Hall Of Fame
You can’t just take someone’s citizenship off them and wash your hands of them, that’s illegal. You’ve got to say where they should go, and why it’s that country’s problem.Originally Posted by LaxtonLad
Hall Of Fame
The UK law stipulates that you can as long as they have the right to citizenship in another country.
I don't know what situation is under international law, and i havent got time to go poring over treaties and conventions now but I'll have a look later. I think it should be allowed though as domestic laws usually have to be compatible with international law before they can come into force.
Hall Of Fame
Seeing as she's never been there, I wonder if Bangladesh would have the right to revoke her citizenship also. It seems a bit harsh to force this woman on them when her only connection is a parental one. I'm sure if the boot was on the other foot and she was being forced on us there would quite rightly be outrage.
Hall Of Fame
100% correct. Even if she does have Bangladeshi citizenship, I’m still wondering why it’s supposed to be their problem and not ours. Especially since she was essentially groomed in this country, and was allowed to join Isis from this country.
I would have thought we should have learned by now where right wing British exceptionalism gets us.
First Team
She herself has already said she wants to remain with her husband who is Dutch. She has stated he will likely be sent to prison in the Netherlands so she will go over there with the child and wait for him to serve his sentence, so in some ways she may not be that keen to come back to the UK where she may well become a target.
Hall Of Fame
It's not Bangladesh's problem, it's hers, and she's trying to make it ours, but if we can prove she CAN go elsewhere then we have no obligation to accept her here. If Bangladesh don't want her either then that also is her problem, not ours. Britain is not the default nation of stateless people.
Your remark about her grooming makes it sound as if Britain groomed her, and the bit about "allowing" her to join Isis? Were we then complicit in giving her the choice or chance to join Isis without restraint? Was Britain responsible for her choice, made in her knowledge of it's illegality?
Hall Of Fame
Britain groomed her? Why is it always the UK's fault?
I'm sure if I read it right. Her mother is Bangladeshi and her father from Ethiopia?
Both migrants here and considering "dad" was burning American flags with Choudary out side the US embassy. I'd be inclined to believe that radicalization began at home.
Perhaps her family should be deported with her, to burn as many flags as they like and spout their anti western bile where it appreciated?
It always amazes me, how these people want to live among the very people they despise and hate.
It's amazing how a soft nature with benefits/healthcare/freedom of speech can make you swallow your principles, but never really change.
Sorry, but it's line in the sand time(pardon the pun)
To have her back in the fold or any others sets a precedence.
They left to join a backward faith and society. Bog off, you don't fit in here.
Hall Of Fame
Why do you always assume that people who don't want this woman back here are right wing racists? A lot of ordinary decent people I'm sure think that way but you have to label them.
The present Labour leadership prove you don't have to be right wing to be racist.
Hall Of Fame
It is the policy of the tolerant intolerants that every one MUST have a label. Anyone who doesn't concur with their thinking automatically qualifies as either far right, racist or both.
Hall Of Fame
Ok so it looks like the international law relating to this case comes from the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which is not a peremptory law (the kind that all countries have to respect regardless of whether they've signed up to it or not) but we ratified the convention in 1966 so we are bound by it.
The part of the convention that regulates revocation of nationality is article 8.
8.1 says that 'a state shall not deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless'.
8.2 says that notwithstanding clause 8.1a country can revoke nationality if it was obtained by fraud.
8.3 says that notwithstanding clause 8.1 a country can retain certain rights to revoke nationality in certain situations, which is lists, but the country has to declare it is retaining these rights when it ratifies the treaty.
On ratification the UK retained the right to deprive a naturalised person of his nationality if the person 'has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the ***** interests of her Britannic Majesty '.
So I suppose it depends whether she is naturalised and whether she ends up getting Bangladeshi citizenship as to whether it's legal.
The treaty is quite interesting though, you can find the original text on the UN website.
I'll try and find a YouTube version for Tricky too 😉
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote