Shamima Begum citizenship decision sets a dangerous precedent

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/21/shamima-begum-citizenship-decision-sets-a-dangerous-precedent

Version 0 of 1.

The basis for revoking Shamima Begum’s citizenship (Javid faces legal threat over Isis recruit’s citizenship, 20 February) could, potentially, apply to millions of other Brits if we behave in a way that the home secretary is satisfied “is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”. Sajid Javid cannot legally make Begum stateless, so he relies on having “reasonable grounds for believing that [Begum] is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory”.

Many – perhaps nearly all – British-born children and grandchildren of immigrants have no lesser ability to acquire an overseas citizenship. In addition, several hundred thousand British Jews are able, without having to demonstrate any familial connection to the country, to become Israeli citizens. Then there are all those Brits who are currently using familial connection to secure citizenship of an EU country. Where they succeed, then there is definitely no risk of statelessness, should their British citizenship go up in flames. Kneejerk law is always bad, and never worse than that relating to national identity and citizenship status.Naomi WayneLondon

• However abhorrent the actions and statements of Shamima Begum, the decision to deprive her of British citizenship on the grounds that her mother – and hence Begum herself – is a Bangladeshi citizen sets a dangerous precedent. My partner and daughters are all British, but are entitled to Irish citizenship. So is everyone born in Northern Ireland, although I cannot recall anyone convicted of terrorism offences there ever being deprived of citizenship.

There must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of UK citizens who have some family connection that theoretically entitles them to nationality elsewhere. Indeed, many people have been investigating just such a possibility in response to Brexit. Now it seems that the British citizenship of each of them is at risk should their opinions or actions be deemed an embarrassment by a future government. What price loyalty and patriotism now?Iain ForbesStreatham, London

• England prides itself on being a humane country. I cannot understand how we can fail to allow back a 19-year-old British mother with a newborn baby. Shamima Begum has already lost two children and her husband is not with her. She left England at 15, having been persuaded that Isis was a regime she should support.

However foolish and wrong this was – and I have always thought it was – it was the behaviour of a teenage girl. Now she badly needs help, medical care, rest, kindness and sensible advice. To punish her at this time is cruel and wrong. We should be showing her that we are a humane society and ready to help her back into a better life with her child.Claire TomalinRichmond, London

• However we feel about Isis, this is a really tasteless example of “trial by media”. This teenage mother has already lost two children and has given birth to another only days ago, and yet she is being interviewed by the world’s press and being asked to demonstrate remorse and empathy to a world audience. Her lack of emotional response and blank expression suggest that she is suffering greatly on an emotional level, and she appears to this trained eye to be highly traumatised.Sarah EcclestonLecturer in counselling and psychotherapy, University of Salford

• The UN international covenant on civil and political rights, which the UK has ratified, declares: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” In its general comment on mobility rights under the covenant, the UN human rights committee said governments “must not, by stripping a person of nationality … arbitrarily prevent this person from returning to his or her own country”. Even deprived of her citizenship, there can be no doubt the UK remains Shamima Begum’s “own country” as she has no other. By obstructing her right to return, the government is violating international law.William SchabasProfessor of international law, Middlesex University

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition