IS Bride to lose UK citizenship

[Hehehe]

To start with the obvious we are talking about an individual, not these people.
A single teenage mother, not an ISIS fighter. Its not a matter of letting these people in, its a matter of does she have the right to return to the only country she has citizenship of and was born in.
The EU doesn't and won't recognise ISIS for obvious reasons.

To start with the obvious, this is setting a precedent, hence the plural (as in "these people").

1. This power was introduced to be used against dangerous terrorists. There is no evidence of her committing any terrorist acts.
2. Since its introduction the Home Secretary has expanded its scope to include people who commit grave criminal offences. There is no evidence of her having committed any.
3. We are committed to not making people stateless. She has no other nationality.
4. Its a bad law because it gives a quasi-judicial power to a politician and appeals against his decision are made by a commision that hears evidence in secret which the person appealing has no access to so can't dispute.
5. Why should I or she have to make a case? The Home Secretary has not shown her to be a threat to national security. It is hard to imagine her as one.

1-2. I imagine that joining ISIS at the very least makes her a supporter of terrorism. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's against UK law
3. She is a member of the Islamic state. If the Islamic state failed to issue her a passport, then I'm going to go with "not my problem"
4. If you want to change the process, perhaps there is a case to be made for it. But right now, we can only use the laws we have. Perhaps I'm only speaking for myself, but this is not a person I'd want in my country
5. Joining and supporting ISIS makes her a threat to national security

 

[red_elk]

She only wants to return home and live happy life in developed country. May be marry somebody and raise 10 children as faithful orthodox Muslims. Nothing illegal.

 

[Yeekim]

5. Why should I or she have to make a case? The Home Secretary has not shown her to be a threat to national security. It is hard to imagine her as one.

Seriously? If "left home to join ISIS at 15" is not enough of a red flag to you, what would be?

 

[AmazonQueen]

To start with the obvious, this is setting a precedent, hence the plural (as in "these people").


1-2. I imagine that joining ISIS at the very least makes her a supporter of terrorism. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's against UK law
3. She is a member of the Islamic state. If the Islamic state failed to issue her a passport, then I'm going to go with "not my problem"
4. If you want to change the process, perhaps there is a case to be made for it. But right now, we can only use the laws we have. Perhaps I'm only speaking for myself, but this is not a person I'd want in my country
5. Joining and supporting ISIS makes her a threat to national security

So who are these people? Child brides of terrorists are not terrorists.

1-2. If she has broken any UK laws she can be prosecuted under UK law.
3. We don't recognise ISIS as a state.
4. Sajid Javid is abusing a law that was intended to be used in very rare and serious cases but has been expanded in scope. Theres lots of people I would gladly get rid of but in a democratic state we don't do that.
5. Did she join ISIS? No evidence of her having trained as a fighter or committed any terrorist acts. Having views you or I disapprove of doesn't make someone a threat to national security. That requires action.

Typical of the right that they are happy to expand the states power and infringe the rights of the individual although they claim to be against both those things.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Seriously? If "left home to join ISIS at 15" is not enough of a red flag to you, what would be?

Having actually committed a terrorist act perhaps.

 

[Silurian]

I rather think that as the son of a Pakistani immigrant he is trying to be even more British than the native white British.

And many such people of immigrant descent dislike terrorist supporters far more than the native white British do, because they
believe, and there is some justification for such belief, that unless they are hardline, they will be regarded as sympathetic.

I doubt he has undertaken a rigorous analysis of the probability of winning a legal case, but there are so many immigration and
nationality cases, it is really essential the Home Secretary does not bog himself down with the details of individual cases.

I would assume that many of the immigrants view the terrorist supporters as "less educated rural people", even if they are not, rather than trying to be more British than the British.

There does seem to be a difference in standards, I have never heard a Polish catholic being asked to applogise for an attack by the IRA.


----

I wonder how the UK would react if Bangladesh took away the citizenship of a person living in the UK because they may have committed a crime and said they were British Citizens because they could apply.

 

[EnglishEdward]

@Silurian - I am not arguing

Bought latest hard copy issue of Private Eye to take to a funeral yesterday.

The Private Eye Cover Page has them holding an opinion poll:

"What Next for the Jihadi Bride? You Decide:

I'm a Celebrity (with picture}
Strictly Come Dancing (with picture)
Love Island (with picture)
Have I Got News (with picture)

When they release the next issue, the previous cover page will be viewable at http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers

It is a scream!

