Following the amusing SCOTUS hearing on whether the Federal judge was
correct to issue a nationwide block on Trumps EO redefining the 14th amendment, an interesting scenario was highlighted whereby a baby could
be born in the US and (thanks to the EO) not be a citizen. However
because it's parents may not be able to claim their citizenship where
they fled if they are refugees, then the baby is effectively stateless.
(There was an additional layer of complexity around the suggestion that
if there were not a nationwide ban, then you could have a federal court
in one state rule differently to another state and thus drag in the equal protection clauses of the constitution. Which I may post to the misc
group :) )
This bought to mind the Shemima Begum case, and more widely the question
of whether such a situation could arise in the UK ? And if so, how would
it be resolved ?
Easiest way: The UK removes itself soonest from any international treaty which purports to restrict the rights of Parliament to legislate on
issues of UK citizenship, right of entry and right of residence.
On Sat, 17 May 2025 14:34:41 +0100, JNugent wrote:
Easiest way: The UK removes itself soonest from any international treaty
which purports to restrict the rights of Parliament to legislate on
issues of UK citizenship, right of entry and right of residence.
That wouldn't answer what you do with children born in the UK that are
not UK citizens and who no other country in the world accepts as their citizen...
That wouldn't answer what you do with children born in the UK that are
not UK citizens and who no other country in the world accepts as their
citizen...
...except by recognising that it is a matter for the UK legislature and >no-one else.
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in the UK without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
That wouldn't answer what you do with children born in the UK that are
not UK citizens and who no other country in the world accepts as their
citizen...
...except by recognising that it is a matter for the UK legislature and
no-one else.
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, and was incorporated into the International Bill of Human Rights implmented in the International Covenantsociety and the State.
on Civil and Political Rights which went into force in 1976. Article 24 of the ICCPR says:
Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family,
2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name.
3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.
Needless to say the UK voted in favor of the former and ratified the latter.
Hence this would require reneging on long standing treaty obligations and withdrawing
from the United Nations. And we thought Brexit was an own goal.
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in the
UK without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most countries do accord citizenship according to the citizenship of one
or both parents.
On 17/05/2025 11:56, Jethro_uk wrote:governments-on-the-web/overseas-territories-governments-on-social-media
Following the amusing SCOTUS hearing on whether the Federal judge was
correct to issue a nationwide block on Trumps EO redefining the 14th
amendment, an interesting scenario was highlighted whereby a baby could
be born in the US and (thanks to the EO) not be a citizen. However
because it's parents may not be able to claim their citizenship where
they fled if they are refugees, then the baby is effectively stateless.
(There was an additional layer of complexity around the suggestion that
if there were not a nationwide ban, then you could have a federal court
in one state rule differently to another state and thus drag in the
equal protection clauses of the constitution. Which I may post to the
misc group :) )
This bought to mind the Shemima Begum case, and more widely the
question of whether such a situation could arise in the UK ? And if so,
how would it be resolved ?
ITYM Shamima Begum. In her case, her UK citizenship was revoked so the circumstances do not map onto that of a child born today in the UK [^1]
but who does not qualify for citizenship elsewhere and is therefore
stateless at birth.
In the circumstances you outline (a child is born in the UK [^1] but
does not qualify for citizenship anywhere in the world, (including the
UK), then the child would be eligible to apply for UK citizenship per Schedule 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 [^3].
The web page for such application is here: https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-stateless/print and details the criteria, cost and process.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] or British Overseas Territory [^2]
[^2]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-territories-
[^3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/schedule/2
On Sun, 18 May 2025 19:20:24 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in the
UK without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most countries do accord citizenship according to the citizenship of one
or both parents.
That is immaterial to the question posed. Which is still unanswered.
On 19 May 2025 at 12:20:04 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/05/2025 11:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 19:20:24 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another >>>>> countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in the >>>>> UK without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in >>>>> Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most countries do accord citizenship according to the citizenship of one >>>> or both parents.
That is immaterial to the question posed. Which is still unanswered.
I don't really see how your scenario would arise, especially since your
proffered example fails. You can't be born stateless, and it's a matter
of international conventions that you can't be rendered stateless by the
country of your nationality.
You're presupposing that there is some over-arching international body to decide these questions, perhaps some very special chappie on the Internet who knows everything. In real life it is quite possible for country A to say the child is a British citizen and Britain to say the child is a citizen of country A. In which case the child is effectively stateless. The country the child is in can either put up with the situation and grudgingly grant the child leave to remain (although stateless), or perhpaps put the child in some extra-territorial prison. Either way the child is still stateless, whichever state some expert on the Internet says *should* take responsibility. There is really no international body competent to adjudicate.
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most countries do accord citizenship according to the citizenship of one
or both parents.
On 19/05/2025 11:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 19:20:24 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another >>>> countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in the >>>> UK without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most countries do accord citizenship according to the citizenship of one >>> or both parents.
That is immaterial to the question posed. Which is still unanswered.
I don't really see how your scenario would arise, especially since your proffered example fails. You can't be born stateless, and it's a matter
of international conventions that you can't be rendered stateless by the country of your nationality.
On 19/05/2025 12:36, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:16:24 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/05/2025 11:56, Jethro_uk wrote:governments-on-the-web/overseas-territories-governments-on-social-media
Following the amusing SCOTUS hearing on whether the Federal judge was
correct to issue a nationwide block on Trumps EO redefining the 14th
amendment, an interesting scenario was highlighted whereby a baby could >>>> be born in the US and (thanks to the EO) not be a citizen. However
because it's parents may not be able to claim their citizenship where
they fled if they are refugees, then the baby is effectively stateless. >>>>
(There was an additional layer of complexity around the suggestion that >>>> if there were not a nationwide ban, then you could have a federal court >>>> in one state rule differently to another state and thus drag in the
equal protection clauses of the constitution. Which I may post to the
misc group :) )
This bought to mind the Shemima Begum case, and more widely the
question of whether such a situation could arise in the UK ? And if so, >>>> how would it be resolved ?
ITYM Shamima Begum. In her case, her UK citizenship was revoked so the
circumstances do not map onto that of a child born today in the UK [^1]
but who does not qualify for citizenship elsewhere and is therefore
stateless at birth.
In the circumstances you outline (a child is born in the UK [^1] but
does not qualify for citizenship anywhere in the world, (including the
UK), then the child would be eligible to apply for UK citizenship per
Schedule 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 [^3].
The web page for such application is here:
https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-stateless/print and details the
criteria, cost and process.
[^1] or British Overseas Territory [^2]
[^2]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-territories-
[^3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/schedule/2
So the TL;DR is that even if UK law specifically prevents someone from
acquiring UK citizenship, if *genuinely* no other citizenship is
available then there is a way through the legislation that effectively
negates it ?
UK legislation, more specifically Schedule 2 of the British Nationality
Act 1981 (BNA 1981) makes provision for a child born in the UK that
would otherwise be stateless to acquire British Citizenship.
I do not believe I can summarise the relevant legislation more clearly
than this and fail to see what issues you are having in understanding
it, particularly as I provided both a link to the relevant legislation
and a link to the process involved to enable you to familiarise yourself
with both.
Perhaps you could clarify precisely what has escaped your understanding?
In order to save an intervening poster the effort, I would highlight that
this is still the UK being forced in to a position by the combined laws
of the rest of the world, and if they did not exist, then UK law - to
deny citizenship - would be supreme. Which may be the theory, but I was
more curious about the practice.
The BNA 1981 is UK law enacted by the UK parliament. If you have an
issue with certain provisions made therein, I recommend speaking to your local MP in the first instance. I would estimate your chances of
changing the legislation to be lower than the square root of zero.
On 19/05/2025 11:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't really see how your scenario would arise, especially since your proffered example fails. You can't be born stateless,
On 19/05/2025 12:36, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:16:24 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:
On 17/05/2025 11:56, Jethro_uk wrote:governments-on-the-web/overseas-territories-governments-on-social-media
Following the amusing SCOTUS hearing on whether the Federal judge was
correct to issue a nationwide block on Trumps EO redefining the 14th
amendment, an interesting scenario was highlighted whereby a baby
could be born in the US and (thanks to the EO) not be a citizen.
However because it's parents may not be able to claim their
citizenship where they fled if they are refugees, then the baby is
effectively stateless.
(There was an additional layer of complexity around the suggestion
that if there were not a nationwide ban, then you could have a
federal court in one state rule differently to another state and thus
drag in the equal protection clauses of the constitution. Which I may
post to the misc group :) )
This bought to mind the Shemima Begum case, and more widely the
question of whether such a situation could arise in the UK ? And if
so,
how would it be resolved ?
