mj.scuba Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 If he hates Britain so much and it's people, why does he want to remain here? Surrounded by the kuffar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 This country made a joke of, again. Egyptian born vile nutjob preacher of hate and violence Abu Hamza has won his right to keep his British passport, which after coming here on a Student Visa, he only gained through Marriage. He's about as British as I am Tazmanian. When will this country wake up and stand up for itself, force these people onto a plane in cuffs then eject them off the plane onto the tarmac at the other end, regardless of where they come from. Hamza was jailed for 7 years in 2006 for inciting murder and racial hatred. Do we want this kind of foreigner in our country? The Special Immigration and Appeals Commission want their heads testing, or better still disbanding and allow the elected Home Secretary to decide, at least then we can hold them to account. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Abu-Hamza-Wins-Appeal-Over-Passport-Govt-Tried-To-Strip-Cleric-Of-British-Citizenship/Article/201011115795601?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15795601_Abu_Hamza_Wins_Appeal_Over_Passport%3A_Govt_Tried_To_Strip_Cleric_Of_British_Citizenship -- mj are you serious about this part? You would give the Home Secretary the right to decide who is deported and who isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 mj are you serious about this part? You would give the Home Secretary the right to decide who is deported and who isn't? Absolutely. They should be elected to hold such responsibility. And they can be held accountable at the ballot box if large proportions of the public disagree with their decision. How are siac accountable? They're not. Our elected representatives make decisions about whether to take us to war or not, so why not allow them to decide about individual people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Yep, the human rights of one imported loon are being put above the rights of the entire nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Absolutely. They should be elected to hold such responsibility. And they can be held accountable at the ballot box if large proportions of the public disagree with their decision. How are siac accountable? They're not. Our elected representatives make decisions about whether to take us to war or not, so why not allow them to decide about individual people? Would you not worry about decisions like that being taken on the basis of one persons opinion over whether someone should be deported or not rather than the law? Potentially that one person might have a political bias, eg, large numbers of people deported in the year before an election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Yep, the human rights of one imported loon are being put above the rights of the entire nation. No, the human rights of one British passport holder are exactly the same as the human rights of all British passport holders. Whether he should have been given one in the first place is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Would you not worry about decisions like that being taken on the basis of one persons opinion over whether someone should be deported or not rather than the law? Potentially that one person might have a political bias, eg, large numbers of people deported in the year before an election? It would not worry me in the slightest. The Home Secretary is privy to sensitive national security information that the rest of us are not, so how would they not be capable at looking into immigration and asylum cases? I think the Home Secretary should be trusted to look at the available evidence and the arguments for and against and make a decision, that's what they're paid to do and what they're elected for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 It would not worry me in the slightest. The Home Secretary is privy to sensitive national security information that the rest of us are not, so how would they not be capable at looking into immigration and asylum cases? I think the Home Secretary should be trusted to look at the available evidence and the arguments for and against and make a decision, that's what they're paid to do and what they're elected for. He can't make all the decisions, he wouldn't have enough time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 He can't make all the decisions, he wouldn't have enough time. I don't think I said she should rule on all cases, just the power to rule on any case. Whatever happened to deporting foreign people 'not conducive to the public good'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donato Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 This country made a joke of, again. Egyptian born vile nutjob preacher of hate and violence Abu Hamza has won his right to keep his British passport, which after coming here on a Student Visa, -- You've got to laugh haven't you, or we'd end up crying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.