She was entitled to citizenship but she wasn't born with it. My cousin's children were in a similar position having been born outside the UK.

▲

chippiewill 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wrong way round. She was born in the UK and was a British Citizen at birth and had a British passport

She is (maybe) entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship which is why the UK government was allowed under UK law to remove her British citizenship because British courts didn't consider her to be stateless.

The only people who can't have British citizenship removed are British citizens with no other citizenship or entitlement to a citizenship. I think in theory that means the British government is legally allowed to remove citizenship from any person from Northern Ireland if they justify it (since they're allowed to claim Irish citizenship under the Good Friday agreement).

	▲	masfuerte 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		At birth she was entitled to citizenship but she wasn't a citizen. Like my cousins. I describe the nuance in my other comments on this thread.

▲

funnybeam 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

According to Wikipedia she was born in Britain and a British citizen, but i am not aware of all the ins and outs of her case

	▲	masfuerte 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not an immigration lawyer but as I understand it: having been born in the UK as the child of Bangladeshi parents who were living here legally she was entitled to British citizenship, but she wasn't British automatically. They would have had to apply for it. As such, the politicians were able to take it away. This is quite a recent change in the law. Prior to 2014 they could only strip citizenship if you applied and received it without having a right to it (e.g. if you were born abroad to non-British parents). After 2014 naturalised citizens (like Begum) were also liable. I do think it is a bad law and she is being treated disgracefully. There's still hope the ECHR will sort it.