 

[Cheetah]

So who are these people? Child brides of terrorists are not terrorists.

1-2. If she has broken any UK laws she can be prosecuted under UK law.
3. We don't recognise ISIS as a state.
4. Sajid Javid is abusing a law that was intended to be used in very rare and serious cases but has been expanded in scope. Theres lots of people I would gladly get rid of but in a democratic state we don't do that.
5. Did she join ISIS? No evidence of her having trained as a fighter or committed any terrorist acts. Having views you or I disapprove of doesn't make someone a threat to national security. That requires action.

Typical of the right that they are happy to expand the states power and infringe the rights of the individual although they claim to be against both those things.

I will grant you both that she's a UK citisen, and only a UK citisen, so she can't lose her citisenship. I will grant you that any decision of taking away someone's citisenship should be handled in a court of law. I agree one both of those points.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that she didn't join ISIL. She took an active decision and did multiple calculated moves to actually move there. What she directly did or didn't do is irrelevant. She was an active supporter of ISIL and she shares in the responsibility for its actions. Her views and determination to act upon those views absolutely makes her a threat.

If the laws can't handle this, rewrite the laws.

Let a court decide on her specific case.

But she is a criminal with her share of responsibility for genocide, torture, kidnapping, and many other crimes. And she is a threat.

 

[Hehehe]

So who are these people? Child brides of terrorists are not terrorists.

1-2. If she has broken any UK laws she can be prosecuted under UK law.
3. We don't recognise ISIS as a state.
4. Sajid Javid is abusing a law that was intended to be used in very rare and serious cases but has been expanded in scope. Theres lots of people I would gladly get rid of but in a democratic state we don't do that.
5. Did she join ISIS? No evidence of her having trained as a fighter or committed any terrorist acts. Having views you or I disapprove of doesn't make someone a threat to national security. That requires action.

Typical of the right that they are happy to expand the states power and infringe the rights of the individual although they claim to be against both those things.

1-2. Yeah and that prosecution may result in a loss of citizenship
3. Even if none of us are willing to recognize ISIS, maybe we can do a nod and wink agreement. "We don't consider ISIS to be a proper state, but they consider themselves that so good luck with your ISIS citizenship" -type of thing
5: She already took action by joining ISIS and supporting a terrorist group.

But on a more broader point: what exactly is the basis for modern nations? Modern nations aren't based on shared identity, heritage or language. Oh god no, that would be racist, we can't have that. Mutual economic benefit? Definitely not, as evidenced by our current policies. So what are they based on? Common values? I don't think that I have much in common with ISIS. Certainly not enough to share a state with them. So why should I? Why should I share a country with ISIS supporters? Why should I let them back? They've explicitly rejected all values Western democracies are based on. I see no valid reason to left former ISIS members back, and I think that perhaps we might need to take another look at how our states are organized, given that the political organization that underpinned them has changed.

 

[Samson]

When they release the next issue, the previous cover page will be viewable at http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers

It is a scream!

It is available now on their twitter feed, and yes a scream.

 

[AmazonQueen]

1-2. Yeah and that prosecution may result in a loss of citizenship
3. Even if none of us are willing to recognize ISIS, maybe we can do a nod and wink agreement. "We don't consider ISIS to be a proper state, but they consider themselves that so good luck with your ISIS citizenship" -type of thing
5: She already took action by joining ISIS and supporting a terrorist group.

But on a more broader point: what exactly is the basis for modern nations? Modern nations aren't based on shared identity, heritage or language. Oh god no, that would be racist, we can't have that. Mutual economic benefit? Definitely not, as evidenced by our current policies. So what are they based on? Common values? I don't think that I have much in common with ISIS. Certainly not enough to share a state with them. So why should I? Why should I share a country with ISIS supporters? Why should I let them back? They've explicitly rejected all values Western democracies are based on. I see no valid reason to left former ISIS members back, and I think that perhaps we might need to take another look at how our states are organized, given that the political organization that underpinned them has changed.

Prosecutions don't result in a loss of citizenship. Terrorism, treason etc doesn't matter. It isn't a power judges have.
Only the Home Secretary has that power and he doesn't have to justify his decision or provide evidence for it.

 

[Hehehe]

Only the Home Secretary has that power and he doesn't have to justify his decision or provide evidence for it.

