In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms Begum
is "the author of her own misfortune".
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms Begum
is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship. There
was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after losing her
UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
She chose not to do that, so
at least to that extent she deliberately engineered her current position
of being stateless.
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms Begum
is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship. There
was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after losing her
UK citizenship, before she reached age 21. She chose not to do that, so
at least to that extent she deliberately engineered her current position
of being stateless.
The full judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
One of Ms Begum's solicitors Daniel Furner has said he promised Ms Begum
and the government they are "not going to stop fighting until she does
get justice and until she is safely back home" but it is difficult to
see how that can be achieved, given the strength of the Court's decision.
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does not, have
to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately
engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point of
it and said as much.
What she does now with her rights as a Bangladeshi citizen is up to her.
But she is no longer a British citizen, has no rights here, and seems
to have no possible further legal options.
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
The full judgment is here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
One of Ms Begum's solicitors Daniel Furner has said he promised Ms
Begum and the government they are "not going to stop fighting until
she does get justice and until she is safely back home" but it is
difficult to see how that can be achieved, given the strength of the
Court's decision.
I suppose it will go to our Supreme Court and that court will very
likely uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The only solution is a political one. Home Secretary Sajid Javid made a spiteful and crowd-pleasing decision to deprive her of citizenship
presumably in the belief that this would help his political career and
his chances of becoming leader of the Tory Party. Fortunately his
political career has crashed and burned. Meanwhile a growing number of journalists have displayed some grudging sympathy for Ms Begum's plight.
It is possible that a new Labour Government would - after a discreet
interval - choose decency, human rights and compassion over other considerations. And bring her back, restore her citizenship and put her
on trial for terrorism offences.
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does not, have
to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately
engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point of
it and said as much.
What she does now with her rights as a Bangladeshi citizen is up to her.
But she is no longer a British citizen, has no rights here, and seems
to have no possible further legal options.
On 23/02/2024 19:02, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
The full judgment is here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
One of Ms Begum's solicitors Daniel Furner has said he promised Ms
Begum and the government they are "not going to stop fighting until
she does get justice and until she is safely back home" but it is
difficult to see how that can be achieved, given the strength of the
Court's decision.
I suppose it will go to our Supreme Court and that court will very
likely uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court will have to grant her
leave to appeal before she can. She has no absolute right to do so.
Since any appeal would have to be on a point of law, and the Court of
Appeal was unanimous in holding that the Home Secretary's decision was lawful, which was the only point of law in question, there is virtually
no prospect of leave to appeal being granted.
The only solution is a political one. Home Secretary Sajid Javid made
a spiteful and crowd-pleasing decision to deprive her of citizenship
presumably in the belief that this would help his political career and
his chances of becoming leader of the Tory Party. Fortunately his
political career has crashed and burned. Meanwhile a growing number
of journalists have displayed some grudging sympathy for Ms Begum's
plight. It is possible that a new Labour Government would - after a
discreet interval - choose decency, human rights and compassion over
other considerations. And bring her back, restore her citizenship and
put her on trial for terrorism offences.
I don't think she has any more plight than millions of other Bangladeshi citizens who would like to live here.
But it is a longstanding principle that national security trumps all
other considerations and the Home Secretary is the person who assesses national security. A fifteen year old girl is, in the view of the Home Secretary, a dangerous threat to the security of our nation....
On 23/02/2024 09:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of the
Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does not, have
to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately
engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point of
it and said as much.
What she does now with her rights as a Bangladeshi citizen is up to her.
But she is no longer a British citizen, has no rights here, and seems
to have no possible further legal options.
A small point: Was Bangadesh in existence in 1951?
Or was a 1951 Pakistan Act absorbed into a new statute book for
Bangladesh when it was created?
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
The full judgment is here:The only solution is a political one. Home Secretary Sajid Javid made a spiteful and crowd-pleasing decision to deprive her of citizenship
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
presumably in the belief that this would help his political career and
his chances of becoming leader of the Tory Party. Fortunately his
political career has crashed and burned. Meanwhile a growing number of journalists have displayed some grudging sympathy for Ms Begum's plight.
It is possible that a new Labour Government would - after a discreet
interval - choose decency, human rights and compassion over other considerations. And bring her back, restore her citizenship and put her
on trial for terrorism offences.
On 23/02/2024 19:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 19:02, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
The full judgment is here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
One of Ms Begum's solicitors Daniel Furner has said he promised Ms
Begum and the government they are "not going to stop fighting until
she does get justice and until she is safely back home" but it is
difficult to see how that can be achieved, given the strength of the
Court's decision.
I suppose it will go to our Supreme Court and that court will very
likely uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court will have to grant her
leave to appeal before she can. She has no absolute right to do so.
Since any appeal would have to be on a point of law, and the Court of
Appeal was unanimous in holding that the Home Secretary's decision was
lawful, which was the only point of law in question, there is
virtually no prospect of leave to appeal being granted.
I don't think you quite understand how these things work. If there was
no valid point of law to consider, the Court of Appeal itself would not
have heard the appeal.
The fact that the CA is unanimous does not mean that there ceases to be
a point of law for the Supreme Court to consider - it all depends on how skilfully the barristers manage to argue it.
Occasionally the Court of Appeal overrules its previous decisions too,
which means they aren't set in stone forever.
But it is a longstanding principle that national security trumps all
other considerations and the Home Secretary is the person who assesses national security. A fifteen year old girl is, in the view of the Home Secretary, a dangerous threat to the security of our nation.
The only solution is a political one. Home Secretary Sajid Javid made
a spiteful and crowd-pleasing decision to deprive her of citizenship
presumably in the belief that this would help his political career
and his chances of becoming leader of the Tory Party. Fortunately his
political career has crashed and burned. Meanwhile a growing number
of journalists have displayed some grudging sympathy for Ms Begum's
plight. It is possible that a new Labour Government would - after a
discreet interval - choose decency, human rights and compassion over
other considerations. And bring her back, restore her citizenship
and put her on trial for terrorism offences.
I don't think she has any more plight than millions of other
Bangladeshi citizens who would like to live here.
I wish someone would banish you to a refugee camp for the rest of your
life so that you could gain the necessary experience and insight that is currently denied to you.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
The full judgment is here:The only solution is a political one. Home Secretary Sajid Javid made a
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
spiteful and crowd-pleasing decision to deprive her of citizenship
presumably in the belief that this would help his political career and
his chances of becoming leader of the Tory Party. Fortunately his
political career has crashed and burned. Meanwhile a growing number of
journalists have displayed some grudging sympathy for Ms Begum's plight.
It is possible that a new Labour Government would - after a discreet
interval - choose decency, human rights and compassion over other
considerations. And bring her back, restore her citizenship and put her
on trial for terrorism offences.
Well, all of us here are in favour of decency, human rights and compassion, and against spiteful crowd-pleasing. So I suppose your argument must prevail.
On 24 Feb 2024 at 08:44:42 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
The full judgment is here:The only solution is a political one. Home Secretary Sajid Javid made a
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
spiteful and crowd-pleasing decision to deprive her of citizenship
presumably in the belief that this would help his political career and
his chances of becoming leader of the Tory Party. Fortunately his
political career has crashed and burned. Meanwhile a growing number of
journalists have displayed some grudging sympathy for Ms Begum's plight. >>> It is possible that a new Labour Government would - after a discreet
interval - choose decency, human rights and compassion over other
considerations. And bring her back, restore her citizenship and put her >>> on trial for terrorism offences.
Well, all of us here are in favour of decency, human rights and compassion, >> and against spiteful crowd-pleasing. So I suppose your argument must prevail.
I don't know what evidence you have for saying that, because several here have
expressed opinions (not just in the instant case) which suggest the precise opposite.
On 23/02/2024 23:54, The Todal wrote:
....
But it is a longstanding principle that national security trumps all
other considerations and the Home Secretary is the person who assesses
national security. A fifteen year old girl is, in the view of the Home
Secretary, a dangerous threat to the security of our nation....
A 2011 study of female suicide bombers found that 16% of them were under
18. However, she is now a 24 year old woman, with a known history of supporting Islamic extremism and who has suffered bereavement, which she
may well blame upon the loss of her British citizenship. 58% of female suicide bombers have been aged 18-25. I see no reason not to consider
her and anybody else who went to join ISIS a potential threat.
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of
the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does
not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and
continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately
engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point
of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA
which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting
your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or
permitted to enter that country.
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21. She chose not to
do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately engineered her
current position of being stateless.
Perhaps as you say she should have applied, and then when the
Bangladeshi state had refused her application then she may well have had
more justification to her cause.
Your wording "activation" suggests she was made stateless by the UK, in
that she has never been a Bangladeshi citizen, and any "window" was a
future one.
On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of
the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does
not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and
continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately
engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point
of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA
which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting
your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or
permitted to enter that country.
According to the BBC, she had until age 21 to 'activate' that
nationality by applying for it. She apparently took no steps to do that. Maybe, she felt there was no point, but it seems a poor decision - one
in a long line of poor decisions, perhaps.
My MIL became stateless in WW2. She fled Germany to Sweden in 1938, and
the Germans deprived her of her German nationality a couple of years later.
After the war, the Swedes, without granting her nationality, gave her a travel document that enabled her to reach the UK - I've never understood
why she came here, as she liked it in Sweden.
I do totally see your point of view. Our nation is beset by evildoers
and those who intend to do us harm. If we can banish even one witch, it makes us all more secure.
On 24/02/2024 09:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/02/2024 23:54, The Todal wrote:
....
But it is a longstanding principle that national security trumps all
other considerations and the Home Secretary is the person who
assesses national security. A fifteen year old girl is, in the view
of the Home Secretary, a dangerous threat to the security of our
nation....
A 2011 study of female suicide bombers found that 16% of them were
under 18. However, she is now a 24 year old woman, with a known
history of supporting Islamic extremism and who has suffered
bereavement, which she may well blame upon the loss of her British
citizenship. 58% of female suicide bombers have been aged 18-25. I see
no reason not to consider her and anybody else who went to join ISIS a
potential threat.
I do totally see your point of view. Our nation is beset by evildoers
and those who intend to do us harm. If we can banish even one witch, it makes us all more secure.
Unfortunately we can't banish Liz Truss or Tommy Robinson because that
might render them stateless.
On 24 Feb 2024 at 14:38:56 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of
the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does
not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and
continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately >>>>> engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point
of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA
which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting
your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or
permitted to enter that country.
According to the BBC, she had until age 21 to 'activate' that
nationality by applying for it. She apparently took no steps to do that.
Maybe, she felt there was no point, but it seems a poor decision - one
in a long line of poor decisions, perhaps.
My MIL became stateless in WW2. She fled Germany to Sweden in 1938, and
the Germans deprived her of her German nationality a couple of years later. >>
After the war, the Swedes, without granting her nationality, gave her a
travel document that enabled her to reach the UK - I've never understood
why she came here, as she liked it in Sweden.
We used to be quite good (though not remarkably so) at accepting refugees.
On 24/02/2024 09:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 08:44:42 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
The full judgment is here:The only solution is a political one. Home Secretary Sajid Javid made a >>>> spiteful and crowd-pleasing decision to deprive her of citizenship
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Begum-v-SSHD-CA-2023-000900-2024-EWCA-Civ-152.pdf
presumably in the belief that this would help his political career and >>>> his chances of becoming leader of the Tory Party. Fortunately his
political career has crashed and burned. Meanwhile a growing number of >>>> journalists have displayed some grudging sympathy for Ms Begum's
plight.
It is possible that a new Labour Government would - after a discreet
interval - choose decency, human rights and compassion over other
considerations. And bring her back, restore her citizenship and put
her
on trial for terrorism offences.
Well, all of us here are in favour of decency, human rights and
compassion,
and against spiteful crowd-pleasing. So I suppose your argument must
prevail.
I don't know what evidence you have for saying that, because several
here have
expressed opinions (not just in the instant case) which suggest the
precise
opposite.
It doesn't matter what our opinions are - the only opinions that carry
any weight are those of journalists, politicians, lobbying groups, those people who can influence voting patterns.
After a very long period of dumb stupidity, British politicians are now beginning to realise that by disregarding the opinions of British
Muslims and continuing to support the genocide carried out by Israel in
Gaza, it might damage the electoral prospects of our venal, pragmatic politicians. Starmer has slightly shifted his stance as he balances his
arse on the fence. He yearns for approval.
One fact that has been pointed out repeatedly is that British Muslims
cannot assume that their British citizenship is safe and secure. They
are in effect second class British citizens, and if they are deemed to
be disloyal in the eyes of our Home Secretary their entitlement to citizenship elsewhere such as in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India etc will
make it likely that British citizenship could be cancelled.
On 24/02/2024 12:16, The Todal wrote:
I do totally see your point of view. Our nation is beset by evildoers
and those who intend to do us harm. If we can banish even one witch,
it makes us all more secure.
Is Begum's case unique, or are there dozens of similar cases that would
come forward if she were allowed back?
On 23/02/2024 16:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21. She chose not
to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately engineered
her current position of being stateless.
Perhaps as you say she should have applied, and then when the
Bangladeshi state had refused her application then she may well have
had more justification to her cause.
I am only repeating what the Beeb said. She would have had an automatic
right to Bangladeshi citizenship, but she had to apply for it.
It is possible that, even with citizenship, she would have been made
very unwelcome - either by refusing her entry or by imprisoning her.
Your wording "activation" suggests she was made stateless by the UK,
in that she has never been a Bangladeshi citizen, and any "window" was
a future one.
She was deprived of her UK citizenship, and part of the reasonableness
of the decision to do that depends on her option to take up her
Bangladeshi citizenship.
Am 24/02/2024 um 15:21 schrieb Roger Hayter:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 14:38:56 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the >>>>>>> decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms >>>>>>> Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>> There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after >>>>>> losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by >>>>> descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of
the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does
not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and
continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately >>>>>> engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point >>>>> of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA >>>> which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting
your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or
permitted to enter that country.
According to the BBC, she had until age 21 to 'activate' that
nationality by applying for it. She apparently took no steps to do that. >>> Maybe, she felt there was no point, but it seems a poor decision - one
in a long line of poor decisions, perhaps.
My MIL became stateless in WW2. She fled Germany to Sweden in 1938, and
the Germans deprived her of her German nationality a couple of years later. >>>
After the war, the Swedes, without granting her nationality, gave her a
travel document that enabled her to reach the UK - I've never understood >>> why she came here, as she liked it in Sweden.
We used to be quite good (though not remarkably so) at accepting refugees. >>
You were also good at "collaring the lot", including legit British
citizens, who no longer had foreign citizenship.
Am 24/02/2024 um 12:16 schrieb The Todal:
On 24/02/2024 09:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/02/2024 23:54, The Todal wrote:
....
But it is a longstanding principle that national security trumps all
other considerations and the Home Secretary is the person who
assesses national security. A fifteen year old girl is, in the view
of the Home Secretary, a dangerous threat to the security of our
nation....
A 2011 study of female suicide bombers found that 16% of them were
under 18. However, she is now a 24 year old woman, with a known
history of supporting Islamic extremism and who has suffered
bereavement, which she may well blame upon the loss of her British
citizenship. 58% of female suicide bombers have been aged 18-25. I see
no reason not to consider her and anybody else who went to join ISIS a
potential threat.
I do totally see your point of view. Our nation is beset by evildoers
and those who intend to do us harm. If we can banish even one witch, it
makes us all more secure.
Unfortunately we can't banish Liz Truss or Tommy Robinson because that
might render them stateless.
Is there a hope that poor Shamina gets honorary citizenship from Hamas?
I mean, Hamas, Isis, the SNP, they all advocate death to the West.
In 2014, 36 people had their citizenship revoked, many, but not all,
because they had gone to fight in Syria. However, even if she were a
unique case, would that make a person with a history of supporting ISIS
any less of a potential threat? If allowed back, she would require
constant and expensive surveillance by the security services.
On 24/02/2024 09:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 23/02/2024 23:54, The Todal wrote:
....
But it is a longstanding principle that national security trumps all
other considerations and the Home Secretary is the person who assesses
national security. A fifteen year old girl is, in the view of the Home
Secretary, a dangerous threat to the security of our nation....
A 2011 study of female suicide bombers found that 16% of them were under
18. However, she is now a 24 year old woman, with a known history of
supporting Islamic extremism and who has suffered bereavement, which she
may well blame upon the loss of her British citizenship. 58% of female
suicide bombers have been aged 18-25. I see no reason not to consider
her and anybody else who went to join ISIS a potential threat.
I do totally see your point of view. Our nation is beset by evildoers
and those who intend to do us harm. If we can banish even one witch, it makes us all more secure.
Unfortunately we can't banish Liz Truss or Tommy Robinson because that
might render them stateless.
On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of
the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does
not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and
continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately
engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point
of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA
which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting
your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or
permitted to enter that country.
SIAC observed that Ms Begum’s case under this ground was
straightforward: even if the deprivation decision did not render
her technically stateless, it had that practical effect.
It will assume for present purposes that the relevant question must be
addressed as at 19th February 2019, taking into account subsequent
evidence to the extent that it bears on that question, and not as at
today’s date – when there is absolutely no prospect of Ms Begum being
admitted to Bangladesh since she is now over 21 and is not a citizen of
that country. The Secretary of State was told in terms that there was
no real prospect that Ms Begum would go, or be compelled to go, to
Bangladesh and he also knew that she could not go there for her own safety.
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations
on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55 pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British
Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is
repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we
conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase
"technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic prospect of exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as
Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to
apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all
practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK
citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have been revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will
render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
On 24/02/2024 14:43, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 16:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21. She chose not
to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately engineered
her current position of being stateless.
Perhaps as you say she should have applied, and then when the
Bangladeshi state had refused her application then she may well have
had more justification to her cause.
I am only repeating what the Beeb said. She would have had an automatic
right to Bangladeshi citizenship, but she had to apply for it.
It is possible that, even with citizenship, she would have been made
very unwelcome - either by refusing her entry or by imprisoning her.
Bangladesh has made clear that:
(1) It still has the death penalty;
(2) It has a zero tolerance approach to terrorism;
(3) They consider Ms Begum to be a terrorist;
(4) Given 1-3, they do not recommend Ms Begum applies to formalise any citizenship she may hold with them.
They do make a somewhat compelling argument.
Your wording "activation" suggests she was made stateless by the UK,She was deprived of her UK citizenship, and part of the reasonableness
in that she has never been a Bangladeshi citizen, and any "window" was
a future one.
of the decision to do that depends on her option to take up her
Bangladeshi citizenship.
As the Court of Appeal made clear, she is de facto stateless without
being considered de jure stateless.
Unfortunately, the Court must consider de jure statelessness rather than
de facto statelessness. The Government, OTOH, could take a more humane
view but has decided not to because it has decided Ms. Begum is a "bad egg".
Regards
S.P.
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political crime (I've made a couple of pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status. Would you recommend she apply to the UK?
On 24/02/2024 08:45, Norman Wells wrote:
She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport
Please detail the precise steps Ms Begum must take to do as you suggest.
and leave with it at any time to bang on Bangladesh's doors which are
obliged under international law to open and let her in. It's just
that she doesn't want to.
