And all the king's horses, and all the king's men, . . .

[NotHardUp1]

I heard a clip of a radio interview with the journalist who interviewed Shamima Begum at length, and it was VERY sympathetic to her, while posing as a fair examination of the question of her revoked UK citizenship.

Here is an article, if you are not familiar: https://www.opindia.com/2023/02/bbc...etic-documentary-on-isis-bride-shamima-begum/

It's not my country. Even though we (the U.S. & the U.K.) have a common enemy in ISIS, my view of Ms. Begum's actions, and their consequences, is irrelevant. She obviously made a horrific choice when joining ISIS, and there is no telling what her views would be today if ISIS had been in the ascendancy, instead of in flight. Regardless of how any journalist feels, or others, it seems clear that she has no likelihood of ever returning to the U.K., or likely anywhere in the Commonwealth.

It is reminscent of A Man Without A Country, as this defection is hardly unique in history.

So, aside from the politics and ire for ISIS, the question is, irrevocable mistakes. Have you ever known anyone personally who made such a disastrous error, who chose to do something that was catastrophic and could never be undone, nor forgiven?

 

[LeicsDom]

All of the media coverage of her recently is very one-sided and pro repatriating her.
She has not shown any remorse or anti ISIS sentiments
Remember she shared her delight at beheadings and stated that the Manchester bombings was fair

 

[rareboy]

Let her be without a country.

She's just fortunate she is still alive.

 

[Araucaria]

I remember a story about a woman professor in New Mexico who was very critical of U. S. military and foreign policy, and she renounced her American citizenship and moved to Mexico in protest. Later she was scheduled for a speech, but was denied entry to the United States. I'm sorry that I don't remember her name. Sure, the action was retaliatory, but the woman had placed herself in a vulnerable position. Jason, you lived in Albuquerque for a time, and I wonder if you heard anything about that case. Admittedly that was quite a different case than that of Ms. Begum.

 

[unloadonme]

Let her be without a country.

She's just fortunate she is still alive.

Agreed. Syria is welcome to her.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I do not recall the case of the New Mexican ex-pat, but I'll research it.

Looking back, I can't think of anyone whom I knew who made such an irrevocable mistake. Her action was as monumental as any murderer's.

 

[Araucaria]

I do not recall the case of the New Mexican ex-pat, but I'll research it.

Looking back, I can't think of anyone whom I knew who made such an irrevocable mistake. Her action was as monumental as any murderer's.

I googled it, and found a 1988 article about a woman named Margaret Randall which seems to fit the facts as I recall them. At the time of the article her status was still being decided by the courts. I'll see if I can find anything about the final results of the legal action.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/01/02/writer-from-mexico-struggles-to-regain-her-us-citizenship/5decf6c5-f79c-44a0-9b98-96c380cb8adc/

 

[Araucaria]

^Now that I have a name, I googled Margaret Randall, and it turns out that she won her case and is now living in the United States with her citizenship restored. She is now elderly and is living with her female partner.

Margaret Randall - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LeicsDom]

Let her be without a country.

She's just fortunate she is still alive.

She has a country. She is a Pakistani national

 

[NotHardUp1]

^Now that I have a name, I googled Margaret Randall, and it turns out that she won her case and is now living in the United States with her citizenship restored. She is now elderly and is living with her female partner.

Margaret Randall - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's interesting. That case did raise an interesting question about renouncing citizenship, although avowing communism isn't inherently anti-American, as it is one of the underlying principles of the welfare state, i.e., Social Security, etc.

Her case seems in contrast, not only in time, but in nature, to the UK woman, who joined an organization with the explicit mission of defeating ALL Western powers, and others, too. The UK seems, to an outsider like me, both just and prudent in permanently banning her. Even if she had committed crimes, as a nation, the UK would be better off a) not paying to prosecute, b) not paying to incarcerate, and c) not allowing her any form of domestic habitation that allows her the succor of her family in proximity. Even though she made her choice as a young woman, she made a momentously bad choice, and it is what it is. Her action, apart from how she supposedly feels about it in hindsight, is in and of itself, a violent act against the UK.

 

[Latimer]

I'd be interested to know what the legal basis of allowing Randall's re-entry was. Without knowing anything more about her than the attached Wikipedia piece, I assume she was and remains vociferously anti-American, but like so many of her ilk, prefers living with the prosperity and benevolence of the nation she abhors to the poverty and malevolence of the nations she admires.

Regarding the Isis recruit, I agree that it is appropriate that she be denied reentry. Let her be an example.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

Years ago, in Granta, I read a story by Paul Theroux about an American living in Singapore, a greedy corporate lawyer working for some multinational corporation, who decided he didn't want to pay American taxes anymore. He renounced his US citizenship and became a citizen of Guinea-Bissau. (Back then there were a number of third-world countries who basically sold citizenship to wealthy Westerners who wanted to avoid income taxes.)

Whenever he and his colleagues were supposed to head to another country to meet with a client or something, all his colleagues with developed-world passports could just pick up and go, while he had to apply and wait for a visa. Same thing if he wanted to go home to the US. (There was a scene of him in the US consulate in Singapore, basically trying to jump the queue for a visa, telling the State Dept. staffer, "Come on, you know me; you know the deal." The staffer finally told him flat-out, "You are an African national, and you are going to follow all the procedures an African national has to follow.")

The guy's employers eventually stopped bothering to invite him to meetings outside of Singapore, since there was no knowing if he'd get a visa for the destination. His status at the corporation fell steadily and he eventually lost his job. Lost his wife, too: she divorced him and married the narrator.

 

[Latimer]

These days an investment of $2.5 million opens the door to permanent residency in Singapore with access to citizenship in about five years. I've read of a few tech billionaires who've chosen to renounce American citizenship (Singapore does not allow dual citizenship) and become citizens there for tax purposes. I had a client whose family lived in Los Angeles, his business was in London, and his official domicile was in Geneva. The travel required to never stay too long in either the US or the UK was exhausting. I have other clients who last year moved from Los Angeles to Miami for tax reasons and know another couple who did the same moving from New York to Miami as well.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

I hope buying $2.5 million worth of real estate doesn't count as an investment. As I recall, a rule like that, back when Hong Kong was handed over to China, was what first started off the massive increase in housing prices in Vancouver. Housing in Singapore is expensive enough already.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I'd be interested to know what the legal basis of allowing Randall's re-entry was. Without knowing anything more about her than the attached Wikipedia piece, I assume she was and remains vociferously anti-American, but like so many of her ilk, prefers living with the prosperity and benevolence of the nation she abhors to the poverty and malevolence of the nations she admires.

Regarding the Isis recruit, I agree that it is appropriate that she be denied reentry. Let her be an example.

I thought the article about Randall suggested her reason to return was care for aging parents. Might have mis-remembered. If that was true, it may not be fair to impute to her the motivations of seeking prosperous living. Additionally, it sounded more like she was/is a proponent of communism and socialism, not by definiition anti-American philosophies as much as anti-capitalist. Senator Sanders comes to mind. He would by no means be justly described as anti-American, yet he is the most vocal anti-capitalist voice outside of Pacifica radio.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I hope buying $2.5 million worth of real estate doesn't count as an investment. As I recall, a rule like that, back when Hong Kong was handed over to China, was what first started off the massive increase in housing prices in Vancouver. Housing in Singapore is expensive enough already.

The fault lies in our governments, that they allow the offshoring of wealth and tax obligations, creating loopholes that allow the elite to enjoy the benefits of our nations without paying the fair share when their wealth is greatly disproportionate, yet their taxes are not. And for what? They have multiple homes, luxuries, and privilege, but paying their fair share would decrease their absolute wealth, not their lifestyles one whit.