ISIS teenager wants to come home

[PursuedByABear]

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?

No, never.

You don't do anything to help them return, and if they do return you prosecute them under UK law acording to what laws they have broken. But you don't make people stateless and say they are somebody else's problem. She went to Syria to fight the official Syrian government; if they want to prosecute her for that, they are welcome to, but if they want to send her back to us, we have to take her.

 

[theprestige]

No, never.

You don't do anything to help them return, and if they do return you prosecute them under UK law acording to what laws they have broken. But you don't make people stateless and say they are somebody else's problem. She went to Syria to fight the official Syrian government; if they want to prosecute her for that, they are welcome to, but if they want to send her back to us, we have to take her.

Okay then. It seems like we each know where we stand. On the legal question, all that remains is to see if the UK courts agree with your interpretation.

On the ethical question, I think we're going to continue to disagree. I don't think that leaving the country to join an enemy state entitles you to a citizenship do-over when that state fails and is conquered by one of its other enemies.

Actually, what is your position on that? Is your objection purely legal? Or do you also think that those who ally themselves with something like ISIS' Caliphate are ethically entitled to regain citizenship in the country they set themselves against?

 

[PursuedByABear]

Okay then. It seems like we each know where we stand. On the legal question, all that remains is to see if the UK courts agree with your interpretation.

On the ethical question, I think we're going to continue to disagree. I don't think that leaving the country to join an enemy state entitles you to a citizenship do-over when that state fails and is conquered by one of its other enemies.

Actually, what is your position on that? Is your objection purely legal? Or do you also think that those who ally themselves with something like ISIS' Caliphate are ethically entitled to regain citizenship in the country they set themselves against?

As I have said, repeatedly, I think you have to take responsibiity for your own problems. There is no ISIS state. If there were, she could stay there. If you say she is not British you are saying Syria or Bangladesh should deal with her. Why should they?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay then. It seems like we each know where we stand. On the legal question, all that remains is to see if the UK courts agree with your interpretation.

On the ethical question, I think we're going to continue to disagree. I don't think that leaving the country to join an enemy state entitles you to a citizenship do-over when that state fails and is conquered by one of its other enemies.

Actually, what is your position on that? Is your objection purely legal? Or do you also think that those who ally themselves with something like ISIS' Caliphate are ethically entitled to regain citizenship in the country they set themselves against?

Why should they need to leave? just kick out any with sufficiently undesirable ideologies.

 

[PursuedByABear]

Why should they need to leave? just kick out any with sufficiently undesirable ideologies.

Kick them out to where?

 

[theprestige]

As I have said, repeatedly, I think you have to take responsibiity for your own problems. There is no ISIS state. If there were, she could stay there. If you say she is not British you are saying Syria or Bangladesh should deal with her. Why should they?

I've already given my complete argument for why Syria should deal with her. I think if she presses a claim to Bangladeshi citizenship it'll probably obligate that country to deal with her.

I get that she was radicalized on UK soil, and that has implications for "you take responsibility for your own problems." But how far does that responsibility extend? If Soviet agents recruit a British citizen to spy for them, and that citizen later defects to the USSR, what happens when the USSR collapses? Does Ukraine or Belarus get to kick them back to the UK, under "you take responsibility for your own problems"?

 

[theprestige]

Kick them out to where?

LOL.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Kick them out to where?

Where ever you want, just put them on a plane and they magically become someone else's problem. I mean you don't think the US actually deports everyone back to their original country? With a lot of the kids who go through the deportation system they are too young to really know where they are from, and as they have to represent themselves in court they could pretty much end up anywhere.

 

[PursuedByABear]

**missed a couple of posts

 

[PursuedByABear]

I've already given my complete argument for why Syria should deal with her. I think if she presses a claim to Bangladeshi citizenship it'll probably obligate that country to deal with her.

I get that she was radicalized on UK soil, and that has implications for "you take responsibility for your own problems." But how far does that responsibility extend? If Soviet agents recruit a British citizen to spy for them, and that citizen later defects to the USSR, what happens when the USSR collapses? Does Ukraine or Belarus get to kick them back to the UK, under "you take responsibility for your own problems"?

Your argument that she is Syria's responsibilty appears to be that if someone joins an army and invades a country, they become the responsibiilty of the country they invade. This makes no sense to me whatsoever, I am afraid.

If someone was a citizen of the USSR they would become a citizen of one of the successor states.

There never was an ISIL state in anybody's eyes but ISIL. They were rebels and illegal fighters illegally occupying Syrian territory in the eyes of both Syria and the UK.

 

[PursuedByABear]

Where ever you want, just put them on a plane and they magically become someone else's problem. I mean you don't think the US actually deports everyone back to their original country? With a lot of the kids who go through the deportation system they are too young to really know where they are from, and as they have to represent themselves in court they could pretty much end up anywhere.

The problem is the things you are saying are by no means exaggerated. There's no way to distinguish you from many of the other posters here and elsewhere saying those things seriously.

 

[PursuedByABear]

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.

Yes - by saying we consider her to be Bangladeshi. That's what I said. This might be legal (it doesn't seem to be, but it might be) but it still isn't remotely justified.

Tell me what you would say if you were the UK foreign secretary and your Bangladeshi counterpart called and said "Oi, you ****, we don't want your terrorists, what the *** do you think are doing?"

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.

This is just nonsense.The territory wasn't reclaimed. The territory never even rebelled. Certain people in it, accompanied by far more from outside it, raised an armed insurrection.

 

[RolandRat]

Yes - by saying we consider her to be Bangladeshi. That's what I said. This might be legal (it doesn't seem to be, but it might be) but it still isn't remotely justified.

Being justified or not isn't really relevant. Personally, I think it is justified.

 

[Darat]

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?

She'd obviously be in the UK, and we'd have to deal with her like we do any illegal alien.

 

[PursuedByABear]

Being justified or not isn't really relevant. Personally, I think it is justified.

What is the justification? What did Bangladesh do to deserve her?

 

[PursuedByABear]

One thing I am pretty certain of is that if she had an Irish grandmother, we wouldn't even be thinking of telling Ireland she was their problem now, and none of the people so keen to say Bangladesh can take her would see any justification in palming her off on the Irish.

But, you know, she's brown. Send her to a brown country. They are all terrorists anyway.

 

[theprestige]

Yes - by saying we consider her to be Bangladeshi. That's what I said. This might be legal (it doesn't seem to be, but it might be) but it still isn't remotely justified.

Tell me what you would say if you were the UK foreign secretary and your Bangladeshi counterpart called and said "Oi, you ****, we don't want your terrorists, what the *** do you think are doing?"

I'd tell him to call back when he can keep a civil tongue in his head.

Actually, I'd probably tell him I appreciate the sentiment, but as far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned she by her actions is no longer entitled to UK citizenship; that by her claim to Bangladeshi citizenship the Government's responsibility to "international law" are fulfilled; and that she's in a refugee camp in Syria if they want to go get her, but if they'd rather let her stay there that's fine too.

This is just nonsense.The territory wasn't reclaimed. The territory never even rebelled. Certain people in it, accompanied by far more from outside it, raised an armed insurrection.

That's good enough for me, but I can understand how others might see it differently. ETA: Sorry, I should clarify. My judgement is based on her chosen affiliation, not on the degree of success her preferred patron state achieved in their rebellion.

Looks like we've each presented our positions at least twice now, with no sign of either of us changing our minds. You want to call it here, or keep going?

 

[LondonJohn]

Of coure it is only the High Court that can grant permission to take a case to the Supreme Court. You don't think that just anybody can turn up?

The Home Office (government) is the appellent. There is no confusion there. Begum's counsel have cross-appealed and that stays until Begum is able to appear in person to argue the point as stated in my post, in her own appeal. She won this because a priniciple of law is that you have a right to turn up at your own hearing. The Home Office has appealed against her winning her appeal to challenge the tribunal's verdict and has argued 'public interest'. The High Court has deemed that this is is a grey area of law that is worthy of consideration by a Supreme Court panel of judges, usually between three and five.

Until the Supreme Court hearing is heard Begum is unable to step foot in the UK at all as the issue is stayed until the verdict. The Home Office has taken this step because - hey! - one can appeal any decision by a court, so that is what the Home Office did and 'in the public interest' is a specified point of law on which one can appeal. The High Court granted it but could have refused.

It is clear the Home Office is aware that as soon as Begum sets foot in the UK, they will have to arrest her and charge her. They will then have great difficulty deporting her anywhere as she would be stateless were she to lose her appeal. I doubt they can send her to Bangladesh as the UK has a veto on sending anyone to a country that prescribes a likely death sentence.

No, Vixen.

Let's start again here, shall we?

Firstly, you wrote this:

"So now the British government are taking it to the Supreme Court, so Begum can't return until that is decided."

See how you're stating that it is the British Government that is "taking it (the case) to the Supreme Court"?


I then responded to that statement by telling you that in fact it was the Court of Appeal judges who had sent the case to the SC. They did so entirely of their own volition, since they judged that the principle at stake here ought to be decided by the highest court. The British Government had nothing whatsoever to do with the case going up to the SC (save for the fact that they appealed to the Court of Appeal in the first place, of course....).

So your statement was false, Vixen. I showed you how and why it was false. Yet (where have I seen this before....?!) you seem unable to clock up an error and move on. That's Argumentation From Chutzpah indeed

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

This is exactly what the Govt is, in effect, arguing. Outside of this argument, there's no real reason to deny her entry in order to appeal her ban/revocation order.

 

[PursuedByABear]

I'd tell him to call back when he can keep a civil tongue in his head.

Actually, I'd probably tell him I appreciate the sentiment, but as far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned she by her actions is no longer entitled to UK citizenship; that by her claim to Bangladeshi citizenship the Government's responsibility to "international law" are fulfilled; and that she's in a refugee camp in Syria if they want to go get her, but if they'd rather let her stay there that's fine too.


That's good enough for me, but I can understand how others might see it differently. ETA: Sorry, I should clarify. My judgement is based on her chosen affiliation, not on the degree of success her preferred patron state achieved in their rebellion.

Looks like we've each presented our positions at least twice now, with no sign of either of us changing our minds. You want to call it here, or keep going?

You could give some reason as to how you think it's ok to drag Bangladesh into it. You just keep saying that it's legal, so it's ok. Why do you think it is ok to push your problems onto someone else just because you have the legal right to do so?

Again, what moral judgement are you using to claim that someone who comes to your country to try and overthrow the government by force becomes your responsibility and cannot be repatriated to their country of origin? What sequence of thoughts in your mind makes this seem reasonable? "It's fine by me" gives me no information as to your thought proceses. These positions go against all common sense, so need explaining.