• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British teen who fled to join ISIS wants to return to the UK.

Rogue Valley said:
The Nazi Party and security services were legally regarded as criminal organizations at Nuremberg.

If I were King, simply belonging to the ISIS universe would also be a criminal act in and of itself. This is how the situation is legally in Iraq.

ISIS publicly beheaded Brits. I don't blame Britain one iota for not accepting this individual back into British society.
Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

What crime did she commit? What harm did she do? What threat does she pose to the UK? All these questions must be answered publicly and persuasively before the UK State can disregard its own and international law by stripping this woman and presumably her new-born child of their citizenships and leaving them stateless persons. The Rule of Law must withstand public opinion and political considerations/expediency or it ceases to exist.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Rogue Valley:

What crime did she commit? What harm did she do? What threat does she pose to the UK? All these questions must be answered publicly and persuasively before the UK State can disregard its own and international law by stripping this woman and presumably her new-born child of their citizenships and leaving them stateless persons. The Rule of Law must withstand public opinion and political considerations/expediency or it ceases to exist.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

She can claim Bangladeshi citizenship as she is under 21 years of age and has Bangladeshi bloodlines. The principle is called "jus sanguinis."

Her child may be able to gain British citizenship though. However if we did this, we need to be really careful about handing the child over to the grandparents as they (particularly the grandfather) were the ones who took the 12 year old Begum to radical islamist rallies.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
She can claim Bangladeshi citizenship as she is under 21 years of age and has Bangladeshi bloodlines. The principle is called "jus sanguinis."

Her child may be able to gain British citizenship though. However if we did this, we need to be really careful about handing the child over to the grandparents as they (particularly the grandfather) were the ones who took the 12 year old Begum to radical islamist rallies.
Click to expand...

Infinite Chaos:

Shamima Begum is not presently a citizen of Bangladesh but was a naturally born citizen of the U.K. Bangladeshi authorities may well decide to deny her citizenship should she apply to them. Therefore the UK Government has left her a stateless person by its choice to strip a naturally born citizen of their citizenship. Both UK and international law does not allow this to be done legally. So the UK Government is breaking the law in order to punish a woman who may have broken no UK laws because she has expressed odious viewpoints publicly. That's f-ed up and is tossing aside the Rule of Law. Perfidious Albion is back and as two-faced as ever it was. I hope her family sues the crap out of the state and gets this stupid decision reversed. Then when she returns the UK can charge and try her if it can make a case and then incarcerate her if she is found guilty. If authorities believe and can prove to a judge that she, while guilty of no crime, still presents a real threat to the UK public then the UK Government can put her into preventative detention.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Bangladesh operates "jus sanguinis" so as her mother retains her Bangladeshi citizenship this appears to be a legal process. She will probably refute any desire to go to Bangladesh but I suppose when Russian bombs start dropping nearby she will think again.

Only shame is the British Govt should have revoked her citizenship when she went to join the caliphate.
Click to expand...

Hog wash, more excuses. The British Government has already tried this several times and gotten their asses handed to them by their own judicial system! It amazes me how many times the Tory party has to get beaten down by the judicial system before they learn they cant just piss on peoples rights!

And Bangladesh says she is not a citizen.

I have zero love for this girl, but there is a far bigger picture here. Last time a country started removing peoples citizenship based on political or religious ideology was in the 1930s... do you really want to go down that road?
 
Evilroddy said:
Infinite Chaos:

Shamima Begum is not presently a citizen of Bangladesh but was a naturally born citizen of the U.K. Bangladeshi authorities may well decide to deny her citizenship should she apply to them. Therefore the UK Government has left her a stateless person by its choice to strip a naturally born citizen of their citizenship. Both UK and international law does not allow this to be done legally. So the UK Government is breaking the law in order to punish a woman who may have broken no UK laws because she has expressed odious viewpoints publicly. That's f-ed up and is tossing aside the Rule of Law. Perfidious Albion is back and as two-faced as ever it was. I hope her family sues the crap out of the state and gets this stupid decision reversed. Then when she returns the UK can charge and try her if it can make a case and then incarcerate her if she is found guilty. If authorities believe and can prove to a judge that she, while guilty of no crime, still presents a real threat to the UK public then the UK Government can put her into preventative detention.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Do you know what jus sanguinis is? FYI Bangladesh applies it.

Do you know what Begum's mother is?

PeteEU said:
Hog wash, more excuses. The British Government has already tried this several times and gotten their asses handed to them by their own judicial system! ~
Click to expand...

Do you know how old the two were who overturned the removal of citizenship? Do you know what age Bangladesh gives you to keep that citizenship?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Do you know what jus sanguinis is? FYI Bangladesh applies it.
Click to expand...

I do, and dont care.

Do you know what Begum's mother is?
Click to expand...

She is a British citizen last I looked.

Do you know how old the two were who overturned the removal of citizenship? Do you know what age Bangladesh gives you to keep that citizenship?
Click to expand...

Again not relevant.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...llegal-blocked-court-bangladesh-a8645241.html

The UK government has tried this before and gotten their asses handed to them. You can NOT make someone stateless.. it is freaking basic UK and international law and guess who imposed said principle on the rest of the world? Yep, the UK!
 
Evilroddy said:
What crime did she commit?
Click to expand...

I already answered that question. By her choice, Begum was part of a criminal/terrorist organization that murdered, raped, and plundered.

Evilroddy said:
What harm did she do?
Click to expand...

That is an unknown. The longevity of ISIS prisoners was short. Begum made no attempt to leave or escape a criminal/terrorist organization.

Evilroddy said:
What threat does she pose to the UK?
Click to expand...

That is also an unknown. Are you intimating a female cannot be dangerous/deadly?

Only now that her violent caliphate has been crushed, she wishes to return to modernity as if nothing has happened?

If there were any poetic justice, a tribunal of Yazidi women and girl captives who were violated by ISIS jihadist's every night would decide her fate.
 
Evilroddy said:
Infinite Chaos:

Shamima Begum is not presently a citizen of Bangladesh but was a naturally born citizen of the U.K. Bangladeshi authorities may well decide to deny her citizenship should she apply to them. Therefore the UK Government has left her a stateless person by its choice to strip a naturally born citizen of their citizenship. Both UK and international law does not allow this to be done legally. So the UK Government is breaking the law in order to punish a woman who may have broken no UK laws because she has expressed odious viewpoints publicly. That's f-ed up and is tossing aside the Rule of Law. Perfidious Albion is back and as two-faced as ever it was. I hope her family sues the crap out of the state and gets this stupid decision reversed. Then when she returns the UK can charge and try her if it can make a case and then incarcerate her if she is found guilty. If authorities believe and can prove to a judge that she, while guilty of no crime, still presents a real threat to the UK public then the UK Government can put her into preventative detention.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
You really need to acquaint yourself more with the legalities of this issue.

1) The UK CAN strip one of its nationals of British citizenship, provided that the person in question either holds citizenship of another state or is eligible for its application.

2) A person born (no matter where) of Bangladeshi parents is (by jus sanguinis) eligible to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, even when not on Dakha records (i.e.not holding a passport and/or registered in any other manner).

3) Wrt to Bangladesh, said citizenship/nationality/elgibility is/are deemed to be "in lapse" if, by the age of 21, the person in question has made no active effort to retain it (them).

4) Begum is 19, so go figure.

That Bangladesh is slamming the door on the whole process is no surprise, they have plenty of "home-growns" themselves and understandably don't want to add to the problems already faced.

What is however ironic in your rant over public opinion not deserving to be allowed to stipulate the law, is that you're coming at it all from just as much an emotive gall-bladder-biliousness stance as those you criticize, just from the other angle.

You're reference to "Perfidious Albion as two-faced as ever" is a pretty good example of you not being any better than those you lambast.

As far as the issue is concerned of what would be the wisest manner in which to proceed in this conundrum, that's a totally different kettle of fish.

I merely jumped in to clear up your confusion (and that of others).
 
PeteEU said:
I do, and dont care.
Click to expand...

You should, you wouldn't have made the mistaken claims below...

PeteEU said:
She is a British citizen last I looked
Click to expand...

Evidence?

PeteEU said:
Again not relevant.

UK blocked from making alleged extremists stateless by secret court in ruling that will set precedent | The Independent

The UK government has tried this before and gotten their asses handed to them. You can NOT make someone stateless.. it is freaking basic UK and international law and guess who imposed said principle on the rest of the world? Yep, the UK!
Click to expand...

The case against those two men failed because they were over 21. You haven'r read your own link. Begum is under 21 - the cut off age under Bangladeshi law.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Do you know what jus sanguinis is? FYI Bangladesh applies it.

Do you know what Begum's mother is?

Do you know how old the two were who overturned the removal of citizenship? Do you know what age Bangladesh gives you to keep that citizenship?
Click to expand...

Infinite Chaos:

Bangladesh uses both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli legal principles in determining citizenship. Jus Sanguinis is dominantly used but there are many exceptions and limits to the application of this principle in determining Bangladeshi citizenship. In the case of a Jus Sanguinis claim the Bamgladesh Citizenship Order does not automatically grant citizenship. People such as enemy aliens of Bangladeshi origin can and are refused citizenship. If Bangladesh views Ms Begum as an enemy alien then it does not matter that her parents are of Bangladeshi origin. Since Shamima Begum does not yet hold Bangladeshi citizenship and since the Home Offices of the U.K. has already stripped her of her UK/British citizenship, she is now a stateless person and thus the U.K. has broken both its own and international law as Ms. Begum's Bangladehsi citizenship has not been granted yet and may never be granted.

Yes I do understand what Jus Sanguinis means and it is a legal principle but not a carved-in-stone rule.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Rogue Valley said:
1) I already answered that question. By her choice, Begum was part of a criminal/terrorist organization that murdered, raped, and plundered.

2) That is an unknown. The longevity of ISIS prisoners was short. Begum made no attempt to leave or escape a criminal/terrorist organization.

3) That is also an unknown. Are you intimating a female cannot be dangerous/deadly?

4) Only now that her violent caliphate has been crushed, she wishes to return to modernity as if nothing has happened?

5) If there were any poetic justice, a tribunal of Yazidi women and girl captives who were violated by ISIS jihadist's every night would decide her fate.
Click to expand...

Numbers added to quote by me for easy reference.

Rogue Valley:

1) Let us suppose that you are an active member of the US Marine Corps and are serving abroad in a conflict zone. A non-citizen young woman meets you in a foreign country where the US Marines are involved in conflict and garrison duty. Love is in the air and she marries you. Is your new wife a Marine? No, she is not. Is she automatically an American? No.

Did Shamima Begum wear a uniform or badge of membership to ISIL? Has any organisation found papers indicating she was a member of the organisation? Did the Allies after WWII prosecute and imprison the wives and children of SS and Nazi Party members just for being married to SS or Nazi members in the de-Nazification programmes of 1945-1949? Does UK law forbid travelling to conflict zones and marrying parties to those conflicts?

You may personally think that Shamima Begum has acted criminally but that is not clear at all under UK law.

2) In a system of justice that assumes innocence the unknown is not evidence of guilt. If the unknowns are too risky the UK has a system of preventative detention laws to call upon, but they cannot just strip her of her citizenship and leave her a stateless person legally. Thus the UK authorities are breaking the law in order to punish a woman who may have committed no crime according to UK law. If she has committed a crime then she should be repatriated, charged, tried and if found guilty punished in accordance with UK law. Rights don't exist to protect the popular people alone. They exist to protect the unpopular people who may be railroaded by the mob or a vindictive or paranoid state.

