ISIS people returning thread - no Lisa Smith talk (21/12/19)

Yurt2

Grayson wrote: »

Did you read the article I linked. She's not a citizen of there. She may be eligible to claim citizenship but she hasn't done that. At this moment in time she has no citizenship anywhere.

Therefore she is stateless. And the home secretary broke international law when he removed her UK citizenship

Again in the strictest legal sense, not correct. I know that the Bangladeshi FM has come out strong on this, but I doubt he could prevent her claiming a passport if she elected to do so.

Similarly, a person born of one or more Irish parents anywhere on the planet is an Irish citizen. It's a naturalistic legal fact - it cannot be denied by the Irish government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_nationality_law

"
Bangladeshi citizenship is provided primarily jus sanguinis, or through bloodline, irrespectively of the place or legitimacy of the birth.[2] Therefore, any person born to a Bangladeshi woman illegitimately outside Bangladeshi soil would still be a Bangladeshi citizen, whereas a person born to two non-nationals in Bangladesh would not."

Cushie Butterfield

The home secretary cannot revoke citizenship “if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless”, but can do with “reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory”. It is understood Javid will use the fact that Begum could apply for a Bangladeshi passport to justify revoking her UK citizenship.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/20/shamima-begum-could-the-plan-to-revoke-her-citizenship-be-stopped

Plumbthedepths

Listening to the news now, she's on whinging how it is so unfair. Did she think the treatment of the Yzhidi people bother her? Doubtful. She made her choice, Daesh went t*ts up now she wants to go back to the West. F**k her , hope she rots.

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

Actually .

"Bangladeshi law includes a right of “citizenship by descent” to anyone who is born to a Bangladeshi parent"

"The commission found that Bangladeshi law required them to apply to retain their citizenship at 21"

Looks like she had 3 years to retain her Bangladesh citizenship

Well you'll have to take that up with their Minister of foreign affairs.

He seems fair sure.

Bangladesh asserts that Ms Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen. She is a British citizen by birth and never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh … There is no question of her being allowed to enter into Bangladesh

Yurt2

Boggles wrote: »

Well you'll have to take that up with their Minister of foreign affairs.

He seems fair sure.

In effect, if she gets to 21 without asserting her Bangladeshi nationality, she's the one rendering herself stateless, not the British Home Secretary.

Wouldn't be the first dim decision she's made.

Cushie Butterfield

Boggles wrote: »

Well you'll have to take that up with their Minister of foreign affairs.

He seems fair sure.

No, her lawyer (who compares her to a heroic WW1 Veteran) will have to do that. Clearly & understandably Bangladesh don’t want to be associated with her, but they might find that they are legally bound to by their own laws.

timthumbni

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Listening to the news now, she's on whinging how it is so unfair. Did she think the treatment of the Yzhidi people bother her? Doubtful. She made her choice, Daesh went t*ts up now she wants to go back to the West. F**k her , hope she rots.

Says she finds the decision by the UK hard to swallow. Yet had no problem swallowing the Islamic state bull****. Absolute pond life. Has no place in a UK society.

Grayson

Boggles wrote: »

Well you'll have to take that up with their Minister of foreign affairs.

He seems fair sure.

People seem to have trouble reading that bit.

Boggles

Yurt! wrote: »

In effect, if she gets to 21 without asserting her Bangladeshi nationality, she's the one rendering herself stateless, not the British Home Secretary.

That is what is being reported at the minute based on a separate failed case in the UK.

I'm sure Bangladesh will clarify exactly what their law is if the FM is making such absolute claims.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

Well you'll have to take that up with their Minister of foreign affairs.

I won't but she will have to .

She is a citizen unfortunately for them unless they decide to strip her too ,then the Dutch government will be sure to step in next and say no .


Till then it's business as usual .

Persona non grata

tretorn

Grayson wrote: »

Btw in googling I found this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmeena_Begum

It's a separate woman with a similar name who went to ISIS from the same school.

