giving brainwashed, radicalized religious zealots citizenship in the very societies they left to destroy is even more wrong
I can’t work out which side you’re arguing for here. A British citizen went to Syria to attack Syrians.
Britain then made the Syrians pay for her upkeep. At one point the Syrians specifically the Kurds were being forced to pay for the upkeep of hundreds of Westerners who had come to kill them. It’s really messed up.
I suppose I am just generally in disagreement with the concept that anyone has to be responsible for enemies of their host society.
Exiling people who harm or oppose the community in a dangerous way has been a reasonable and accepted practice since forever. For that matter, I would love to exile our German fascist supporters to Russia so they can die for the führer they so idolize. These people are technically brainwashed too, victims of Russian disinformation campaigns. Does that absolve them from responsibility? No.
To return to the original example: If they want to join a religious terrorist group, alright, but then they are that group’s responsibility. If that group are just stateless, disorganized fanatics that couldn’t possibly provide a good way of life for anyone even if they had the resources, that’s not anyone’s problem but their own.
There are some things that are not forgivable in my opinion, one of them is to set out to actively participate in a religious terror campaign. Why should any other society be responsible for them?
Well in your scenario she would become the problem of Syria, and whatever you think of the Asaad regime there’s a reason these types of exiles are not accepted under international law. When a large county uses a smaller society as its de facto prison it doesn’t tend to work out too well for the natives (see Australia), so it’s just not allowed in principle. In reality the British are trying to say it’s Bangladesh’s problem since her parents are from there which doesn’t really make sense.
@GregorGizeh thanks for this comment. I do understand your perspective now and you’ve explained it well.
I think you and I just have some different principles. For you, if someone breaks the social contract then they lose some of their human rights. For me, they don’t, human righs are inalienable, and importantly that person also remains the responsibility of the society that produced them.
I acknowledge that human rights are a modern concept and as you point out, making people stateless/exiling has a ling tradition in human history. So are a lot of things I disagree with, though.
@GregorGizeh
I can’t work out which side you’re arguing for here. A British citizen went to Syria to attack Syrians.
Britain then made the Syrians pay for her upkeep. At one point the Syrians specifically the Kurds were being forced to pay for the upkeep of hundreds of Westerners who had come to kill them. It’s really messed up.
She should be in a British jail.
I suppose I am just generally in disagreement with the concept that anyone has to be responsible for enemies of their host society.
Exiling people who harm or oppose the community in a dangerous way has been a reasonable and accepted practice since forever. For that matter, I would love to exile our German fascist supporters to Russia so they can die for the führer they so idolize. These people are technically brainwashed too, victims of Russian disinformation campaigns. Does that absolve them from responsibility? No.
To return to the original example: If they want to join a religious terrorist group, alright, but then they are that group’s responsibility. If that group are just stateless, disorganized fanatics that couldn’t possibly provide a good way of life for anyone even if they had the resources, that’s not anyone’s problem but their own.
There are some things that are not forgivable in my opinion, one of them is to set out to actively participate in a religious terror campaign. Why should any other society be responsible for them?
Well in your scenario she would become the problem of Syria, and whatever you think of the Asaad regime there’s a reason these types of exiles are not accepted under international law. When a large county uses a smaller society as its de facto prison it doesn’t tend to work out too well for the natives (see Australia), so it’s just not allowed in principle. In reality the British are trying to say it’s Bangladesh’s problem since her parents are from there which doesn’t really make sense.
Interesting that a British prison colony has become at least (if not more) civilized than their jailers…
@GregorGizeh thanks for this comment. I do understand your perspective now and you’ve explained it well.
I think you and I just have some different principles. For you, if someone breaks the social contract then they lose some of their human rights. For me, they don’t, human righs are inalienable, and importantly that person also remains the responsibility of the society that produced them.
I acknowledge that human rights are a modern concept and as you point out, making people stateless/exiling has a ling tradition in human history. So are a lot of things I disagree with, though.
Thanks for the exchange of ideas.