The home secretary made the wrong decision about Shamima Begum – and her baby

The home secretary’s decision set a terrible precedent, in that it suggested that any British citizen with a parent born abroad or with foreign nationality is literally a second-class citizen

Sajid Javid, the home secretary, cannot be held responsible for the death of Shamima Begum’s son Jarrah. We do not know why the baby died and so we cannot know whether he might have survived if he had been brought to the UK.

All we can say is that Mr Javid’s decision to block Ms Begum’s return to this country was wrong, and seemed to be driven more by his ambition to succeed Theresa May as prime minister than by a dispassionate assessment of his obligations under international law.

It was wrong because Ms Begum – and therefore her child – is this country’s responsibility, whatever we may think of her travelling to Syria to join Isis.

Mr Javid’s decision to refuse her entry to this country because she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship was opportunistic. His case collapsed within hours when Bangladesh said it refused to take responsibility for her, as it was entitled to do because she had never been to the country.

The home secretary’s decision set a terrible precedent, in that it suggested that any British citizen with a parent born abroad or with foreign nationality is literally a second-class citizen – in that they might be treated differently from someone with no notional ties to another country.

As Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary said, it is against international law to make someone stateless, but that is what Mr Javid did in this case. And Ms Abbott is right, too, that conditions in the refugee camp in Syria should have tilted the exercise of the home secretary’s discretion in a compassionate direction.

Of course, Ms Begum bears some responsibility for her situation, but that does not make the death of an innocent baby any less sad. As Anna Soubry argues in The Independent today, Ms Begum “should have been brought home to face British justice, to be properly questioned as to how she became radicalised, and what support she gave to Isis’s barbaric campaign. Her son would have had the protection and the support that a civilised country provides for all its children.”

A braver and more principled home secretary would have recognised the strength of public opinion against allowing Ms Begum to return, but could have made the argument that it would be in our interest to understand more about why she went to Syria. Other former Isis recruits have returned in less conspicuous cases and provided valuable intelligence. It would have been a difficult case to make, but Mr Javid might have gained some respect for making it.