IS bride has her UK citizenship REVOKED

Scroll to see replies

Thank fu*k is all I’ve got to say really.

Besides that, the family of Shamima will be challenging this decision, who do they think they are, your daughters a risk to our countries security, do you think we’re going to be sympathetic to your scenario and risk lives of our own here on UK soil? No.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hHwaoNViXmI

There's already a thread on this so this might be merged with the other revoking citizenship thread :yes:

I have no idea why the family are defending her, if I became a terrorist am pretty sure my mum would never speak to me again

Reply 41

squeakysquirrel

Original post by TheNamesBond.

You may well be grateful - but she is just the tip of the iceberg. Where she has come from there are plenty of others. The problem of her is just being displaced

Reply 42

nulli tertius

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

There are some tweets out there suggesting she's a dual national of Bangladesh. Either that or she's entitled to Bangladeshi nationality by virtue of her mother being a Bangladeshi national.

As I’ve been posting on the other thread, entitlement to become a Bangladeshi citizen isn’t good enough for the Home Office in her circumstances (although it is in other circumstances). Sky News is claiming she is a Bangladeshi citizen.

Reply 43

londonmyst

Original post by The RAR

The husband is in jail in Syria currently, she should be locked up with him

Almost all the isis-daesh membership are committed to the concept of female guardianship where a married woman is the property of her husband- not allowed to travel, work, keep custody of children without his permission.
Unless the husband signed a marriage agreement agreeing to something else before they got married, going against the concept would risk violent reprisals from him and the rest of isis.

Reply 44

JustOneMoreThing

On a more distressing note, Tunisia has taken back 1,000 terrorists, they will be returning from the conflict zone.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/as-the-uk-debates-what-to-do-with-isis-suspects-one-country-has-taken-back-1000-terrorists/ar-BBTNlmG?li=AAnZ9Ug

Reply 45

Vikingninja

Good ****ing riddance. Every time she spoke she dug herself in a bigger hole.

Reply 46

Drewski

She married a Dutch Isis bod, she can go to Netherlands instead.

Reply 47

JustOneMoreThing

Original post by squeakysquirrel

You may well be grateful - but she is just the tip of the iceberg. Where she has come from there are plenty of others. The problem of her is just being displaced

I’m well aware, at least there will be one less terrorist walking UKs streets.

Reply 48

itsraininghere

Original post by TheNamesBond.

Lmao, good for Tunisia. Fortunately, we actually care about our safety and don’t bend over backwards for everyone when pressed by media.

Reply 49

999tigger

Isnt there already a thread on this?

Reply 50

BlueIndigoViolet

Horray

- she left isis to become a subservient housewife, now she can go to Bangladesh and live out her dream

Reply 51

Notoriety

Original post by nulli tertius

Section 40 (4A) BNA 1981 only applies to people who are naturalised.

I had assumed that it caught children who were registered on their parents’ naturalisation (minors cannot themselves be naturalised) but that doesn’t look right. That means there is no chance of revoking her citizenship unless she actually holds another citizenship and so section 40 (4) is satisfied.

I am not sure why you think it doesn't look right. If her parents didn't have settled status for 5 years, then she wasn't British at birth. Does she suddenly become non-naturalised British, retrospectively, if her parents later become naturalised? I.e. she was born when parents had been in the country for 4 years, on her 5th birthday they become naturalised, and therefore she becomes a non-naturalised British citizen?

Under s1(3), British otherwise by descent if the parents become settled before the bairn turns 18.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 52

nulli tertius

Original post by Notoriety

Compare section 40 (3) BNA with section 40 (4A) BNA.

Section 40 (3) undoubtedly catches people who acquire British citizenship by registration such as the minor children of adults undergoing naturalisation.

Section 40 (4A) appears only to catch those who acquire British citizenship by naturalisation not registration.

Reply 53

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Original post by 999tigger

Isnt there already a thread on this?

Yeah. There’s the other one created tonight specifically on this development, and the original one created Wenaday covering the story as a whole.

Reply 54

Notoriety

Original post by nulli tertius

I edited my post.

More to the point, if it's not considered naturalisation, the reservation under the Statelessness Convention becomes inoperative. Besides, HO spokesperson said they don't leave people stateless; so they must consider her to have citizenship elsewhere.

Reply 55

proton & neutron

Original post by londonmyst

Being born in the UK does not automatically ensure citizenship since the 1980s.

Original post by Notoriety

It's really quite simple; london and nulli summarised it. Being born in the UK does not make you necessarily a British citizen (something I found out when giving immigration advice, after the client left; hence I don't like immigration law). You are restating a common misconception.

I could show you the international treaties, if you'd like; and the reservation we have under it.

Generally speaking everyone born in the UK before 1983 is a British citizen

Those born between 1983 and 200o in the UK is automatically a British citizen unless their mother (the father doesn’t count here unless he married to the mother) has a time limit to how long they can stay in the UK i.e. permanently settled. - In short if the mother is living in the UK legally there child is automatically a British citizen which is most people born in the UK.

The problem typically is this change was poorly thought through in 1981 since you generally don’t need to prove your are British citizen unless you want a passport and but to prove it if your born in the UK after 1983 you need access to someone personal data which you don’t have any legal right to access without their parents consent which is particularly messy for EU citizens born in the UK before 2000 as they might need employment records for a private company which might no even exist anymore.

We then have the Windrush scandal where the government granted commonwealth citizens living in the UK before 1973 the automatic right to permanently live in the UK but never issued them paperwork to prove it when it clearly would have become an issue after 1983. It then took until the 2000s before we stopped issuing short birth certificates.

After 2000 the definition of permanently settled change for EU citizens (excluding in practice Irish citizens) using their treaty rights so it a little more complicated than just living here.

Then for those born after 2006 the rules changed so it no longer matters if the mother is married to the father. A child is automatically a British citizen if either of there parents in not subject to immigration control i.e. permanently settled outside of basic EU related treaty rights.

Reply 56

karl pilkington

Original post by proton & neutron

She was born and grow up in London (Bethnal Green) so is not a naturalised British citizen and there is no evidence she is actively a citizen of Bangladesh (even if she is entitled to make a claim for it by decent in many countries this can be at there discretion).

Isn't anyone alarmed by the precedent this set and I sure it against many international treaties this country has signed to make people stateless?

*their

also her mother is Bangladeshi so they obv took legal advice that she wouldn't be stateless as she can claim Bangladeshi citizenship.

Reply 57

ANM775

Original post by londonmyst

Maybe an attention seeker that craves the oxygen of publicity.
Airlines normally refuse to fly heavily pregnant women past 28 weeks, apparently the time limit exists that airlines won't exceed for fear of liability for risking the heath of the woman and unborn child.
If her husband is alive, he may not be keen on giving her money or allowing her to travel without him.

Everything seems to have spectacularly backfired for her

She's getting her Citizenship revoked now. If she hadn't opened her mouth she'd still at least have her citizenship and could of perhaps flown over after the baby was born, ...and they'd probably have to take her

if she flies in after it's been revoked they'll probably fly her straight out again.

Reply 58

hilowulaba

this will deter future brides from being groomed on MSN messenger

Reply 59

nulli tertius

Original post by Notoriety

You are right but the term “naturalisation” in the Convention may be wider than the same term under the British Nationality Act. Terms often have autonomous meanings in international law.

Sky News thinks she has Bangladeshi nationality. I wonder if this has been documented by a passport or identity card because Bangladesh is a hard country to become and remain a dual national of.