You would be well served in checking the conditions that must be met
before Ms Begum would be permitted to leave the camp in which she is currently living.
She also has a Dutch husband who might entitle her to Dutch
citizenship and residency there. But I don't know if that's even been
investigated.
Not only has it been "investigated", but it has been thoroughly debunked
and we discussed it in detail.
And by "we" I don't mean members of this group in general I mean you and I.
By means of a reminder, might I point you in the direction of
Message-ID: <k60nbbFp045U1@mid.individual.net> and restate you of a
couple of points made therein:
(1) Ms Begum would need to obtain and present a "Verklaring geen schijnhuwelijk"; and
(2) Applying for Dutch citizenship as a spouse requires the couple to
have been resident in the country for a minimum of three years before applying.
On 24/02/2024 14:43, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 16:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21. She chose not
to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately engineered
her current position of being stateless.
Perhaps as you say she should have applied, and then when the
Bangladeshi state had refused her application then she may well have
had more justification to her cause.
I am only repeating what the Beeb said. She would have had an
automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship, but she had to apply for it.
It is possible that, even with citizenship, she would have been made
very unwelcome - either by refusing her entry or by imprisoning her.
Bangladesh has made clear that:
(1) It still has the death penalty;
(2) It has a zero tolerance approach to terrorism;
(3) They consider Ms Begum to be a terrorist;
(4) Given 1-3, they do not recommend Ms Begum applies to formalise any citizenship she may hold with them.
They do make a somewhat compelling argument.
Your wording "activation" suggests she was made stateless by the UK,She was deprived of her UK citizenship, and part of the reasonableness
in that she has never been a Bangladeshi citizen, and any "window"
was a future one.
of the decision to do that depends on her option to take up her
Bangladeshi citizenship.
As the Court of Appeal made clear, she is de facto stateless without
being considered de jure stateless.
Unfortunately, the Court must consider de jure statelessness rather than
de facto statelessness.
The Government, OTOH, could take a more humane
view but has decided not to because it has decided Ms. Begum is a "bad
egg".
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of
the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does
not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and
continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately >>>>> engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point
of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA
which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting
your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or
permitted to enter that country.
SIAC observed that Ms Begum’s case under this ground was
straightforward: even if the deprivation decision did not render
her technically stateless, it had that practical effect.
It will assume for present purposes that the relevant question must be
addressed as at 19th February 2019, taking into account subsequent
evidence to the extent that it bears on that question, and not as at
today’s date – when there is absolutely no prospect of Ms Begum being >>> admitted to Bangladesh since she is now over 21 and is not a citizen of
that country. The Secretary of State was told in terms that there was
no real prospect that Ms Begum would go, or be compelled to go, to
Bangladesh and he also knew that she could not go there for her own safety. >>
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations
on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55 pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British
Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is
repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we
conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase
"technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic prospect of
exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as
Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to
terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to
formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to
apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all
practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK
citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have been
revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will
render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms.
Regards
S.P.
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political crime (I've made a couple of pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status.
On 24/02/2024 16:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
[huge snip]
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political crime >> (I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status. Would you recommend she
apply to the UK?
If the maximum penalty for the crimes of which her state suspects her
were ten years' imprisonment, would you make the same argument?
If the answer to that is "Yes", what if it were five years?
Eighteen months?
Two years' probation?
On 25 Feb 2024 at 00:00:31 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It is our habit not to extradite people unless the receiving country undertakes not to execute them. I suppose after Brexit we don't *have*
to maintain that civilised policy.
On 24 Feb 2024 at 15:23:46 GMT, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 24/02/2024 um 15:21 schrieb Roger Hayter:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 14:38:56 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the >>>>>>>> decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms >>>>>>>> Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>>> There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after >>>>>>> losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by >>>>>> descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of >>>>>> the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does >>>>>> not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and >>>>>> continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately >>>>>>> engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point >>>>>> of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA >>>>> which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting >>>>> your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or
permitted to enter that country.
According to the BBC, she had until age 21 to 'activate' that
nationality by applying for it. She apparently took no steps to do that. >>>> Maybe, she felt there was no point, but it seems a poor decision - one >>>> in a long line of poor decisions, perhaps.
My MIL became stateless in WW2. She fled Germany to Sweden in 1938, and >>>> the Germans deprived her of her German nationality a couple of years later.
After the war, the Swedes, without granting her nationality, gave her a >>>> travel document that enabled her to reach the UK - I've never understood >>>> why she came here, as she liked it in Sweden.
We used to be quite good (though not remarkably so) at accepting refugees. >>>
You were also good at "collaring the lot", including legit British
citizens, who no longer had foreign citizenship.
Admittedly, I understand there was a bit of hysteria about "enemy aliens" during the war. But in peacetime we were quite good at refugees, and emigre political philosophers; we almost cornered the market in them.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 09:55:02 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Feb 2024 at 00:00:31 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It is our habit not to extradite people unless the receiving country
undertakes not to execute them. I suppose after Brexit we don't *have*
to maintain that civilised policy.
Sigh
It has nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with our
obligations under the ECHR.
Canada will refuse to extradite to the USA in capital cases if the death penalty isn't removed from the table.
On 24/02/2024 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 15:23:46 GMT, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 24/02/2024 um 15:21 schrieb Roger Hayter:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 14:38:56 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the >>>>>>>>> decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms >>>>>>>>> Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>>>> There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after >>>>>>>> losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by >>>>>>> descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of >>>>>>> the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does >>>>>>> not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and >>>>>>> continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately >>>>>>>> engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point >>>>>>> of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA >>>>>> which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting >>>>>> your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by >>>>>> descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or >>>>>> permitted to enter that country.
According to the BBC, she had until age 21 to 'activate' that
nationality by applying for it. She apparently took no steps to do that. >>>>> Maybe, she felt there was no point, but it seems a poor decision - one >>>>> in a long line of poor decisions, perhaps.
My MIL became stateless in WW2. She fled Germany to Sweden in 1938, and >>>>> the Germans deprived her of her German nationality a couple of years later.
After the war, the Swedes, without granting her nationality, gave her a >>>>> travel document that enabled her to reach the UK - I've never understood >>>>> why she came here, as she liked it in Sweden.
We used to be quite good (though not remarkably so) at accepting refugees. >>>>
You were also good at "collaring the lot", including legit British
citizens, who no longer had foreign citizenship.
Admittedly, I understand there was a bit of hysteria about "enemy aliens"
during the war. But in peacetime we were quite good at refugees, and emigre >> political philosophers; we almost cornered the market in them.
Maybe only if we approve of the opinions of these "émigré
political philosophers".
And there aren't too many of them. Acceptance
of refugees, and migrants generally, is a matter of quantity (not too
many) and quality (as high as possible, and relevant to our needs).
On 25 Feb 2024 at 00:00:31 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 16:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
[huge snip]
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political crime >>> (I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status. Would you recommend she
apply to the UK?
If the maximum penalty for the crimes of which her state suspects her
were ten years' imprisonment, would you make the same argument?
If the answer to that is "Yes", what if it were five years?
Eighteen months?
Two years' probation?
It is our habit not to extradite people unless the receiving country undertakes not to execute them. I suppose after Brexit we don't *have* to maintain that civilised policy. We can descend to pan-American barbarism if we
want to. Joining a "terrorist" organisation as a non-combatant is clearly a political crime.
On 25 Feb 2024 at 13:04:47 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2024 18:00, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 15:23:46 GMT, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 24/02/2024 um 15:21 schrieb Roger Hayter:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 14:38:56 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the >>>>>>>>>> decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms >>>>>>>>>> Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>>>>> There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after >>>>>>>>> losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by >>>>>>>> descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of >>>>>>>> the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does >>>>>>>> not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and >>>>>>>> continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately >>>>>>>>> engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point >>>>>>>> of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA >>>>>>> which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting >>>>>>> your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by >>>>>>> descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or >>>>>>> permitted to enter that country.
According to the BBC, she had until age 21 to 'activate' that
nationality by applying for it. She apparently took no steps to do that. >>>>>> Maybe, she felt there was no point, but it seems a poor decision - one >>>>>> in a long line of poor decisions, perhaps.
My MIL became stateless in WW2. She fled Germany to Sweden in 1938, and >>>>>> the Germans deprived her of her German nationality a couple of years later.
After the war, the Swedes, without granting her nationality, gave her a >>>>>> travel document that enabled her to reach the UK - I've never understood >>>>>> why she came here, as she liked it in Sweden.
We used to be quite good (though not remarkably so) at accepting refugees.
You were also good at "collaring the lot", including legit British
citizens, who no longer had foreign citizenship.
Admittedly, I understand there was a bit of hysteria about "enemy aliens" >>> during the war. But in peacetime we were quite good at refugees, and emigre >>> political philosophers; we almost cornered the market in them.
Maybe only if we approve of the opinions of these "émigré
political philosophers".
So you think we officially approved of Karl Marx?
And there aren't too many of them. Acceptance
of refugees, and migrants generally, is a matter of quantity (not too
many) and quality (as high as possible, and relevant to our needs).
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 23/02/2024 19:10, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2024 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the >>>>>>> decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms >>>>>>> Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>> There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after >>>>>> losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21.
Not so. She had at birth, and still has, Bangladeshi citizenship by >>>>> descent from her Bangladeshi parents according to the provisions of
the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951. She did not, and still does
not, have to claim it or activate it. She has it automatically and >>>>> continuously.
She chose not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately >>>>>> engineered her current position of being stateless.
In accordance with what I said above, she is *not* stateless.
Were it not so, I'm sure the Court of Appeal would have made a point >>>>> of it and said as much.
I suppose you always have the option of reading the judgment of the CA >>>> which Simon helpfully linked to. Otherwise, you'll merely be reciting
your own opinions from years ago.
quote
De facto statelessness
Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had Bangladeshi citizenship by
descent but there was no realistic possibility of herbeing able or
permitted to enter that country.
SIAC observed that Ms Begum’s case under this ground was
straightforward: even if the deprivation decision did not render
her technically stateless, it had that practical effect.
It will assume for present purposes that the relevant question must be >>>> addressed as at 19th February 2019, taking into account subsequent
evidence to the extent that it bears on that question, and not as at
today’s date – when there is absolutely no prospect of Ms Begum being >>>> admitted to Bangladesh since she is now over 21 and is not a citizen of >>>> that country. The Secretary of State was told in terms that there was
no real prospect that Ms Begum would go, or be compelled to go, to
Bangladesh and he also knew that she could not go there for her own
safety.
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations
on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55 pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British
Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is
repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we
conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase
"technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic prospect of >>> exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as
Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to
terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to
formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to
apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all
practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK
citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have been >>> revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will
render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms.
Regards
S.P.
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political
crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror
assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status. Would you
recommend she
apply to the UK?
The UNHCR has a process by which she can be issued with travel papers. However, she would need to demonstrate that a country had agreed to
admit her with those papers as a condition to being able to leave the camp.
I do not believe the UK would admit her, no, so see no point in
recommending that she apply to the UK, not that I am in a position to
proffer her or her team any advice.
I would suggest that she and her advisors would be well served in
looking for a country that might admit her but I can't imagine that is a
very long list. Given her present circumstances, I cannot imagine there would be many places that would be worse hen where she is right now, but
see being executed in Bangladesh as being an obvious example of a
"worse" outcome.
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite disrespectful
of another friendly sovereign nation with an established judicial system
with UK roots and traditions.
I would suggest that she and her advisors would be well served in
looking for a country that might admit her but I can't imagine that is a
very long list. Given her present circumstances, I cannot imagine there would be many places that would be worse hen where she is right now,
On 24/02/2024 22:09, Norman Wells wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Your statement "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport" is therefore evidently useless because you don't actually know the steps required for obtaining a Bangladeshi passport and if Ms Begum, in her
present circumstances, can fulfil them.
On 24/02/2024 22:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 21:54, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:45, Norman Wells wrote:
She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport
Please detail the precise steps Ms Begum must take to do as you suggest.
Not my problem, not my concern.
Your statement "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport" is therefore evidently useless because you don't actually know the steps required for obtaining a Bangladeshi passport and if Ms Begum, in her
present circumstances, can fulfil them.
It is quite possible, even likely, that she cannot obtain a Bangladeshi passport because you don't actually know what's involved but that
doesn't stop you proclaiming "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport."
It was therefore a meaningless statement.
On 24/02/2024 23:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker"
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations >>>> on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55 pages >>>> for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British
Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is
repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we
conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the territory), >>>> and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms Begum >>>> is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase
"technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" but >>>> they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic
prospect of
exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as
Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to
terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to
formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to
apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all
practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK
citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have
been
revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will
render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms.
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political
crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror
assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status.
I'm sure the Bangladeshi authorities would say they do not execute
people for political crimes but only possibly after due process and a
fair trial resulting in a guilty verdict under criminal law.
As indeed many other states in the world do.
And the UK government hasn't branded all of those as rogue states from
which anyone can flee with handy refugee status.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, given your comments above, on the applicability of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status
of Refugees to those like Ms Begum, and to Ms Begum herself.
On 24/02/2024 22:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 21:54, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:45, Norman Wells wrote:
She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport
Please detail the precise steps Ms Begum must take to do as you suggest.
Not my problem, not my concern.
Your statement "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport" is therefore evidently useless because you don't actually know the steps required for obtaining a Bangladeshi passport and if Ms Begum, in her
present circumstances, can fulfil them.
It is quite possible, even likely, that she cannot obtain a Bangladeshi passport because you don't actually know what's involved but that
doesn't stop you proclaiming "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport."
It was therefore a meaningless statement.
Allow me to clarify matters for you, (and anyone that may have accepted
your claim at face value):
Step one for a current or former holder of a UK passport (that's a tick
for Ms Begum) that has not previously held a Bangladeshi passport
(that's also a tick for Ms Begum) and does not hold a current and valid Bangladeshi ID card (Ms Begum is three for three) is required to hold a
face to face interview at a Bangladesh Consulate or High Commission as
the first step in the process of applying for a passport.
Could you detail how, precisely, Ms Begum is to comply with the first
step in her application for a Bangladeshi passport please? It is
further to be noted that this is by no means the only hurdle she will
face, as detailed further in this post.
As a Bangladeshi citizen, she is entitled to one whatever hoops she
has to jump through and whatever difficulties she has to overcome.
I note with interest your lack of familiarity with The Bangladesh
Passport Order, 1973 (President's Order) specifically section 5
subsection (2) thereof.
Similarly, section 6(1) (f), and (h) and the catch-all in subsection
(2)(c) of section (6).
Now these have been brought to your attention, would you like to change
your statement above about the likelihood of Ms Begum being issued with
a Bangladeshi passport so that it accords with current Bangladeshi law?
She also has a Dutch husband who might entitle her to Dutch
citizenship and residency there. But I don't know if that's even
been investigated.
Not only has it been "investigated", but it has been thoroughly
debunked and we discussed it in detail.
And by "we" I don't mean members of this group in general I mean you
and I.
By means of a reminder, might I point you in the direction of
Message-ID: <k60nbbFp045U1@mid.individual.net> and restate you of a
couple of points made therein:
(1) Ms Begum would need to obtain and present a "Verklaring geen
schijnhuwelijk"; and
(2) Applying for Dutch citizenship as a spouse requires the couple to
have been resident in the country for a minimum of three years before
applying.
So, the Dutch seem to have disowned her as well.
No, they never accepted or acknowledged that they had a connection to or responsibility for her so they cannot and have not "disowned her".
The fact is that she cannot satisfy the requirements to qualify to apply
for Dutch citizenship and is unlikely ever to be able to satisfy them.
Does that mean we have greater responsibility for her, > or does it
reassure us in the position we've taken?
IMO, yes and no respectively although I accept that YMMV.
On 25/02/2024 18:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite disrespectful
of another friendly sovereign nation with an established judicial
system with UK roots and traditions.
Oh, definitely emotive twaddle....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48154781
quote
IS bride Shamima Begum would "face the death penalty" for terrorism if
she came to Bangladesh, the country's foreign minister has said.
Abdul Momen told the BBC that Ms Begum has "nothing to do" with his
country.
He added that, if she did end up coming to Bangladesh, she would fall
foul of the country's "zero tolerance policy" towards terrorism.
"Bangladeshi law is very clear. Terrorists will have to face the death penalty," he said.
On 25/02/2024 12:07, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 21:54, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:45, Norman Wells wrote:Not my problem, not my concern.
She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport
Please detail the precise steps Ms Begum must take to do as you suggest. >>>
Your statement "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport" is
therefore evidently useless because you don't actually know the steps
required for obtaining a Bangladeshi passport and if Ms Begum, in her
present circumstances, can fulfil them.
It is quite possible, even likely, that she cannot obtain a Bangladeshi
passport because you don't actually know what's involved but that
doesn't stop you proclaiming "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi
passport."
It was therefore a meaningless statement.
Does a person legally entitled to citizenship *need* a passport in
order to enter the country whose citizenship he is entitled to?
I got my first passport when I was 20.
Had I, by some chance, found myself outside the UK in the previous
period, would I have been unable to gain re-entry to the country?
On 25/02/2024 18:00, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 23:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker"
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations >>>>> on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55
pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British
Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is
repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we
conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the
territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms
Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase
"technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless"
but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic
prospect of
exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as
Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to >>>>> terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to >>>>> formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to >>>>> apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all
practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK
citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have
been
revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will
render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms.
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political
crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror
assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status.
I'm sure the Bangladeshi authorities would say they do not execute
people for political crimes but only possibly after due process and a
fair trial resulting in a guilty verdict under criminal law.
As indeed many other states in the world do.
And the UK government hasn't branded all of those as rogue states
from which anyone can flee with handy refugee status.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, given your comments above, on the
applicability of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees to those like Ms Begum, and to Ms Begum herself.
Inapplicable to her.
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country
because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the
country of her citizenship.
On 25/02/2024 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite
disrespectful of another friendly sovereign nation with an
established judicial system with UK roots and traditions.
Oh, definitely emotive twaddle....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48154781
quote
IS bride Shamima Begum would "face the death penalty" for terrorism if
she came to Bangladesh, the country's foreign minister has said.
Abdul Momen told the BBC that Ms Begum has "nothing to do" with his
country.
He added that, if she did end up coming to Bangladesh, she would fall
foul of the country's "zero tolerance policy" towards terrorism.
"Bangladeshi law is very clear. Terrorists will have to face the death
penalty," he said.
Emotive twaddle and, moreover, a plethora of lies from someone who seems
to have taken against her for some reason.
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 17:48:41 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:
I would suggest that she and her advisors would be well served in
looking for a country that might admit her but I can't imagine that is a
very long list. Given her present circumstances, I cannot imagine there
would be many places that would be worse hen where she is right now,
A Trump presidency might recognise her as a fellow victim of persecution
by crooked joe biden. Especially with his natural affinity for the
racially persecuted.
On 25/02/2024 20:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite
disrespectful of another friendly sovereign nation with an
established judicial system with UK roots and traditions.
Oh, definitely emotive twaddle....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48154781
quote
IS bride Shamima Begum would "face the death penalty" for terrorism
if she came to Bangladesh, the country's foreign minister has said.
Abdul Momen told the BBC that Ms Begum has "nothing to do" with his
country.
He added that, if she did end up coming to Bangladesh, she would fall
foul of the country's "zero tolerance policy" towards terrorism.
"Bangladeshi law is very clear. Terrorists will have to face the
death penalty," he said.
Emotive twaddle and, moreover, a plethora of lies from someone who
seems to have taken against her for some reason.
But for some reason you trust Bangladesh to provide the same standards
of justice and judicial impartiality as we would expect from our own
judicial system.
On 26/02/2024 11:37, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 20:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite
disrespectful of another friendly sovereign nation with an
established judicial system with UK roots and traditions.
Oh, definitely emotive twaddle....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48154781
quote
IS bride Shamima Begum would "face the death penalty" for terrorism
if she came to Bangladesh, the country's foreign minister has said.
Abdul Momen told the BBC that Ms Begum has "nothing to do" with his
country.
He added that, if she did end up coming to Bangladesh, she would
fall foul of the country's "zero tolerance policy" towards terrorism.
"Bangladeshi law is very clear. Terrorists will have to face the
death penalty," he said.
Emotive twaddle and, moreover, a plethora of lies from someone who
seems to have taken against her for some reason.
But for some reason you trust Bangladesh to provide the same standards
of justice and judicial impartiality as we would expect from our own
judicial system.
Are you sure that's not a bit racist?
Do you consider all courts run by Johnny Foreigner corrupt and
untrustworthy, or just those run by Johnny Bangladeshi?
Anyway, you don't seem to trust the standards of justice and judicial impartiality here in the UK much, especially as regards the removal of
her British citizenship.
So, where would afford her a fair trial and let her off?
On 26/02/2024 12:30, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2024 11:37, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 20:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite
disrespectful of another friendly sovereign nation with an
established judicial system with UK roots and traditions.
Oh, definitely emotive twaddle....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48154781
quote
IS bride Shamima Begum would "face the death penalty" for terrorism
if she came to Bangladesh, the country's foreign minister has said.
Abdul Momen told the BBC that Ms Begum has "nothing to do" with his
country.
He added that, if she did end up coming to Bangladesh, she would
fall foul of the country's "zero tolerance policy" towards terrorism. >>>>>
"Bangladeshi law is very clear. Terrorists will have to face the
death penalty," he said.
Emotive twaddle and, moreover, a plethora of lies from someone who
seems to have taken against her for some reason.
But for some reason you trust Bangladesh to provide the same
standards of justice and judicial impartiality as we would expect
from our own judicial system.
Are you sure that's not a bit racist?
Maybe your own phrases about emotive twaddle are racist - displaying
your contempt towards an esteemed Foreign Minister of a friendly country.
Do you consider all courts run by Johnny Foreigner corrupt and
untrustworthy, or just those run by Johnny Bangladeshi?
Actually, I think our UK courts are the best, second to none, and if our venal politicians could refrain from bypassing our courts and making
star chamber decrees which determine the freedom or liberty of citizens,
our country would be a better place.
Anyway, you don't seem to trust the standards of justice and judicial
impartiality here in the UK much, especially as regards the removal of
her British citizenship.
So, where would afford her a fair trial and let her off?
Nobody is demanding that she be let off.
She should be remanded in custody in a British prison and put on trial.
On 25/02/2024 18:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:00, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 23:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker"
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations >>>>>> on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55
pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British
Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is
repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we >>>>>> conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the
territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms
Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase
"technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" >>>>>> but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic
prospect of
exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as
Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to >>>>>> terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to >>>>>> formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to >>>>>> apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all
practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK >>>>>> citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have >>>>>> been
revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will >>>>>> render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms.
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political >>>>> crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror
assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status.
I'm sure the Bangladeshi authorities would say they do not execute
people for political crimes but only possibly after due process and a
fair trial resulting in a guilty verdict under criminal law.
As indeed many other states in the world do.
And the UK government hasn't branded all of those as rogue states
from which anyone can flee with handy refugee status.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, given your comments above, on the
applicability of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees to those like Ms Begum, and to Ms Begum herself.
Inapplicable to her.
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country
because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the
country of her citizenship.
That's the problem with using a partial, selective section of the
definition.
Allow me to post the full definition according to the UNHCR [1]:
"A refugee is a person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is
unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country'"
Are you suggesting that Ms Begum does not have:
(a) a well-founded fear of being persecuted;
(b) for reasons of religion or political opinion;
(c) is outside the country of [her] nationality;
(d) unable to avail herself of the protection of that country.
Please state which of (a) through (d) you consider not to apply to her present circumstances.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk
On 25/02/2024 18:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 17:48, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political
crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror
assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status. Would you
recommend she
apply to the UK?
The UNHCR has a process by which she can be issued with travel
papers. However, she would need to demonstrate that a country had
agreed to admit her with those papers as a condition to being able to
leave the camp.
I do not believe the UK would admit her, no, so see no point in
recommending that she apply to the UK, not that I am in a position to
proffer her or her team any advice.
I would suggest that she and her advisors would be well served in
looking for a country that might admit her but I can't imagine that
is a very long list. Given her present circumstances, I cannot
imagine there would be many places that would be worse hen where she
is right now, but see being executed in Bangladesh as being an
obvious example of a "worse" outcome.
There isn't actually anything like as great a risk of that as some
would have you believe, and certainly not as much as in, say, China,
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt or the USA.
Not for the first time, and unfortunately unlikely to be for the last,
you have misdirected yourself as to the facts of the matter by having insufficient knowledge of the subject in hand and having relied on the results of a search in Google to support your opinion.
According to various sources online, there were just 11 executions in
Bangladesh in the 10-year period 1991-2000, 57 between 2001-2010 and
30 from 2011-2019, so just about 3 a year over 30 years. And the ones
that have been executed, as far as can be determined, have been
convicted murderers. And male.
Did those "various sources online" reveal that the number of deal row prisoners in Bangladesh is rising rapidly? In November 2011 there were 1,009 but by June 2021 this had almost doubled to 2,000.
I highly commend to you the empirical study undertaken by the Department
of Law at the University of Dhaka [1] in collaboration with the
Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) [2] and The Death
Penalty Project [3] entitled "Living Under Sentence of Death: A study on
the profiles, experiences and perspectives of death row prisoners in Bangladesh", a copy of which is available from the web-site of the
latter organisation [4].
The study highlights that there are 33 death penalty offences in
Bangladesh, 25 of which are non-fatal offences. 14 of these 33 offences have been introduced since 2000 demonstrating clearly that Bangladesh lawmakers are placing an increased reliance of the death penalty in
their penal policy.
The study does not paint a pretty picture when analysing the disproportionality of the death penalty. For example none of the
prisoners in the study belonged to the upper or upper-middle classes of socio-economic strata and 87% had no qualifications beyond secondary
school level.
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite disrespectful
of another friendly sovereign nation with an established judicial
system with UK roots and traditions.
Nobody familiar with Bangladesh penal policy would suggest any of the
above, and certainly not anybody familiar with the study I've referenced above.
Most respondents expressed significant dissatisfaction with the quality
of the legal investigation, with at least a third of the families
claiming that the inmates were tortured in custody to extract
confessions. Interviews also indicate that torture during investigation
had been normalised or accepted to some extent.
Another worrying finding was the enormous delay in proceedings largely responsible for the prolonged detention of inmates and their protracted isolation on death row. In almost half of the cases, the process from
the filing of the cases to their disposal by Bangladesh's High Court
Division (HCD) took more than 10 years with the families of more than
half of the prisoners reporting they were subjected to harassment by
local people, forcing four of the families in the study to relocate.
Should Ms Begum decide to subject herself to the Bangladesh authorities,
it is likely she will be tortured to force her to confess to crimes she
may not have committed whereupon it will likely take around a decade to dispose of the case in court at which time, if convicted, she will be in isolation on death row awaiting execution.
Hardly a tempting prospect and certainly not the behaviour of a
"friendly sovereign nation with an established judicial system with UK
roots and traditions".
On 25/02/2024 18:33, JNugent wrote:
Does a person legally entitled to citizenship *need* a passport in
order to enter the country whose citizenship he is entitled to?
I invite you to find a UK citizen that has never held a UK passport and
have them arrive at UK Border Control at a port / airport of your /
their choosing and gain entry to the UK with nothing more than a verbal
claim to being a UK citizen. (So no passport, birth certificate, ID
card, photo driving licence, bank card, etc.)
Please let me know how they get on and for how many days they're held by
UK Immigration Authorities.
I got my first passport when I was 20.
Had I, by some chance, found myself outside the UK in the previous
period, would I have been unable to gain re-entry to the country?
If you have previously held a UK passport, there are procedures for
obtaining emergency travel documents the use of which would permit you
to re-enter the UK. Similarly, arriving at border control having lost
one's passport can be handled, but there is likely to be a delay.
However, if you've never held a UK passport you are, I believe the
technical term is, SOL. ;-)
You're likely to be refused entry,
sent back whence you came
where you'll need to apply for either emergency travel papers or a passport depending on the circumstances.
On 25/02/2024 19:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:07, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 21:54, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:45, Norman Wells wrote:
She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport
Please detail the precise steps Ms Begum must take to do as you
suggest.
Not my problem, not my concern.
Your statement "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport" is
therefore evidently useless because you don't actually know the steps
required for obtaining a Bangladeshi passport and if Ms Begum, in her
present circumstances, can fulfil them.
It is quite possible, even likely, that she cannot obtain a
Bangladeshi passport because you don't actually know what's involved
but that doesn't stop you proclaiming "She could actually obtain a
Bangladeshi passport."
It was therefore a meaningless statement.
Allow me to clarify matters for you, (and anyone that may have
accepted your claim at face value):
Step one for a current or former holder of a UK passport (that's a
tick for Ms Begum) that has not previously held a Bangladeshi
passport (that's also a tick for Ms Begum) and does not hold a
current and valid Bangladeshi ID card (Ms Begum is three for three)
is required to hold a face to face interview at a Bangladesh
Consulate or High Commission as the first step in the process of
applying for a passport.
Could you detail how, precisely, Ms Begum is to comply with the first
step in her application for a Bangladeshi passport please? It is
further to be noted that this is by no means the only hurdle she will
face, as detailed further in this post.
I understand the UN can issue travel permits to allow her to leave the
camp. And that should enable her to attend to the necessary
formalities. It's no good her just sitting back and bleating about
how hard it is; she has to get up off her backside and do what is
necessary.
The fact is, she doesn't want to, not that it's impossible.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves about what the UN can do.
The statement we're currently discussing is: "She could actually obtain
a Bangladeshi passport".
Do you accept that you were mistaken to make this claim as:
(1) you did not the process involved, with which she cannot comply; and
(2) you were unaware of the Bangladeshi legislation that permits them to refuse to issue her with a passport even if she were able to complete an application for one?
No need for a narrative answer. Yes or No will do.
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:00, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 23:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker"
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations >>>>>>> on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55 >>>>>>> pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British
Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is >>>>>>> repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we >>>>>>> conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the
territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms >>>>>>> Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase
"technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" >>>>>>> but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>>>
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic
prospect of
exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as
Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to >>>>>>> terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to >>>>>>> formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to >>>>>>> apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all
practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK >>>>>>> citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have >>>>>>> been
revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will >>>>>>> render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms. >>>>>>>
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political >>>>>> crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror >>>>>> assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status.
I'm sure the Bangladeshi authorities would say they do not execute
people for political crimes but only possibly after due process and a >>>>> fair trial resulting in a guilty verdict under criminal law.
As indeed many other states in the world do.
And the UK government hasn't branded all of those as rogue states
from which anyone can flee with handy refugee status.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, given your comments above, on the
applicability of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees to those like Ms Begum, and to Ms Begum herself.
Inapplicable to her.
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country
because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the
country of her citizenship.
That's the problem with using a partial, selective section of the
definition.
Allow me to post the full definition according to the UNHCR [1]:
"A refugee is a person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is
unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the
protection of that country'"
Are you suggesting that Ms Begum does not have:
(a) a well-founded fear of being persecuted;
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
(b) for reasons of religion or political opinion;
Should that read “for reasons of religion, political, or terrorist opinion”?
(c) is outside the country of [her] nationality;
and is
(d) unable to avail herself of the protection of that country.
Perhaps “unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country” might be more accurate?
So she fails on three out of the four, and ‘being outside the country of her nationality’ is of itself neither here nor there.
Please state which of (a) through (d) you consider not to apply to her
present circumstances.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk
On 26 Feb 2024 at 17:09:18 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:00, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 23:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker"
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations >>>>>>>> on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55 >>>>>>>> pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British >>>>>>>> Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is >>>>>>>> repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we >>>>>>>> conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the
territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms >>>>>>>> Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase
"technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" >>>>>>>> but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>>>>
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic
prospect of
exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as >>>>>>>> Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to >>>>>>>> terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to >>>>>>>> formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to >>>>>>>> apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all >>>>>>>> practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK >>>>>>>> citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have >>>>>>>> been
revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will >>>>>>>> render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms. >>>>>>>>
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political >>>>>>> crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror >>>>>>> assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status.
I'm sure the Bangladeshi authorities would say they do not execute >>>>>> people for political crimes but only possibly after due process and a >>>>>> fair trial resulting in a guilty verdict under criminal law.
As indeed many other states in the world do.
And the UK government hasn't branded all of those as rogue states
from which anyone can flee with handy refugee status.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, given your comments above, on the
applicability of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees to those like Ms Begum, and to Ms Begum herself.
Inapplicable to her.
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country
because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the
country of her citizenship.
That's the problem with using a partial, selective section of the
definition.
Allow me to post the full definition according to the UNHCR [1]:
"A refugee is a person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is
unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the
protection of that country'"
Are you suggesting that Ms Begum does not have:
(a) a well-founded fear of being persecuted;
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
(b) for reasons of religion or political opinion;
Should that read “for reasons of religion, political, or terrorist
opinion”?
In the case of a non-combatant there is absolutely no difference between "terrorist" and "political" except whether the speaker likes them or not. She may have committed a crime by belonging to a proscribed organisation; but there is no evidence that she has committed violence against any civilians with terrorist objectives. If we play with the meaning of words enough we may come to believe they mean something, but in no unbiassed sense is she a "terrorist".
From the CPS web site:
(c) is outside the country of [her] nationality;
and is
(d) unable to avail herself of the protection of that country.
Perhaps “unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country” >> might be more accurate?
So she fails on three out of the four, and ‘being outside the country of >> her nationality’ is of itself neither here nor there.
Please state which of (a) through (d) you consider not to apply to her
present circumstances.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 17:09:18 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:00, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 23:15, Norman Wells wrote:Inapplicable to her.
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker"
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment.
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations
on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55 >>>>>>>>> pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British >>>>>>>>> Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is >>>>>>>>> repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we >>>>>>>>> conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the
territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms >>>>>>>>> Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase >>>>>>>>> "technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" >>>>>>>>> but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>>>>>
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic >>>>>>>>> prospect of
exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as >>>>>>>>> Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to >>>>>>>>> terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to >>>>>>>>> formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to >>>>>>>>> apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all >>>>>>>>> practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK >>>>>>>>> citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have >>>>>>>>> been
revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will >>>>>>>>> render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms. >>>>>>>>>
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political >>>>>>>> crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror >>>>>>>> assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status.
I'm sure the Bangladeshi authorities would say they do not execute >>>>>>> people for political crimes but only possibly after due process and a >>>>>>> fair trial resulting in a guilty verdict under criminal law.
As indeed many other states in the world do.
And the UK government hasn't branded all of those as rogue states >>>>>>> from which anyone can flee with handy refugee status.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, given your comments above, on the
applicability of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees to those like Ms Begum, and to Ms Begum herself. >>>>>
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country >>>>> because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded >>>>> fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the >>>>> country of her citizenship.
That's the problem with using a partial, selective section of the
definition.
Allow me to post the full definition according to the UNHCR [1]:
"A refugee is a person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, >>>> religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is
unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the >>>> protection of that country'"
Are you suggesting that Ms Begum does not have:
(a) a well-founded fear of being persecuted;
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
(b) for reasons of religion or political opinion;
Should that read “for reasons of religion, political, or terrorist
opinion”?
In the case of a non-combatant there is absolutely no difference between
"terrorist" and "political" except whether the speaker likes them or not. >> She may have committed a crime by belonging to a proscribed organisation; but
there is no evidence that she has committed violence against any civilians >> with terrorist objectives. If we play with the meaning of words enough we may
come to believe they mean something, but in no unbiassed sense is she a
"terrorist".
From the CPS web site:
Terrorism
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where
they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat
must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
serious violence against a person;
serious damage to property;
endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section
of the public; and
action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.
It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism
offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on
how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.
(c) is outside the country of [her] nationality;
and is
(d) unable to avail herself of the protection of that country.
Perhaps “unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country” >>> might be more accurate?
So she fails on three out of the four, and ‘being outside the country of >>> her nationality’ is of itself neither here nor there.
Please state which of (a) through (d) you consider not to apply to her >>>> present circumstances.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk
On 26/02/2024 15:53, Simon Parker wrote:
On 25/02/2024 19:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:07, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 22:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/02/2024 21:54, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 08:45, Norman Wells wrote:
She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport
Please detail the precise steps Ms Begum must take to do as you
suggest.
Not my problem, not my concern.
Your statement "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport" is
therefore evidently useless because you don't actually know the
steps required for obtaining a Bangladeshi passport and if Ms Begum,
in her present circumstances, can fulfil them.
It is quite possible, even likely, that she cannot obtain a
Bangladeshi passport because you don't actually know what's involved
but that doesn't stop you proclaiming "She could actually obtain a
Bangladeshi passport."
It was therefore a meaningless statement.
Allow me to clarify matters for you, (and anyone that may have
accepted your claim at face value):
Step one for a current or former holder of a UK passport (that's a
tick for Ms Begum) that has not previously held a Bangladeshi
passport (that's also a tick for Ms Begum) and does not hold a
current and valid Bangladeshi ID card (Ms Begum is three for three)
is required to hold a face to face interview at a Bangladesh
Consulate or High Commission as the first step in the process of
applying for a passport.
Could you detail how, precisely, Ms Begum is to comply with the
first step in her application for a Bangladeshi passport please? It
is further to be noted that this is by no means the only hurdle she
will face, as detailed further in this post.
I understand the UN can issue travel permits to allow her to leave
the camp. And that should enable her to attend to the necessary
formalities. It's no good her just sitting back and bleating about
how hard it is; she has to get up off her backside and do what is
necessary.
The fact is, she doesn't want to, not that it's impossible.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves about what the UN can do.
