Shamima Begum

Some countries notably the U.S. allow citizens to renounce their citizenship and become stateless. This means there must be quite a number of stateless people in the World.
Whether the U.S. can be considered a third World country is debatable though.

 

Who saying we have to have her? Just because she has Bangladeshi heritage doesn’t mean to say they should take her. She was born and bred in the UK. Should we take all Australia’s ‘ undesirables’ who have British heritage then?

 

I'm stating my opinion that nobody should be rendered stateless.

 

I have no idea what this is intended to mean

 

The problem with giving her citizenship again if she is involved in terrorist activity or say a event like the London tube bombs or Manchester bombs. Then the home secretary looks stupid.

 

Giving her citizenship does not equal her not facing consequences for her actions.

Also the Home Secretary already looks stupid, because she is stupid.

 

A look that would suit her perfectly.

 

I suspect political viewpoints are at play here.
Notwithstanding the fact that you and all those on here, including myself, are not qualified to pass judgement on the Govt decision to strip her of citizenship based on the rulings of the highest courts in the land, we seem to be ignoring the fact that Bangladesh are also part of the equation. The following may be one reason that the Govt believed that she would not be left stateless. That said she was not ,at the time automatically a citizen of Bangladesh as that has to be applied for....
Jus sanguinis
According to the Citizenship Act 1951, one method of acquiring Bangladeshi nationality is via jus sanguinis (Citizenship by right of blood). This means one may acquire citizenship regardless of whether they were born on Bangladeshi sovereign territory or not. Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespective of the place or the legitimacy of the birth.
All I am saying is that it is not just the UK Govt that is at fault for this situation.

 

The uk was wrong to take away her nationality and leave her stateless. She should have her nationality restored and face trial for terrorism. We have become a rogue state under this and the preceding Tory governments. Not long ago we would have been condemning other regimes which acted like we have in this case.

 

I suspect she's excluded as a warning to others more than anything else. Not saying I agree with that, but it's perhaps a big motive.

 

Yes it is. She was brought up British, groomed while in this country. Nothing to do with Bangladesh.

 

Has she been found guilty of being a terrorist or danger to the Country?
I thought we lived in a Country who had great pride in Legal system that starts with the principal of being innocent until proven guilty.

Being originally a British Citizen she should have been entitled to the above first from there surely it’s simple.
If she’s been found guilty, bring her back and lock her up.
If she hasn’t then she should still be classed as a British Citizen and treated like one, Good and Bad.

 

How about looking at it from the flip side then, Allow her back, face British justice, then at some point in the future, she could work in the community like being involved with, and promoting work and projects against her ‘crimes’ similar to what other criminals do such as those involved in drug gangs etc.

 

She is British and never been to Bangladesh , the crimes she’s committed should be put before a British court and if guilty given an appropriate prison sentence. You are right it is Political, Begum was the media focus , petitions to MPs at the time for her to have her citizenship removed apparently totalled 580,000 , so it was a populist move to remove her citizenship, somewhat ignoring the fact that 360 isis sympathisers had already returned to Britain

 

Are you Jeremy corbyn?

 

How do we know she would be a reformed character? I had a debate a few months back where I thought murderers should never be released from jail mansfield_red disagreed I'm abit more tough than some.

 

What are you on about? I've literally said she should face trial for any offences.

 

How can you actually read my email and then say it is nothing to do with Bangladesh? They refused her citizenship which under 'Jus Sanguinis' she has a right to just as having been born in UK has has a right to UK citizenship.
I am undecided as to whether she should be allowed back/should have had her citizenship revoked/put on trial but some of the comments on this forum are heavily influenced by anti-Govt views. Some on here who deride people who 'think they know better than experts' are falling into the very same trap especially those who keep saying the Govt acted illegally.

 

No they aren't anti govt, this transcends individual governments it is a worldwide issue.