I’m not sure your argument is going to persuade many people, which is fine as I’m sure you’re expecting it, to look at Begums position again.
Her folly of youth has come back to haunt her several times over, 3 dead children, a dead husband (which no one will miss) two dead friends and unwanted by her family, or at least her fathers side anyway, and of course a stateless woman in two countries.
Thanks for laying this out so clearly. It makes me feel sick to my stomach to think of being stripped of citizenship rights, no country to which to belong and nowhere where to claim for the protection of human rights. I agree that citizenship should never be something that is an issue for any politician to decide. And everyone has a right to a fair trial no matter how much we dislike them.
You are simply too stupid to understand the issues and like many of the left you twist words to suit your own agenda and misguided perception of reality. I rest my case with this statement from you , which explains why it is not possible to reason with a dogmatic idiot :
".... British citizen might object to the 'culture' (whatever it might be) of the State ".
Perhaps you might be better leaving Britain - you obviously don't belong here.
I really can't be bothered trying to hold a sensible conversation with someone who is a brainwashed idiot. However, I refer you to the British Nationality Act and its amendments with reference to Dual Citizenship and Naturalisation where the revocation of citizenship is referenced. The "allegiance" is implicit therein and is the reasons why Begum has her citizenship removed.
If you can't understand it , then I am sorry, I can't put a brain in your head where there isn't one.
It's pretty obvious that you are retro-fitting your facts to suit your argument. As you know, there is no law on citizenship which requires a person to hold 'allegiance to the cultural, moral and values and laws' of the State. The logic of your argument is that a British citizen might object to the 'culture' (whatever it might be) of the State and would thereby forfeit his right to citzenship. Plainly nonsense.
Citizenship is a membership and allegiance to a sovereign state. If you are unable to understand the word "allegiance" I cannot help you. I'm afraid it is simply impossible to hold a rational conversation with people like you for the reasons I stated. people like you are the problem , not the solution.
I asked you to point me to where the laws on citizenship require that a person hold 'allegiance to the cultural, moral and values and laws' of the State. You haven't done so. You seem to be substituting your own personal preferences for the law of the land.
Like many of the political left your cognitive ability is clouded by dogma and propaganda. The social and economic decline of Britain is due to individuals with a mindset like yours , who fail to face up to reality and have a totally misguided perception of the meaning of citizenship. Citizenship is not merely about where you were born - it encompasses , for example, allegiance to the cultural, moral and values and laws of that State - and that is why your whole argument here is nonsense.
Yes or no? I have heard Robinson described as a bigot before - however, I have not heard or seen a single example, althoughI've heard and seen many an unsubstantiated claim. If you've done jury service, you'll have heard the truism 'Presumed innocent'. I've had enough of name calling mobs to last me a lifetime.
Now please....if you can furnish such evidence, even a single example, then I may be persuaded. Without that, I have to presume you one of the mob.
At the heart of this issue is dual nationality. To separate this issue from the contentious Begum one, I don’t know the case but it seems to me that if Brenda wants to retain her British nationality she cannot also have New Zealand nationality. Maybe she can be given New Zealand residency (which would be contingent on her giving up British residency other than for short annual vacation allowances) but I see no overwhelming reason why those who are generally (but not exclusively) at the wealthy end of society should get preferential terms.
Dual national here. Remembering my British citizenship ceremony, saw no-one who was at the “wealthy end”. Anecdotal, of course, but see no reason why my ceremony wasn’t typical.
What’s forgotten in this debate is the evolution of British Commonwealth/Empire citizenship. A residue is seen in Commonwealth citizens still having the right to vote in UK.
I’m intrigued by RoI giving passports to UK citizens remembered their Irish grandparents after Brexit. They rarely, if ever, visit RoI, can only hum the national anthem, don’t pay RoI taxes or have any history of meaningful participation in Irish life and culture.
They only get the RoI passport because it’s useful to live and work in mainland Europe. And will return to live in UK.
Tricky stuff, dual nationality. I'm someone who has two citizenships. I'm British by birth and also now a NZ citizen. The former can't be taken away from me but the latter can, in extreme circumstances. If i commit a major crime such as a murder, my NZ citizenship can be withdrawn along with my right to live here in NZ. I guess the difference is that i have a clear affinity, including residence, in my 'adoptive' 2nd nationality. What counts as affinity with a country can be hard to define though.
I’m not sure your argument is going to persuade many people, which is fine as I’m sure you’re expecting it, to look at Begums position again.
Her folly of youth has come back to haunt her several times over, 3 dead children, a dead husband (which no one will miss) two dead friends and unwanted by her family, or at least her fathers side anyway, and of course a stateless woman in two countries.
