ISIS teenager wants to come home

[theprestige]

Of course they are uninvolved. They have never laid eyes on her, she has never laid eyes on them. Her actions, whatever they are, have never had any connection or reference to Bangladesh.

Fair enough. I withdraw my assertion that Bangladesh is involved. I think I was wrong about that.

Can you tell me in detail the justification you would use for the UK saying "This person is not our problem, she is yours" to Bangladesh?

I don't think that's exactly what the UK is saying, and that's not something I'm interested trying to justify.

I think what can be justified is something along the lines of "this person has pledged allegiance to our enemies, and thus we are disavowing her. She is now the problem of anyone else who wants to take up her cause. Could be ISIS, could be Bangladesh, could be whatever UN refugee camp she fetches up in. Whoever that may be, she's our enemy and we'll continue dealing with her on that basis."

The UK isn't obliged to grant the privileges and entitlements of citizenship to its enemies, just because it means Bangladesh will end up having to deal with them.

Nor do I think Bangladesh is obligated to deal with this person at all. Technically she might have a claim on their citizenship. That's what I alluded to earlier, but technically correct is the worst kind of correct. As you say, is a compelling argument that Bangladesh owes her nothing at all, and would be well within ethical bounds to leave her where she is.

The end result of that would of course be that any criminal could be foisted off onto the last country that realised they might be able to claim citizenship there, as they would not be aware they had to revoke citizenship rights from someone they had never heard of in any capacity, many many miles away from them. Why do you think that is a good idea?

I think you're imagining a slippery slope that doesn't exist. The vast majority of criminals don't find themselves stranded overseas in the region of a failed state that they pledged allegiance to, and which is the avowed enemy of the criminal's country of origin.

What do you propose to do with the plane loads of Bangladeshi rapists and murderers with grandparents from your country when Bangladesh starts sending them over?

They're welcome to try, I suppose. But I doubt they will. One obvious problem with your scenario is that unlike Begum, all those other criminals are very much citizens of Bangladesh. On the other hand, if Bangladesh does have any of their former citizens in other parts of the world, participating in crimes and acts of war against Bangladesh and its allies, I wouldn't hold it against the country for disavowing those people and letting other possible host countries deal with the implications. If they want to. And if those countries don't want to, I don't hold that against them, either.

ISIS failure to make a go of it as a sovereign state at war with the world doesn't obligate the UK to uphold their people's erstwhile citizenship. UK's refusal to welcome her back within their borders doesn't obligate Bangladesh to step up and grant her citizenship. Bangladesh's reluctance to see her as one of their own doesn't obligate the UK to take her in.

The way I see it, the UK's obligations to her ended when she renounced the UK, embraced the Caliphate, and traveled there to make a new life in a country at war with the UK. From then on, the UK's dealings with her a courtesy, more out of practical considerations than any ethical duty.

 

[Darat]

You really think we should let 15 year old make that decision? The age of consent is 16 in most places, being allowed to purchase alcohol is restricted to 18 and older in many places. Yet you are saying a 15 can make a decision to rescind their citizenship?

 

[Vixen]

Fair enough. I withdraw my assertion that Bangladesh is involved. I think I was wrong about that.


I don't think that's exactly what the UK is saying, and that's not something I'm interested trying to justify.

I think what can be justified is something along the lines of "this person has pledged allegiance to our enemies, and thus we are disavowing her. She is now the problem of anyone else who wants to take up her cause. Could be ISIS, could be Bangladesh, could be whatever UN refugee camp she fetches up in. Whoever that may be, she's our enemy and we'll continue dealing with her on that basis."

The UK isn't obliged to grant the privileges and entitlements of citizenship to its enemies, just because it means Bangladesh will end up having to deal with them.

Nor do I think Bangladesh is obligated to deal with this person at all. Technically she might have a claim on their citizenship. That's what I alluded to earlier, but technically correct is the worst kind of correct. As you say, is a compelling argument that Bangladesh owes her nothing at all, and would be well within ethical bounds to leave her where she is.


I think you're imagining a slippery slope that doesn't exist. The vast majority of criminals don't find themselves stranded overseas in the region of a failed state that they pledged allegiance to, and which is the avowed enemy of the criminal's country of origin.


