Send Foreign Criminals Home.

jambutty · 02-05-2006, 14:36

When a legal immigrant enters this country s/he is bound by our laws under pain of punishment if the laws are broken, the same as those of us who live here.

For serious named crimes the immigrant should serve a portion of the prison sentence handed down (say 12 months) and then be deported back to the country of origin direct from prison to complete the sentence under that country’s laws.

The same should apply to illegal immigrants.

The serious named crimes would be, in no particular order of importance, rape, murder, manslaughter, paedophilia, violent crime, pimping/prostitution, money laundering and drug and people trafficking.

harwood red · 02-05-2006, 15:13

Can't add to that at all except I completely agree!!!

Uncle Mick · 02-05-2006, 16:38

There was a woman on Radio Lancashire today talking about the deportation of criminal immigrants. Apparently this has been in discussion for over two years and the stumbling block is the human rights of the deportee. And no doubt human rights lawyers ( Hello Cherie!) will block any such moves as long as the funds hold out.

chav1 · 02-05-2006, 17:02

why wait until an illigal imigrant comits a crime , why not just chuck the sods into the sea and let them swim home

sometimes i wish we were like france because they stick two fingers up at europe quite often and get away with it so why dosnt the UK do what is best for it occasionaly and stick two fingers up at europe when they start screaming about human rights of illigal imigrants etc

mani · 02-05-2006, 17:43

turns out one of the guys who shot pc sharon boshanivski was on that list who was meant to b deported or was assessed to b deported

but i do agree to the extent we shud apply the same rules as usa and aussie whereby if a person has had any criminal past aswell he shud b denied a visa

and if he comes in illegally and is on his probation and no matter how small the crime he shud b sent back.

Basher · 02-05-2006, 20:28

Send all illegals home NOW!! Why should they live at taxpayers expense when there's plenty of indigenous people in this country who are worthy of handouts using taxpayers money.

SPUGGIE J · 02-05-2006, 23:05

Blame the PC mob and Euro human rights legislation.

WillowTheWhisp · 03-05-2006, 09:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by mani

turns out one of the guys who shot pc sharon boshanivski was on that list who was meant to b deported or was assessed to b deported

Yep and they decided not to deport him because his life would be in danger in his county of origin!

Some silly comment made on the radio this morning to the effect that if you are murdered it is small comfort to knowthat the murderer was a British National. As if that excuses not deporting people.

semihere · 04-05-2006, 14:44

Unfortunately you all assume that immigrants to his country come for a free handout... totally wrong.

In fact any foreign national wanting to live and work here (legally) has to abide by a strict list of required professions issued by the Home Office (where there is a skills gap in the indigenous population) - additionally they have to prove that they have a job doing one these tasks and their employer has to keep the Home Office notified of any change to employment status.

If they can't get work doing any of those jobs, or don't have the skills to do them then they aren't allowed to work, full stop. They also aren't given any benefits whatsoever and if they don't find suitable employment within a given time period they are expelled.

The fact that there are problems with illegal immigrants at the levels there are perhaps has more to do with the ridiculously strict rules enforced on legals who just come here to try to better themselves.

Surely if they were allowed to apply for any available job vacancy, thus earn and pay their fair share to the taxation system we wouldn't have so much of a problem. At least that way they could afford to live and the notorious gangmasters wouldn't be able to prey on them and their legal status.

No matter how many rules we impose, or how stringently we apply them, there will always be a steady flow of illegals, and the harder we crack down on them, the more desperate they'll become - all of which can only lead to boom times for the organised criminal gangs involved in people trafficking.

The same negative reaction is often seen during police wars on class A drugs such as heroin. The police crack down harder, the street price goes up to offset the additional cost to smuggle it into the country and thus the level of crime associated with users goes up as they have to steal more to pay for the increase. Ultimately the traffickers and dealers don't suffer - they get their margin no matter what - it's the users and via transferrance the rest of us who feel the real effects.

This may be a different subject to people trafficking, but the machinery of the smuggling operation is very similar.

I'm just pointing out that it's not so cut and dry... oh, and ID cards wouldn't stop any of this either, because they already exist for immigrants... they're called visas and if an immigrant doesn't have them on their person when stopped by police, they can be detained until their identity confirmed. This fact still doesn't stop illegals.

It's got nothing at all to do with Human Rights lawyers.

semihere · 04-05-2006, 14:44

Unfortunately you all assume that immigrants to his country come for a free handout... totally wrong.

In fact any foreign national wanting to live and work here (legally) has to abide by a strict list of required professions issued by the Home Office (where there is a skills gap in the indigenous population) - additionally they have to prove that they have a job doing one these tasks and their employer has to keep the Home Office notified of any change to employment status.

If they can't get work doing any of those jobs, or don't have the skills to do them then they aren't allowed to work, full stop. They also aren't given any benefits whatsoever and if they don't find suitable employment within a given time period they are expelled.

The fact that there are problems with illegal immigrants at the levels there are perhaps has more to do with the ridiculously strict rules enforced on legals who just come here to try to better themselves.

Surely if they were allowed to apply for any available job vacancy, thus earn and pay their fair share to the taxation system we wouldn't have so much of a problem. At least that way they could afford to live and the notorious gangmasters wouldn't be able to prey on them and their legal status.

No matter how many rules we impose, or how stringently we apply them, there will always be a steady flow of illegals, and the harder we crack down on them, the more desperate they'll become - all of which can only lead to boom times for the organised criminal gangs involved in people trafficking.

The same negative reaction is often seen during police wars on class A drugs such as heroin. The police crack down harder, the street price goes up to offset the additional cost to smuggle it into the country and thus the level of crime associated with users goes up as they have to steal more to pay for the increase. Ultimately the traffickers and dealers don't suffer - they get their margin no matter what - it's the users and via transferrance the rest of us who feel the real effects.

This may be a different subject to people trafficking, but the machinery of the smuggling operation is very similar.

I'm just pointing out that it's not so cut and dry... oh, and ID cards wouldn't stop any of this either, because they already exist for immigrants... they're called visas and if an immigrant doesn't have them on their person when stopped by police, they can be detained until their identity confirmed. This fact still doesn't stop illegals.

It's got nothing at all to do with Human Rights lawyers.

semihere · 04-05-2006, 14:55

Oh to clarify something... the immigrants who end up on these shores and claim benefits aren't economic migrants, they tend to be asylum seekers who can be given income support whilst their claims of human rights abuses/death threats/political conscience/whatever their reasons for coming here are investigated. If substantiated they can stay, and also claim benefits. They're not illegal, they're just trying to escape oppression, torture, death. But they are also subject to the same benefits rules as the rest of us.

Just thought I'd point that out before someone says they know of an immigrant claiming benefits. They're most likely an asylum seeker - there's a world of difference.

And one other thing. Our population is in decline. There are not enough people being born to replace those who are dying. So without immigration our population will eventually be unable to support itself economically and collapse. We need an influx of extra hands to do the jobs that need doing.

Additionally - how many people can trace back their ancestry and state categorically that their family has not originated from another country somewhere down the line (be it France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Italy or any other nation that has conquered these islands over the centuries)?

lettie · 04-05-2006, 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by semihere

Just thought I'd point that out before someone says they know of an immigrant claiming benefits. They're most likely an asylum seeker - there's a world of difference.

And one other thing. Our population is in decline. There are not enough people being born to replace those who are dying. So without immigration our population will eventually be unable to support itself economically and collapse. We need an influx of extra hands to do the jobs that need doing.

Your posts on this matter are all well and good but could you explain to me why I have recently had the pleasure of looking after 2 couples one from Turkey and one from China. Neither partner spoke English, they were not asylum seekers and their translator claimed they were here legally. What skills gap were they filling??? I don't know their benefit status and quite frankly couldn't be bothered to ask. All I know is that they turn up at hospitals and reap the benefits of free healthcare.

Also our birthrate is rising and has been doing for the last few years. I can vouch that it is certainly rising in Blackburn.

semihere · 04-05-2006, 18:02

Lettie... you could possibly ask them what their skills are? How they came to bee in Britain?

My brother-in-law who comes from China was here legally - as a computer programmer. When he first arrived he only spoke a little English, by the time he was deported he spoke fairly fluently. His precarious situation (requiring him to remain in constant employment) made it possible for his employers to abuse their position forcing him to work very long hours for very little pay (he daren't tell them to shove it), eventually laying him off without warning which forced him into a situation of living without ANY income for a couple of months before finally being deported to Hong Kong.

I'm taking, given your references to healthcare, that you work in the NHS. And I always thought that people in the caring professions were keen to help people regardless of circumstance. Would you deny somebody healthcare because of the nationality of their origins? You're also assuming that these couples were in receipt of state benefits without any rights to them (but couldn't be bothered to find out more). They may well have been working here... or do you know that they weren't for sure?

