Shamima Begum: ' IS poster girl'

[rashore]

The legal ins and outs of this are interesting. Sounds like this is really uncommon, to strip citizenship.

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

The legal ins and outs of this are interesting. Sounds like this is really uncommon, to strip citizenship.

She has a third citizenship too - Islamic State

So even if the attempts to force her to become Bangladeshi fail all we need to do is remove her UK citizenship before the final defeat of Isis. What she does then is no longer any of our problem. Good rids.

[Grey Area]

7 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

She has a third citizenship too - Islamic State

So even if the attempts to force her to become Bangladeshi fail all we need to do is remove her UK citizenship before the final defeat of Isis. What she does then is no longer any of our problem. Good rids.

As far as I am aware IS is not recognised as a country or nation.

If it were this would cause a number of problems around their territory having been seized off other sovereign nations and the turmoil that would cause with relations between those countries recognising IS as a nation and those that would continue to contest it.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

She has a third citizenship too - Islamic State

Not a recognised state unfortunately so not an option. 

[Unusual Tournament]

8 hours ago, Setton said:

No, because she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. 

Not any person. It depends where those parents were from. It has nothing to do with UK law. It is Bangladeshi law that states anyone of Bangladeshi heritage is entitled to their citizenship. 

No she’s no entitled to it. Bangaldesh has clearly said so. 

[Unusual Tournament]

4 hours ago, Setton said:

Not a recognised state unfortunately so not an option. 

 ...she has or rather had a Dutch husband with his child, so maybe she could claim citizenship there. But I doubt she would do so. The European courts will have a big say in this. I wonder if impending Brexit would stop such an action?

[freetoroam]

23 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Can you explain why it is preferable to revoke someone's citizenship than to arrest them bring them home in custody and try them?  

Because tax payers have had enough of their money spent on these people.

It is OUR hard earned money which would fund the arrests and to keep them in custody. 

 

[CrimsonKing]

10 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Because tax payers have had enough of their money spent on these people.

It is OUR hard earned money which would fund the arrests and to keep them in custody. 

 

EXACTLY!!!

I said the exact same thing in the US section about the American POS...

 

[stevewinn]

 

 

[Likely Guy]

On 2/19/2019 at 3:24 AM, RabidMongoose said:

We should invite Trump to build a wall around it and if they step out of line we can drop some bombs on them.

Spoken, well... like a fanatic.

Unless you were being facetious or sarcastic, that is.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Likely Guy

[Setton]

8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

No she’s no entitled to it. Bangaldesh has clearly said so. 

If her mother is Bangladeshi, she is. What Bangladesh has actually said is that she isn't Bangladeshi, not that she isn't entitled to it. Their law says she is. 

Not our problem if they've written their laws poorly. 

8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

 ...she has or rather had a Dutch husband with his child, so maybe she could claim citizenship there. But I doubt she would do so. The European courts will have a big say in this. I wonder if impending Brexit would stop such an action?

The European courts will have nothing to do with this as they have no power to overrule UK domestic law in this matter. 

Her only chance of retaining UK citizenship is to appeal. And the law is not on her side. 

[Tatetopa]

10 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Because tax payers have had enough of their money spent on these people.

It is OUR hard earned money which would fund the arrests and to keep them in custody. 

Too bad you can't still exile your criminals to Australia I guess.

[freetoroam]

30 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Too bad you can't still exile your criminals to Australia I guess.

I do not think they would take them anymore.

We have enough criminals the tax payers are funding, any opportunity to keep the criminals out of our country is a bonus..although only a small one cos we have too many as it is.

[Jon the frog]

On 2/18/2019 at 9:55 AM, lolaivanna said:

i think the concern should be for the welfare of her baby and ultimately her actions are the cause for that concern, i am not sure how a 15 year old got out there in the first place !! its scary, you just don't know whats going on in someones else's head,  but at the end of the day the public's safety should be the most important concern here. 

Yep allow the baby to return not her.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Jon the frog

[itsnotoutthere]

I think the British authorities should tell her & her family that we are going to change the law to introduce the death penalty for treason & sedition,

and as soon as the law is changed we'll let her come back & then put her on trial for treason & sedition. 

[itsnotoutthere]