Removing citizenship

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
For what should Ratcliffe be thankful if Ineos is an important contributor to the U.K.''s competitive edge in the European chemical industry? Shouldn't the society be thankful for Ratcliffe for creating that value and Ineos' contributions to the British economy?
No, because all of that is far more a product of the workers at Ineos than it is of its dividend-collecting shareowners.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
So recently the British government has been busy removing citizenship from unfavoured people (potentially illegally in some cases)
If you're talking about people like Shamima Begum, who had their citizenship stripped for running off to join ISIS, then describing them as "unfavored people" is burying the lede to a degree I have never seen before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
It depends on the individual. At one end there are willing participants enthused by the prospect of violence. At the other end there are painfully naive and pretty stupid children who were psychologically manipulated. Whatever, they're our citizens even if wayward, and seeing as we believe in equality before the law, they merit the same rights as any of us. If we deem it appropriate to lock them up in a prison for the rest of their lives, so be it.



Given we're talking about Syria, is that the world's least funny joke you're making?

Those who came back before the fall of the caliphate or even before it was under siege I can see more as naive and regretting their choices as they risked a lot to escape. Those who were there right until the fall though? Yeh no I find it a lot harder to think they truly regret it so much as they regret it failing.

Also the other country she has residence is where her father presently resides so it's a bit of a struggle to say she can't go there.

One extra nasty detail is the person who recruited her to I.S. is trying to also come back to the UK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
If you're talking about people like Shamima Begum, who had their citizenship stripped for running off to join ISIS, then describing them as "unfavored people" is burying the lede to a degree I have never seen before.
I would rather couch it carefully because neither I nor most people have any idea who the government is removing citizenship from in the majority of cases, because they won't tell us. "National security" is overwhelmingly the stated reasoning (there are also occasional fraud cases), but it's not like we see the evidence, and of course most of these people have not been found guilty of any crime even if some sort of evidence was supplied.

By and large, we just have to take it on trust that the government is exercising this power responsibly, because their powers here approach arbitrary. Two criteria that permit stripping citizenship are that doing so is "conducive to public good" and - believe it or not - someone has carried out "unacceptable behaviour". What, exactly the hell, is "unacceptable behaviour"? Presumably because "conducive to public good" wasn't deemed vague and elastic enough.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,278
794
118
Country
United States
If we remove citizenship from people who skip out on paying taxes on part of, or the entirety of their estate we would have to strip the citizenship of most of the rich in the world, and that would never fly.

I wish it did, but most governments around the world are either dictatorships, or brought, and sold.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Those who came back before the fall of the caliphate or even before it was under siege I can see more as naive and regretting their choices as they risked a lot to escape.
I would say Begum was stupid and naive to be suckered into joining ISIS. But after that, she does not appear to regret her choices at all, beyond that it turned out ISIS was far more corrupt and vile than she had been led to believe. She's got her beliefs, and they are very unpalatable, and she needs to be put somewhere she can't do any harm - life in a British prison is fine by me. But that doesn't remove her rights. If we can't be arsed giving people the appropriate rights they are due, we may as well call ourselves Saudi Britannia and be fucking done with, because it means we're nothing more than a vicious, arbitrary, authoritarian shithole that happens to be richer than most of the others.

Begum was born and raised in the UK, and has citizenship of precisely zero other countries. The argument that she is theoretically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship is plainly unreasonable, because that means she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, and the UK law says that it is not allowed to strip citizenship from people who have do not have citizenship of another state. Bangladesh is not a dumping ground obliged to take in our homegrown extremists. The government knows this. It's done this as a public spectacle because she's unusually notorious: a modern form of public execution to satisfy the bloodlust of the masses. It knows full well it won't survive full legal scrutiny, and is dragging it out on the basis that Begum can't get back to the UK to challenge it, which it is a situation it is happy to perpetuate rather than endure the embarrassment of losing.

So it's not that I have sympathy for Begum, so much as I'm disgusted by the British government's contempt for its own laws and responsibilities, playing to the peanut gallery with crass jingoism rather than governing justly and competently... like it has done so much over the last decade.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
I would say Begum was stupid and naive to be suckered into joining ISIS. But after that, she does not appear to regret her choices at all, beyond that it turned out ISIS was far more corrupt and vile than she had been led to believe. She's got her beliefs, and they are very unpalatable, and she needs to be put somewhere she can't do any harm - life in a British prison is fine by me. But that doesn't remove her rights. If we can't be arsed giving people the appropriate rights they are due, we may as well call ourselves Saudi Britannia and be fucking done with, because it means we're nothing more than a vicious, arbitrary, authoritarian shithole that happens to be richer than most of the others.

Begum was born and raised in the UK, and has citizenship of precisely zero other countries. The argument that she is theoretically entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship is plainly unreasonable, because that means she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, and the UK law says that it is not allowed to strip citizenship from people who have do not have citizenship of another state. Bangladesh is not a dumping ground obliged to take in our homegrown extremists. The government knows this. It's done this as a public spectacle because she's unusually notorious: a modern form of public execution to satisfy the bloodlust of the masses. It knows full well it won't survive full legal scrutiny, and is dragging it out on the basis that Begum can't get back to the UK to challenge it, which it is a situation it is happy to perpetuate rather than endure the embarrassment of losing.

So it's not that I have sympathy for Begum, so much as I'm disgusted by the British government's contempt for its own laws and responsibilities, playing to the peanut gallery with crass jingoism rather than governing justly and competently... like it has done so much over the last decade.
Her rights say she has the right to a country of residence which she still has even with her British citizenship removed. On top of that she can claim citizenship in her husbands country of residence too.

Begum has citizenship of Bangladesh due to being the child of a person with citizenship there it's where her father presently lives.

Begum could go to Holland where he husband apparently has citizenship and challenge the UK ruling from there if the argument (which I will say is rather racist) is that she couldn't possibly challenge it from Bangladesh because the country isn't in a good enough state to challenge it from there.

Begum wasn't happy with Britain and British values and way of life she wanted to leave and be part of the caliphate, she only wants those things now because Britain is seen as a soft touch.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Begum has citizenship of Bangladesh due to being the child of a person with citizenship there it's where her father presently lives.
No, she doesn't. Bangladesh has made it abundantly clear she is not a citizen of Bangladesh. She is eligible to apply for citizenship, which Bangladesh could refuse (and has said it would). Secondly, she's an adult: there is no right of residence for adults just because a parent lives somewhere. Of course, as we have stripped her of citizenship, she can't have a valid passport to travel anywhere legally anyway. Well, maybe there's asylum.

Begum could go to Holland where he husband apparently has citizenship
Her husband is dead, so this is debatable. Also, one way or another, likewise, she is eligible to apply for citizenship in the Netherlands, and it could (and almost certainly would) be refused.

You do not appear to understand citizenship. A person does not magically just have it, it has to be officially recognised. According to law, I can have Irish citizenship if I want it. But I really can't just rock up in Dublin or Cork off the boat and say I'm Irish with the full rights of an Irish citizen. I have to apply for it. In practice, most people don't need to bother applying because as the children of citizens of their home country at home, they're automatically registered.

Finally, again, if your argument is that someone has to take Begum, it should be Britain anyway. Because as toxic as she is, our country made her. And in my world, you take responsibility for your fuck ups as well as your triumphs.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
No, she doesn't. Bangladesh has made it abundantly clear she is not a citizen of Bangladesh. She is eligible to apply for citizenship, which Bangladesh could refuse (and has said it would). Secondly, she's an adult: there is no right of residence for adults just because a parent lives somewhere. Of course, as we have stripped her of citizenship, she can't have a valid passport to travel anywhere legally anyway. Well, maybe there's asylum.


Expert lawyers with experience in Bangladeshi citizenship cases have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national like Ms Begum, if born to a Bangladeshi parent, is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. That means that such a person would have dual nationality.

If the person remains in the UK, their Bangladeshi citizenship remains in existence but dormant.

Under this "blood line" law, Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapse when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make efforts to activate and retain it.

So, it is Ms Begum's age, 19, that is likely - in part - to have given Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship.




Her husband is dead, so this is debatable. Also, one way or another, likewise, she is eligible to apply for citizenship in the Netherlands, and it could (and almost certainly would) be refused.

As far as I know and as far as anyone has reported Yago Riedijk is not dead at present also the Dutch government have 0 intention to repatrate him even though he's still technically a citizen there. So it's not the UK doing this specifically. It's just as per usual the UK having a spotlight shone on it and being told it's bad to try to take the heat off other countries.


You do not appear to understand citizenship. A person does not magically just have it, it has to be officially recognised. According to law, I can have Irish citizenship if I want it. But I really can't just rock up in Dublin or Cork off the boat and say I'm Irish with the full rights of an Irish citizen. I have to apply for it. In practice, most people don't need to bother applying because as the children of citizens of their home country at home, they're automatically registered.

