Baby of Islamic State teenager in UK furore dies - group

[bristolboy]

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.

[Kinnock]

Unfortunately there are serious implication when you combine parenthood with criminal stupidity.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Kinnock said:

Unfortunately there are serious implication when you combine parenthood with criminal stupidity.

Therefore...?

[evadgib]

Several posters have fallen for the tale hook line & sinker. Let me explain:

 

1. We (the public) only ever saw her in 7th century attire & therefore have no way of knowing whether she was actually pregnant during her initial interview.

 

2. She later appeared with a bundle. Whether this was a baby or not wasn't clear & if it was we (the public) have no way of knowing that she hadn't simply 'borrowed it' for the cameras.

 

These people are terrorists! Deception is part of their everyday life and a child is a meal ticket they'll gladly exploit if it enables one of theirs to return home & fleece the state upon arrival (house, benefits, school, NHS & all the while being a 'sleeper').

 

HMG no doubt had all this in mind from the onset.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

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.

Yes, as I stated , you have to apply for documentation , but you are still born with the eligibility to apply for the documentation .

  She was born Bangladeshi through having Bangladeshi parents and although she has to apply for documentation , she isnt applying for Bangladeshi citizenship , as thats automatic , she just has to get the paperwork sorted out .

[samran]

2 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Several posters have fallen for the tale hook line & sinker. Let me explain:

 

1. We (the public) only ever saw her in 7th century attire & therefore have no way of knowing whether she was actually pregnant during her initial interview.

 

2. She later appeared with a bundle. Whether this was a baby or not wasn't clear & if it was we (the public) has no way of knowing that she hadn't simply 'borrowed it' for the cameras.

 

These people are terrorists! Deception is part of their everyday life and a child is a meal ticket they'll gladly exploit if it enables one of theirs to return home & fleece the state upon arrival (house, benefits, school, NHS & all the while being a 'sleeper').

 

HMG no doubt had all this in mind from the onset as, contrary to popular belief, their intelligence services are far from stupid.

Then why not have a trail under terrorism laws and lock her away forever?

[Kinnock]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Therefore...?

Mornington Crescent .... !

[Kinnock]

I'm sure there will be lots of finger pointing back in UK by the PC 'terrorists are people too' brigade, but the primary responsibility was hers, and she, in practice, had already renounced UK citizenship.

 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, as I stated , you have to apply for documentation , but you are still born with the eligibility to apply for the documentation .

  She was born Bangladeshi through having Bangladeshi parents and although she has to apply for documentation , she isnt applying for Bangladeshi citizenship , as thats automatic , she just has to get the paperwork sorted out .

It's up to Bangladesh to decide whether she gets it. That's a matter of domestic law, not international law. Until she has it, under international agreements she's a UK citizen.

[metisdead]

Some troll posts have been removed. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

I'm sure there will be lots of finger pointing back in UK by the PC 'terrorists are people too' brigade, but the primary responsibility was hers, and she, in practice, had already renounced UK citizenship.

 

Your Mornington Crescent citation was apt.

[malagateddy]

Ship them all to the likes of St Kilda or one of the other uninhabited little islands of the coast of scotland..very heavily mine the waters around the island..obviously contant surveillance will be required.
Then these savages can live out their 7th century dream..or..pay the usa to give them digs in gbay??
Why not?

 
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.
 
 

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

[evadgib]

12 minutes ago, samran said:

Then why not have a trail under terrorism laws and lock her away forever?

If you mean a trial I covered it in #32

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's up to Bangladesh to decide whether she gets it. That's a matter of domestic law, not international law. Until she has it, under international agreements she's a UK citizen.

No,  its her birthright , she was born a Bangladeshi through parenthood .

Bangladesh law states that shes Bangladeshi and maybe you could campaign to the Bangladeshi Government to abide by their own laws and allow her to have a passport , which she is entitled to have 

  She is no longer a dual national , she is 100 % Bangladeshi now and under International law, Bangladesh cannot make her stateless by refusing to acknowledge her citizenship 

[Pilotman]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

 

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.

