Court of Appeal = Immigrants Awarded Citizenship are less British than the Natives

The CA decided to affirm the decision made by the government to revoke terrorist Shamima Begum's passport setting a new precedent in English Law...that immigrants awarded citizenships are not equal to natives holding citizenships....that immigrants awarded citizenships are less British than the natives of this country.

(edited 4 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Napp

I'd have more sympathy is it wasnt a terrorist...

Reply 2

Toscana

ethnic brits are more british than immigrants, who wouldve thought

Reply 3

Pinkisk

Original post by Napp

I'd have more sympathy is it wasnt a terrorist...

You have to look at the bigger picture here. This girl/woman is a British terrorist. She was never held to account for her terrorism by Britain. Britain has instead of holding her to account for her crimes revoked her citizenship because she is the daughter of immigrants to this country. The punishment does not fit the crime. The punishment is entirely based on her ethnicity. It is entirely racist. This decision is huge. Its repercussions for people holding dual citizenship in this country is huge. It is the british government telling all brown people in this country...you are not equal to the whites...we do not consider you members of this country in the same way we consider the whites members of this country....this is huge......

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 4

username2455183

Does this surprise you? This has been the law for quite some time - when I applied for British citizenship, having a permanent visa (not even citizenship) of another country entitles the UK to deport me there if I ever commit certain crimes.

Reply 5

BlueIndigoViolet

She had the ability for another nationality and a danger to the nation, so couldn't care less.

Colour/race by being born on this particular rock to a particular mother is not the only determinant of being British

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 6

username2455183

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

She had dual nationality and a danger to the nation, so couldn't care less.

Colour/race by being born on this particular rock to a particular mother is not the only determinant of being British

No, she doesn't. She's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship through descent, but she is not a citizen. And Bangladesh have publicly said they would not give her citizenship.

That's exactly what it is, if you're white.

Reply 7

BlueIndigoViolet

Original post by Poooky

She is a danger to the UK so dont blame them for shifting her asap using any excuse available, great news :biggrin:

doubt many people naturalised fled to IS lol

Yes - i was saying you can be British, but not as shallow as just ethnicity by the chance of being born to the right mother in the right country, but often stems to many diverse areas of identity

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 8

BrainMan9

I am dual nationality and I could not care less.

Reply 9

Pinkisk

Original post by AnonymousNoMore

Bottom line, don't join a terrorist organisation.

Ya don't go chopping people's head's off or we'll be racist!! makes a ton of sense.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 10

Pinkisk

Original post by AnonymousNoMore

What's racist about what happened? She is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, no matter what they say. And so we have every right to remove citizenship, as we should as she is a danger to society. Its not about race its about actions.

Its racist because a white British person committing the same exact crime as this woman would not be liable for this same punishment. Its law that is unequal. Its law that treats citizens of the same country differently based on nothing but their genetic heritage, their ancestry. Its racist.

What does this decision by the court appeal tell us? That native citizenship is superior to immigrant citizenship, that white citizenship is superior to brown citizenship. Its not only racist its xenophobic.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 11

mnot

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by Pinkisk

I dont care who you are, if you are an ISIS member or Al Queda or similar and we can strip you of your citizenship then good, im glad. Dont care if your born here awarded, applied or however else you get your citizenship.

Its simply the case that shes legally entitled to another citizenship, yes its pretty **** diplomacy towards Bangladesh but also **** isis

Reply 12

username2455183

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

She is a danger to the UK so dont blame them for shifting her asap using any excuse available

doubt many people naturalised fled to IS lol

i was saying you can be British, not just about ethnicity by the chance of being born to the right mother in the right country, but often stems to many areas of identity

That's the problem. I don't particularly care about keeping her but using any excuse available to get rid of someone isn't right, and won't stop at terrorists. I care more about the precedent this could set, and the notion that if you commit a crime and you're not white, it's deportation time. British nationals are British... not whatever colour/race they might be.

And I'm saying if you're white, who you're born to i.e a white mother and father, is the only determinant of being British. They can't be deported, can they? So what you said is wrong. Only immigrants, and children of immigrants (who are British born, and not naturalized) , have to prove their "British identity"

Reply 13

Pinkisk

Original post by AnonymousNoMore

How do you know they wouldn't?

Because they cannot give this punishment to anyone that does not have dual citizenship i.e. natives of this country. Its law that has been purposely written as to exclude whites from suffering this punishment. its purposely designed to target British people of a different ethnicity.

Original post by AnonymousNoMore

I think what happened is they were making an example out of her

I do not think it is right for a person who partakes in activities such as mass murder to be denied their citizenship. This punishment does not fit the crime.

Original post by AnonymousNoMore

ISIS brides even more.

I do not think it is right to use this term to describe this woman. It diminishes her role in terrorism. This woman is not an ISIS bride. This woman is a ISIS terrorist.

Original post by AnonymousNoMore

I think if it was a white British person we would all be in favour of their citizenship being revoked too. .

The law can only be used against people who have dual citizenship.

Reply 14

Tolgash

Immigrants are less British than Caucasian Britons though.

Reply 15

Em.-.

Original post by Pinkisk

Ya don't go chopping people's head's off or we'll be racist!! makes a ton of sense.

She. Is. A. TERRORIST. Taking away her citizenship was because she joined an organisation which supports a war on the west, the west includes Britain. The organisation kills people here because they are British or “non-believers”. Anyone who does this shouldn’t be a British citizen. The decision to remove her citizenship wasn’t done out of racism it was done because she literally joined ISIS who have a hatred for Britain. If I did something similar I’d lose my citizenship and be kicked out to Australia since I have citizenship there, although they may also take it away from me, which they’d be justified in doing.

Reply 16

TheMcSame

You're looking at it too vaguely, the only precedent this sets is that you can be stripped of your citizenship, providing you have more than one, in extreme circumstances. The reason most Brits can't be stripped of their citizenship is that they'd be left stateless, which, I'm lead to believe, is something that can't be done on a whim. Only by request or by simply failing to meet the citizenship requirements.

Reply 17

El Salvador

Naturalized citizens almost always have fewer rights than natural-born citizens, in many if not most countries. The UK is actually among an uncommon group of nations that have a foreign-born head of government (Boris Johnson was born in the US, although he was a natural-born citizen).

In the US, only natural-born citizens are allowed to become its president, for example. Here in Mexico, naturalized citizens are not allowed to join the military in peacetime, or stand in any federal-level election, or become a pilot (and several other professions). In China, naturalized citizens have to give up their existing citizenship(s). In Hong Kong, acquired permanent residents do not get the permanent residency for life.

But this isn't a case of immigrants versus natives, because she wasn't an immigrant.

Reply 18

Napp

Original post by Pinkisk

This seems a serious leap of logic... unless of course youre inferring that all browns are terrorists because only then would this point actually have merit..