3) If she is dangerous enough to convince a judge that she represents a real threat to the UK or its citizens then have her put into preventative detention until the authorities are satisfied that she no longer is a threat.

4) How do you know that? What would be the fate of a fleeing British national and her children if she had attempted to escape ISIL and wandered into the Syrian wilderness or urban sprawl? She may have made the decision to hunker down and to protect her ill-fatted children as best she could under very bad circumstances until a very good opportunity to get away presented itself.

5) Ahh, vigilante justice, that always works out well. So, no, not a good argument according to British legal jurisprudence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Numbers added to quote by me for easy reference.

Rogue Valley:

1) Let us suppose that you are an active member of the US Marine Corps and are serving abroad in a conflict zone. A non-citizen young woman meets you in a foreign country where the US Marines are involved in conflict and garrison duty. Love is in the air and she marries you. Is your new wife a Marine? No, she is not. Is she automatically an American? No.

Did Shamima Begum wear a uniform or badge of membership to ISIL? Has any organisation found papers indicating she was a member of the organisation? Did the Allies after WWII prosecute and imprison the wives and children of SS and Nazi Party members just for being married to SS or Nazi members in the de-Nazification programmes of 1945-1949? Does UK law forbid travelling to conflict zones and marrying parties to those conflicts?

You may personally think that Shamima Begum has acted criminally but that is not clear at all under UK law.

2) In a system of justice that assumes innocence the unknown is not evidence of guilt. If the unknowns are too risky the UK has a system of preventative detention laws to call upon, but they cannot just strip her of her citizenship and leave her a stateless person legally. Thus the UK authorities are breaking the law in order to punish a woman who may have committed no crime according to UK law. If she has committed a crime then she should be repatriated, charged, tried and if found guilty punished in accordance with UK law. Rights don't exist to protect the popular people alone. They exist to protect the unpopular people who may be railroaded by the mob or a vindictive or paranoid state.

3) If she is dangerous enough to convince a judge that she represents a real threat to the UK or its citizens then have her put into preventative detention until the authorities are satisfied that she no longer is a threat.

4) How do you know that? What would be the fate of a fleeing British national and her children if she had attempted to escape ISIL and wandered into the Syrian wilderness or urban sprawl? She may have made the decision to hunker down and to protect her ill-fatted children as best she could under very bad circumstances until a very good opportunity to get away presented itself.

5) Ahh, vigilante justice, that always works out well. So, no, not a good argument according to British legal jurisprudence.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Sorry. You keep your bleeding-heart ideas and I'll keep my common-sense ideas. Deal?
 
Chagos said:
You really need to acquaint yourself more with the legalities of this issue.

1) The UK CAN strip one of its nationals of British citizenship, provided that the person in question either holds citizenship of another state or is eligible for its application.

2) A person born (no matter where) of Bangladeshi parents is (by jus sanguinis) eligible to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship, even when not on Dakha records (i.e.not holding a passport and/or registered in any other manner).

3) Wrt to Bangladesh, said citizenship/nationality/elgibility is/are deemed to be "in lapse" if, by the age of 21, the person in question has made no active effort to retain it (them).

4) Begum is 19, so go figure.

That Bangladesh is slamming the door on the whole process is no surprise, they have plenty of "home-growns" themselves and understandably don't want to add to the problems already faced.

What is however ironic in your rant over public opinion not deserving to be allowed to stipulate the law, is that you're coming at it all from just as much an emotive gall-bladder-biliousness stance as those you criticize, just from the other angle.

You're reference to "Perfidious Albion as two-faced as ever" is a pretty good example of you not being any better than those you lambast.

As far as the issue is concerned of what would be the wisest manner in which to proceed in this conundrum, that's a totally different kettle of fish.

I merely jumped in to clear up your confusion (and that of others).
Click to expand...

Chagos:

From: Shamima Begum: will the plan to revoke her citizenship succeed? | Politics | The Guardian

So how can her citizenship be revoked?

If Begum had been a naturalised citizen, or had obtained her passport by fraud, the home secretary may have had the power to revoke her citizenship, but there is no suggestion of that.

It is understood the home secretary is relying on section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 to strip Begum of her passport. It says he can “by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”, and if they have behaved in a way that “is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.

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.
Click to expand...

Chagos:

Since Bangladesh has indicated it will in your own words be " slamming the door" on Ms Begum's application for Bangladeshi citizenship, the UK Home Secretary cannot reasonably claim that his decision to strip Ms. Begum of her British citizenship will not make her a stateless person. Ergo, he (Mr. Javid) can't by British law, by EU law and by international law do it legally. Sorry but I have been following what's been going on rather closely. The appeals tribunal, which is supposed to be independent of the U.K. Government's influence, will have to rule against the Home Secretary if it follows UK law.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Sorry. You keep your bleeding-heart ideas and I'll keep my common-sense ideas. Deal?
Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

If and only if you recuse yourself from ever sitting on the UK appeals tribunal will I make this deal with you. :) Deal?

I see you did not counter my rebuttal. Interesting.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You should, you wouldn't have made the mistaken claims below...



Evidence?



The case against those two men failed because they were over 21. You haven'r read your own link. Begum is under 21 - the cut off age under Bangladeshi law.
Click to expand...
The nationality of her mother is irrelevant.

The age of the person is also irrelevant because we already know that Bangladesh does not want her.

As for the case listed..the message was clear you can only remove citizenship if the person has a second one...not "can apply for one".

And the double standard here is that her child is British according to the Government which brings up even more problems for the government.



Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
Evilroddy said:
Chagos:

From: Shamima Begum: will the plan to revoke her citizenship succeed? | Politics | The Guardian



Chagos:

Since Bangladesh has indicated it will in your own words be " slamming the door" on Ms Begum's application for Bangladeshi citizenship, the UK Home Secretary cannot reasonably claim that his decision to strip Ms. Begum of her British citizenship will not make her a stateless person. Ergo, he (Mr. Javid) can't by British law, by EU law and by international law do it legally. Sorry but I have been following what's been going on rather closely. The appeals tribunal, which is supposed to be independent of the U.K. Government's influence, will have to rule against the Home Secretary if it follows UK law.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
If Bangla slams the door, it acts illegally.

Up to them and Begum to sort it out.

Period!
 
Chagos said:
If Bangla slams the door, it acts illegally.

Up to them and Begum to sort it out.

Period!
Click to expand...

So you have no problem with the UK taking your citizenship away because you have a slim chance of getting Spanish?

Where does this stuff stop? All Muslims? Jews? Left wingers? Red heads? Irish? By allowing governments making their citizens stateless, you move into Nazi Germany territory... that is exactly what Hitler did and what people like Orban has attempted to do in Hungary.
 
Not Europe oriented, but certainly germane to this thread.....

Trump Bars U.S.-Born Woman Who Joined IS From Returning

hoda-muthana-620x347.jpg

Former Alabama resident Hoda Muthana. She joined ISIS in Syria four years ago, married an Australian ISIS fighter
(Suhan Rahman KIA 2015), and wrote a letter encouraging violence against the US.

2/21/19
The United States says it will not allow a U.S.-born woman who joined the Islamic State (IS) militant group in Syria to return to the United States because she is not a citizen, an assertion her lawyer disputes. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on February 20 said the woman, Hoda Muthana, now in a refugee camp in Syria with her toddler son, has no legal claim to U.S. citizenship. "She does not have any legal basis, no valid U.S. passport, no right to a passport nor any visa to travel to the United States," he said, without explaining why it was determined the 24-year-old woman did not have citizenship. President Donald Trump said he gave orders not to allow the New Jersey-born woman to return to the United States. "I have instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and he fully agrees, not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country!" Trump tweeted.

