100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Citizenship and terrorists ... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Blondey111
on
Sun 02/21/21 03:05 PM
|
|
I would be really interested to here your thoughts on this topic .
Nz is currently faced with the issue of a young woman (and her children) wanting to return to the country she previously resided in . As a teenager she left Australia to live in the Middle East and become an ISIS bride . She married and had children . Several years later she wants to return to Australia as a citizen . However she is believed to be a radicalised terrorist though her involvement has not yet been verified . She lived in New Zealand as a six year old then moved to Australia and gained citizenship in that country. So she has dual citizenship . Australia plans to revoke her citizenship , claiming that this would not make her stateless , it is legal and she can return to New Zealand . Her family are in Australia. There is an ongoing debate between the two countries on who should accept responsibility for her and her children and if she is allowed to return under what conditions . Human rights versus national security are the underlying concerns . There was a similar case in England . The young woman concerned had Bangladesh citizenship but had never lived in that country . Bangladesh did not wish to acknowledge her citizenship . She won a court case to allow her to return to the uk to fight her case . There is an article saying the court case was underway but I have been unable to find an outcome . Should a known or suspected terrorist be allowed to return home ?? What has more sway ., moral/ethical considerations versus national security ??? The well-being of children definitely complicates the situation .. as does weighing up what is best for the well-being in many vs the well-being of a few. I feel very conflicted on what is best .. I need to disappear right night but will add more input later along with links . Look forward to hearing what everyone thinks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say National Security has more sway on this one. She left on her own accord to be an ISIS bride. Who is to say she still doesn't have their goals on her agenda?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does NZ believe in due process?
If she hasn't done anything yet, she has a right when she was granted dual citizenship. If there are legitimate safety concerns, she should be heavily monitored, vetted and perhaps have more hoops to jump through. It could be a situation where she thought the grass is greener, but I have my doubts. That's probably why you're torn. I think it's a natural response. While I believe in due process, I certainly wouldn't want her living in my town. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Rock
on
Sun 02/21/21 03:18 PM
|
|
The moment she 'turned on her own',
New Zealand, nor Australia, are her home any longer. Had it been a weekend folly, I would suggest forgiveness. She, however, made a life of it. Maybe France can take her in? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does NZ believe in due process? If she hasn't done anything yet, she has a right when she was granted dual citizenship. If there are legitimate safety concerns, she should be heavily monitored, vetted and perhaps have more hoops to jump through. It could be a situation where she thought the grass is greener, but I have my doubts. That's probably why you're torn. I think it's a natural response. While I believe in due process, I certainly wouldn't want her living in my town. This^^^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say National Security has more sway on this one. She left on her own accord to be an ISIS bride. Who is to say she still doesn't have their goals on her agenda? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screw that! She gave up her human rights when she declared herself a isis bride. Weather she’s a verified terrorist or not she should never be allowed to enter another country. Any country. Would be hell if she got a chance to do her own verification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
bobtail76
on
Sun 02/21/21 04:03 PM
|
|
Screw that! She gave up her human rights when she declared herself a isis bride. Weather she’s a verified terrorist or not she should never be allowed to enter another country. Any country. Would be hell if she got a chance to do her own verification. Duel citizenship. They have rights. I'll be on board with countries not giving a privilege such as citizenship so willy nilly, but once you give it, they are entitled as every citizen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screw that! She gave up her human rights when she declared herself a isis bride. Weather she’s a verified terrorist or not she should never be allowed to enter another country. Any country. Would be hell if she got a chance to do her own verification. Duel citizenship. They have rights. I'll be on board with countries not giving a privilege such as citizenship so willy nilly, but once you give it, they are entitled as every citizen. I thought governments had the right to renounce or revoke citizenship. They should if not already |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IDK, if a woman marries a bank robber does that make her a bank robber too?
She left to marry an ISIS guy. Did she denounce her citizenship? Has she committed any acts of terrorizm? I would let her in, but surely keep an eye on her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Mon 02/22/21 01:02 AM
|
|
Australia already has revoked her citizenship. The PM of Australia 🤡 did so while pretending to find a resolution with our New Zealand PM, infuriating her for him passing the buck to us.
