Shamima Begum’s challenge to the UK's ban on her return to London is now taking a new turn as Kurdish control collapses in north-east Syria.
Her fate is uncertain after the Syrian Democratic Forces – a Kurdish group who controlled North East Syria – withdrew from Al Hol, a camp for 68,000 Iraqis and Syrians displaced by conflict that also detains foreign fighters on Tuesday.
This followed clashes with the Syrian government around the camp. Ms Begum is detained at Al Roj, another camp further north. The SDF has signed a deal with the Syrian government to hand over control of the prisons and detention centres.
Rights groups say that the UK’s policy of revoking citizenship for the dozens of British nationals detained in these camps had left them and their children caught in the deadly crossfires.
The families of these detainees in the UK were left in the dark and terrified at the “fragments” of information coming out of the camps.
“Today in North East Syria, British children are in mortal danger, caught in the crossfire as a direct result of the UK Government’s negligent policy choice to strip the parents of citizenship and refuse to repatriate them,” said Maya Foa, CEO of Reprieve, which works closely with the families of British detainees.
“This was always the likely consequence, but ministers chose to bury their heads in the sand to avoid facing up to it,” she said.
The government had ignored warnings from security experts and those of the SDF describing the detention centres as a “ticking time bomb” as they urged the international community to reclaim their citizens, Ms Foa added.
The situation had even drawn criticism from successive US administrations who had called for allied countries to repatriate their citizens so that the camps could be closed.
“For family members back home in the UK, the fragments of information coming out of Camp Roj and Al Hol are terrifying. The government should make urgent arrangements to repatriate all British nationals at the earliest opportunity, while emphasising to all diplomatic partners the need to respect and protect the rights of prisoners in these facilities,” she said.
The fallout would lead to further security risks should British foreign fighters go missing, and human rights concerns as their children and families run the risk of being harmed or killed.
Ms Begum, who travelled to Syria to join ISIS aged 15, brought a new case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg challenging the UK’s decision to strip her of her citizenship. Ms Begum has argued that she was groomed and trafficked to Syria, and the court has sent the UK government a series of questions to determine with it broke its anti-trafficking obligations.
The UK government could now be faced with further legal claims from the families of detainees back home should any of them be harmed or killed in the current continuing clashes.
But there are fears that the extreme measure of revoking citizenship has become “normalised” six years on since Ms Begum was stripped of hers, as it emerges in a separate debate about immigration policy, Ms Foa said. “It's almost been normalised by some political parties. It’s a really, really worrying trend,” she told The National.
Two tier citizenship
British nationality has become increasingly conditional since the move to strip Ms Begum of her UK rights. Politicians are more frequently calling for individuals to be stripped of their status, the UK stands accused of a “two-tier citizenship” by rights groups.
Former UK home secretary Sajid Javid took the decision to strip Ms Begum of her citizenship on national security grounds in 2019, deeming it was “conducive to the public good”. The measure was applied to others who had travelled to join ISIS controlled areas in 2014, as well as their children – some of whom were born in the camps.
Last month, calls were made to deprive British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abdel Fattah of his British nationality after a series of social media posts which he made over a decade ago resurfaced.
Mr Abdel Fattah – who has spent most of the past 10 years jailed in Egypt – apologised for the posts, in which he had said Zionists and police should be killed, and described British people as “dogs and monkeys”.
But Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage both said Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood should look at whether Mr Abd El Fattah’s citizenship should be revoked. Mr Farage said that “anyone holding anti-British views” should not be allowed in to the UK.
Campaigners fear that revoking citizenship was so “broad” it could easily be applied to contexts beyond its original intention.
“If you've got politicians saying they would want to strip a person of their citizenship based on social media that they've put out 10 to 15 years ago, or that other people should be stripped of citizenship for things that they disagree with. You do wonder where it ends,” Ms Foa told The National.
Former MP Douglas Carswell called last year for a “massive increase in the use of this power to revoke citizenship”, while proposals to deport large numbers of legally settled people from the UK have been floated.
“The law is so broad it gives huge amounts of discretion to the government. We know that slippery slope is one that we really have to worry about,” Ms Foa said.
Though the government insists that revoking citizenship is an extreme measure, the power to do so lies with the Home Secretary alone and the criteria, campaigners say, is so broad it can be easily interpreted to fit the individual or situation at hand.
“All that is required to take away someone's citizenship is a Home Secretary deciding that it is conducive to the public good to do that. You can think about the Home Secretaries we've seen in recent months and years, or you can think about a future home secretary who we might see in future years,” she said.
“Just imagine what they might think is not conducive to the public good? Is going to a peaceful protest not conducive to the public good? Is being an environmental campaigner not conducive to the public good? Is working at an NGO, not conducive to the public good?
Under the British Nationality Act in 1981, the government could revoke a person’s British citizenship if it was deemed to have been obtained through fraud, and as long as it did not render someone stateless.
By 2002, as the war on terror began, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act extended the government’s powers to people who were born British, and for doing “anything prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK”. By 2002, that was further diluted to citizenship withdrawal being “conducive to the public good”.
The most recent law passed last year meant that deprivation applies even when the defendant is seeking to legally challenge the decision, a process that can take many years.
British people with a connection to another nationality are the ones at risk, creating a “two-tier” approach to citizenship, according to the report by Reprieve and the Runnymede Trust.
Though Ms Begum was born and raised in the UK, the government claimed her parents' Bangladeshi heritage meant she could apply for Bangladeshi nationality.
The vast majority of those deprived of their citizenship have been Muslim people with South Asian, North African or Middle Eastern heritage.
A report by Reprieve and the Runnymede Trust found that 60 per cent of people of colour in the UK hold another nationality, compared with 5 per cent of white people. The largest groups at risk are people connected to India (984,000) and Pakistan (679,900).
“The right to citizenship in the UK for racialised groups – and all the legal rights that come with it – is conditional and continually under threat,” the report said.
And once citizenship is revoked, it is extremely difficult to get it back. “Those cases are very, very hard to fight. The barriers to getting the citizenship back are really high, especially if the government says it's national security that's motivating the decisions,” Ms Foa said.
Professor Harmonie Toros, who has researched and advised on the question of foreign detainees in North East Syria and counter terrorism strategies in the UK, said the decision to strip dual nationals of their citizenship had a ripple effect across communities in the UK.
“Now that sense of belonging is being undermined,” Prof Toros told The National. “How long does it take to be accepted as a full citizen? Is it a question of time? Are other logics coming into play, with some communities are wondering if it is a question of religious affiliation or race?”
Citizenship, she explained, was “central” to giving migrants and their children a “sense of belonging”, as well as “stability and grounding” to communities. But questions had now been raised about how long it takes for the UK government to consider an individual with dual nationality or overseas heritage to be truly British.
The UK was equipped to deal with the security threats posed by returning fighters and their families, she said. It also had an obligation to bring them back to the UK for trial. “Those who committed crimes should be tried in court, not left in camps, detention centres and prisons with no legal process,” she said.
“It has dangerous implications for communities in the UK and beyond.”
