ISIS bride stripped of citizenship, banned from the UK

[Novus America]

I couldn't care less for her but my issue is the health and protection of her child, id prefer the child be put into UK foster care or adopted out so he or she can have a decent chance at a successful life.... The mother should be charged under treason laws

Why?

The child was born in Syria. It has never set foot in the UK and its grandparents are terrorist sympathisers.

Which is why the child should be given to other guardians, not the grandparents.
Given what happened to her, I do not think giving the child to the grandparents is in the child’s best interest.

After all they failed with her, whether accidentally or intentionally.

[Ifreann]

Heard on the radio that Bangladesh won't give Bagum citizenship. If so, Javid can't revoke her British citizenship, as that would make her stateless.

---

Thing about crimes, though, is you need to have trials and give the accused a lawyer and respect their rights and all that shit, and then they might not be found guilty. Much easier to just revoke their citizenship. You get all the positive press of fighting terrorism without having to actually prove someone did terrorism.

That's actually wrong. Really wrong. The decision of the Home office can, for obvious reasons, be challenged in court. Revoking citizenship is thus no easy way out without a trial(and that's good).

Can be challenged if she can get someone to challenge on her behalf. If her family can hire a lawyer to represent her.

---

Heard on the radio that Bangladesh won't give Bagum citizenship. If so, Javid can't revoke her British citizenship, as that would make her stateless.

---

Thing about crimes, though, is you need to have trials and give the accused a lawyer and respect their rights and all that shit, and then they might not be found guilty. Much easier to just revoke their citizenship. You get all the positive press of fighting terrorism without having to actually prove someone did terrorism.

---

Except that you don't know she's dangerous, and you aren't just not letting her back in, her British citizenship is being revoked.

We do know she is dangerous, she is a member of Islamic State.

How does that make her dangerous?

Likewise she revoked her own British citizenship when she joined an enemy state.

No she didn't.

She says she wants to come back because 2 children died and she wants haram kaffir medicine to save the next child. Isn't she grateful for the privilege that she sacrificed the first two children upon the altar of the Greater Good?

She wants to help her child, that evil, evil woman.

---

So what? That's not a crime. She's not hurting anyone by being married to an ISIS fighter.

Marrying someone and having a child with them certainly seems to be aiding and abetting.

Uh, no, no it doesn't.

[Trumptonium1]

Why?

The child was born in Syria. It has never set foot in the UK and its grandparents are terrorist sympathisers.

Which is why the child should be given to other guardians, not the grandparents.
Given what happened to her, I do not think giving the child to the grandparents is in the child’s best interest.

After all they failed with her, whether accidentally or intentionally.

The child shouldn't "come back" to a country it's never been to. It's only going to serve as a future barrier when trying to deny the ISIS twat's appeals to return to the UK.

The child isn't a British citizen. It's only eligible for it.

Opinion polls show that Britons don't care whether the child is involved or not. Only 15% of the public think the government should not have the power to revoke citizenship - same as those supporting Begum - and that figure only rises to a measly 25% who think that her citizenship should not be removed when the question explicitly mentions doing so would break international law if she's left stateless. Or to flip it another way, 65% of people think breaking international law is ok in this circumstance.

[Novus America]

Which is why the child should be given to other guardians, not the grandparents.
Given what happened to her, I do not think giving the child to the grandparents is in the child’s best interest.

After all they failed with her, whether accidentally or intentionally.

The child shouldn't "come back" to a country it's never been to. It's only going to serve as a future barrier when trying to deny the ISIS twat's appeals to return to the UK.

The child isn't a British citizen. It's only eligible for it.

Opinion polls show that Britons don't care whether the child is involved or not. Only 15% of the public think the government should not have the power to revoke citizenship - same as those supporting Begum - and that figure only rises to a measly 25% who think that her citizenship should not be removed when the question explicitly mentions doing so would break international law if she's left stateless. Or to flip it another way, 65% of people think breaking international law is ok in this circumstance.