Now this young lady, her baby and child are New Zealand's concern. The thing is she was caught and arrested going from Syria into Turkey, at the border. She may not have been intending to come back to either Australia or New Zealand. Perhaps she was going to start a new life elsewhere? I wonder if the husband is alive still? . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The US, under trump, had a repatriate strategy and urged all European countries
to consider the same. This included, men and women. It was a punish-prosecute with exceptions approach. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya.....It's Trump's fault
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) It"s never been a secret what ISIS was doing, they even made videos of what they were doing as a recruiting tool.
2) She voluntarily left her biological family and went to the middle east and became an ISIS bride. 3) She was a radical before going to the middle east. 4) She supported what ISIS was doing and wanted to be part of it, even giving birth which is one way ISIS wanted to produce future terrorists. 5) when she became an ISIS bride IMO she became part of their "family". Personally I don't care where she ends up. No country should be "responsible" for her. She alone is responsible for what she became part of and IMO she should be severely punished. I couldn't care less if she wants to be where her biological family is located. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider this,
A country is comprised of its citizens. Normally, the country looks out for the safety of its citizens. Terrorism exists. Terrorism is a threat to the people of a country. Allowing someone associated with terrorism into a country is putting that country's citizens in danger, on purpose. The argument/debate focuses on grand ideals. However, we all know people do not live in grand ideals. When she is permitted to live in that country, she will talk to other people, possibly creating unrest in the local masses. The potential for a terrorist organization forming from her influence is a greater threat than her rights as a human being. She was a child when she left. She is now returning as an adult, who was influenced by a terrorist organization. Her manner and thinking has changed from when she was a child. Her value system is different from when she was a child. The potential of the real-time threats outweighs the focus on rights. Had she never been exposed to terrorist values, the threats would not offset her rights. Permitting a potential terrorist to gain citizenship in a country sets a dangerous precedent. Terrorist movements are kept secret for a reason. If I were part of a country's security department I would be wondering if a terrorist sleeper cell were forming. Would you allow a psychotic killer to live in your home with your family? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me with the minority report bullshlt.
Potential nonsense, got us in this surveillance state we are currently in Potential nonsense, has the government making risk assessments for us with lockdowns and a blanket judgement for who we can and can't visit When you use words like potential, that means you have no proof - and when it comes to due process, you need proof. If you want to relinquish your rights, go right ahead - have fun in your kangaroo courts. Good thing you're not in charge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me with the minority report bullshlt. Potential nonsense, got us in this surveillance state we are currently in Potential nonsense, has the government making risk assessments for us with lockdowns and a blanket judgement for who we can and can't visit When you use words like potential, that means you have no proof - and when it comes to due process, you need proof. If you want to relinquish your rights, go right ahead - have fun in your kangaroo courts. Good thing you're not in charge. How did this go from NZ to USA? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Mon 02/22/21 07:17 PM
|
|
Anyhow Blondey, I think she will end up here, but they will watch her like a hawk. Jacinda Ardern has a huge heart and talks about the children a lot.
There is another ISIS follower who wants to come back and has contacted the government, a male. Jacinda told him she won't help him, he has to make his way to a country that has a New Zealand Consulate. http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news/legal-news/new-zealand-has-responsibility-for-isis-man-says-law-academic/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Blondey111
on
Mon 02/22/21 07:25 PM
|
|
The following links relate to the UK case Shamima Begum . The initial transcript was from an interview with a UK war reporter conducted while she was still in the Middle East camp . He asked questions about beheadngs and her exposure to violence with ISIS. Her response showed acceptance but given where she was could she really be expected to speak about against ISIS or Islam . There appears to be no apparent regret rather distaste for the environment and situation she finds herself in now , pregnant , without her husbands support and not knowing his fate . The interview was before she gave birth and the death of her baby boy . It is a conflicting read .
Found an update posted 2 days ago stating the UK courts are close to releasing the outcome of her case within the next week or two . http://news.sky.com/story/is-bride-shamima-begum-full-transcript-i-did-have-a-good-time-there-11640278 http://www.fairobserver.com/more/international_security/kristian-alexander-shamima-begum-islamic-state-fighters-returnees-cirizenship-deradicalization-news-15511/ http://www.npr.org/2020/11/23/937972121/court-considers-whether-woman-who-joined-isis-as-a-teen-is-allowed-to-return-to- https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53427197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Blondey111
on
Mon 02/22/21 07:36 PM
|
|
|
|
