dad's distraught amid fears of kids in Syria...

http://news.sky.com/story/1502885/dads-distraught-amid-fears-kids-in-syria.....

The fathers of nine British children who it is feared have been taken to wartorn Syria are "distraught", their MP has said.

Sisters Khadija Dawood, Sugra Dawood and Zohra Dawood are thought to have taken the nine - including one three-year-old - to the country after an Islamic pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.

And the Naz Shah, MP for Bradford West, where some of the family lives, told Sky News: "I met the parents and the parents were absolutely distraught.

"It is very visible and they have hardly slept and hardly eaten.

"What the fathers said was that it has come totally out of the blue and a shock to them that their wives are missing and that the children are missing.

this must be awful, this has to be stopped..

If they want to put their own lives at risk then fine but taking innocent children is just selfish .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:If they want to put their own lives at risk then fine but taking innocent children is just selfish .

i would be very worried for those little girls...

not bothered about the mothers who have taken the children but those children need to be brought back home .

The other three girls who left well not bothered about them they're old enough to know the difference , and i doubt they will ever come back home i hope they don't they decided to leave the comfort of England so tough stay there .

Vod what is your sig about?

Its scripture about Israel

I believe that the persecution against Israel is just hatred .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:not bothered about the mothers who have taken the children but those children need to be brought back home .

The other three girls who left well not bothered about them they're old enough to know the difference , and i doubt they will ever come back home i hope they don't they decided to leave the comfort of England so tough stay there .

they will never be the same if isis get hold of them...

Vicar of Dibley wrote:I believe that the persecution against Israel is just hatred .

By whom? Hamas? Muslims? People on here?

eddie wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:I believe that the persecution against Israel is just hatred .

By whom? Hamas? Muslims? People on here?

History edds, and if i went by the one person on here then i would be dafter than her .
I thought the media did a great job at making Israel look bad . People believed it .

If Israel was persecuted, the BILLIONS of dollars it receives every year would be withdrawn, the people it kills EVERY DAY would be spashed all over the papers, the children the settlers run over would be splashed all over the papers, there would be photos of the Palestians mothers giving birth at check points while IDF soldiers stand and laugh, photo's of the ambulances they hold up at checkpoints while people die inside them, reams and reams about the number of journalists they have killed, much more publicity about the children they have imprisoned, tortured and sexually abused etc etc etc etc etc.

Only it wouldn't be persecution, it would be the truth, and what happens when every other country transgresses, except Israel, which is allowed to get away with all of it, without a peep against them.

and when we look at islam the daily beheadings ,stoning of women who were raped , 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison for a man who dared to ridicule islam (every right to ridicule islam it is an evil cult) and lets not forget the FGM of British Muslim girls being illegally mutilated in this country, and taken to backward countries to get mutilated during the summer holidays. Oh and lets not forget the suicide bombings and also the young adults leaving Britain to join ISIS all in the name of allah .

Check points are for security , anyone could be in those ambulances ready to blow people up .

Morning folks. Why oh why do we allow to come back into our country those who join ISIS and then come back here? Surely they should be banned from entering, instead of put in prison at the tax payers expence. Having been schooled by ISIS some of them may pose a threat to our safety.

stardesk wrote:Morning folks. Why oh why do we allow to come back into our country those who join ISIS and then come back here? Surely they should be banned from entering, instead of put in prison at the tax payers expence. Having been schooled by ISIS some of them may pose a threat to our safety.

International law, human rights and the rights to citizenship. In a nutshell.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

stardesk wrote:Morning folks. Why oh why do we allow to come back into our country those who join ISIS and then come back here? Surely they should be banned from entering, instead of put in prison at the tax payers expence. Having been schooled by ISIS some of them may pose a threat to our safety.

International law, human rights and the rights to citizenship. In a nutshell.

Actually they could be and should be charged with high treason, of which should certainly be the case if they have pledged their allegiance to Isis.
Maximum term for this is life imprisonment.

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

International law, human rights and the rights to citizenship. In a nutshell.

Actually they could be and should be charged with high treason, of which should certainly be the case if they have pledged their allegiance to Isis.
Maximum term for this is life imprisonment.

agree

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

International law, human rights and the rights to citizenship. In a nutshell.

Actually they could be and should be charged with high treason, of which should certainly be the case if they have pledged their allegiance to Isis.
Maximum term for this is life imprisonment.

Lol! Ok but that doesn't in any way detract from the point I was making. In fact, the opposite. You'll have to let them back into the country as citizens to charge them, especially with treason.

Seems most people want to simplify this, when in fact it is hugely complicated.  There are rebels that the West supports, some people go to help them because of the atrocities committed by Assad.  Some go to try and rescue relatives.  Some go to help the civilians who are suffering so much, and some go to join ISIS.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Actually they could be and should be charged with high treason, of which should certainly be the case if they have pledged their allegiance to Isis.
Maximum term for this is life imprisonment.

Lol! Ok but that doesn't in any way detract from the point I was making. In fact, the opposite. You'll have to let them back into the country as citizens to charge them, especially with treason.

I am am making the point they can easily lose the rights through being prosecuted for high treason.
Anyway my view is this, like any contract, they should offer anyone who wants to go and join ISIS the the right to do so and would rid the country of many of the extremist Muslims. This contract would thus cease them of any rights to any British citizenship, being as many burn their passports as a sign of a allegiance to Isis. I fail to see why we are making a fuss over who wants to join. Let them join and then they can get what the want. A very good chance of dying through martyrdom.

risingsun wrote:Seems most people want to simplify this, when in fact it is hugely complicated.  There are rebels that the West supports, some people go to help them because of the atrocities committed by Assad.  Some go to try and rescue relatives.  Some go to help the civilians who are suffering so much, and some go to join ISIS.

ISIS have declared war on this country, thus any who join and have given allegiance to Isis would be traitors.
Al Qaeda has declared war on this country the same applies.
Those fighting against these groups would not be traitors if those groups have not declared war on the UK.
Simple and not complicated at all.

Belatucadros wrote:

risingsun wrote:Seems most people want to simplify this, when in fact it is hugely complicated.  There are rebels that the West supports, some people go to help them because of the atrocities committed by Assad.  Some go to try and rescue relatives.  Some go to help the civilians who are suffering so much, and some go to join ISIS.

ISIS have declared war on this country, thus any who join and have given allegiance to Isis would be traitors.
Al Qaeda has declared war on this country the same applies.
Those fighting against these groups would not be traitors if those groups have not declared war on the UK.
Simple and not complicated at all.

Em, did I say they weren't?   I said it what people were doing going to Syria was not one dimensional and they are not all going to join IS, but that was obviously too complicated for you, so you fell back on your standard rhetoric.

And anyone who doesn't think that Syria is complicated has the brains of a gnat, although that is probably being kind.

risingsun wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

ISIS have declared war on this country, thus any who join and have given allegiance to Isis would be traitors.
Al Qaeda has declared war on this country the same applies.
Those fighting against these groups would not be traitors if those groups have not declared war on the UK.
Simple and not complicated at all.

Em, did I say they weren't?   I said it what people were doing going to Syria was not one dimensional and they are not all going to join IS, but that was obviously too complicated for you, so you fell back on your standard rhetoric.

And anyone who doesn't think that Syria is complicated has the brains of a gnat, although that is probably being kind.

Its not complicated as I just easily pointed out.
Again all you can do is post abuse sassy when you have no answers.
That is your trade mark

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Ok but that doesn't in any way detract from the point I was making. In fact, the opposite. You'll have to let them back into the country as citizens to charge them, especially with treason.

I am am making the point they can easily lose the rights through being prosecuted for high treason.
Anyway my view is this, like any contract, they should offer anyone who wants to go and join ISIS the the right to do so and would rid the country of many of the extremist Muslims. This contract would thus cease them of any rights to any British citizenship, being as many burn their passports as a sign of a allegiance to Isis. I fail to see why we are making a fuss over who wants to join. Let them join and then they can get what the want. A very good chance of dying through martyrdom.

You can't deprive anyone of the right of citizenship under international law. That's not up for debate or opinion.

This country cannot not revoke citizenship of someone born here.

And if you want to charge someone with treason, you can only charge them as a citizen. Or charge them under some international law.

Further, Isis is not a country that is recognised under international law and so can't provide them with an alternative citizenship. Unless you want Isis to be recognised as a sovereign country?

Belatucadros wrote:

risingsun wrote:

Em, did I say they weren't?   I said it what people were doing going to Syria was not one dimensional and they are not all going to join IS, but that was obviously too complicated for you, so you fell back on your standard rhetoric.

And anyone who doesn't think that Syria is complicated has the brains of a gnat, although that is probably being kind.

Its not complicated as I just easily pointed out.
Again all you can do is post abuse sassy when you have no answers.
That is your trade mark

I think you will find it is quite complicated as pointed out above.

Or are you suggesting the government are just sitting on their hands?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

I am am making the point they can easily lose the rights through being prosecuted for high treason.
Anyway my view is this, like any contract, they should offer anyone who wants to go and join ISIS the the right to do so and would rid the country of many of the extremist Muslims. This contract would thus cease them of any rights to any British citizenship, being as many burn their passports as a sign of a allegiance to Isis. I fail to see why we are making a fuss over who wants to join. Let them join and then they can get what the want. A very good chance of dying through martyrdom.

You can't deprive anyone of the right of citizenship under international law. That's not up for debate or opinion.

This country cannot not revoke citizenship of someone born here.

And if you want to charge someone with treason, you can only charge them as a citizen. Or charge them under some international law.

Further, Isis is not a country that is recognised under international law and so can't provide them with an alternative citizenship. Unless you want Isis to be recognised as a sovereign country?

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06820/SN06820.pdf

That is why I said create a contract and get rid of the majority as the better way of getting rid of the problem.
No costs for traials and keeping them in jail for life for high treason.
Palestinians do not have a Soverign state Zack, but have passports and citizenship for the West bank and Gaza, you may want to rethink that one.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Its not complicated as I just easily pointed out.
Again all you can do is post abuse sassy when you have no answers.
That is your trade mark

I think you will find it is quite complicated as pointed out above.

Or are you suggesting the government are just sitting on their hands?

I have proven its not complicated as to who the enemy is and who would be classed as traitors.

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You can't deprive anyone of the right of citizenship under international law. That's not up for debate or opinion.

This country cannot not revoke citizenship of someone born here.

And if you want to charge someone with treason, you can only charge them as a citizen. Or charge them under some international law.

Further, Isis is not a country that is recognised under international law and so can't provide them with an alternative citizenship. Unless you want Isis to be recognised as a sovereign country?

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06820/SN06820.pdf

That is why I said create a contract and get rid of the majority as the better way of getting rid of the problem.
No costs for traials and keeping them in jail for life for high treason.
Palestinians do not have a Soverign state Zack, but have passports and citizenship for the West bank and Gaza, you may want to rethink that one.

What about non-naturalised citizens? I.e. Those born here.

As for the Palestinian passport - no, you should have a rethink. Lol! Seriously? It only has any recognition becuase Israel says so. They have no sovereign powers. Seriously dude, look that up.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06820/SN06820.pdf

That is why I said create a contract and get rid of the majority as the better way of getting rid of the problem.
No costs for traials and keeping them in jail for life for high treason.
Palestinians do not have a Soverign state Zack, but have passports and citizenship for the West bank and Gaza, you may want to rethink that one.

What about non-naturalised citizens? I.e. Those born here.

As for the Palestinian passport - no, you should have a rethink. Lol! Seriously? It only has any recognition becuase Israel says so. They have no sovereign powers. Seriously dude, look that up.

Hence why I said a contract is drawn up and made legal.
Again the view to a soverign state is moot by you as seen by West Bank and Gaza.
I have no need to look up anything and you are just stalling now as you have no answer.

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

What about non-naturalised citizens? I.e. Those born here.

As for the Palestinian passport - no, you should have a rethink. Lol! Seriously? It only has any recognition becuase Israel says so. They have no sovereign powers. Seriously dude, look that up.

Hence why I said a contract is drawn up and made legal.
Again the view to a soverign state is moot by you as seen by West Bank and Gaza.
I have no need to look up anything and you are just stalling now as you have no answer.

And how will this contract not violate international law?

As for a Palestinian Authority Passport - Google it and you'll see how wrong you are. Or wallow in ignorance. Up to you.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Hence why I said a contract is drawn up and made legal.
Again the view to a soverign state is moot by you as seen by West Bank and Gaza.
I have no need to look up anything and you are just stalling now as you have no answer.

And how will this contract not violate international law?  

As for a Palestinian Authority Passport - Google it and you'll see how wrong you are. Or wallow in ignorance. Up to you.

As seen we already take away citizenship, so intentional law, what of it?
Maybe you can show many how many Muslim nations abide by International law?
Does ISIS abide by this?
If they do not, then I fail to see any problem year, if which they already do in burning their own passports as a sign of not being British and allegiance to ISIS
I have no need to Google anything. The point you made was on ISIS having  sovereign state, well we know the West Bank and Gaza are not sovereign states and yet there is Palestinian citizens of both areas and people with passports.
So stop stalling to the point made, as your point as seen was in error, as those who joined ISS could easily be deported back to them

Well, look on the bright side...thats 9 little jihadis we wont have to worry about......

darknessss wrote:Well, look on the bright side...thats 9 little jihadis we wont have to worry about......

Not the babies and little children though , they have a chance at a decent life here they have been taken without understanding .

most in fact all of the so called jihadis have a chance...just as much as anyone else to have a decent life hear...yet they spit in the face of all of us and make out its due to some intangibe form of "victimisation".

these middle eastern types, be they jewish arabic or whatever are full of the "victim card mentality". no matter what
"Its always someone elses fault". Its NEVER down to their ways....

darknessss wrote:most in fact all of the so called jihadis have a chance...just as much as anyone else to have a decent life hear...yet they spit in the face of all of us and make out its due to some intangibe form of "victimisation".

these middle eastern types, be they jewish arabic or whatever are full of the "victim card mentality". no matter what
"Its always someone elses fault". Its NEVER down to their ways....

I agree totally but babies can't be labelled as jihads can they i mean they are innocent and don't understand .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

darknessss wrote:most in fact all of the so called jihadis have a chance...just as much as anyone else to have a decent life hear...yet they spit in the face of all of us and make out its due to some intangibe form of "victimisation".

these middle eastern types, be they jewish arabic or whatever are full of the "victim card mentality". no matter what
"Its always someone elses fault". Its NEVER down to their ways....

I agree totally but babies can't be labelled as jihads can they i mean they are innocent and don't understand .

nope maybe not...but with mothers like that they soon would have been......

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

And how will this contract not violate international law?  

As for a Palestinian Authority Passport - Google it and you'll see how wrong you are. Or wallow in ignorance. Up to you.

As seen we already take away citizenship, so intentional law, what of it?
Maybe you can show many how many Muslim nations abide by International law?
Does ISIS abide by this?
If they do not, then I fail to see any problem year, if which they already do in burning their own passports as a sign of not being British and allegiance to ISIS
I have no need to Google anything. The point you made was on ISIS having  sovereign state, well we know the West Bank and Gaza are not sovereign states and yet there is Palestinian citizens of both areas and people with passports.
So stop stalling to the point made, as your point as seen was in error, as those who joined ISS could easily be deported back to them

It is clear you don't understand international law with respect to citizenship.

And you are completey ignoring the point of non-naturalised citizens, with respect to international law. Which is why I asked "how your "contract" will accommodate for this?"

And if you bothered to research for yourself, you would realise that the PA passport has very limited sovereign recognition. In fact, how easy do you think it is for a Palestinian to use his passport for travel? HA!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


As seen we already take away citizenship, so intentional law, what of it?
Maybe you can show many how many Muslim nations abide by International law?
Does ISIS abide by this?
If they do not, then I fail to see any problem year, if which they already do in burning their own passports as a sign of not being British and allegiance to ISIS
I have no need to Google anything. The point you made was on ISIS having  sovereign state, well we know the West Bank and Gaza are not sovereign states and yet there is Palestinian citizens of both areas and people with passports.
So stop stalling to the point made, as your point as seen was in error, as those who joined ISS could easily be deported back to them

It is clear you don't understand international law with respect to citizenship.