ITYM Shamima Begum. In her case, her UK citizenship was revoked so
the circumstances do not map onto that of a child born today in the UK
[^1]
but who does not qualify for citizenship elsewhere and is therefore
stateless at birth.
In the circumstances you outline (a child is born in the UK [^1] but
does not qualify for citizenship anywhere in the world, (including the
UK), then the child would be eligible to apply for UK citizenship per
Schedule 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 [^3].
The web page for such application is here:
https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-stateless/print and details the
criteria, cost and process.
[^1] or British Overseas Territory [^2]
[^2]
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-territories-
[^3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/schedule/2
So the TL;DR is that even if UK law specifically prevents someone from
acquiring UK citizenship, if *genuinely* no other citizenship is
available then there is a way through the legislation that effectively
negates it ?
UK legislation, more specifically Schedule 2 of the British Nationality
Act 1981 (BNA 1981) makes provision for a child born in the UK that
would otherwise be stateless to acquire British Citizenship.
I do not believe I can summarise the relevant legislation more clearly
than this and fail to see what issues you are having in understanding
it, particularly as I provided both a link to the relevant legislation
and a link to the process involved to enable you to familiarise yourself
with both.
Perhaps you could clarify precisely what has escaped your understanding?
In order to save an intervening poster the effort, I would highlight
that this is still the UK being forced in to a position by the combined
laws of the rest of the world, and if they did not exist, then UK law -
to deny citizenship - would be supreme. Which may be the theory, but I
was more curious about the practice.
The BNA 1981 is UK law enacted by the UK parliament. If you have an
issue with certain provisions made therein, I recommend speaking to your local MP in the first instance. I would estimate your chances of
changing the legislation to be lower than the square root of zero.
The position in the US - if the Executive Order were to be upheld -
would of course be their sovereign problem. Given their current
trajectory, I can see infants being put onto planes to go back to
wherever the ICE machine thinks they "came from" and damn the
torpedoes.
This moves the question onto how carriers could react. I can see an EO
that requires them to take whoever ICE puts on the manifest.
I have no interest in attempting to predict what EOs the Trum
administration may pass in the future nor the possible consequences
thereof. YMMV.
Perhaps you could clarify precisely what has escaped your
understanding?
I think what has perhaps escaped *your* understanding here is that
Jethro was agreeing with you, albeit doing so via a rather confusing
jumble of negatives.
I don't think he's saying he wants to change it, I think he's observing
that the reason for the existence of Schedule 2 of the British
Nationality Act 1981 is to give effect to Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another >>>> countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in
the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
I respectfully disagree in the strongest possible terms that statement
one above has been taken as factual by any court that has considered the matter, including most recently by the Court of Appeal in [2024] EWCA
Civ 152. [^1]
I recommend reading "Ground 3" thereof (paragraph [100]), whilst paying particular attention to paragraph [102] which also obliterates the
second statement you've made above.
If you need further detail, I recommend going back to the original SIAC judgments in which the matters were covered in more detail.
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:20:04 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 11:54, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't really see how your scenario would arise, especially since your
proffered example fails. You can't be born stateless,
My entire post was predicated on the mechanisms by which such a situation could occur in the US, if the EO arount the 14th amendment were allowed
to stand.
I then suggested the idea that such a scenario could arise in the UK.
Where a baby could be born that has no right to UK citizenship, but also
no right to the citizenship of either parent - maybe because in fleeing
they country of origin, it was removed from them. (Whether in accordance
with international law or not.).
So I am suggesting that is is eminently possible to be born stateless.
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in
the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another >>>> countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in
the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
I respectfully disagree in the strongest possible terms that statement
one above has been taken as factual by any court that has considered the matter, including most recently by the Court of Appeal in [2024] EWCA
Civ 152. [^1]
I recommend reading "Ground 3" thereof (paragraph [100]), whilst paying particular attention to paragraph [102] which also obliterates the
second statement you've made above.
If you need further detail, I recommend going back to the original SIAC judgments in which the matters were covered in more detail.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD- CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and another >>>> countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in
the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
We've been round this racecourse before.
For the definitive answer, which is what I said it was, you need to read Section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you have
UK citizenship.
On 19/05/2025 13:45, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and
another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in
the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in >>>>> Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
I respectfully disagree in the strongest possible terms that statement
one above has been taken as factual by any court that has considered
the matter, including most recently by the Court of Appeal in [2024]
EWCA Civ 152. [^1]
I recommend reading "Ground 3" thereof (paragraph [100]), whilst
paying particular attention to paragraph [102] which also obliterates
the second statement you've made above.
If you need further detail, I recommend going back to the original
SIAC judgments in which the matters were covered in more detail.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-
CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
Quite, 102 is very clear in saying that she was unable to enter
Bangladesh, so stateless in all but name.
On 19/05/2025 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and
another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in
the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in >>>>> Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
We've been round this racecourse before.
For the definitive answer, which is what I said it was, you need to
read Section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
And Section 14 (1) of the Act prohibits dual nationality. So if she had
a UK passport
her Bangladeshi nationality would have been automatically
relinquished.
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you
have UK citizenship.
Bangladesh says Begum has been erroneously identified as a holder of
dual citizenship.
On 19/05/2025 18:47, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 13:45, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and
another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in >>>>>> the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in >>>>>> Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
I respectfully disagree in the strongest possible terms that
statement one above has been taken as factual by any court that has
considered the matter, including most recently by the Court of Appeal
in [2024] EWCA Civ 152. [^1]
I recommend reading "Ground 3" thereof (paragraph [100]), whilst
paying particular attention to paragraph [102] which also obliterates
the second statement you've made above.
If you need further detail, I recommend going back to the original
SIAC judgments in which the matters were covered in more detail.
[^1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-
SSHD- CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
Quite, 102 is very clear in saying that she was unable to enter
Bangladesh, so stateless in all but name.
Your claim was not that she is "stateless in all but name", but rather
that "She's missed the deadline for an application."
[102] says, in part: "Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had
Bangladeshi citizenship by descent".
As her British citizenship was revoked prior to this date, her
Bangladeshi citizenship did not lapse on her 21st birthday.
Note also the opening statement of [100]: "Section 40(4) prohibited the Secretary of State from making a deprivation order if he was satisfied
that the order would make a person stateless."
And the following sentence: "It was common ground before us, as it was
before the Supreme Court in Pham v Secretary of State for Home
Department [2015] UKSC 19, [2015] 1 WLR 1591, that the term "stateless"
in s 40(4) means de jure statelessness. This is a binary question, as
Pham itself illustrates."
[101] Mr Squires KC, accepting that the appellant was not de jure
stateless at the time of the decision, nonetheless argued that in the
present case the Secretary of State failed to take account of the fact
that the deprivation order would render Ms Begum de facto stateless.
In short, the test for statelessness in the relevant legislation applies
to de jure statelessness which is a binary test.
Ms Begum's KC accepted that she "was not de jure stateless at the time
of the decision" [to deprive her of her British citizenship].
He attempted to argue that she was de facto stateless but this was not
the test before either the Secretary of State or the courts.
I repeat: It is a finding of fact in SIAC and confirmed the Court of
Appeal, a fact accepted by Ms Begum's legal team no less, that she "was
not de jure stateless at the time of the decision" to revoke her British citizenship.
On 19/05/2025 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 13:45, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and
another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in >>>>>> the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in >>>>>> Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
I respectfully disagree in the strongest possible terms that
statement one above has been taken as factual by any court that has
considered the matter, including most recently by the Court of Appeal
in [2024] EWCA Civ 152. [^1]
I recommend reading "Ground 3" thereof (paragraph [100]), whilst
paying particular attention to paragraph [102] which also obliterates
the second statement you've made above.
If you need further detail, I recommend going back to the original
SIAC judgments in which the matters were covered in more detail.
Even better, you can get the answer directly from the Bangladesh
Citizenship Act itself.
A judgment from the Court of Appeal is binding on lower courts.
Whereas interpretation of a foreign piece of legislation requires expert evidence to be adduced, as happened in Ms Begum's original case before
SIAC.
It is not a case of simply saying to the Court, "The Bangladesh
Citizenship Act says..." and that is all there is to deciding the matter.
A judgment is therefore of greater evidential value and your claim that
a piece of foreign legislation is "even better" is absolute nonsense.
In short: You are mistaken.
