Popular Post NurembergVillan Posted February 22, 2019 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted February 22, 2019 16 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: It sounds to me like k you support those rules and regulations. Were your parents born here, Dem? If not that'd leave you at risk of losing your citizenship at the behest of Sajid Javid. Regardless of what she's supposedly done, there's been no legal process, just the decision of a man who - whilst an elected representative - was not elected to the role he currently holds. It's **** bonkers. She's been called unpatriotic and a traitor. So have I for campaigning to remain in the EU. Judges have been called enemies of the people. At what point do the government start deporting anyone they disagree with? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: over 100 citizenships were taken away from Isis returnees in 2017 alone , for whatever reason none of them received the same level of attention as this case Are you sure all of the deprivations orders in 2017 were served on ISIS returnees? According to the Home Office themselves (link to pdf available on this Gov page), the most we can say about them is that the deprivation of their citizenship: Quote ...was considered to be ‘conducive to the public good'. (5.9 - p.28) The reason, perhaps, that none of these received the same level of intention is that these are things that are largely done very quietly. The overall numbers, for example, come from 'internal Home Office information' but they haven''t given any breakdown as to how many of these were about 'terrorism' or about serious crime or, maybe, just about crime in general. Then you have the appeals process which goes through SIAC which is a closed process (until a judgment is given and even then the identities are still secret).. Quote She doesn't have a Bangladesh passport but she’d automatically qualify for one because she is under 21 and both of her parents are from there It isn't about passports. A passport is merely a document. Whether or not she is or isn't a Bangladeshi citizen is a matter of fact that would probably need to be decided upon by an English court, such as SIAC did on E3 & N3 in the appeals case last year (against which the government are appealing, I believe). Quote Under UK law, the government can strip British citizenship from anyone who is eligible for dual nationality. Which she is: not just due to Bangladeshi law, but under Bangladesh’s constitution. Again, I'm not quite sure that's correct. It's about whether someone actually holds another nationality at the time of deprivation rather than merely being eligible. That this eligibility argument is being put forward, though, is what is making quite a lot of people worried and nervous. If merely having eligibility for another nationality (and even holding it but without your knowledge) means that you can have your UK citizenship by birth stripped from you then there's a whole load of people who could find themselves in that position. Quote so at face value we aren't putting knee-jerk over international law ? but isn't the clue in the name The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , she left to fight on their behalf , the least ISIS can do is give her citizenship , thus she wont be left stateless I know you've added the smiley but there are people genuinelly making this bizarre argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 21 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Dem you’re demonstrating what I complained about literally 1 page ago. Do you want to live in a country where the Home Secretary (bound with his own ambitions and biases) has the sole power to strip people born here of their citizenship? i don’t. I don't classify these individuals as 'people' stefan with all due respect. Already we are now having others like hamsa son saying he wants to come back from Syria. Once you over turn one then they will all start flooding here. If you are willing to allow potential criminals back in who could potentially cause atrocities to national security then that's your prerogative. But I for one see massive challenges if she is allowed back here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Were your parents born here, Dem? If not that'd leave you at risk of losing your citizenship at the behest of Sajid Javid. Regardless of what she's supposedly done, there's been no legal process, just the decision of a man who - whilst an elected representative - was not elected to the role he currently holds. It's **** bonkers. She's been called unpatriotic and a traitor. So have I for campaigning to remain in the EU. Judges have been called enemies of the people. At what point do the government start deporting anyone they disagree with? My dad was born here my mum was in Cyprus. Both left the country and now live in Cyprus. I think we are getting ahead of ourselves there is a big difference of deporting a common man who ahs worked and has no criminal history to a traitor who went to support terrorism. There is no way they are going to start deporting every person who wants born here. I think that is very far fetched mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: this Immigration think tank seem to suggest we can leave someone stateless ? Naturalized British Citizens can be deprived of their citizenship, under S.40(4A) of the 1981 Immigration Act as amended by the section of the 2014 Act mentioned in your quote, if three conditions are met, apparently: Quote he or she acquired citizenship by naturalisation the higher test of conduct “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory” the Secretary of State has “reasonable grounds” for thinking that the person can acquire citizenship of another country From this article by Colin Yeo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Demitri_C said: But I for one see massive challenges if she is allowed back here. I see massive challenges if she isn’t. What legal precedent does it set if one bloke in a role of power can decide whether someone is British or not, even though she was born here, without due process or trial? 3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: I don't classify these individuals as 'people' stefan with all due respect. You’re doing ISIS’s work for them I’m afraid by dehumanising her to such an extent. Sr was 15 when she left. Where’s the evidence she did anything other than ‘she left to join ISIS’ that she did anything worth of being reclassified as not human anymore? so if she shouldn’t be British anymore, nor should she be classed as even human, what should she do? And about her child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: My dad was born here my mum was in Cyprus. Both left the country and now live in Cyprus. I think we are getting ahead of ourselves there is a big difference of deporting a common man who ahs worked and has no criminal history to a traitor who went to support terrorism. There is no way they are going to start deporting every person who wants born here. I think that is very far fetched mate. The point we’re making is that we’re incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of one bloke being able to make the decision whether somebody is British or not without any legal process or oversight whatsoever Especially considering how can you be certain he is doing it 100% in the name of national security. I think he’s done it for a number of reasons. One, perhaps, national security focused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I see massive challenges if she isn’t. What legal precedent does it set if one bloke in a role of power can decide whether someone is British or not, even though she was born here, without due process or trial? You’re doing ISIS’s work for them I’m afraid by dehumanising her to such an extent. Sr was 15 when she left. Where’s the evidence she did anything other than ‘she left to join ISIS’ that she did anything worth of being reclassified as not human anymore? so if she shouldn’t be British anymore, nor should she be classed as even human, what should she do? And about her child? There is bigger challenges controlling any citizens that leave the country to support/help terrorist organisations. There could be 100s maybe thousands. Let's welcome them back. How do we know ut isn't a plot to get them back here and cause a atrocity? We don't if your happy to run the risk and gamble I for one am not. Where is the evidence she didn't either though? She doesn't sound very remorseful for her actions does she? Take the child off her and give her to withe eher family here who seem like a nice family to be fair or put the child in a loving home. There are loads of good people out there that can't have kids I am sure there would be many people that welcome this child into their homes and show love and support. This whole situation stinks to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snowychap Posted February 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: It sounds to me like k you support those rules and regulations. I support the idea that the UK acts in line with its international and domestic law obligations, that governments are not above the law and that they should act in accordance with the law. I also support the idea that the country takes its obligations seriously and doesn't try to find angles, loopholes and wheezes to either get out of what we ought to do or to enable a politician trying to further his career from making a decision largely on that basis. Edited February 22, 2019 by snowychap 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: I don't classify these individuals as 'people' stefan with all due respect. Therein lies the root of the problem. As soon as anyone allows themselves to take the view that another human being (no matter what they have done) ceases to be a person then anything and everything becomes possible. Edit: Rereading that, it comes across as possibly having a go at you, Dem. It isn't meant to be. It is meant to be having a go at what you said. Just wanted to make that clear. Edited February 22, 2019 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: The point we’re making is that we’re incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of one bloke being able to make the decision whether somebody is British or not without any legal process or oversight whatsoever Especially considering how can you be certain he is doing it 100% in the name of national security. I think he’s done it for a number of reasons. One, perhaps, national security focused. Sadly most politicians have their own agendas. You would like to hope that in this case it is for national security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 22, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2019 24 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: I don't classify these individuals as 'people' stefan with all due respect. Nazi Germany says Hi 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 8 minutes ago, snowychap said: I support the idea that the UK acts in line with its international and domestic law obligations, that governments are not above the law and that they should act in accordance with the law. I also support the idea that the country takes its obligations seriously and doesn't try to find angles, loopholes and wheezes to either get out of what we ought to do or to enable a politician trying to further his career from making a decision largely on that basis. Thanks for answering my question. I'd like to think on this occasion its more trying to make an example of her than anything else but only javid knows his agenda for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Where is the evidence she didn't either though? She doesn't sound very remorseful for her actions does she? No you're right, she didn't. Not sure we should take all of her words at face value though considering the circumstances she still currently finds herself in. 15 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Take the child off her and give her to withe eher family here who seem like a nice family to be fair Such a nice family that allowed to be radicalised and leave the country at 15 to join ISIS. How can they be trusted that the newborn baby won't do the same? 10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Sadly most politicians have their own agendas. You would like to hope that in this case it is for national security. Sadly, yes they do. So why should one person be allowed whether to say somebody is British or not, even though they were born here? Does that not worry you? Let's change the example. We all agree terrorism is bad right? Post one attack (can't remember which) it was discovered that the group used Whatsapp to coordinate the attacks. Well, I think we should ban Whatsapp, or we should allow the government access into what people are saying on Whatsapp privately. Agree or disagree? In both cases, Begum and Whatsapp, both decisions could lower terrorism, but do the ends justify the means? Edited February 22, 2019 by StefanAVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Demitri_C said: Thanks for answering my question. I'd like to think on this occasion its more trying to make an example of her than anything else but only javid knows his agenda for this. No problem. Happy to. It's a worthwhile discussion, I think. I do get where you are coming from emotionally but things like this shouldn't be decided emotionally. Substitute 'creating a precedent with' for 'making an example of' and you might be closer, in my view. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, snowychap said: No problem. Happy to. It's a worthwhile discussion, I think. I do get where you are coming from emotionally but things like this shouldn't be decided emotionally. Substitute 'creating a precedent with' for 'making an example of' and you might be closer, in my view. The problem is, is that terrorism is inherently emotional. People hear 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' and their sense of perspective and rationality goes out of the window. And by allowing ourselves to react like that, terrorists win. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 12 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: The problem is, is that terrorism is inherently emotional. People hear 'terrorist' or 'terrorism' and their sense of perspective and rationality goes out of the window. And by allowing ourselves to react like that, terrorists win. Furthermore, you don't buy into the emotion of it, and try to present a different view and you get accused of sympathising with, or supporting terrorists. We deserve the authoritarian dystopia we're sleepwalking into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Demitri_C said: I think we are getting ahead of ourselves there is a big difference of deporting a common man who ahs worked and has no criminal history to a traitor who went to support terrorism. There is no way they are going to start deporting every person who wants born here. I think that is very far fetched mate. *cough* Windrush *cough* 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 22, 2019 Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2019 @Demitri_C I really hope you aren't confused by my Nazi comment because what you said is exactly the same idea as the Nazi Party put across about Jews. They don't matter, they aren't human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 29 minutes ago, bickster said: @Demitri_C I really hope you aren't confused by my Nazi comment because what you said is exactly the same idea as the Nazi Party put across about Jews. They don't matter, they aren't human Gandhi said similar about the Africans if you want to use a different analogy and avoid upsetting the Corbyn fan boys with your attack on Nazis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts