You're not alone at all. She fucked up, but she was groomed. She was 19 years old at the end of the islamic state, and she's only 24 now.

If the British government have evidence she committed crimes then cool, bring her back and put her on trial. If not then they have no case.

You can't make someone stateless for being a twat when they were 15.

Who hasn't made fucked up choices when they were 15? Especially having been groomed, we should be apologising for having failed her.

The real truth of the matter is UK has a problem with immigration ~~from certain parts of the world and with certain groups in the UK.~~

Mate, people from the north don't even like southerners moving up there.

Huh? The Canadian American example doesn't match the Begum case. It would make sense if they went back to the US from the UK then the US revoked her citizenship because she's Canadian.

She was a 15 year old girl, groomed online and trafficked to Syria, by someone known to and potentially aided by, Canadian intelligence services. She was forced into a marriage (again she was 15 so could not give consent to this) and had 3 children (all of whom died as infants).

Yes she's done some awful things during her time with IS, but given her age at the time and the difference between her and, for example, "the beatles" group who were conducting beheadings, is huge.

She should be returned to the UK, face criminal justice for her crimes, sentenced accordingly and serve that sentence as what she is, a British citizen.

I'm all for appropriately punishing people for the crimes they commit. But we usually don't deprive solo-nationality citizens of their citizenship (leaving them stateless) for the crimes she is accused of - this is a punishment that is only being applied to UK (including UK-only) nationals who have recent foreign ancestors (i.e. so who could hypothetically - but often not in practice - be eligible for another country's citizenship - in her case, Bangladesh). We also don't usually apply extreme punishments like this to people for crimes committed as children, and we don't usually punish children who were groomed and sex trafficked by terrorists as if they were the perpetrators.

The reality is that if Shamima Begum was a blonde-haired blue-eyed white girl whose parents and grandparents were all from Surrey, the media would have described her as a victim of sex trafficking; and the law that permits this punishment to be applied to her could not even have been used.

The legal system should not treat UK citizens differently according to whether or not the Tories think they look a bit foreign.

Are people allowed to make mistakes? Are some mistakes beyond forgiveness? Should someone pay for their mistakes forever?

She was a kid!

I think it was a bit of a race to be honest. If Bangladesh revoked her citizenship first, the UK couldn't have.

As a Brit-born to Brit parents, if I have gained, say, Irish citizenship (or Spanish, or Kenyan, whatever) then the UK could revoke my citizenship under the same rules. It's the fact she had another citizenship that allowed them to do this at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are some horrible racist pieces of shit who would see it as you've described, but I don't think this is one of them.