ISIS families stuck in Syria

[NovaKart]

This was an interesting article about a family from Trinidad who went to Syria. The stepfather brought them to Syria after he became a radical Muslim.

The mother became a Muslim but says she didn’t know they were traveling to Syria when they went to Turkey and has now totally left Islam. It’s not clear if she was ever radicalized.

The son is 14 and is kept in a separate camp from his mother. He does not seem like he ever became extremist and didn’t have a choice to go to Syria.

Trinidad and Tobago had an unusually large number of citizens go to join ISIS for a small non-Muslim country. They have not tried to repatriate the family and many countries have also failed to do so.

While that’s understandable it’s a burden on the Syrian Kurds to keep them and not fair to the children.

The article is a bit long but not New Yorker level long.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/child-of-the-caliphate/

 

[Estebonrober]

I think citizens of whatever state have to be extradited back to their home state regardless of whether they are welcome or not. There they can face criminal penalties for joining a terrorist organization or they can be left free. Stateless people should not be allowed in a day in age in which it is impossible to live with dignity without said state.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The UK has decided not to bother to even try and bring children back.

 

[NovaKart]

An issue brought up in the article is that many countries feel they don’t have robust laws yet to deal with terrorism committed abroad.

I imagine it would also be difficult to put together evidence. Someone could have been involved in a lot of atrocities and everything heard about him is hearsay.

The article though is about a child. He’s a bit concerned about going to Trinidad because everyone knows he was with ISIS but also they don’t seem to be making any move to bring him or his mother back.

 

[Estebonrober]

An issue brought up in the article is that many countries feel they don’t have robust laws yet to deal with terrorism committed abroad.

I imagine it would also be difficult to put together evidence. Someone could have been involved in a lot of atrocities and everything heard about him is hearsay.

The article though is about a child. He’s a bit concerned about going to Trinidad because everyone knows he was with ISIS but also they don’t seem to be making any move to bring him or his mother back.

Yea we need an international law clarifying that none of this stuff matters. You still have to take your citizens back and creating law within your own state to handle that is on you.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's very difficult, because the resources are just not available to determine whether you are repatriating a person who voluntarily joined Isis. Criminal law will apply "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Civil law uses "Balance of Probabilities".

The main issue people have is trying to figure out if they are thinking in terms of civil law or in criminal law. And which should apply in this scenario.

 

[r16]

oh , the smart people who were patting each other with the invention ."Let's send all to war nd live happily ever after" . See , America pays the Kurds , Trump comes , the money is better spent for the wallets of Trump and his supporters , Kurds run out of "Humanity" so we are hearing the sad cases . Because Trump told Europeans to pay and they refused and Trump threatened them and Europeans were unified of the "middle finger" . Because stopping them before they arrived at the airports of New Turkey would not be enough to blame us . Don't people miss 2014 ?

 

[Zardnaar]

2014 was the second worst year of my life, last year was the worst and 2017 sucked as well.

 

[Yeekim]

Yea we need an international law clarifying that none of this stuff matters. You still have to take your citizens back and creating law within your own state to handle that is on you.

I'm reasonably sure no country turns away its citizens when they show up at the border.
Arranging and paying their return from wherever is a bit different though.

 

[Estebonrober]

I'm reasonably sure no country turns away its citizens when they show up at the border.
Arranging and paying their return from wherever is a bit different though.

I'm pretty sure nations like Austria, England and the US would turn away some of these people.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's because we have two standards, and we're not sure which to apply when dealing with people who potentially were recruited by videos of Aid workers getting beheaded.

We absolutely want to convince such people under criminal law. And then we're worried that we cannot prove any specific incident Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. And so, we avoid the risk. And so we keep them out based on civil law, using the balance of probabilities approach

 

[Yeekim]

I'm pretty sure nations like Austria, England and the US would turn away some of these people.

Arrest and attempt to charge them with something? Sure.
Revoke citizenship? Maybe, if at all possible (under very particular circumstances).
But deny entry to own citizens if they request it? I very much doubt legal grounds exist for that in any of those countries. I've been wrong before, of course, but I'd like some sources to this.

 

[NovaKart]

There’s the British Bangladeshi woman who we had a thread about a few months ago. I don’t remember now if she was a naturalized citizen or not.

In America I think someone can only lose citizenship if that person was naturalized and had lied when applying to be a citizen.

I think the UK can only revoke someone’s citizenship if that person is a citizen of another country.

I have no idea about Austria.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I'm pretty sure nations like Austria, England and the US would turn away some of these people.

The US passports have a specific warning that if you fight for a foreign hostile government that your US citizenship is rescinded
I suspect that the poorer countries lack any way of sorting, rehabilitating and putting on trial their run away citizens whom may well still be radicalized. In the end these people will probably end up just as stateless refugees.

 

[Lexicus]

The US passports have a specific warning that if you fight for a foreign hostile government that your US citizenship is rescinded

The US does not recognize ISIS as a foreign government AFAIK.

 

[Samson]

Arrest and attempt to charge them with something? Sure.
Revoke citizenship? Maybe, if at all possible (under very particular circumstances).
But deny entry to own citizens if they request it? I very much doubt legal grounds exist for that in any of those countries. I've been wrong before, of course, but I'd like some sources to this.

Children of British Isis members stranded in Syria will not be allowed to return to the UK, the government has reportedly decided.

Source

 

[AmazonQueen]

There’s the British Bangladeshi woman who we had a thread about a few months ago. I don’t remember now if she was a naturalized citizen or not.

In America I think someone can only lose citizenship if that person was naturalized and had lied when applying to be a citizen.

I think the UK can only revoke someone’s citizenship if that person is a citizen of another country.

I have no idea about Austria.

She was born in Britain and had never been to Bangladesh. Because she was eligible to apply for a Bangladeshi passport (although Bangladesh have said they'd refuse such an application) that was used as an excuse to revoke her UK citizenship. The case is going through the courts atm.

 

[Yeekim]

Source

TIL that British nationals are not British citizens...
https://www.fragomen.com/insights/blog/uk-citizenship-vs-uk-nationalities-–-know-your-status