IS Bride to lose UK citizenship

AmazonQueen

AmazonQueen

Virago
Moderator
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
9,241
Location
Sailing the Homeward Ocean
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...british-government/ar-BBTOLHs?ocid=spartandhp

Isn't this wrong? She was a foolish teenager who made a stupid choice. Now shes to be made a stateless person.

There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that she committed any terrorist acts but even if she did shouldn't she be prosecuted for those rather than be punished in this arbitrary way..

Ofc no judge or jury is involved in the decision, just the Home Secretary.
 
She can't be made stateless, can she? That's quite a leap for the UK. Are you sure she doesn't have another citisenship as well?

For what it's worth, she does seem like an actually «problematic» person. She's not regretting anything except that ISIL lost, and she's fine with beheadings because it's in accordance with Islam...

If she is to come back, do take the baby away from her, as she's obviously not someone who should be bringing up anyone.
 
Cheetah said:
She can't be made stateless, can she? That's quite a leap for the UK. Are you sure she doesn't have another citisenship as well?

For what it's worth, she does seem like an actually «problematic» person. She's not regretting anything except that ISIL lost, and she's fine with beheadings because it's in accordance with Islam...

If she is to come back, do take the baby away from her, as she's obviously not someone who should be bringing up anyone.
Click to expand...

You're right, she had Bangladeshi/UK dual nationality.
Still whatever her opinions I do not believe she can be considered a terrorist who poses a grave threat to the country and she hasn't been convicted of a grave criminal offence which are the grounds the Home Secretary said he would revoke citizenship for.
She does have a right of appeal to a tribunal that considers "evidence" in secret which she isn't allowed to see or comment on. To my mind this is another example of the government using the threat of terrorism to give itself more arbitrary powers that there are no effective checks on.
 
So the UK government is helping to recruit the next group of extremists.
 
I would like to see if she is really repentant and can be unbrainwashed returned back and then speak out about the dangers of joining terrorist groups, what it was like to live under ISIS
It would be a propaganda victory of shorts to counter ISIS propaganda

However there is serious risk if she is unrepentant, or remains vulnerable to be re-radicalized, living under ISIS for three years ? It might be worthwhile moving her to a safer refugee camp for say six months to see if she can escape the spell
Then there is the issue of her son, and dutch "husband" whom was a convert and active soldier. I think hes citizenship is nullified since he is an active terrorist but remains a dangerous influence on her

Its probably easier for UK to deny her from a political and safety standpoint
 
Cheetah said:
She can't be made stateless, can she? That's quite a leap for the UK. Are you sure she doesn't have another citisenship as well?
Click to expand...

If she didn't have any other citizenship, she could very well be made stateless. There is the convention on stateless persons which the UK signed, but it has an exception for people who have acted disloyal - which she could be accused of.
 
Yea I have to say I have little sympathy for any culture that wants to drag mankind back 1000 years into the past socially and culturally.
 
AmazonQueen said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...british-government/ar-BBTOLHs?ocid=spartandhp

Isn't this wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes.

AmazonQueen said:
Now shes to be made a stateless person.
Click to expand...
Her mother held Bangladeshi citizenship when she was born.
Bangladesh, apparently, is all jus sanguinis enough, that she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, too.
Presumably she holds it, knows that, and denies it, because it's obviously inconvenient at this point.
AmazonQueen said:
There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that she committed any terrorist acts but even if she did shouldn't she be prosecuted for those rather than be punished in this arbitrary way.
Click to expand...
Let me bother you a bit with Djerman legalities here. So let's suppose she was a citizen of the Federal Republic:

  • First of all she has to have another citizenship. If forfeiture would render her stateless it cannot occur. No way, no how.
  • Secondly, the federal government would have to manage to pass the forfeiture law they were tinkering on for years, which to my knowledge they have so far not managed to do.
  • Thirdly, under any such law citizenship could only ever be forfeited automatically, never revoked (except if the citizenship is proven to be fraudulantly gained in the first place).
    Under the relevant - hypothetical - law, forfeiture would occur automatically due to felony "membership of a terrorist organisation". What exactly she did or did not do would be a moot point, she'd be obviously guilty of the crime. Since the forfeiture is supposed to be automatic this would have to be established, basically by having her full on tried in criminal courts of law, resulting in criminal conviction to on said count, resulting in the automatic forfeiture and default to her Bangladeshi citizenship.
    Again: In any such law this would have to be styled as an automatic forfeiture by law, occuring with conviction of said felony. Revocation would be basically impossible; it's roughly quadruply unconstitutional.
  • Fourth, since the the core element of the forfeiture has to be a "reasonably avoidable behavior" - in this case getting one's hindparts convicted of felony "membership of a terrorist organisation" - it can't be applied retroactively.

All of point 3 being hypothetical, on account of point 2 and, obviously, 4.

[edit: typo]
 
Last edited:
Abolish citizenship as a concept.

Barring that, yeah, I would say it's wrong. Heinous crimes, either being directly responsible for or supporting them, are heinous crimes, but as a state it's still their responsibility to deal with that. Just schluffing them off and locking the door doesn't seem to meet the rigors of statehood and modern globalization.

It either makes a permanent enemy of the individual or you're functionally executing them but without the icky moral feelings surrounding it. Both are fairly poor results.
 
Synsensa said:
Abolish citizenship as a concept.

Barring that, yeah, I would say it's wrong. Heinous crimes, either being directly responsible for or supporting them, are heinous crimes, but as a state it's still their responsibility to deal with that. Just schluffing them off and locking the door doesn't seem to meet the rigors of statehood and modern globalization.

It either makes a permanent enemy of the individual or you're functionally executing them but without the icky moral feelings surrounding it. Both are fairly poor results.
Click to expand...
Also the other end of the equation:
The UK produced this individual, who was either criminal or mentally unhealthy or both, neither of which will have improved by their time spent with Isis.
And now the UK wants to shrug off the responsibility.
Like, what the heck did Bangladesh do?
 
metatron said:
Thirdly, under any such law citizenship could only ever be forfeited automatically, never revoked (except if the citizenship is proven to be fraudulantly gained in the first place).
  • Under the relevant - hypothetical - law, forfeiture would occur automatically due to felony "membership of a terrorist organisation". What exactly she did or did not do would be a moot point, she'd be obviously guilty of the crime. Since the forfeiture is supposed to be automatic this would have to be established, basically by having her full on tried in criminal courts of law, resulting in criminal conviction to on said count, resulting in the automatic forfeiture and default to her Bangladeshi citizenship.
    Again: In any such law this would have to be styled as an automatic forfeiture by law, occuring with conviction of said felony. Revocation would be basically impossible; it's roughly quadruply unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
This is my sticking point. I can't get past the fact that this is happening at the Home Secretary's whim rather than because of statutory law or even judicial sentencing guidelines.
 
I don't think it's ever okay to make citizenship conditional and revocable like this. Just charge the person like normal.
 
Also at some point an opportunistic state is going to use a client regime to give phony citizenships to anyone it doesn't like, in order to revoke their actual citizenship and rights. That on a mass scale with the creation of subordinate bantustans was pretty much the main mechanism of Apartheid, but it could work just as well with a real but small and dependent state under the sway of a major power.
 
IF they try to deport her to Bangladesh, Bangladesh will probably put her on the first flight back to the UK.
 
Oerdin said:
There is nothing wrong with this. At all. They are traitors and terrorists so they are not wanted.
Click to expand...
In my view this perspective could only be justified if ISIS was internationally recognised as a sovereign state.
I mean, then there'd be some argument to be had for having some sort of thing setup akin to exchange of caught spies in the Cold War, etc.
And the longer i think about it... no even that doesn't quite work...
Paul in Saudi said:
I am not familiar with British law, but I am opposed to this. It is a long-standing principle that everyone ought to have a nationality and nobody ought to have two.
Click to expand...
Well, but that's what they're going for. They want her to have just one citizenship - the one of Bangladesh.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kafka2
Debunking allegations of cross-party political crimes in UK
Replies
7
Views
1K
Britannia
Britannia
Back
Top Bottom