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.

Blue, would you be saying this if your child had been killed in the Arianna Grande concert?

Exactly my thoughts and what I have been thinking about since this came to light. All those teens who lost their lives before they had barely begun in Manchester or had life changing injuries and the devastation for their families, they will also be traumatised. That is what she stood for and supported so as far as I am concerned she can stay where she is. My sympathy is with the innocent victims in this country (which she isn't) not a member of a terrorist organisation.

I think she was so young, she's still so young, and so vulnerable. All she's guilty of (as far as we know) is being manipulated by a terror group. Anyone's child is vulnerable to this. 15 year olds do not usually know what they are doing. And we don't know if she's actually committed any crimes or harmed anyone. Whereas there was a case last week of a man in prison who was being deported to Jamaica, who had committed crimes, had assaulted his partner, and people thought he should be allowed to stay here??? I think he should go and she should be allowed to come back. I'm all for sending criminals away. Young vulnerable children should be allowed to stay.

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?

But, given that she has the right to come back, what alternative do you suggest, IWannaSee? Either we don't watch her, which is potentially disastrous; or we put her in prison, which equally costs a lot of money, and would be near-impossible on a long term basis given that we do still require things like evidence and proof of crime before locking people up.

Oh, wonderful - so now the BBC appears to be there too

I realise these scavengers like their "scoops", but under the circumstances what's wrong with sending just one reporter and syndicating it to the rest?

hmm I'm a little sceptical of the whole 'its too dangerous to send anyone to fetch back the baby' when there appears to be a press junket assembling with no issues whatsoever.

Why don't the bbc just give her and the baby a lift back with themselves?

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I think they are confusing the father with Amira Abase

that happened a lot on the other thread too. Its almost like people think all the families are the same for some reason

I'm a little sceptical of the whole 'its too dangerous to send anyone to fetch back the baby' when there appears to be a press junket assembling with no issues whatsoever.

Journalists often get into places that they shouldn't, just because it is in the Times it doesn't mean they are british, storys similar to this one has popped up in Canada and America, where the only one who sees regret initially was the American.

You can be sceptical all you wish, but it has been government policy for a few years now so its not as though they have just came out with this decision.

I realise these scavengers like their "scoops", but under the circumstances what's wrong with sending just one reporter and syndicating it to the rest?

Hot emotional topic that made international news.

Its almost like people think all the families are the same for some reason

Extremist families who probably encouraged and supported their children's radicalisation, and are now blaming absolutely everyone else other than their own behaviour? Yep, until there is some semblance of evidence otherwise. Have any of the families given any account of what happened prior to the girls' "disappearance" which doesn't involve either (a) lying or (b) blaming everyone else or (c) both?

How many people here would, if their fifteen year olds left the house with suitcases saying they were going to a cousin's wedding, at least think "oh, I wonder which cousin that is?" Of course they fucking knew what their children were doing. The couple who were active members of a proscribed organisation are just the most transparent of the liars; the rest are keeping their mouths shut, but are unlikely to be any better.

Why don't the bbc just give her and the baby a lift back with themselves?

Probably all sorts of insurance and ethical considerations. And I suspect it's been suggested to them that the govt would rather they didn't.

Her argument re beheadings is that (her own words from her very well staged interview)

'Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it.

"Because you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed, so I was okay with it."

She became so religious and studied that religion hard enough to make a decision to walk away from her family that somehow she managed to find something in Islam that doesn't actually exist. An Imam was on TV today pointing out that nowhere does Islam say you should kill people who do not believe in Islam or kill innocent people (like journalists and aid workers).

So for someone who decided to leave the UK to become an ISIS bride because they 'became religious' she didn't do much reading...

Funnily enough she now wants to come back to the UK because she can't cope in a camp - 'it's too hard for her' - well it's been very hard for all the innocent women and their children that she, her husband and his ilk placed in camps by their actions. And we only have her word that she was 'just a housewife'...I believe that like I believe I'm going to Mars next week.

She only decided enough was enough when her husband got arrested. Even when her two children died she made no attempt to escape - if she had tried to leave before believe me she'd have made sure everyone knew about it or her family lawyer would have. Not a bleat about any former attempt to leave - even when your children are sick and you're pregnant with number three. Nothing saying she was held against her will - she stayed because she wanted to.

So it was OK to give birth wherever she was living when everything in her world fitted into her terrorist ideals. Now the world is turning she wants out. Fine. Come here and enjoy jail. You're welcome. We'd love to see you cope with our prisons. Or give your child up and stay where you are. Your choice.

In Shamima Begum's case, she was groomed as a young teenager when her mother was dying of cancer, and was then sent to live with her uncle.

But, again, her family circumstances aren't really relevant. What is relevant is that she has British citizenship.

If she makes it to a consulate outside of Syria, on her own, she should be given an exclusion order investigated, monitored and deradicalised before being allowed back into the UK. And as soon as she lands arrested as a war criminal with a long time in prison.

