The matter of Shamima Begum, the ‘ISIS bride’ is about as tragic and divisive as a matter of nationality law can be. Regardless of culpability, the case of a radicalised minor travelling to Syria, being placed into a forced marriage, losing three children and being trapped in a camp has been a polarising one.

Her association with ISIS is arguably one that places national security at risk. She has not seemed repentant for her actions in leaving when interviewed but wished to return for the welfare of her child. There are voices, including the Government, who consider that she turned her back on the UK when she departed and should never be allowed to return. There are critics who argue that she should face justice for her actions in the country of her birth and that the Home Office should have allowed this before her youngest child passed away.

This is a complex and sensitive matter. Counter-terrorism legislation in the UK is robust. If returned, Shamima could have expected arrest, investigation and, even if no convictions arose as a result, close monitoring on all her movements and associations. Attempts could have been made to rehabilitate her.

Rather than allowing this, the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, chose to revoke her British citizenship. This is despite her being a British-born national. It is unlawful to revoke British nationality where the result is that someone would become stateless (a person of no nationality). The Government argued that, due to her family’s Bangladeshi heritage, she had an entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship and would not be made de facto stateless. Shamima appealed this decision, noting her very limited links with the country and statements from Bangladeshi officials stating they would not grant her entry, but this was dismissed. Whilst two nationality experts called upon in the appeal took very different positions, the Tribunal held that Shamima had the right to a second nationality and, as such, the Government’s position was lawful.

The risk this seems to have created is that of a two-tier British nationality. Had Shamima’s parents not been immigrants then she would have certainly been made stateless had her nationality been revoked. Such a revocation in that case would be unlawful. She would have been returned to the UK and faced domestic justice. It is also possible that a British child would still have been alive.

British citizenship can be revoked where the Home Secretary considers it to be conducive to the public good. This is a broad power and one the Government has been using an increasing amount as of late. Fewer than 20 people had their nationality stripped in 2016, compared to over 100 in 2017. There is, unfortunately, no more recent data.

Shamima’s case is unique in that she is British-born. Cases of revocation are far more commonly found against those who came to the UK holding another nationality and subsequently naturalised. These individuals may have then committed serious crimes or taken actions that justified revocation and deportation. The idea that someone British from birth could lose their nationality due to their heritage is deeply concerning. It means, inherently, that British citizens with immigrant parents have a less secure form of nationality than their peers.

The killer of Jo Cox, Thomas Mair, is a terrorist. He had links to neo-Nazi and white supremacist organisations.  Because he had no second nationality, he stood trial in the UK and was given a whole-life tariff. A crime was committed and justice was served. Shamima’s actions have not been prosecuted. The Government’s insistence on ‘out of sight, out of mind’ is short-sighted and could create a dangerous precedent.