ISIS bride stripped of citizenship, banned from the UK

[Ifreann]

Completely normal. Although too light of a punishment in my opinion. We're talking about someone that has left the UK to join the ranks, openly support and live amongst a terrorist group which is in a direct state of war with the UK and many other countries, which advocates for the unlawful executions of innocents and which has committed terror attacks against civilians all over the world.

This girl was only British on the papers to begin with because when you truly and sincerely want to be a citizen of a certain country, you don't associate yourself with an organisation that calls for its destruction.

No pity for traitors.

She's probably not actually going to lose her British citizenship.

[Vojelneit]

Completely normal. Although too light of a punishment in my opinion. We're talking about someone that has left the UK to join the ranks, openly support and live amongst a terrorist group which is in a direct state of war with the UK and many other countries, which advocates for the unlawful executions of innocents and which has committed terror attacks against civilians all over the world.

This girl was only British on the papers to begin with because when you truly and sincerely want to be a citizen of a certain country, you don't associate yourself with an organisation that calls for its destruction.

No pity for traitors.

She's probably not actually going to lose her British citizenship.

Why is that? Literally the first sentence in OP's post says that her citizenship was revoked. English isn't my native language, am I mistakenly thinking "revoking" and "losing" are the same thing?

[Vassenor]

She's probably not actually going to lose her British citizenship.

Why is that? Literally the first sentence in OP's post says that her citizenship was revoked. English isn't my native language, am I mistakenly thinking "revoking" and "losing" are the same thing?

Because at the time there was the assumption that she would be able to claim Bangadeshi citizenship and thus would not have been rendered stateless.

Bangladesh got there first, so revoking her UK citizenship would render her stateless, which is a big no-no in international law.

[Vojelneit]

Why is that? Literally the first sentence in OP's post says that her citizenship was revoked. English isn't my native language, am I mistakenly thinking "revoking" and "losing" are the same thing?

Because at the time there was the assumption that she would be able to claim Bangadeshi citizenship and thus would not have been rendered stateless.

Bangladesh got there first, so revoking her UK citizenship would render her stateless, which is a big no-no in international law.

Frustrating that she'll manage to get away with treason almost scot-free, considering that if the UK is more or less forced to let her back in, I highly doubt she'll spend such a long time in British prisons, which are anyways much, much more pleasant than Middle Eastern ones.

[Ifreann]

She's probably not actually going to lose her British citizenship.

Why is that? Literally the first sentence in OP's post says that her citizenship was revoked. English isn't my native language, am I mistakenly thinking "revoking" and "losing" are the same thing?

You're understanding the words just fine, but there have been further developments since the OP was written. Bangladesh has said that Bagum cannot get Bangladeshi citizenship, so if she lost her British citizenship she would be stateless. The Home Secretary cannot revoke someone's citizenship if that would make them stateless.

It's possible that Javid is going to try some other angle to keep her from returning to Britain, maybe he'll even try to revoke her citizenship anyway, despite it seemingly not being legal for him to do so, but at the moment it looks like her family have a pretty good case for appealing the decision.

[Vassenor]

Because at the time there was the assumption that she would be able to claim Bangadeshi citizenship and thus would not have been rendered stateless.

Bangladesh got there first, so revoking her UK citizenship would render her stateless, which is a big no-no in international law.

Frustrating that she'll manage to get away with treason almost scot-free, considering that if the UK is more or less forced to let her back in, I highly doubt she'll spend such a long time in British prisons, which are anyways much, much more pleasant than Middle Eastern ones.

So what part of her conduct fits the statutory definition of treason in the United Kingdom?

[Vojelneit]

Frustrating that she'll manage to get away with treason almost scot-free, considering that if the UK is more or less forced to let her back in, I highly doubt she'll spend such a long time in British prisons, which are anyways much, much more pleasant than Middle Eastern ones.

So what part of her conduct fits the statutory definition of treason in the United Kingdom?

I didn't use the word "treason" in its legal sense. I have absolutely no idea what legally constitutes treason in the UK but I do not need to know and neither does anyone with common sense. The fact of the matter is that she left the country in which she resided and had citizenship to join an organisation that is formally at war with the UK and killed innocent British civilians in terror attacks. I think that's a pretty fair reason for the UK not to show a lot of pity for her. People that support their own country's destruction don't deserve their country's sympathy, period.

[The Grims]

Why is that? Literally the first sentence in OP's post says that her citizenship was revoked. English isn't my native language, am I mistakenly thinking "revoking" and "losing" are the same thing?

Because at the time there was the assumption that she would be able to claim Bangadeshi citizenship and thus would not have been rendered stateless.

Bangladesh got there first, so revoking her UK citizenship would render her stateless, which is a big no-no in international law.

What reason did Bangladesh give ? The terrorism as well ?

[Fartsniffage]

Frustrating that she'll manage to get away with treason almost scot-free, considering that if the UK is more or less forced to let her back in, I highly doubt she'll spend such a long time in British prisons, which are anyways much, much more pleasant than Middle Eastern ones.

So what part of her conduct fits the statutory definition of treason in the United Kingdom?

adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere

[Gravlen]

Because at the time there was the assumption that she would be able to claim Bangadeshi citizenship and thus would not have been rendered stateless.

Bangladesh got there first, so revoking her UK citizenship would render her stateless, which is a big no-no in international law.

What reason did Bangladesh give ? The terrorism as well ?

"New phone, who dis"

“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.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

It should be noted that they aren't directly saying that she cannot get it if she applies for Bangladeshi citizenship, but they're strongly hinting at something...