On 19/05/2025 16:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:20:04 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't really see how your scenario would arise, especially since
your proffered example fails. You can't be born stateless,
My entire post was predicated on the mechanisms by which such a
situation could occur in the US, if the EO arount the 14th amendment
were allowed to stand.
I then suggested the idea that such a scenario could arise in the UK.
Where a baby could be born that has no right to UK citizenship, but
also no right to the citizenship of either parent - maybe because in
fleeing they country of origin, it was removed from them. (Whether in
accordance with international law or not.).
I am not aware of any country removing citizenship from one of its own
citizens if it would leave that person stateless.
This is not about a baby being left stateless by having it citizenship withdrawn but by being born stateless, which is an entirely different scenario.
That's a fundamental term of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, Article 4 of which says:
"A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person, not born
in the territory of a Contracting State, who would otherwise be
stateless, if the nationality of one of his parents at the time of the
person's birth was that of that State."
And if the nationality of the parents was NOT that of that State?
So I am suggesting that is is eminently possible to be born stateless.
Then you'll doubtless be able to give some examples we can discuss.
The 1982 Myanmar Citizenship Law denied citizenship to anyone that was
not from one of the 135 national ethnic groups the law recognised. This meant that, for example, all the Rohingya citizens of Myanmar had their citizenship revoked and were immediately rendered stateless.
Any children subsequently born to Rohingya parents in Myanmar are
similarly stateless as full citizenship can only be acquired if both
parents are citizens and are from one of the recognised national ethnic groups.
Myanmar law has no protections against the deprivation of nationality
and statelessness nor does it allow for the possibility of
naturalisation through marriage or long-term residence.
In short, all children with one or more Rohingya parents in Myanmar are
born stateless.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 08:00:28 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/05/2025 16:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:20:04 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't really see how your scenario would arise, especially since
your proffered example fails. You can't be born stateless,
My entire post was predicated on the mechanisms by which such a
situation could occur in the US, if the EO arount the 14th amendment
were allowed to stand.
I then suggested the idea that such a scenario could arise in the UK.
Where a baby could be born that has no right to UK citizenship, but
also no right to the citizenship of either parent - maybe because in
fleeing they country of origin, it was removed from them. (Whether in
accordance with international law or not.).
I am not aware of any country removing citizenship from one of its own
citizens if it would leave that person stateless.
This is not about a baby being left stateless by having it citizenship
withdrawn but by being born stateless, which is an entirely different
scenario.
That's a fundamental term of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, Article 4 of which says:
"A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person, not born
in the territory of a Contracting State, who would otherwise be
stateless, if the nationality of one of his parents at the time of the
person's birth was that of that State."
And if the nationality of the parents was NOT that of that State?
So I am suggesting that is is eminently possible to be born stateless.
Then you'll doubtless be able to give some examples we can discuss.
The 1982 Myanmar Citizenship Law denied citizenship to anyone that was
not from one of the 135 national ethnic groups the law recognised. This
meant that, for example, all the Rohingya citizens of Myanmar had their
citizenship revoked and were immediately rendered stateless.
Any children subsequently born to Rohingya parents in Myanmar are
similarly stateless as full citizenship can only be acquired if both
parents are citizens and are from one of the recognised national ethnic
groups.
Myanmar law has no protections against the deprivation of nationality
and statelessness nor does it allow for the possibility of
naturalisation through marriage or long-term residence.
In short, all children with one or more Rohingya parents in Myanmar are
born stateless.
This was what I was positing. However as you have fully responded, there
is a provision for such cases in UK law if they were to arise.
I believe there are parallels between computer programming and
legislative drafting. In that both require the designers to follow all possible paths through the process to ensure stability.
On 19/05/2025 18:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and
another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present in >>>>>> the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in >>>>>> Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
We've been round this racecourse before.
For the definitive answer, which is what I said it was, you need to
read Section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
And Section 14 (1) of the Act prohibits dual nationality. So if she
had a UK passport
... after the age of 21 (Section 14(1A)) which she didn't because her UK citizenship was revoked before she reached that age ...
her Bangladeshi nationality would have been automatically relinquished.
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you
have UK citizenship.
Bangladesh says Begum has been erroneously identified as a holder of
dual citizenship.
Indeed. She now has only Bangladeshi citizenship.
On 2025-05-20, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 08:00:28 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/05/2025 16:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:20:04 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't really see how your scenario would arise, especially since >>>>>> your proffered example fails. You can't be born stateless,
My entire post was predicated on the mechanisms by which such a
situation could occur in the US, if the EO arount the 14th amendment >>>>> were allowed to stand.
I then suggested the idea that such a scenario could arise in the
UK. Where a baby could be born that has no right to UK citizenship,
but also no right to the citizenship of either parent - maybe
because in fleeing they country of origin, it was removed from them. >>>>> (Whether in accordance with international law or not.).
I am not aware of any country removing citizenship from one of its
own citizens if it would leave that person stateless.
This is not about a baby being left stateless by having it citizenship
withdrawn but by being born stateless, which is an entirely different
scenario.
That's a fundamental term of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness, Article 4 of which says:
"A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person, not
born in the territory of a Contracting State, who would otherwise be
stateless, if the nationality of one of his parents at the time of
the person's birth was that of that State."
And if the nationality of the parents was NOT that of that State?
So I am suggesting that is is eminently possible to be born
stateless.
Then you'll doubtless be able to give some examples we can discuss.
The 1982 Myanmar Citizenship Law denied citizenship to anyone that was
not from one of the 135 national ethnic groups the law recognised.
This meant that, for example, all the Rohingya citizens of Myanmar had
their citizenship revoked and were immediately rendered stateless.
Any children subsequently born to Rohingya parents in Myanmar are
similarly stateless as full citizenship can only be acquired if both
parents are citizens and are from one of the recognised national
ethnic groups.
Myanmar law has no protections against the deprivation of nationality
and statelessness nor does it allow for the possibility of
naturalisation through marriage or long-term residence.
In short, all children with one or more Rohingya parents in Myanmar
are born stateless.
This was what I was positing. However as you have fully responded,
there is a provision for such cases in UK law if they were to arise.
I believe there are parallels between computer programming and
legislative drafting. In that both require the designers to follow all
possible paths through the process to ensure stability.
The difference is that in law there is a human judge who will try and
find a way to solve situations which were not anticipated and provided
for, as opposed to a computer system which will either proceed with
doing something absolutely ridiculous or disastrous, or fall flat on its face.
On 19/05/2025 21:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 18:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and
another countries laws have managed to leave someone physically
present in the UK without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up >>>>>>> in Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application 2) Bangladesh said
they would refuse any application.
We've been round this racecourse before.
For the definitive answer, which is what I said it was, you need to
read Section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
And Section 14 (1) of the Act prohibits dual nationality. So if she
had a UK passport
... after the age of 21 (Section 14(1A)) which she didn't because her
UK citizenship was revoked before she reached that age ...
her Bangladeshi nationality would have been automatically
relinquished.
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you
have UK citizenship.
Bangladesh says Begum has been erroneously identified as a holder of
dual citizenship.
Indeed. She now has only Bangladeshi citizenship.
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality when
she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it reimposed
on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things happen.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:26:00 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-20, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 08:00:28 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:
On 19/05/2025 16:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:20:04 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
I don't really see how your scenario would arise, especially since >>>>>>> your proffered example fails. You can't be born stateless,
My entire post was predicated on the mechanisms by which such a
situation could occur in the US, if the EO arount the 14th amendment >>>>>> were allowed to stand.
I then suggested the idea that such a scenario could arise in the
UK. Where a baby could be born that has no right to UK citizenship, >>>>>> but also no right to the citizenship of either parent - maybe
because in fleeing they country of origin, it was removed from them. >>>>>> (Whether in accordance with international law or not.).
I am not aware of any country removing citizenship from one of its
own citizens if it would leave that person stateless.
This is not about a baby being left stateless by having it citizenship >>>> withdrawn but by being born stateless, which is an entirely different
scenario.
That's a fundamental term of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction >>>>> of Statelessness, Article 4 of which says:
"A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person, not
born in the territory of a Contracting State, who would otherwise be >>>>> stateless, if the nationality of one of his parents at the time of
the person's birth was that of that State."
And if the nationality of the parents was NOT that of that State?
So I am suggesting that is is eminently possible to be born
stateless.
Then you'll doubtless be able to give some examples we can discuss.