They're welcome to try, I suppose. But I doubt they will. One obvious problem with your scenario is that unlike Begum, all those other criminals are very much citizens of Bangladesh. On the other hand, if Bangladesh does have any of their former citizens in other parts of the world, participating in crimes and acts of war against Bangladesh and its allies, I wouldn't hold it against the country for disavowing those people and letting other possible host countries deal with the implications. If they want to. And if those countries don't want to, I don't hold that against them, either.

ISIS failure to make a go of it as a sovereign state at war with the world doesn't obligate the UK to uphold their people's erstwhile citizenship. UK's refusal to welcome her back within their borders doesn't obligate Bangladesh to step up and grant her citizenship. Bangladesh's reluctance to see her as one of their own doesn't obligate the UK to take her in.

The way I see it, the UK's obligations to her ended when she renounced the UK, embraced the Caliphate, and traveled there to make a new life in a country at war with the UK. From then on, the UK's dealings with her a courtesy, more out of practical considerations than any ethical duty.

It's your opinion that people who renounce their nationality (which Begum didn't - you have to make an official notification you have done so, but let's put that aside) and become 'an enemy of the state' should just be left to flounder, fails to take note of two legal issues:

1. It is illegal for a state to make one of its citizens stateless

2. The person in question was a minor as of the time in your view she renounced her British nationality to join the caliphate, and as such cannot do any such thing without parental permission.

And on anoher note, you have made the classic error of presuming citizenship confers some kind of character trait or worthiness. Id doesn't. It is just a label, nothing more, nothing less. Every nation in the world has its share of criminals, crooks, corrupt poilticians, gangsters, money launderers, etc, and it has zero bearing on their nationality.

 

[Bob001]

You really think we should let 15 year old make that decision? The age of consent is 16 in most places, being allowed to purchase alcohol is restricted to 18 and older in many places. Yet you are saying a 15 can make a decision to rescind their citizenship?

Without having followed the case or this thread, it seems like a key question is what did she actually do? If she actually bombed markets or led armed raids, that's one thing. But if she just, as a 15-year-old, said "I'm gonna run away with my boyfriend and be a radical Muslim," that's something else. Even renouncing her citizenship seems questionable. In the U.S., renouncing your citizenship legally requires a specific formal process. Just shouting "Down With America!" doesn't do it. I would guess the UK has a similar process, which I doubt she followed.

And bringing her back to the UK doesn't mean all is forgiven. As the original link notes:

But that's a long way off. Assuming she made it to an airport [in Syria], the UK could temporarily ban her from returning until she agreed to be investigated, monitored and deradicalised.
Social services would also certainly step in to consider whether her child should be removed to protect him or her from radicalisation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47229181

So if she did something wrong personally she could still be punished for it. But it would be in the UK by the British government as a British citizen. You can say "We never abandon our own" and "We never forget" in the same breath.

 

[theprestige]

You really think we should let 15 year old make that decision? The age of consent is 16 in most places, being allowed to purchase alcohol is restricted to 18 and older in many places. Yet you are saying a 15 can make a decision to rescind their citizenship?

PBAB seems to be arguing that a citizen of the UK can't rescind the UK's obligations at any age. That's the point I'm debating. I'm willing to consider whether 15 is too young to be held to such a decision. But if you believe the decision isn't binding regardless of the person's age, then such considerations are moot.

Do you think that if she'd been 25 when she made her choice, at that age the UK would be justified in holding her to it and making her effectively stateless due to her tying her fortunes to the Caliphate?

 

[theprestige]

It's your opinion that people who renounce their nationality (which Begum didn't - you have to make an official notification you have done so, but let's put that aside) and become 'an enemy of the state' should just be left to flounder, fails to take note of two legal issues:

1. It is illegal for a state to make one of its citizens stateless

The UK courts are examining whether her actions constitute a legal basis for considering her no longer a citizen. That's the only legality that I think matters here. It'll be interesting to see how the question is ultimately resolved.