The statement we're currently discussing is: "She could actually
obtain a Bangladeshi passport".
Do you accept that you were mistaken to make this claim as:
(1) you did not the process involved, with which she cannot comply; and
(2) you were unaware of the Bangladeshi legislation that permits them
to refuse to issue her with a passport even if she were able to
complete an application for one?
No need for a narrative answer. Yes or No will do.
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would be the
best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does not need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to that country.
On 26 Feb 2024 at 22:15:19 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Feb 2024 at 17:09:18 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:00, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 23:15, Norman Wells wrote:Inapplicable to her.
On 24/02/2024 22:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Feb 2024 at 21:12:27 GMT, "Simon Parker"
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
I strongly suspect Norman hasn't read the latest judgment. >>>>>>>>>>
I further strongly suspect he has forgotten the numerous conversations
on this at the time of earlier judgments.
In the earlier SIAC decision [1], it took 32 of the judgment's 55 >>>>>>>>>> pages
for SIAC to examine whether or not revoking Ms Begum's British >>>>>>>>>> Nationality made her stateless.
Their determination can be found in paragraph 128 thereof (and is >>>>>>>>>> repeated in [192 i], which I quote in full: "For those reasons, we >>>>>>>>>> conclude that Decision 1 A did not make A stateless."
With my pedantic head on, (this is ULM, so it goes with the >>>>>>>>>> territory),
and as the Court of Appeal confirmed in their recent judgment, Ms >>>>>>>>>> Begum
is not de jure stateless (or to use the Appeal Court's phrase >>>>>>>>>> "technically stateless" (Ed: I'd have preferred "legally stateless" >>>>>>>>>> but
they said what they said)) as she holds Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>>>>>>
However, she *is* de facto stateless as she has no realistic >>>>>>>>>> prospect of
exercising any rights that her citizenship might afford her as >>>>>>>>>> Bangladesh has made clear that they have a zero tolerance approach to
terrorism and will try, (and likely execute), her if she attempts to >>>>>>>>>> formalise her Bangladeshi citizenship by, for example, attempting to >>>>>>>>>> apply for a passport.
Legally, she isn't stateless - but she might as well be for all >>>>>>>>>> practical purposes. This is important because if revoking her UK >>>>>>>>>> citizenship would have made her legally stateless, it couldn't have >>>>>>>>>> been
revoked.
Whether it is right to revoke UK citizenship knowing that this will >>>>>>>>>> render a person de facto stateless is a whole other can of worms. >>>>>>>>>>
[1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf
If her only potential state is likely to execute her for a political >>>>>>>>> crime
(I've made a couple of
pre-the-Americans-becoming-frightened-and-starting-the-WaronTerror >>>>>>>>> assumptions
there) then surely she has a right to refugee status.
I'm sure the Bangladeshi authorities would say they do not execute >>>>>>>> people for political crimes but only possibly after due process and a >>>>>>>> fair trial resulting in a guilty verdict under criminal law.
As indeed many other states in the world do.
And the UK government hasn't branded all of those as rogue states >>>>>>>> from which anyone can flee with handy refugee status.
I'd love to hear your thoughts, given your comments above, on the >>>>>>> applicability of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the >>>>>>> Status of Refugees to those like Ms Begum, and to Ms Begum herself. >>>>>>
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country >>>>>> because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded >>>>>> fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the >>>>>> country of her citizenship.
That's the problem with using a partial, selective section of the
definition.
Allow me to post the full definition according to the UNHCR [1]:
"A refugee is a person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, >>>>> religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is >>>>> unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the >>>>> protection of that country'"
Are you suggesting that Ms Begum does not have:
(a) a well-founded fear of being persecuted;
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
(b) for reasons of religion or political opinion;
Should that read “for reasons of religion, political, or terrorist
opinion”?
In the case of a non-combatant there is absolutely no difference between >>> "terrorist" and "political" except whether the speaker likes them or not. >>> She may have committed a crime by belonging to a proscribed organisation; but
there is no evidence that she has committed violence against any civilians >>> with terrorist objectives. If we play with the meaning of words enough we may
come to believe they mean something, but in no unbiassed sense is she a
"terrorist".
From the CPS web site:
Terrorism
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as >> the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where
they are designed to influence the government, or an international
governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat
must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or >> ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
serious violence against a person;
serious damage to property;
endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the
action);
creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section >> of the public; and
action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an
electronic system.
The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of
firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action >> is designed to influence the government or an international governmental
organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
Action includes action outside the United Kingdom.
It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism
offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a >> terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on
how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism
legislation.
I know! And what a gross misuse of language that is!
Clearly, non-violent
"terrorist" offences are political crimes, just the same as the political crimes used to punish, for instance, Russian or Chinese dissidents for favouring democracy.
It isn't a law of nature that made supporting upopular
political causes a "terrorist" crime, it is a repressive and undemocratic law we have chosen to adopt.
You don't have to remind me, I know. Unlike the Americans we have actually made it a crime to speak in support of political causes we don't like. You didn't mention that, for some reason.
(c) is outside the country of [her] nationality;
and is
(d) unable to avail herself of the protection of that country.
Perhaps “unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country” >>>> might be more accurate?
So she fails on three out of the four, and ‘being outside the country of >>>> her nationality’ is of itself neither here nor there.
Please state which of (a) through (d) you consider not to apply to her >>>>> present circumstances.
Regards
S.P.
[1] https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk
On 25/02/2024 18:51, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 17:48:41 +0000, Simon Parker wrote:
I would suggest that she and her advisors would be well served in
looking for a country that might admit her but I can't imagine that is a >>> very long list. Given her present circumstances, I cannot imagine there >>> would be many places that would be worse hen where she is right now,
A Trump presidency might recognise her as a fellow victim of persecution
by crooked joe biden. Especially with his natural affinity for the
racially persecuted.
Trump has said that he will banish Prince Harry, or something to that
effect, because of his huge admiration for our late Queen.
But would the man who once said "I love Wikileaks" ever reprieve Julian Assange?
On 24/02/2024 14:43, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 16:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the
decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms
Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship.
There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after
losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21. She chose not
to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately engineered
her current position of being stateless.
Perhaps as you say she should have applied, and then when the
Bangladeshi state had refused her application then she may well have
had more justification to her cause.
I am only repeating what the Beeb said. She would have had an
automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship, but she had to apply for it.
It is possible that, even with citizenship, she would have been made
very unwelcome - either by refusing her entry or by imprisoning her.
Bangladesh has made clear that:
(1) It still has the death penalty;
(2) It has a zero tolerance approach to terrorism;
(3) They consider Ms Begum to be a terrorist;
(4) Given 1-3, they do not recommend Ms Begum applies to formalise any citizenship she may hold with them.
They do make a somewhat compelling argument.
On 25/02/2024 20:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite
disrespectful of another friendly sovereign nation with an
established judicial system with UK roots and traditions.
Oh, definitely emotive twaddle....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48154781
quote
IS bride Shamima Begum would "face the death penalty" for terrorism
if she came to Bangladesh, the country's foreign minister has said.
Abdul Momen told the BBC that Ms Begum has "nothing to do" with his
country.
He added that, if she did end up coming to Bangladesh, she would fall
foul of the country's "zero tolerance policy" towards terrorism.
"Bangladeshi law is very clear. Terrorists will have to face the
death penalty," he said.
Emotive twaddle and, moreover, a plethora of lies from someone who
seems to have taken against her for some reason.
But for some reason you trust Bangladesh to provide the same standards
of justice and judicial impartiality as we would expect from our own
judicial system. The system which allows our brown-skinned Home
Secretaries to demonstrate their loyalty to British values by being
extremely inhumane to brown British citizens who have broken the law.
Maybe the equivalent of the Home Secretary of Bangladesh would use the
powers invested in him to send her to a torture chamber where she can be interrogated and then terminated.
On 25/02/2024 18:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Implying that she would be executed as soon as putting a foot in
Bangladesh is, I suggest, just emotive twaddle and quite disrespectful
of another friendly sovereign nation with an established judicial
system with UK roots and traditions.
Oh, definitely emotive twaddle.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48154781
quote
IS bride Shamima Begum would "face the death penalty" for terrorism if
she came to Bangladesh, the country's foreign minister has said.
Abdul Momen told the BBC that Ms Begum has "nothing to do" with his
country.
He added that, if she did end up coming to Bangladesh, she would fall
foul of the country's "zero tolerance policy" towards terrorism.
"Bangladeshi law is very clear. Terrorists will have to face the death penalty," he said.
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would be theCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does not need a
Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to
that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue a passport to a
citizen.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in the
way of his specious claims.
On 26/02/2024 17:09, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:41, Norman Wells wrote:
Inapplicable to her.
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country
because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the
country of her citizenship.
That's the problem with using a partial, selective section of the
definition.
Allow me to post the full definition according to the UNHCR [1]:
"A refugee is a person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is
unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the
protection of that country'"
Are you suggesting that Ms Begum does not have:
(a) a well-founded fear of being persecuted;
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
No, the phrase used in the definition I quoted is a "well-founded fear
of being persecuted", which is more than borne out in the report I cited
in a post to Norman Wells on the operation of the Bangladeshi penal
system, particularly as it applies to capital offences.
and is
(d) unable to avail herself of the protection of that country.
Perhaps “unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country” >> might be more accurate?
No, she is unable to for reasons previously detailed. Her starting
problem is that she is a current or former UK passport holder that does
not and has never held a Bangladeshi passport and does not hold and has
never held a Bangladeshi ID card. In such circumstances, the first step
in formalising her Bangladeshi citizenship is to attend a formal
interview at a Bangladesh High Commission or Embassy.
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to locate the nearest
High Commission to Ms Begum's current position, arrange an appointment
there for her and secure her transportation to and from said High
Commission for said appointment.
Please do let me know how you get on.
So she fails on three out of the four, and ‘being outside the country of >> her nationality’ is of itself neither here nor there.
Does she? It is thankful that you are not in a position where your consideration of these matters carries any weight.
The problem you have is that our consideration is correct.^^^
There is no need for her to 'formalise' her citizenship in any way at
all, just as you or I don't have to formalise ours.
On 26/02/2024 18:35, Norman Wells wrote:
But she does not need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi
citizen and be admitted to that country.
Please stop attempting to move the goalposts.
We can move onto other matters once we've dealt with your claim that
"She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport".
On 28 Feb 2024 at 15:52:05 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
snip
^^^
The problem you have is that our consideration is correct.
Are you a committee? Or some other colonial organism?
On 28/02/2024 14:14, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would beCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
the best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does not
need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be
admitted to that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport
legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue a
passport to a citizen.
*Any* country can refuse to issue a passport to any particular citizen. That's a given, and baseline knowledge.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in the
way of his specious claims.
But your big error is in conflating getting a passport with citizenship.
As Mr Caruso has correctly pointed out they are *not* the same thing.
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:23 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 14:14, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would beCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
the best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does not
need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be
admitted to that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport
legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue a
passport to a citizen.
*Any* country can refuse to issue a passport to any particular
citizen. That's a given, and baseline knowledge.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in the
way of his specious claims.
But your big error is in conflating getting a passport with
citizenship. As Mr Caruso has correctly pointed out they are *not*
the same thing.
You are contradicting your previous posts.
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:52 schrieb Norman Wells:
There is no need for her to 'formalise' her citizenship in any way at
all, just as you or I don't have to formalise ours.
This is where you are completely wrong. Try to enter the UK (legally)
without a valid passport.
On 26/02/2024 17:09, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:41, Norman Wells wrote:
Inapplicable to her.
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country
because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the
country of her citizenship.
That's the problem with using a partial, selective section of the
definition.
Allow me to post the full definition according to the UNHCR [1]:
"A refugee is a person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is
unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the
protection of that country'"
Are you suggesting that Ms Begum does not have:
(a) a well-founded fear of being persecuted;
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
No, the phrase used in the definition I quoted is a "well-founded fear
of being persecuted", which is more than borne out in the report I cited
in a post to Norman Wells on the operation of the Bangladeshi penal
system, particularly as it applies to capital offences.
(b) for reasons of religion or political opinion;
Should that read “for reasons of religion, political, or terrorist
opinion”?
Again, the definition says what it says. You may wish to extend it or re-interpret it to suit your own agenda but that is a game you will be playing without any participation from me.
(c) is outside the country of [her] nationality;
and is
(d) unable to avail herself of the protection of that country.
Perhaps “unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country” >> might be more accurate?
No, she is unable to for reasons previously detailed. Her starting
problem is that she is a current or former UK passport holder that does
not and has never held a Bangladeshi passport and does not hold and has
never held a Bangladeshi ID card. In such circumstances, the first step
in formalising her Bangladeshi citizenship is to attend a formal
interview at a Bangladesh High Commission or Embassy.
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to locate the nearest
High Commission to Ms Begum's current position, arrange an appointment
there for her and secure her transportation to and from said High
Commission for said appointment.
Please do let me know how you get on.
So she fails on three out of the four, and ‘being outside the country of >> her nationality’ is of itself neither here nor there.
Does she? It is thankful that you are not in a position where your consideration of these matters carries any weight.
Regards
S.P.
On 26/02/2024 17:09, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:41, Norman Wells wrote:
Inapplicable to her.
"A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country
because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded
fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group."
It doesn't include being unwilling to face legitimate justice in the
country of her citizenship.
That's the problem with using a partial, selective section of the
definition.
Allow me to post the full definition according to the UNHCR [1]:
"A refugee is a person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or
political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is
unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the
protection of that country'"
Are you suggesting that Ms Begum does not have:
(a) a well-founded fear of being persecuted;
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
No, the phrase used in the definition I quoted is a "well-founded fear
of being persecuted", which is more than borne out in the report I cited
in a post to Norman Wells on the operation of the Bangladeshi penal
system, particularly as it applies to capital offences.
(b) for reasons of religion or political opinion;
Should that read “for reasons of religion, political, or terrorist
opinion”?
Again, the definition says what it says. You may wish to extend it or re-interpret it to suit your own agenda but that is a game you will be playing without any participation from me.
(c) is outside the country of [her] nationality;
and is
(d) unable to avail herself of the protection of that country.
Perhaps “unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country” >> might be more accurate?
No, she is unable to for reasons previously detailed. Her starting
problem is that she is a current or former UK passport holder that does
not and has never held a Bangladeshi passport and does not hold and has
never held a Bangladeshi ID card. In such circumstances, the first step
in formalising her Bangladeshi citizenship is to attend a formal
interview at a Bangladesh High Commission or Embassy.
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to locate the nearest
High Commission to Ms Begum's current position, arrange an appointment
there for her and secure her transportation to and from said High
Commission for said appointment.
Please do let me know how you get on.
So she fails on three out of the four, and ‘being outside the country of >> her nationality’ is of itself neither here nor there.
Does she? It is thankful that you are not in a position where your consideration of these matters carries any weight.
Regards
S.P.
On 28/02/2024 01:18, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2024 11:37 am, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 20:41, Norman Wells wrote:
Emotive twaddle and, moreover, a plethora of lies from someone who
seems to have taken against her for some reason.
But for some reason you trust Bangladesh to provide the same
standards of justice and judicial impartiality as we would expect
from our own judicial system. The system which allows our
brown-skinned Home Secretaries to demonstrate their loyalty to
British values by being extremely inhumane to brown British citizens
who have broken the law.
Maybe the equivalent of the Home Secretary of Bangladesh would use
the powers invested in him to send her to a torture chamber where she
can be interrogated and then terminated.
Do you hold the same opinion of all countries of "lesser breeds
without the law", or only Bangladesh?
Bangladesh has a known history of torture to extract confessions, particularly in capital cases.
So endemic is the practice that it is considered "normalised". I've
posted a report on it elsewhere in the thread. I recommend reading it.
It may open your eyes to the Bangladeshi penal system, or you may prefer
to remain ignorant of the facts so that your mistaken preconceptions are
not challenged by the evidence.
On 28/02/2024 01:23, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2024 09:14 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 24/02/2024 14:43, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 16:54, Fredxx wrote:
On 23/02/2024 14:18, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2024 11:33, Simon Parker wrote:
In her ruling, the Chief Justice has said it could be argued the >>>>>>> decision in Ms Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Ms >>>>>>> Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".
Ms Begum had the chance of activating her Bangladeshi citizenship. >>>>>> There was a 1+ year window in which she could have done that after >>>>>> losing her UK citizenship, before she reached age 21. She chose
not to do that, so at least to that extent she deliberately
engineered her current position of being stateless.
Perhaps as you say she should have applied, and then when the
Bangladeshi state had refused her application then she may well
have had more justification to her cause.
I am only repeating what the Beeb said. She would have had an
automatic right to Bangladeshi citizenship, but she had to apply for
it.
It is possible that, even with citizenship, she would have been made
very unwelcome - either by refusing her entry or by imprisoning her.
Bangladesh has made clear that:
(1) It still has the death penalty;
(2) It has a zero tolerance approach to terrorism;
(3) They consider Ms Begum to be a terrorist;
(4) Given 1-3, they do not recommend Ms Begum applies to formalise
any citizenship she may hold with them.
They do make a somewhat compelling argument.
What constitutes "Bangladesh" within that claim?
My knowledge of the Bangladeshi criminal justice and penal system and statements made by Bangladeshi Ministers.
Do you disagree with any of the claims?
On 26/02/2024 18:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2024 15:50, Simon Parker wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:33, JNugent wrote:
Does a person legally entitled to citizenship *need* a passport in
order to enter the country whose citizenship he is entitled to?
I invite you to find a UK citizen that has never held a UK passport
and have them arrive at UK Border Control at a port / airport of your
/ their choosing and gain entry to the UK with nothing more than a
verbal claim to being a UK citizen. (So no passport, birth
certificate, ID card, photo driving licence, bank card, etc.)
Please let me know how they get on and for how many days they're held
by UK Immigration Authorities.
It depends how they know, what they can establish, and how easily. If
someone is a UK citizen, they must have some basis for saying that,
and that will somehow be verifiable. Once it is verified, the
immigration authorities will let them enter the country.
The terms of reference were clearly stated, and deliberately so.
They were:
(1) A UK citizen that has never held a UK passport;
(2) Arriving at UK Border Control at a port or airport of your / their choosing;
(3) To gain entry to the UK; and
(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above.
Given the above terms of reference, please detail "What they [the UK Immigration Authorities] can establish and how easily." and how they can
and will verify the claim that someone is a UK citizen.
Border Control are clear on the matter [1]:
"At border control You’ll need to show your identity document, such as
your passport or national identity card."
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would be theCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does not need a
Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to
that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue a passport to a
citizen.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in the
way of his specious claims.
Regards
S.P.
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:52 schrieb Norman Wells:
There is no need for her to 'formalise' her citizenship in any way at
all, just as you or I don't have to formalise ours.
This is where you are completely wrong. Try to enter the UK (legally)
without a valid passport.
Even a UK passport is a privilege granted by the sovereign. In practice,
as unlikely to be refused (to a citizen) as it is for the sovereign to
refuse to sign a Parliamentary Act, but not some sort of absolute right.
But does a citizen who happens to be outside their country HAVE to
produce a passport in order to gain entry?
