With terrorists anything is possible and we, via social media are all too often conned into believing whatever we're presented. I'll resist the urge to comment further other than to say that UK has no obligation whatsoever to facilitate her return & she deserves whatever she gets from the courts on arrival.

 

Edited March 9, 20197 yr by evadgib

Remember that a certain D Cameron stripped a Glasgow girl who went to a fee-paying school of her citizenship...the she-scum joined isis you see!!
Hence the precedent has been set.
Bottom line..SHE MADE HER BED.
She was quite happy with her " husband " and others beheading/ mutilating other people!!!!
As far as I'm concerned..I hope that the very brave female Kurdish Lady fighters get their hands on her and all the other she-isis slags.

The UK is a sovereign state again, almost. We have the right to strip terrorist traitors of their citizenship, and have done, International law can say what it likes.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

and the Labour Party, an excuse for the new Trotsky Party, blame the Home Secretary for the baby's death.  The fault lies squarely with it's terrorist sympathising mother. Bang goes her last chance of getting back in the UK, unless the no balls politicians get all teary eyed and relent.   

20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

All babies are born innocent.

 

It is what gets brainwashed into them as they grow up that is the problem.

 

The babies mother left home at 15 years old to join a terrorist organisation and the father was terrorist from Holland.

 

With parents like that who knows what the child may have turned out to be?

we can sure make an educated guess.  

6 hours ago, JAG said:

Whatever you think of his parents, and my opinion of them is as low as you can get, the baby was an innocent.

If the baby wasn't dead, fast forward about 18 years, and then

Edited March 9, 20197 yr by possum1931

3 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Don't remember Isis abiding by even one international law

I have no time for ISIS or anyone connected with them, but does Thailand always abide by international law? Look inside any IDC centre.

12 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

I have no time for ISIS or anyone connected with them, but does Thailand always abide by international law? Look inside any IDC centre.

Not sure that comparing Thailand to ISIS is altogether fair. 

2 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

The UK is a sovereign state again, almost. We have the right to strip terrorist traitors of their citizenship, and have done, International law can say what it likes.

So far as I'm aware HMG has always had the sovereign right to enact and enforce anti terrorism / counter terrorism laws. UK does not have the 'right' to make someone Stateless. UK should comply with the Rule of Law, not act in the same manner as a terrorist organisation. Should HMG decide current laws are insufficient for managing the return of IS members or any other terrorist group, then enact relevant changes.

 

IMO IS members should not be permitted to remain in Syria or elsewhere, but returned to the UK in a secure manner to face justice. if it costs millions to detain them for life, so be it.

Edited March 9, 20197 yr by simple1

33 minutes ago, samran said:

A baby has died. 

 

Post says a lot about you and most of the respondents here. 

 

So I repeat my question.

 

What should have been the 'right' course of action to protect the innocent baby?

An off topic post has been removed. 

 

Some troll posts and the replies have been removed. 

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

If the father is a terrorist and the mother terrorist supporter, what kind of education would they give their kid? and why the UK or any other sain country will aid in caring for the sons and daughters of would be future terrorists?...

 

Grandparents, who are UK citizens and against whom there is nothing, were willing and able to take care of the baby.

 

Baby should have been brought to the UK IMO, assuming the mother was prepared to relinquish custody to allow that.  The grandparents have every reason to be upset.

 

The mother's situation is more complex as not clear if she has other nationality and thus could legally be stripped of UK nationality. From what I read, likely not. Being eligible to apply for another nationality is not the same things and holding another nationality and it is against international law to strip someone of their nationality unless they have nationality elsewhere.  And odds are good that any country she might apply to for nationality would deny her (I think Bangladesh has more or less stated they would) for the exact same reason that UK does not want her back.

 

Countries are playing a game of hot potato over these people. In the end, some country is going to have to deal with each of them and it is likely to be one whose nationality they already held, not one they newly apply to for nationality which almost surely turns them down. Understandable no country wants this, but it is a reality...these camps can't be maintained forever nor is it wise to try in terms of security in that region. 

 

Surely she has broken a number of laws and can be prosecuted accordingly.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Not sure that comparing Thailand to ISIS is altogether fair. 

I am not comparing Thailand with ISIS. I am just stating that international law or what ever it is called, do

not allow for the treatment that Thailand gives to people in IDC.

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

except for the tiny matter of international law.

What are the "international laws" that state that the U.K should let her return to the UK ?

3 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

I am not comparing Thailand with ISIS. I am just stating that international law or what ever it is called, do

not allow for the treatment that Thailand gives to people in IDC.

International law, for what's it's worth, is toothless and mostly irrelevant. The countries with the worst human rights rercords don't give a fig for it. 

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

What are the "international laws" that state that the U.K should let her return to the UK ?

