Category: Let's talk
recently the home secretary has been in the news for losing track of several foreign individuals who have served sentences in this country for committing crimes. Some of these individuals should have been considered for deportation after they were released, but instead they have apparently disappeared.
Now it has been suggested that all foreigners who commit crime over here should be deported as soon as they complete their sentences, but the human rights organization Liberty say that it would be unfair to deport people to countries where they might be tortured or even killed.
so, do you think we should sympathise with an asilum seaker who comes over here and commits a crime? or should we send him back to where he came from, even though we know he might be killed if he goes back
send him back, because if he is going to commit a crime, he shouldn't be allowed to escape whatever hell he is experiencing now.
agreed about the sending back. after all, if you want to reside in a country, why break its laws? all asilum seekers should be automatically deported after sentance if they are given a substancial jail term, say more than six months.
hmm, it's difficult ground on which we tread here, i think if the crime is a dangerous one then they should be sent back no questions asked, however, what if the person is guilty of something that we in western society doesn't consider to be a crime.? should we send them back then, even though we know they will be tortured or killed for something we don't see as a crime, such as adultery?
i really do believe in certain cases governments can afford to be generous, but i think governments right now are being too generous.
Let the people in who really deserve to escape certain torture or death, but send the ones back who really aren't deserving of consideration.
For example, the government in canada will not extradite a person from their country if the death penalty is one of the fates that that individual will suffer.
this is something that the US finds most agonising.
I think that if we all took this action against the countries who kill people for reasons which are highly undeserving of it it may encourage them to become more with the times.
It depends on the right of the person committing the crime.
If it's someone who has earnt a residence status, for instance, obviously minor crimes should not warrant deportation. If the person has earnt citizenship there is no deporting, whatever the crime is. If it's someone who came into the country illegally, send that person back after or possibly before prison sentence, unless there is a clear evidence of torture involved.
no I think that even if a person has earned citizenship and they commit a serious offence then that citizinship should be revoked and they should be deported. I don't see why, just because someone has been granted citizinship that gives them leave to do whatever they want and still be considered citizens of a country. I would even go so far as to say that if someone would face torture in their home country, not because of the crime they have committed but because of the country they have come from, i.e. if they have saught assylem (can't spell that) in this country, then I don't wee why we should be obliged to consider their "rights" if they come to this country and then effectively rape/murder/asalt those who have given them refuge. I mean they should by all means be free to go and seak refuge in another country if they feel they can't go back to their own country, but I think that if they come here and break the law, then they forfit any right to refuge here
So then the word citizenship means nothing?
There is a clear distinction between residency and citizenship in my mind. When you are a citizen of x it should give you the same right as anyone else in that country, you are entitled to the same protection and treatment as anyone else, including not being sent to your country of origin if found guilty of a crime. Once you accept people from countries where violence is the norm I think you do so knowing violence is all they know and they can't be reconditioned in a day and may not fully grasp the society's understanding of how to behave properly. You may accept them then on a trial basis or something to that effect but once you've given the citizenship you should not treat them any differently from people born in your country.
I was always under the impression that the recent prisoner scandal had to dowith people committing crimes while visiting or staying in the UK illegally which, of course, does not give them any rights to stay within the British legal system nor in the country itself. I may have misconstrued the news story.
But as far as I understand accepting refugees is just that, accepting them, giving them humane treatment and trying to recondition them, not letting them stay whilst they are on their best behavior.
exactly b
i agree completely.
citizenship should mean something, the government shouldn't just be able to ignore it like that.
I am totally against the deportation of any criminal. By deporting someone, we don't get rid of the possibility of them committing a crime, we just make it someone else's problem. Also, all of the political parties here in the UK are totally missing the point. By turning it into an issue about the rights of people who come to the UK and commit crimes, we are failing to address the real issue. For example, The Somarlian, would not have even made it into the news this week if he was born and raised in the UK and his family originated from the UK. Why should the criminals geographical history determine what happens to them? The fact is, that not all people who reoffend are foreign, and they probably make a small percentage, so while all resources are put into deporting foreign criminals who all the politicians believe shouldn't be here, we are making it easy for British citizens who have been here since they were born to commit a crime. The problem isn't the nationality or status of the person, it should be what they have done. The punishment should deter them from wanting to commit a crime, and in this country it clearly doesn't. The new measures announced by the government are totally reactionary.
ww, for once we actually do agree on this.
I think deportation should be the appropriate crime for staying in the UK illegaly, it makes perfect sense as such, I don't think deportation should be an additional sentence on foreign born offenders.
ah but b, if you already had a criminal record, then you would not be granted citizenship, or even residency in most countries, so why should you have the right to stay in a country where you have been given leave to stay and then abused the laws of that country?
moreover, accepting someone from a country where violence is the norm does not make it acceptable for that person to commit acts of violence under the assumption that "he's grown up with violence as the norm in his life and therefore it's alright".
