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

Original post by Pinkisk

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.

It wasnt the Court of Appeal

Reply 22

Original post by Pinkisk

This will affect people holding dual citizenship most of whom are brown people.

How? I doubt that any non-terrorist has anything to fear. Please define your terms - "brown" isn't a race that I recognise.

The important point (without having read the judgement) would appear to be that their birth nationality wasn't British. Race doesn't come into it.

Reply 23

Original post by Pinkisk

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......

No need she left the UK to join a death cult mocked the UK so its a fair deal we took her citizenship away.
Could have happened to anyone else who had actual or potential dual nationality. No biggie am not crying about it and will let the judges sort it out.
Seems quite an appropriate solution imo. They were asked about it at the time and they laughed about having citizenship revoked as I recall. Showed nothing but contempt for the UK.

Nope its not racist at all unless you say only brown people are terrorists. It would apply if the person was white. Jihadi jack has also had his citizenship revoked so that puts paid to your argument and makes you playing the race card look rather silly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49385376
Jihadi Jack: IS recruit Jack Letts loses UK citizenship
A Muslim convert who joined the Islamic State group as a teenager has had his British citizenship revoked.

Jack Letts - nicknamed Jihadi Jack in the press - was 18 when he left school in Oxfordshire in 2014 to join IS fighters in Raqqa, Syria.

Mr Letts, who is a dual UK-Canadian national, was jailed after being captured by Kurdish YPG forces while trying to flee to Turkey in May 2017.

The Canadian government said the UK had "off-loaded" its responsibilities.

The Home Office said it would not comment on individual cases.

Mr Letts's parents said they were "shocked" by the decision, which they said was made without their son being contacted.

Actually the repercussion's are if you want to become a citizen of this country and dont become a terrorist seeking the destruction and murder of your fellow citizens, because if you do then you run the risk of having your citizenship revoked as you are no longer welcome and can return to your other country.

Btw you repeating huge doesnt make it so.

Reply 24

Original post by Pinkisk

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

Except they arent being racist, they are putting the interest and safety of law abiding UK citizens first.

Reply 25

Original post by Pinkisk

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.

Please get your facts straight. Jihadi Jack received similar treatment and had his citizenship revoked.
He is white and your race card arguments are a nonsense.

These are his parents.

Reply 26

Original post by Poooky

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"

You are confused and its not dependent on skin colour as pinkisk is being delusional.
If you are white and have the potential for dual nationality you can have it revoked as well.
So you are wrong.

Reply 27

Original post by Pinkisk

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

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

Perhaps she ought to have considered the unfairness of it all as she was joining the death cult and in the crowd at the beheadings or giving her internet interviews.

You do realise you can be non white and a citizen of this country but without the right to dual citizenship. Keep making a fool of yourself though with the race card.

Reply 28

04MR17

Volunteer Section Leader

22

I'd be interested to see the text from the ruling that suggests what's being outlined in the OP.

Original post by Tolgarda

Immigrants are less British than Caucasian Britons though.

I'm curious to know why you felt the need to include the word Caucasian here when it doesn't seem necessary at all?

Reply 29

Em.-.

18

Original post by Pinkisk

This will affect people holding dual citizenship most of whom are brown people.

So? It can only be done to those with dual citizenship. It’s not done because of race as above pointed out, a white Canadian dual citizen lost his British citizenship. If the majority of those with dual citizenship are “brown people” as you say, then all that means is the U.K. take in less white immigrants, which seems to be in favour of brown people, not white. I’m a dual citizen so could lose my citizenship, but I’m not worried about it because I would never commit a serious crime and certainty not join ISIS or another group which seeks to kill innocent British people.

If one doesn’t want to lose their British citizenship then they shouldn’t become a terrorist and support the killing of innocent British people. It’s about terrorism and hurting innocent people, not race.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 30

Original post by Em.-.

which seems to be the opposite of racist

I would have repped your post, had it not been for this phrase. I get where you're coming from (and don't think that you mean it literally), but racism is racism, no matter which race is discriminated against. It reminds me of "positive discrimination", which seems to miss the fact that discrimination is always negative to someone.

Reply 31

Original post by Pinkisk

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.

Don't be daft. British citizenship is also given to people who already have another nationality, and are white.

The issue is leaving someone without any citizenship, not race.

Reply 32

Em.-.

18

Original post by RogerOxon

I would have repped your post, had it not been for this phrase. I get where you're coming from (and don't think that you mean it literally), but racism is racism, no matter which race is discriminated against. It reminds me of "positive discrimination", which seems to miss the fact that discrimination is always negative to someone.

Oh I know racism is racism. I should have specified racism against non-white people, since that was the racism OP spoke about, will change that phrase to reflect my own views better.

Reply 33

Original post by Em.-.

Oh I know racism is racism. I should have specified racism against non-white people, since that was the racism OP spoke about, will change that phrase to reflect my own views better.

I understood what you meant, but I'm also pedantic :smile:

, and a little annoyed by racism being often seen as only against minorities.

Reply 34

Em.-.

18

Original post by RogerOxon

I understood what you meant, but I'm also pedantic :smile:

, and a little annoyed by racism being often seen as only against minorities.

I get that. I mean by definition it’s discrimination against someone purely due to race, whatever the race.

Reply 35

nulli tertius

Original post by Pinkisk

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.

Shall we start with the errors:-

This wasn’t the Court of Appeal. There were two decisions of the Administrative Court of the High Court and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

Begum has never been an immigrant to the UK. She was born at the UK and she was a British citizen by birth.

The two courts have decided (wrongly in my view but that is beside the point) that she is a citizen of Bangladesh by birth, not merely that she is entitled to become a Bangladeshi citizen and they have made that decision notwithstanding that the Bangladeshi Government says that she isn’t.

If you want to make a point on the true position, do so, but don’t set up this tissue of untruths so that you can knock it down.

Reply 36

Napp

22

Original post by Pinkisk

This will affect people holding dual citizenship most of whom are brown people.

I hold dual citizenship and i know for a fact this wont effect me unless i decided to be a terrorist or do some other heinous crime, in which case i deserve it.
I can also confirm im lily white.

Reply 37

Surnia

20

Original post by Pinkisk

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.

The British Government stripped white British man Jack Letts of his citizenship

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49385376

Reply 38

Tolgash