economic resources. She doesn't get out of that by being a British
citizen.
I don't accept that that means she would be allowed to starve within the
UK.
Do you?
On 2 Jan 2025 12:54:37 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Jan 2025 at 11:06:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 07:04 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes >>>> under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at >>war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with >>any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent expulsion.
On 2025-01-02, Mark Goodge wrote:
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was >> acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring >> citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified >> by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of >> their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Look at the nasty treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW II: most
of them were *not* loyal to Japan --- one of the significant causes of >emigration from Japan was dissatisfaction with the militaristic
government.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:21:06 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship.
If that's possible. At one time it wasn't possible to renounce your
British citizenship - as William Joyce discovered.
On 02/01/2025 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 2 Jan 2025 12:54:37 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Jan 2025 at 11:06:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 07:04 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was >> acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring >> citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified >> by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of >> their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
Mark
The Torah, on which Judeo-Christian civilisation is built upon, says regarding foreigners:
Leviticus 24:22 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and
the native-born. I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 12:49 The same law will apply to both the native and the
foreigner who resides among you.
In short, any kind of double standards is absolutely forbidden. A
naturalised citizen should be equal in all regards to one born in the UK.
And even more so - a foreigner visiting or passing through should have
the same rights as a citizen.
While this is true in some respects even now (for example a foreigner
can call the emergency services and expect an equal response than if a citizen did), I believe it should be the same even in terms of residency
and working rights.
I suspect many will disagree with me but that's my view.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed
crimes under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we
are at war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have
to deal with any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual
citizenship.
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British
citizenship was acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal
behaviour after acquiring citizenship is sufficiently egregious to
warrant the withdrawal of citizenship as part of the judicially
imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if
justified by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that >> country (eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc)
irrespective of their British citizenship. That would not, though,
extend to permanent expulsion.
The Torah, on which Judeo-Christian civilisation is built upon, says regarding foreigners:
Leviticus 24:22 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and
the native-born. I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 12:49 The same law will apply to both the native and the
foreigner who resides among you.
In short, any kind of double standards is absolutely forbidden. A
naturalised citizen should be equal in all regards to one born in the UK.
And even more so - a foreigner visiting or passing through should have
the same rights as a citizen.
While this is true in some respects even now (for example a foreigner
can call the emergency services and expect an equal response than if a citizen did), I believe it should be the same even in terms of residency
and working rights.
I suspect many will disagree with me but that's my view.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way) >>should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship, then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.
On 7 Jan 2025 at 14:07:03 GMT, "J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Avowedly Christian, Jewish and Islamic governments notably fail to
honour that, both historically and currently. I believe the Koran specifically disagrees with it in some respects, but aims to treat
minorities more favourably in at least some respects.
On 2025-01-07, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way) >>>should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a
serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that
mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at
a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship,
then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the
choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and,
if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.
None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to this country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is nothing
to stop another country giving you another citizenship without your
consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you renouncing it
even if you do know about it.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:50:36 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-07, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way) >>>>should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by >>>>birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>>>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a
serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that
mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at
a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship,
then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the
choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and,
if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.
None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to this
country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is nothing
to stop another country giving you another citizenship without your
consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you renouncing it
even if you do know about it.
There are a number of accidental US citizens who only find out when they
get a tax demand. Ask Boris Johnson.
On 2025-01-08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:50:36 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-07, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that >>>>>way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by >>>>>birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>>>>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been
a serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct
that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK
at a time when we are at war with their country of alternate
citizenship, then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to
make the choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the
fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have
consequences.
None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to
this country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is
nothing to stop another country giving you another citizenship without
your consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you
renouncing it even if you do know about it.
There are a number of accidental US citizens who only find out when
they get a tax demand. Ask Boris Johnson.
It could be worse --- some countries send demands for military service.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-02, Mark Goodge wrote:
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain >>> circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified >>> by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country >>> (eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way) >>should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship, then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.
Look at the nasty treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW II: most
of them were *not* loyal to Japan --- one of the significant causes of >>emigration from Japan was dissatisfaction with the militaristic
government.
The fact that "somebody else did it badly" isn't a reason for us not having the ability to do it. Dictatorships have police, courts and prisons, but that's not a reason why we shouldn't have them. What matters is not having the powers, but how we use them.
Mark
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 71:54:49 |
| Calls: | 9,819 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,678 |