Wait, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. If you've been granted citizenship they've explored your records and decided you meet the criteria of citizenship, once granted citizenship you should be treated exactly like every other citizen, regardless of their birth place. The country can make it as difficult as they want to grant you that citizenship (and trust me, it's anything but easy, but I'm sure you know that) but, as far as I understand the concept, it's also a big deal and the whole point of it is to have equal rights and you're entitled to being treated the same way as the "natives" if you will.
Residency, like I said, is different status and comes with its own set of restrictions and that's a bit of an evaluation period and I can see how deportation could be used as additional punishment since by committing crime you clearly show that you would not be an asset to that country.
Without either status you shouldn't be there in any case so deportation is the natural punishment for being discovered, let alone for any crime committed.
I didn't say we should accept violent behavior but we should accept refugees keeping in mind this could be the We pay taxes so that the children of alcoholics get rehab treatment when they have issues with drinking, even if they should've known that trying alcohol would expose them to the risk of getting addicted. I'm just saying it should be a part of the immigration evaluation criteria and taken into account when deciding whether to grant refugee status or not.
Don't get me started on assylum seekers, criminalls, known criminals, any of it really! I could go on forever about the mess-ups and failures resulting from these people/animals not being sent back where they belong. For goodness sake, "don't send us home because so 'n so's gonna kill us" Is just an excuse. An excuse to make us really really soften up and warm to them and let them think our country's some sort of gigantic homeless shelter for them and we're gonna put a roof over their heads and kiss it all better. They just bring with them all the violence, bad behaviour and manners with them and we have to tread so, so carefully round all that and not kick off ourselves, or we'll be the poor sods behind bars when we haven't committed a crime while they would either get...
A. A life sentence which lasts for 18 months then they're released so they're free to re-offend again and get off scott fucking free. B. They get 180 hours community service, so they're basically free to do what the hell they like between the hours of 10 AM and 6 PM. nighttime curfews are bloody useless because to some people, day and night are all the same. C. They get a week remanded in police custody then they get bail or parole, but there's nothing in the world which could stop them braking something like that. Some people just don't care about going to prison. It's not something that will stop them ever committing crime again. The US has always had the right idea. You guys still use the death penalty in some states don't you?
Sorry if anyone disagrees with me and all that, but the brittish legal system absolutely hums (That's another word for stinks BTW) to high heaven.
Don't get me started on assylum seekers, criminalls, known criminals, any of it really! I could go on forever about the mess-ups and failures resulting from these people/animals not being sent back where they belong. For goodness sake, "don't send us home because so 'n so's gonna kill us" Is just an excuse. An excuse to make us really really soften up and warm to them and let them think our country's some sort of gigantic homeless shelter for them and we're gonna put a roof over their heads and kiss it all better. They just bring with them all the violence, bad behaviour and manners with them and we have to tread so, so carefully round all that and not kick off ourselves, or we'll be the poor sods behind bars when we haven't committed a crime while they would either get...
A. A life sentence which lasts for 18 months then they're released so they're free to re-offend again and get off scott fucking free. B. They get 180 hours community service, so they're basically free to do what the hell they like between the hours of 10 AM and 6 PM. nighttime curfews are bloody useless because to some people, day and night are all the same. C. They get a week remanded in police custody then they get bail or parole, but there's nothing in the world which could stop them braking something like that. Some people just don't care about going to prison. It's not something that will stop them ever committing crime again. The US has always had the right idea. You guys still use the death penalty in some states don't you?
Sorry if anyone disagrees with me and all that, but the brittish legal system absolutely hums (That's another word for stinks BTW) to high heaven.
Ok to an extent I agree with you that once you become a citizen of a country you should be entitled to the same as people who were born there, although I don’t actually think that anyone who emigrates to a country should be entitled to social security benefits until they have worked and contributed taxes for a significant period, say 10 years, unless deemed unable to work because of severe illness/disability. But that’s a topic for a different discussion. However, in return for being wholly accepted as a citizen of a country, shouldn’t that then mean that you renounce the cultures/traditions of the country you have left? After all, if you want to be accepted as a brit for example, there are certain things we don’t do over here, such as arranged marriages for instance, so if you come from a country that has arranged marriage as part of their culture, then you should accept that if you’re emigrating to Britain, we don’t do arranged marriage over here and therefore you have to leave that part of your culture in the country you left.