Fair enough. I am just saying if the child was allowed to go to the UK, the child should not be given to the grandparents. Who should be investigated, assuming they have not been already.

[Knask]

I also support the idea of guilt by association.

There's a difference between "guilty by association" and "literally joined a terrorist group".

Not really.

Doesn't matter though. I support the idea of guilt by association, like Ostroeuropa and several others here. I look forward to seeing people associating with certain groups I don't like having their citizenship revoked. Remember, all it takes is that a politician decides that it's conducive to the public good to do so.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

I couldn't care less for her but my issue is the health and protection of her child, id prefer the child be put into UK foster care or adopted out so he or she can have a decent chance at a successful life.... The mother should be charged under treason laws

Why?

The child was born in Syria. It has never set foot in the UK and its grandparents are terrorist sympathisers.

Because Syria is a terrible place to raise a child, the child is innocent in the eyes of god, and im pretty sure citizenship follows the mother in the UK (don't qquote me on it)


To quote Javid "Children should not suffer. So, if a parent does lose their British citizenship, it does not affect the rights of their child.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

She has Bangladeshi citizenship too, right? If she wants out, move to Bangladesh then. I can’t fault to Brits if they’re not too keen on letting her back into the UK. She could be earnest or she could be going back to cause trouble. Who knows.

[Trumptonium1]

The child shouldn't "come back" to a country it's never been to. It's only going to serve as a future barrier when trying to deny the ISIS twat's appeals to return to the UK.

The child isn't a British citizen. It's only eligible for it.

Opinion polls show that Britons don't care whether the child is involved or not. Only 15% of the public think the government should not have the power to revoke citizenship - same as those supporting Begum - and that figure only rises to a measly 25% who think that her citizenship should not be removed when the question explicitly mentions doing so would break international law if she's left stateless. Or to flip it another way, 65% of people think breaking international law is ok in this circumstance.

Fair enough. I am just saying if the child was allowed to go to the UK, the child should not be given to the grandparents. Who should be investigated, assuming they have not been already.

There's nothing to investigate them for. Free speech.

Not that what they're saying should be okay to say, that's just an indication of failed either immigration or assimilation (or lack thereof) policies.

[Knask]

She has Bangladeshi citizenship too, right?

No.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

She has Bangladeshi citizenship too, right? If she wants out, move to Bangladesh then. I can’t fault to Brits if they’re not too keen on letting her back into the UK. She could be earnest or she could be going back to cause trouble. Who knows.

Bangladesh is also revoking her citizenship making her stateless

[Trumptonium1]

Why?

The child was born in Syria. It has never set foot in the UK and its grandparents are terrorist sympathisers.

Because Syria is a terrible place to raise a child, the child is innocent in the eyes of god, and im pretty sure citizenship follows the mother in the UK (don't qquote me on it)


To quote Javid "Children should not suffer. So, if a parent does lose their British citizenship, it does not affect the rights of their child.

International law and especially ECHR laws means her child being in the UK makes it harder to send her away. The child would just be a legal obstacle.

The child was born in Syria to a pretend-Briton who was herself born to parents who 40 years in the UK later barely speak intelligible English. All three are about as British as a croissant dipped in Worcester sauce.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

She has Bangladeshi citizenship too, right?

No.

According to OP she does.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

She has Bangladeshi citizenship too, right? If she wants out, move to Bangladesh then. I can’t fault to Brits if they’re not too keen on letting her back into the UK. She could be earnest or she could be going back to cause trouble. Who knows.

Bangladesh is also revoking her citizenship making her stateless

Bunmer for her then.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Fair enough. I am just saying if the child was allowed to go to the UK, the child should not be given to the grandparents. Who should be investigated, assuming they have not been already.

There's nothing to investigate them for. Free speech.

Not that what they're saying should be okay to say, that's just an indication of failed either immigration or assimilation (or lack thereof) policies.

Those who incite others to violence should and ought to be investigated

[Trumptonium1]

There's nothing to investigate them for. Free speech.

Not that what they're saying should be okay to say, that's just an indication of failed either immigration or assimilation (or lack thereof) policies.

