U.K. must take back U.K. born isis fighters. Should we?

Original post by Retired_Messiah

Ok seeing as this news story keeps getting forced down my throat I did a big think beyond the meme I yote in here.

I concluded:
1) Bring her and baby back
2) give baby to grandparents
3) try her for high treason (she basically joined an organisation that wants to blow up the UK so you could probably swing it that way)

bob's your uncle, fanny's your auntie best of both worlds, achieved.

I don’t see why she should be allowed to step foot in this country she wants to only come back for our NHS which is utterly disgusting

Reply 67

username874291

Original post by Emily Miller

I don’t see why she should be allowed to step foot in this country she wants to only come back for our NHS which is utterly disgusting

Nobody would say this about somebody who had committed murder or some other serious crime. They'd be brought back and prosecuted.

Reply 68

Original post by Akuma

Nobody would say this about somebody who had committed murder or some other serious crime. They'd be brought back and prosecuted.

I agree but we are talking about a girl who ran away to join a terrorist group who would love to see this country destroyed and hate our values and principles

Reply 69

Original post by Emily Miller

I agree but we are talking about a girl who ran away to join a terrorist group who would love to see this country destroyed and hate our values and principles

That includes both u and I

Reply 70

Retired_Messiah

21

Original post by Emily Miller

I don’t see why she should be allowed to step foot in this country she wants to only come back for our NHS which is utterly disgusting

I was thinking more for the sake of her kid. I mean I literally said she should be tried for treason which in UK law comes with a life prison sentence so I ain't exactly being lenient here.

Absolutely wouldn't want her to come back and live a normal life. She's not even tried to pretend that she's renounced radical Islam.

Reply 71

username874291

Original post by Emily Miller

I agree but we are talking about a girl who ran away to join a terrorist group who would love to see this country destroyed and hate our values and principles

That's setting a precedent that enables people to get away scott free tho. What if somebody did what she did and ended up living it up in Brazil rather than miserable in a refugee camp?

Reply 72

Original post by Akuma

That's setting a precedent that enables people to get away scott free tho. What if somebody did what she did and ended up living it up in Brazil rather than miserable in a refugee camp?

I’m saying she should stay where she is where she isn’t a harm to the British public and lost the right of being British when she stepped on that plane to Syria...I don’t think Brazil would allow a potential terrorist in just like we shouldn’t allow a potential terrorist in.....
Allowing her into the uk will set a dangerous example to others of saying do what u want but the uk are here for u🤮...instead of saying people should feel sympathy towards her she should be remorseful for what she’s done which due to the interviews she is clearly remorseless

Reply 73

username874291

Original post by Emily Miller

I’m saying she should stay where she is where she isn’t a harm to the British public and lost the right of being British when she stepped on that plane to Syria...I don’t think Brazil would allow a potential terrorist in just like we shouldn’t allow a potential terrorist in.....
Allowing her into the uk will set a dangerous example to others of saying do what u want but the uk are here for u🤮...instead of saying people should feel sympathy towards her she should be remorseful for what she’s done which due to the interviews she is clearly remorseless

I use Brazil as an example because its often a destination for criminals fleeing the UK as they have no extradition treaty with us. Ronnie Biggs for example. In such cases the UK authorities try to get them back in order to prosecute them. It isn't that the UK is "there for them".

Reply 74

proton & neutron

7

Original post by Davij038

For your first point I disagree, I find the notion that these people are brainwashed troubling. I think that in both cases these people often know what they are doing to a far greater extent that is let on even if they are legally children.

No doubt there are children who get involved knowing full well what they are doing but we still them as victims in virtually every other example of exploitation e.g. children in care who seek out a child grooming/prostitution rings because it provides them with access to more resources like money or even someone who shows them love e.g a pimp.

There is also a reason why we don’t allow child soldier to fight in war zones anymore (this in the UK has only happened in the last 15 years) even though I am sure you will find 14 year who are clearly more mature than some 18 year old because there is a very serious power balance issue between children and adults especially care givers.

Then since you need to be 16 to apply for your own passport and even then if that's your first passport you are going to need your parents help in practice to prove your a British citizen and there is also an interview too with an interviewer looking out for suspicious behaviour. As you can see other adults have to clearly be involved to put these ideas in these children head let alone help them get to Turkey and arrange transportation from there.

Original post by Davij038

Where am I being hypocritical?

