Fishcake Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 Heading North and Tony E - Even though that is in line with ECHR, do you think it is right morally, or do you agree with it? I understand now they why etc but do you think it is acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought this thread was about a person from abroad that had commited a serious crime here, but because he'll face harsh persicution in his country of origin cannot be deported back there, and you, weirdly, appear to be saying that that is fair because no one, including British people would be sent to a country where they would face harsh persicution. I did not say it was fair. That's a judgment for each individual to make. What I said was that they (immigrants and criminals) get the same rights as the rest of us - no deportation to dangerous countries being one such right. Many people consider it unfair to have any such thing as basic human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No dice Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Wow. Which is exactly the point. Have you read the post Headingnorth was replying to? Answer this. Why is not deporting a migrant giving them extra rights over British citizens if like the British citizens the immigrants don't get deported? That's simply all it was. You're looking for way much more. They both have the same rights. Which in answer to Wex's post is correct. Its a point that didnt need to be made. Of course a British citizen wouldnt be sent to another country for commiting a crime in Britain, why would they? lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishcake Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 I did not say it was fair. That's a judgment for each individual to make. What I said was that they (immigrants and criminals) get the same rights as the rest of us - no deportation to dangerous countries being one such right. Many people consider it unfair to have any such thing as basic human rights. thanks HN, you answered my previous post. You didn't say it was fair and it certainly seems most unfair and I might say unreasonable too that we should foot the bill to feed and house these violent offenders, who may have lied to get in the country (fleeing persecution and violence) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Heading North and Tony E - Even though that is in line with ECHR, do you think it is right morally, or do you agree with it? I understand now they why etc but do you think it is acceptable? Ultimately I agree with Taxman. It's one of those where I think each case should be treated separately. Like has been said, if we don't have a death penalty why would we send a person to somewhere were they are likely to be killed? It would be like us issuing the death penalty. I do however believe that if you're coming over here for a better life then respect the bloody place. Then again all crimes committed on my person have been carried out by a native and we can't send them anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Its a point that didnt need to be made. Of course a British citizen wouldnt be sent to another country for commiting a crime in Britain, why would they? lol. It did need to be made because someone was stating that the immigrants got more rights. HN proved they didn't. Though in answer to your question. They did used to be sent to another country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Heading North and Tony E - Even though that is in line with ECHR, do you think it is right morally, or do you agree with it? I understand now they why etc but do you think it is acceptable? That seems to depend on which angle you're looking at the Human Rights Act from. Do violent criminals and the like deserve basic rights? Probably not. But that isn't why the Act was ever introduced. Do we, the ordinary British public, consider that there are things a Government should not do? (Torture, imprisonment without trial, and so on...) The Act is intended to guarantee that they will not. As such, it's irrelevant what the person involved deserves. The Act is all about what our authorities guarantee not to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishcake Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 Ultimately I agree with Taxman. It's one of those where I think each case should be treated separately. Like has been said, if we don't have a death penalty why would we send a person to somewhere were they are likely to be killed? It would be like us issuing the death penalty. I do however believe that if you're coming over here for a better life then respect the bloody place. Then again all crimes committed on my person have been carried out by a native and we can't send them anywhere. Sadly any criminal activity I have been on the end of has been by white English, well white people from this country. I still think that a lot of fleeing persecution stories are not true but how do you tell? It is a hard job. I used to work with people from other countries (benefit related) and there was a group of people who used to go quiet and whisper when one individual came in to the place. I was told by the whispering crowd he had murdered (ethnic cleansing) lots of women and children and lied to get in the country. They were all terrified of the man and wouldn't speak up. Not that interesting to you all I guess, just thought I would mention it as I thought when I had dealt with the man in question he was a polite nice chap. Was he or wasn't he? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Surely though it should be that if you commit a serious offence you're deported whence you came? You have made the decision to break the law despite knowing that you could be returned to the terrible place that you arrived from yet you still chose to break the law. If I break the terms of my VISA while in the USA I will be repatriated. Why shouldn't the UK do the same? If you cannot abide by the laws of a Country you have sought refuge in then you should forfeit your right to stay. I would say this is for serious offences only drug dealing, rape, murder etc. Maybe for any crime that carries a 5+ jail term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Surely though it should be that if you commit a serious offence you're deported whence you came? As per my post above. We don't have a death sentence in this country; we will not send anyone into a country where they face one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.