is it really possible to take away UK citizenship for British Jihadists who gone to Syria

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29019431

I don't see how its possible to remove British nationality from someone who was born in the UK. It would leave them stateless. The European Human Rights Act makes it impossible to hang someone in the UK for high treason. (As tempting as it might be to hang the person who beheaded that poor journalist in syria.)

Surely the answer is for Jihadists to be tried and punished in the accordance with the laws of the countries that they have have committed attrocities. However to put it politely the burden of proof is not quite so strict as the UK in many Islamic states. We also have laws about sending British citizens to places where they might be on the recieving end of torture or the death penality.

The removal of citizenship seems like a weird idea to me anyway, it's like the state trying to wash its hands off a particular type of criminal. Also, how is it going to make anyone any safer, if you just throw them out? They don't do that with non-terrorist criminals (and who defines what constitutes terrorism and what doesn't anyway?) and probably with good reason.

Why don't they invest much more energy in thinking about how they can stop people from being radicalised by addressing the root causes of what makes them vulnerable to radicalisation? Talk about removing passports and locking them out is populist, but I can't see that work as a deterrent, but probably just adding fuel to the flames.

As an aside, I don't think it's useful to distinguish between born and naturalised citizens.

Widow - quite, a British citizen, is a British citizen. This seems to be yet another govt attempt to have two levels of citizenship.

I think a lot of what the government is proposing to do is sound and fury that is legally untenable. I also think the general public should be very wary at egging on such draconian measures. The definition of terrorism is very malleable to the authorities.

If someone is accused of a very serious crime like burying small children alive then surely the last thing we should be doing is sending them back to the country where they might have commited attrocities. The person needs to be questioned and if appriopated, charged and tried fairly for any crimes commited. If the person is found guilty then they should be punished.

Even the vilest of criminals have the right to a fair trial and are innocent until proven guility. People who are accused of very serious non terrorist crimes are often held on remand.

As a nation we have to be careful that we don't fall down a slippery slope. I suppose that there should be consular assistance in the event that the Iraqi/ Syran goverments chooses to execute British citizens who have murdered/ tortured small children. Britain is anti the death penalty even for those who throughly deserve it.

Perhaps David Cameron wants to make hanging British citizens easier. Even though I have little sympathy for British Jidhadists, I don't want to drop to their level. The UK needs to rise above the eye for eye a tooth for tooth mentality. We are better people than these muslim fanatics.

They can only remove British citizenship from someone if they reasonably believe that that person will be able to claim citizenship of another state. It is against international law to leave someone stateless.

It is perfectly possible to revoke their passport though, it has happened regularly to football hooligans to stop them travelling abroad.

If the British government revokes a person's passport while they are abroad, they won't be able to travel back to the UK, nor will they be able to use certain consular services.

Can't see too many negatives really.

British citizenship can be revoked for crimes like treason or terrorism.

It is very very unlikely to happen as it cannot be revoked if the person would thus be stateless. That said, there are also very few people the world over who can truly be deemed as stateless.

Any revocation of British citizenship would render a naturalised citizen, in the eyes of the British authorities as still a citizen of their former nationality ( I think) if that country were to refuse to acknowledge citizenship, that's when theoretically your stateless would come in. But they wouldn't be stateless for the brits iyswim?

They would, I reckon, bar some hasty passing of special laws, be unable to revoke c/ship from people being born here.

UK is party to the UN conventions about this. It is difficult (but not totally impossible) to remove citizenship/nationality even if it leaves someone stateless. UK has never done it other than during declared war, in circumstances where there was a definite enemy and actual fighting.

TWAT simply does not give that clarity.

"If the British government revokes a person's passport while they are abroad, they won't be able to travel back to the UK, nor will they be able to use certain consular services."

If the Jihadist cannot return to the UK then he will stay in Syria/ Iraq/ Turkey and commit more attrocites.

Are we really going to deny consular services to someone who is facing the death penalty and might be innocent? Taking away British citizenship without proof the person has commited a crime is wrong.

I feel we need to take responsiblity for British scum.

Right, so that seems to imply they take away the passport, not the citizenship, which of course is completely different, and as others hsve said, like what they did with the hooligans.

Really... are you saying that someone who has gone to Syria or Iraq with the express purpose of committing acts of terror against men, women and children should be able to return to the UK with their new found skills?

In the question of dual citizenship, shouldn't it be irrelevant if the dual citizen was born British and has taken another citizenship? Is it fair to do a hierarchy?

For those who have naturalised, and in the process given up their original citizenship- on what grounds should the other state be compelled to undo that revocation to stop the UK making someone stateless?

UK citizenship doesn't mean that someone can't be tried abroad for a crime they've committed abroad, so why the need for removal?
In the case of dual citizenship the state makes very clear that it won't intervene in any proceedings the other state of which that citizen has citizenship, too, so again I can't see a case for removal.

I can understand removal if any action that has occurred prior to approval would have led to non approval if it had been known, but don't agree with the idea that naturalised citizens are on probation for the rest of their lives.

The taking away of hooligans' passports is to prevent them from leaving the country, not the other way round.
But that's not what is being suggested here.

Nobody has to give up their original natinality when naturalising (as far as British nationality law is concerned) so it would all get very complicated.

Naturalised citizens aren't on probation, but in the eyes of UK nationality law, any naturalised person remains a citizen of their original country. If they choose to renounce that (or have to renounce it when being naturalised, then it would be for that country to state whether they still consider that person to have a right to that nationality.

That's why hardly anyone is stateless, ever. And the complicated legalities when different countries have different laws is why this revoking citizenship will never happen. Passports possibly.

CaptChaos What is the difference between murdering a child in syria and murdering a child in the UK? I feel that such a dangerous person should be locked up in a UK prison if they return here. There is no way that they should be allowed to roam about Syria/ Iraq to commit further attrocites.

I feel that there is an element of out of sight out of mind. We worry more about white people than brown people.

Dranksangria whilst Britain doesn't force to give up other citizenships on naturalisation, some other states don't allow dual citizenship, so will revoke their citizenship when someone naturalises as a UK citizen. Why should such a state have to undo their decision to revoke citizenship? Once citizenship has been revoked that state has no obligations to that person anymore at all? The UK surely can't simply decide that someone becomes a citizen of another state/annull another state's decision to remove citizenship to get themselves out of the obligation to not make somebody stateless.

Anyway, that whole "let's remove passports/let's remove citizenships/let's willfully confuse people and let them think that passports and citizenship are the same" is pointless posturing and does nothing to stop terrorism at all.

That's what I was saying and that's why revoking a person's citizenship would be fraught with problems.

Some countries wouldn't allow a person who had previously renounced their citizenship to reaquire it, whilst others would.

I do agree that it's pointless posturing by Dave'n'co.

What about making it easy for people to come back who go out and realise they've made a mistake?

I'm sure there are many idealistic young people who have their heads turned thinking they are going to be fighting for a pure Islamic state only to go out and realise that actually they are with a bunch of psychopaths. Are we going to write these people off for ever more for a bad decision?

Surely the returners would be powerful propaganda to persuade those considering going that joining Syrian jihad is not what it looks like from a youtube video. Instead they know that there's no way back so might as well join in with the murderers.

It worries me that our response is all about hard line posturing to sections of the Tory party and Daily Mail, not thinking fully that there should be a welcome for those who realise they made a mistake.

If someone has made a 'mistake' they still need to be punished. Describing the atrocities of IS as mistake is belittling the suffering of the victims.

I feel that these criminals should be locked up for life. So what if they are young and idealistic. Many of the victims are children.

Myra Hinley was written off forever for four mistakes she made aged 19. Surely it's fair to do the same to Jihadists who have murdered scores of children in horrible ways.

Myra Hindley was convicted of crimes for which there was definite legal proof of her culpability.

While ISIS are indeed committing atrocities, establishing or proving which individuals committed which atrocity, may well prove to be a very difficult task.

In the past, when IRA or UDA terrorists were tried and convicted, it wasn't for every appalling act their respective organisations had committed, but for what crimes the individuals themselves had perpetrated.

So, while it is very straightforward legally to make membership of a proscribed organisation a criminal offence, going beyond that, is considerably less straightforward.

UK laws have to be changed if the Uk public has no protection from those who may do them harm, who chose to leave the UK and fight/become infected with the likes of ISIS - who won't even respect a Human Right to be beheaded by a sword, over a large serrated kitchen knife.

ISIS and therefore their followers are well into long imprisonments, in warm places, wearing orange jump suits - is the U.S. still using that place in Cuba, with a Bay view?

Isitmebut - people used the same arguments for Internment in Northern Ireland, which was a massive disaster.

Criminals generally don't respect human rights. That does not mean our legal system should emulate them.

Yes, the legal disgrace that is Guantanamo Bay is still open. It does not seem to have done much good, does it?

There has to be burden of proof before we decide to throw away the key. Accused jidhadists deserve to have proper trial with good legal representation just like Nazis had after the second world war. WE MUST NOT FALL TO THE LOW STANDARDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS THAT ISIS HAS. (sorry for shouting!) We are a better group of people than ISIS.

If you can prove beyond all reasonable doult that a British Jidhadists has commited an attrocity at the age of 19 then the only moral thing to do is to lock him up in jail for the rest of his natural life.

IPityThePontipines .... Internment or any other method of holding people securely who are experts in making bombs to murder innocent civilians, must be better than putting an ankle braclet on and praying they stick to the terms of 'an order'.

We are not trying to rehabilitate those returning with ISIS values, just keep them away from the rest of the population - who should not be subjected to the threat of their new skill-sets.

Really tired I agree with your last statement however the enemy has changed shape and cannot be held or tried by the same rules that charged the Nazis and remember how many Nazis actually got away, and got away with their crimes.

the enemy is living among us this time, I was warned by ( in lecture) political lecturer back in early 90's that next major threat on horizon was Islamic fundamentalism esp from uni's where groups were holding student unions and turning them.

with such mass killing going on it will be hard to find evidence.

i think Isis, are a special case, and need treating in a specific special way, and I think sending them to gutanamo is a great idea or bombing them, in the field.

I heard on radio today though that all great talk of getting iraq sorted to deal with it, is brilliant long term plan, its not working in short term and tougher things need to happen.

isis are ruthless and popular to the young here and from elsewhere, its giving them all sorts of things, and we need to be ruthless back.