Actually, she can deprived of her citizenship, whether she's naturalised or born here. Section 402 of the British Nationality Act 1981 says quite clearly that someone can be deprived of their citizenship of it's conducive to the public good.

They can also be left to face trial in the country they fled to, or they can be tried for war crimes in the International Criminal Court, although I don't think that would apply in this case.

I was thinking more along the lines of her being our moral responsibility rather than specifically a legal responsibility. If she was raised in the UK and ended up an extremist then IMO, while it is mainly the responsibility of her immediate family and those around her, there certainly isn't a country MORE responsible for it than the one she grew up in. If we don't want her in the UK, it's presumably because we think she's potentially a risk, and what does it say about us if we go down the route of "Well we think she's a risk so we're OK with her being out there in the world being a risk to everyone else; just so long as it isn't here!"

I suppose it's like... would you be happy if an extremist born and raised in the US was in the UK, saying they wanted to leave, but the US was like "Heck no we're not having them back, you can sort it out over there."

But do we know if she would have been in danger if she did denounce Isis?

hopefully she will be brought back, assessed and jailed for her crime

She is British.


She is stuck in that Syria Camp
There is no British Consul at that wrecked nation.
So she must get to a Nation that has
a British Consul,

If we're not looking at the legal implications, but looking at it morally... she's not denounced IS, she doesn't regret joining them, she said seeing decapitated heads in a bin "did not faze her"... She has shown no remorse and expects us to take her back because she's pregnant. I'd say our moral responsibility to the wider British public means that will not happen. Also, if she does come back, they will have to "radicalise" her, she'd have to be kept under surveillance... denying her re-entry sets a precedent for anyone else thinking of joining a terrorist organisation who is at war with this country and imagining they can just come back here.

Regarding the last paragraph, I wouldn't be happy that we had to feed and clothe the American, who would be in a British prison for this scenario I imagine, but I'd understand the right of the USA to strip someone of their citizenship and would expect a quid pro quo from the US.

She is British... at the moment. Any minute now hopefully she'll be stateless and/or in prison.

Why should we have any moral responsibility for her?

It's a difficult one, really. She was obviously radicalised young and indoctrinated but the lack of remorse is concerning. I'd say let her come back, have her face charges for crimes she's committed and hopefully in the process de-radicalise her so that her and her children may have a future. If that doesn't work then keep her locked up for as long as possible and hopefully the children's UK family can insure that history doesn't repeat itself when it comes to the next generation.

I'm reluctant to condemn her children for her errors in judgement.

She has to leave Syria
first

I would imagine the "moral responsibility" is as a country rather than morally towards that girl

If she committed crimes in Syria then surely she should face trial there.Hand her to the Syrian government.

i have no particular issue with her facing her crimes here. At a minimum she will be on a watch list for the rest of her life and it stops her from being a modern day martyr which is clearly the angle she is going for.

She does not trust them
and wants to return to London.

No one can prove anything
She left in after lust type Videos from Isis

And holds none of our values.

Ok yeh the baby is at no fault. Let it slop out of her and bring that back. She can literally rot

Because she's a British citizen and was clearly radicalised in Britain. We have far more responsibility for her than any OTHER country does, so it's morally questionable to say "lol she's ur problem now, we don't want her here."

Again this is probably being confused with "her rights". I'm saying if she's a dangerous individual, she's our dangerous individual, and it's the UK's responsibility to make sure she's monitored. Not anyone else's. It's not OK to pretend that everything is fine so long as she's off "being dangerous overseas" and not on British soil.

Honestly, the double standards are staggering in Britain.

"Here's a dangerous individual living in Britain but born and raised elsewhere. Send him back there!!

...oh there's a dangerous individual born and raised in THIS country living over there? Keep them! Don't send them here!!"

At some point you have to pick a lane :shrug:.

Good points ts about her being radicalised here...a failing by the British authorities on allowing this to happen to her on our soil to me means we failed her....we allowed this to happen...therefore we need to see what can be done for her and especially her unborn child.

Am I the only one thinking it's a plan to make an attack on Brotian

The Home Office
has said they are not going out to get her back.
So she must
Get back on her own.

Her dad claims its not her fault
https://news.sky.com/story/father-of...given-11637331

Not so far


Isis Sleeper cells are in the UK already

Who's Brotian?

Typo

If we allowed her back she'd have to be deradicalized and then she'd be under surveillance. All those resources, when we're already overstretched dealing with her fellow IS supporters. It's not good enough to say she's British and we must take her back. We really don't have to. There is a line and she crossed it, and she said herself that she doesn't regret it.

I wonder if her Dutch husband will be welcomed home?

Is he Alive?

Exactly, it would be less costly and safer to just keep her away.