I'm thinking maybe people are confusing the two people.

There are two women with the surname Begum who went to Syria, they are not related. Sharmeena Begum went first and after she went the Police visited the school she went to and they wrote to the parents of students there telling them to watch their children. They gave this leter to the students and the three who also went to Syria( from the same school as Sharmeena Begum) destoyed the letters.

Its the fault of the Police now for not watching every flight to Turkey and for not hand delivering their warning letters to all the parents. Its the fault of the school too even though the school is probably enormous.

Its always someone elses fault.

EagererBeaver

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Why shouldn't they? She's a citizen and she hasn't committed acts of terrorism against them.

No she's not. She's never been there in her life by all accounts.

What acts of terrorism has she committed against the UK?

c.p.w.g.w

Well if the Brits can't disavow her, if she goes back to Britain.

Surely she can be charged with being an active member of a terrorist group. Also I'm sure they can get creative and charge her crimes against the crown, treason etc

EagererBeaver

Laneyh wrote: »

They might not but she has dual citizenship so that is why Bangladesh is being suggested.
It made things easier for UK officials as denying her right to return does not leave her stateless

No, she doesn't.

Some number of thick ****s on this thread.

end of the road

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Why shouldn't they? She's a citizen and she hasn't committed acts of terrorism against them.

how do you know? even if that is in fact the case, she hasn't committed acts of terrorism against the uk either yet they removed her citizenship dispite her possibly being born there. so why should bangladesh take her given britain could remove her citizenship dispite not being found guilty of anything?

CosmicJay wrote: »

So this was wrong.

not necessarily. there are a lot of potentials and possibilities at play here. just because britain has made the decision to remove the citizenship it doesn't mean that in the end it may not turn out to have been in error. while there may be a belief that it is fully legal, a belief held in good faith i would be willing to except, it can turn out that what was thought to be perfectly legal or correct, may not be so.
if she was born in britain then i suspect that under international law british would be classed as her primary citizenship with bangladeshi secondary. bangladesh could quite likely refuse to take her which should she not have been born there but in britain, they would have more of a case to refuse her entry as she would not be a citizen by birth, but only a citizen by parentage. if that is the case that could i suspect be a complication.
ultimately though, that will be for the legals to work out and it will certainly be interesting to see how this goes.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I think it's very easy these days to write-off decisions you don't like as populist.

No NHS, no generous benefits, no nice/cheap housing, close family/friends far away.
I'd definitely describe not being allowed to return to the modern, developed home that she grew up in and having to possibly live the rest of your life in a developing, strange country as a punishment.
A lot worse than the possible sentence she could have got on return.
Which I'm guessing would be a lot shorter than a life sentence.
That and the UK don't have to let an extremist back into the country.
It also sends a clear message to people who could be thinking about doing the same in future.
Not to mention the savings to the taxpayer and the benefit of not having a poisonous psychopath walking around.

i have saw nothing to show that stripping her of her british citizenship will have any effect in relation to those who may think about joining foreign terrorist groups. this is unlikely to send any message in relation to that issue, but may in fact send the message that britain is willing to dump it's problems on someone else to paly to populism.
the tax payer pay for many different types of criminals, so the supposed savings to the tax payer, or the tax payer full stop, are irrelevant and invalid as an argument. otherwise it could be used to deport all and sundry for any old reason because the tax payer might have to pay for something.

EagererBeaver

tretorn wrote: »

I see one of the other girls who left with Begum was born in Ethiopia, thats good news for the UK, she can be stripped of her citizenship now too and head to Ethiopia.

Probably can't, given she's likely dead. Can some of you people even read?!

EagererBeaver

timthumbni wrote: »

I wonder if we in the UK give any money to Bangladesh in overseas aid. Very likely I suspect. If so I would be starting to pull the brakes on that.

Lol.

tretorn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlbvysKvR2g

lainey_d_123

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No she's not. She's never been there in her life by all accounts.

