Bishop149 wrote: ↑Fri, 22. Feb 19, 10:25
...Who will have such claims? Naturalised Foreigners almost entirely. . . . and you know who would be the MOST easily targeted by such a policy? Anyone Jewish.
And, right there, you've hit the "nail on the head." This is a clear demonstration of how something that people think is so easy to do and should be done can turn an entire country on its ear... That's exactly how dangerous an abuse of a power or a law can become, even if people think it's something they want to happen because they are "outraged."
People have to "think." I know it's difficult and distasteful, but it has to be done if the rights and lives of others are to be rescued from the unjust anger and outrage of future generations.
Feel free to escape the rest of my rant, below...
A child made a mistake and, as a result, was subjected to radical religious and outrageously reinforced cultural brainwashing. Now, her views as a young adult are suitably warped and she lives in what must be a confusing "reality." The "people" look at her as a symbol of the problem and a surrogate for some idealized "radicalized person." Obviously, such a thing can not be allowed to exist and the only politically correct thing to do is to refuse that existence by expunging it from their midst... They're not willing to execute her, since she hasn't actually committed a violent offense, so they'll just... exile her as soon as the opportunity exists to do so while still being able to claim it being a "righteous act." ie: Legal
And, if she is exiled and her citizenship revoked, that just sets the stage for the next time. And the next. I realize some would claim this as a false "slippery slope" but what system of Law does not consider precedent and what system of legitimate Law does not first hold to the convictions and good faith of "The People?" We have to guard against those things becoming something that were never intended no matter how strongly we may feel about them at the time. It's either act conscientiously or consign ourselves to anarchy.
I dunno... Maybe people don't understand what being a "citizen" of a State means? Maybe they're a bit complacent or apathetic? Maybe they don't understand that, while they are part of their State, their State is the one that acts on their behalf with other States?
Unless provided for by the State that claims sovereignty over the ground that one is standing on, a stateless person is basically "nobody" with only the barest "Rights" provided for under UN treaties that the State in question happens to have signed. That's why she's not had her citizenship revoked yet, but that tell people who are arguing for her exile something very significant about how important being a "Citizen" is.
Revoking someone's citizenship as a "punishment" for them holding to an unpopular creed or religion or approving of "the wrong things" is a terrible consideration. States don't even do that for the most heinous of criminals even if they do reduce their rights and privileges as a "citizen." All those people in prison are typically still citizens of their host nation, just with certain basic rights under suspension during incarceration. In some cases, reinstatement of certain rights is curtailed, but their fundamental nature as being a "citizen" is not put into question.
Sorry for the length of the response, but seeing people get outraged over the actions of a child and condemning the evolved young adult to what is effectively a life-long punishment simply because they don't agree with that child's choices.... I'm flabbergasted.
Edit:Add - Just to let the UK know they're not alone, here:
Alabama woman who joined IS sues to return Slightly different circumstances, but it's still close.