Globally, there must be many
cases per day of lost or stolen passports, even allowing that being
outside the country but never having had a passport in the first place
is somewhat less common.
On 28/02/2024 01:55 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 01:18, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2024 11:37 am, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 20:41, Norman Wells wrote:
Emotive twaddle and, moreover, a plethora of lies from someone who
seems to have taken against her for some reason.
But for some reason you trust Bangladesh to provide the same
standards of justice and judicial impartiality as we would expect
from our own judicial system. The system which allows our
brown-skinned Home Secretaries to demonstrate their loyalty to
British values by being extremely inhumane to brown British citizens
who have broken the law.
Maybe the equivalent of the Home Secretary of Bangladesh would use
the powers invested in him to send her to a torture chamber where
she can be interrogated and then terminated.
Do you hold the same opinion of all countries of "lesser breeds
without the law", or only Bangladesh?
Bangladesh has a known history of torture to extract confessions,
particularly in capital cases.
So you hold a low opinion of Bangladesh and Bangladeshi officials?
So endemic is the practice that it is considered "normalised". I've
posted a report on it elsewhere in the thread. I recommend reading
it. It may open your eyes to the Bangladeshi penal system, or you may
prefer to remain ignorant of the facts so that your mistaken
preconceptions are not challenged by the evidence.
I don't have to worry about what happens in Bangladesh. It literally is
none of my business.
On 29/02/2024 11:54, JNugent wrote:
Even a UK passport is a privilege granted by the sovereign. In practice,
as unlikely to be refused (to a citizen) as it is for the sovereign to
refuse to sign a Parliamentary Act, but not some sort of absolute right.
But does a citizen who happens to be outside their country HAVE to
produce a passport in order to gain entry?
No.
Globally, there must be many
cases per day of lost or stolen passports, even allowing that being
outside the country but never having had a passport in the first place
is somewhat less common.
Quite so. The requirement is simply that you are in fact a national
citizen. Otherwise, refusal of a country's own citizens is deliberately making them stateless, which international conventions forbid.
The UK authorities will almost certainly not refuse you entry unless you
rock up:
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above."
And even then, since there's nowhere to deport you to that will have
you, you will be detained and given the opportunity to prove your bona
fides.
I think other countries will have similar provisions and procedures
because they need them.
On 28/02/2024 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:23 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 14:14, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would beCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
the best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does not >>>>>> need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be
admitted to that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport
legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue a
passport to a citizen.
*Any* country can refuse to issue a passport to any particular
citizen. That's a given, and baseline knowledge.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in
the way of his specious claims.
But your big error is in conflating getting a passport with
citizenship. As Mr Caruso has correctly pointed out they are *not*
the same thing.
You are contradicting your previous posts.
Hardly. It is *my* comment above that she does not need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to that country.
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE British
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
(or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to let you
in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself. Obviously,
some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies for
their citizens.
Am 28/02/2024 um 17:00 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:23 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 14:14, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would be >>>>>>> the best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does not >>>>>>> need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and beCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
admitted to that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport
legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue a
passport to a citizen.
*Any* country can refuse to issue a passport to any particular
citizen. That's a given, and baseline knowledge.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in
the way of his specious claims.
But your big error is in conflating getting a passport with
citizenship. As Mr Caruso has correctly pointed out they are *not* >>>> the same thing.
You are contradicting your previous posts.
Hardly. It is *my* comment above that she does not need a Bangladeshi
passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to that country.
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
On 29/02/2024 11:44, JNugent wrote:
On 28/02/2024 01:55 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 01:18, JNugent wrote:
On 26/02/2024 11:37 am, The Todal wrote:
On 25/02/2024 20:41, Norman Wells wrote:
Emotive twaddle and, moreover, a plethora of lies from someone who >>>>>> seems to have taken against her for some reason.
But for some reason you trust Bangladesh to provide the same
standards of justice and judicial impartiality as we would expect
from our own judicial system. The system which allows our
brown-skinned Home Secretaries to demonstrate their loyalty to
British values by being extremely inhumane to brown British
citizens who have broken the law.
Maybe the equivalent of the Home Secretary of Bangladesh would use
the powers invested in him to send her to a torture chamber where
she can be interrogated and then terminated.
Do you hold the same opinion of all countries of "lesser breeds
without the law", or only Bangladesh?
Bangladesh has a known history of torture to extract confessions,
particularly in capital cases.
So you hold a low opinion of Bangladesh and Bangladeshi officials?
So endemic is the practice that it is considered "normalised". I've
posted a report on it elsewhere in the thread. I recommend reading
it. It may open your eyes to the Bangladeshi penal system, or you may
prefer to remain ignorant of the facts so that your mistaken
preconceptions are not challenged by the evidence.
I don't have to worry about what happens in Bangladesh. It literally
is none of my business.
When does it become any of your business, if at all?
How about if a British citizen was being detained and tortured in
Bangladesh?
Am 28/02/2024 um 17:00 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:23 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 14:14, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would be >>>>>>> the best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does not >>>>>>> need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and beCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
admitted to that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport
legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue a
passport to a citizen.
*Any* country can refuse to issue a passport to any particular
citizen. That's a given, and baseline knowledge.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in
the way of his specious claims.
But your big error is in conflating getting a passport with
citizenship. As Mr Caruso has correctly pointed out they are *not* >>>> the same thing.
You are contradicting your previous posts.
Hardly. It is *my* comment above that she does not need a Bangladeshi
passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to that country.
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:02:12 GMT, "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE British
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
(or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to let you
in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself. Obviously,
some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies for
their citizens.
In practice I think you at least have to *have* owned a British passport before you lost it. Having travelled abroad without one would firstly make it much more difficult to identify you (don't forget the passport photo is in a government database) and more difficult to convince immigration that you weren't up to no good. The security of ID for a driving licence is much less complete.
On 29 Feb 2024 at 13:15:38 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 29/02/2024 11:54, JNugent wrote:
Even a UK passport is a privilege granted by the sovereign. In practice, >>> as unlikely to be refused (to a citizen) as it is for the sovereign to
refuse to sign a Parliamentary Act, but not some sort of absolute right. >>>
But does a citizen who happens to be outside their country HAVE to
produce a passport in order to gain entry?
No.
Globally, there must be many
cases per day of lost or stolen passports, even allowing that being
outside the country but never having had a passport in the first place
is somewhat less common.
Quite so. The requirement is simply that you are in fact a national
citizen. Otherwise, refusal of a country's own citizens is deliberately
making them stateless, which international conventions forbid.
The UK authorities will almost certainly not refuse you entry unless you
rock up:
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above."
And even then, since there's nowhere to deport you to that will have
you, you will be detained and given the opportunity to prove your bona
fides.
There is no need to deport someone refused entry in the first place and airlines are obliged to take them back to where the brought them from.
On 29/02/2024 14:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 13:15:38 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 29/02/2024 11:54, JNugent wrote:
Even a UK passport is a privilege granted by the sovereign. In practice, >>>> as unlikely to be refused (to a citizen) as it is for the sovereign to >>>> refuse to sign a Parliamentary Act, but not some sort of absolute right. >>>>
But does a citizen who happens to be outside their country HAVE to
produce a passport in order to gain entry?
No.
Globally, there must be many
cases per day of lost or stolen passports, even allowing that being
outside the country but never having had a passport in the first place >>>> is somewhat less common.
Quite so. The requirement is simply that you are in fact a national
citizen. Otherwise, refusal of a country's own citizens is deliberately >>> making them stateless, which international conventions forbid.
The UK authorities will almost certainly not refuse you entry unless you >>> rock up:
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above."
And even then, since there's nowhere to deport you to that will have
you, you will be detained and given the opportunity to prove your bona
fides.
There is no need to deport someone refused entry in the first place and
airlines are obliged to take them back to where the brought them from.
Are they? Who says?
Can you quote the law please?
On 29/02/2024 16:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:02:12 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio CarusoIn practice I think you at least have to *have* owned a British
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE British
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
(or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to let you
in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself. Obviously, >>> some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies for
their citizens.
passport
before you lost it. Having travelled abroad without one would firstly make it
much more difficult to identify you (don't forget the passport photo is in a >> government database) and more difficult to convince immigration that you
weren't up to no good. The security of ID for a driving licence is much less >> complete.
You haven't necessarily lost a passport, you may never have had one.
You may, for example have been born in France to British parents and
caught one of those inflatable ferries over to Dover.
What do you think would happen then?
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE British
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
(or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to let you
in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself. Obviously,
some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies for
their citizens.
On 29/02/2024 14:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 28/02/2024 um 17:00 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:23 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 14:14, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would >>>>>>>> be the best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she does >>>>>>>> not need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and >>>>>>>> be admitted to that country.Citizenship and passports are not the same thing.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport
legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue a >>>>>> passport to a citizen.
*Any* country can refuse to issue a passport to any particular
citizen. That's a given, and baseline knowledge.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in
the way of his specious claims.
But your big error is in conflating getting a passport with
citizenship. As Mr Caruso has correctly pointed out they are
*not* the same thing.
You are contradicting your previous posts.
Hardly. It is *my* comment above that she does not need a
Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to
that country.
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
If you wish to maintain that line, you'll have to provide a reputable
cite, as it's manifestly false.
Am 29/02/2024 um 16:02 schrieb Ian Jackson:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
British (or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to
let you in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself.
Obviously, some of the more-benighted countries may have different
policies for their citizens.
Even if that were the case (I still want to see a UK citizen coming into
the UK without a passport),
this is definitely not the case for many
other countries.
I would not make assumptions based on UK rules.
There are documented cases on social media (namely T*ktok) of American citizens trying to board a plane to Italy without an Italian passport
and claiming "heritage".
Am 29/02/2024 um 16:11 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 29/02/2024 14:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:Try to board a plane to Italy without a (as in any) passport and
Am 28/02/2024 um 17:00 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:23 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 14:14, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would >>>>>>>>> be the best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she >>>>>>>>> does not need a Bangladeshi passport to be a BangladeshiCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
citizen and be admitted to that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport
legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue >>>>>>> a passport to a citizen.
*Any* country can refuse to issue a passport to any particular
citizen. That's a given, and baseline knowledge.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get in >>>>>>> the way of his specious claims.
But your big error is in conflating getting a passport with
citizenship. As Mr Caruso has correctly pointed out they are
*not* the same thing.
You are contradicting your previous posts.
Hardly. It is *my* comment above that she does not need a
Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to
that country.
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
If you wish to maintain that line, you'll have to provide a reputable
cite, as it's manifestly false.
claiming you are an Italian citizen.
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:15:39 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 29/02/2024 14:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 13:15:38 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 29/02/2024 11:54, JNugent wrote:
Even a UK passport is a privilege granted by the sovereign. In practice, >>>>> as unlikely to be refused (to a citizen) as it is for the sovereign to >>>>> refuse to sign a Parliamentary Act, but not some sort of absolute right. >>>>>
But does a citizen who happens to be outside their country HAVE to
produce a passport in order to gain entry?
No.
Globally, there must be many
cases per day of lost or stolen passports, even allowing that being
outside the country but never having had a passport in the first place >>>>> is somewhat less common.
Quite so. The requirement is simply that you are in fact a national
citizen. Otherwise, refusal of a country's own citizens is deliberately >>>> making them stateless, which international conventions forbid.
The UK authorities will almost certainly not refuse you entry unless you >>>> rock up:
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above."
And even then, since there's nowhere to deport you to that will have
you, you will be detained and given the opportunity to prove your bona >>>> fides.
There is no need to deport someone refused entry in the first place and
airlines are obliged to take them back to where the brought them from.
Are they? Who says?
Can you quote the law please?
I am telling you for your own interest. I have feel no obligation to prove it.
In message <l4bri2Fd2s2U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 16:39, Roger Hayter wrote:It would a lot easier simply to go to the UK embassy or one of the consulates, plead your case there, and get them to issue you with a
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:02:12 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio CarusoIn practice I think you at least have to *have* owned a British
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE British >>>> (or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to let you
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any >>>>> country.
in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself.
Obviously,
some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies for
their citizens.
passport
before you lost it. Having travelled abroad without one would firstly
make it
much more difficult to identify you (don't forget the passport photo
is in a
government database) and more difficult to convince immigration that you >>> weren't up to no good. The security of ID for a driving licence is
much less
complete.
You haven't necessarily lost a passport, you may never have had one.
You may, for example have been born in France to British parents and
caught one of those inflatable ferries over to Dover.
What do you think would happen then?
document for travel to the UK.
Am 29/02/2024 um 16:02 schrieb Ian Jackson:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE
British (or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to
let you in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself.
Obviously, some of the more-benighted countries may have different
policies for their citizens.
Even if that were the case (I still want to see a UK citizen coming into
the UK without a passport), this is definitely not the case for many
other countries. I would not make assumptions based on UK rules.
There are documented cases on social media (namely T*ktok) of American citizens trying to board a plane to Italy without an Italian passport
and claiming "heritage".
On 29/02/2024 20:38, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <l4bri2Fd2s2U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells >><hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 16:39, Roger Hayter wrote:It would a lot easier simply to go to the UK embassy or one of the >>consulates, plead your case there, and get them to issue you with a >>document for travel to the UK.
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:02:12 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio CarusoIn practice I think you at least have to *have* owned a British >>>>passport
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE British >>>>> (or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to let you >>>>> in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself. >>>>>Obviously,
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any >>>>>> country.
some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies for >>>>> their citizens.
before you lost it. Having travelled abroad without one would
firstly make it
much more difficult to identify you (don't forget the passport
photo is in a
government database) and more difficult to convince immigration that you >>>> weren't up to no good. The security of ID for a driving licence is >>>>much less
complete.
You haven't necessarily lost a passport, you may never have had one.
You may, for example have been born in France to British parents and >>>caught one of those inflatable ferries over to Dover.
What do you think would happen then?
But that's not the scenario. Would you like to address what is?
In message <l4cf0lFfq38U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 20:38, Ian Jackson wrote:I guess a lot would depend on how much you appeared to be non-British.
In message <l4bri2Fd2s2U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 16:39, Roger Hayter wrote:It would a lot easier simply to go to the UK embassy or one of the
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:02:12 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio CarusoIn practice I think you at least have to *have* owned a British
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any >>>>>>> country.
British
(or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to let you >>>>>> in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself.
Obviously,
some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies for >>>>>> their citizens.
passport
before you lost it. Having travelled abroad without one would
firstly make it
much more difficult to identify you (don't forget the passport
photo is in a
government database) and more difficult to convince immigration
that you
weren't up to no good. The security of ID for a driving licence is
much less
complete.
You haven't necessarily lost a passport, you may never have had one.
You may, for example have been born in France to British parents and
caught one of those inflatable ferries over to Dover.
What do you think would happen then?
consulates, plead your case there, and get them to issue you with a
document for travel to the UK.
But that's not the scenario. Would you like to address what is?
If you were of Middle Eastern appearance, and spoke mainly Arabic, you
might get lumped in with all the other occupants of the boat. If you
looked European, and spoke good English (or even French), immigration
would probably hear your case much more sympathetically. Presumably they would start by contacting the French authorities to do a check your
parents.
On 29/02/2024 20:05, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 29/02/2024 um 16:02 schrieb Ian Jackson:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
British (or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to
let you in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself.
Obviously, some of the more-benighted countries may have different
policies for their citizens.
Even if that were the case (I still want to see a UK citizen coming
into the UK without a passport),
It happens. If it did not happen, there would be no need for the UK authorities to set out what happens if you turn up
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above."
this is definitely not the case for many other countries.
Who says?
I would not make assumptions based on UK rules.
Then I invite you to say how, if they deny admission to their own
citizens, they comply with the 1961 UN Convention on the reduction of Statelessness.
There are documented cases on social media (namely T*ktok) of American
citizens trying to board a plane to Italy without an Italian passport
and claiming "heritage".
I don't know what point you're trying to make because you haven't told us.
But they're American citizens on your own admission. If they had
American passports, those would get them on board. They would also in
all probability be allowed on board if they just had some valid ID, not necessarily a passport, but that depends on the airline's own rules.
Their American passports would also, if they chose to use them, get them
into Italy. If they chose not to use them, then they would have to
prove to the Italian immigration authorities on arrival that they were
also Italian citizens as they seem to be claiming.
On 29/02/2024 20:06, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 29/02/2024 um 16:11 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 29/02/2024 14:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:Try to board a plane to Italy without a (as in any) passport and
Am 28/02/2024 um 17:00 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 28/02/2024 um 15:23 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 28/02/2024 14:14, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/02/2024 09:26, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 26/02/2024 um 18:35 schrieb Norman Wells:
She could in theory obtain a Bangladeshi passport, which would >>>>>>>>>> be the best conclusion for her to travel anywhere. But she >>>>>>>>>> does not need a Bangladeshi passport to be a BangladeshiCitizenship and passports are not the same thing.
citizen and be admitted to that country.
Especially in a country like Bangladesh where their passport
legislation specifically gives them the right to refuse to issue >>>>>>>> a passport to a citizen.
*Any* country can refuse to issue a passport to any particular
citizen. That's a given, and baseline knowledge.
But Norman rarely lets inconveniences like legal realities get >>>>>>>> in the way of his specious claims.
But your big error is in conflating getting a passport with
citizenship. As Mr Caruso has correctly pointed out they are >>>>>>> *not* the same thing.
You are contradicting your previous posts.
Hardly. It is *my* comment above that she does not need a
Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi citizen and be admitted to
that country.
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
If you wish to maintain that line, you'll have to provide a reputable
cite, as it's manifestly false.
claiming you are an Italian citizen.
That depends on the airline's, and maybe international, rules. It's got nothing to do with being allowed into a country of your own citizenship.
On 29/02/2024 08:05 pm, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 29/02/2024 um 16:02 schrieb Ian Jackson:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any
country.
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE
British (or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to
let you in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself.
Obviously, some of the more-benighted countries may have different
policies for their citizens.
Even if that were the case (I still want to see a UK citizen coming
into the UK without a passport), this is definitely not the case for
many other countries. I would not make assumptions based on UK rules.
There are documented cases on social media (namely T*ktok) of American
citizens trying to board a plane to Italy without an Italian passport
and claiming "heritage".
What do you think happens when someone's passport is stolen and the
theft is only noticed at the UK Border?
If you looked European, and spoke good English (or even French),
immigration would probably hear your case much more sympathetically.
Am 29/02/2024 um 22:30 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 29/02/2024 20:06, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 29/02/2024 um 16:11 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 29/02/2024 14:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
You don't get it. No passport, no party.Try to board a plane to Italy without a (as in any) passport andThen in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter
any country.
If you wish to maintain that line, you'll have to provide a
reputable cite, as it's manifestly false.
claiming you are an Italian citizen.
That depends on the airline's, and maybe international, rules. It's
got nothing to do with being allowed into a country of your own
citizenship.
Am 29/02/2024 um 22:28 schrieb Norman Wells:
On 29/02/2024 20:05, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 29/02/2024 um 16:02 schrieb Ian Jackson:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter
any country.