2. The person in question was a minor as of the time in your view she renounced her British nationality to join the caliphate, and as such cannot do any such thing without parental permission.

Obviously this legal argument has yet to be accepted in this case.

And on anoher note, you have made the classic error of presuming citizenship confers some kind of character trait or worthiness. Id doesn't. It is just a label, nothing more, nothing less. Every nation in the world has its share of criminals, crooks, corrupt poilticians, gangsters, money launderers, etc, and it has zero bearing on their nationality.

Nope. You're imagining things I never said and don't believe. Why?

 

[RolandRat]

PS: Plenty of posts within this thread appear to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the current situation.

The current court cases are NOT about whether or not Begum should be allowed to return home to live in the UK and/or retain her British citizenship. Rather, they are solely about the much narrower issue of whether or not Begum should be allowed to travel back to the UK in order to appeal the revocation of her British citizenship and attendant banning from the UK.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court rules in Begum's favour on this narrow issue (and I'd guess that it will indeed rule in her favour), then all this will do is allow her to return to the UK to appeal on the core issue of her citizenship revocation and banning. Only if she wins THAT appeal will her British citizenship be restored, along with her right to reside in the UK of course. But if she comes back to fight that appeal and loses, then her ban and revocation will stand.

If she loses, then what? Where do we return her to and what happens if that country refuses to allow permission for her to enter?

 

[Vixen]

PBAB seems to be arguing that a citizen of the UK can't rescind the UK's obligations at any age. That's the point I'm debating. I'm willing to consider whether 15 is too young to be held to such a decision. But if you believe the decision isn't binding regardless of the person's age, then such considerations are moot.

Do you think that if she'd been 25 when she made her choice, at that age the UK would be justified in holding her to it and making her effectively stateless due to her tying her fortunes to the Caliphate?

By age 25, hopefully most people will have got their youthfully follies out of the way. It is the Icarus syndrome, adolescents do the most astonishingly reckless and dangerous things, based on a passionate keenly felt idealism. I was in Oxford Street Plaza some years ago and there was a little shop selling the most exquisite silver jewellery. The young man who was behind the counter, wearing a white robe and looking very young indeed said he had designed them all himself and it was based on his Islam faith and in that moment I could grasp it was a beautiful religion. The other time, at Kew Gardens there was a temporary structure built to reflect a mosque. It was so full of light, I began to understand the charm of this ideology. So I can well believe an unformed idealistic sixth form school girl might sincerely think it is the right thing to do to go and join ISIS. Think about all those people who flocked to help in the Spanish Civil War. We had loads of people from the UK and all over Europe racing to help out Finland when Russia invaded in the Winter War. People are idealistic -especially in their youth - and it can be a fine thing to see. Of course, it happens many fly too close to the sun, their wings of wax melt and like Icarus, they come crashing crashing down to earth and disillusionment.

Had Begum been 25 she would surely have been a different person. Probably graduated from uni and training as a doctor or similar. Instead, she found herself with three children by age 18 or 19 who all tragically died young and now she and hundreds of similar women of all nationalities and hundreds and hundreds of little children are stuck in a No man's land of gruesome prison camps in the middle of arrid desert for years and years, not knowing when they will leave.

Th UK government's attitude is quite shocking IMV.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If she loses, then what? Where do we return her to and what happens if that country refuses to allow permission for her to enter?

Gitmo? That seems to be an Oubliette of choice for such people.

 

[theprestige]

If she loses, then what? Where do we return her to and what happens if that country refuses to allow permission for her to enter?

Seems like a bit of a catch-22. If you rule that she can't return to argue the case, then you don't have to worry about kicking her out again if her case fails. On the other hand, it's difficult to justify denying her entry before that other case is decided.

Anyway, the age is a bit problematic for me. What's not problematic is the basic principle that allying oneself with a foreign enemy, by word or deed, nullifies the claim to citizenship. Even if you don't bother with a formal written renunciation.

UK law has other places where a formal legal result is established from an informal and illegal action. Squatter's rights, for example. You can trespass on someone's property, and live there without any formal or legal agreement about tenancy. You can pay no rent, perform no upkeep, and even do extensive property damage, and the law may still recognize you have a formal, legal claim to tenancy.