Finally, again, if your argument is that someone has to take Begum, it should be Britain anyway. Because as toxic as she is, our country made her. And in my world, you take responsibility for your fuck ups as well as your triumphs.
Our country didn't make her a terrorist. Recruiters in other countries talking to her online made her a terrorist. Living in the caliphate during her formative years made her.

What was the UK's fuck up exactly?

Not imposing Sharia law to appease people like Shamima?

Allowing people freedom?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Bangladesh has clearly denied she has citizenship and said she would be refused entry.

As far as I know and as far as anyone has reported Yago Riedijk is not dead at present also the Dutch government have 0 intention to repatrate him even though he's still technically a citizen there. So it's not the UK doing this specifically. It's just as per usual the UK having a spotlight shone on it and being told it's bad to try to take the heat off other countries.
Oops no, seems he is alive. Nevertheless, I am not remotely interested in the argument "The Netherlands is shit, so we can be too" as a defence of the UK not being shit about this.

Our country didn't make her a terrorist.
Our country provides the cultural milieux all its residents experience, and thus key formative elements in how the children who grow up here end out. If the UK failed to instill into the children brought up here, then that's partly the responsibility of this country.

What was the UK's fuck up exactly?
Shamima Begum is a fuck-up. A British fuck-up. We also produce mass killers, serial recidivists, racists, football hooligans, Boris Johnson and whatever else. Shit, the UK has managed to alienate almost an entire constituent part of itself to the point it's likely to vote independence, so let's not pretend it's not got some massive problems in how it makes its citizens feel about it. We decided that exiling undesirables to Australia was immoral long ago, and that shouldn't have changed.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Bangladesh has clearly denied she has citizenship and said she would be refused entry.
Seems like they'd be breaking their own laws there as she is still a citizen until 21 unless she fails to make an effort to retain said citizenship.


Oops no, seems he is alive. Nevertheless, I am not remotely interested in the argument "The Netherlands is shit, so we can be too" as a defence of the UK not being shit about this.
He doesn't have citizenship anywhere else though. Legally speaking if Bangladesh were working under their own laws Shamima would have citizenship there. It's a common tactic used against the UK by other countries. You'll find a lot of other countries unwilling to take people back who left but it's the UK facing the calls (and will face calls from other nations who are refusing to take people back) that it somehow did wrong in this case. It's the Syrian aid argument all over again.

(If you're unfamiliar the EU claimed the UK wasn't doing enough to help Syria because it wasn't taking in refugees from Syria. The UK had paid more in aid as a single country than the entire EU commission to help rebuild Syria and help care for people there. Then when the UK actually went to find people in need in actual refugee camps in Syria and brought them to the UK to help them, EU countries were still critical because the UK wasn't merely taking all the mix of refugees and migrants off their hands. The EU wanted to use the UK as a dumping ground and was trying to shame it into giving in and this is all this will end up being too).


Our country provides the cultural milieux all its residents experience, and thus key formative elements in how the children who grow up here end out. If the UK failed to instill into the children brought up here, then that's partly the responsibility of this country.
Because she was being radicalised online and was some-one who rejected the idea of the country and wanted the ideas of Daesh to be the ones everyone was made to live under.

Some people will always hate freedom because it will deny them the chance to control.


Shamima Begum is a fuck-up. A British fuck-up. We also produce mass killers, serial recidivists, racists, football hooligans, Boris Johnson and whatever else. Shit, the UK has managed to alienate almost an entire constituent part of itself to the point it's likely to vote independence, so let's not pretend it's not got some massive problems in how it makes its citizens feel about it. We decided that exiling undesirables to Australia was immoral long ago, and that shouldn't have changed.
Scotland won't vote independence. They were given the choice before and it was shown to ultimately be all bluster when the harsh realities of the split were made clear.

We may have decided that exiling undesirables to Australia was immoral. We however didn't stop extraditions to countries where out citizens had committed or were accused of committing crimes. Also in this case the country Shamima should have citizenship for (under said countries own rules) is where her father presently lives.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,047
5,347
118
Australia
Back in around 2002 (I think) an Australian man - David Hicks - went abroad to fight for the Taliban. He was captured by US Forces and interned in Guantanamo Bay. There was a concerted effort to bring Mr. Hicks back to Australia. I was of the opinion he should be repatriated so that he could face charges appropriate to his crimes our own courts.

I didn’t think he was a wee lamb led astray; he was an angry man who made some fuck headed decisions but he was our fuck head. We are responsible for him. Indeed, as Melbourne underworld figure Chopper Read once said “We catch and kill our own”.

