I can see the argument that she was British so should be dealt with by Britain, but
there's also something to be said for a state being able to divest itself of its citizens who go and fight against it. It would be part of the deterrent: the rest of their life spent stateless. We could also add an incentive that if significant change of ways (words and actions) shown in future their citizenship may be reviewed again.

That would only work if there's a place where "stateless" people could be without another country having to pick up the slack so to speak

yes, Idk how it works exactly :think: can't they still be given a residence permit somewhere or asylum?
Livia, you're a lawyer, dust off those books :p

Who in their right mind would want to give asylum to a potential terrorist though? That's crazy

Some of the Arab countries?
The Caliphate must have been supported on the quiet by somebody? Where the money and arms were coming from?

But surely that's a really bad move, anyone who would want to take them in as asylum seekers are probably the very people you don't want to be sending more potential/actual terrorists?

the rules on citizenship are all a bit complicated. For example, we can't deport illegal immigrants unless they have a valid passport.

If you ever go on holiday to somewhere not in europe, the country will expect you to have at least 6 months remaining on it before it expires. This is done to allow them to send you back if you run off and hide.

In this womans case, she doesnt have a passport, she is not in a country where she can get a british one, the british aren't going to help her get one, and she can't travel to any other country to get one ...... So, it's all kind of pointless really as she isn't going anywhere.