British (or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have
to let you in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out
myself. Obviously, some of the more-benighted countries may have
different policies for their citizens.
Even if that were the case (I still want to see a UK citizen coming
into the UK without a passport),
It happens. If it did not happen, there would be no need for the UK
authorities to set out what happens if you turn up
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above."
this is definitely not the case for many other countries.
Who says?
Anglo-defaultist, aren't we?
I would not make assumptions based on UK rules.
Then I invite you to say how, if they deny admission to their own
citizens, they comply with the 1961 UN Convention on the reduction of
Statelessness.
There are documented cases on social media (namely T*ktok) of
American citizens trying to board a plane to Italy without an Italian
passport and claiming "heritage".
I don't know what point you're trying to make because you haven't told
us.
But they're American citizens on your own admission. If they had
American passports, those would get them on board. They would also in
all probability be allowed on board if they just had some valid ID,
not necessarily a passport, but that depends on the airline's own rules.
Their American passports would also, if they chose to use them, get
them into Italy. If they chose not to use them, then they would have
to prove to the Italian immigration authorities on arrival that they
were also Italian citizens as they seem to be claiming.
Yes they are, presumably American citizens, but they did not apply for a
US passport, not they bothered to apply for the so called "ius
sanguinis" (most likely because they woudn't get it) ebcause they were
told they were "Eyetajans". So, even if they could have a remote claim
to Italian citizenship, no passport no party.
On 01/03/2024 08:35, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <l4cf0lFfq38U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells >><hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 20:38, Ian Jackson wrote:I guess a lot would depend on how much you appeared to be
In message <l4bri2Fd2s2U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells >>>><hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 16:39, Roger Hayter wrote:It would a lot easier simply to go to the UK embassy or one of the >>>>consulates, plead your case there, and get them to issue you with a >>>>document for travel to the UK.
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:02:12 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio CarusoIn practice I think you at least have to *have* owned a British >>>>>>passport
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE >>>>>>>British
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to enter any >>>>>>>> country.
(or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to let you >>>>>>> in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself. >>>>>>>Obviously,
some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies for >>>>>>> their citizens.
before you lost it. Having travelled abroad without one would >>>>>>firstly make it
much more difficult to identify you (don't forget the passport >>>>>>photo is in a
government database) and more difficult to convince immigration >>>>>>that you
weren't up to no good. The security of ID for a driving licence
is much less
complete.
You haven't necessarily lost a passport, you may never have had
one. You may, for example have been born in France to British >>>>>parents and caught one of those inflatable ferries over to Dover.
What do you think would happen then?
But that's not the scenario. Would you like to address what is?
non-British. If you were of Middle Eastern appearance, and spoke
mainly Arabic, you might get lumped in with all the other occupants
of the boat. If you looked European, and spoke good English (or even >>French), immigration would probably hear your case much more >>sympathetically. Presumably they would start by contacting the French >>authorities to do a check your parents.
And if satisfied they'd allow you in without a passport, presumably,
since there's no point in making any such enquiries otherwise. No?
In message <l4dkbeFl5etU3@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 01/03/2024 08:35, Ian Jackson wrote:As when you've lost your passport en route coming back from abroad, a passport doesn't come into it.
In message <l4cf0lFfq38U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 20:38, Ian Jackson wrote:I guess a lot would depend on how much you appeared to be
In message <l4bri2Fd2s2U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 16:39, Roger Hayter wrote:It would a lot easier simply to go to the UK embassy or one of the
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:02:12 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio CarusoIn practice I think you at least have to *have* owned a British >>>>>>> passport
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE >>>>>>>> British
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to
enter any country.
(or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to
let you
in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself.
Obviously,
some of the more-benighted countries may have different policies >>>>>>>> for
their citizens.
before you lost it. Having travelled abroad without one would
firstly make it
much more difficult to identify you (don't forget the passport
photo is in a
government database) and more difficult to convince immigration
that you
weren't up to no good. The security of ID for a driving licence
is much less
complete.
You haven't necessarily lost a passport, you may never have had
one. You may, for example have been born in France to British
parents and caught one of those inflatable ferries over to Dover. >>>>>>
What do you think would happen then?
consulates, plead your case there, and get them to issue you with a
document for travel to the UK.
But that's not the scenario. Would you like to address what is?
non-British. If you were of Middle Eastern appearance, and spoke
mainly Arabic, you might get lumped in with all the other occupants
of the boat. If you looked European, and spoke good English (or even
French), immigration would probably hear your case much more
sympathetically. Presumably they would start by contacting the
French authorities to do a check your parents.
And if satisfied they'd allow you in without a passport, presumably,
since there's no point in making any such enquiries otherwise. No?
But you'd need to convince them that you
really were British or were entitled to UK citizenship. AIUI, even if
your parents were living permanently in France they should have had you registered in France as being British - but failure to do this should
not permanently debar you from claiming your birthright. Unlike
Bangladesh, I don't think there is an age limit for this (correction invited).
On 28/02/2024 23:08, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/02/2024 17:09, Spike wrote:
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
No, the phrase used in the definition I quoted is a "well-founded fear
of being persecuted", which is more than borne out in the report I cited >>> in a post to Norman Wells on the operation of the Bangladeshi penal
system, particularly as it applies to capital offences.
I do not know what Ms Begum’s fears are, whether well-founded or
otherwise, other than what she claims to be afraid of - which
may or may not relate to what might be in her mind but remains unvoiced.
Should she travel to Bangladesh by any means, it is likely she will be arrested at Immigration, charged with various terrorism offences and
taken straight to gaol.
There, she is likely to be tortured into confessing to the crimes of
which she is accused at which point she can be found guilty, sentenced
to death and then spend the rest of her life in an isolation cell
awaiting execution.
If she cannot be tortured into making a confession, she can spend around
a decade bouncing around the Bangladeshi judicial system, (whilst incarcerated in the aforementioned isolation cell), whereupon she will
likely be found guilty, sentenced to death and then spend the rest of
her life in an isolation cell awaiting execution.
Unfortunately, she is unlikely to receive a fair trial in Bangladesh and
both her and any family members in Bangladesh are likely to be persecuted.
If by some miracle, she is found not guilty, she will be in her
mid-thirties and released in a country where should doesn't speak the prevailing languages, never mind being able to read or write them, and
has little to no means of supporting herself financially, not even being
able to open a bank account at that point.
They are the facts of the matter and if you want to dispute them, you're going to need to come up with more than mere claims to the contrary.
[...]
On 29/02/2024 11:41, JNugent wrote:
On 28/02/2024 02:07 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 01:23, JNugent wrote:
What constitutes "Bangladesh" within that claim?
My knowledge of the Bangladeshi criminal justice and penal system and
statements made by Bangladeshi Ministers.
Do you disagree with any of the claims?
If you are absolutely certain that Bangladeshi government ministers
have the authority to prejudge criminal cases without reference to
impartial prosecution authorities and courts, please explain why you
are so certain of it.
Given that you have stated that you "don't have to worry about what
happens in Bangladesh." and that "It literally is none of [your]
business.", it would seem a waste of my time to provide the information
you claim to be seeking despite it being "literally none of [your]
business".
However, I recently cited a report that will answer these and likely
many other related questions you may have.
Please let me know when you've read it and we can continue the
conversation.
Am 01/03/2024 um 08:35 schrieb Ian Jackson:
If you looked European, and spoke good English (or even French),
immigration would probably hear your case much more sympathetically.
I am Italian. Do I look European? Because in 35+ years of intra-EU travelling, I have never seen one single case of immigration officers
being sympathetic to Italians. And not without reason, because you could
not even imagine the amount of people, whom I have seen 1st hand trying
to larp as Italians.
On 29/02/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
On 28/02/2024 02:10 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/02/2024 18:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/02/2024 15:50, Simon Parker wrote:
On 25/02/2024 18:33, JNugent wrote:
Does a person legally entitled to citizenship *need* a passport in >>>>>> order to enter the country whose citizenship he is entitled to?
I invite you to find a UK citizen that has never held a UK passport
and have them arrive at UK Border Control at a port / airport of
your / their choosing and gain entry to the UK with nothing more
than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen. (So no passport, birth
certificate, ID card, photo driving licence, bank card, etc.)
Please let me know how they get on and for how many days they're
held by UK Immigration Authorities.
It depends how they know, what they can establish, and how easily.
If someone is a UK citizen, they must have some basis for saying
that, and that will somehow be verifiable. Once it is verified, the
immigration authorities will let them enter the country.
The terms of reference were clearly stated, and deliberately so.
They were:
(1) A UK citizen that has never held a UK passport;
(2) Arriving at UK Border Control at a port or airport of your /
their choosing;
(3) To gain entry to the UK; and
(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above.
Given the above terms of reference, please detail "What they [the UK
Immigration Authorities] can establish and how easily." and how they
can and will verify the claim that someone is a UK citizen.
Border Control are clear on the matter [1]:
"At border control You’ll need to show your identity document, such
as your passport or national identity card."
Is that followed or qualified by "...and if you don't, can't or won't,
you will never be admitted"?
[ ... ]
Your question was answered further down the post, which you've snipped
for some inexplicable reason.
To answer, your question, Border Control say: "If you’re refused
entry... you’ll usually have to leave the UK immediately."
On 29/02/2024 11:42, JNugent wrote:
On 28/02/2024 01:54 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/02/2024 17:09, Spike wrote:
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
No, the phrase used in the definition I quoted is a "well-founded
fear of being persecuted", which is more than borne out in the report
I cited in a post to Norman Wells on the operation of the Bangladeshi
penal system, particularly as it applies to capital offences.
Is the operation of the criminal law, without partiality or favour,
"persecution"?
I recommend reading the report I recently cited on the Bangladeshi
justice and penal system. Anyone that has read that would not be
tempted to use the words "without partiality or favour", so I can only
assume that you haven't read it which would mean you're posting from a position of ignorance when attempting to describe the Bangladeshi
judicial and penal system.
Is my assumption correct?
Were John Christie and James Hanratty "persecuted"?
Were the Birmingham Six [persecuted]?
On 01/03/2024 11:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <l4dkbeFl5etU3@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 01/03/2024 08:35, Ian Jackson wrote:As when you've lost your passport en route coming back from abroad, a
In message <l4cf0lFfq38U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 20:38, Ian Jackson wrote:I guess a lot would depend on how much you appeared to be
In message <l4bri2Fd2s2U4@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> writes
On 29/02/2024 16:39, Roger Hayter wrote:It would a lot easier simply to go to the UK embassy or one of the >>>>>> consulates, plead your case there, and get them to issue you with
On 29 Feb 2024 at 16:02:12 GMT, "Ian Jackson"
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <urq5no$lh74$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio CarusoIn practice I think you at least have to *have* owned a British >>>>>>>> passport
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
Not so for the UK. If you can convince them that you really ARE >>>>>>>>> British
Then in this case you are wrong. You do need a passport to >>>>>>>>>> enter any country.
(or are otherwise entitled to be in the UK) they will have to >>>>>>>>> let you
in. However, personally, I don't intend to try it out myself. >>>>>>>>> Obviously,
some of the more-benighted countries may have different
policies for
their citizens.
before you lost it. Having travelled abroad without one would
firstly make it
much more difficult to identify you (don't forget the passport >>>>>>>> photo is in a
government database) and more difficult to convince immigration >>>>>>>> that you
weren't up to no good. The security of ID for a driving licence >>>>>>>> is much less
complete.
You haven't necessarily lost a passport, you may never have had
one. You may, for example have been born in France to British
parents and caught one of those inflatable ferries over to Dover. >>>>>>>
What do you think would happen then?
a document for travel to the UK.
But that's not the scenario. Would you like to address what is?
non-British. If you were of Middle Eastern appearance, and spoke
mainly Arabic, you might get lumped in with all the other occupants
of the boat. If you looked European, and spoke good English (or
even French), immigration would probably hear your case much more
sympathetically. Presumably they would start by contacting the
French authorities to do a check your parents.
And if satisfied they'd allow you in without a passport, presumably,
since there's no point in making any such enquiries otherwise. No?
passport doesn't come into it.
Over to you, Mr Caruso, since you disagree.
On 28/02/2024 23:08, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/02/2024 17:09, Spike wrote:
Did you mean “a well-founded fear of being prosecuted”?
No, the phrase used in the definition I quoted is a "well-founded fear
of being persecuted", which is more than borne out in the report I cited >>> in a post to Norman Wells on the operation of the Bangladeshi penal
system, particularly as it applies to capital offences.
I do not know what Ms Begum’s fears are, whether well-founded or otherwise,
other than what she claims to be afraid of - which may or may not relate to >> what might be in her mind but remains unvoiced.
Should she travel to Bangladesh by any means, it is likely she will be arrested at Immigration, charged with various terrorism offences and
taken straight to gaol.
There, she is likely to be tortured into confessing to the crimes of
which she is accused at which point she can be found guilty, sentenced
to death and then spend the rest of her life in an isolation cell
awaiting execution.
If she cannot be tortured into making a confession, she can spend around
a decade bouncing around the Bangladeshi judicial system, (whilst incarcerated in the aforementioned isolation cell), whereupon she will
likely be found guilty, sentenced to death and then spend the rest of
her life in an isolation cell awaiting execution.
Unfortunately, she is unlikely to receive a fair trial in Bangladesh and
both her and any family members in Bangladesh are likely to be persecuted.
If by some miracle, she is found not guilty, she will be in her
mid-thirties and released in a country where should doesn't speak the prevailing languages, never mind being able to read or write them, and
has little to no means of supporting herself financially, not even being
able to open a bank account at that point.
They are the facts of the matter and if you want to dispute them, you're going to need to come up with more than mere claims to the contrary.
[...]
Perhaps “unwilling to avail herself of the protection of that country” >>>> might be more accurate?
No, she is unable to for reasons previously detailed. Her starting
problem is that she is a current or former UK passport holder that does
not and has never held a Bangladeshi passport and does not hold and has
never held a Bangladeshi ID card. In such circumstances, the first step >>> in formalising her Bangladeshi citizenship is to attend a formal
interview at a Bangladesh High Commission or Embassy.
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to locate the nearest >>> High Commission to Ms Begum's current position, arrange an appointment
there for her and secure her transportation to and from said High
Commission for said appointment.
I have no intention of teaching Ms Begum the geographical knowledge she
clearly lacks.
The last time I saw her on TV, she was dressed in tight jeans, with a smart >> top and jacket, hair done and wearing shades. She didn’t seem particularly >> harassed or poverty-stricken or starving. If she can garner such resources >> in the hell-hole refugee camp in which she finds herself, she doubtless can >> find others, such as the location of the nearest Bangladeshi High
Commission and a means of obtaining a UN travel document.
Sample conversation between Ms Begum and the SDF guards at the camp exit
(You could have the Monty Python team playing the relevant parts in your
head if that helps. I think Eric Idle could be Ms Begum and John Cleese
the SDF guard):
SB: Hi. I have an appointment with the Bangladesh High Commission so
that they may interview me with a view to providing me with a Bangladesh passport.
SDF: You cannot leave the camp without some form of ID, proof of
passage, and proof that you will be accepted by the destination country.
SB: I'm going to the High Commission to be interviewed so that I can
apply for my passport.
SDF: You mean you're not even going to collect your passport? You're
going to an interview without having even applied for a passport?
SB: I cannot apply for a passport without having attended a face to face interview at the High Commission.
SDF: You cannot leave the camp without some form of ID, proof of
passage, and proof that you will be accepted by the destination country.
SB: But I have an appointment with them. They're expecting me.
SDF: You cannot leave the camp without some form of ID, proof of
passage, and proof that you will be accepted by the destination country.
Etc.
Please do let me know how you get on.
So she fails on three out of the four, and ‘being outside the country of >>>> her nationality’ is of itself neither here nor there.
Does she? It is thankful that you are not in a position where your
consideration of these matters carries any weight.
That might go for many on this group, perhaps not including those that can >> see into her mind.
Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. No amount of seer-seeing is
required to know and understand that.
Other options that may be
available to her are only likely to be looked at once that one is
resolved to a finality. And we're getting close to that point now, so
maybe Ms Begum will need to consider her options either when she is
denied leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, or after the Supreme Court
has heard her appeal and denied it. (There's always a chance it could
hear her appeal and allow it, in which case no other options will need looking at as she'll be back in the UK not too long thereafter.)
Regards
S.P.
On 28/02/2024 16:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 14:13, Simon Parker wrote:
On 26/02/2024 18:35, Norman Wells wrote:
But she does not need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi
citizen and be admitted to that country.
Please stop attempting to move the goalposts.
We can move onto other matters once we've dealt with your claim that
"She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport".
There is no order of things that are independent of one another.
As you snipped the part of the post dealing with Ms Begum being unable
to obtain a Bangladeshi Passport *in practice*, am I to take it that you
have conceded the point?
On 29/02/2024 16:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 29/02/2024 14:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Feb 2024 at 13:15:38 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 29/02/2024 11:54, JNugent wrote:
Even a UK passport is a privilege granted by the sovereign. In
practice,
as unlikely to be refused (to a citizen) as it is for the sovereign to >>>>> refuse to sign a Parliamentary Act, but not some sort of absolute
right.
But does a citizen who happens to be outside their country HAVE to
produce a passport in order to gain entry?
No.
Globally, there must be many
cases per day of lost or stolen passports, even allowing that being
outside the country but never having had a passport in the first place >>>>> is somewhat less common.
Quite so. The requirement is simply that you are in fact a national
citizen. Otherwise, refusal of a country's own citizens is
deliberately
making them stateless, which international conventions forbid.
The UK authorities will almost certainly not refuse you entry unless
you
rock up:
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above." >>>>
And even then, since there's nowhere to deport you to that will have
you, you will be detained and given the opportunity to prove your bona >>>> fides.
There is no need to deport someone refused entry in the first place and
airlines are obliged to take them back to where the brought them from.
Are they? Who says?
Can you quote the law please?
The Immigration Act 1971, section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (revocation of indefinite leave), the Immigration (Leave
to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 and Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971
You're welcome.
On 01/03/2024 09:19 am, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 01/03/2024 um 08:35 schrieb Ian Jackson:
If you looked European, and spoke good English (or even French), immigration
would probably hear your case much more sympathetically.
I am Italian. Do I look European? Because in 35+ years of intra-EU travelling,
I have never seen one single case of immigration officers being sympathetic to
Italians. And not without reason, because you could not even imagine the
amount of people, whom I have seen 1st hand trying to larp as Italians.
"larp" ?
On 01/03/2024 15:25, JNugent wrote:
On 01/03/2024 09:19 am, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 01/03/2024 um 08:35 schrieb Ian Jackson:
If you looked European, and spoke good English (or even French),
immigration would probably hear your case much more sympathetically.
I am Italian. Do I look European? Because in 35+ years of intra-EU
travelling, I have never seen one single case of immigration officers
being sympathetic to Italians. And not without reason, because you
could not even imagine the amount of people, whom I have seen 1st
hand trying to larp as Italians.
"larp" ?
A live action role play?
On 02/03/2024 09:09, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 16:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2024 14:13, Simon Parker wrote:As you snipped the part of the post dealing with Ms Begum being
On 26/02/2024 18:35, Norman Wells wrote:
But she does not need a Bangladeshi passport to be a Bangladeshi >>>>>citizen and be admitted to that country.