With regards to the question of language - many Brits working abroad do not speak the local language (in fact, Hong Kong is a classsic example where the local language is Cantonese). We just assume everyone else will speak English and if all else fails, stick to enclaves where other Brits live. Why should someone from China think they should learn English when they already speak a language (Mandarin) used by more people than even ours!?!?

In fact, why is it that ours is the ONLY species of animal that deems it fit to impose boundaries on the limit of each others travel? Every other creature on this planet roams to where the sources of food are abundant. None of them draw artificial lines across the earth and say 'you can't come to this bit of the planet, it's ours, you're not partaking of OUR good fortune'. And fortune is exactly what it is - why should ANY of us have more right to the standards of living we enjoy in this country, whilst denying the majority world access to those standards? Purely because we won the lottery of having parents who bore us here? We don't even have a personal say in the matter of where we'll be born, so why should any of us be expected to abide by borders imposed on us in this way?

IMO we should scrap borders or limitations, let everyone flow freely.

Perhaps the birthrate IS increasing in this town, but it's one town out of many. The increasing birthrate may well have something to do with the general growth of the town's population with more people moving in from other areas (have you noticed all the newbuild housing?), and maybe it's a combination of these factors. Overall though, with people waiting longer before they start a family, I'd say that the population as a whole (without immigrants) is most likely in decline. I know that by the time my Dad was my age he was a father 3 times over, and I've yet to have any children. I have 3 siblings - if you take into account that all 4 of us have a partner all of whom have brothers and sisters, amongst 15 people we have produced 3 children in my family/spouses families alone. That's only 20% the size of the preceding generation. If you were to look across the country I'm sure you'd see this pattern repeating time and again. Just a hypothesis, but I'm sure there's some statistical evidence out there (the health service may have more details on the overall birth/mortality records than is available to the general public) which would clarify one way or the other.

The trouble with people's views of immigrants is that they're based on jingoistic, bigoted and outright fascist stereotypes developed in the mythical world of mainstream media coverage of the situation. Politicians play up to this racist stereotype, and play ON it as well to try and justify killing these same people in their homelands in the name of >insert this week's excuse here<... all of it false, all of it for imperial greed, oil, money, personal wealth. These are humans we're talking about after all, same as you and me. If you go and have a look at the detention centres that some illegal immigrants are held in, you'll see the parallels between the British people's treatment of foreign nationals and the way we factory farm - I'm guessing that intensive pig farming was merely a test to see if it's possible for an animal to survive under those conditions as a precursor to developing these detention centres. You doubt? Let's remember which nation invented the concentration camp!

Anyway, I'm ranting!! hehe

semihere · 04-05-2006, 18:03

More info about the media's skewed and biased reporting of asylum seekers can be found in this old Media Lens article:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/03/0...mmigration.HTM

which includes such choice quotable copy as:

"Is appropriate coverage given, for example, to the fact that in 2001 the UK had only 169,370 officially recognized refugees living within its borders compared to Germany's 988,500, Iran's 1.9 million or Pakistan's 2.2 million? Are we made sufficiently aware that during the same year the UK received 71,365 applicants for asylum, granting this status to just 11,180 individuals - 0.02% of the UK population? Or that Pakistan received a single influx of 199,900 Afghan refugees? Or that the ten largest refugee movements in 2001 were, with the exception of Yugoslavia, all made between countries in the Third World? "

and:

"What do the media have to say about the fact that the UK has recently sold arms to all five countries of origin topping the UK list of asylum applicants in 2001? This, despite the fact that, in each case, violent military conflict remains the dominant root cause of refugee flight. More generally, what emphasis is placed on adverse conditions in countries of origin - poverty, human rights abuses, global income disparity, conflict and torture - in articles concerned with asylum and immigration?*"

Also, some more thoughts on this topic from users of the Media Lens message board:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medial...147350964.html

...which brings us back to the distinction between immigrants and asylum seekers - 2 different things, yet most people can't see the difference. If anybody in this country, regardless of their status commits a crime they should be punishable under the applicable laws. No kicking people out, that's just ridiculous - and unpracticable in law. Once somebody gains British citizenship that's it, they're British. Otherwise half the UK could be deported to France following a run-in with the law due to their Gallic ancestry from the Norman invasions of 1066!!! If they're not a British citizen and they don't have the appropriate visas then there's no way they can legally stay here after spending time in prison and would be deported anyway.