ISIS bride stripped of citizenship, banned from the UK

[Novus America]

That is not how it works. Just because a crime is a capital crime does not mean the death penalty is always used for that crime. Just that it is an option.

But for the UK it is no longer an option. Treason was a capital crime, but as the UK no longer has the death penalty, it no longer has capital crimes.

So why should she be executed then?

I never said she necessarily should be.

[Byzconia]

I thought I've been pretty obvious about this. Change the law so that stripping someone's citizenship is only possible after a criminal trial (and a guilty verdict, obviously).

And in one terrible idea you've just made the revocation of of citizenship much easier and and much more common. It would become an accepted part of the judicial process and not an extremely rare and hugely debated thing.

A couple of problems with this. First, [citation needed]. Secondly, who said it would be a common punishment? This is not how laws work. There would still be rules in place as to under what circumstances you'd be allowed to issue this as a punishment. It's the same reason you can't be sentenced to death for robbery.

I know you won't have seen it but this story has been on the front pages across all parts of the media in the UK for over a week, if it was something that just happened after the regular trial of a dual citizenship holding individual that would not be the case.

And?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I thought I've been pretty obvious about this. Change the law so that stripping someone's citizenship is only possible after a criminal trial (and a guilty verdict, obviously).

That would create a class of people with no legal protections and to whom laws do not apply. History shows this to be a demonstrably bad idea.

How? Again, you're both assuming that making it a criminal law somehow makes it easier to use on people, which is an unfounded assumption. The only difference between this idea and the UK's current process (as an example) would be that a person has to be charged and tried before they could lose their citizenship instead of the government just going, "Okay, you're not a citizen anymore. But don't worry, here's a shiny appeals process for you."

I mean, damn. I'll admit that my main argument so far has been a bit of the slippery slope variety, but you guys just dove head first down that bitch without looking back.

[Byzconia]

The issue here, though, is that we're not talking about executing someone for murder. We're talking about executing someone for supporting a group which was responsible for murdering people. It's not so much a life for a life, as much as it is a life for some poor choices.

Actually we are talking about executing someone who joined a foreign power in times of war. It's no different than what is done with spies or traitors of any other kind.

Switching sides in a war is an act of treason. You don't have to actually contribute anything meaningful to the enemy for it to qualify. How is that difficult to understand?

We're not at war with ISIS. Despite it being called "the War on Terror," that's more of a marketing title than a legal one. Neither the US Congress nor the British Parliament (nor any Western country to my knowledge) has ever issued a declaration of war. Therefore, legally, we're not at war (nor could we be, as neither country recognizes ISIS as a legitimate state). So, no, joining ISIS is not "joining the other side" (well, it may be in practice, but under the law).

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So why should she be executed then?

Because Amin.

What?

[Fartsniffage]

And in one terrible idea you've just made the revocation of of citizenship much easier and and much more common. It would become an accepted part of the judicial process and not an extremely rare and hugely debated thing.

A couple of problems with this. First, [citation needed]. Secondly, who said it would be a common punishment? This is not how laws work. There would still be rules in place as to under what circumstances you'd be allowed to issue this as a punishment. It's the same reason you can't be sentenced to death for robbery.

I know you won't have seen it but this story has been on the front pages across all parts of the media in the UK for over a week, if it was something that just happened after the regular trial of a dual citizenship holding individual that would not be the case.

And?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That would create a class of people with no legal protections and to whom laws do not apply. History shows this to be a demonstrably bad idea.

How? Again, you're both assuming that making it a criminal law somehow makes it easier to use on people, which is an unfounded assumption. The only difference between this idea and the UK's current process (as an example) would be that a person has to be charged and tried before they could lose their citizenship instead of the government just going, "Okay, you're not a citizen anymore. But don't worry, here's a shiny appeals process for you."

I mean, damn. I'll admit that my main argument so far has been a bit of the slippery slope variety, but you guys just dove head first down that bitch without looking back.

I've made a couple of assumptions. The first is that any statue allowing the removal of citizenship as part of a judicial sentence would include the life sentence crimes. So murder, rape, GBH, etc. The second is that the appeal against the punishment would no longer be around whether the home secretary has the right to impose it but rather whether they are guilty or not. I believe those assumptions are pretty solid. And there are far more cases involving people with dual nationality that get charged with those crimes than the very few who have had their citizenship revoked under the current system.

And your idea makes revocation of citizenship a common place thing, not a big deal.

[Torrocca]

Well, this is setting a horribly dangerous precedent, for starters, and doesn't even account for numerous factors at play such as the very strong possibility that this was a case of a 14-year-old being groomed and indoctrinated into this bullshit.

What we're seeing is someone who was born in, raised in, and educated in the UK being denied by the country that she's a natural-born citizen of, on the basis of emotional appeals to the whole, "le ebul muzlim," notion peddled by right-wingers rather than on any actual logic, reasoning, or due process to support this decision. Literal murderers and rapists in the UK have received actual due process, unlike this girl right now, despite being far more dangerous to British society. All this is doing is opening up the path for outright authoritarianism against natural-born British citizens through a blatant disregard toward the due process of law.

If they wish to punish her for joining ISIS, sure - but fucking establish facts and evidence through the due process of an investigation and a trial. Because, right now, all we're seeing is a kangaroo court indicting a woman who was barely a teen when she was groomed and then married off to some ISIS fighter who now can't even speak her mind about whether or not she was indoctrinated by these monsters because she's surrounded by them and at risk of being killed by them if she tries.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well, this is setting a horribly dangerous precedent, for starters, and doesn't even account for numerous factors at play such as the very strong possibility that this was a case of a 14-year-old being groomed and indoctrinated into this bullshit.

*15 year-old, and she wasn't groomed. She did this of her own free will.

What we're seeing is someone who was born in, raised in, and educated in the UK being denied by the country that she's a natural-born citizen of, on the basis of emotional appeals to the whole, "le ebul muzlim," notion peddled by right-wingers rather than on any actual logic, reasoning, or due process to support this decision.

Hello, right-wing Muslim speaking. She shouldn't be allowed in the UK unless it's to find out if she's done any crimes.

Literal murderers and rapists in the UK have received actual due process, unlike this girl right now, despite being far more dangerous to British society. All this is doing is opening up the path for outright authoritarianism against natural-born British citizens through a blatant disregard toward the due process of law.

If they wish to punish her for joining ISIS, sure - but f*cking establish facts and evidence through the due process of an investigation and a trial. Because, right now, all we're seeing is a kangaroo court indicting a woman who was barely a teen when she was groomed

She wasn't groomed, she willingly joined ISIS.

and then married off to some ISIS fighter

She might married him herself too.

who now can't even speak her mind about whether or not she was indoctrinated by these monsters because she's surrounded by them and at risk of being killed by them if she tries.

Point made here. Nonetheless everything else is her own fault.

[Torrocca]

Well, this is setting a horribly dangerous precedent, for starters, and doesn't even account for numerous factors at play such as the very strong possibility that this was a case of a 14-year-old being groomed and indoctrinated into this bullshit.

*15 year-old, and she wasn't groomed. She did this of her own free will.

She was in contact with ISIS recruiters until she went to Syria with her friends in 2014. There's no way you can outright claim she wasn't groomed without strong evidence supporting that.

What we're seeing is someone who was born in, raised in, and educated in the UK being denied by the country that she's a natural-born citizen of, on the basis of emotional appeals to the whole, "le ebul muzlim," notion peddled by right-wingers rather than on any actual logic, reasoning, or due process to support this decision.

Hello, right-wing Muslim speaking. She shouldn't be allowed in the UK unless it's to find out if she's done any crimes.

... Which means she should be brought to the UK, to face justice and to figure out her exact situation.

Literal murderers and rapists in the UK have received actual due process, unlike this girl right now, despite being far more dangerous to British society. All this is doing is opening up the path for outright authoritarianism against natural-born British citizens through a blatant disregard toward the due process of law.

If they wish to punish her for joining ISIS, sure - but f*cking establish facts and evidence through the due process of an investigation and a trial. Because, right now, all we're seeing is a kangaroo court indicting a woman who was barely a teen when she was groomed

She wasn't groomed, she willingly joined ISIS.

She was literally 15 when she joined and got married. Fifteen. You can't reasonably argue that a 15-year-old just... wasn't groomed into believing that this was something reasonable, considering that 15-year-olds aren't the best arbitrators of things, considering they're still heavily growing and developing as a person.

and then married off to some ISIS fighter

She might married him herself too.

As a fifteen-year-old, surrounded by armed extremists that openly and willingly murdered and still murder innocent people?

I wouldn't call that a legitimate marriage much myself.

who now can't even speak her mind about whether or not she was indoctrinated by these monsters because she's surrounded by them and at risk of being killed by them if she tries.

Point made here. Nonetheless everything else is her own fault.

Without all the facts established (especially not without figuring out whether or not this was a case of young teens being groomed into joining ISIS's cause), we can't outright blame her for everything that happened.

[Yusseria]

Well, this is setting a horribly dangerous precedent, for starters, and doesn't even account for numerous factors at play such as the very strong possibility that this was a case of a 14-year-old being groomed and indoctrinated into this bullshit.

What we're seeing is someone who was born in, raised in, and educated in the UK being denied by the country that she's a natural-born citizen of, on the basis of emotional appeals to the whole, "le ebul muzlim," notion peddled by right-wingers rather than on any actual logic, reasoning, or due process to support this decision. Literal murderers and rapists in the UK have received actual due process, unlike this girl right now, despite being far more dangerous to British society. All this is doing is opening up the path for outright authoritarianism against natural-born British citizens through a blatant disregard toward the due process of law.

If they wish to punish her for joining ISIS, sure - but fucking establish facts and evidence through the due process of an investigation and a trial. Because, right now, all we're seeing is a kangaroo court indicting a woman who was barely a teen when she was groomed and then married off to some ISIS fighter who now can't even speak her mind about whether or not she was indoctrinated by these monsters because she's surrounded by them and at risk of being killed by them if she tries.

Groomed and indoctrinated? Did you not read the OP? Most of these brides are self-radicalized.

And she has said that she has no regrets about going to Syria.

[Terruana]

Well, this is setting a horribly dangerous precedent, for starters, and doesn't even account for numerous factors at play such as the very strong possibility that this was a case of a 14-year-old being groomed and indoctrinated into this bullshit.

What we're seeing is someone who was born in, raised in, and educated in the UK being denied by the country that she's a natural-born citizen of, on the basis of emotional appeals to the whole, "le ebul muzlim," notion peddled by right-wingers rather than on any actual logic, reasoning, or due process to support this decision. Literal murderers and rapists in the UK have received actual due process, unlike this girl right now, despite being far more dangerous to British society. All this is doing is opening up the path for outright authoritarianism against natural-born British citizens through a blatant disregard toward the due process of law.

If they wish to punish her for joining ISIS, sure - but fucking establish facts and evidence through the due process of an investigation and a trial. Because, right now, all we're seeing is a kangaroo court indicting a woman who was barely a teen when she was groomed and then married off to some ISIS fighter who now can't even speak her mind about whether or not she was indoctrinated by these monsters because she's surrounded by them and at risk of being killed by them if she tries.

Groomed and indoctrinated? Did you not read the OP? Most of these brides are self-radicalized.

And she has said that she has no regrets about going to Syria.

It is worth noting that the evidence presented in the OP does not say that all female extremists are self-radicalised, just that it's more common than in male extremists.

Granted, she has not (as far as I'm aware) said anything to indicate that someone was grooming her before she left the UK (I believe she has claimed she was "drawn to" the propaganda videos), but we really don't know enough about what happened to outright claim she was self-radicalised.

[Torrocca]

Well, this is setting a horribly dangerous precedent, for starters, and doesn't even account for numerous factors at play such as the very strong possibility that this was a case of a 14-year-old being groomed and indoctrinated into this bullshit.

What we're seeing is someone who was born in, raised in, and educated in the UK being denied by the country that she's a natural-born citizen of, on the basis of emotional appeals to the whole, "le ebul muzlim," notion peddled by right-wingers rather than on any actual logic, reasoning, or due process to support this decision. Literal murderers and rapists in the UK have received actual due process, unlike this girl right now, despite being far more dangerous to British society. All this is doing is opening up the path for outright authoritarianism against natural-born British citizens through a blatant disregard toward the due process of law.

If they wish to punish her for joining ISIS, sure - but fucking establish facts and evidence through the due process of an investigation and a trial. Because, right now, all we're seeing is a kangaroo court indicting a woman who was barely a teen when she was groomed and then married off to some ISIS fighter who now can't even speak her mind about whether or not she was indoctrinated by these monsters because she's surrounded by them and at risk of being killed by them if she tries.

Groomed and indoctrinated? Did you not read the OP? Most of these brides are self-radicalized.

We're talking about someone who was in contact with ISIS recruiters when she was as young as 13.