Please stop attempting to move the goalposts.
We can move onto other matters once we've dealt with your claim
that "She could actually obtain a Bangladeshi passport".
There is no order of things that are independent of one another.
unable to obtain a Bangladeshi Passport *in practice*, am I to take
it that you have conceded the point?
However difficult it may be for the time being, it is not impossible.
But, regardless of how difficult it may be, it is not a requirement to
have one to be admitted to the country of which she is a citizen if she
can knock on its door.
Yes, Bangladesh law allow them to arrest Ms Begum at Immigration and it
is, I suggest, highly likely that this will happen should she attempt to
gain entry to Bangladesh.
On 02/03/2024 16:09, Simon Parker wrote:
Yes, Bangladesh law allow them to arrest Ms Begum at Immigration and it
is, I suggest, highly likely that this will happen should she attempt to
gain entry to Bangladesh.
Should she make an application for asylum in the UK, then?
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2024 22:15, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 23:08, Spike wrote:
That might go for many on this group, perhaps not including those that can
see into her mind.
Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. No amount of seer-seeing is
required to know and understand that.
If that is the case, it rather undermines the view maintained by you that >>> the said lady is in fear of Bangladeshi justice. If she doesn’t want to go
there, and she hasn’t got the paperwork to go there, and can’t get the >>> paperwork to go there (so eloquently put by you in your Idle & Cleese
sketch) then there is no Bangladeshi justice to be afraid of.
Somebody, (Ed: It was you!), said the following:
"I do not know what Ms Begum’s fears are, whether well-founded or
otherwise, other than what she claims to be afraid of - which may or may
not relate to what might be in her mind but remains unvoiced."
I have attempted to detail what fears Ms Begum may hold about going to
Bangladesh, as some insist she must, and that such fears appear to be
well-founded.
You may wish to dismiss them with a wave of the hand because it isn't
you or a loved one that is likely to be tortured and eventually executed.
Ms Begum's reality is somewhat different.
Somebody, (Ed: It was you!), said the following:
“Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. No amount of seer-seeing is required to know and understand that”.
It therefore follows that whatever the situation regarding human rights is
in Bangladesh, Ms Begum isn’t going there.
She has no travel papers, and cannot travel there.
She doesn’t want to go there.
She - according to Idle and Cleese, remember? - can’t even get out of the refugee camp!
Therefore she cannot hold fears about Bangladesh as it is a situation that cannot exist for her. She could only be taken there forcibly, and who is to do that, and under what authority? Bangladesh doesn’t want her at any price.
On 01/03/2024 22:15, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 23:08, Spike wrote:
That might go for many on this group, perhaps not including those that can
see into her mind.
Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. No amount of seer-seeing is
required to know and understand that.
If that is the case, it rather undermines the view maintained by you that
the said lady is in fear of Bangladeshi justice. If she doesn’t want to go >> there, and she hasn’t got the paperwork to go there, and can’t get the >> paperwork to go there (so eloquently put by you in your Idle & Cleese
sketch) then there is no Bangladeshi justice to be afraid of.
Somebody, (Ed: It was you!), said the following:
"I do not know what Ms Begum’s fears are, whether well-founded or otherwise, other than what she claims to be afraid of - which may or may
not relate to what might be in her mind but remains unvoiced."
I have attempted to detail what fears Ms Begum may hold about going to Bangladesh, as some insist she must, and that such fears appear to be well-founded.
You may wish to dismiss them with a wave of the hand because it isn't
you or a loved one that is likely to be tortured and eventually executed.
Ms Begum's reality is somewhat different.
On 01/03/2024 15:31, JNugent wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:34 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 23:08, Spike wrote:
I do not know what Ms Begum’s fears are, whether well-founded or
otherwise, other than what she claims to be afraid of - which
may or may not relate to what might be in her mind but remains
unvoiced.
Should she travel to Bangladesh by any means, it is likely she will
be arrested at Immigration, charged with various terrorism offences
and taken straight to gaol.
What makes you say that?
The from-the-hip assertion of a Bangladeshi politician?
No, a formal press release from Bangladesh's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) which is still available on the MOFA web-site. [1]
Or something within Bangladeshi law and the operational guidelines for
the police and prosecution authorities?
Yes, Bangladesh law allow them to arrest Ms Begum at Immigration and it
is, I suggest, highly likely that this will happen should she attempt to
gain entry to Bangladesh.
There, she is likely to be tortured into confessing to the crimes of
which she is accused at which point she can be found guilty,
sentenced to death and then spend the rest of her life in an
isolation cell awaiting execution.
Very bullish!
Please tell us how you "know" this.
Because I've read "Living Under Sentence of Death: A study on the
profiles, experiences, and perspectives of death row prisoners in Bangladesh", a study headed by the Department of Law at the University
of Dhaka. [2]
I've referenced it several times in this thread so I'm surprised you
missed all the references to it(!).
On 02/03/2024 09:30, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 09:08, Simon Parker wrote:
On 29/02/2024 16:15, Norman Wells wrote:
Are they? Who says?
Can you quote the law please?
The Immigration Act 1971, section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration
and Asylum Act 2002 (revocation of indefinite leave), the Immigration
(Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 and Schedule 2 of the
Immigration Act 1971
You're welcome.
Nothing to do with revocation of indefinite leave is relevant since
none has been granted.
Oh dear! The above Acts are the legislation under which Border Force
and the Immigration Department operate so it would be most strange if it
were not in there. Let's take a look shall we...
As regards the others, there is nothing in them to say 'airlines are
obliged to take them back to where they brought them from' or anything
similar.
Isn't there? Are you sure? Would you like to Phone a Friend before locking in your final answer?
That's why I asked to to 'quote' the law not just give the names of
random Acts of Parliament in the pretence that they do.
As above, they are far from "random Acts of Parliament".
Nor is there a "pretence" of what they do.
You've previously stated, numerous times, that you have no desire for me
to teach you the law so I posted all relevant legislation to allow you
to find the pertinent part for yourself.
I therefore take your request to "'quote' the law" to be a request to
educate you about the relevant law, (i.e. to "teach" you the law),
despite your numerous, oft-repeated, insistences that you have no desire
to be taught the law.
I'm sure you can understand how confusing this can get. You insist you don't want to be taught the law whilst simultaneously adopting a
position contrary to the law and then insisting that the law is quoted
to you. "Curiouser and curiouser", as Alice so rightly put it.
Mutually exclusive insistences aside, in your haste to fire off a reply,
I take it you missed Section 8 (1) of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act
1971 [1]?
Allow me to quote it for you:
<quote>
8 (1) Where a person arriving in the United Kingdom is refused leave to enter, an immigration officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below—
(a) give the captain of the ship or aircraft in which he arrives directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United Kingdom
in that ship or aircraft; or
(b) give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or
aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or
aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or
(c) give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or
aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or
territory so specified, being either—
(i) a country of which he is a national or citizen; or
(ii) a country or territory in which he has obtained a passport or other document of identity; or
(iii) a country or territory in which he embarked for the United Kingdom; or
(iv) a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that he will be admitted.
<end quote>
To summarise, a person refused entry to the UK may, at the direction of
an Immigration Officer, be sent to (iii) a country or territory in which
he embarked for the UK.
In short, he will be sent back whence he came.
As always, you're welcome.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/schedule/2
On 2 Mar 2024 at 18:05:54 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:09, Simon Parker wrote:
Yes, Bangladesh law allow them to arrest Ms Begum at Immigration and it
is, I suggest, highly likely that this will happen should she attempt to >>> gain entry to Bangladesh.
Should she make an application for asylum in the UK, then?
That was my suggestion earlier in this thread!
On 01/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:38 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 29/02/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Is that followed or qualified by "...and if you don't, can't or
won't, you will never be admitted"?
[ ... ]
Your question was answered further down the post, which you've
snipped for some inexplicable reason.
To answer, your question, Border Control say: "If you’re refused
entry... you’ll usually have to leave the UK immediately."
That is what they say will happen "If you're refused entry".
My question was about whether a British citizen in such circumstances
WOULD be "refused entry".
Your answer addressed a question I did not ask, as I am sure you now
realise.
In that case, allow me to direct you to the Government's manual on Immigration [1], part 9 of which covers "Grounds for Refusal" [of Entry Clearance] where you will find the following in section 9.15.1 under the heading "Failure to produce recognised passport or travel document grounds"
9.15.1. Permission to enter must be refused if the person seeking entry
fails to produce a passport or other travel document that satisfies the decision maker as to their identity and nationality, unless the person
holds a travel document issued by the national authority of a state of
which the person is not a national and the person’s statelessness or
other status prevents the person from obtaining a document
satisfactorily establishing their identity and nationality."
I draw to your attention the fourth word of that statement.
I believe another poster summarised it thus: "No passport, no party.".
I'd modify that to "No passport [or other travel document that satisfies
the decision maker as to their identity and nationality], no party" but
the message is essentially the same.
Unless you're going to argue that the Government's Manual on Immigration Rules is wrong and certain posters to this NG have a better
understanding of the matter?
On 02/03/2024 18:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 18:05:54 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:09, Simon Parker wrote:
Yes, Bangladesh law allow them to arrest Ms Begum at Immigration and it >>>> is, I suggest, highly likely that this will happen should she attempt to >>>> gain entry to Bangladesh.
Should she make an application for asylum in the UK, then?
That was my suggestion earlier in this thread!
The only problem with that is that it is not possible to apply and claim asylum in the UK from outside the country.
On 2 Mar 2024 at 23:16:25 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2024 22:15, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 23:08, Spike wrote:
That might go for many on this group, perhaps not including those that can
see into her mind.
Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. No amount of seer-seeing is
required to know and understand that.
If that is the case, it rather undermines the view maintained by you that >>>> the said lady is in fear of Bangladeshi justice. If she doesn’t want to go
there, and she hasn’t got the paperwork to go there, and can’t get the >>>> paperwork to go there (so eloquently put by you in your Idle & Cleese
sketch) then there is no Bangladeshi justice to be afraid of.
Somebody, (Ed: It was you!), said the following:
"I do not know what Ms Begum’s fears are, whether well-founded or
otherwise, other than what she claims to be afraid of - which may or may >>> not relate to what might be in her mind but remains unvoiced."
I have attempted to detail what fears Ms Begum may hold about going to
Bangladesh, as some insist she must, and that such fears appear to be
well-founded.
You may wish to dismiss them with a wave of the hand because it isn't
you or a loved one that is likely to be tortured and eventually executed. >>>
Ms Begum's reality is somewhat different.
Somebody, (Ed: It was you!), said the following:
“Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. No amount of seer-seeing is required >> to know and understand that”.
It therefore follows that whatever the situation regarding human rights is >> in Bangladesh, Ms Begum isn’t going there.
She has no travel papers, and cannot travel there.
She doesn’t want to go there.
She - according to Idle and Cleese, remember? - can’t even get out of the >> refugee camp!
Therefore she cannot hold fears about Bangladesh as it is a situation that >> cannot exist for her. She could only be taken there forcibly, and who is to >> do that, and under what authority? Bangladesh doesn’t want her at any
price.
Sounds like a refugee to me.
On 02/03/2024 16:24, Simon Parker wrote:
On 01/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:38 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 29/02/2024 11:48, JNugent wrote:
Is that followed or qualified by "...and if you don't, can't or
won't, you will never be admitted"?
[ ... ]
Your question was answered further down the post, which you've
snipped for some inexplicable reason.
To answer, your question, Border Control say: "If you’re refused
entry... you’ll usually have to leave the UK immediately."
That is what they say will happen "If you're refused entry".
My question was about whether a British citizen in such circumstances
WOULD be "refused entry".
Your answer addressed a question I did not ask, as I am sure you now
realise.
In that case, allow me to direct you to the Government's manual on
Immigration [1], part 9 of which covers "Grounds for Refusal" [of
Entry Clearance] where you will find the following in section 9.15.1
under the heading "Failure to produce recognised passport or travel
document grounds"
9.15.1. Permission to enter must be refused if the person seeking
entry fails to produce a passport or other travel document that
satisfies the decision maker as to their identity and nationality,
unless the person holds a travel document issued by the national
authority of a state of which the person is not a national and the
person’s statelessness or other status prevents the person from
obtaining a document satisfactorily establishing their identity and
nationality."
I draw to your attention the fourth word of that statement.
I believe another poster summarised it thus: "No passport, no party.".
I'd modify that to "No passport [or other travel document that
satisfies the decision maker as to their identity and nationality], no
party" but the message is essentially the same.
Unless you're going to argue that the Government's Manual on
Immigration Rules is wrong and certain posters to this NG have a
better understanding of the matter?
Perhaps you would say what the significance is of the list of documents identified in what you quoted a few days ago, which is obviously to do
with someone rocking up at the border:
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above."
What is the point of mentioning something like a photo driving licence
if it's totally irrelevant and only a passport counts?
Perhaps you'd also give a link to the source of what you quoted.
On 02/03/2024 16:09, Simon Parker wrote:
On 01/03/2024 15:31, JNugent wrote:
On 01/03/2024 12:34 pm, Simon Parker wrote:
On 28/02/2024 23:08, Spike wrote:
I do not know what Ms Begum’s fears are, whether well-founded or
otherwise, other than what she claims to be afraid of - which
may or may not relate to what might be in her mind but remains
unvoiced.
Should she travel to Bangladesh by any means, it is likely she will
be arrested at Immigration, charged with various terrorism offences
and taken straight to gaol.
What makes you say that?
The from-the-hip assertion of a Bangladeshi politician?
No, a formal press release from Bangladesh's Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (MOFA) which is still available on the MOFA web-site. [1]
But that's full of untruths and deceptions that would be easily
dismembered in any court there.
It says:
"The Government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that she has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship shared with
Bangladesh alongside her birthplace, the United Kingdom."
That's untrue. It is not erroneous but absolutely accurate on the basis
of the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act. It's undeniable fact, not a matter
of opinion.
"Bangladesh asserts that Ms. Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen.
She is a British citizen by birth"
That much is (at least, was) true, but irrelevant. She is also a Bangladeshi citizen by parentage.
"and has never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh."
True, but irrelevant. She never had to.
"It may also be mentioned that she never visited Bangladesh in the past despite her parental lineage."
True but totally irrelevant to the question of citizenship.
"So, there is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh."
Er, how does that follow?
It's really quite laughable.
Or something within Bangladeshi law and the operational guidelines
for the police and prosecution authorities?
Yes, Bangladesh law allow them to arrest Ms Begum at Immigration and
it is, I suggest, highly likely that this will happen should she
attempt to gain entry to Bangladesh.
But 'there is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh' according to the above. So, how are they going to arrest her, and where
are they going to take her?
There, she is likely to be tortured into confessing to the crimes of
which she is accused at which point she can be found guilty,
sentenced to death and then spend the rest of her life in an
isolation cell awaiting execution.
Very bullish!
Please tell us how you "know" this.
Because I've read "Living Under Sentence of Death: A study on the
profiles, experiences, and perspectives of death row prisoners in
Bangladesh", a study headed by the Department of Law at the University
of Dhaka. [2]
I've referenced it several times in this thread so I'm surprised you
missed all the references to it(!).
Perhaps you'd say what evidence of terrorism offences exists and may be provable by the Bangladeshi authorities?
On 2 Mar 2024 at 18:52:25 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2024 18:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2024 at 18:05:54 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 02/03/2024 16:09, Simon Parker wrote:
Yes, Bangladesh law allow them to arrest Ms Begum at Immigration and it >>>>> is, I suggest, highly likely that this will happen should she attempt to >>>>> gain entry to Bangladesh.
Should she make an application for asylum in the UK, then?
That was my suggestion earlier in this thread!
The only problem with that is that it is not possible to apply and claim
asylum in the UK from outside the country.
I find that a surprising claim, because I thought that was something we were constantly asking refugees to do; but perhaps that's a trick, to make them go away.
On 02/03/2024 17:43, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:09, Simon Parker wrote:
On 01/03/2024 15:31, JNugent wrote:
What makes you say that?
The from-the-hip assertion of a Bangladeshi politician?
No, a formal press release from Bangladesh's Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (MOFA) which is still available on the MOFA web-site. [1]
But that's full of untruths and deceptions that would be easily
dismembered in any court there.
In what circumstances do you envisage it being "dismembered in any court there"?
I was asked if my understanding of Bangladesh's position towards Ms
Begum was based on a "from-the-hip assertion of a Bangladeshi
politician" and my response is still available to see above.
At no point did I suggest that the press release accords with
Bangladeshi law, nor did I say I agreed with it.
But I'm sure you agree that a press release on a government web-site, regardless of its legal accuracy or otherwise, gives a good indication
of the government's sentiments on the matter, more so than a
"from-the-hip assertion of a Bangladeshi politician".
Perhaps you'd say what evidence of terrorism offences exists and may
be provable by the Bangladeshi authorities?
I recommend acquainting yourself with Bangladesh's Anti-Terrorism Act of
2009 (as amended), particularly, the additions from the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2013.
On 02/03/2024 18:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:26, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 09:30, Norman Wells wrote:
8 (1) Where a person arriving in the United Kingdom is refused leave
to enter, an immigration officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (2)
below—
(a) give the captain of the ship or aircraft in which he arrives
directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United
Kingdom in that ship or aircraft; or
(b) give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions >>> requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or
aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or
aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or
(c) give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make >>> arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or
aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or
territory so specified, being either—
(i) a country of which he is a national or citizen; or
(ii) a country or territory in which he has obtained a
passport or other document of identity; or
(iii) a country or territory in which he embarked for the
United Kingdom; or
(iv) a country or territory to which there is reason to
believe that he will be admitted.
<end quote>
To summarise, a person refused entry to the UK may, at the direction
of an Immigration Officer, be sent to (iii) a country or territory in
which he embarked for the UK.
In short, he will be sent back whence he came.
As always, you're welcome.
It's very nice of us to give ourselves the power to return any
unwanted person whence he came
And it is equally nice of you to finally accept this.
but, if that person is not a national of that country, it is not
obliged to accept him, and may reciprocate, sending him back to us.
It is to be assumed that a person arriving at UK Immigration via legal
means had the right to be in the country from which they departed for
the UK.
It is therefore trivially easy legally to return them to their point of embarkation for the UK.
Where then do we stand? I say in breach of the UN Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness to which we are a signatory, because that
is what we would essentially have made him.
Cite please, demonstrating that returning a person that has been denied
entry to the UK makes them stateless.
Why do you think we do not return all the illegal migrants on the
small boats to France?
We are talking about passengers arriving for entry into the UK via legal means.
Those arriving by illegal means are outwith the scope of this
discussion, although this is not the first time you've attempted to
crowbar them in to it in an attempt to make a point.
It's because (iii) is a power that is illusory.
It is a power regularly exercised by the UK and many other nations.
