Unless and until deportation is eliminiated entirely, that's an inevitable part of being an immigrant. Regardless of the skill level and social status of your job. Even if you're a CEO you can still theoretically be deported for a driving offence in a lot of places, until you get your full permanent residence. And then you have to wonder whether a future government might remove that residence.

The British government has gone backwards on this: a British-born child of non-British parents was stripped of her citizenship, barred from the country, and denied legal appeal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c347vzp58nzt/shamima-begum...

Aggressive stances towards deportation are the consequence of inaccurate arguments that immigrants are on average unwelcome freeloaders and destroyers of job value rather than making the future of the country more sustainable though. It's entirely possible for immigrants to have security of tenure and actually more desirable given declining birth rates: it's the assumption that our current society would be more sustainable in their absence which drives governments to make it as difficult as possible to obtain/retain.

All the rhetoric which drove repatriation of the Windrush migrants [a much more representative case than Begum leaving the UK to join ISIS] was based around the popularisation of the idea that the UK was 'full' of 'unsustainable' numbers of migrants. So it certainly doesn't help immigrants to pointedly refuse to state reasons why this is incorrect.

She went to join ISIS. I'm quite torn, morally, about the whole thing. It's not as black and white as you present it.