You can't always get what you want - the UK's grandstanding over ISIS sympathizers

[Hazir]

You are seriously deluded if you think the HO needs to be more active in the research on her Bangladeshi nationality.

As for your question: reports of my dislike for anything British are grossly exaggerated. Also cutting ties with a terrorist supporter is not the same as making a mess of Brexit.

Your statements about her nationality border on lying. The Bangladeshi regulations are obvious in their wording. The nationality is not disputed in the standard procedure for the child of a citizen, but something that merely needs to be verified. She does not get citizenship by asking for it; filling out the forms leads to certification of the situation.

[Aimless]

You are seriously deluded if you think the HO needs to be more active in the research on her Bangladeshi nationality.

You're a weirdo if you think the govt. of a modern western democracy is entitled to revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen without doing due diligence. Once an appeal is lodged, you will simply be wrong, and it will be the HO's job to prove her Bangladeshi citizenship.

As for your question: reports of my dislike for anything British are grossly exaggerated. Also cutting ties with a terrorist supporter is not the same as making a mess of Brexit.

You're very similar to the average Brexiter in your inability to realize the broader ramifications of your positions, but I was only referring to your conveniently contradictory takes on responsibility for the consequences of unilateral actions.

Your statements about her nationality border on lying. The Bangladeshi regulations are obvious in their wording. The nationality is not disputed in the standard procedure for the child of a citizen, but something that merely needs to be verified. She does not get citizenship by asking for it; filling out the forms leads to certification of the situation.

I'm sorry, but if you think the matter is obvious, then it is because you do not understand the complexities of the situation. It is precisely because neither the legal situation nor the law is obvious that British-Bangladeshi jurists differ in their views of her citizenship status. Bangladesh's citizenship regulations distinguish between modes of initial citizenship acquisition based on a person's status at the time of the nation's emergence (and, previously, status of an individual and their forefathers in 1951). It is not strange that a country may have to make special provisions for the initial acquisition of citizenship to account for the country not existing before a certain point in time. Shamima Begum's parents fled to Bangladesh before Bangladesh became an independent state; it is undetermined what their precise citizenship status is, and, consequently, by what mode she may or may not have acquired or be eligible to acquire Bangladeshi citizenship through them. This is especially the case if her parents became British citizens, as dual citizenship through the re-acquisition of Bangladeshi citizenship was only provided for through an amendment in 1978. A Bangladeshi citizen who has a child that is a natural-born citizen of a foreign country may apply to have that child registered as a citizen of Bangladesh, following the appropriate procedure, and the govt. may register them. The law may be more straightforward when it comes to children whose parents are Bangladeshi citizens by birth and have not had to re-acquire their citizenship. Shamima Begum's eligibility for citizenship by descent, through her parents, is not straightforward.

[LittleFuzzy]

You're a weirdo if you think the govt. of a modern western democracy is entitled to revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen without doing due diligence. Once an appeal is lodged, you will simply be wrong, and it will be the HO's job to prove her Bangladeshi citizenship.

As you rightly pointed out earlier there are differences in the law I'm familiar with and that practiced over there (albeit that used in the UK is not as dissimilar as elsewhere in Europe) so I say this with hesitance but. . . that's not typically the case. In an appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant that they have sufficient cause of action. It would be her party's responsibility to prove that the decision would render her stateless. Now there is evidence available to that effect, i.e. the announcement from Bangladesh and if that is uncontested that may be sufficient to prove the case. Since the HO needs to contest that evidence, it may be you are confusing the functional need to contest when adequately challenged with having the "job to prove" but you're stretching that way too far in your general English.

[Hazir]

As you rightly pointed out earlier there are differences in the law I'm familiar with and that practiced over there (albeit that used in the UK is not as dissimilar as elsewhere in Europe) so I say this with hesitance but. . . that's not typically the case. In an appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant that they have sufficient cause of action. It would be her party's responsibility to prove that the decision would render her stateless. Now there is evidence available to that effect, i.e. the announcement from Bangladesh and if that is uncontested that may be sufficient to prove the case. Since the HO needs to contest that evidence, it may be you are confusing the functional need to contest when adequately challenged with having the "job to prove" but you're stretching that way too far in your general English.

That is a good description of how this works. Though fairness demands to point out that the punitive character of the decision does not exclude the same protection as in criminal law being demanded. However, that's not the case yet.