And you are completey ignoring the point of non-naturalised citizens, with respect to international law. Which is why I asked "how your "contract" will accommodate for this?"

And if you bothered to research for yourself, you would realise that the PA passport has very limited sovereign recognition. In fact, how easy do you think it is for a Palestinian to use his passport for travel? HA!  

1) Point moot, again you keep quoting gobbledygook without quoting international law.
I understand it very well of which ISIS members do not respect it or follow international law.

2) So your only poor argument is on non-naturalized citizens, where again who says we have to abide with international law when hardly anyone else does anyway? Again we can even attempt to change international law on this

3) Moot point again, which is a mere lame distraction to the point on sovereignty. It matters not on how a Palestinian is restricted on travel, he can have one even though he comes from no sovereign state. You stated how could we return them to something which is not a sovereign state, yet we can certainly return people to the West Ban and Gaza, neither of which are sovereign states, with you poorly trying to delfect as usual when you are in error

Seems this is already happenning to loo to make it very legal:




Revocation of citizenship of terrorists – a matter of political expediency

By Kay Hailbronner (University of Konstanz and member of the EUDO CITIZENSHIP advisory board)



Let’s be clear: We are not in a dispute about the use of denationalisation policies to get rid of unwanted citizens who do not comply with a code of conduct how to behave as a “good” or “loyal” citizen. Nor are we talking about deprivation or revocation of citizenship on account of race, political opinion, religion, descent etc. There are clear rules of public international law prohibiting discriminatory citizenship policies and none of the policies discussed here call these into question. What we are discussing is the different and by no means absolutely novel issue of revoking the citizenship of persons who have given up or are irrefutably considered as having renounced that basic attachment which distinguishes citizenship from a residence permit. A recent report of de Groot and Vink for the European Commission lists voluntary military service and non military public service in nine, and eight EU countries respectively as a ground for revocation of citizenship, subject of course to some restrictions (prevention of statelessness) and exceptions.

In around half of the 28 countries included in the study, seriously prejudicial behaviour is considered as a ground for revocation of citizenship. The European Convention on Nationality of 6 November1997 provides for revocation of citizenship for conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State party ( Art.7 para 1 lit.d). Very similar provisions on revocation are laid down in Art. 8 para 3 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961.

What is new is the inclusion of a specific type of seriously prejudicial behaviour which is considered as endangering the safety of the population of a state and its security into this catalogue. The actors are not totalitarian or authoritarian regimes but democratic states with well established institutions to protect human rights and to ensure the rule of law. Not that the democratic character of the states in question would dispense us from closely watching the transfer and exercise of powers to the executive branch, particularly I such a rights-sensitive area as denationalisation policies. Safeguards against arbitrary actions and abuse of power, conditions and procedures must be predominant on the watch list, as Peter Schuck rightly emphasizes. But why should revocation of citizenship of terrorists result inevitably in arbitrary and abusive exercise of power, as Audrey Macklin assumes?

What makes international terrorism so distinctive is not only its criminal and administrative relevance, but also its relevance for discontinuance of that special relationship established by citizenship. In order to answer this question it is not sufficient to conjure up emphatically the uniqueness of the ties between a citizen and a state. It is true that citizenship establishes a special relationship based upon security and stability. Security and stability on the side of the individual citizen require that denationalisation remains a rare exception. Citizenship implies rights, whether it is designated as a privilege, as a right to have rights or as a contract. For that reason deprivation of citizenship requires an overriding public interest and is subject to proportionality.

Ordinary crimes, even of a serious nature, have not been considered as sufficient under Art. 7 of the European Convention to destroy the bond of citizenship. Yet, fundamental and persistent alienation from the nation as a political community has – in spite of divergent interpretations and applications – frequently been considered as a justification for revocation of citizenship. Democratic states in the defence of their constitutional order and protection of the safety of their population and the security of the state are not restricted to a regime of criminal and administrative sanctions if their own nationals turn against them.