Now Hicks is a more complicated case than Begum because he was repatriated eventually in 2007, served 7 months in an isolation ward of an Adelaide prison and was released. There were issues with his alleged confession and the fact that an American court - the people with a vested interest in this dickhead getting slotted - ruled the US Military Tribunal had not acted in accordance with the constitution and was trying to prosecute him ex post facto.

I mean I personally think the little rodent should be in stir for the rest of his life but the DPP weren’t impressed with the utter hash his tribunal had been, and the AFP didn’t bother renewing his observation order - presumably because they think he’s just a fuckwit who couldn’t blow up a balloon.

Or, TL;DR. Send her back to Britain where she can be tried at the Old Bailey and once convicted will do porridge at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Hopefully she gets more than Hicks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Back in around 2002 (I think) an Australian man - David Hicks - went abroad to fight for the Taliban. He was captured by US Forces and interned in Guantanamo Bay. There was a concerted effort to bring Mr. Hicks back to Australia. I was of the opinion he should be repatriated so that he could face charges appropriate to his crimes our own courts.

I didn’t think he was a wee lamb led astray; he was an angry man who made some fuck headed decisions but he was our fuck head. We are responsible for him. Indeed, as Melbourne underworld figure Chopper Read once said “We catch and kill our own”.

Now Hicks is a more complicated case than Begum because he was repatriated eventually in 2007, served 7 months in an isolation ward of an Adelaide prison and was released. There were issues with his alleged confession and the fact that an American court - the people with a vested interest in this dickhead getting slotted - ruled the US Military Tribunal had not acted in accordance with the constitution and was trying to prosecute him ex post facto.

I mean I personally think the little rodent should be in stir for the rest of his life but the DPP weren’t impressed with the utter hash his tribunal had been, and the AFP didn’t bother renewing his observation order - presumably because they think he’s just a fuckwit who couldn’t blow up a balloon.

Or, TL;DR. Send her back to Britain where she can be tried at the Old Bailey and once convicted will do porridge at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Hopefully she gets more than Hicks.
Problem is she's also accused of attempting to recruit people in the UK too.

Part of the concern would be

1) Her using prison as a recruiting ground and under UK law we can't just throw her in solitary for most of her time

2) Causing trouble in Prison because lets just say some UK prisoners can be somewhat nationalistic and she was part of a group that declared war on the West.

3) After her release after however many years the idea of either her already having started to form a cell here or working to form a cell here.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,047
5,347
118
Australia
Problem is she's also accused of attempting to recruit people in the UK too.

Part of the concern would be

1) Her using prison as a recruiting ground and under UK law we can't just throw her in solitary for most of her time

2) Causing trouble in Prison because lets just say some UK prisoners can be somewhat nationalistic and she was part of a group that declared war on the West.

3) After her release after however many years the idea of either her already having started to form a cell here or working to form a cell here.
Maybe, but the Home Office exists to sort out problems created by situations like this - so they can earn their shilling and figure it out. British criminal, British prison.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Maybe, but the Home Office exists to sort out problems created by situations like this - so they can earn their schilling and figure it out. British criminal, British prison.
It does but they don't want to have to be having protection details on her from the moment she touches down to make sure no-one goes after her and she doesn't start planning anything with any others.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,047
5,347
118
Australia
It does but they don't want to have to be having protection details on her from the moment she touches down to make sure no-one goes after her and she doesn't start planning anything with any others.
You say that as if she’ll be released on her own liberty once she arrives in the UK. Given the nature of the crimes she would immediately be placed in lockup pending her arraignment and no Judge in the system would allow her bail.

As for “they don’t want to”, I don’t give a shit what the Home Office wants to do, only that they do what they are obliged to do.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
You say that as if she’ll be released on her own liberty once she arrives in the UK. Given the nature of the crimes she would immediately be placed in lockup pending her arraignment and no Judge in the system would allow her bail.

As for “they don’t want to”, I don’t give a shit what the Home Office wants to do, only that they do what they are obliged to do.
Doesn't matter if she's released or not people who very much hate her and ISIS could target her.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,047
5,347
118
Australia
Doesn't matter if she's released or not people who very much hate her
Plenty of people hate other people, very few of them ever plot out complex revenge plans.