It added that the country had a "zero tolerance" approach to terrorism and violent extremism.

[Karu Nadu]

Why?

It's a massively impoverished, massively overpopulated country that also just happened to take in a huge number of refugees from Myanmar.

Living standards are very low, and anti-refuge sentiments are very high.

I believe Bangladeshis are also fleeing Bangladesh.

[The Grims]

What reason did Bangladesh give ? The terrorism as well ?

"New phone, who dis"

“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.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

So they do not give a reason why they would deny her perfeclty legal claim to citizenship other then "she never asked before" ?

[Caracasus]

Just the Murdoch press seeing if the government still jumps when they tell them to.

Get her home and get on figuring out exactly what charges she faces. Hell, she might even provide some info that might lead to actual real convictions of herself or others.

Then keep her under surveilance.If the police can do their secret agent shit whenever a bunch of middle aged hippies start protesting fracking, they've got the budget to spare.

[Gravlen]

"New phone, who dis"

“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.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/rights-of-shamima-begums-son-not-affected-says-javid

So they do not give a reason why they would deny her perfeclty legal claim to citizenship other then "she never asked before" ?

They don't need to, presently. She's never made a claim, so they're absolutely right in saying that she doesn't (currently) have citizenship.

[Crylante]

I think she can return if she accepts the fact that she has presumably broke a countless number of our laws and should thus be tried and sentenced.

Left-wing I may be I find it very hard to feel sympathy for someone who actively goes and fights for a terrorist group that thinks I should be thrown off a rooftop.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That makes her less British how?

You say that like she was forced there. She did all this on her own fee will.

Actually she was trafficked and forced into a marriage she was too young to consent to. Try again.

Prove it

[Terruana]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

[Ifreann]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

The way people have been talking about Bagum bringing forth the next generation of ISIS, I think they've written off her baby as a terrorist.

[Caracasus]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, I would rather a horrorshow like ISIS didn't happen again. She might provide insight into how they managed to get a bunch of kids to fuck off to Syria and commit atrocities. Might be a plan to think about that.

[Dooom35796821595]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

She deprived herself of those rights when she joined a terrorist group in a war zone.

As for her child, I’m also concerned about the millions of impoverished children around the world, but they don’t all get to come to the UK, why make an exception for the spawn of a terrorist?

[Fartsniffage]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

She deprived herself of those rights when she joined a terrorist group in a war zone.

As for her child, I’m also concerned about the millions of impoverished children around the world, but they don’t all get to come to the UK, why make an exception for the spawn of a terrorist?

Because said spawn is a British citizen. He was born before her citizenship was revoked so even if that all does go through he will remain a British citizen.

[Trumptonium1]

Why is that? Literally the first sentence in OP's post says that her citizenship was revoked. English isn't my native language, am I mistakenly thinking "revoking" and "losing" are the same thing?

Because at the time there was the assumption that she would be able to claim Bangadeshi citizenship and thus would not have been rendered stateless.

Bangladesh got there first, so revoking her UK citizenship would render her stateless, which is a big no-no in international law.

This is false. Her citizenship was revoked before Bangladesh offered a comment.

[Trumptonium1]

She deprived herself of those rights when she joined a terrorist group in a war zone.

As for her child, I’m also concerned about the millions of impoverished children around the world, but they don’t all get to come to the UK, why make an exception for the spawn of a terrorist?

Because said spawn is a British citizen. He was born before her citizenship was revoked so even if that all does go through he will remain a British citizen.

He's not a British citizen. He's eligible to become one.

[Terruana]

I mean, I get that terrorists are bad people and whatnot, but is nobody concerned about her and her baby being deprived of basic human rights for the next few years while the UK and Bangladeshi governments argue about who has to take her back? In all honesty, it's essentially a death sentence for that baby.

The violation of basic human rights is a big part of why terrorism is so awful, and I personally think it would be bad to see any government stoop to that level.

She deprived herself of those rights when she joined a terrorist group in a war zone.

As for her child, I’m also concerned about the millions of impoverished children around the world, but they don’t all get to come to the UK, why make an exception for the spawn of a terrorist?

The whole point of basic human rights is that everyone is entitled to them, no matter what.

And I am glad to hear that you care about impoverished children around the world, because not enough people do in my opinion. If it were up to me, I'd have the UK take in all of the refugee children in that camp. But the big difference between her baby and the others is that her child is still a British citizen, regardless of her status, and it would be a lot simpler to help him.

[Gravlen]

An order has been placed, as you say, but the possibility to appeal the order has not been exhausted. An appeal against the decision to make an order for deprivation can be made to the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Onward appeals are to the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal, and finally to the Supreme Court.

If the Secretary of State certifies that the decision was taken wholly or partly in reliance on information which is determined to not be made public in the interest of national security, the UK’s relations with another country or otherwise in the public interest, the right of appeal is to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission instead of the First -Tier Tribunal. The onward appeals are the same.

The legal battle which lies ahead may take some time. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v Al-Jedda the original deprivation order was made 14. December 2007, while the final decision to overturn the deprivation order was made by the Supreme Court on 9. October 2013 - almost six years later.

Thanks for that breakdown. One more question: if she appeals (it seems her family want to appeal this decision too), as it seems she can’t enter the UK (correct me if I’m wrong), will she have to wait for a decision on her status in Syria?

It all depends on what the UK government allows, what they're forced to do, and what the UK courts decide.

They'll probably try to keep her from entering, but what will they do if she just shows up at a border crossing?