Should the people who denounced and fled their countries of origin to join ISIS be allowed to come back home? Do they still have a legitimate claim to their citizenship? And, what are they owed by their governments?
These are but a few questions that arose as a reaction to the news that a group of “ISIS brides” have publicly requested to return to their home countries.
With the Islamic State having faced its final territorial defeat late last month, many of its civilian members have been evacuated from its last enclave in Syria. Many of those evacuated were women and children and are likely to be family members of ISIS fighters.
According to a spokesperson for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), they include several foreigners from the U.S., Canada, Britain, and various European states. The semi-autonomous Kurdish administration in Syria have long requested for the return of captured foreign-born ISIS members to their home countries, but there has been great reluctance from these foreign governments to address this issue. However, current circumstances require an immediate solution to this problem, especially since their citizens have begun expressing a desire to return home.
Shamima Begum, a 19-year-old British citizen and former ISIS bride, was the first to ask for repatriation back to her home country. But, she was denied this request by the British government and her Dutch-born husband wanted the Netherlands to allow her and their newborn son to return with him. Two other women followed suit: Hoda Muthana from the U.S. and a woman named Amy from Canada, who wished to remain anonymous. Like Begum, both claimed that they regretted their actions and wished to return home.
Public opinion is torn between whether these women, along with other ISIS members, should be allowed to return to their home countries or whether their citizenship should be revoked altogether. Although it is tempting to leave these people to lay in the bed they have made, it would not be the wisest decision to make.
It is too dangerous to let these ISIS-affiliated individuals wander around stateless and unmonitored. Also, it is unfair to leave the Kurdish forces to deal with fighting ISIS forces and having to take care of other nations’ criminals for them, especially with the limited resources they have available to them.
Other countries—including Canada—need to step up and take responsibility for their citizens. Despite the difficult problem these individuals pose, their citizenship should not be contested or revoked. First and foremost, it is illegal to make someone stateless under international law. Second, it sets a dangerous precedent—that a state can choose to revoke a person’s citizenship when it suits them.
Some of the public worry that if these radicalized people with extremist views are allowed to come back, they will pose a threat to public safety. This is a reasonable concern, but most of these countries’ governments have the resources, laws, security services, and justice systems to prosecute or properly reintegrate these individuals. Plus, appeasing public sentiment should not supercede lawful recourse.
The uncomfortable truth is that it is the obligation of the countries where these people hold citizenship to deal with them. It is in their territory that these people got radicalized, and it is their citizenship they hold. It would not be fair to let other nations deal with their problems for them.
It is a bitter burden to claim, but it is one that must be carried if we are to properly deal with the aftermath of the atrocities committed by the Islamic State.