Her lawyer, Hassan Shibly, insisted the woman was born in the United States, had been living in Alabama, and had a valid U.S. passport before she joined IS in 2014. He claimed she had renounced the terrorist group and wanted to come home to protect her son regardless of the legal consequences. Muthana's father was a Yemeni diplomat -- and children of diplomats are not automatically granted citizenship. Shibly said, however, that her father had stopped being a diplomat "months and months" before her birth. "She's an American. Americans break the law," Shibly said. "When people break the law, we have a legal system to handle those kinds of situations to hold people accountable, and that's all she's asking for."
Click to expand...

I don't really know the particulars. If she was born on US soil, then she is legally considered an American citizen regardless of her parents citizenship. If the court rules in her favor, she should be indicted for joining and aiding a terrorist organization.

Related: Wife of slain Australian IS fighter 'not a citizen', won't be allowed back to US
 
Chagos said:
If Bangla slams the door, it acts illegally.

Up to them and Begum to sort it out.

Period!
Click to expand...

Chagos:

You are incorrect in that assertion for two reasons. The Bangladeshi Citizenship Order (BCO) relies primarily but not exclusively on Jus Sanguinis so they do have room to manoeuvre legally here. The BCO also requires dual citizens to apply for a dual-citizenship licence which, while often a mere formality, can be denied by the state. Finally the BCO allows the Bangladeshi state to refuse citizenship to anyone of Bangladeshi origin if the state decides that they are an enemy alien. Thus Bangladesh could be acting completely within Bangladeshi law in slamming the door on Ms. Begum's citizenship.

The fact remains that Mr. Javid's decision is in violation of UK, EU and international law. Whether political will will overwhelm the Rule of Law in this matter remains to be seen. But I think it is sadly ironic that the UK breaks its own laws in order to punish a woman who may have not broken any UK law because so many hate what she has said and done.

Thus your "period" may be premature and unsupportable.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Rogue Valley said:
You had no rebuttal other than a call for sympathy, and I have no sympathy for Begum.
Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

Post # 86 methodically rebutted each of your assertions using logic and reason. You were incorrect in your reasoning and that was systematically pointed out. You may not agree with that but others can read the post and judge for themselves.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
PeteEU said:
The nationality of her mother is irrelevant.

The age of the person is also irrelevant because we already know that Bangladesh does not want her ~
Click to expand...

Under Bangladeshi laws - that's not the case. Bangladeshi citizenship is a right she has and can claim before she is 21. I won't argue that Bangladesh doesn't want her - but if she had decided she wanted to act on a claim for Bangladeshi citizenship the govt there wouldn't be able to stop her.
 
PeteEU said:
So you have no problem with the UK taking your citizenship away because you have a slim chance of getting Spanish?

Where does this stuff stop? All Muslims? Jews? Left wingers? Red heads? Irish? By allowing governments making their citizens stateless, you move into Nazi Germany territory... that is exactly what Hitler did and what people like Orban has attempted to do in Hungary.
Click to expand...
Look, Pete, I was addressing the legalities of the issue. In this case as far as the UK and Bangladesh are concerned.

Nothing more.

Let others argue the morality.
 
having already addressed what you regurgitate in the first part of this post, I'll just address
Evilroddy said:
The fact remains that Mr. Javid's decision is in violation of UK, EU and international law.
Click to expand...
The fact remains that for the time being it cannot be seen as that. Maybe you need to take your own advice on not passing premature verdicts
Whether political will will overwhelm the Rule of Law in this matter remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Make up your mind, will you please.

If it's a case of rule of law, there are no violations of same, if there are violations it can't be rule of law.
But I think it is sadly ironic that the UK breaks its own laws in order to punish a woman who may have not broken any UK law because so many hate what she has said and done.
Click to expand...
I'm not getting into the emotive business here and thus not joining you in yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom