The final step up would be to give #borisjohnson the #shamimabegum treatment. She is not allowed to enter the #uk and has had her #citizenship removed on the grounds that she represents a threat to the state and has an alternative nationality available to her. Given the #BorisJohnson was born in #NewYork he would have #US citizenship open to him.

#ShamimaBegum’s banishment is not only unjust but a threat to us all.

ANJA BOSSOW on why her lost appeal is an abrogation, not vindication, of the rule of law.

https://verfassungsblog.de/shamima-begums-banishment-is-a-threat-to-us-all/

@france24_en
At least she did not have her citizenship revoked the French have more sense of justice then the UK #ShamimaBegum #politics

OPINION: From the earliest reports of Shamima Begum’s journey to Syria in 2015, one thing has been obvious to every human trafficking professional. Begum should have been recognised as a victim of human trafficking from the outset.

Smuggling a 15-year-old girl over the Turkish-Syrian border in order to make her the child ‘bride’ of an #ISIS combatant is a textbook example of child #trafficking for the purpose of sexual #exploitation.

https://bit.ly/3IWHkhp

#ShamimaBegum

The unfairness and #illegality of the #UK #HomeOffice towards #shamimabegum is there for the whole world to see, which is why the #Zionist #White @Conservatives always put a "coloured face" in it so that they can still practise their illegal moves as they always have a fall-guy
---
RT @PeteDavies7
Whilst I agree with you about Miss Begum, I cannot agree that this country is great. True history demonstrates this. https://twitter.com/not…
https://twitter.com/PeteDavies7/status/1630161845171503104

Shamima Begum should have her UK citizenship restored. We wrote this in 2019; since then courts have said there was a “credible suspicion” that she had been trafficked to Syria.
https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2019-02-20/shamima-begum-should-be-allowed-return-uk

#ShamimaBegum

@Shephallmassive
Babies. She lost 3, as well as 2 miscarriages. Just awful.

Other countries have brought their citizens home ... the UK is an outlier in refusing to accept responsibility.
#ShamimaBegum
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/22/shamima-begum-child-trafficking-uk?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

@ProfLouiseL
Absolutely. It's telling that the judgment basically said that although it was lawful for Javid to make her stateless it certainly doesn't mean it was right. It was pandering to the right-wing media. #ShamimaBegum can't possibly have understood the true consequences of being trafficked to Raqqa. But with Braverman as HS there's no chance of that decision being overturned.

RT @Moazzam_Begg
#shamimabegum lost her appeal to regain British nationality. Bangladesh - birthplace of her parents - won’t give her nationality either. She’s now stateless - which is illegal. No angel but child-trafficked by Canadian intel into the hands of #IS, she saw 3 of her kids die.

"To be brown and Muslim in the UK is to feel, on many levels, how much your life and death mean absolutely nothing." https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2023/02/22/shamima-begum-losing-her-appeal-proves-the-uk-has-conditional-citizenship/ #ShamimaBegum #Citizenship #UKGovernment #ToryFascism #UKFascism #RefugeesWelcome #AllRefugeesWelcome

@ClaireCopperman Just blocked my first person on mastodon for saying #ShamimaBegum was not the victim and a 15-year-old knows what's right or wrong. Yes, what she did was stupid and bad, but she was under-age and groomed. It's just Tory posturing to make her stateless.

I think the Commission has gone wrong here on #shamimabegum. There are lots of reasons for the other grounds to fall, as far as I can see and have read so far, but this point, the question about statelessness, is where it falls down. If the Commission could only consider the bare facts at hand at that time, then yes, the Home Secretary was permitted to act, if only by a technicality of her right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents.

But the Commission is not limited to 'just' those facts, even if it still has to focus on the decision at that time--and there is little doubt in my mind, at least, that Sajid Javid knew his act would eventually make her stateless.

*This has now happened.*

To therefore ignore evidence of the current citizenship / statelessness status of Begum and assert Ground 3 still falls is the wrong decision, in my eyes, and I hope a subsequent appeal will find differently.