Legal comparison shows that there is no uniformity. States, according to their particular political conditions, and history that is sometimes reflected in constitutional provisions, have largely prohibited involuntary revocation of citizenship. Germany is one example, though it provides for loss of citizenship for voluntary service in foreign military services or in case of voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship. Other states, like Britain, have applied the concept to high treason, espionage, etc. International treaties, like the European Convention on Nationality of 1997 or the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness provide further barriers. States may not provide for the loss of nationality if the person concerned would become stateless (except in case of fraud). One could discuss what this means if a state’s national joins a group or organisation, such as the “Islamic State”, which is dominating a state-like territory and exercises state-like authority.

Discussion of the international and constitutional law prerequisites of revocation of citizenship is not the concern of Audrey Macklin. She argues primarily with illegitimacy. As a lawyer I have some difficulty with this term. If it is not illegal, what are the criteria for illegitimacy or immorality? Her personal idea of how democratic states should behave? That of course may be an acceptable political reasoning, provided I learn more about its ideological premises which I may share or not. I do understand Peter Spiro’s objection about the revocation of citizenship as a” security theatre” although I feel not confident on the basis of the facts to judge whether it is true that revocation of citizenship for international terrorists is impractical and irrelevant. The arguments of illegitimacy, in my view are hardly convincing. Assuming that revocation of citizenship is a (prohibited) form of punishment simply ignores the legal nature of revocation of citizenship. It is not destined to sanction acts of international terrorism, in addition to a potential criminal or administrative sanction. By untying the bond of citizenship, the former citizen can no longer rely upon his/her citizenship for unlimited entry and residence and free international travel. The further argument that there is no chance of rehabilitation is based on the same misunderstanding of revocation of citizenship as a special form of punishment. Citizenship of such persons is revoked because they have given up their attachment to a community by attacking the very fundament of that community, not by merely violating its internal rules of public order. To talk in this context of an inalienable right of rehabilitation, distorts the purpose of citizenship revocation.

The hard questions arise with the formulation of a precise and judicially reviewable provision authorising the executive to revoke citizenship. International terrorism as such is a term open to divergent interpretations. We do, however, have quite some experience, based upon the jurisprudence of national and international courts and Security Council Resolutions, in defining international terrorism. In order to be effective, a provision must include such actions as joining extremist organisations for training in order to use such training for participation in terrorist activities, as well as a membership in an organisation destined to fight against the state whose citizenship the person concerned possesses.

A further question is whether the introduction of a new provision on revocation of citizenship serves a useful purpose. Utility cannot be denied by reference to criminal law. It goes without saying that acts of international terrorism should be punished and that administrative action should, where possible, be taken to limit the use of passports for international travel for the purpose of preparing or assisting international terrorism – the technical and cynical use of citizenship rights, as Peter Schuck has phrased it. Criminal and administrative sanctions are always attached to specific activities. They do not cover the aspect of using citizenship in a general and in principle unforeseeable manner for acts destined to endanger the security of the state of which the perpetrators are citizens.

The cosmopolitan nature of this type of terrorism, as Christian Joppke has aptly described it, is misunderstood by Vesco Paskalev when he argues that the jihadists do not care about their citizenship. They might indeed not care about their attachment to the state whose citizenship they posses but they do care about the possibilities that a Canadian, US, British or German passport conveys with visa-free international travel, free entry and residence in their “home” country and diplomatic protection if something does not go quite as smoothly as expected.

Revocation of citizenship means a substantial interference with individual rights. It can only be justified if tightly defined material conditions in accordance with the constitutional law of each country and its international commitments are fulfilled. Risk assessment and proof of an affiliation, assistance or membership in an international terrorist organisation will be essential elements in this procedure. Whether there is a practical value in revocation of citizenship for citizens engaged in international terrorism in addition to criminal and administrative sanctions is within the framework of law a matter of political expediency which may well lead to different results in different countries.

http://eudo-citizenship.eu/commentaries/citizenship-forum/citizenship-forum-cat/1268-the-return-of-banishment-do-the-new-denationalisation-policies-weaken-citizenship?showall=&start=6

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

It is clear you don't understand international law with respect to citizenship.

And you are completey ignoring the point of non-naturalised citizens, with respect to international law. Which is why I asked "how your "contract" will accommodate for this?"

And if you bothered to research for yourself, you would realise that the PA passport has very limited sovereign recognition. In fact, how easy do you think it is for a Palestinian to use his passport for travel? HA!  

1) Point moot, again you keep quoting gobbledygook without quoting international law.
I understand it very well of which ISIS members do not respect it or follow international law.

2) So your only poor argument is on non-naturalized citizens, where again who says we have to abide with international law when hardly anyone else does anyway? Again we can even attempt to change international law on this

3) Moot point again, which is a mere lame distraction to the point on sovereignty. It matters not on how a Palestinian is restricted on travel, he can have one even though he comes from no sovereign state. You stated how could we return them to something which is not a sovereign state, yet we can certainly return people to the West Ban and Gaza, neither of which are sovereign states, with you poorly trying to delfect as usual when you are in error

The PA is still recognised by under International law. Isis is not. Do you want this changed?

Sorry, I assumed you knew I was referring to Article 15 of the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights. Google that, or wallow in ignorance.

You seem to think I'm playing some sort of debate tactic. Stop being paranoid. I'm asking you some constructive questions. I can return to berating you if that's what pleases you.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

1) Point moot, again you keep quoting gobbledygook without quoting international law.
I understand it very well of which ISIS members do not respect it or follow international law.

2) So your only poor argument is on non-naturalized citizens, where again who says we have to abide with international law when hardly anyone else does anyway? Again we can even attempt to change international law on this

3) Moot point again, which is a mere lame distraction to the point on sovereignty. It matters not on how a Palestinian is restricted on travel, he can have one even though he comes from no sovereign state. You stated how could we return them to something which is not a sovereign state, yet we can certainly return people to the West Ban and Gaza, neither of which are sovereign states, with you poorly trying to delfect as usual when you are in error

The PA is still recognised by under International law. Isis is not. Do you want this changed?

Sorry, I assumed you knew I was referring to Article 15 of the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights. Google that, or wallow in ignorance.

You seem to think I'm playing some sort of debate tactic. Stop being paranoid. I'm asking you some constructive questions. I can return to berating you if that's what pleases you.

Again both Gaza and the West bank are not sovereign states, so it is very amusing how you now move the goal posts, all of which is irrelevant to the evidence I previously posted. Do pipe down with the emotional bullshit as it does not work, you more than anyone are clueless on psychological and poorly use it in every post in the worst form of deflection. Its tedious and shows the limits of your maturity, so grow up. Anyway laws can change, as you well know and anyone over 21 should be deported who has been prosecuted as a traitor.

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The PA is still recognised by under International law. Isis is not. Do you want this changed?

Sorry, I assumed you knew I was referring to Article 15 of the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights. Google that, or wallow in ignorance.

You seem to think I'm playing some sort of debate tactic. Stop being paranoid. I'm asking you some constructive questions. I can return to berating you if that's what pleases you.

Again both Gaza and the West bank are not sovereign states, so it is very amusing how you now move the goal posts, all of which is irrelevant to the evidence I previously posted. Do pipe down with the emotional bullshit as it does not work, you more than anyone are clueless on psychological and poorly use it in every post in the worst form of deflection. Its tedious and shows the limits of your maturity, so grow up. Anyway laws can change, as you well know and anyone over 21 should be deported who has been prosecuted as a traitor.

Again you're accusing me of debating tactics.

Perhaps you're just paranoid or perhaps just incapable of answering the question about Article 15.

Either way, it seems you have no answer for me.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Again both Gaza and the West bank are not sovereign states, so it is very amusing how you now move the goal posts, all of which is irrelevant to the evidence I previously posted. Do pipe down with the emotional bullshit as it does not work, you more than anyone are clueless on psychological and poorly use it in every post in the worst form of deflection. Its tedious and shows the limits of your maturity, so grow up. Anyway laws can change, as you well know and anyone over 21 should be deported who has been prosecuted as a traitor.

Again you're accusing me of debating tactics.

Perhaps you're just paranoid or perhaps just incapable of answering the question about Article 15.

Either way, it seems you have no answer for me.

Really, considering I have answered proves this is some little infantile game for you, I suggest you read back where again laws can change and some are in the process of doing so as seen within the EU itself

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Again you're accusing me of debating tactics.

Perhaps you're just paranoid or perhaps just incapable of answering the question about Article 15.

Either way, it seems you have no answer for me.

Really, considering I have answered proves this is some little infantile game for you, I suggest you read back where again laws can change and some are in the process of doing so as seen within the EU itself

You haven't addressed Article 15. You wanted me to cite "international" law, so I did.

Sovereign law has to take into account international law, if that country has signed up. The UK certainly have.

You haven't addressed this at all.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Really, considering I have answered proves this is some little infantile game for you, I suggest you read back where again laws can change and some are in the process of doing so as seen within the EU itself

You haven't addressed Article 15. You wanted me to cite "international" law, so I did.

Sovereign law has to take into account international law, if that country has signed up. The UK certainly have.

You haven't addressed this at all.

Why do I need to address it if I am looking to change it or amend it?

The UK and the EU are as seen above looking and have changed laws on revoking citizenship and deportation. Many counties do not always abide by international law.
Which goes back to my point on Muslim nations. Its time the uk applied the same to over 21 year old ISIS members formerly from the UK

You never answered any of those points

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You haven't addressed Article 15. You wanted me to cite "international" law, so I did.

Sovereign law has to take into account international law, if that country has signed up. The UK certainly have.

You haven't addressed this at all.

Why do I need to address it if I am looking to change it or amend it?

The UK and the EU are as seen above looking and have changed laws on revoking citizenship and deportation. Many counties do not always abide by international law.
Which goes back to my point on Muslim nations. Its time the uk applied the same to over 21 year old ISIS members formerly from the UK

You never answered any of those points

The UK are looking to change laws (and have already changed some laws, if I'm not mistaken) regarding naturalised citizens.

I doubt any law can circumvent Article 15 regarding citizens born here. In fact it would probably take another international treaty for other countries to agree.

Nor would Article 15 allow you to deport someone to Isis. For a start there is no country called Isis/Deash/etc - the borders are too fluid and I don't think Syria or Iraq would agree either.

This is why I mentioned non-naturalised citizens. I'm not denying you could probably do that to naturalised citizens but you would deport them to their country of origin, not some fluid ISIS-land. That's just laughable in practice.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Why do I need to address it if I am looking to change it or amend it?

The UK and the EU are as seen above looking and have changed laws on revoking citizenship and deportation. Many counties do not always abide by international law.
Which goes back to my point on Muslim nations. Its time the uk applied the same to over 21 year old ISIS members formerly from the UK

You never answered any of those points

The UK are looking to change laws (and have already changed some laws, if I'm not mistaken) regarding naturalised citizens.

I doubt any law can circumvent Article 15 regarding citizens born here. In fact it would probably take another international treaty for other countries to agree.

Nor would Article 15 allow you to deport someone to Isis. For a start there is no country called Isis/Deash/etc - the borders are too fluid and I don't think Syria or Iraq would agree either.

This is why I mentioned non-naturalised citizens. I'm not denying you could probably do that to naturalised citizens but you would deport them to their country of origin, not some fluid ISIS-land. That's just laughable in practice.

Doubt is a poor reasoning you are not accustom with Zack

Belatucadros wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The UK are looking to change laws (and have already changed some laws, if I'm not mistaken) regarding naturalised citizens.

I doubt any law can circumvent Article 15 regarding citizens born here. In fact it would probably take another international treaty for other countries to agree.

Nor would Article 15 allow you to deport someone to Isis. For a start there is no country called Isis/Deash/etc - the borders are too fluid and I don't think Syria or Iraq would agree either.

This is why I mentioned non-naturalised citizens. I'm not denying you could probably do that to naturalised citizens but you would deport them to their country of origin, not some fluid ISIS-land. That's just laughable in practice.

Doubt is a poor reasoning you are not accustom with Zack

That's pathetic. Even by your standards. Maybe you're getting bored.

But article 15 is the reason why your contract to deport back to Isis land, as well as the other reasons mentioned above, won't work.

My reasoning is just fine. Or you would have answered the post above.