Same kind of thing here. ISIS purports to be a sovereign state at war with the UK (among others). You left the UK to live under ISIS rule and support their cause. What do you think that's supposed to mean, if not a de facto renunciation of UK allegiance and all that implies?

 

[theprestige]

By age 25, hopefully most people will have got their youthfully follies out of the way. It is the Icarus syndrome, adolescents do the most astonishingly reckless and dangerous things, based on a passionate keenly felt idealism. I was in Oxford Street Plaza some years ago and there was a little shop selling the most exquisite silver jewellery. The young man who was behind the counter, wearing a white robe and looking very young indeed said he had designed them all himself and it was based on his Islam faith and in that moment I could grasp it was a beautiful religion. The other time, at Kew Gardens there was a temporary structure built to reflect a mosque. It was so full of light, I began to understand the charm of this ideology. So I can well believe an unformed idealistic sixth form school girl might sincerely think it is the right thing to do to go and join ISIS. Think about all those people who flocked to help in the Spanish Civil War. We had loads of people from the UK and all over Europe racing to help out Finland when Russia invaded in the Winter War. People are idealistic -especially in their youth - and it can be a fine thing to see. Of course, it happens many fly too close to the sun, their wings of wax melt and like Icarus, they come crashing crashing down to earth and disillusionment.

Had Begum been 25 she would surely have been a different person. Probably graduated from uni and training as a doctor or similar. Instead, she found herself with three children by age 18 or 19 who all tragically died young and now she and hundreds of similar women of all nationalities and hundreds and hundreds of little children are stuck in a No man's land of gruesome prison camps in the middle of arrid desert for years and years, not knowing when they will leave.

Th UK government's attitude is quite shocking IMV.

I appreciate your optimism in imagining that if she were 25 she'd see the foolishness of joining ISIS, and none of this would be happening.

But imagine just for a moment that a 25 year-old did choose to leave the UK and join the Caliphate? Do you think, at that age, the UK would be justified in holding her to her choice and making her effectively stateless due to her tying her fortunes to the Caliphate?

 

[theprestige]

Gitmo? That seems to be an Oubliette of choice for such people.

Don't see how the UK could convince the US that she's their problem, either. Probably have to set up their own black site(s). Somewhere in Wales or Scotland, probably. Maybe in a basement under Thames House.

Does the UK have any kind of Witness Relocation Program? Maybe they should just give her a new name and a job in Northern Ireland, and leave it at that.

 

[RolandRat]

Seems like a bit of a catch-22. If you rule that she can't return to argue the case, then you don't have to worry about kicking her out again if her case fails. On the other hand, it's difficult to justify denying her entry before that other case is decided.

Ah sorry, what I meant was, say she is allowed to return to argue that removing her citizenship was illegal. She returns. She argues her case. She loses.

It seems to me she cannot be returned anywhere after that. Who is going to take her? So she defacto wins.

 

[theprestige]

Ah sorry, what I meant was, say she is allowed to return to argue that removing her citizenship was illegal. She returns. She argues her case. She loses.

It seems to me she cannot be returned anywhere after that. Who is going to take her? So she defacto wins.

Thanks. I think we were converging on the same conclusion. And actually that might be a sound legal argument for denying her entry to plead her case. If there's no way to evict her again regardless, then admitting her at all grants exactly the claim under dispute.

It'll be interesting if the government makes that argument, and if the court agrees.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ah sorry, what I meant was, say she is allowed to return to argue that removing her citizenship was illegal. She returns. She argues her case. She loses.

It seems to me she cannot be returned anywhere after that. Who is going to take her? So she defacto wins.

This is why america is so much smarter to just use drone strikes instead of all this citizenship and turning people into stateless individuals. Much cleaner and neater. And it does still offer a solution to this.

 

[PursuedByABear]

Fair enough. I withdraw my assertion that Bangladesh is involved. I think I was wrong about that.


I don't think that's exactly what the UK is saying, and that's not something I'm interested trying to justify.