The 1982 Myanmar Citizenship Law denied citizenship to anyone that was >>>> not from one of the 135 national ethnic groups the law recognised.
This meant that, for example, all the Rohingya citizens of Myanmar had >>>> their citizenship revoked and were immediately rendered stateless.
Any children subsequently born to Rohingya parents in Myanmar are
similarly stateless as full citizenship can only be acquired if both
parents are citizens and are from one of the recognised national
ethnic groups.
Myanmar law has no protections against the deprivation of nationality
and statelessness nor does it allow for the possibility of
naturalisation through marriage or long-term residence.
In short, all children with one or more Rohingya parents in Myanmar
are born stateless.
This was what I was positing. However as you have fully responded,
there is a provision for such cases in UK law if they were to arise.
I believe there are parallels between computer programming and
legislative drafting. In that both require the designers to follow all
possible paths through the process to ensure stability.
The difference is that in law there is a human judge who will try and
find a way to solve situations which were not anticipated and provided
for, as opposed to a computer system which will either proceed with
doing something absolutely ridiculous or disastrous, or fall flat on its
face.
Er, it's exactly the same in computing :) Sometimes you need human intervention there too.
On 19/05/2025 21:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 18:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this
newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and
another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present
in the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop up in >>>>>>> Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
We've been round this racecourse before.
For the definitive answer, which is what I said it was, you need to
read Section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
And Section 14 (1) of the Act prohibits dual nationality. So if she
had a UK passport
... after the age of 21 (Section 14(1A)) which she didn't because her
UK citizenship was revoked before she reached that age ...
her Bangladeshi nationality would have been automatically relinquished.
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you
have UK citizenship.
Bangladesh says Begum has been erroneously identified as a holder of
dual citizenship.
Indeed. She now has only Bangladeshi citizenship.
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality when
she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it reimposed
on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things happen.
On 20/05/2025 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 18:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: >>>>>>>>
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this >>>>>>>> newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and >>>>>>>> another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present >>>>>>>> in the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop >>>>>>>> up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit.
Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under
Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi
citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
We've been round this racecourse before.
For the definitive answer, which is what I said it was, you need to
read Section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
And Section 14 (1) of the Act prohibits dual nationality. So if she
had a UK passport
... after the age of 21 (Section 14(1A)) which she didn't because her
UK citizenship was revoked before she reached that age ...
her Bangladeshi nationality would have been automatically relinquished. >>>>
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you
have UK citizenship.
Bangladesh says Begum has been erroneously identified as a holder of
dual citizenship.
Indeed. She now has only Bangladeshi citizenship.
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality
when she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it reimposed
on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things happen.
You can't. She never lost it because she was under 21 when we revoked
her British nationality, and it was all she had left.
If only Bangladeshi ministers who pronounce on such issues would read
their own Acts, they'd know.
On 20/05/2025 14:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 18:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/05/2025 12:51, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/05/2025 19:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/05/2025 18:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:55:20 +0000, John Levine wrote:Except that she undoubtedly has Bangaladeshi citizenship under >>>>>>>> Bangladeshi law by descent from Bangladeshi parents.
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:I don't think the PP was making a legal point.
[quoted text muted]
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: >>>>>>>>>
However, I am still curious as to how the *UK* (subject of this >>>>>>>>> newsgroup) would deal with a situation where it's own laws, and >>>>>>>>> another
countries laws have managed to leave someone physically present >>>>>>>>> in the UK
without a citizenship ?
This AIUI would be the position were Shemima Begum somehow pop >>>>>>>>> up in
Carstairs (for example) without being apprehended in transit. >>>>>>>>
Most legal argument is that while she could obtain Bangladeshi >>>>>>> citizenship:
1) She's missed the deadline for an application
2) Bangladesh said they would refuse any application.
We've been round this racecourse before.
For the definitive answer, which is what I said it was, you need
to read Section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.
And Section 14 (1) of the Act prohibits dual nationality. So if she
had a UK passport
... after the age of 21 (Section 14(1A)) which she didn't because
her UK citizenship was revoked before she reached that age ...
her Bangladeshi nationality would have been automatically
relinquished.
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you >>>>>> have UK citizenship.
Bangladesh says Begum has been erroneously identified as a holder
of dual citizenship.
Indeed. She now has only Bangladeshi citizenship.
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality
when she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it
reimposed on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things
happen.
You can't. She never lost it because she was under 21 when we revoked
her British nationality, and it was all she had left.
If only Bangladeshi ministers who pronounce on such issues would read
their own Acts, they'd know.
You mean the Bangladeshi Act that says she could never have dual
nationality? That one? Who da thought?
On 20/05/2025 14:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:21, Norman Wells wrote:
Indeed. She now has only Bangladeshi citizenship.
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality
when she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it
reimposed on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things
happen.
You can't. She never lost it because she was under 21 when we revoked
her British nationality, and it was all she had left.
If only Bangladeshi ministers who pronounce on such issues would read
their own Acts, they'd know.
Or have them explained to them by someone else, eh? :-)
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
On 20/05/2025 21:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality
when she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it
reimposed on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things
happen.
You can't. She never lost it because she was under 21 when we
revoked her British nationality, and it was all she had left.
If only Bangladeshi ministers who pronounce on such issues would read
their own Acts, they'd know.
You mean the Bangladeshi Act that says she could never have dual
nationality? That one? Who da thought?
Can you cite the precise words upon which you are relying for that
statement please and a link to the relevant act?
On 21/05/2025 09:25, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 21:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality
when she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it
reimposed on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things
happen.
You can't. She never lost it because she was under 21 when we
revoked her British nationality, and it was all she had left.
If only Bangladeshi ministers who pronounce on such issues would
read their own Acts, they'd know.
You mean the Bangladeshi Act that says she could never have dual
nationality? That one? Who da thought?
Can you cite the precise words upon which you are relying for that
statement please and a link to the relevant act?
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7481.html
HTH
On 22/05/2025 11:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/05/2025 09:25, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 21:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality >>>>>> when she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it
reimposed on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things
happen.
You can't. She never lost it because she was under 21 when we
revoked her British nationality, and it was all she had left.
If only Bangladeshi ministers who pronounce on such issues would
read their own Acts, they'd know.
You mean the Bangladeshi Act that says she could never have dual
nationality? That one? Who da thought?
Can you cite the precise words upon which you are relying for that
statement please and a link to the relevant act?
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7481.html
HTH
Do note that section 1A only applies to males. :-)
On 22/05/2025 11:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/05/2025 09:25, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 21:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality when she
obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it reimposed on
Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things happen.
You can't. She never lost it because she was under 21 when we revoked her British
nationality, and it was all she had left.
If only Bangladeshi ministers who pronounce on such issues would read their own
Acts, they'd know.
You mean the Bangladeshi Act that says she could never have dual nationality? That
one? Who da thought?
Can you cite the precise words upon which you are relying for that statement please
and a link to the relevant act?
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7481.html
HTH
Do note that section 1A only applies to males. :-)
On 22/05/2025 12:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:100mvgd$3du92$2@dont-email.me...
On 22/05/2025 11:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/05/2025 09:25, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 21:24, Fredxx wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/05/2025 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality when she
obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it reimposed on
Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things happen.
You can't. She never lost it because she was under 21 when we revoked her British
nationality, and it was all she had left.
If only Bangladeshi ministers who pronounce on such issues would read their own
Acts, they'd know.
You mean the Bangladeshi Act that says she could never have dual nationality? That
one? Who da thought?
Can you cite the precise words upon which you are relying for that statement please
and a link to the relevant act?
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7481.html
HTH
Do note that section 1A only applies to males. :-)
"He" in documents apparently applies to both men and women.
There is a proper name for this.
This is an old chestnut
Actually, it isn't "an old chestnut" (FSVO "old"), but I'm heading into a meeting and
so haven't the time for a detailed lesson in changes to drafting procedure through
history beyond saying that historically, legislation specifically included both
masculine and feminine but was reduced to just masculine in the 1800s (c1850 off the
top of my head) to cut down on the length of drafts with masculine being used to import
both masculine and feminine from then on with that being codified in legislation in the
Interpretation Act 1978, section 6. (In the intervening period it remained a legal
fiction.)
On 21/05/2025 09:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I saw your parallel post in MLM but do not know the answer to your
question as it applies to left-pondians.
But for us right-pondians, I hope you consider it good to know that our legislators have the situation you posited covered.
On 22/05/2025 11:49, Fredxx wrote:
On 22/05/2025 11:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/05/2025 09:25, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 21:24, Fredxx wrote:
You mean the Bangladeshi Act that says she could never have dual
nationality? That one? Who da thought?
Can you cite the precise words upon which you are relying for that
statement please and a link to the relevant act?
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-242/section-7481.html
HTH
Do note that section 1A only applies to males. :-)
Is this a convoluted way of saying that you now accept that your claim
does not accord with Bangladeshi law and you withdraw the claim and give
an undertaking not to repeat it in the future? :-)
If so, that is a welcome development.
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 13:02:23 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:21, Norman Wells wrote:
... after the age of 21 (Section 14(1A)) which she didn't because her
UK citizenship was revoked before she reached that age ...
her Bangladeshi nationality would have been automatically
relinquished.
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you >>>>>> have UK citizenship.
Bangladesh says Begum has been erroneously identified as a holder of >>>>> dual citizenship.
Indeed. She now has only Bangladeshi citizenship.
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality when
she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it reimposed
on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things happen.
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to Bangladeshi
immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
alt.politics.immigration is that-a-way <----- but we're concerned with
legal matters here and this particular issue has been resolved to
finality in the Supreme Court.
Regards
S.P.
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 13:02:23 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 19/05/2025 21:21, Norman Wells wrote:
... after the age of 21 (Section 14(1A)) which she didn't because her >>>>> UK citizenship was revoked before she reached that age ...
her Bangladeshi nationality would have been automatically
relinquished.
No application is necessary. She has Bangladeshi citizenship
automatically through the nationality of her parents. Just as you >>>>>>> have UK citizenship.
Bangladesh says Begum has been erroneously identified as a holder of >>>>>> dual citizenship.
Indeed. She now has only Bangladeshi citizenship.
Maybe, but they seem to think she lost her Bangladeshi nationality when >>>> she obtained British nationality.
I am surprised you can loose a nationality, and then have it reimposed >>>> on Bangladesh by a UK court. But hey, mysterious things happen.
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to Bangladeshi >>> immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds
Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
alt.politics.immigration is that-a-way <----- but we're concerned with
legal matters here and this particular issue has been resolved to
finality in the Supreme Court.
Regards
S.P.
On Thu, 22 May 2025 12:18:16 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:
On 21/05/2025 09:35, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I saw your parallel post in MLM but do not know the answer to your
question as it applies to left-pondians.
But for us right-pondians, I hope you consider it good to know that our
legislators have the situation you posited covered.
I am suitably impressed. I wonder if there is any mathematical-like
process for looking at proposed laws to catch all possible eventualities,
or if the nature of legislation is such that there's always a defined
outcome - sensible or not ? I have visions of walls filled with
flowcharts ...
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to Bangladeshi >>> immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds
Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
On 2025-05-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to Bangladeshi >>>> immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds >>> Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
Not to mention it can't prevent said government from sending her
straight to jail if she were to turn up at their border. They might
find it difficult deporting her afterwards though if they ever let
her out.
On 2025-05-22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to Bangladeshi >>>>> immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds >>>> Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
Not to mention it can't prevent said government from sending her
straight to jail if she were to turn up at their border. They might
find it difficult deporting her afterwards though if they ever let
her out.
Or they might not let her in at all. I'm not sure where she would be
put in that case.
On 2025-05-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to Bangladeshi >>>>>> immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds >>>>> Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
Not to mention it can't prevent said government from sending her
straight to jail if she were to turn up at their border. They might
find it difficult deporting her afterwards though if they ever let
her out.
Or they might not let her in at all. I'm not sure where she would be
put in that case.
If someone is already in your country, even if they're at the border
post, you may not have the option of simply pushing them back out again
- your neighbours may also have an opinion on the matter.
(c.f. "small boats" arriving in England...)
On 22 May 2025 at 18:18:14 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her >>>>> a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to
Bangladeshi immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms
Begum holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding. >>>>>
maybe-stateless person.
Not to mention it can't prevent said government from sending her
straight to jail if she were to turn up at their border. They might
find it difficult deporting her afterwards though if they ever let
her out.
Or they might not let her in at all. I'm not sure where she would be
put in that case.
If someone is already in your country, even if they're at the border
post, you may not have the option of simply pushing them back out again
- your neighbours may also have an opinion on the matter.
(c.f. "small boats" arriving in England...)
Which is why no airline would take such a passenger; and if they did
could be compelled to take her back to the point of origin - at which
point she might end up permanently in the care and custody of the
airline.
Walking to Bangladesh from Syria without crossing another border would
also be quite an achievement.
On 2025-05-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to Bangladeshi >>>> immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds >>> Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
Not to mention it can't prevent said government from sending her
straight to jail if she were to turn up at their border.
They might find it difficult deporting her afterwards though if they ever let her out.
On Thu, 22 May 2025 18:49:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That's because they are obliged under international conventions to allow
their own citizens in, not render them stateless, and to deal with them
according to law rather than whim.
Which writes all very well.
So what happens when another country throws a person at them and they say "They aren't a citizen" ?
That's because they are obliged under international conventions to allow their own citizens in, not render them stateless, and to deal with them according to law rather than whim.
On 23/05/2025 10:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 18:49:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That's because they are obliged under international conventions to allow >>> their own citizens in, not render them stateless, and to deal with them
according to law rather than whim.
Which writes all very well.
So what happens when another country throws a person at them and they say
"They aren't a citizen" ?
I think Norman would say that a person such as Shamima Begum, confined
for what might be the rest of her life in a refugee camp, should find a
good lawyer in Bangladesh who can represent her for no fee, commence proceedings for judicial review in the appropriate court in Bangladesh
and seek an order that she be granted citizenship.
If successful that
would not provide her with a passport, which would probably require
payment of another fee, or travel facilities to Bangladesh which would probably require very large sums of money.
Our government has inflicted what amounts to mediaeval banishment on a
person whose crimes were committed when she was still a child. It shows contempt towards the many Asians in Britain who have dual citizenship.
They are second class citizens here.
On 22/05/2025 18:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/05/2025 17:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-22, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
Not to mention it can't prevent said government from sending her
straight to jail if she were to turn up at their border.
Do you think Bangladesh does not have due process, and can just send
anyone it likes to jail with no trial? If so, why?
I commend to you, as I have done previously, the empirical study
undertaken by the Department of Law at the University of Dhaka [^1] in collaboration with the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST)
[^2] and The Death Penalty Project [^3] entitled "Living Under Sentence
of Death: A study on the profiles, experiences and perspectives of death
row prisoners in Bangladesh", a copy of which is available from the web-
site of the latter organisation [^4].
Should you ever wish to expand your knowledge by reading the study
rather than parroting statements that have been debunked numerous times previously, you will learn that most respondents to the study expressed significant dissatisfaction with the quality of the legal investigation
in Bangladesh, with at least a third of the families claiming that the inmates were tortured in custody to extract confessions. Interviews
also indicate that torture during investigation had been normalised or accepted to some extent.
Another worrying finding was the enormous delay in proceedings largely responsible for the prolonged detention of inmates and their protracted isolation on death row. In almost half of the cases, the process from
the filing of the cases to their disposal by Bangladesh's High Court
Division (HCD) took more than 10 years with the families of more than
half of the prisoners reporting they were subjected to harassment by
local people, forcing four of the families in the study to relocate.
Should Ms Begum decide to subject herself to the Bangladesh authorities,
it is likely she will be tortured to force her to confess to crimes she
may not have committed whereupon it will likely take around a decade to dispose of the case in court at which time, if convicted, she will be in isolation on death row awaiting execution.
They might find it difficult deporting her afterwards though if they
ever let
her out.
That's because they are obliged under international conventions to
allow their own citizens in, not render them stateless, and to deal
with them according to law rather than whim.
You really need to read the study rather than making baseless claims
that contradict the evidence contained therein.
On 22/05/2025 16:11, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2025 03:04 PM, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
Surely that is a separate matter?Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum
holds
Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
She can enter Bangladesh and live there.
Before she can enter Bangladesh, she needs to leave the camp in Syria in which she is detained. A pre-condition of being granted permission to
leave the camp is providing evidence that the country to which one is travelling has agreed to permit one to enter.
Unless and until Ms Begum has that evidence, she cannot leave the camp.
To get the evidence required to prove she can enter Bangladesh, she
needs to leave the camp to attend a formal face-to-face interview at a Bangladesh Consulate or High Commission. But she cannot leave the camp until...
And therein lies the problem.
She could declare herself a refugee and obtain travel papers from the
UNHCR but they do not grant one automatic right of entry to any country
and entry to a specific country would need to be negotiated with that
country in advance. For obvious reasons, countries are not queuing up declaring their desire to admit Ms Begum should she want to go there.
Additionally, should she by some miracle manage to travel to Bangladesh,
it is almost certain that she will be immediately arrested upon arrival, charged with various terrorism offences, detained, tortured to obtain a confession, convicted on the basis of that confession and then executed having spent around 10 years in isolation in a Bangladeshi gaol.
In case that prospect wasn't appealing enough to Ms Begum, it is also
highly likely that her close and extended family in Bangladesh (e.g. her father has a home there which he stays regularly and at length) will be harassed and will likely need to leave the country, or at the very least move, to escape the harassment.
Other than those minor factual inaccuracies, you make a compelling
argument.
And perhaps Bangladesh has a civil service which is not under direct
political control, meaning that it is up to a member of staff,
following the law and any guidance as might apply to *all* passport
applications, to consider any request for a passport? With, if
Bangladeshi law is based on English/British law, a right of appeal
(whatever the terminology) against a decision to refuse a passport to
a citizen.
Bangladesh can refuse to issue a passport for the same reason the UK has revoked her citizenship, namely, if "in the opinion of the Government"
it "will not be in the public interest" to do so. (Subsection (2)(c) of section (6) of The Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973 (President's Order).
See also section (5) subsection (2) and section 6(1)(f) and (h) for additional reasons of refusal they may decide apply to Ms Begum and make
her ineligible for a passport.)
But before she can apply for a passport, she needs a National ID card.
And to get one of those, she needs to attend a formal face-to-face
interview at a Bangladesh Consulate or High Commission. And to do this
she needs permission to leave the detention camp...
On 23/05/2025 11:02, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 10:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 18:49:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That's because they are obliged under international conventions to
allow
their own citizens in, not render them stateless, and to deal with them >>>> according to law rather than whim.
Which writes all very well.
So what happens when another country throws a person at them and they
say
"They aren't a citizen" ?
I think Norman would say that a person such as Shamima Begum, confined
for what might be the rest of her life in a refugee camp, should find
a good lawyer in Bangladesh who can represent her for no fee, commence
proceedings for judicial review in the appropriate court in Bangladesh
and seek an order that she be granted citizenship. If successful that
would not provide her with a passport, which would probably require
payment of another fee, or travel facilities to Bangladesh which would
probably require very large sums of money.
You're not far wrong. Norman has previously claimed that she should get
a Bangladesh passport. When it was pointed out to him that (a) this was
not possible due to the requirements for obtaining the passport and (b) Bangladesh law permits it to refuse to issue passports to citizens like
Ms Begum he persisted in stating that she should still get a passport.
Although ISTR he did use the phrase "No passport, no party" at some
point in previous discussions, but it is difficult to keep track of his precise stance, changing so frequently as it does to support whatever
point he is trying to make at the time.
As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, and previously, to obtain a passport, Ms Begum needs a Bangladesh National ID Card. As she wasn't resident in Bangladesh at the time it would ordinarily have been issued automatically, she will need to apply for it.
As a previous (or current) holder of a UK passport and having never held
a Bangladesh passport, the only means by which she can apply for an ID
Card is at a formal face-to-face interview at a Bangladesh Consulate or
High Commission.
There is neither a Consulate nor High Commission in the Syrian camp nor,
to the best of my knowledge, are there plans to open one there.
Furthermore, there is no prospect of her being granted permission to
leave the camp to attend an interview elsewhere.
As this is a legal newsgroup, it should be noted that in the most recent judgments concerning Ms Begum in both the Court of Appeal and Supreme
Court it was a finding of fact that whilst not being de jure stateless
she is most certainly de facto stateless.
In short, whilst she may well legally hold Bangladeshi citizenship, she
has no realistic prospect of formalising it and therefore no way of
availing of the protections of provisions that it may afford her.
Talk of obtaining a passport and / or travelling to Bangladesh has been accepted by the courts as all but impossible.
But still certain posters keep insisting that this is what she must do, without being aware of the facts of the matter. Ditto for what is
likely to happen to her should she make it to Bangladesh by some
miracle. She will not be making her way to her father's house there,
but will, in all likelihood, be arrested immediately, detained, tortured
to obtain a confession, convicted on the basis of the confession, having first spent around 10 years in isolation, whereupon she is likely to
receive the death penalty. All the while, her family in Bangladesh is likely to be subjected to harassment.
Personally, I cannot understand why she isn't moving heaven and earth to
get to Bangladesh by any and all means(!).
On 22/05/2025 15:04, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2025-05-21, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/05/2025 14:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
Until that is tested by presenting the person in question to
Bangladeshi
immigration officers it's all supposition.
Not quite. It is a finding of fact in the UK courts that Ms Begum holds >>> Bangladeshi citizenship.
Given that this is a legal newsgroup, that is a definitive finding.
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
These rabbit holes have been traversed in depth several times previously
so I ask that you excuse me when I say I am not interested in repeating discussions that have been done to death on numerous previous occasions.
Please be aware that follow-up questions to this post are likely to be
met with nothing more than a Message-ID referring back to the previous discussions.
That said to summarise as many points as possible from previous
discussions:
When deciding the preliminary issues of Ms Begums appeal against the
Home Secretary's decision to revoke her citizenship, it took 32 of the judgments 55 pages for SIAC to examine whether the decision left Ms
Begum stateless. Subsequent judgments have clarified that Ms Begum was
not de jure stateless but was de facto stateless and that the test
relates to de jure statelessness only. (The Appeal Court used the
phrase "technically stateless" later on rather than "de jure stateless".
I'd have preferred "legally stateless" but they said what they said.)
Should Ms Begum decide to apply for a Bangladeshi passport, the first
step she must follow is sufficiently difficult enough to be all but impossible for all practical purposes, (hence her being de facto
stateless).
As she:
(1) Is a current or former holder of a UK passport;
(2) Has not previously held a Bangladeshi passport; and
(3) Does not hold a current and valid Bangladeshi ID card
Ms Begum is required to schedule and attend a face-to-face interview at
a Bangladesh Consulate or High Commission as the first step in the
process of applying for a passport which is 'somewhat challenging' given
her detention in the Syrian camp in which she finds herself.
Should she manage that almost impossible task, per The Bangladesh
Passport Order, 1973 (President's Order) specifically section 5
subsection (2) thereof, section 6(1) (f), and (h) and the catch-all in subsection (2)(c) of section (6) Bangladesh can refuse to issue her with
a passport even if they acknowledge she is a citizen.
(Actually, the relevant legislation is worded much stronger than that.
It does not just say that they "can" or "might" refuse to issue a
passport but that, (taking section (6) subsection (2)(c) as an example),
they *shall* refuse to issue a passport if "in the opinion of the
Government" it "will not be in the public interest" to do so. (Emphasis mine.))
Similarly, Ms Begum cannot avail of Dutch nationality through marriage because of the impossibility of formalising that arrangement to the satisfaction of the Dutch government who have quite strict rules and a
very flexible definition of "marriage of convenience" and that's without
even considering the requirement for both spouses to have been resident
in the country for a minimum of three years before applying for
nationality. [^1]
Ms Begum is almost certainly a refugee according to the UNHCR's
definition meaning she could obtain travel papers from the UNHCR but to
do so she would need to demonstrate that a country had agreed to admit
her with those papers as a condition to being able to leave the camp.
On Thu, 22 May 2025 18:49:11 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That's because they are obliged under international conventions to allow
their own citizens in, not render them stateless, and to deal with them
according to law rather than whim.
Which writes all very well.
So what happens when another country throws a person at them and they say "They aren't a citizen" ?
As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, and previously, to obtain a passport, Ms Begum needs a Bangladesh National ID Card. As she wasn't resident in Bangladesh at the time it would ordinarily have been issued automatically, she will need to apply for it.
I think that can wait until she gets there. It's not a requirement for
entry for any of its citizens, nor can it be.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 14:53:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, and previously, to obtain a
passport, Ms Begum needs a Bangladesh National ID Card. As she wasn't
resident in Bangladesh at the time it would ordinarily have been issued
automatically, she will need to apply for it.
I think that can wait until she gets there. It's not a requirement for
entry for any of its citizens, nor can it be.
Ms Begum, at the Bangladeshi airport or border post: "Please let me in,
I'm a Bangladeshi citizen."