Do you know, I hear what you say, on some level I even agree with what you are saying and certainly I sympathise with the plight of those young children, just as I do over the many thousands of children in many parts of Africa, where human rights are unknown.  But, and it's a big but, in this dangerous World that we now live in, we must protect our own, before trying to protect others, who are doing all that they can to destroy the society we hold dear.  So yes, in a perfect world I would agree with you, but just now, I struggle to give a damn about those that support terrorism, however tangentially and the concerns or problems of other countries who have to cope with them now.  

[Ulic]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

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.

We will have to agree to disagree. The UK may not have the right to render her stateless according to international law, and the issue is a grey area because while she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, only the right to claim it through he mother, the UK is not obligated to give her a passport or other travel documents. The cost of 10's of millions of pounds for round the clock surveillance after an expensive trial and jail sentence if found guilty is unsustainable. She should simply be left in Syria to live the life she has chosen to pursue there. Her parents should be investigated to understand why/how a 15-year-old girl was radicalized. Unrepentant and unwelcome to return to the UK is how I would view her.

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

No,  its her birthright , she was born a Bangladeshi through parenthood .

Bangladesh law states that shes Bangladeshi and maybe you could campaign to the Bangladeshi Government to abide by their own laws and allow her to have a passport , which she is entitled to have 

  She is no longer a dual national , she is 100 % Bangladeshi now and under International law, Bangladesh cannot make her stateless by refusing to acknowledge her citizenship 

 

I am suspicious  that:

It has been stated that she did not come to the UK until the age of 3, yet no mention of where she was born or lived for 3 years.

It has been stated that her mother is of Bangladeshi decent, but no mention of her farther, or other nationalities held by either parent.

 

Unless one or both parents had UK citizenship what citizenship did Shamima have before coming the UK?

 

Felling sorry for the child, Yes. for the mother, No.

 

There are many more children dying in refugee camps every day, why is this one more important?

 

There is only one person to blame, that's her mother.

[ivor bigun]

So she has had 3 children and all have died,well i blame only 1 person ,her,perhaps her prophet was not the right one after all.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Basil B said:

 

It has been stated that she did not come to the UK until the age of 3, yet no mention of where she was born or lived for 3 years.

 

I'm sure all kinds of things have been stated. But has this been stated on any reputable news source. I can't find it. Can you send a link?

[Ulic]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

 

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.

Well, the parents who traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS should certainly be tried and punished for crimes committed in Syria, in Syria. That is part of the problem of these terrorists returning home. They have committed few crimes if any, at home but remain an extreme danger. Western Countries don't have jurisdiction for crimes committed in Syria. Now if you are suggesting the laws of the UK/West should be changed to allow for full prosecution of crimes committed by ISIS around the world in their home countries, similar to laws many western countries have allowing pedophiles to be tried in their home countries for crimes committed abroad, that is another matter. A life sentence for those who left to fight for ISIS would seem proper. Of course, then the problem may solve itself with these terrorists not wanting to return. I am all for supporting money being given to the Syrian government to put all these terrorists on trial so it doesn't burden Syria, and thus being held accountable in the country they committed their crimes. 

[Kinnock]

47 minutes ago, Ulic said:

We will have to agree to disagree. The UK may not have the right to render her stateless according to international law, and the issue is a grey area because while she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, only the right to claim it through he mother, the UK is not obligated to give her a passport or other travel documents. The cost of 10's of millions of pounds for round the clock surveillance after an expensive trial and jail sentence if found guilty is unsustainable. She should simply be left in Syria to live the life she has chosen to pursue there. Her parents should be investigated to understand why/how a 15-year-old girl was radicalized. Unrepentant and unwelcome to return to the UK is how I would view her.

Is there really such a thing as 'international law' anyway?

 

There are various non governmental bodies that produce judgements that some countries (for example North Korea and China) choose to ignore, but isn't the only real law that of the relevant nation?

 

[simon43]

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.

 

The 'it' that you have to apply for is the Dual Nationality Certificate, not the actual nationality.  She has that already - she is a Bangladeshi.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Ulic said:

We will have to agree to disagree. The UK may not have the right to render her stateless according to international law, and the issue is a grey area because while she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, only the right to claim it through he mother, the UK is not obligated to give her a passport or other travel documents. The cost of 10's of millions of pounds for round the clock surveillance after an expensive trial and jail sentence if found guilty is unsustainable. She should simply be left in Syria to live the life she has chosen to pursue there. Her parents should be investigated to understand why/how a 15-year-old girl was radicalized. Unrepentant and unwelcome to return to the UK is how I would view her.

Bangladesh has already declined to process an application for citizenship. BTW I posted a link to UK law on the issue at hand, did you review? Currently the person is detained by the SDF, who likely do not have the capability to detain her long term, plus questionable the SDF can even hold the territory in the longer term. The whole situation with thousands held, having previously lived under IS rule, is an open ulcer which to date government/s do not seem to have articulated longer term policy to address security and humanitarian matters though more cash has recently been allocated by HMG.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47504517 

 

A few examples from USAID...

 

https://www.usaid.gov/crisis/syria/fy19/fs3

 

https://www.usaid.gov/crisis/syria/fy19/fs1

 

Next place to be attacked by forces opposed to Islamists will likely be Idlib Province with a predicted  high number of refugees and those escaping combat. The West will have exactly the same issues to deal with; well overdue for our governments to get their act together.

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, Pilotman said:

 So yes, in a perfect world I would agree with you, but just now, I struggle to give a damn about those that support terrorism, however tangentially and the concerns or problems of other countries who have to cope with them now.  

 

The babies and young children do not support terrorism, even tangentially.

 

And your country's policies with respect to other countries regarding terrorists and their families will in turn affect other countries' policies towards the UK in the same regard.

 

If the UK wants to retain the right to deport undesirable aliens fro mthe UK -- and I think it does --  it can't then refuse to take its own undesirables back when other countries want to deport them.

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

 

I am suspicious  that:

It has been stated that she did not come to the UK until the age of 3, yet no mention of where she was born or lived for 3 years.

It has been stated that her mother is of Bangladeshi decent, but no mention of her farther, or other nationalities held by either parent.

 

Unless one or both parents had UK citizenship what citizenship did Shamima have before coming the UK?

 

Stated where? Not in any reputable media that I have seen.

 

She was born in the UK. She did not come there from anywhere else.

 

Both her parents have Bangladeshi citizenship. They acquired UK citizenship after coming ot the UK. She was born with it.

[Pilotman]

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

The babies and young children do not support terrorism, even tangentially.

 

And your country's policies with respect to other countries regarding terrorists and their families will in turn affect other countries' policies towards the UK in the same regard.

 

If the UK wants to retain the right to deport undesirable aliens fro mthe UK -- and I think it does --  it can't then refuse to take its own undesirables back when other countries want to deport them.

But they are no longer citizens, so it can. In my view, the only way to defeat terrorism, now and in the future, is to be as focused and as ruthless as the terrorists themselves, to in effect, make it as terrible to be a terrorist as the terrorist wants to make the Innocent populations they terrorise.   As in all wars, those that suffer most are the innocents.  if you wish to blame anyone, blame the human condition, human beings are just not a very nice species.  

[GinBoy2]

This is just one of those awful topics. 

I listened to her interview, and I guess previous babies had died too. There are/were totally innocent in all of this horror.

But in her interview it was all so without emotion. 

Talking about her dead babies, seeing severed heads in bins, and it seems no remorse for what these savages did. 

I would struggle to have any sympathy for this woman

[Letseng]

11 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

I feel for the baby who had no choice in parents or environment.

 

A 15 year old was not old enough to make a decision to join a terrorist organization...become a child bride...and the mother of children...granted that is just what she did...why didn't someone stop her?

 

Normally, I would think she deserves another chance...I fear her indoctrination into terrorists hate of all things western...disqualifies her from ever entering civil society again...

She left UK with 2 friends. Who forced her to join Isis?  No doubt, like many others they thought this to be a great idea to end up in paradise one day. 

[evadgib]

UK aid pledges “vital lifeline” for Syrians

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

Stated where? Not in any reputable media that I have seen.

 

She was born in the UK. She did not come there from anywhere else.

 

Both her parents have Bangladeshi citizenship. They acquired UK citizenship after coming ot the UK. She was born with it.

I think it's a sign of the advanced age of the poster that he or she thinks it's still possible to get away with this kind of statement. Before the Internet and Google, certainly. But now?