To wonder how we CAN even consider not bringing the girl back from Syria?

[SpeakingALanguage]

Do we not legally have to? We can't just wipe our hands of her, can we?

I've seen petition after petition on my Facebook feed about not allowing her back, sign the petition, etc etc.

But if she's a British citizen, does she not have every legal right to be here, even if she is vile and dangerous?

I did see someone mention she would have to get here on her own steam, but isn't there a big part in the British passport (I know she hasn't got one but she was entitled and is technically British), that says something along the lines of Her Majesty grants assistance and protection as needed?

Without her baby even coming into the argument, she alone regardless is allowed back here, vulnerable with a newborn or not.

Wanting to follow the rule of law makes you a terrorist sympathiser on MN

Holy straw man batman!!

They are following the law, which you have been wanting us to follow, I was pointing out the obvious shifting of position that some would make, there where a few I could have picked up previously, yours was the first I came across

You could be right MissEliza she doesn't seem clever enough to be able to hide her true self.

She put her foot in it every time she opened her mouth in the interviews.

It would have been hard for her to hide her beliefs from her family.

MissEliza there have been reports that she went on a march with her father supporting extremists. If true we don’t have to look too far for the root of the radicalisation.

I'd like to know how you think my position has shifted?

I said I hoped the government had followed the law rather than bowed to public pressure. You do realise that government and judiciary are separate?

By acting on impulse they could end up having to backtrack and that would look awful and fuel more public outrage.

Please explain my shifting of position?

On the off-chance anyone is interested, here's the MN thread from 4 years ago when she made her way to Syria with two others:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2313874-to-think-they-should-charge-the-Syria-girls

I've advocated following the rule of law from the outset and still do.

I have no issue with her citizenship being revoked if it's lawful to do so. While she was a citizen however, we had no choice but to let her in if she was deported etc.

Perhaps you're not aware that governments have been found to have acted outside the law before.

It's embarrassing and in this case could be damaging.

I hope she does have dual nationality.

To caveat:

The fact you had to say this

If she's genuinely a dual national

Shows more about your starting position than you realise.

You have been all over these threads talking about following international law, you bring up partisan bollocks into it doesn't negate my comment that the mental gymnastics will now be in full flow, your the first example, i'm not meaning anything by it

You must follow the rule of law to the letter otherwise you'll just play into the narrative of this country being anti Muslim blah blah.

Of course I hope she's genuinely a dual national - it means we won't hear from her again!

I happen to think she's dangerous but I'm not a fan of acting outside the law.

You're extremely naive if you think someone like Sajid Javid is beyond making a mistake to save his own reputation.

feet, I’ve has a look at a few things to try and work this out. I’m pretty sure it’s not automatic. This is from a blog but I think it is the clearest and most concise version of what I mean:

Acquisition of British Citizenship by ‘Entitlement’ and ‘Discretion’

If your child was not born British, they may be entitled to registration through birth or by satisfying the criteria for registration at discretion. An application to the Home Office for registration as a British citizen is required under these circumstances. There are a number of provisions under the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981), pursuant to which your child would have the right to become British. For example, if your child was born in the UK and either parent became settled or a British citizen whilst the child was still under 18, they would have the right to registration.

Furthermore, if your child was neither born British nor has any entitlement under the BNA 1981, the Home Office has the discretion to register your child, provided that they meet the criteria for discretionary application for registration. The Home Office will usually register your child if they and both parents live in the UK, have indefinite leave to enter or remain or EEA permanent residence and at least one parent is also applying to become British or is already British with the other parent unlikely to leave the UK, i.e. is settled in the UK, and where the Home Office is satisfied that your child’s future lies in the UK.

It is important to note that even if your child is not British at birth, has no entitlement to registration under the BNA 1981 and does not meet the usual discretionary application requirements, the Home Office has a wide discretion to register any child where the case is exceptionally compelling or compassionate. Such applications are particularly complex and in the majority of cases will require detailed documentary evidence to be submitted in support of the application.

If she's got even a sliver of a chance her lawyer will apeal and we'll be back to square one.

How is hoping that doesn't happen a change in position?

By acting on impulse they could end up having to backtrack and that would look awful and fuel more public outrage

So now they are acting on impulse...

You can keep digging if you wish, but it's a weird hill you have decided to die on considering your posts on this thread.

You people really have no idea how the law works!

I'm pleased to see a definite outcome and hope that the government can make it stick!

I don't have enough faith in the government to automatically assume they've dotted all the i's but I hope they have. More fool you if you think our government is infallible.

Impulsive decisions are not unheard of but I hope this isn't one.

Why you've chosen to take issue with this is beyond me?

If she's got even a sliver of a chance her lawyer will apeal and we'll be back to square one.

Of course it will go to appeal, her lawyer openly admitted Muslims shouldn't speak to the police and Lee Rugby's killing was justified, they are going for a long drawn out appeal.

I'm not sure why we are in this comment chain, you was the first person I picked out as you was all over these threads pointing to international law (rightly so), iirc made a faux par with the initial comment by linking an article from half one today and now saying they have acted on impulse.

It's not me standing on shifting sands, wanting to die on some weird hill under the guise of being somehow more moral by championing a member of ISIS.

Bejam thanks for the info but that is only in the case on children who are not British by birth. It says so.

I'm assuming that this child would be British by birth if Begum was born in Britain.

Her child doesn't fit the criteria in you're post.

I happen to think she's dangerous but I'm not a fan of acting outside the law.

We aren't, as you have been telling everyone throughout these threads, the only reason we can revoke her citizenship is down to dual nationality. You can't bring doubt/partisan arguments into it now without highlighting your initial stance isn't one of following the letter of the law that you initially proffered

I have stated I hope they haven't acted on impulse - I hope they have followed the law to the letter and left no loopholes. I stand by that and it's not a contraversial statement unless we like in North Korea and I'm not allowed to question the government.

As for championing a member of ISIS - proof please before you throw accusations around.

I stand corrected if we have proof that she's a dual national ot proof that there isn't any way she can appeal.

I wasn't aware that any of us was in a position to prove that the law has been followed and we're home and dry.

If there is proof, great.

Anyone can bring doubt into any argument and worry that their government is quite stupid!

How on earth have you found anything I've said to be partisan?

feet, you’re automatically British if the following are true:

you’re under 18
your mother or father was a British citizen when you were born
your British parent lived in the UK for at least 3 years before you were born
your British parent did not spend more than 270 days outside the UK during those 3 years
your British parent had a British mother or father who could pass on their citizenship to them

His parents didn’t fulfill those conditions so it moves onto the second set in my earlier post and they’re not fulfilled either so he doesn’t have citizenship.

I'm not sure that's true Bejam someone posted some information earlier which seemed more accurate.

I'm British by birth but haven't lived in Britain for the last three years. I'm pretty sure if I had a child it would be British.

I could be wrong but I remember looking it up once and I think my child would be British.

They have said they are revoking her citizenship because she is eligible for another. So that suggests she doesn't have dual.

I think they are possibly going with either she is eligible for the Netherlands due to her husband, or Syria because of how long she lived there?

Either way hope they stand by it.

Thanks for the update Santa.

It's up to the courts to uphold it now. Fingers crossed that it sticks.

Actually, one of the biggest things that has occurred to me about this case is how dare we and other EU nations have let so many extremists fuck off and set up their stalls in Syria and Iraq?

I’m sure thery didn’t want the fuckers over there and the net result is that we ended up with refugees coming back the other way.

The whole thing is a mess.

Maybe we could start pressuring the bit of their religion that instructs them to share their wealth with the poor instead of the bits about being really shitty to women?

Just an idea.