From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed May 21 09:37:20 2025 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Interesting citizenship Q. References: <1009q0k$bqfu$2@dont-email.me> <100a5e2$dcon$2@dont-email.me> <100d3do$1au6$1@gal.iecc.com> <100d4i9$fl49$4@dont-email.me> <100f5vc$1jmmf$2@dont-email.me> <100fqre$1ngs9$7@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [174781662210192] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 09:37:20 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed May 21 09:37:02 2025 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=f3UoWKOL1Nim+dhC7fMTryfjIilfi+MKscQDExmDCOs=; t=1747816620; x=1748421420; b=MFfxE9b/eo33ZSH > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Interesting citizenship Q. > Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 09:36:57 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: <1009q0k$bqfu$2@dont-email.me> > <100a5e2$dcon$2@dont-email.me> > <100d3do$1au6$1@gal.iecc.com> <100d4i9$fl49$4@dont-email.me> > <100f5vc$1jmmf$2@dont-email.me> > <100fqre$1ngs9$7@dont-email.me> > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net ks11TrWoIYzNWlwfOZ6Lhg5ckHzEkU3Sy9LoumJuimnyFIT/XR > Cancel-Lock: sha1:Cmtilce8/sjx+Ky3Yhd7iye99Xw= sha256:yvYjk1ygxr5Z4GfJvmnWeQsq5ZNnLZspeygCLiA5uZM= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 29 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 21/05/2025 09:23, Simon Parker wrote: > > On 20/05/2025 09:41, Norman Wells wrote: > >> On 20/05/2025 08:04, Simon Parker wrote: > >>> On 19/05/2025 18:47, Fredxx wrote: > > > >>>> Quite, 102 is very clear in saying that she was unable to enter > >>>> Bangladesh, so stateless in all but name. > >>> > >>> Your claim was not that she is "stateless in all but name", but > >>> rather that "She's missed the deadline for an application." > >>> > >>> [102] says, in part: "Until her 21st birthday in 2021 she had > >>> Bangladeshi citizenship by descent". > >>> > >>> As her British citizenship was revoked prior to this date, her > >>> Bangladeshi citizenship did not lapse on her 21st birthday. > >>> > >>> Note also the opening statement of [100]: "Section 40(4) prohibited > >>> the Secretary of State from making a deprivation order if he was > >>> satisfied that the order would make a person stateless." > >>> > >>> And the following sentence: "It was common ground before us, as it > >>> was before the Supreme Court in Pham v Secretary of State for Home > >>> Department [2015] UKSC 19, [2015] 1 WLR 1591, that the term > >>> "stateless" in s 40(4) means de jure statelessness. This is a binary > >>> question, as Pham itself illustrates." > >>> > >>> [101] Mr Squires KC, accepting that the appellant was not de jure > >>> stateless at the time of the decision, nonetheless argued that in the > >>> present case the Secretary of State failed to take account of the > >>> fact that the deprivation order would render Ms Begum de facto > >>> stateless. > >>> > >>> In short, the test for statelessness in the relevant legislation > >>> applies to de jure statelessness which is a binary test. > >>> > >>> Ms Begum's KC accepted that she "was not de jure stateless at the > >>> time of the decision" [to deprive her of her British citizenship]. > >>> > >>> He attempted to argue that she was de facto stateless but this was > >>> not the test before either the Secretary of State or the courts. > >>> > >>> I repeat: It is a finding of fact in SIAC and confirmed the Court of > >>> Appeal, a fact accepted by Ms Begum's legal team no less, that she > >>> "was not de jure stateless at the time of the decision" to revoke her > >>> British citizenship. > >> > >> All of which is painfully obvious from a simple reading of the > >> Bangladesh Citizenship Act. > > > > It seems I need to remind you which poster first drew this Act to the > > attention of the newsgroup back in February 2019.  (Free Clue: It wasn't > > you!) > > > > And whilst we're taking a jaunt down memory lane, it would be good to > > remember that at that time, a poster I'll call [SP] made reference to > > previous SIAC judgments concerning Bangladeshi nationals identified as > > E3 and N3 and concluded with the comment: "As Ms Begum is under 21, her > > Bangladeshi citizenship is still valid and so a challenge to a > > Revocation Order on those grounds is unlikely to be > > successful." (Tangentially, I have it on good authority that poster SP > > is happy that his prediction of the likely outcome was correct.) > > > > A poster I'll identify as [NW] then asked, "Do you know please where > > this, to me rather strange, 'under 21' requirement comes from? What has > > age to do with nationality? I'd have thought you either have it or you > > don't." > > > > Poster [SP] replied: "It is a quirk of Bangladeshi Citizenship. > > > > "Section (14) subsection (1) of the (Bangladesh) Citizen[ship] Act 1951, > > as amended in 1972 does not permit dual citizenship or nationality. > > > > "Subsection (1A) states "Nothing in sub-section (1) applies to a person > > who has not attained twenty-one years of age". > > > > "If you want to read more on the matter, you could do worse than read > > https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2018/SC_146_2017.html" > > > > Whereupon poster [NW] thanked poster [SP] for the information and added > > a summary of their understanding of the matter, namely: "On my reading > > then, she is perfectly entitled to citizenship of Bangladesh and, > > because she is under 21, was entitled to dual citizenship of the UK as > > well. That latter citizenship has now been removed, but her Bangladeshi > > citizenship remains." > > > > Based on this exchange, would you conclude that poster [SP] assisted > > poster [NW] to come to an understanding of the Citizenship Act 1951 or > > vice-versa? > > > > In case you haven't figured it out, one of us is poster [SP] and the > > other is poster [NW].  Do you think you're poster [SP] or poster [NW]? > > (I've provided a clue if you look really hard(!).) > > > > Based on your answer to the previous two questions, do you think poster > > [SP] wants, much less needs, lessons from poster [NW] on the Citizenship > > Act 1951, or is the converse more likely the case? > > > > If you're struggling to answer the question, I'll remind you that this > > is an Act with which poster [NW] was clearly unacquainted until poster > > [SP] brought it to his attention and explained the implication of the > > relevant section to him. > > > > It is good to see poster [NW] using the new found information but he > > would do well to remember from where he acquired it. > > > > You're welcome. > > > > > >> Her case was a total waste of time and money and her KC should have > >> declined to argue it. > > > > I fear you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the matters > > before the court. > > > > In short, as I quoted recently from the SC judgment in [101]: > > > > "Mr Squires KC, accepting that the appellant was not de jure stateless > > at the time of the decision, nonetheless argued that in the present case > > the Secretary of State failed to take account of the fact that the > > deprivation order would render Ms Begum de facto stateless." > > > > Note: He accepted that Ms Begum was not de jure stateless but argued > > that the decision rendered her de facto stateless. > > But that was a nonsense argument as he should have known. And the court > of course dismissed it. > > What a waste of time. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmgtkMAACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x5SDAf/fpYfgfSVXkCweMFGgth4OG2menxatfgRI7izazAXery5cZFw+ZGM+y6L Iu25NeTAVVADfA9O3SxY+1YMwpsM9OBG76kMGQDkAS/Kh1QoS/DwJgnRTHWszbAo I7KdZe3wQ94uzsfKu33owWYT+elIuwN4IU4wOkreuStGtaNqJfl3XTTw+uEqPxkS hIQ+BiJ669KxzkOva2JjcsiCpHvTyl/crQgR88t7LS7uihwKqMqzafbpxF/KBjfD 3vl6zl6MrbxJ+dIaRyIg8l+0A6ot4JupLC2m6d20dU63G1uAH0jp722WOgy1gVU1 KBKm3ShAAxwPtq+HABhBm8rWGOC2gw== =m+El -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----