Social media’s got a lot to answer for.
That’s a very well argued case Paul
Thank you.
Thanks for laying this out so clearly. It makes me feel sick to my stomach to think of being stripped of citizenship rights, no country to which to belong and nowhere where to claim for the protection of human rights. I agree that citizenship should never be something that is an issue for any politician to decide. And everyone has a right to a fair trial no matter how much we dislike them.
Well said.
You are simply too stupid to understand the issues and like many of the left you twist words to suit your own agenda and misguided perception of reality. I rest my case with this statement from you , which explains why it is not possible to reason with a dogmatic idiot :
".... British citizen might object to the 'culture' (whatever it might be) of the State ".
Perhaps you might be better leaving Britain - you obviously don't belong here.
I really can't be bothered trying to hold a sensible conversation with someone who is a brainwashed idiot. However, I refer you to the British Nationality Act and its amendments with reference to Dual Citizenship and Naturalisation where the revocation of citizenship is referenced. The "allegiance" is implicit therein and is the reasons why Begum has her citizenship removed.
If you can't understand it , then I am sorry, I can't put a brain in your head where there isn't one.
It's pretty obvious that you are retro-fitting your facts to suit your argument. As you know, there is no law on citizenship which requires a person to hold 'allegiance to the cultural, moral and values and laws' of the State. The logic of your argument is that a British citizen might object to the 'culture' (whatever it might be) of the State and would thereby forfeit his right to citzenship. Plainly nonsense.
Citizenship is a membership and allegiance to a sovereign state. If you are unable to understand the word "allegiance" I cannot help you. I'm afraid it is simply impossible to hold a rational conversation with people like you for the reasons I stated. people like you are the problem , not the solution.
I asked you to point me to where the laws on citizenship require that a person hold 'allegiance to the cultural, moral and values and laws' of the State. You haven't done so. You seem to be substituting your own personal preferences for the law of the land.
Like many of the political left your cognitive ability is clouded by dogma and propaganda. The social and economic decline of Britain is due to individuals with a mindset like yours , who fail to face up to reality and have a totally misguided perception of the meaning of citizenship. Citizenship is not merely about where you were born - it encompasses , for example, allegiance to the cultural, moral and values and laws of that State - and that is why your whole argument here is nonsense.
Can you point me to where the laws on citizenship require that a person hold 'allegiance to the cultural, moral and values and laws' of the State?
So it was wrong of Pakistan, Paul?
Yes or no? I have heard Robinson described as a bigot before - however, I have not heard or seen a single example, althoughI've heard and seen many an unsubstantiated claim. If you've done jury service, you'll have heard the truism 'Presumed innocent'. I've had enough of name calling mobs to last me a lifetime.
Now please....if you can furnish such evidence, even a single example, then I may be persuaded. Without that, I have to presume you one of the mob.
I'm not sure what question you are asking.
He's looking for evidence that he is a bigot.
That's quite scandalous for you to say so without evidence surely? Of course you're free to say it, but receipts are helpful.
He would bring many viewers to GB News, why not offer him a job?
At the heart of this issue is dual nationality. To separate this issue from the contentious Begum one, I don’t know the case but it seems to me that if Brenda wants to retain her British nationality she cannot also have New Zealand nationality. Maybe she can be given New Zealand residency (which would be contingent on her giving up British residency other than for short annual vacation allowances) but I see no overwhelming reason why those who are generally (but not exclusively) at the wealthy end of society should get preferential terms.
Dual national here. Remembering my British citizenship ceremony, saw no-one who was at the “wealthy end”. Anecdotal, of course, but see no reason why my ceremony wasn’t typical.
What’s forgotten in this debate is the evolution of British Commonwealth/Empire citizenship. A residue is seen in Commonwealth citizens still having the right to vote in UK.
I’m intrigued by RoI giving passports to UK citizens remembered their Irish grandparents after Brexit. They rarely, if ever, visit RoI, can only hum the national anthem, don’t pay RoI taxes or have any history of meaningful participation in Irish life and culture.
They only get the RoI passport because it’s useful to live and work in mainland Europe. And will return to live in UK.
Tricky stuff, dual nationality. I'm someone who has two citizenships. I'm British by birth and also now a NZ citizen. The former can't be taken away from me but the latter can, in extreme circumstances. If i commit a major crime such as a murder, my NZ citizenship can be withdrawn along with my right to live here in NZ. I guess the difference is that i have a clear affinity, including residence, in my 'adoptive' 2nd nationality. What counts as affinity with a country can be hard to define though.