ISIS could target her.
I doubt very much ISIS will care enough to seek her out, if they wanted to hit a target in the UK then there are better ones than a former breeding bride (or whatever the fuck she was) who is under lock and key.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
The UK had paid more in aid as a single country than the entire EU commission to help rebuild Syria and help care for people there.
I smell misleading bullshit. The EU commission oversees the running of the EU, which operates on a budget of ~£150 billion. In comparison, the UK government has a budget of ~£850 billion. You're using it to imply the entire EU, but in fact other EU nations have also contributed billions to Syrian aid as national initiatives, and in total they far exceed the UK's.

Some people will always hate freedom because it will deny them the chance to control.
LOL! People who advocate stripping citizenship, thus rights to return to the country they were born and raised, have no business accusing of others of "hating freedom", because they clearly don't understand freedom much.

Scotland won't vote independence. They were given the choice before and it was shown to ultimately be all bluster when the harsh realities of the split were made clear.
When the independence vote was called, the polls suggested ~35-65 against. After all the debate, the unionist side dropped 10% to 45-55. That's a sign when the issues were debated, unionism was losing them.

The polls suggest now, for the first time ever, Scottish independence is consistently ahead in the polls, by about 5-10%. Amongst young people, pro-independence is about two-thirds, and all that's going to happen is that pro-unionist elderly die and pro-independence youths reach majority. And whilst you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALALALA", and the British government under the perpetually London-centric Tories haemmorrhage more and more goodwill north of the border with misrule, when we leave the EU and the economy takes a huge hit, the Nats are busy building their case. And it does not look pretty for unionism.

The strategy of the UK government, if it wishes to keep the country together, is effectively going to be denying the Scots any right of self-determination for as long as it can in the hopes that eventually they might give up. Or to use a form of coercion, which is to plan national policy in such a way as to make leaving vastly more painful when it permits a referendum to take place.

Also in this case the country Shamima should have citizenship for (under said countries own rules) is where her father presently lives.
And yet that country says otherwise.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
I smell misleading bullshit. The EU commission oversees the running of the EU, which operates on a budget of ~£150 billion. In comparison, the UK government has a budget of ~£850 billion. You're using it to imply the entire EU, but in fact other EU nations have also contributed billions to Syrian aid as national initiatives, and in total they far exceed the UK's.
That only works if you add every nations individual contributions Plus the EU join contributions as a whole.

Believe it or not (and these were BBC numbers I saw on it years ago) the UK's contributions was more than either the EU one OR the Nations combined but NOT both combined.


LOL! People who advocate stripping citizenship, thus rights to return to the country they were born and raised, have no business accusing of others of "hating freedom", because they clearly don't understand freedom much.
Freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences.




When the independence vote was called, the polls suggested ~35-65 against. After all the debate, the unionist side dropped 10% to 45-55. That's a sign when the issues were debated, unionism was losing them.

The polls suggest now, for the first time ever, Scottish independence is consistently ahead in the polls, by about 5-10%. Amongst young people, pro-independence is about two-thirds, and all that's going to happen is that pro-unionist elderly die and pro-independence youths reach majority. And whilst you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALALALA", and the British government under the perpetually London-centric Tories haemmorrhage more and more goodwill north of the border with misrule, when we leave the EU and the economy takes a huge hit, the Nats are busy building their case. And it does not look pretty for unionism.
And once again when the realities are laid out like last time the sentiment would change and people would vote to remain part of the UK. The polls at present are based on the fantasy idea the Scottish National Party are putting out of a wonderland of no issue and exponential wealth being part of the EU but not having any issues at all with the rest of the UK and applications of EU trade laws. Pro independence is only there because they think somehow it'll let them get back into the EU but face no issues with England.

The Nationalists are building their case on the public political platform thanks to their party controlling most of it in Scotland. No-one is bothering to fight it at present because the agreement was there would be a referendum and the thing wouldn't keep being repeated so Westminster can just refuse to give a 2nd independence referendum with no real real price to pay politically for it other than the SNP trying to be spanners in the machine, which they were doing anyway before. If those for the union in Westminster started putting their case down things would change very quickly. So far though only 1 side is the one laying out a fantasy vision of how things will go with no opposition.


The strategy of the UK government, if it wishes to keep the country together, is effectively going to be denying the Scots any right of self-determination for as long as it can in the hopes that eventually they might give up. Or to use a form of coercion, which is to plan national policy in such a way as to make leaving vastly more painful when it permits a referendum to take place.
Because losing The pound, a national border, EU tax costs and all English military and other government jobs being withdrawn along with facing legal challenges for the universities who charge English students full price wouldn't be enough of a pain lol


And yet that country says otherwise.
And your argument is the UK was wrong to say it was fine to remove her citizenship.

So the UK lies but other countries don't?