You criticised me for stating my opinion that these war bride (and victims of child marriage /sexual slavery) and their children would not be openly banished by the British government if they were white we would be looking at ways to bring these girls home. Then go on to call for the mass voluntary reputation of non white immigration which in the context of your replies on this thread immigrate means anyone in the UK who isn’t white and I can’t see why you have excluded white immigration.

I do understand there are concerns about immigration and I’m open to rational debate e.g lack of integration, crime or lack of investment in infrastructure.

The latter of which I would blame largely on the British government’s poor future planning:

a) the NHS crisis we have caused by the entirely predictable increase in old people as the baby boomer retired.
b) housing crisis caused by deliberately allowing and encouraging house prices to become detached from wages for short term political gain.
c) the unnecessary commercialisation of state School with academies and the opening of free schools in area which already had an excess of school places while particularly rural school in places like South Western England are underfunded.

Then even if you were to blame infrastructure problems on immigration since its legal immigration if we are going to blame anyone for it should be the government not the people who have immigrated here. Plus in the case of EU migration the British government has spent more time blaming the EU instead of using the powers it actually has to manage EU migration like not being 1 of the few countries to place transitional controls on new EU countries, have employers/job recruiters go to those countries and be shocked when those new members come to your country and if you compare the UK to Belgium it is quite clear the freedom on movement is conditional - in that you can only stay if you find a job within 3 month (its monitored in Belgium), can support yourself and your not a drain on that state’s social security system.

Original post by Davij038

A dog being born on a stable doesn’t make it a horse. This idea that being born on a certain piece of dirt (‘magic dirt’) makes you as native as everyone else. I find the idea absurd and insulting.

My concerns are about the many moral and legalistic problems that come about from having a ‘magic dirt’ theory of citizenship.

It not about just being born here people generally consider people who have been brought up in the UK to be British at least culturally speaking just look at the victims of the Windrush scandal if they behaved like expats who regularly visited their place of birth and had passports that mess would never have happened.

Then I suspect you already know that just being born in the UK does not automatically result in British citizenship.

Original post by Davij038

I’ve skready acknowledged that legally their British, but ultimately it’s just a bit of paper.

Then if your unsure what a British identity I am sure there some people from Northern Ireland who will fill you in.

Original post by Davij038

Your second point is just plain ridiculous. White people built up civilisation in those areas and as well as by dint of conquest it is theirs- they built it.

“Uninhabited” - I like how you ignore the fact people were already living in the Americas before Europeans arrived and if it wasn’t for their help and hospitality its unlikely a permanent colony would have been succeeded especially if you consider the winters.
They didn’t try to peaceful co-exist with native Americans they actively disposed them of their land and moved them to reservations at best attempted a near ethnocide. Then if that wasn’t bad enough they didn’t want to fairly pay other to grow their labour-intensive cash crops to sell to Europe (a large part of what made permanent colonies feasible) themselves so they decided to twist Christianity to justify the enslaving of millions of Africans until industrialisation, the creation of a middle class and capitalism provided a better alternative in mechanisation and the fact an employer like a factory owner does not need to care about how you find food, housing or healthcare but it don’t change this mentality that allowed slavery.

Original post by Davij038

Immigration into western lands (and that includes the commonwealth, US and other white majority areas) are not bringing civilisation or setting up their own colonies in uninhabited areas.
theres a big difference between western colonisers setting up their own colonies and fighting off natives

Yes there is, immigration for the most part into western countries has being done in accordance with that countries laws and in many cases the government has actively encouraged people to immigrate. These people and there descendant for the most part integrate into the existing society.

While this clearly isn’t the case with white majority countries outside of Europe and you will find many of these immigrates (who in some cases moved as a whole village unit) went for the rumours of easy riches like gold or free land look up Homestead Acts and equivalent legislation.

Then are you saying you would support a group colonising an uninhabited part of this country who bring there own culture and have no interest in integrating into the existing society?

Original post by Davij038

and some immigrant turning up to do manual labour and being provided with a raft of benefits.

Don’t believe everything you read in the tabloids but do give some examples. Anyway if your talking about in work benefits like housing benefit that more of a symptoms of dysfunctional housing policy and a government unwilling to address the crisis of low wages in this country.

Original post by Davij038

What do you mean by white privilege?

The context of your comments I would guess a white heterosexual man who do not understand what its like to be discriminated against so is dismissive of the idea of discrimination and think measures to address it are a conspiracy again them.

Reply 75

anarchism101