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

[Aimless]

I understand those ramifications very well; I would gladly end the situation where citizenship is a legalistic construct with very little to no connection to actually belonging to the society you hold the citizenship of. I think the protection of holding citizenship as a human right is wrong and I would gladly see it dismantled.
I think any - literally any - move that restricts the rights of states to revoke it is a move in the wrong direction.

It's just as much rubbish as the so-called human rights of the right to work and the likes that faux socialist states tried to push upon the world in the past. Much to the detriment of classical human rights I might add.

This suggests that you do not understand. The protection against statelessness enshrined by the right to a nationality is crucial to safeguarding the other human rights, such as rights to equality before the law, the right to security, due process rights and protections against arbitrary punishment (indeed, most of the enumerated treaty rights). Stateless persons, whatever the reasons for their statelessness, are among the most vulnerable people in any society; their rights are the most difficult to defend and the easiest to violate. The right to a nationality, and the prohibitions against rendering an individual stateless, continue to be reaffirmed on this basis, by every competent court in the western world.

Again, like RB--and like members of the fascistoid mob--you are only considering the case of someone rightly accused of joining a terrorist organization. Nobody cares if their due process rights are violated. However, in the case of a person wrongly deprived of their citizenship and consequently denied right to entry, right to consular assistance, right to legal counsel and legal aid, etc, the problems with allowing a person to be arbitrarily deprived of their citizenship and rendered stateless becomes much more apparent. We must judge our laws not simply on the basis of what we want to do to the guilty who are rightfully accused but also--and more importantly--on the basis of what we want for the innocent who are wrongfully accused. Your opinions and preferences may be to the contrary, but, really, this isn't about you--except in the sense that you shouldn't want the state to be able to deprive you of your due process rights either, if ever you find yourself wrongfully accused of committing a heinous crime.

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.

I was being unclear, but I intended it in both senses (in the former sense in the first sentence, in the latter sense in the second sentence).

There are situations where the burden of proof is on the Crown to justify a decision that deprives a person of a right, and a decision to grant an appeal of a decision that incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the individual will often recognize that. Examples of such situations (in addition to the obvious - depriving a person of their liberty for an extended period of time eg. by jailing them for a crime) include depriving a person of acquired residency rights (eg. on the basis that they've entered into a marriage of convenience), disputing (under some circumstances) a person's claim to protection under the Refugee Convention or the ECHR (eg. by disputing their claims re. their nationality), returning a refugee or asylee to the country from which they fled (on the basis that the situation has changed substantially), depriving a person of their privileges under the EEA agreement or EU treaties, etc.

UK law does place the onus of proving British citizenship (or eg. the right to remain in the UK) on the individual, when that status is reasonably in doubt; however, this case concerns a person whose British citizenship was, at the time of the deprivation order, plain as a matter of law and logic--had she not been a British citizen, the HO could not have attempted to deprive her of her British citizenship. The HO can only do so if she is both 1. a British citizen, and 2. simultaneously a Bangladeshi citizen. Prior to the deprivation order, she is obviously a British citizen; the HO must be able to prove that she is also a Bangladeshi citizen, because it may not otherwise deprive her of her British citizenship.

The standard for determining whether or not the initial decision was wrongful is low--the secretary must be "satisfied" as to her dual citizenship status, even if it is plain to the commission that reviews appeals of these decisions that s/he should not have been satisfied. However, in the appeals of these decisions, the commission has explicitly stated that the burden of proof lies with the Crown to demonstrate that eg. a particular natural-Born British citizen of Bangladeshi descent is a Bangladeshi citizen under the laws & practices of Bangladesh, as a question of fact constituting the basis for the legality of the deprivation of British citizenship.

For several years, lower British courts upheld the HO's discretionary power to [arbitrarily] revoke a person's British citizenship (eg. while they were abroad and were unable to be given notice or to appeal), and even the power to prevent natural-born British citizens from returning to the UK. Importantly, they upheld the govt's view that there was no suspensive right of appeal. Recently, however, the Supreme Court struck a blow to this procedure, by ruling the "deport first, appeal later" approach illegal on human rights grounds, which bolsters SB's case for being allowed to return (even if it is to be prosecuted and jailed in the UK), especially now that it seems likely her newborn child will be deemed a British citizen.

That being said, I've reviewed the appeals before SIAC, of the three decisions most relevant to this case, and it looks like it will be very difficult for her to have the deprivation order overturned on the basis of the prohibition against rendering persons stateless. The commission has previously favoured expert legal opinion that Bangladeshi statutes and practice may allow someone born in the UK to Bangladeshi citizens to be deemed a Dual British-Bangladeshi citizen until the age of twenty-one. The commission may be persuaded otherwise, but, if not, her case may end up depending on the exact mode by which her parents acquired their Bangladeshi citizenship, and what that says about the validity of any citizenship claims on her part.

As for populism: nothing feeds it like defending those who break the rules at the expense of the general population.

Sure, let's just summarily execute people accused of rape (as long as they're brown, mind). That'll definitely help fight populism. Trying to appease populists by letting them erode the fundamental norms of a modern democratic society governed by the rule of law really works, as history has taught us. It doesn't just give them a taste for blood.