A UN convention from 1961 goes further, banning the withdrawal of citizenshipbased on race, religion or politics, and also banning it in cases where doing so would leave a person stateless. ... Under recent legislation, British-born citizenscan only be stripped of British citizenship if they have another nationality.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2019/03/08/when-can-governments-revoke-citizenship

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

What are the "international laws" that state that the U.K should let her return to the UK ?

1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Person. The URL below clarifies how HMG UK Law addresses the matter.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518120/David_Anderson_QC_-_CITIZENSHIP_REMOVAL__web_.pdf

6 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

International law, for what's it's worth, is toothless and mostly irrelevant. The countries with the worst human rights rercords don't give a fig for it. 

I agree with you entirely.

5 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Insane for not locking him up sooner?

No such person, there is a Yaxley, however, he's a convicted thug and fraudster who counts numerous convicted kiddie fiddlers amongst his followers.

Quote

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott also criticised the actions of the Home Office.

She tweeted: "It is against international law to make someone stateless, and now an innocent child has died as a result of a British woman being stripped of her citizenship. This is callous and inhumane."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506145

 

Ms Abbott shooting Labour in the foot again...

 

Did not this start with a stupid girl steeling her sisters passport and running away from home to join the ISIS?

Before her nationality was revoked did she not do a number of media interviews basically glorying the ISIS? including stating how she went to a bin to hold up a decapitated head (and probably spat on it), I am sure the person to whom the head belonged is not sorry for her.

Were not her parents going to the press stating the the UK Government should go out there and rescue her? putting consulate employees at risk and giving her a free ride home.  

 

Does Ms Abbott really think attacking the government on this issue is really going to get Labour more support???

 

Edited March 9, 20197 yr by Basil B
missed link added

23 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

If that is what the law says then change the law.  Can you imagine Thailand having and truck with liberal sensibilities over a case like this.  So, she has no nationality, tough !  

 

Take a few minutes to think this through.

 

There are 65,000 people in that one camp alone, most of them foreigners. (And at least  half of them children). And there are other locations as well.

 

If it is your position that the countries whose nationals these are have the right to render them stateless, that will make it impossible for the Syrian government to deport tens of thousands of foreigners whom they never granted entry to and have every reason to object to.

 

Is it fair to saddle another country with thousands of foreign undesirables?  What if  other countries followed suit, and  the UK were then unable to deport ant undesirable aliens because their home countries conveniently revoked their nationality so as to avoid having to deal with them, making them permanently the UK's problem? 

 

Your emotion is understandable but the proposed approach would lead to major chaos for all nations and serve no helpful purpose.

 

One way or another, some authority has to deal with these  people and it is more fair that it be the countries whose nationals they were than whatever country they happen to physically be in at a point in time. This is not - or should not be - a game of musical chairs, and making it so could set a precedent that would come back to bite.

 

There are also the human rights of tens of thousands of children who had nothing to do with the wrong actions of their parents to consider.

9 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

The mother's situation is more complex as not clear if she has other nationality and thus could legally be stripped of UK nationality. From what I read, likely not. Being eligible to apply for another nationality is not the same things and holding another nationality and it is against international law to strip someone of their nationality unless they have nationality elsewhere.  

 

(I would firstly just like to say , I did edit your post , as you made a long post will various valid points and I would just like to reply to this one point you made , I hope thats acceptable in the editing posts rules)

   People do not have to apply for "nationality" , they are born with it . The child was born with British nationality due to his parent being British , same as the Mother , she was born to Bangladeshi parents and thus she is automatically Bangladeshi , so she has Bangladeshi Nationality .

   "Stateless " is when neither of your parents dont have any Nationality .

People are born with nationality , it doesnt have to be applied for .

Yes, you have to apply for documentation from that Country in order to go there , but you are born with Nationality .

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

If the father is a terrorist and the mother terrorist supporter, what kind of education would they give their kid? and why the UK or any other sain country will aid in caring for the sons and daughters of would be future terrorists?...

If the UK was sane, they wouldn't have let so many members from the medieval death cult in. 

25 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

Grandparents, who are UK citizens and against whom there is nothing, were willing and able to take care of the baby.

 

Baby should have been brought to the UK IMO, assuming the mother was prepared to relinquish custody to allow that.  The grandparents have every reason to be upset.

 

The mother's situation is more complex as not clear if she has other nationality and thus could legally be stripped of UK nationality. From what I read, likely not. Being eligible to apply for another nationality is not the same things and holding another nationality and it is against international law to strip someone of their nationality unless they have nationality elsewhere.  And odds are good that any country she might apply to for nationality would deny her (I think Bangladesh has more or less stated they would) for the exact same reason that UK does not want her back.

 

Countries are playing a game of hot potato over these people. In the end, some country is going to have to deal with each of them and it is likely to be one whose nationality they already held, not one they newly apply to for nationality which almost surely turns them down. Understandable no country wants this, but it is a reality...these camps can't be maintained forever nor is it wise to try in terms of security in that region. 

 

Surely she has broken a number of laws and can be prosecuted accordingly.

 

 

When questioned by I think a Sky reporter, he asked her if she would be prepared to allow the baby to go back to the UK without her, she said no.

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

(I would firstly just like to say , I did edit your post , as you made a long post will various valid points and I would just like to reply to this one point you made , I hope thats acceptable in the editing posts rules)

   People do not have to apply for "nationality" , they are born with it . The child was born with British nationality due to his parent being British , same as the Mother , she was born to Bangladeshi parents and thus she is automatically Bangladeshi , so she has Bangladeshi Nationality .

   "Stateless " is when neither of your parents dont have any Nationality .

People are born with nationality , it doesnt have to be applied for .

Yes, you have to apply for documentation from that Country in order to go there , but you are born with Nationality .

I am not sure this is true.

 

The criteria for nationality are set by individual countries and vary by country.

 

Not all countries give automatic nationality to children born of their citizens abroad.

 

Statelessness does nto require that neither parent had a nationality. If it did there would be far, far fewer stateless persons than there are.

Oh dear, how sad- never mind.

Just now, Sheryl said:

I am not sure this is true.

 

The criteria for nationality are set by individual countries and vary by country.

 

Not all countries give automatic nationality to children born of their citizens abroad.

OK, dealing with this situation : Where was Shamina (The Mother )born and does Bangladesh give Nationality to children born of Bangladeshi parents , but born abroad ?

   It has been stated that Shamina was born in Bangladesh and left at 3 years old , which would give her Bangladeshi nationality , if those reports were incorrect and she was born abroad , would she still be Bangladeshi , due to being born abroad the Bangladeshi parents ?

  What does international law say about that ?

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

OK, dealing with this situation : Where was Shamina (The Mother )born and does Bangladesh give Nationality to children born of Bangladeshi parents , but born abroad ?

   It has been stated that Shamina was born in Bangladesh and left at 3 years old , which would give her Bangladeshi nationality , if those reports were incorrect and she was born abroad , would she still be Bangladeshi , due to being born abroad the Bangladeshi parents ?

  What does international law say about that ?

 

She was born in the UK. Where have you seen it stated to the contrary?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/06/shamima-begum-must-be-allowed-to-keep-uk-citizenship-father-syria-isis

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum

 

It appears that under Bangladeshi law someone born abroad to Bangladeshi parents does have Bangladeshi citizenship (assuming Wikipedia has this right) which makes it a dispute between UK and Bangladesh as to who has to deal with her.

 

There might also be grounds to factor in the country of the father depending on its laws re nationality.

 

But if this sort of haggling is going to go on for all of the tens of thousands in those camps, it is going to create a huge mess and prolonged crisis.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I am not sure this is true.

 

The criteria for nationality are set by individual countries and vary by country.

 

Not all countries give automatic nationality to children born of their citizens abroad.

 

Statelessness does nto require that neither parent had a nationality. If it did there would be far, far fewer stateless persons than there are.

Just done a bit of research :

https://www.dualcitizenship.com/countries/bangladesh.html

 

"Those that are born to at least one Bangladeshi parent acquire citizenship at birth. Those that are born in Bangladesh to parents whose identity and/or nationality are unknown also acquire citizenship by birth, as the child is assumed to be born to Bangladeshi nationals."

 

   The Mother is Bangladeshi from birth, thus its not against international law to remove her U.K. nationality on the grounds that she would be stateless 

 

 

58 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

So I repeat my question.

 

What should have been the 'right' course of action to protect the innocent baby?

A decently funded refugee camp with okay medical facilities for starters.

 

Interesting to see Yazidi kids who had been kidnapped are being repatriated quickly - presumably by international community. Couldn’t the Brits or Dutch have done the same?

 

Lock the mum up for all I care. I have very little sympathy for her.

 

Unlike others here however, I don’t profess to be an expert in Bangladesh citizenship law. 

 

10 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Just done a bit of research :

https://www.dualcitizenship.com/countries/bangladesh.html

 

"Those that are born to at least one Bangladeshi parent acquire citizenship at birth. Those that are born in Bangladesh to parents whose identity and/or nationality are unknown also acquire citizenship by birth, as the child is assumed to be born to Bangladeshi nationals."

 

   The Mother is Bangladeshi from birth, thus its not against international law to remove her U.K. nationality on the grounds that she would be stateless 

 

 

Nice selective copying. From the same source and in bigger letters at the top of the page:

Bangladesh permits dual citizenship under limited circumstances. Citizens of USA, UK Australia, Canada and Europe of Bangladeshi origin may apply for a Dual Nationality Certificate. This certificate makes it legal to possess a Bangladeshi passport in addition to a foreign passport.

https://www.dualcitizenship.com/countries/bangladesh.html

 

In other words, you have to apply for it.