You can't always get what you want - the UK's grandstanding over ISIS sympathizers

[Aimless]

Still in thrall to his dreams of premiership, Sajid Javid is trying to prevent a British extremist from returning to the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ed-citizenship

Brief summary of the story so far: in 2013, shortly after her mother died of terminal lung cancer [EDIT: this actually pertains to another woman with a similar name], a then 15-y-o British-born girl with Bangladeshi parents was persuaded by Islamic extremists to leave the UK to join ISIS. She settled in Raqqa and was married to a Dutch ISIS fighter a year later, moving with him to ISIS's last stronghold which eventually fell (and where he died - retracted). She gave birth to two children who died, and has just a few days ago given birth to a third, in a camp in Syria. Her request for transport back to the UK for herself and her child has been denied, and the UK has now announced that she will be stripped of her citizenship.

I think this case is interesting in several respects: it involves a person who was, at the time she joined ISIS, a minor, at an age where one is typically afforded leniency under the law; there was reasonably compelling evidence to suggest that she had been groomed by extremists prior to her departure--a case that appears to have been bungled by the police--and we are typically lenient with victims of grooming; to the best of our knowledge, she has not herself actively participated in acts of terrorism. At the same time, it is accurate to say that she joined a terrorist organization, and fair to say she likely represents a security threat--she has expressed no remorse for her decision to join ISIS, and continues to endorse their ideology.

But I think all of that is moot, because a more important question is whether or not it's even legal for the UK to strip her of her citizenship. Based on what we know, she appears to be a British-born British citizen; she does not appear to hold a Bangladeshi citizenship, and this case is therefore different from other similar cases involving persons who have held dual citizenship. As a rule, it is not legal for a state to make a person stateless by revoking their citizenship. It would seem to be illegal for the UK to revoke her British citizenship, because Bangladesh does not recognize her as a citizen and does not intend to grant her citizenship: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ted-says-javid

Granted the German car-makers may be able to pressure Bangladesh into granting her citizenship if PM Javid talks to them sternly enough, but, barring that implausible scenario, what we know so far suggests that the decision to revoke her citizenship is blatantly illegal, and it is therefore puzzling to me what Javid hopes to gain from it other than some brownie points in anticipation of a future bid to lead the Tories over the cliff edge.

Matters are further complicated by the high likelihood that her newborn son must be regarded as a British citizen, bolstering her case for being allowed to return to the UK in order to preserve his rights.

Of all the cases involving returning extremists, I think this one is both the most straightforward and also the most stupidly managed. She and her child are British citizens, the UK is not permitted to make her stateless, they can and should be returned to the UK where she can be prosecuted and sentenced for her crimes, and the son placed in the care of a suitable family. Everyone involved in these citizenship-revocation shenanigans are just a bunch of grandstanding putzes.