I think what can be justified is something along the lines of "this person has pledged allegiance to our enemies, and thus we are disavowing her. She is now the problem of anyone else who wants to take up her cause. Could be ISIS, could be Bangladesh, could be whatever UN refugee camp she fetches up in. Whoever that may be, she's our enemy and we'll continue dealing with her on that basis."

The UK isn't obliged to grant the privileges and entitlements of citizenship to its enemies, just because it means Bangladesh will end up having to deal with them.

Nor do I think Bangladesh is obligated to deal with this person at all. Technically she might have a claim on their citizenship. That's what I alluded to earlier, but technically correct is the worst kind of correct. As you say, is a compelling argument that Bangladesh owes her nothing at all, and would be well within ethical bounds to leave her where she is.


I think you're imagining a slippery slope that doesn't exist. The vast majority of criminals don't find themselves stranded overseas in the region of a failed state that they pledged allegiance to, and which is the avowed enemy of the criminal's country of origin.


They're welcome to try, I suppose. But I doubt they will. One obvious problem with your scenario is that unlike Begum, all those other criminals are very much citizens of Bangladesh. On the other hand, if Bangladesh does have any of their former citizens in other parts of the world, participating in crimes and acts of war against Bangladesh and its allies, I wouldn't hold it against the country for disavowing those people and letting other possible host countries deal with the implications. If they want to. And if those countries don't want to, I don't hold that against them, either.

ISIS failure to make a go of it as a sovereign state at war with the world doesn't obligate the UK to uphold their people's erstwhile citizenship. UK's refusal to welcome her back within their borders doesn't obligate Bangladesh to step up and grant her citizenship. Bangladesh's reluctance to see her as one of their own doesn't obligate the UK to take her in.

The way I see it, the UK's obligations to her ended when she renounced the UK, embraced the Caliphate, and traveled there to make a new life in a country at war with the UK. From then on, the UK's dealings with her a courtesy, more out of practical considerations than any ethical duty.

What you are missing is that under International law, the only thing that makes it possible for the UK to withdraw citizenship is their claim that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. You can not make a person stateless. Withdrawing British citizenship is, overtly, saying that we consider her Bangladeshi.

Also, she is in Syria. Syria is not our enemy.

 

[PursuedByABear]

This is why america is so much smarter to just use drone strikes instead of all this citizenship and turning people into stateless individuals. Much cleaner and neater. And it does still offer a solution to this.

Drone strikes against stupid 20 year old women? That's your solution?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Drone strikes against stupid 20 year old women? That's your solution?

That is the American Way(tm) of course, though not my preferred solution.

 

[theprestige]

What you are missing is that under International law, the only thnig that makes it possible for the UK to withdraw citizenship is their claim that she is entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. You can not make a person stateless. Withdrawing British citizenship is, overtly, saying that we consider her Bangladeshi.

I guess it's down to technically correct after all. If she has a legal claim to Bangladeshi citizenship, then she's not stateless. UK obligations under the law are satisfied.

Also, "international law" isn't binding. The UK is a sovereign nation. The only laws that apply are laws that the UK has ratified as UK law. If the UK has ratified the relevant international "laws" as actual UK laws, then fine. But appeal to the actual UK laws, please.

Also, she is in Syria. Syria is not our enemy.

She's in Syria now, because the Caliphate is a failed state and Syria reclaimed possession of their territory. I think this is a decent legal (or at least ethical) argument for Syria being responsible for her. A territory rebels, secedes, and declares themselves sovereign. You invade, defeat them, and reclaim their territory. I think this means you take responsibility for everyone and everything in the territory you're reclaiming. You're welcome to try to repatriate the secessionists' fellow travelers and foreign legions if you can. But if their nations of origin don't want them either, tough noogies. It's your territory. You claimed it, you conquered it, you own it. The people in it are now effectively your people, for better or worse.

 

[theprestige]

Drone strikes against stupid 20 year old women? That's your solution?

pt is indicting policies he opposes, through sarcastic hyperbole. You'll get used to it.

ETA: I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the nature of collateral damage in warfare, and the circumstances that justify it. But it's not really relevant to this thread. (And nobody who's opposed to US drone strike policy seems interested in that discussion anyway.)