The shocking and shameful decision to strip Shamima Begum of her citizenship not only deprives her of her rights, but does a disservice to this country. Though Sajid Javid inevitably framed it as the kind of “tough decision” that home secretaries have a duty to take, it looks much more like an attempt to find a short-term political fix than a decision in the long-term national interest.

It is unlawful to make someone stateless. But Mr Javid believed he could act because some of those born to migrants are automatically granted their parents’ original nationality – even if those parents have since been naturalised as British. Bangladesh now says this was not the case with Ms Begum and that it would not allow her in. The 19-year-old, who went to Syria and married an Islamic State fighter four years ago, appears to have been unaware that she might have Bangladeshi nationality and it is thought that she has never even visited Bangladesh. A woman who was born in Britain, raised in Britain and radicalised in Britain is now being treated as someone else’s problem.

In recent days, Ms Begum has made abhorrent statements which have angered and distressed the relatives of Isis victims in particular. But the case for returning her and dealing with her via the police and – if appropriate – the courts has already been made. It is set out in the counter-terrorism strategy issued by the government last year, which specifically includes the example of a British woman who travelled to join Isis and now has a newborn baby coming back to the UK. It is also established via the treatment of other returning Isis recruits, including fighters, who have been dealt with in the courts; there is nothing to suggest that Ms Begum poses a greater risk, only that she has a higher and more embarrassing profile. And the case is all the stronger given that Ms Begum was groomed, left the UK as a minor and has experienced significant trauma.

Washing our hands of her is unfair to those currently holding her, and any other country which might theoretically take her. But it is also damaging to Britain, entrenching a sense that citizenship now has two tiers. Though the home secretary said deprivation powers are over a century old, they were barely used for a long time. Their use has escalated sharply; they have been used 150 times since 2010, reportedly more than 100 times in 2017 alone. This is in part because the restraints on their use have been gradually loosened. In 2014, then home secretary Theresa May won the ability to strip naturalised terror suspects of their passports – even if it made them technically stateless – if she had “good reason” to believe they could become a citizen of another nation.

Such developments surely paved the way for this case. While it seems likely that the courts will be asked to decide on Ms Begum’s status, in the Commons Mr Javid discussed not only those who are now dual nationals but those who “in some circumstances … would have the right to citizenship elsewhere”. Many children of migrants will take note, feeling a little less safe and confident in their homeland. Jewish commentators have noted that their automatic right to Israeli citizenship might make them vulnerable.

Introducing last year’s counter-terrorism strategy, Mr Javid warned that terrorists seek to divide us and that our response must be proportionate and inclusive, and preserve our way of life. He has ignored his own tests in the case of Ms Begum, damaging social cohesion and our claim to uphold fundamental values against the likes of the murderous group she went to join.