Those who incite others to violence should and ought to be investigated

They did no such thing.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Because Syria is a terrible place to raise a child, the child is innocent in the eyes of god, and im pretty sure citizenship follows the mother in the UK (don't qquote me on it)


To quote Javid "Children should not suffer. So, if a parent does lose their British citizenship, it does not affect the rights of their child.

International law and especially ECHR laws means her child being in the UK makes it harder to send her away. The child would just be a legal obstacle.

The child was born in Syria to a pretend-Briton who was herself born to parents who 40 years in the UK later barely speak intelligible English. All three are about as British as a croissant dipped in Worcester sauce.

Doesn't matter if someone fits the stereotypes of a British national or not, stop believing in ethno states for once in your life... The child is, by law, eligible for citizenship and should be given it so it can have a decent chance at life... I don't care if it makes it harder to get rid of the mother or not

[Novus America]

Fair enough. I am just saying if the child was allowed to go to the UK, the child should not be given to the grandparents. Who should be investigated, assuming they have not been already.

There's nothing to investigate them for. Free speech.

Not that what they're saying should be okay to say, that's just an indication of failed either immigration or assimilation (or lack thereof) policies.

They should not be charged (yet). They can still be looked into to see if any ties to ISIS exist, or if they contributed to her traveling to Syria to join ISIS (could be conspiracy or accessory to a crime).
Not sure how much they can get without a warrant if they cannot get one.
But there are still numerous unprivileged records that can be checked.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

Those who incite others to violence should and ought to be investigated

They did no such thing.

Can you prove that they didn't have any responsibility in the womans action? An investigation isn't a placement of guilt on an individual

[Knask]

No.

According to OP she does.

The OP is incorrect. The UK government acknowledges that she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, but thinks she could apply to get it (which the Bangladeshi government today has said she can't).

It is understood Javid will use the fact that Begum could apply for a Bangladeshi passport to justify revoking her UK citizenship.

[Fartsniffage]

They did no such thing.

Can you prove that they didn't have any responsibility in the womans action? An investigation isn't a placement of guilt on an individual

You don't think the security services would have done that when their daughter ran to join ISIS? I remember the reporting at the time and the parents were begging the government to find and stop her.

[Knask]

She has Bangladeshi citizenship too, right? If she wants out, move to Bangladesh then. I can’t fault to Brits if they’re not too keen on letting her back into the UK. She could be earnest or she could be going back to cause trouble. Who knows.

Bangladesh is also revoking her citizenship making her stateless

Not revoking it as much as denying she was ever a citizen in the first place:

“The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahriar Alam, the state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s intention to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports.

“Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh.”

[Panem and Circensis]

Keep the mother out, but allow the child back in. That’s what I think.

[Stellar Colonies]

At the very least, the kid should be put in someone else's custody before he's indoctrinated.

[Battlion]

Been having this discussion within family tonight, all but me and my youngest sister advocate for the child (who is days old and completely innocent in this) be permitted into the UK.

The area on where we differ is I don’t think the Government will get away with this decision and that it’s likely based on public pressure and not necessarily through risk assessment.

Nobody here can claim they know her risk, these assessments are done upon rearrival and I feel like many many members of the public are ignoring the fact that we’ve already allowed hundreds of IS fighters to return yet there’s no evidence of her being part of any fighting.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Been having this discussion within family tonight, all but me and my youngest sister advocate for the child (who is days old and completely innocent in this) be permitted into the UK.

The area on where we differ is I don’t think the Government will get away with this decision and that it’s likely based on public pressure and not necessarily through risk assessment.

Nobody here can claim they know her risk, these assessments are done upon rearrival and I feel like many many members of the public are ignoring the fact that we’ve already allowed hundreds of IS fighters to return yet there’s no evidence of her being part of any fighting.

In my personal opinion, every traitor to this country should be dealt with in a similar fashion to Begum. I don’t trust them at all and believe they should be placed in the hands of Assad’s regime. If they die or not isn’t my concern; as long as they’re out I’m happy.