13 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40

 

see section (4A)

 

It was for this reason why TEO were introduced

See (as way of an example) Boris Johnson’s dual citizenship.

 

See (as way of an example) Chris Froome’s dual citizenship.

 

 

See (as way of an example) the thousands of British citizens claiming dual Irish citizenship in response to Brexit.

 

Your reading of the law is embarrassingly bad.

 

Her latest interview:

Despite the above it wouldn't surprize me if HMG galloped to the rescue & had her back in UK courtesy of the taxpayer by next w/e.

I hope i'm wrong.

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Unfortunately her child was born in Syria, so is not a British citizen. I believe that was the mad rush for her to give birth on British soil. Bad luck.

I was thinking that as she was not born in the UK, thinking of the "by decent rule", but as she is mot probably a "Naturalized Citizen" therefore the child is probably entitled to British Citizenship.

 

I do think that as long as a person who acquired citizenship by Naturalization and has (right to) another nationality they could have it removed for any "gross" act of anti British sentiment. 

 

I does seem unfair that British subject, who can trace there family tree back generations of British subjects, whose parents lived and worked in the UK, and they did also, but were for what ever reason born out side the UK can not always pass on there citizenship, yet seems this person not born in the UK, going to the aid of enemies of this Country, gives new meaning to "Sleeping with the enemy".

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

See (as way of an example) Boris Johnson’s dual citizenship.

 

See (as way of an example) Chris Froome’s dual citizenship.

 

 

See (as way of an example) the thousands of British citizens claiming dual Irish citizenship in response to Brexit.

 

Your reading of the law is embarrassingly bad.

 

In the context of the post responded to, was the womans citizenship  could be revoked due to the possibility of eligibility for Bangladeshi citizenship even though she does not posses such. 

The provisions in UK law only allow for this in the circumstances were the British citizenship is by naturalisation.

It would appear that the woman does not posses dual nationality and British by Birth, thus citizenship revocation is not possible.

The UK is likely to issue a TEO 

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

I was thinking that as she was not born in the UK, thinking of the "by decent rule", but as she is mot probably a "Naturalized Citizen" therefore the child is probably entitled to British Citizenship.

 

I do think that as long as a person who acquired citizenship by Naturalization and has (right to) another nationality they could have it removed for any "gross" act of anti British sentiment. 

 

I does seem unfair that British subject, who can trace there family tree back generations of British subjects, whose parents lived and worked in the UK, and they did also, but were for what ever reason born out side the UK can not always pass on there citizenship, yet seems this person not born in the UK, going to the aid of enemies of this Country, gives new meaning to "Sleeping with the enemy".

Where is the info about her not being born in the UK

I'm posting this separately as it appears to be a longer version:

 

Not a terrorist, but the wife of one and following a prophet who claimed he was victorious by terror. If she did not agree with terrorism why leave it until Isis were almost defeated to try and bail out to a comfy council flat and benefits for life provided by a society she hates?

We must be mad, literally mad to let these evil people back into the UK. She was not just a housewife or a victim, she was a terrorist supporter cheering from behind her burka. Sorry darling supporting one of the most barbarous and evil movements in history WAS dangerous, stupid and wrong. Sympathy is with those butchered, burned, raped, hanged and flung off roofs while you smiled, NONE for you.

19 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Where is the info about her not being born in the UK

I heard she came to the UK at the age of 3...

49 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40

 

see section (4A)

 

It was for this reason why TEO were introduced

All very well to quote UK legislation. But Bangladeshi law might also have a teeny weeny bearing here.

4 minutes ago, Basil B said:

I heard she came to the UK at the age of 3...

In interviews she talks about returning to country of birth, presumed to be Uk

2 minutes ago, OJAS said:

All very well to quote UK legislation. But Bangladeshi law might also have a teeny weeny bearing here.

Bangladeshi law is irrelevant. It is the UK who can only remove her citizenship. This would have to be done under UK law.

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

In interviews she talks about returning to country of birth, presumed to be Uk

You believe what she has to say about anything? Who cares where she was born, she should never be let back into the UK.

19 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

You believe what she has to say about anything? Who cares where she was born, she should never be let back into the UK.

If she is British , why should Britain be allowed to export their problem citizens and abdicate its responsibilities.

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

In interviews she talks about returning to country of birth, presumed to be Uk

It was something I heard on the TV or Radio, maybe I was wrong.

 

As much as I hope she does not come back, I do believe anyone that has been educated in the UK would find it hard to make their way in another country where the customs and language differ to the UK, but there again she seems to have done alright in an IS knocking shop.

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

If she is British , why should Britain be allowed to export their problem citizens and abdicate its responsibilities.

As she isnt in the UK , there would be no need to "export"

28 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

In interviews she talks about returning to country of birth, presumed to be Uk

If that is so important , she should keep her child in its country of birth

I tend to believe these schoolgirls received from their parents an education that made them easily receptive to radical islamism propaganda.

They were well aware of the ideology and the crimes ISIS claimed responsibility for in the UK and in Europe.

Since they made their choice to leave for Syria and join ISIS, the UK owes them nothing.

 

There's an argument to be made that rather than bring her back to the UK, she, along with the other captured ISIS fighters in Syria, should be put on trial in the country she broke the law in.

trump is threatening to release all foreign ISIS prisoners if their home countries refuse to take them back for trial. Stable genius at work....LOL

7 hours ago, Basil B said:

I heard she came to the UK at the age of 3...

yes I heard this too. Cant fin a source and her wiki page claims she was born in the UK. Will try to find it

10 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

If she is British , why should Britain be allowed to export their problem citizens and abdicate its responsibilities.

British now it suits her, up until now she has identified herself as Muslim Jihadist. Britain was a place she turned here back on and despised when she was off to help fight against western values. She asked for sympathy but had none for those innocents with their heads cut off, she was quite happy about that. It's not Britain exporting it's problems, it's Islam.

I think it was Robert Frost who said, "Home is where, when you have to go there, they have to take you."

All these scummy isis fighters and their " wifes " should be kept in syria..tried in syria..found guilty the dealt with under syrian law.

trump is threatening to release all foreign ISIS prisoners if their home countries refuse to take them back for trial. Stable genius at work....LOL

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

Sorry..THEN dealt with etc

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

8 minutes ago, malagateddy said:

All these scummy isis fighters and their " wifes " should be kept in syria..tried in syria..found guilty the dealt with under syrian law.

 

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

 

They are not held by the Syrian government, but by rebel forces, mostly SDF supported primarily by US forces. trump has no remit to dictate to allied countries as to how they should process captured nationals. trump threatening to release foreign fighters held by SDF is the utmost stupidity, seems he can only threaten, not negotiate, the guy is the idiocracy incarnate. It was the unbelievably ignorant policies during the US occupation of Iraq that led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Logically it is US responsibility to deal with them under the Rule of Law.

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

trump is threatening to release all foreign ISIS prisoners if their home countries refuse to take them back for trial. Stable genius at work....LOL

yes.. and according to Trump, Saudi Arabia is the good guy.. as long as oïl prevails. Did Trump tell MBS to stop funding ISIS ( US legacy of 2003) ? 

On 2/14/2019 at 7:23 PM, overherebc said:

So now she wants to come 'home' and take advantage of the social services in UK.

I can't post the words.

To be supported, clothed and fed by the very country that she abandoned and betrayed for a "better life".....

 

The very thought of that makes me cringe and worry about the mental capacity of those in charge who would welcome this terrorist and radicalised supporter back to the UK........what happened to the old saying, "you've made your bed, now lie in it".

Think most people are well aware of certain nations foreign policies.
However..as a Brit..I remember the atrocities committed by the likes of scummy isis members/supporters/wifes etc etc. Manchester Arena for example.
I also am a " spades a spade " man.
The world would be well rid of the isis scum..treat them the way they treated other people.

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

11 minutes ago, simple1 said:

They are not held by the Syrian government, but by rebel forces, mostly SDF supported primarily by US forces. trump has no remit to dictate to allied countries as to how they should process captured nationals. trump threatening to release foreign fighters held by SDF is the utmost stupidity, seems he can only threaten, not negotiate, the guy is the idiocracy incarnate. It was the unbelievably ignorant policies during the US occupation of Iraq that led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Logically it is US responsibility to deal with them under the Rule of Law.

Logically as they are Islamist fanatics they should be dealt with under sharia law, it's their right as an oppressed minority! What is the punishment in sharia for troublemakers, banishment, cutting off limbs or Crucifixion.

2 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Logically as they are Islamist fanatics they should be dealt with under sharia law, it's their right as an oppressed minority! What is the punishment in sharia for troublemakers, banishment, cutting off limbs or Crucifixion.

and then they'll be entitled to turn into asylum seekers thanks to our democratic laws