NationStates

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.

---

Irona wrote:Isn't being a member of a terrorist organisation is a crime in itself?

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.

---

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I look forward to this new system of letting the Home Secretary kick people out of the country if they seem like baddies. Trials? Bah, silly liberal yoomin rites nonsense.

She's already out, merely not being let back in. You may as well be mad about airport security not letting British people fly with a bomb because there hasn't been a trial.

We know she's dangerous, so she can't enter.

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.

She doesn't even show remorse for her actions. Why let her back in?

Irona wrote: I don't have an issue with prosecuting people for simply being active members of a known terrorist group.

Define "active member".

She was the housewife of a terrorist.

I suspect Javid will have to back track.

Somerville wrote:She doesn't even show remorse for her actions. Why let her back in?

Because living in your home country shouldn't require any particular display of emotions.

If it's just a statelessness issue, can't people start a fundraiser to get a small country to give her citizenship, then have UK revoke her citizenship, then have said small country revoke her citizenship, and send her to some lovely place in the Middle East?

Shofercia wrote:If it's just a statelessness issue, can't people start a fundraiser to get a small country to give her citizenship, then have UK revoke her citizenship, then have said small country revoke her citizenship, and send her to some lovely place in the Middle East?

Finding some lovely place in the Middle East to be a citizen of didn't work out too well for her the first time round.

Ifreann wrote: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.

---

Irona wrote:Isn't being a member of a terrorist organisation is a crime in itself?

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).

Ifreann wrote: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.

---

Irona wrote:Isn't being a member of a terrorist organisation is a crime in itself?

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.

---

Ostroeuropa wrote:
She's already out, merely not being let back in. You may as well be mad about airport security not letting British people fly with a bomb because there hasn't been a trial.

We know she's dangerous, so she can't enter.

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

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?

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

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote: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.

A m e n r i a wrote:I support this movement. Heretics like ISIS deserve to be kept in their home nations. Heck, they can take the FPI and the rest of the far-right with them, seeing as how these illogical, ungrateful citizens think Indonesia is so "unjust, tyrannical, and anti-Syariah".

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:I'd rather not, considering air strikes have caused mass casualties.

I don't know man, isn't the punishment for murder death? Or do you think those heretics can redeem themselves?

I'm talking about civilians casualties. And yes, the punishment for murder is usually death unless the victim's family forgives the murderer.

ShakaZuli wrote:This is a good lesson on why should be allow immigrants to have dual citizenship, even thoose who are born in a white country. If they make some bad thing it would be easy to strip them from citizenship and deport them back. Somebody should tell Orban that he should encourage refugees and immigrants to remain citizens of their native countries.

She was born in Britain.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

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

Maybe she crossed her fingers when she saw people getting killed unless they'd been very naughty. You can't just assume ISIS members are bad or something, that's prejudice and I'm offended.

You home but you actually have a point. Not every ISIS member harmed someone or even joined willingly.

Karu Nadu wrote:Did she kill anyone? Did she physically do anything other than go to Syria and, marry, and live with a daesh fighter? What will happen to her children?

We don't know.

Auristania wrote:haram kaffir medicine

Medicine isn't Haraam.

Auristania wrote:she sacrificed the first two children upon the altar of the Greater Good?

She didn't.

Trumptonium1 wrote:

Sapientia Et Bellum wrote: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.

Prove the underlined.
Also, because Syria is a very unsafe place to raise a child.

And Ifreann low-key has a point.

The Archregimancy wrote:We indeed know that she would at least be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship if one of her parents is a citizen of Bangladesh; but at present we don't know what the status of her parents is. A lot will become clearer once that point is settled. And with all due respect to Wikipedia (and I'm by no means dismissive of its usefulness as a source), it might be better for this point to be established by the relevant Bangladeshi authorities. And we're of course assuming that the Bangladeshis are perfectly happy for her to take on citizenship if she's eligible; Dhaka may have its own thoughts on the issue.

Oops.

Treat her as if she was any other serious criminal who left UK to commit serious crime in another country - there is no need for grandstanding except to distract from the omnishambles. If she presents herself at a UK embassy, give her an emergency passport for travel to UK. If she turns up at UK airport through her own means, let her through immigration and arrest/ prosecute her. If SDF hand her over to Syria who prosecute her for crimes committed there, send a diplomatic letter (tragically there's no consulate in Syria so no one can go visit her).

Ifreann wrote:

Yusseria wrote:Because she abandoned her country to marry an enemy of that country.

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.

Yusseria wrote:

Ifreann wrote: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.

When did she have the child? Because I'm pretty sure the child is a baby, and that by the time he grows up ISIS will hopefulyy be history.

The Archregimancy wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:And we're of course assuming that the Bangladeshis are perfectly happy for her to take on citizenship if she's eligible; Dhaka may have its own thoughts on the issue.

Oops.

Not sure what the reaction from the government will be, but it puts them in a bit of a bind. I'm guessing that the busy bureaucratic beavers will find some other way to justify revoking her citizenship.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

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

When did she have the child? Because I'm pretty sure the child is a baby, and that by the time he grows up ISIS will hopefulyy be history.

Dunno. I'd imagine it was after she joined a terrorist organization.

So here's a non-rhetorical question: How is it that teenagers aren't capable of making serious decisions when it comes to having the vote, but are considered capable of making serious decisions for stuff like this?

Vassenor wrote:So here's a non-rhetorical question: How is it that teenagers aren't capable of making serious decisions when it comes to having the vote, but are considered capable of making serious decisions for stuff like this?

The age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10, to put that into some context.

Vassenor wrote:So here's a non-rhetorical question: How is it that teenagers aren't capable of making serious decisions when it comes to having the vote, but are considered capable of making serious decisions for stuff like this?

Because voting effects others and this sort of stuff is their own funeral only.

Yusseria wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:When did she have the child? Because I'm pretty sure the child is a baby, and that by the time he grows up ISIS will hopefulyy be history.

Dunno. I'd imagine it was after she joined a terrorist organization.

Well then I'm close to being right. The child should be around 4 so he wouldn't be fighting for ISIS right now. ISIS probs won't even exist by the time he's of fighting age.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Yusseria wrote:Dunno. I'd imagine it was after she joined a terrorist organization.

Well then I'm close to being right. The child should be around 4 so he wouldn't be fighting for ISIS right now. ISIS probs won't even exist by the time he's of fighting age.

Good. He is innocent, unlike his mother, and hopefully he stays that way.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Well then I'm close to being right. The child should be around 4 so he wouldn't be fighting for ISIS right now. ISIS probs won't even exist by the time he's of fighting age.

Good. He is innocent unlike his mother, and hopefully he stays that way.

Insha-Allah

Cool. People who aided ISIS can stay in Syria and rot. They made their bed now they have to lay in it.