British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'

[Athos]

Whilst I couldn’t really care if the Kurds shoot her or the Yazidis tear her limb from limb, this does sound rather dodge if she was born in the UK. Not least that her baby was born to a British citizen, (and if she was born in the UK it would seem that the baby has no right to Bangladeshi citizenship), so would be ripe for a challenge under the right to family life.

On a plus side, it seems the Home Sec now has the power to remove Spymaster to India or Ireland for starting that thread with his skidmarked skuds in it.

We don't know when her citizenship was revoked; if it happened before birth, then, quite possibly her kid isn't a British citizen!

 

[maomao]

Search for repatriated to the UK as a phrase

First few pages are all medical and post mortem repatriation. Maybe you can do better.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Theresa May arms Islamic extremists who massacre 10,000s in Yemen.

Isn’t it time to strip her of British citizenship?

 

[Pickman's model]

My concern is more that it (along with many other factors) increases segregation and apeeration between communities that should have shared than it directly encourages people to become active terrorists. Though a bit of that too. She didn't join Daeah in a vacuum. Doesn't make her innocent but British society isn't innocent either.

Being as all British Asians have just been told effectively you're here at the government's whim I think it will be used as an argument in radicalising people. It will make the far right really happy and lead to calls for lots of other people to lose uk citizenship, some of whom are repugnant, perhaps members of rape gangs, others of whom will be much less egregious sinners.

 

[Athos]

See my second sentence.

"We'll see" doesn't answer the questions about which papers say she's not a dual citizen and how they'd know. But I get that you're not interested in discussing it, which is fine.

 

[Athos]

Being as all British Asians have just been told effectively you're here at the government's whim I think it will be used as an argument in radicalising people. It will make the far right really happy and lead to calls for lots of other people to lose uk citizenship, some of whom are repugnant, perhaps members of rape gangs, others of whom will be much less egregious sinners.

The power has already been used in respect of a paedophile.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Why not think of these things as complex and multifactorial? Move the lens about a bit, it doesn't have to get stuck. I work with very troubled and sometimes very disturbed young people, I have an interest in that, it doesn't make my views unpolitical or invalid in a politics thread, even if there are posters like butchersapron who are exceptionally aware of the politics of Syria who are able to bring a much deeper and wider political perspective to it. You can narrow the lens, and widen it again. I don't get this either or way or thinking.

You are talking to someone who got very animated about bigoted White middle class men being called gammon but not so much when his own mates here on Urban were joking and referring to him nignog and as a paki. He was more angry about others being upset about that and supported his mates right to throw such terms about. His judgement is valueless imo.

This move to revoke her citizenship can't be used on a person who has both parents born in this country. That's a two tier system right there and effectively racist because it creates two classes of people and different treatment for those who's parents were born elsewhere.

 

[Athos]

This move to revoke her citizenship can't be used on a person who has both parents born in this country.

Yes it can.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

We don't know when her citizenship was revoked; if it happened before birth, then, quite possibly her kid isn't a British citizen!

The letter was dated yesterday.

 

[Pickman's model]

The letter was dated yesterday.

royal mail have done something wonderful to their service

 

[Athos]

The letter was dated yesterday.

The important date is when the decision was made, rather than when she was told of it; the letter doesn't confirm when the decision was made. Though the letter does say that the order was post the service of the decision on the file, which it says took place on 19 February, so it's unclear.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The important date is when the decision was made, rather than when she was told of it; the letter doesn't confirm when the decision was made.

Really? Javid can claim to have made the decision at a certain time/date and that's that? Doesn't need to be witnesses or owt? Doesn't sound how the law normally works...

 

[kebabking]

The letter was dated yesterday.

That's only when the letter was written up, which was a Monday. It's quite probable - likely even - that the HoSec completed the paperwork some time before that. The act of stripping her of UK citizenship almost occured at the point where SJ signed the order, or possibly at the time that the order was committed to her file in the central registry.

The letter came from Liverpool, but the order was almost certainly signed in the HO in London or in SJ's constituancy in Worcestershire.

Had the letter come from the HO in Whitehall then it's very likely that the letter would have been written and couriered the same day, but the fact that it was from Liverpool instead suggests a decent possibility that it wasn't.

 

[Athos]

Really? Javid can claim to have made the decision at a certain time/date and that's that? Doesn't need to be witnesses or owt? Doesn't sound how the law normally works...

I suppose technically, it's the date of the order. But it's a bit unclear. Wouldn't rule out the possibility.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

That's only when the letter was written up, which was a Monday. It's quite probable - likely even - that the HoSec completed the paperwork some time before that. The act of stripping her of UK citizenship almost occured at the point where SJ signed the order, or possibly at the time that the order was committed to her file in the central registry.

