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.

Bluerussian I think part of the problem is that she doesn’t want forgiveness. I think it would sit better with people if she did, but she has not renounced her views. I read one of the security services heads saying it was incredibly difficult to deal with someone who had been radicalised and been through what she had, that she is in fact very dangerous. I must say though, I think the UK is not without some responsibility for allowing the radicalisation of a child.

Absolutely no reason why she cannot come back inder her own steam; under no circumstances shoould we put the lives of personnel at risk to collect her.

I might be wrong here, but didn't the UK cancel the passports of the people who went to Syria to join IS?

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/30/uk-has-stripped-150-jihadists-and-criminals-of-citizenship

If she returns, the country has to pay for her surveillance forever. The NHS can't afford to treat innocent people who are sick, but we are going to have to waste money on watching people like her ( who will be using the resources this country struggles to pay for). How is that right?

They can strip British citizenship from dual (or more national) as they would not be render d stateless by the losing of their British nationality.

So that link is not like with like, for as far as anyone knows, the mother is British and only British.

She won't just be allowed back and left alone.
She will face investigation. She could face prison.
She's British so we are obliged to have her back.
The response is a bit hysterical. She's in more danger herself coming back than posing a danger to you because unfortunately we have people here who are just as unhinged as those they condemn.

Of course she should be let back in to the country if she makes her way back here. All this talk of 'lock her out' or 'deport her', she's a UK citizen, she is our problem. I don't necessarily like the idea of her coming back to the UK, but why should she be another country's problem?

Didius , I'd say her parents hold responsibility there. The UK govt cannot monitor everyone.

She is a British citizen so of course is entitled back into the country. At this point we don't even know if she has actually committed any crime either. I don't think people should risk their lives to go in and get her, no, she needs to make her way to an Embassy and the authorities will take it from there. I feel very sorry for her new son, and actually I worry that if she does come here she may be the target of vigilantes, which is not acceptable either.

Unfortunately, as others have stated, she has a right to return to the UK if she can make her way back here. However as an IS supporter she is complicit in committing crimes in Syria. Once Assad regains control of the whole of the country, will they not want to deal with these IS supporters? Do we have a duty to return these criminals to Syria to answer for their crimes?

We do not really know what she thinks. This young woman is trapped in a war zone with a new born baby. We cannot know what threats have been made to her own safety and that of her baby if she says the wrong thing. Just suppose for a moment that she is being coerced into saying that she has no regrets. It’s possible, even probable.
At the very least, we know that she was groomed as a child, and then was sexually abused (she was a child so it’s abuse not marriage). There is no question in my mind that she needs to be accepted back into the UK as a British citizen. And we have good secure mum and baby units here - which is where I believe she should be held and questioned under Anti-Terrorism legislation.
I do agree that how she should be repatriated is harder. But I am struggling to understand how several sets of journalists have maganged to visit her safely but somehow there is no way she can be helped to leave Syria.

So that link is not like with like, for as far as anyone knows, the mother is British and only British.

I read somewhere that as her mother has a Bangladesh passport she may have dual nationality.

'trapped in a war zone' that she chose to go and supported beheading and other abhorrent practices. Leave her be she's got what she wanted, life as a terrorist. Thems the breaks.

What happened to her other 2 children?

They died.

Legally if she presents herself at a British embassy as a British citizen her and her child will be assisted in getting back. However this is not a free service.

I wonder about her right to access the nhs and benefits. Don’t you have to have been resident in the country a certain number of years to qualify.

I understand her parents desire to have their child back but she should certainly go to jail. Travelling to Syria to support the isis efforts must qualify as a war crime. She saw beheaded people and did nothing about it.

She should be jailed and her son should be adopted so he has a chance at a normal healthy life away from the extremist influence that affected her.

She will be given assistance to return if she can get to a British consulate in a neighbouring country. It is up to her to get there though, no-one has a responsibility to her (or her child) to go through a war-zone and fetch her. I have zero sympathy for her, and yes it is sad that her son is in a refugee camp with her, but so are a lot other babies due to the actions of the regime she went willingly to support. Her baby's life isn't more important than that of any other child in a refugee camp just because his mother is a British citizen.

Attitudes like that are the reason this country is in such a bloody mess.

Yes let's bring her home, where she can get a council house, benefits, be set for life and train other terrorists/raise a Jihadi son who can do the same. Just don't complain when it's your DC that are blown to bits by the bombs they make.

Anyone who thinks we should be bringing her home and helping her, should be forced to watch the footage of what IS is actually doing out there.

A practical consideration is the airlines. Any airline providing flights from Turkey, Iraq etc. to the UK could simply refuse carriage.

She should never ever be able to step foot on British soil again, ever.
She doesn't even regret what she's done, quote from her "I wouldn't have met a man like my husband in the UK" the husband being a terrorist that would like to see us all dead. She is a danger to all in the UK & all that we stand for.

^^this.

@ReaganSomerset

From that Guardian article you linked to

"They are all dual nationals, including British-born people with parents of different nationalities, because ministers cannot take away citizenship if it would leave a suspect stateless"

Yes, I was little taken aback to read that her husband had been convicted in absentia icw a plot to shoot up crowds at an amusement park.

I'm quite glad she says there are nine like him here (though if course she might not be telling the exact truth, or expecting extrapolation from her words)

I don't see why an airline would refuse to carry her, assuming she had a valid (consulate issued) travel document.