Bangladeshi immigration officer: "Prove it. Do you have a Bangladeshi passport?"
Begum: "No, you won't give me one."
Officer: "Do you have a national ID card?"
Begum: "No, you won't give me one".
Officer: "So you've no proof you're a Bangladeshi citizen. Entry denied.
Go back to Syria."
Begum: "But that nice Mr Wells said I could sort it all out after I
arrived in Bangladesh."
Officer: "Who is Mr Wells? Entry denied. Get off back to Syria."
Of course, this is fiction.
In real life, with no passport, no ID card,
and no agreement from Bangladesh to accept her, she wouldn't even make
it out of the Syrian refugee camp.
On 23/05/2025 20:46, Tim Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 14:53:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...
As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, and previously, to obtain a
passport, Ms Begum needs a Bangladesh National ID Card. As she wasn't >>> resident in Bangladesh at the time it would ordinarily have been issued >>> automatically, she will need to apply for it.
I think that can wait until she gets there. It's not a requirement for
entry for any of its citizens, nor can it be.
Ms Begum, at the Bangladeshi airport or border post: "Please let me in,
I'm a Bangladeshi citizen."
Bangladeshi immigration officer: "Prove it. Do you have a Bangladeshi passport?"
Begum: "No, you won't give me one."
You don't know that.
Officer: "Do you have a national ID card?"
Begum: "No, you won't give me one".
You don't know that either.
On 23/05/2025 10:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
That's because they are obliged under international conventions to allow >>> their own citizens in, not render them stateless, and to deal with them
according to law rather than whim.
Which writes all very well.
So what happens when another country throws a person at them and they say
"They aren't a citizen" ?
I think Norman would say that a person such as Shamima Begum, confined
for what might be the rest of her life in a refugee camp, should find a
good lawyer in Bangladesh who can represent her for no fee, commence proceedings for judicial review in the appropriate court in Bangladesh
and seek an order that she be granted citizenship.
If successful that
would not provide her with a passport, which would probably require
payment of another fee, or travel facilities to Bangladesh which would probably require very large sums of money.
Our government has inflicted what amounts to mediaeval banishment on a
person whose crimes were committed when she was still a child. It shows contempt towards the many Asians in Britain who have dual citizenship.
They are second class citizens here. The decisions were motivated by
Sajid Javid's wish to promote himself as a career politician and try for
the Tory leadership, in which he was the weakest candidate. So far, no subsequent Home Secretary has felt it worthwhile to clean up his poo,
and the courts have effectively said that only the Home Secretary has
the power to do that.
On 23/05/2025 14:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/05/2025 11:07, Simon Parker wrote:
On 22/05/2025 18:49, Norman Wells wrote:
Do you think Bangladesh does not have due process, and can just send
anyone it likes to jail with no trial? If so, why?
I commend to you, as I have done previously, the empirical study
undertaken by the Department of Law at the University of Dhaka [^1] in
collaboration with the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST)
[^2] and The Death Penalty Project [^3] entitled "Living Under
Sentence of Death: A study on the profiles, experiences and
perspectives of death row prisoners in Bangladesh", a copy of which is
available from the web- site of the latter organisation [^4].
Should you ever wish to expand your knowledge by reading the study
rather than parroting statements that have been debunked numerous
times previously, you will learn that most respondents to the study
expressed significant dissatisfaction with the quality of the legal
investigation in Bangladesh, with at least a third of the families
claiming that the inmates were tortured in custody to extract
confessions. Interviews also indicate that torture during
investigation had been normalised or accepted to some extent.
Another worrying finding was the enormous delay in proceedings largely
responsible for the prolonged detention of inmates and their
protracted isolation on death row. In almost half of the cases, the
process from the filing of the cases to their disposal by Bangladesh's
High Court Division (HCD) took more than 10 years with the families of
more than half of the prisoners reporting they were subjected to
harassment by local people, forcing four of the families in the study
to relocate.
Should Ms Begum decide to subject herself to the Bangladesh
authorities, it is likely she will be tortured to force her to confess
to crimes she may not have committed whereupon it will likely take
around a decade to dispose of the case in court at which time, if
convicted, she will be in isolation on death row awaiting execution.
They might find it difficult deporting her afterwards though if they >>>>> ever let her out.
That's because they are obliged under international conventions to
allow their own citizens in, not render them stateless, and to deal
with them according to law rather than whim.
You really need to read the study rather than making baseless claims
that contradict the evidence contained therein.
I leave such matters up to the government which has far greater
resources than I do. It decides 'unsafe' countries, not me.
Nice attempt at moving the goalposts but sadly (for you), your
ham-fisted attempt to do so was easily spotted and ultimately failed.
The question we were considering, a question you yourself posed was:
"Do you think Bangladesh does not have due process, and can just send
anyone it likes to jail with no trial? If so, why?"
I cited, and quoted from, an empirical study undertaken by the
Department of Law at the University of Dhaka in collaboration with the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and The Death Penalty
Project which found that Bangladesh does not have due process for
capital crimes with most respondents expressing significant
dissatisfaction and at least a third claiming inmates were tortured to extract confessions with the study concluding that torture during investigation had been normalised or accepted to some extent.
Do you have anything, beside unsupported statements expressing how you
wish things are, with which to counter this study which proves beyond
doubt that Bangladesh does not follow due process in the cases of death
row prisoners, the group in which Ms Begum would no doubt find herself
should she ever travel to Bangladesh?
On 23/05/2025 21:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/05/2025 20:46, Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
Officer: "So you've no proof you're a Bangladeshi citizen. Entry denied. >>> Go back to Syria."
Well, she has various superior court judgements in the UK to that effect.
Do you have a cite demonstrating that the SDF running the Al-roj
detention camp in Syria accept such judgments as proof of onward travel?
If so, I'd be most grateful if you could adduce it.
If not, your claim is of no relevance to the situation in which Ms Begum currently finds herself.
She has a father there who can vouch for her,
The same father, Ahmed Ali, who spoke to the Mail on Sunday from his
home in the Sunamganj region of Bangladesh back in February 2019 when he
said he does "not have a problem" with the government's decision to
remove his daughter's British citizenship and condemned her lack of
remorse for joining Isis? That father you mean?
The same father that said she was stuck in a Syrian detention camp
because of her own actions, adding: "I am on the side of the
government." Is that the father you have in mind to vouch for her?
The same father that said, "If she at least admitted she made a mistake
then I would feel sorry for her and other people would feel sorry for
her. But she does not accept her wrong." This is the father you expect
to be vouching for her, is it?
and I dare say without too much difficulty she could produce a copy of
her birth certificate.
Ms Begum is currently detained in the SDF run Al-roj camp in Syria.
Please outline the precise steps you expect her to take to obtain a copy
of her birth certificate "without too much difficulty".
In any normal case, she would be detained only until her obvious bona
fides can be established.
As has been outlined numerous times when we've been down this rabbit
hole previously, Ms Begum's first problem is leaving the camp. Unless
and until you have a method of her achieving this anything else is immaterial.
In real life, with no passport, no ID card,
and no agreement from Bangladesh to accept her, she wouldn't even make
it out of the Syrian refugee camp.
The Bangladeshi authorities are obliged under international
conventions they have signed up to to allow their own citizens in. No
other 'agreement' is necessary.
Ms Begum is not in Bangladesh. What the authorities there are or are
not obliged to do is of no relevance to her current predicament.
On 23/05/2025 13:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/05/2025 11:02, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 10:48, Jethro_uk wrote:
If successful that would not provide her with a passport, which would
probably require payment of another fee, or travel facilities to
Bangladesh which would probably require very large sums of money.
A passport is not actually necessary for travel. It is merely a
document that a country grants as a privilege to one of its nationals
to ease travel to places outside that country.
Please detail your proposal for convincing the SDF to release Ms Begum
from the Al-roj detention camp.
In case you've forgotten, or are not aware, her detention there is
arbitrary and unlawful as well as indefinite meaning you will need to
take these factors into account in your proposal.
Absent such a proposal, your statement that "A passport is not actually necessary for travel." is irrelevant.
If the SDF say that Ms Begum needs a passport, or other suitable travel document(s), before they will permit her to leave the camp, then she
needs a passport or other suitable travel document(s) before she leaves
the camp.
In Message-ID <jioi39F9qg9U1@mid.individual.net> in the thread
"consistency of treatment ????" back in July 2022, a self-proclaimed
erudite poster stated of Ms Begum: "She needs to apply for the documents
she requires to leave the camp." That same poster, in the same message
in the same thread, also said: "She has to have whatever documentation
she needs to be allowed to leave the camp."