What acts of terrorism has she committed against the UK?

So? Doesn't make her not a citizen. I could have been born in any country in the world and I'd still be Irish because my parents are Irish.

Joining IS is a criminal offence afaik.

timthumbni

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Probably can't, given she's likely dead. Can some of you people even read?!

It’s hard to tell them apart when they are all wearing hoods or masks is it not?Maybe they should just take them off. That would make them more identifiable perhaps...

EagererBeaver

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So? Doesn't make her not a citizen. I could have been born in any country in the world and I'd still be Irish because my parents are Irish.

Joining IS is a criminal offence afaik.

So rather than the UK, where she was born and raised, Bangladesh would just open their doors to a radical extremist because her mother was from Bangladesh?

I imagine what you know amounts to the sum of sweet **** all, so will just move on past that. Say she is proved, legally, in court, to have joined ISIS, WHAT ACT OF TERRORISM HAS SHE COMMITTED AGAINST THE UK?

If "joining ISIS" is an act of terror against the UK, why wouldn't it be an act of terror against Bangladesh?

suicide_circus

timthumbni

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Lol.

£150 million in 2015. What’s lol about that?

ilkhanid

whisky_galore wrote: »

What did the Brits do during or after WW2 to any of their citizens who threw their lot in with the Nazis? Charged them with treason and threw their sorry arses in jail.

Correct. Members of the 'British Free Corps'/'Legion of St.George' were sentenced to terms of between 7 and 25 years in prison.

jmayo wrote: »

What about the obligations and responsibility of a citizen?

She became a traitor to her country and her fellow citizens when she went and joined an organisation and a state (it was one of sorts) that was effectively an enemy of her country.

IS ideology requires members to renounce all other allegiances to all earthly states. It regards all other states as enemies by definition

lainey_d_123

EagererBeaver wrote: »

So rather than the UK, where she was born and raised, Bangladesh would just open their doors to a radical extremist because her mother was from Bangladesh?

They might not have a choice.

I imagine what you know amounts to the sum of sweet **** all, so will just move on past that. Say she is proved, legally, in court, to have joined ISIS, WHAT ACT OF TERRORISM HAS SHE COMMITTED AGAINST THE UK?

If "joining ISIS" is an act of terror against the UK, why wouldn't it be an act of terror against Bangladesh?

British special forces and the RAF are operating in Syria against IS. She went to fight against 'her' own country.

EagererBeaver

timthumbni wrote: »

£150 million in 2015. What’s lol about that?

The "lol" was about the absolute state of your suggestion that the UK government might turn round and be like "Here lads, take this ****ing pain in the arse off our hands or we're not gonna give you that 150m quid"

Tea drinker

EagererBeaver wrote: »

No, she doesn't.

Some number of thick ****s on this thread.

the irony is not lost on us

EagererBeaver

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

They might not have a choice.



British special forces and the RAF are operating in Syria against IS. She went to fight against 'her' own country.

What choice don't they have? They've publicly told anyone making any suggestion that Bangladesh take her in to **** off ffs.

She went to Syria to fight the Brits? I mean, she doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but she could have saved herself a load of hassle and done that without leaving the UK in the first place.

lainey_d_123

EagererBeaver wrote: »

What choice don't they have? They've publicly told anyone making any suggestion that Bangladesh take her in to **** off ffs.

She went to Syria to fight the Brits? I mean, she doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but she could have saved herself a load of hassle and done that without leaving the UK in the first place.

They can say all they like publicly. Why do they have less reason to take her in than the UK?

Doesn't really matter why she went to Syria. Fact is she went to join IS, was married to an IS fighter and IS were actively fighting British troops. She has committed an offence.

shaunr68

ilkhanid wrote: »

Correct. Members of the 'British Free Corps'/'Legion of St.George' were sentenced to terms of between 7 and 25 years in prison.

And of course their founder John Amery got to dance at the end of a rope for high treason.