IANAL

I think the Commission has gone wrong here on #shamimabegum. There are lots of reasons for the other grounds to fall, as far as I can see and have read so far, but this point, the question about statelessness, is where it falls down. If the Commission could only consider the bare facts at hand at that time, then yes, the Home Secretary was permitted to act, if only by a technicality of her right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents.

But the Commission is not limited to 'just' those facts, even if it still has to focus on the decision at that time--and there is little doubt in my mind, at least, that Sajid Javid knew his act would eventually make her stateless. To assert Ground 3 falls is the wrong decision, in my eyes, and I hope a subsequent appeal will find differently.

IANAL

Dave Brown on the special immigration appeals commission #ShamimaBegum - political cartoon gallery in London original-political-cartoon.com

Merely a day after the Home Secretary acted, Bangladesh made it absolutely clear they did not consider #shamimabegum to be a citizen, that such a claim was 'erroneous' and that they would not allow this person entry.

*Theoretically* maybe she could still become a Bangladeshi citizen--until her 21st birthday. At that point the door slams shut.

And guess what? We're now past that point, and she is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is also not a British citizen, as far as anyone is concerned: she is stateless.

Yet the Commission refuses to consider that fact, preferring instead to look only at facts as at 19 Feb 2019, and does not even countenance that maybe the Home Secretary knew that his act *even at that time* would eventually result in her becoming stateless--just a few birthdays had to pass first.

Put yourself in Sajid Javid's shoes: about to deprive #shamimabegum of her British citizenship. You know that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship; that ensures that in the moment you are not constrained by 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

But you also know that the story has been all over the press, and is it reasonable to think Bangladesh would accept her, especially given she has not taken up her citizenship formally and given the current circumstances?

(Sadly Bangladesh put out a statement only 1 day after her deprivation decision, but surely Javid would have been in contact with someone from that country, if he considered her to in fact be a citizen of it?)

https://mofa.gov.bd/site/press_release/a5530623-ad80-4996-b0b4-f60f39927005

But 4 years on, in 2023 and the 21st birthday of #shamimabegum, we know she did not take up Bangladeshi citizenship (not to mention the absurdity of the idea of trying to apply after this story became public).

Much, much earlier on, in the 'Role of the Commission' section, paragraph 41 states evidence post-dating the deprivation decision is admissible to the Commission (sorry, not court).

I am not a lawyer, but I think this point is one which I hope would resurface on any further appeals. Why?

The logic as at the Feb 2019 decision was that she was technically not left stateless, even if #shamimabegum had not 'done the paperwork' to become Bangladeshi. That was the out that permitted the court at the time to decide the Home Secretary did not act unlawfully.

Additionally, as she had no plans to go to Bangladesh (and indeed virtually certainly would not be allowed entry, once this story was made public), it was deemed there was no risk of torture, etc. should she actually end up in that country--another point on which the decision was upheld.

The court is relying on the circumstances as at Feb 2019, at which point #shamimabegum was technically a dual citizen, British/Bangladeshi. Her citizenship was a literal game of hot potato, as only the country which acted first to revoke would be successful. Bangladesh had hardly concerned itself with someone who had never entered the country and never made any attempt to claim Bangladeshi citizenship--whilst she was eligible to do so to the age of 21, she had made no such efforts.

Why should the country care about individuals who were unlikely to take up formal documentation, especially given that if she did not before the age of 21, she would lose that entitlement?

Here is the paragraph (was having trouble uploading a screenshot of a snippet from phone) from the #shamimabegum ruling.

It states, ' It will assume for present purposes that the relevant question must be addressed as at 19th February 2019', because *if* it took into account today's circumstances--'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'--there would be no other conclusion possible other than that the deprivation is unlawful!

It is because the Home Secretary can act only where a deprivation would not leave a person stateless, and yet we have before us today someone who is, in fact, stateless.