On 03/03/2024 17:39, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 18:15, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:26, Simon Parker wrote:
On 02/03/2024 09:30, Norman Wells wrote:
8 (1) Where a person arriving in the United Kingdom is refused leave
to enter, an immigration officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (2)
below—
(a) give the captain of the ship or aircraft in which he arrives
directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United
Kingdom in that ship or aircraft; or
(b) give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions
requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or
aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or
aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or
(c) give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make
arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or
aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or
territory so specified, being either—
(i) a country of which he is a national or citizen; or
(ii) a country or territory in which he has obtained a
passport or other document of identity; or
(iii) a country or territory in which he embarked for the
United Kingdom; or
(iv) a country or territory to which there is reason to
believe that he will be admitted.
<end quote>
To summarise, a person refused entry to the UK may, at the direction
of an Immigration Officer, be sent to (iii) a country or territory in
which he embarked for the UK.
In short, he will be sent back whence he came.
As always, you're welcome.
It's very nice of us to give ourselves the power to return any
unwanted person whence he came
And it is equally nice of you to finally accept this.
but, if that person is not a national of that country, it is not
obliged to accept him, and may reciprocate, sending him back to us.
It is to be assumed that a person arriving at UK Immigration via legal
means had the right to be in the country from which they departed for
the UK.
I don't think it is. Nor do I see why it's relevant. If they've come
from France, they've come from France, and you are maintaining that they
can all be sent back to France, whether they were there legally in the
first place or not.
I'm saying they can't because France doesn't want them, will not have
them, and has no responsibility to accept them back unless they are
actually French citizens. That is precisely why we do not return those
who arrive from there in small inflatable boats.
It is therefore trivially easy legally to return them to their point of
embarkation for the UK.
No it isn't.
Where then do we stand? I say in breach of the UN Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness to which we are a signatory, because that
is what we would essentially have made him.
Cite please, demonstrating that returning a person that has been denied
entry to the UK makes them stateless.
That only applies if he is a UK citizen with no other citizenship. And
if he arrives without a passport, which is what we were discussing, you
are saying he must be denied entry. 'No passport, no party' is the line you've adopted.
If a citizen of a single country is denied entry into that country, he
is by definition stateless. He has nowhere else to go that must accept him.
Why do you think we do not return all the illegal migrants on the
small boats to France?
We are talking about passengers arriving for entry into the UK via legal
means.
Those arriving by illegal means are outwith the scope of this
discussion, although this is not the first time you've attempted to
crowbar them in to it in an attempt to make a point.
No they aren't. Section 8(1) which you quoted makes no distinction.
It's because (iii) is a power that is illusory.
It is a power regularly exercised by the UK and many other nations.
And yet, we do *not* return those in small boats back to France. We do
not in fact have the power to do so, whatever our law says.
On 02/03/2024 18:37, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2024 16:24, Simon Parker wrote:
On 01/03/2024 15:36, JNugent wrote:
That is what they say will happen "If you're refused entry".
My question was about whether a British citizen in such
circumstances WOULD be "refused entry".
Your answer addressed a question I did not ask, as I am sure you now
realise.
In that case, allow me to direct you to the Government's manual on
Immigration [1], part 9 of which covers "Grounds for Refusal" [of
Entry Clearance] where you will find the following in section 9.15.1
under the heading "Failure to produce recognised passport or travel
document grounds"
9.15.1. Permission to enter must be refused if the person seeking
entry fails to produce a passport or other travel document that
satisfies the decision maker as to their identity and nationality,
unless the person holds a travel document issued by the national
authority of a state of which the person is not a national and the
person’s statelessness or other status prevents the person from
obtaining a document satisfactorily establishing their identity and
nationality."
I draw to your attention the fourth word of that statement.
I believe another poster summarised it thus: "No passport, no party.".
I'd modify that to "No passport [or other travel document that
satisfies the decision maker as to their identity and nationality],
no party" but the message is essentially the same.
Unless you're going to argue that the Government's Manual on
Immigration Rules is wrong and certain posters to this NG have a
better understanding of the matter?
Perhaps you would say what the significance is of the list of
documents identified in what you quoted a few days ago, which is
obviously to do with someone rocking up at the border:
"(4) With nothing more than a verbal claim to being a UK citizen;
Meaning:
(a) No Passport;
(b) No Birth Certificate;
(c) No ID Card;
(d) No Photo Driving Licence;
(e) No Bank Card; or
(f) Anything similar, like or related to any of the above."
What is the point of mentioning something like a photo driving licence
if it's totally irrelevant and only a passport counts?
Perhaps you'd also give a link to the source of what you quoted.
As always, Norman, I'm more than happy to discuss things with you.
However, as I have repeatedly pointed out, I ask that such discussions
take place as follow-ups to the post in which they were made rather than being scattered across the thread making discussion all the more difficult.
If you would like to discuss the 'significance of the list of documents identified in [my post]', I recommend you post a follow-up to the post
in question rather than attempting to fragment that discussion and
restart it elsewhere in the thread, particularly where the context and circumstances in which the post in question was made is likely to answer
the questions you're posing.
On 3 Mar 2024 at 18:22:54 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 03/03/2024 17:39, Simon Parker wrote:
Those arriving by illegal means are outwith the scope of this
discussion, although this is not the first time you've attempted to
crowbar them in to it in an attempt to make a point.
No they aren't. Section 8(1) which you quoted makes no distinction.
It's because (iii) is a power that is illusory.
It is a power regularly exercised by the UK and many other nations.
And yet, we do *not* return those in small boats back to France. We do
not in fact have the power to do so, whatever our law says.
I would have thought it fairly obvious that the reason we don't ask the carrier to return illegal travellers from France is that there is no reputable
carrier to ask.
On 02/03/2024 23:16, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/03/2024 22:15, Spike wrote:
Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2024 23:08, Spike wrote:
That might go for many on this group, perhaps not including those that can
see into her mind.
Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. No amount of seer-seeing is
required to know and understand that.
If that is the case, it rather undermines the view maintained by you that >>>> the said lady is in fear of Bangladeshi justice. If she doesn’t want to go
there, and she hasn’t got the paperwork to go there, and can’t get the >>>> paperwork to go there (so eloquently put by you in your Idle & Cleese
sketch) then there is no Bangladeshi justice to be afraid of.
Somebody, (Ed: It was you!), said the following:
"I do not know what Ms Begum’s fears are, whether well-founded or
otherwise, other than what she claims to be afraid of - which may or may >>> not relate to what might be in her mind but remains unvoiced."
I have attempted to detail what fears Ms Begum may hold about going to
Bangladesh, as some insist she must, and that such fears appear to be
well-founded.
You may wish to dismiss them with a wave of the hand because it isn't
you or a loved one that is likely to be tortured and eventually executed. >>>
Ms Begum's reality is somewhat different.
Somebody, (Ed: It was you!), said the following:
“Ms Begum wants to return to the UK. No amount of seer-seeing is required >> to know and understand that”.
It therefore follows that whatever the situation regarding human rights is >> in Bangladesh, Ms Begum isn’t going there.
She has no travel papers, and cannot travel there.
She doesn’t want to go there.
She - according to Idle and Cleese, remember? - can’t even get out of the >> refugee camp!
Therefore she cannot hold fears about Bangladesh as it is a situation that >> cannot exist for her. She could only be taken there forcibly, and who is to >> do that, and under what authority? Bangladesh doesn’t want her at any
price.
It is possible to hold rational fears without having first-hand
experience of the action or activity of which one is afraid. For
example, I've decided that base-jumping (with or without a parachute!)
isn't for me. Thankfully, I have a choice not to participate as it is a leisure activity I am not compelled to undertake.
Ms Begum can similarly hold rational fears about what could happen to
her in Bangladesh, without having yet experienced it first-hand.
Her current main choices seem to be:
(1) Hope for a positive outcome from UK Court cases;
(2) By means unknown, submit to the authority of the Bangladesh legal
and penal system; or
(3) Remain in the camp, subject to the "Hesba", where conditions
continue to deteriorate day by day.
Which of those do you consider most appealing to her and therefore the
focus of her energies?
Some here demand she abandon option (1), accept her fate and pursue
option (2), despite the practical realities it presents and the likely outcome of that course.
You seem to be advocating that she cannot hold reasonable fears about
her expected treatment in Bangladesh because she is unlikely ever to go there. I remind you that I hold reasonable fears about base-jumping
despite never having undertaken the activity nor being likely ever to undertake it.
As an addendum to this thread, the Court of Appeal denied Ms Begum
permission to appeal to the Supreme Court today.
By my reckoning, that leaves her with but one last legal option which is
to apply directly to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the
decision.
She may well be sipping her final drink in the Last Chance Saloon.
On 25/03/2024 21:39, Simon Parker wrote:
As an addendum to this thread, the Court of Appeal denied Ms Begum
permission to appeal to the Supreme Court today.
By my reckoning, that leaves her with but one last legal option which
is to apply directly to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the
decision.
She may well be sipping her final drink in the Last Chance Saloon.
Isn't the last chance saloon the ECHR?
As an addendum to this thread, the Court of Appeal denied Ms Begum permission to appeal
to the Supreme Court today.
By my reckoning, that leaves her with but one last legal option which is to apply
directly to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision.
She may well be sipping her final drink in the Last Chance Saloon.
Regards
S.P.
"billy bookcase" wrote:
what would be the position, if by some means or other, Ms Begum were to
turn up in the UK, and claim refugee status ?
As she's apparently under threat of all sorts of sanctions from imprisonment to
execution, in numerous countries she would seem to be eminently qualified
The usual suspects would make such a fuss if the government tried to
deport her that it would give way. I think she need only wait for the incoming socialists when she will be admitted.
what would be the position, if by some means or other, Ms Begum were to
turn up in the UK, and claim refugee status ?
As she's apparently under threat of all sorts of sanctions from imprisonment to
execution, in numerous countries she would seem to be eminently qualified
Apologies if this has been answered before, but as a matter of interest,
what would be the position, if by some means or other, Ms Begum were to
turn up in the UK, and claim refugee status ?
On 2024-03-26, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Apologies if this has been answered before, but as a matter of interest,
what would be the position, if by some means or other, Ms Begum were to
turn up in the UK, and claim refugee status ?
As I understand it, under the current "government" we no longer have
a functioning asylum system in this country, so if she were to make it
here we would put her up in hotel forever. (Well, until the election,
when the country will gain a government and the law will be changed.)
On 26/03/2024 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-26, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Apologies if this has been answered before, but as a matter of interest, >>> what would be the position, if by some means or other, Ms Begum were to
turn up in the UK, and claim refugee status ?
As I understand it, under the current "government" we no longer have
a functioning asylum system in this country, so if she were to make it
here we would put her up in hotel forever. (Well, until the election,
when the country will gain a government and the law will be changed.)
What will the law change to, though?
On 2024-03-26, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 26/03/2024 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-26, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Apologies if this has been answered before, but as a matter of interest, >>>> what would be the position, if by some means or other, Ms Begum were to >>>> turn up in the UK, and claim refugee status ?
As I understand it, under the current "government" we no longer have
a functioning asylum system in this country, so if she were to make it
here we would put her up in hotel forever. (Well, until the election,
when the country will gain a government and the law will be changed.)
What will the law change to, though?
I don't know, but no other government, not even any previous Tory one,
would keep the absolutely vile stupidity the current one has enacted.
On 26/03/2024 12:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-26, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 26/03/2024 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-26, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Apologies if this has been answered before, but as a matter of interest, >>>>> what would be the position, if by some means or other, Ms Begum were to >>>>> turn up in the UK, and claim refugee status ?
As I understand it, under the current "government" we no longer have
a functioning asylum system in this country, so if she were to make it >>>> here we would put her up in hotel forever. (Well, until the election,
when the country will gain a government and the law will be changed.)
What will the law change to, though?
I don't know, but no other government, not even any previous Tory one,
would keep the absolutely vile stupidity the current one has enacted.
I may be swallowing the propaganda, but what happens is that people turn
up without any travel documents. They say that they are fleeing
persecution. That's because saying "I'm an economic migrant from XXX"
gets them on a quick flight home.
Then, there's a very long-winded process of trying to determine whether
what they said is true. This seems to take an extraordinarily long time.
I don't know whether it could be speeded up?
We should take refugees, but there are potentially billions of economic migrants, and it's not practical to take a significant number.
On 26/03/2024 12:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-26, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 26/03/2024 11:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-03-26, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Apologies if this has been answered before, but as a matter of interest, >>>>> what would be the position, if by some means or other, Ms Begum were to >>>>> turn up in the UK, and claim refugee status ?
As I understand it, under the current "government" we no longer have
a functioning asylum system in this country, so if she were to make it >>>> here we would put her up in hotel forever. (Well, until the election,
when the country will gain a government and the law will be changed.)
What will the law change to, though?
I don't know, but no other government, not even any previous Tory one,
would keep the absolutely vile stupidity the current one has enacted.
I may be swallowing the propaganda, but what happens is that people turn
up without any travel documents. They say that they are fleeing
persecution. That's because saying "I'm an economic migrant from XXX"
gets them on a quick flight home.
Then, there's a very long-winded process of trying to determine whether
what they said is true. This seems to take an extraordinarily long time.
I don't know whether it could be speeded up?
Fixing the system to make it "perfect" is of course a difficult problem. Making it vastly better than now, however, is trivial - simply restart
the handling of claims. It would cost more money in wages of people whose
job is to handle the claims, but would save vastly more in reduced bills
for warehousing asylum seekers indefinitely as we are doing now.
On 26/03/2024 17:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Fixing the system to make it "perfect" is of course a difficult problem.
Making it vastly better than now, however, is trivial - simply restart
the handling of claims. It would cost more money in wages of people whose
job is to handle the claims, but would save vastly more in reduced bills
for warehousing asylum seekers indefinitely as we are doing now.
This seems really strange. There's no political mileage in not
processing migrants or doing so incredibly slowly. Most people want this
done pretty quickly - probably including the migrants.
The Conservatives may well not be brilliant, but they simply cannot be
as stupid as you make them out to be.
On 26/03/2024 17:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Fixing the system to make it "perfect" is of course a difficult problem.
Making it vastly better than now, however, is trivial - simply restart
the handling of claims. It would cost more money in wages of people whose
job is to handle the claims, but would save vastly more in reduced bills
for warehousing asylum seekers indefinitely as we are doing now.
This seems really strange. There's no political mileage in not
processing migrants or doing so incredibly slowly. Most people want this
done pretty quickly - probably including the migrants.
On 27/03/2024 19:06, Max Demian wrote:
On 27/03/2024 14:11, GB wrote:
On 26/03/2024 17:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Fixing the system to make it "perfect" is of course a difficult
problem.
Making it vastly better than now, however, is trivial - simply restart >>>> the handling of claims. It would cost more money in wages of people
whose
job is to handle the claims, but would save vastly more in reduced
bills
for warehousing asylum seekers indefinitely as we are doing now.
This seems really strange. There's no political mileage in not
processing migrants or doing so incredibly slowly. Most people want
this done pretty quickly - probably including the migrants.
Hard when people have no documents (probably after having destroyed
them), or claim to be "children" (which apparently means under 18) or
claim to be recent Christian converts. And are supported by an endless
line of do-gooders who believe every word they say.
There is really no requirement of migrants to prove anything they
claim, and it's hard to prove a negative.
Why are you whingeing about migrants that have no documents?
The real issue from the 95% of immigrants who do have papers and can
settle here legally.
On 27/03/2024 14:11, GB wrote:
On 26/03/2024 17:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Fixing the system to make it "perfect" is of course a difficult problem. >>> Making it vastly better than now, however, is trivial - simply restart
the handling of claims. It would cost more money in wages of people
whose
job is to handle the claims, but would save vastly more in reduced bills >>> for warehousing asylum seekers indefinitely as we are doing now.
This seems really strange. There's no political mileage in not
processing migrants or doing so incredibly slowly. Most people want
this done pretty quickly - probably including the migrants.
Hard when people have no documents (probably after having destroyed
them), or claim to be "children" (which apparently means under 18) or
claim to be recent Christian converts. And are supported by an endless
line of do-gooders who believe every word they say.
There is really no requirement of migrants to prove anything they claim,
and it's hard to prove a negative.
On 27/03/2024 19:06, Max Demian wrote:
On 27/03/2024 14:11, GB wrote:
On 26/03/2024 17:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Fixing the system to make it "perfect" is of course a difficult
problem.
Making it vastly better than now, however, is trivial - simply restart >>>> the handling of claims. It would cost more money in wages of people
whose
job is to handle the claims, but would save vastly more in reduced
bills
for warehousing asylum seekers indefinitely as we are doing now.
This seems really strange. There's no political mileage in not
processing migrants or doing so incredibly slowly. Most people want
this done pretty quickly - probably including the migrants.
Hard when people have no documents (probably after having destroyed
them), or claim to be "children" (which apparently means under 18) or
claim to be recent Christian converts. And are supported by an endless
line of do-gooders who believe every word they say.
There is really no requirement of migrants to prove anything they
claim, and it's hard to prove a negative.
Why are you whingeing about migrants that have no documents?
The real issue from the 95% of immigrants who do have papers and can
settle here legally.
I recommend everyone to watch the Panorama episode from 25th March, on immigration.
On 27/03/2024 22:31, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/03/2024 19:06, Max Demian wrote:
On 27/03/2024 14:11, GB wrote:
On 26/03/2024 17:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Fixing the system to make it "perfect" is of course a difficult
problem.
Making it vastly better than now, however, is trivial - simply restart >>>>> the handling of claims. It would cost more money in wages of people
whose
job is to handle the claims, but would save vastly more in reduced
bills
for warehousing asylum seekers indefinitely as we are doing now.
This seems really strange. There's no political mileage in not
processing migrants or doing so incredibly slowly. Most people want
this done pretty quickly - probably including the migrants.
Hard when people have no documents (probably after having destroyed
them), or claim to be "children" (which apparently means under 18) or
claim to be recent Christian converts. And are supported by an
endless line of do-gooders who believe every word they say.
There is really no requirement of migrants to prove anything they
claim, and it's hard to prove a negative.
Why are you whingeing about migrants that have no documents?
The real issue from the 95% of immigrants who do have papers and can
settle here legally.
I recommend everyone to watch the Panorama episode from 25th March, on immigration.
Immigration has increased since Brexit, even though we were "taking back control" and that is because of government's deliberate policies which
were calculated to increase immigration.
Meanwhile, the government blames the small boats which are a tiny
fraction of the incoming migrants - it's smoke and mirrors, to deceive
the electorate.
All very convincingly explained in the Panorama episode: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001xpqk/panorama-immigration-the-uks-record-rise
Am 27/03/2024 um 22:41 schrieb The Todal:
I recommend everyone to watch the Panorama episode from 25th March, on immigration.
Panorama lost any credibility when they bottled the Jimmy Saville report.
"Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uu3f30$3gh0q$3@dont-email.me...
Am 27/03/2024 um 22:41 schrieb The Todal:
I recommend everyone to watch the Panorama episode from 25th March, on immigration.
Panorama lost any credibility when they bottled the Jimmy Saville report.
Except it wasn't "Panorama". It was "Newsnight". An investigation by the
late Liz MacKean
But apart from that minor detail, spot on !
bb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_MacKean
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 45:17:58 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,235 |
| Posted today: | 1 |