And she has said that she has no regrets about going to Syria.

We're also talking about someone who, today, is surrounded by the same people she originally joined when she's saying things like this. We can't take these words at face value. She could easily be speaking under duress.

[Confederate States of German America]

We're also talking about someone who, today, is surrounded by the same people she originally joined when she's saying things like this. We can't take these words at face value. She could easily be speaking under duress.

She might be speaking under duress about certain topics but said people (In a refugee camp no less, not an ISIS controlled place lol) have no issue with her publicly wanting to return to the United Kingdom?

That's incoherent and logically inconsistent as fuck.

[Torrocca]

We're also talking about someone who, today, is surrounded by the same people she originally joined when she's saying things like this. We can't take these words at face value. She could easily be speaking under duress.

She might be speaking under duress about certain topics but said people (In a refugee camp no less, not an ISIS controlled place lol) have no issue with her publicly wanting to return to the United Kingdom?

That's incoherent and logically inconsistent as fuck.

... You do realize there could be former ISIS members hidden in that camp, right?

[Jolthig]

Because the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK had called for her ban from the UK to be lifted (because of the baby shes having, not because of who she affiliated with), I retract my previous statements on this matter of advocating for her ban.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10886 ... nity-islam

[Dooom35796821595]

Because the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK had called for her ban from the UK to be lifted (because of the baby shes having, not because of who she affiliated with), I retract my previous statements on this matter of advocating for her ban.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10886 ... nity-islam

The child isn’t a UK citizen, and is unlikely to become one. It may be acceptable to have the child brought here and raised by its grandparents, given the security services and child services have properly vetted them, but it shouldn’t come attached to a terrorist. There are many more deserving refugees that should be allowed before a letting an unremorseful terrorist in.

[Old Hope]

Because the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK had called for her ban from the UK to be lifted (because of the baby shes having, not because of who she affiliated with), I retract my previous statements on this matter of advocating for her ban.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10886 ... nity-islam

The child isn’t a UK citizen, and is unlikely to become one. It may be acceptable to have the child brought here and raised by its grandparents, given the security services and child services have properly vetted them, but it shouldn’t come attached to a terrorist. There are many more deserving refugees that should be allowed before a letting an unremorseful terrorist in.

You seem to be very sure. However...
-at the time the child was born its mother was still a citizen of the UK
-the child was born abroad.
-the citizenship of the mother was not acquired as a child of a citizen of the UK born abroad.
These facts establish citizenship of the child.

[Dooom35796821595]

The child isn’t a UK citizen, and is unlikely to become one. It may be acceptable to have the child brought here and raised by its grandparents, given the security services and child services have properly vetted them, but it shouldn’t come attached to a terrorist. There are many more deserving refugees that should be allowed before a letting an unremorseful terrorist in.

You seem to be very sure. However...
-at the time the child was born its mother was still a citizen of the UK
-the child was born abroad.
-the citizenship of the mother was not acquired as a child of a citizen of the UK born abroad.

These facts establish citizenship of the child.

First, I’m not sure of anything, UK citizenship is among the most complex in the world. Second, since the child was born outside the UK and her mother has had her citizenship stripped, I think you’d have to apply for UK citizenship from inside the UK, or possibly an embassy or consulate.

[Gravlen]

Because the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in the UK had called for her ban from the UK to be lifted (because of the baby shes having, not because of who she affiliated with), I retract my previous statements on this matter of advocating for her ban.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10886 ... nity-islam

The child isn’t a UK citizen, and is unlikely to become one.

The child is a UK citizen, as it was born to someone who was a UK citizen at the time.

Because the baby boy was born while Begum was still a UK citizen, he is British, according to legal experts. The child’s citizenship is unaffected by the move to deprive her of her rights, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, indicated on Wednesday.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/21/shamima-begums-family-hope-to-bring-her-baby-to-uk

[Ethel mermania]

The child isn’t a UK citizen, and is unlikely to become one.

The child is a UK citizen, as it was born to someone who was a UK citizen at the time.

Because the baby boy was born while Begum was still a UK citizen, he is British, according to legal experts. The child’s citizenship is unaffected by the move to deprive her of her rights, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, indicated on Wednesday.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/21/shamima-begums-family-hope-to-bring-her-baby-to-uk

Yeah, a similar law in the US is what allowed Ted Cruz to run for president. Bad law all around.