I also agree to an extent that we are too soft on assilem seakers, however I think that all imigrants have become lumped under the same banner and that's not necessarily fair. Not all who emigrate here are assilem seakers, a lot of people have brought a lot of things to this country, without imigrants we wouldn't have been introduced to chinese, or italian food for instance, the people who clean our hospitals and schools and offices are generally imigrants, because they're prepared to do the jobs that we wouldn't lower ourselves to do, and they do it for a lot less money than we would. And what about the corner shops that are generally run by pakistani's, they work bloody hard in those shops, get up at the crack of dawn and go to bed late at night. Don't know many brits who would do that. I loved my corner shop when I lived in Cardiff,without imigrants, those shops wouldn't be there. We have to look at the positive side of imigration and not think that everyone who comes to live here is lazy and seaking refuge.
bellatrix lestrange, don't you think you're generalising majorly here?
just to say that all asylum seekers are animals shows your ignorance. how many of these people have you talked to I can tell you that some of these people really do come from harsh backgrounds. i chalenge you to tell a woman from afghanistan that she's not worthy of asylum after she's been persecuted and mistreated by the men in her country just for her gender.
Have you actually tried to find out what some of these places are like? or do you just listen to the great school of "this guy at the pub told me".
I admit readily there's people who don't deserve to be given asylum and deserve nothing but to be sent back where they came from, but there's a lot of people out there who really just want a chance of leading a life where they aren't afraid of having their children killed or being stoned to death for having sex before marage. yes, that actually happens in some places you know. and don't you start about how these people should fight for their right, they are poor people, they don't have the guns, manpower or the blind hatred of their persecuters to fight back. In fact, the safest thing they can do is to run from it, it's the only way they can have a remote chance of survival.
When you can look someone in the eye after they've just told you all the stories of cruelty and shown you the scars they already have, and tell them they are worthy of nothing but deportation, then come back and post what you just did, because it will have much more integrity than it does now. Right now it's just an uninformed rant.
When I worked for an advocacy group called Justice Action I had a lot of chances to get to know some people who had traveled to australia by boat from places such as East Timor, Indonesia, Iran and other middle eastern countries.
All they wanted was to be able to get a job and live their lives, something which they couldn't do in their country of origin.
My hat goes off to them, because i don't think i could survive such torments.
Well, I'm sorry I didn't mean to put all asylum seekers in that category. I just feel we're taking in too many of the wrong sort without looking at their criminal records or their family history. Do not be too soft on them, or they'll invite all their family members over for a cop shop party special.
hmmm, to be truthful, most cases of people seeking asylum are actually genuine cases, it's actually just a small percentage who are the actual committers of crime.
Wow, Bellatrix, that was a sadly uninformed rant and rather absurd, if you are to make a point don't go so racist and over-the-top on everybody that the effect is the opposite.
For one thing crime is not necessarily race/nationality related, more often than not crime is the result of low income and lack of education and difficulty with conforming, sadly the low income people are often the immigrants and, in the U.S. non-white Americans. If I said crimes by Blacks or Hispanics outnumbered those committed by white people by, say 3 to 1 (not actual statistics, I have no idea what the exact statistics are) would you want to deport all races that are not white or lock them up?
SB, I totally agree with you on the culture/social security thing, of course. That's why a nation should specify some citizenrycriteria, such as proficiency in the language/customs/history of the nation. You can't make people give up their culture altogether e.g. if the minority group arranged a mariage amongst themselves and there are no objections western laws don't allow for any intervention since it's a mariage of two willing individuals. But such culture should not be encouraged, may be we should actively try to not encourage immigrants to live together in sort of a village within the city, rather to spread throughout the genera population. That was a major thing with blind people in Iceland, for instance, the fact they all lived together in one apartment building with subsidized rent and ready lunches and government sponsorred work shop on the bottom floor, people got too comfortable and didn't venture out much into the "real world" so this does not even only apply to immigrants.
Social security I agree with, of course by the same token it could be argued if you are born in the UK and then move to the U.S. when you're 20 and work there for 35 years you should not be eligible to full retirement benefits when you come back home because you didn't pay at all into the British system. That's another big discussion going on in Scandinavia with people who emmigrate to the U.S. or other parts of the world only to come back and retire when they're old.
Sorry, touching on too many points but I just think, in general, it's a very interesting topic with broad implications.
cheers
-B
agreed b, i think that people should be encouraged to move throughout the new community in which hey're living, this will not only help them ajust to the newness of the culture but it would also allow some of the local population a chance to actually get to know some real imigrants and perhaps chalenge their prejudices a little. certain posts above suggest that this is in fact necessary.
It may also help the new migrants learn english more effectively.
re going to live abroad and coming back purely to retire, in this country that is actually exactly how it works. while you're working you pay national insurance tnd that goes towards paying your state pention when you retire. If you're not working, you're not paying national insurance and therefore when you "retire" you're not entitled to a full state pension.