Exiled: the disturbing story of a citizen made unBritish

Some little known stuff that could have implications for some of us here


"How can a government exile its citizens without a trial? Why can people born in Britain be forced to leave? Kamila Shamsie explores how citizenship became a privilege, not a right"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/17/unbecoming-british-kamila-shamsie-citizens-exile

Good point Keith.
Joining a banned Islamic terrorism organisation in order to "bring peace" might have implications.

• Mahdi Hashi - Granted British Citizenship at the age of 14, it was revoked nine years later because he was involved in Islamic Terrorism.
• He claims he joined a terrorist organisation (al Shabaab) to "bring peace".
• He was living abroad, alternating his life between his "Gran's house" in Somalia and a prison cell in New York.

Good riddance.

Investigative Journalism

Slightly off topic, I notice that the Al Shabaab Jihadist terrorist group has recently banned single use plastic carrier bags, not that I really care.

Link: Independent - Al Shabaab bans carrier bags

Why? Are you a foreign-born non-resident terrorist who's about to be stripped of your British citizenship?

I guesse the article was to long or difficult to understand guys

Anyone who is a British citizen since childhood who then subsequently becomes an undesirable is *our* problem. It's not right that we shift that burden on to Somalia or any other country.

To quote Keith's linked article:

​

He was granted British Citizenship at the age of 14, accused MI5 of trying to blackmail him and went to live in Somalia "with his sick grandmother" where he supported peace by joining a violent islamic terrorist organisation.

Reading the article it seems he has not even visited the UK for a decade and nobody else wants him.

He was granted British Citizenship by virtue of being the son of asylum seekers; he had no right to citizenship either by birth or through either or both of his parents. Under those circumstances, citizenship can be revoked (by, I think, an Order in Council). He is otherwise Somali.

He never was British.

Typical PC snowflake nonsense.

He won't be missed.

I DO miss my country that was destroyed by these islamic immigrants/parasites, and their constant threat to all innocent British people ... including OUR KIDS.

Correct about credit for the article, I referred to "Keith's linked Guardian article" in the quoted text heading, perhaps I should have quoted Kamila's name as well.

As for the "wider point", I found the article to be badly written and not particularly relevant.
​

To take another example, it is suggested that naturalised members of the Rochdale grooming gang should not be sent back to Pakistan because there is no sex offenders register in Pakistan and they will have no criminal record.

The implication being that these men are dangerous sex predators who will rape children again, hence we should keep them lurking in the underworld of the UK rather then sending them back to their own country where they will be exposed to the justice and tolerance of their own native country.

That last statement is typical biased provocation "Well, as long as it isn’t British girls …". The implication being that it is a xenophobic hate crime to protect British children from naturalised foreigners. I find that attitude particularly disturbing.​

Some people on here would take a different view if it was THEIR daughter groomed and raped by these animals.

Face REALITY for goodness sake, instead of hiding behind naive PC foolishness... that is either meaningless, or at best laughable to billions of people on this planet.

Sure, let's welcome them all to our country. If they commit crimes while here, let's pay £500 a week to keep each of the scumbags in jail, with his Xbox and personal TV set. Mustn't send them HOME.

The majority of 'native' UK citizens merely want to continue to live in a civilised country, where laws are applied equally to all.

Being civilised is very different to living in some Utopian PC dreamworld.

• Rule number one: Don't join an extremist jihadist group.
• Rule number two: Don't sexually abuse young children.
• Rule number three: Respect local customs and traditions. (catch all rule)

Laws are there to protect citizens rights, the originally linked article seemed to be skating on very thin ice by trying to protect the citizenship rights of terrorists and Pakistani sex grooming gangs.

Fact? Really? Can you justify that statement?

With the greatest respect to you, Jim, I suggest to you that your, Graham's and my kids' claim to British citizenship, having been proven and acknowledged, is every bit as strong as your's, Graham's and mine. I further suggest that you are extrapolating scenarios from that rather badly-written article, scenarios which could never exist in fact and frightening yourself in the process.

Nonsense, the article is clearly wanting these people to be jailed, not just deported.

They have been convicted and jailed in this country, no disputing that. They are due to be stripped of British citizenship and deported after their sentence has been completed.

The article claims that they should be kept here after release from jail because Pakistan has no sex offenders register and the men might become teachers and abuse children, though I don't know that they are qualified as teachers. Seems to be a silly argument to me.

Not just silly. Ridiculous.