The baby was born in Syria so is a Syrian and should not be allowed into the UK.

I truly don't know what to think, really. As she got herself to Syria by independent means I assume she is perfectly capable of bringing herself back under her own steam.

What happens if/when she gets here is a matter for the Home Office. If she hates Britain and all that we stand for it makes you wonder why she wants to return - apart from our wonderful welfare state and our health service. These would be a great asset to her - but is she an asset to us?

But, again, her family circumstances aren't really relevant.

They damn well are when her family, having (at best) been indifferent to the radicalisation of their daughter and (at worst) been active participants in it, are keen to adopt and raise a child who will be told about her martyr mother in prison. They failed as a family once; it's clearly important to not give them another opportunity but this time with a terrorist poster on the mantlepiece.

The uncle, by the way, is a "former religious scholar" whose first action upon her disappearance was to seek the assistance of Cage Prisoners, the people who described Jihadi John as a "beautiful young man". They sound an ideal bunch to raise a child born in Syria.

The baby was born in Syria so is a Syrian

The baby was born to a British mother, so is British.

The baby was also born to a Dutch father...

There is no legal right to Consular assistance as per page 2 in the link.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/749950/FCOOBritsAbroadA4webb171018.pdf

Plus, the FCO is not funded to provide financial assistance.
If she can afford a lawyer, she can afford a flight or her family can.

She could get an Emergency Travel Document for herself but what about the child? That will be a will be another can of worms.
Emergency Travel Documents are not given willy nilly, especially to a child who has never held a British passport before.

My opinion is that she should not be allowed back to UK. She gave up her rights to be British when she went over there.

I'm not clear on what the process was after ww2 and what happened to war criminals.

I thought all these supporter would be rounded up and put on trial in one place?

How will anyone get justice like this....

Surely they all need to be prosecuted and arrested.
If she's on trial and a picture... facts are built up that infect she's passive...did stay at home.. wasn't a participant in the sheer evil all around her... fine.... but if she's not arrested Etc and put on trial how will we know

The baby was born in Syria so is a Syrian and should not be allowed into the UK.

The baby's mother doesn't have Syrian citizenship, how is the baby a Syrian? Being born in the UK doesn't give you British citizenship if neither of your parents have it.

The baby was also born to a Dutch father...

I doubt there is much in the way of documentation of that, and the marriage was conducted by a non-state actor. I doubt that even if she were seeking Dutch citizenship for her son there's enough to go on. At best, the son is the (in the eyes of the Dutch government) illegitimate child of a British citizen who claims the father is Dutch and disappeared. I suspect the Dutch government doesn't want to borrow trouble.

@Walkingdeadfangirl her baby will be entitled to British citizenship by descent. If the baby arrived back here, it would almost certainly go into the custody of Social Services, who would do a thorough investigation to decide whether extended family can provide suitable care, or whether the baby should be fostered or adopted. Adoptions are, where possible with families of a similar ethnic and religious profile. However, there is a shortage of ethnic minority candidates for adoptive children.

What I find astounding in all this, is that no one is talking about the legal redress that Syrians and Kurds from the region might want. Vast numbers of people moved to Syria from all over the world to establish the ISIS caliphate. Even those who did not kill or maim were complicit in the actions of the ISIS regime - evicting locals so that they could live in their homes, closing down businesses they didn't approve of, forcing men to fight for ISIS, forcing women to wear the full face veil, forcing young Muslim women to marry and non-Muslim women into prostitution if they did not convert, throwing people accused of being gay off the tops of buildings, torturing people in public for disobeying them... The crimes pervaded every level of society. No member of ISIS was 'just a housewife'. Everyone who went there was a participant in this cruel project.

The Kurds are holding these people in refugee camps and prisoner of war camps for the convenience of the international community. They need to be given the opportunity and funding to put them on trial there. If they find them guilty, they should be allowed to punish them with custodial sentences in Syria, if not, they can acquit them and send them home.

Being born in the UK doesn't give you British citizenship if neither of your parents have it.

Being born in the US does, even if neither parent is a US citizen; different countries have different laws (hence the Republican hatred towards "anchor babies").

Unless someone here is a Syrian nationality lawyer, the only certain thing is that the child is unambiguously British.

I think they are confusing the father with Amira Abase

I believe you're right, @Justanotherlurker, though I don't know why it keeps happening when it's pointed out again and again that Abase Hassen is a different girl's father

Have any of the families given any account of what happened prior to the girls' "disappearance" which doesn't involve either (a) lying or (b) blaming everyone else or (c) both?

If they have I admit I've not seen it - though Shamima's family seem to be keeping fairly quiet and relying on their lawyer and the ghastly Hassen to do the talking

On these threads someone usually says "why should the community feel responsible?", but we're not even talking about a wider group here - we're talking about the girls' own families, and all they have to say is that it's everything's everyone else's fault

I ask you, with attitudes like this, what chance can there ever be of the "rehabilitation" so many keep prating about?