Are you going to tell that poster you believe he was mistaken when he
said that or shall I?
As regards the cost, she doesn't seem to have had any problem in
employing an expensive legal team to fight her case through the UK
courts so I don't think raising enough money for a one way trip to
Bangladesh would be much of an obstacle. After all, she's always said
she wants to return to the UK, which would cost about the same as it's
in fact much the same distance from where she is.Thank
Thank you for highlighting so effectively that you speak from a position
of ignorance of the facts concerning Ms Begum's general and specific circumstances.
Ms Begum received legal aid to challenge the decision to revoke her
British citizenship. The financial aid, provided by the Legal Aid
Agency, covered the cost of legal representation and proceedings.
In the name of completeness, her case was pursued by Bimberg Peirce Solicitors as she lacked the resources to pay for legal assistance herself.
To qualify for legal aid she will have been required to meet both a
merits and financial eligibility test.
Do you have any further inaccurate statements to make or are you done now?
On 23/05/2025 14:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/05/2025 11:03, Simon Parker wrote:
On 22/05/2025 15:04, Adam Funk wrote:
That legal finding can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her
a passport, though --- which is what really matters to the
maybe-stateless person.
These rabbit holes have been traversed in depth several times
previously so I ask that you excuse me when I say I am not interested
in repeating discussions that have been done to death on numerous
previous occasions.
Please be aware that follow-up questions to this post are likely to
be met with nothing more than a Message-ID referring back to the
previous discussions.
That said to summarise as many points as possible from previous
discussions:
When deciding the preliminary issues of Ms Begums appeal against the
Home Secretary's decision to revoke her citizenship, it took 32 of
the judgments 55 pages for SIAC to examine whether the decision left
Ms Begum stateless. Subsequent judgments have clarified that Ms
Begum was not de jure stateless but was de facto stateless and that
the test relates to de jure statelessness only. (The Appeal Court
used the phrase "technically stateless" later on rather than "de jure
stateless". I'd have preferred "legally stateless" but they said
what they said.)
Should Ms Begum decide to apply for a Bangladeshi passport, the first
step she must follow is sufficiently difficult enough to be all but
impossible for all practical purposes, (hence her being de facto
stateless).
And why exactly is that our problem?
You have made clear that you do not believe it is your problem. And yet
you keep posting the same inaccurate, mistaken and incorrect information
at each and every opportunity, even doing so by posting a follow-up to a sub-thread to which you had not previously been involved, merely to
repeat that you do not believe it is your problem.
If, as you repeatedly claim, you do not consider it your problem, why do
you feel a compelled to say so much on the subject.
A single post simply stating "Not my problem" would suffice. How many
posts have you made concerning Ms Begum in this thread alone? How many
in the past? You seem to have an awful lot to say about something you
claim isn't your problem.
As she:
(1) Is a current or former holder of a UK passport;
It's certainly not current.
"...current *OR FORMER* holder of a UK passport..."
I've added some emphasis to assist your comprehension of the statement. You're welcome.
What part of the Home Secretary revoking her British citizenship and
its consequences has passed you by?
The revocation of Ms Begum's British citizenship has no bearing on
whether she is a current *OR FORMER* holder of a UK passport.
Again, I've added some emphasis to assist your comprehension of the statement. And, again, you're welcome.
(2) Has not previously held a Bangladeshi passport; and
(3) Does not hold a current and valid Bangladeshi ID card
Ms Begum is required to schedule and attend a face-to-face interview
at a Bangladesh Consulate or High Commission as the first step in the
process of applying for a passport which is 'somewhat challenging'
given her detention in the Syrian camp in which she finds herself.
A passport is not strictly required for travel. It's just a
considerable convenience.
The SDF controlling the Al-roj camp in which Ms Begum is currently
detained disagree with you in the strongest possible terms.
Unfortunately for both you and Ms Begum, they do not accept the validity
of Norman Bulls (TM) meaning you will need a more convincing line of
argument if your statements are to be connected in any way to Ms Begum leaving the detention camp.
Should she manage that almost impossible task, per The Bangladesh
Passport Order, 1973 (President's Order) specifically section 5
subsection (2) thereof, section 6(1) (f), and (h) and the catch-all
in subsection (2)(c) of section (6) Bangladesh can refuse to issue
her with a passport even if they acknowledge she is a citizen.
(Actually, the relevant legislation is worded much stronger than
that. It does not just say that they "can" or "might" refuse to issue
a passport but that, (taking section (6) subsection (2)(c) as an
example), they *shall* refuse to issue a passport if "in the opinion
of the Government" it "will not be in the public interest" to do so.
(Emphasis mine.))
A passport is merely a document to facilitate travel outside the
country of your citizenship. If you can manage to get to knock on its
doors without one, they still have to let you in.
Do you have a teleportation device which Ms Begum can use to travel from
her tent in the Al-roj camp to the an immigration desk at the Bangladesh border? If not, Ms Begum will not be "knock[ing] on its doors without
[a passport]" any time soon.
Similarly, Ms Begum cannot avail of Dutch nationality through
marriage because of the impossibility of formalising that arrangement
to the satisfaction of the Dutch government who have quite strict
rules and a very flexible definition of "marriage of convenience" and
that's without even considering the requirement for both spouses to
have been resident in the country for a minimum of three years before
applying for nationality. [^1]
So, that's alright then! Just because the Dutch don't want her, we
have to?
The statement to which I was responding was that the "legal finding
[that Ms Begum is not stateless by dint of her Bangladeshi citizenship
by descent] can't force the Bangladeshi government to give her a passport".
A statement with which I agree most strongly.
I was also explaining why the Dutch government are unlikely to give Ms
Begum a passport either. (And if you're taking notes, you can add that
Ms Begum's marriage is not recognised by the Dutch authorities as they considered her underage at the time so even if she could satisfy the
other requirements, it is highly likely they still wouldn't grant her citizenship on the basis of marriage.)
Why do you think it therefore becomes our responsibility and not theirs?
I do not believe I have ever made a statement to that effect.
Do you have a Message-ID and quote of the precise words I used please?
Ms Begum is almost certainly a refugee according to the UNHCR's
definition meaning she could obtain travel papers from the UNHCR but
to do so she would need to demonstrate that a country had agreed to
admit her with those papers as a condition to being able to leave the
camp.
Well, Bangladesh has agreed to admit her because they have agreed
under international conventions not to make her stateless. They
therefore have to allow her in, regardless of whether she has any
papers, because it is the country of her sole citizenship.
Again, your ham-fisted attempt to move the goalposts has failed. The subject under discussion, a discussion into which you decided to inject
your 'erudite' thoughts, is, to paraphrase, that the Bangladeshi
government cannot be forced to issue Ms Begum with a passport.
Admittance to Bangladesh is a whole different matter and is not the
subject of this sub-thread.
Do you believe that Bangladesh can be forced, compelled or otherwise pressured into issuing Ms Begum with a passport? A straight yes or no
will suffice.
On 23/05/2025 21:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/05/2025 20:46, Tim Jackson wrote:
[...]
Officer: "So you've no proof you're a Bangladeshi citizen. Entry denied. >>> Go back to Syria."
Well, she has various superior court judgements in the UK to that effect.
Do you have a cite demonstrating that the SDF running the Al-roj
detention camp in Syria accept such judgments as proof of onward travel?
If so, I'd be most grateful if you could adduce it.
If not, your claim is of no relevance to the situation in which Ms Begum currently finds herself.
She has a father there who can vouch for her,
The same father, Ahmed Ali, who spoke to the Mail on Sunday from his
home in the Sunamganj region of Bangladesh back in February 2019 when he
said he does "not have a problem" with the government's decision to
remove his daughter's British citizenship and condemned her lack of
remorse for joining Isis? That father you mean?
The same father that said she was stuck in a Syrian detention camp
because of her own actions, adding: "I am on the side of the
government." Is that the father you have in mind to vouch for her?
The same father that said, "If she at least admitted she made a mistake
then I would feel sorry for her and other people would feel sorry for
her. But she does not accept her wrong." This is the father you expect
to be vouching for her, is it?
and I dare say without too much difficulty she could produce a copy of
her birth certificate.
Ms Begum is currently detained in the SDF run Al-roj camp in Syria.
Please outline the precise steps you expect her to take to obtain a copy
of her birth certificate "without too much difficulty".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:34:08 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,948 |