Issue 620 Make them Stateless June 25, 2015

We have terrorists, or people who have worked with terrorists coming home to places in Europe.  Apparently, we cannot stop them from coming home because of international law.  Allow me to explain.

Can't keep them out:  Under international law, it is illegal for a country to refuse re-entry of a citizen.  So this means a citizen of England, who fought on the side of ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, and/or others cannot be kept from returning home to their mother country.  According to estimates (source is the Economist Magazine) 5,000 terrorists have returned home to Europe (particularly the European Union Countries).  Some of the countries require these people to wear a tracking device, but others do not, thus increasing the danger of the lone gunman attack.  Additionally, even if they are not going to be violent themselves, they can recruit members to their terrorist group(s) who will do acts of violence in their stead.

This should be changed:  I do not know why such a rule that prevents people from being refused re-entry exists, but I can imagine it was due to political circumstances, and wanting to protect people's rights as human beings.  But these laws now pose a danger, as armed groups can wreak havoc anywhere in the world.  As such, a change to the law is needed to say that if the person coming back is so dangerous, that they can be refused.  That they can have their citizenship revoked?  This is a dangerous idea unto itself because the danger excuse can be used against a number of people, including delaying politicians, or political opponents from coming home.  So my question is, now, should this law be altered?

Conclusion:  I feel that safety wise, the law should be altered, by potential problem wise, it should not be touched.  The wording must be exact and so exact it is specific, like saying "if a person returning home is currently part of a group that has publically expressed a threat of violence to the country, or the individual in question has done so themselves within the last three years, then they may be refused re-entry to the country of their citizenship, birth or any country that deems them a threatening existence".  Of course, this would mean a court like setting will be needed to adjudicate the case to prevent corruption.  Basically, a host of problems will occur, but is our safety worth it, or will us refusing them re-entry make the problem worse?  These are questions needed to be asked, and laws need to be re-evaluated.