The letter came from Liverpool, but the order was almost certainly signed in the HO in London or in SJ's constituancy in Worcestershire.

Had the letter come from the HO in Whitehall then it's very likely that the letter would have been written and couriered the same day, but the fact that it was from Liverpool instead suggests a decent possibility that it wasn't.

All possible, but the greater possibility is that since this is clearly an act by Javid to garner political capital he'd have ensured the announcement was made as soon as the ink was dry.

 

[Yossarian]

The letter says notice was served Feb. 19 and the order removing her British citizenship "has subsequently been made," I don't think they're going to be able to backdate it - though they probably would if they thought they could get away with it.

 

[danny la rouge]

"We'll see" doesn't answer the questions about which papers say she's not a dual citizen and how they'd know. But I get that you're not interested in discussing it, which is fine.

The reports I’ve seen (BBC, Guardian, Independent, so on) all seem to suggest that it is a creative use of the notion of dual citizenship. That they can make this move because she is eligible for citizenship of another country. The suggestion (and it is no more than an inference that I’m drawing) would seem to be that this is not something she has already taken up. The Indy reports that the Bangladeshi authorities say she does not yet hold citizenship there.

I think we can take this matter out wider than Begum herself (as Red Cat correctly advises Spymaster). She herself bears responsibility for joining a movement responsible for atrocities, oppression, and all the rest of it, and for the effect the “Caliphate” had on the revolution against Assad. She undermined prerequisite solidarity in a grievous way. So, if she were to make to back to the UK, I’d say prosecute her. And I wouldn’t advocate helping her get back.

That said, this move would seem to be saying that because of a clever clerical trick we can make her Bangladesh’s responsibility. I’m not OK with that.

Nor am I OK with the precedent this sets. Revoking the citizenship of people the state has decided to disapprove of (including people who have not yet been convicted of anything) is not a healthy step. This is not about Begum. Frankly, to hell with her. This is about how far down the road this takes us to a point where this might in the future mean I can be stripped of citizenship if I go abroad on holiday, and while away, the state decides it doesn’t like the content of my bookshelves, as an example.

If Begum has broken UK laws, then try her in a UK court, should she manage to return. Don’t play to the gallery by trying to palm her off on a country that she *could* qualify for citizenship of. That opens all sorts of unpleasant consequences.

 

[Poi E]

Theresa May arms Islamic extremists who massacre 10,000s in Yemen.

Isn’t it time to strip her of British citizenship?

She's doing her best at removing the British bit.

 

[Teaboy]

The reports I’ve seen (BBC, Guardian, Independent, so on) all seem to suggest that it is a creative use of the notion of dual citizenship. That they can make this move because she is eligible for citizenship of another country. The suggestion (and it is no more than an inference that I’m drawing) would seem to be that this is not something she has already taken up. The Indy reports that the Bangladeshi authorities say she does not yet hold citizenship there.

I think we can take this matter out wider than Begum herself (as Red Cat correctly advises Spymaster). She herself bears responsibility for joining a movement responsible for atrocities, oppression, and all the rest of it, and for the effect the “Caliphate” had on the revolution against Assad. She undermined prerequisite solidarity in a grievous way. So, if she were to make to back to the UK, I’d say prosecute her. And I wouldn’t advocate helping her get back.

That said, this move would seem to be saying that because of a clever clerical trick we can make her Bangladesh’s responsibility. I’m not OK with that.

Nor am I OK with the precedent this sets. Revoking the citizenship of people the state has decided to disapprove of (including people who have not yet been convicted of anything) is not a healthy step. This is not about Begum. Frankly, to hell with her. This is about how far down the road this takes us to a point where this might in the future mean I can be stripped of citizenship if I go abroad on holiday, and while away, the state decides it doesn’t like the content of my bookshelves, as an example.

If Begum has broken UK laws, then try her in a UK court, should she manage to return. Don’t play to the gallery by trying to palm her off on a country that she *could* qualify for citizenship of. That opens all sorts of unpleasant consequences.

Yes spot on, all it.

It all just strikes me as a power hungry home secretary trying to play the tough man, playing to the crowd. Did he cancel his holiday to come back and make this decision?

 

[newbie]

All possible, but the greater possibility is that since this is clearly an act by Javid to garner political capital he'd have ensured the announcement was made as soon as the ink was dry.

a move championed by his boss

The measure was included in the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act as a direct result of the July 2005 bombings in which 52 people died and more than 700 were injured. It was used only four times in the following four years, but has been used nine times since last year's general election.

"British nationality is a privilege and the home secretary has the ability to remove it from dual nationals when she believes it to be in the public good."

Home Office stripping more dual-nationality Britons of citizenship

 

[Poi E]

I'd better start behaving again.

 

[OzT]

You have books and bookshelves, and go abroad on holidays???? How vey bourgeois of ye danny la rouge . . . .

 

[Athos]

The reports I’ve seen (BBC, Guardian, Independent, so on) all seem to suggest that it is a creative use of the notion of dual citizenship. That they can make this move because she is eligible for citizenship of another country. The suggestion (and it is no more than an inference that I’m drawing) would seem to be that this is not something she has already taken up. The Indy reports that the Bangladeshi authorities say she does not yet hold citizenship there.

I think we can take this matter out wider than Begum herself (as Red Cat correctly advises Spymaster). She herself bears responsibility for joining a movement responsible for atrocities, oppression, and all the rest of it, and for the effect the “Caliphate” had on the revolution against Assad. She undermined prerequisite solidarity in a grievous way. So, if she were to make to back to the UK, I’d say prosecute her. And I wouldn’t advocate helping her get back.

That said, this move would seem to be saying that because of a clever clerical trick we can make her Bangladesh’s responsibility. I’m not OK with that.

Nor am I OK with the precedent this sets. Revoking the citizenship of people the state has decided to disapprove of (including people who have not yet been convicted of anything) is not a healthy step. This is not about Begum. Frankly, to hell with her. This is about how far down the road this takes us to a point where this might in the future mean I can be stripped of citizenship if I go abroad on holiday, and while away, the state decides it doesn’t like the content of my bookshelves, as an example.

If Begum has broken UK laws, then try her in a UK court, should she manage to return. Don’t play to the gallery by trying to palm her off on a country that she *could* qualify for citizenship of. That opens all sorts of unpleasant consequences.

I broadly agree with most of that. I'm just not convinced that the press would know one way or another whether or not she's a dual national. If she's not, but is merely entitled to become one, then the law seems pretty clear that citizenship can only be stripped from those who've acquired it by naturalisation. Of course, I'd be very concerned about the Home Secretary acting unlawfully because its politically expedient.

 

[Poi E]

You have books and bookshelves, and go abroad on holidays???? How vey bourgeois of ye danny la rouge . . . .

danny reads for pleasure

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

 

[danny la rouge]

You have books and bookshelves, and go abroad on holidays???? How vey bourgeois of ye danny la rouge . . . .

I’m petite bourgeois precariat, technically. And my holidays abroad are hypothetical at the moment. But the books and bookshelves are real.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm just not convinced that the press would know one way or another whether or not she's a dual national

No, and I concede that I was proceeding on the basis of an inference. But the points stand.

 

[Athos]

No, and I concede that I was proceeding on the basis of an inference. But the points stand.

If the inference is true, I can't see how the Home Secretary could seriously think he'd defeat any legal challenge. Though, of course, he might not be acting in good faith - her may have knowingly acted unlawfully to look tough, and in the knowledge that there are significant practical bars to her being able to effectively seek any remedy. Concerning for all of us, albeit I couldn't care less what happens to her for her own sake.

 

[zahir]

An earlier proposal for how to deal with this kind of case...

 

[19force8]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread so apologies for wasting time if this has already been covered.

Here is what May and Javid signed of on last summer:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...18_CCS207_CCS0218929798-1_CONTEST_3.0_WEB.pdf

Part 2 Page 50 para 171

Syria returners illustrative example

In 2015, a British woman travels to join Daesh. In 2017 the individual flees Daesh-held territory with a new born baby and they make their way to Turkey. On arrival in Turkey the mother and the child are detained for entering the country illegally.

Following the mother’s detention the British authorities are notified. DNA testing of the child is conducted to establish their entitlement to a British passport. Given that the mother has lived in Daesh-held territory, the Home Secretary and a judge approve the use of a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) to manage her return to the UK. The TEO allows us to specify the route of return to the UK and to impose obligations upon the individual once they return to help protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

The mother and her child are subsequently deported to the UK from Turkey via the route specified by the TEO. On arrival in the UK the police launch an investigation into the woman’s activities in Syria to determine whether any crimes have been committed. If there is evidence that a crime has been committed then the mother will be charged and the Crown Prosecution Service will conduct criminal proceedings. If there is no evidence of criminality, the mother is assisted in reintegrating into society, for example, by requiring her to attend a series of sessions with a specially trained de-radicalisation mentor. In the meantime the mother is also obliged – as part of her TEO – to report regularly to a police station and to notify the Home Office of any change of address. The local authority is involved to ensure that the child is not at immediate risk and appropriate measures are put in place to help safeguard the child’s welfare.

HT to the Secret Barrister The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) on Twitter

So what's the problem?