undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmarcus_holmes7mo ago0 comments

> Taking citizenship away from those who voluntarily join terrorist organizations like ISIS? 100% agree with this, how could you not?

Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists, this is really dangerous. If the government can classify any organisation as terrorists, and then remove citizenship from any members of that organisation, that is horrifying.

So yes, I very, very, strongly disagree with this measure, for very good reasons. How could anyone with any common sense support it?

0 comments

FirmwareBurner7mo ago

>Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists

If your current laws allow for such oppressive abuse on the population without due process, then these new laws won't make things any worse for the people and you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away form registered ISIS members is the biggest problem.

marcus_holmesOP7mo ago

I disagree completely. Citizens are protected by laws, such as the First Amendment, that are not applied to non-citizens (see the Julian Assange mess for details). If the government can designate a group of people as terrorists, and remove their citizenships for being terrorists, then they can additionally apply yet more tribulations on those people while not straying out of the legal protections afforded to citizens.

You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable. For example:

> you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away from any organisation that the government disapproves of is the biggest problem.

I think you'll agree that this would be a big f**ing problem.

FirmwareBurner7mo ago

> You keep saying "ISIS" like it's some magic incantation that makes everything else OK. Try saying "any organisation the government disapproves of" instead, and see how that fits your mental model of what's acceptable.

Which other organizations who didn't kill or committed acts of violence to people in order to be wrongly considered terrorists by the government in the same vein as ISIS was?

>I think you'll agree that this would be a big f*ing problem.

It isn't. In most western democracies, if not all, gaining dual citizenship via naturalization is a voluntary privilege, not a right, that can always be revoked for crimes such as being part of a terrorist group. It's part of the contract you sign when you apply for citizenship. As it should be. That's who the law is targeting.

Your primary citizenship gained via by birth or by descent cannot be taken away from you almost anywhere.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

FirmwareBurner7mo ago

>Given the UK's recent use of anti-terrorist legislation to arbitrarily classify a protest organisation as terrorists

marcus_holmesOP7mo ago

> you're fighting the wrong things here, if you think that taking citizenship away from any organisation that the government disapproves of is the biggest problem.

I think you'll agree that this would be a big f**ing problem.

FirmwareBurner7mo ago

Which other organizations who didn't kill or committed acts of violence to people in order to be wrongly considered terrorists by the government in the same vein as ISIS was?

>I think you'll agree that this would be a big f*ing problem.

Your primary citizenship gained via by birth or by descent cannot be taken away from you almost anywhere.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse