Shemima Begum

If we don't bring them back but leave them in the camps they will of course have access to a new generation of young people who will have even more reason to feel that the west has destroyed their lives. Young people who will be ripe for recruitment and radicalisation. If they are then able to move to other countries they will carry that with them. If they remain in the camps the camps could become centres for a new conflict. All it needs is someone to smuggle some arms into them. Of course it would cost money to bring them home and deal with them, but the cost of not bringing them home could be much higher.

They cannot wander clandestinely now, but a year or two on, the Syrians may decide that they have better things to do than maintain these camps and feed these people. Then what?

What we should say is: you may come home and you will face criminal proceedings and probably a long term in prison. I would think it would be possible to send at least some of them to the International Court at The Hague on genocide and other war crimes, which could result in life sentences and it should be possible to prosecute them in this country for crimes with long prison terms attached. ISIS did rather enjoy filming all its nastier actions and publicising them. It is difficult to deny something you have been filmed doing or have boasted or described online.

It's a good argument to put forward M0nica and I understand your reasoning behind it but, none of those who are ISIS supporters and are in the camps are able "wander clandestinely" anywhere, are they? And if we do accept any of them back to the countries of origin, what is the deterrent to any other would be ISIS supporters? Aren't we sending the message that, no matter what you've done, no matter what you've been involved with, you can always come home?

Monica you have made a very valid point.

I think the situation with the men is more problematic because they will have undoubtedly been involved in fighting and probably rape and other violence.

I know some of the women have been active online recruiters, but I think the majority have, as they say, been confined to their homes and domestic duties. That is where ISIS think women should stay.

But at the end of the day it is not so much a choice of what we want to happen, but what is in our best interests. I think it is our best interest to let them return home where we can monitor and manage them rather than leave 1,000s, may be 10,000 stateless people living in deteriorating conditions in Syria where they can foment and increase their own extremism and eventually find some organisation willing to fund them to start causing more problems, first in the middle east and then in our country and others.

The time has past when the events in other parts of the world did not affect us. What happens to those stateless in the desert, directly affects our security here. I would rather that those who most directly threaten our security were in the hands of our own security forces. not wandering clandestinely around the world.

I read that MP, Jeremy Hunt is discussing ways of bringing the children of so called British 'jihadi brides' to the UK.

I'm totally against this and have emailed his offices with my reasons, not least of which is the total cost of their upbringing which would be taxpayer funded...
Who on earth would want to foster them?

Jalima1108
She may be British but not English. There IS a difference.

And today it has been announced two other women, with 5 children between them, have also been deprived of citizenship. By Amber Rudd, before she was removed.
Five more British kids abandoned in a prison camp

Do you feel that only the women should be repatriated to their home countries jura, or do you think that male ISIS supporters should also be taken back?

Switzerland isn't in any hurry to have Abu Wael al-Swisary repatriated back home to serve time in a Swiss prison, are they? He's been languishing in a Syrian prison for a couple of years now and has begged to be allowed back to serve his time at home but, like so many other western countries, Switzerland is having none of it and is leaving him where he is.

I have no idea what the solution to SB and other Daesh supporters and fighters who want to return to the UK.

I guess if they are UK born, they are our responsibility. Keeping the other 60+ million UK residents safe is also our collective responsibility.

I would feel uncomfortable with a Guantanamo Bay type solution on our shores. Honestly I have no idea.

Agreed, huge cost. The alternative could cost us an awful lot more.

I understand what your saying jura but at what cost? It's estimated that their are more than 100 IS women in the refugee camps, most hoping to be repatriated to the UK with their children. Security forces going out to Syria and Iraq to bring them back safely; housing them once they are back; going through the judicial system; probable imprisonment; social worker involvement for their whole family 24/7/365; monitoring of them by security forces and de radicalisation programmes which, hitherto, haven't been successful on others. It's a huge problem that almost every country in the world is grappling with, not just the UK.

Exactly. I still can't believe some of the stuff on this thread.

Totally apart from he in/humanity of this situation- do you really think it makes the UK safer to have her here, under strict supervision- or there, grieving and totally bereft and probably even more rife for further manipulation, this time based on anger, rejection and grief?

Shamima Begum was born in Britain and lived in Britain until she joined ISIS.

Her entitlement in relation to Bangladeshi citizenship is like mine in relation to Irish citizenship. I can apply for it because my grandfather was born in Ireland, in her case her parents were born in Bangladesh, but the Irish can then choose to turn my application down and in SB's case, that is what the Bangladeshi government has done.

SB's Bangladeshi isn't she
Well, I am
I thought that Shamima Begum was English

Yes, I think her father did go to live in Bangladesh with a new wife, coming home occasionally to visit his first family, so perhaps the girl was seeking love and security.

I don't understand all the talk of 'Christian' values - we have a Home Secretary who made this decision who is Muslim.

I felt this error needed to be corrected. It is germane to the discussion.

Point taken M0nica - and perhaps posters will stop criticising others for their Christian values when they may not be religious either, like the Home Secretary.

MOnica: quite! Ghetousing "problem" groups has ALWAYS backfired

She cannot go and live with her father for the same reason she cannot return to the UK, she is now stateless. Sajid Javid's argument that she can apply for a Bangledeshi passport is on very dodgy ground and the Bangladeshis have made it very clear that there is now way they are going to give her a passport.

The problem with the Quran (and the bible) is that they are both open to interpretation and manipulation in the hands of extremists.

I don't care if he lives in Timbuktu lemongrove, he's got a cheek blaming this government when he doesn't even live here. SB's Bangladeshi isn't she ? So why doesn't he have her if he's so concerned about her welfare ?

SB remains to be the" property" of her Jihadi husband so she's not likely to conform to British rule whose values are different to hers/theirs.

Rape and sexual assault is the norm in the language of the jihadi's, it says so in the Quran-------Daily Mail.

Ellan I think her Father lives in Bangladesh with a new wife!

Part of me thinks she should not be allowed back if only to show an example to others who may be inclined to replicate similar actions. But I also think she can be valuable in our understanding of radicalisation, especially in one so young. Mind sets need to be understood & maybe laws have to change for the protection of all

Why can't SB go and live with her father ? He was the one who beggared off and left the family in a mess while happily blaming this government for her going to Syria in the first place. Cheeky individual.

annodomini ......are you quite sure about that statement?
That Theresa May said ( when in HO) that a hostile environment would be created for immigrants?
Sure that she didn’t say ‘illegal immigrants’ ?
Which would be a different matter entirely.

If the answer to the terrorism problem is for every country to remove the citizenship of anyone suspected of terrorism who leaves the country, the number of stateless people marooned in the middle east with no where to go will soon amount to 10,000 or more.

Exactly how is that going to help combat terrorism? Keeping them altogether, getting more and more disaffected, feeding on each others hate and trying to find a space for themselves. It will not take long for them to find someone -Al Quaida, the Russians, ISIS elsewhere, to find ways of getting money, guns and ammunition to them and the ISIS Caliphate will start expanding again.

The safest course of action, little though we may like it, is to send them back to their countries of origin, make sure they pass through the criminal system, deradicalise where possible and then keep tabs on them.

The Home Office is in an awkward position anyway, let one back and about 200 more will follow--

Just because its "awkward" to have them back (to say the least) doesnt make it okay to cause even bigger problems for other countries by landing them with standed stateless criminals o