Oh. Well in that case it seems pretty convenient. Just remove the citizenship and be done with it

 

[Samson]

But on a more broader point: what exactly is the basis for modern nations? Modern nations aren't based on shared identity, heritage or language. Oh god no, that would be racist, we can't have that. Mutual economic benefit? Definitely not, as evidenced by our current policies. So what are they based on? Common values? I don't think that I have much in common with ISIS.

I do not share many common values with much of the population of the UK either. So what do you think is the basis of modern nations? I have always taken it as read that they are a mechanism for TPTB to artificially divide the global proletariat so they see each other as a threat rather than TPTB.

 

[Hehehe]

So what do you think is the basis of modern nations?

That's the thing, I don't think there is much of a basis for modern nations. In Finland, a common defence perhaps, but even that seems like a roundabout way of saying common identity. Maybe the people who do want to try communism should have their own state (preferably somewhere far away from me). Maybe the people who do want to try an Islamic theocracy should have their own state (preferably somewhere far away from me). Why must we all be shoved into some political entity in which we have nothing in common?

 

[Samson]

That's the thing, I don't think there is much of a basis for modern nations. In Finland, a common defence perhaps, but even that seems like a roundabout way of saying common identity. Maybe the people who do want to try communism should have their own state (preferably somewhere far away from me). Maybe the people who do want to try an Islamic theocracy should have their own state (preferably somewhere far away from me). Why must we all be shoved into some political entity in which we have nothing in common?

That is a way, every point of view has their own country to run as they wish. Another option is for individuals to make the argument about each of these political ideas, and we all say who we agree with the most, and the person that most people agree with get to implement their ideas. Then we can all get on with making our daily crust and getting along with each other. I am not sure what that system would be called...

 

[Hehehe]

That is a way, every point of view has their own country to run as they wish. Another option is for individuals to make the argument about each of these political ideas, and we all say who we agree with the most, and the person that most people agree with get to implement their ideas. Then we can all get on with making our daily crust and getting along with each other. I am not sure what that system would be called...

But why? Why should anyone have to live under a political entity they disagree with, alongside people they have nothing in common with? With what I'm proposing, everyone can get what they want, and not just the majority

 

[Samson]

But why? Why should anyone have to live under a political entity they disagree with, alongside people they have nothing in common with? With what I'm proposing, everyone can get what they want, and not just the majority

I can see 2 big issues with this idea:

• I am not sure there is anyone in the world who agree's 100% with me on how to run a country, and I suspect that is true for most people. I do not see this working with 7 billion polities.
• Who decides which ideologies gets which bit of the world? What if I agree with my next but one neighbour, but disagree with the one living in between? Who moves, or do we draw the borders around each house?

 

[Hehehe]

I can see 2 big issues with this idea:

So it's only an issue of logistics then?

• I am not sure there is anyone in the world who agree's 100% with me on how to run a country, and I suspect that is true for most people. I do not see this working with 7 billion polities.

You may not agree with everyone, but you can at least compromise, right? And you'd still get more of what you want, even if it isn't exactly what you want

• Who decides which ideologies gets which bit of the world? What if I agree with my next but one neighbour, but disagree with the one living in between? Who moves, or do we draw the borders around each house?

I imagine this would be decided based on local majority. If your neighbor doesn't like the communist utopia in his neighborhood, he can either deal with it or move out? That's kinda what I did, my neighborhood became too... Uhmmm... "Unruly", so I moved to another area which has... Uhmmmm... "Better schools"

 

[Akka]

About losing UK citizenship, it can be seen as UK saying: what she did is too awful, truly inhuman, nobody like that has the right to be a citizen of any civilised country.
I wouldn't go for that, I prefer a Nuremberg type of trial for ISIS members: to make clear that there are consequences of joining evil.

I don't see the validity of saying "what you say is too horrible for you to keep your citizenship". Citizenship is a recognition you're part of a group, not of a moral session.
What CAN be philosophically valid to revoke her citizenship, though, is treason. Saying someone has betrayed his group and as such has removed themselve from it is something I could get behind.

 

[Samson]

I imagine this would be decided based on local majority. If your neighbor doesn't like the communist utopia in his neighborhood, he can either deal with it or move out? That's kinda what I did, my neighborhood became too... Uhmmm... "Unruly", so I moved to another area which has... Uhmmmm... "Better schools"

Then this comes back to my idea, with just a question of the size of the polity. And I do think the choice of size largely comes down to logistics.