Thread by @AdamWagner1

1/ Stripping Shamima Begum of citizenship

Some brief thoughts and concerns

(thread)

2/ First thing’s first. What we know is still pretty sketchy.

Although ITV published the cover letter to the Home Office’s (HO) decision we don’t have the most important bit, which is the HO reasoning behind the cover letter (the "enclosed papers" referred to in the first para)

3/ Why don’t we have it?

Speculation, but I expect the reasoning, amongst other things, contains the HO’s explanation of how they say Shamima is a threat to the UK. So family prob don’t want that bit out there, for publicity/danger to her and her child/family in UK

4/ What is the law?

The main bits are in section 40 of the British Nationality Act (legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/…)

HO can deprive if ‘conducive to the public good’ as long as it doesn’t make person stateless - so they either need to have another nationality or fulfil 3 requirements

5/ So to remove citizenship Shamima must:
(1) Be a naturalised British citizen
(2) conducted herself in a way which is ‘seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK’
AND
(3) HO has reasonable grounds to believe she could become a national of a territory outside the UK

5/ She has a right to appeal. What would her points be?

I assume, though you never know with the HO that Shamima is a naturalised British citizen, as otherwise the appeal would succeed straightforwardly.

But see the excellent Free Movement freemovement.org.uk/shamima-begum-…

6/ I'm slightly outside my comfort zone on naturalisation but as far as I can tell from the British Nationality Act the article is right that it is only possible for a person "of full age" which means 18+ (see s.50) legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/…
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/…

7/ I can't see how Shamima could have attained British citizenship by naturalisation whilst she was in Syria (she left at 15) but I suppose it's possible. Seems odd.

8/ Prejudicial to the UK?

This is an evidential question: can HO prove joining ISIS as a child then doing whatever she has been doing (we don’t really know) is prejudicial to UK?

This isn’t as simple as an adult going out - brainwashing, was a child etc. Not straightforward

9/ 7/ Could she become a citizen of another country?

Apparently she's entitled to, but doesn’t have, Bangladeshi citizenship. Or maybe she has it automatically through operation of Bangladeshi law.

This is a question of Bangladeshi law, not my area!

Free Movement say this:

10/ First, I used to act for the Home Office quite a bit. They are not like other govt depts, and I have acted for many of the others

They are not always principled. They are highly political. They are worried about what the newspapers say.

11/ This is what happens when the minister has to make a decision like this.

They get legal advice. Ordinarily the Government Legal Department will provide it (I’m certain they will have in this case).

The advice will contains the caveats that immigration lawyers are used to

12/ “We have a reasonable case to argue that”… “it is possible though by no means certain that a court could conclude…” etc. Immigration law is the most fiendish and ever changing area. So you often have wriggle room.

And often, into the wriggle room, steps the minister.

13/ Nb the Javid may well have been advised he is likely to lose, but there is a chance he will will.

We will probably never know, but that's the kind of advice which a minister may chose to reject

14/ Is Javid acting from pure principle?

I’m not convinced. He will be thinking about his own career. There could be a Tory leadership contest in a year’s time, or a reshuffle. It’s in his interests to look tough and drag this out.

15/ And the reality is that though Shamima has a right to appeal, and the appeal may happen more quickly because of her personal circumstances, it still could take months or even years. It could go to SIAC, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights. Years.

16/ And in meantime, Javid can argue, as many a Home Secretary has (including our current PM) that he made the right call and if he loses in the court it’s:
- the judge’s fault.
- even worse, the Human Rights Act’s/European Convention on Human Rights fault.
Rule of law? Pah.

17/ Second concern.

I find myself flip flopping over whether I’m sympathetic to Shamima. She made her choice but it was as a child. She has been with ISIS but has she been fighting? She is an adult but still so young - and brainwashed?

18/ Everyone has human rights but the Home Office also has a duty to protect our right to life, and that involves fighting terrorism. rightsinfo.org/your-rights-in…

19/ But what about her baby?

He is British. What will happen to him now that his mum can’t return?

My experience of human rights law is nothing is so bracing as seeing up close the complex, messy facts of human lives. Good and evil is easy for Daily Mail but I find it hard

20/ Third concern.

Sometimes particular cases with hard facts bring out unfairness in a law.

I am worried about the British Nationality Act and the way it makes precarious the citizenship of British people who were born and raised here. It seems arbitrary and discriminatory

21/ Shamima probably thought that she was no different to the other children at her school. As British. She lived here all her life. Never visited Bangladesh. And yet her nationality - which is a human right (see UNDHR) - was always more precarious than her school friends.

22/ I worry about this as a British citizen. I am not naive. I have been close to enough terrorist acts. We need to protect ourselves and punish terrorists. But it does seem that the odds are stacked against people with foreign parents - exile is a punishment like no other.

23/ Update:

This statement from the Bangladeshi government pulls the rug on two essential prerequisites for deprivation of citizenship:

- Shamima isn’t a Bangladeshi citizen;
- Shamima would not have any prospect of obtaining Bangladeshi citizenship
theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/f…

24/ Remember, the HO needs to show that she is EITHER a Bangladeshi citizen OR it has reasonable grounds for believing she could become one.

Sounds like neither applies, so deprivation would render her stateless, which is unlawful. So it sounds like a no go

25/ Her lawyers will provably now be writing to Home Secretary demanding he issue a fresh decision (though we still don’t know the precise basis of the first one). HO might just say you have an appeal and delay but that would be pretty oppressive

26/ Lets be honest, Bangladesh wasn’t likely to welcome Shamima, an British born British citizen apparent ISIS loyalist with open arms. But Javid probably hoped they would take more than a few hours to say so, thereby crushing his legal justification!

27/ BUT WAIT!

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1098282547690328065?s=20

Law is complicated. The point here is that if she has Bangleshi citizenship automatically then it matters not what the Bangladeshi govt says.

Pretty unattractive argument for HO to make but let’s see

28/ The problem is that - if it is correct Shamima automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship - the approach of the Bangledeshi govt is the effectively render her stateless, but they did so *after* Javid’s decision. So it could still have been lawful. But depends.