No limits to immigration

[TomTomKent]

"People should be free to live and work wherever they wish and enjoy all of the same rights as all other residents"

Is the quote under debate.

It means, insofar as it means anything, that all people should be free etc.

Bob argues that some people seeking to settle in another country are criminals and that they should not be free etc.

So the quote is about people who should be free to live and work.
And your argument is that it does not apply to "all people".
Despite the numerous times it has been pointed out that we are discussing only those who wish to live and work in the country.
Like the danged quote says... Not "all people," not "benefits cheats", not "murderers", not "criminals", those who wish to earn the same rights as anybody else who works for them.


By your interpretation Bob still is not discussing the same people the quote refers to, and you can only justify it by ignoring the caveat in the quote.

[Derrick]

"People should be free to live and work wherever they wish and enjoy all of the same rights as all other residents"

Is the quote under debate.

It means, insofar as it means anything, that all people should be free etc.

Bob argues that some people seeking to settle in another country are criminals and that they should not be free etc.

If that be right then the proposition quoted above is not valid with the interpretation 'People' meaning ' all people'.

A valid proposition therefore is "Some people should be free to live and work wherever they wish and some of them should enjoy some of the same rights as some other residents."

Hi Ron

It all appears to be very Orwellian doesn't it?

Some pigs are more equal than others etc.

Derrick
(Your friendly neighbourhood LibDem, LWL, stochastic ghost, who knows what...)

[RonIpstone]

Clarify this, a person arrives at immigration control at London Luton airport, he is a citizen of the USA and in that country he has just served a long custodial sentence for a variety of crimes the precise nature of which need not concern us but they include drugs and violence, he has expressed his desire to start a new life in the United Kingdom, where his brother has been resident for the last 20 years and who has secured for our would be emigrant accommodation and the offer of a job. Do we let him in? I say no, no matter how genuine his desire to live and work in the UK might be. Why take the risk? As you point out, we have enough undesirables of our own without importing more from abroad.

[Derrick]

Clarify this, a person arrives at immigration control at London Luton airport, he is a citizen of the USA and in that country he has just served a long custodial sentence for a variety of crimes the precise nature of which need not concern us but they include drugs and violence, he has expressed his desire to start a new life in the United Kingdom, where his brother has been resident for the last 20 years and who has secured for our would be emigrant accommodation and the offer of a job. Do we let him in? I say no, no matter how genuine his desire to live and work in the UK might be. Why take the risk? As you point out, we have enough undesirables of our own without importing more from abroad.

Anyone found to have committed a serious crime from another jurisdiction would not be granted a visa to this country.

[TomTomKent]

Hi Ron

It all appears to be very Orwellian doesn't it?

Some pigs are more equal than others etc.

Derrick
(Your friendly neighbourhood LibDem, LWL, stochastic ghost, who knows what...)

To a greater or lesser respect. But does it not also stink of the Ministry of Truth to assume that a certain class, in this case foreigners, can not be trusted because of the actions of a minority? Or to state that the English are more equal in their ability to work than immigrants?

My argument is not with the word "all", but with the context of what the freedom is. All people should be free to work and live where they wish. But the statement uses the word "and". It does not say "Live, or maybe work if they are not too busy being dastardly".

I happen to agree with your party leader on a simaler issue: All applicants to internships should be considered equally in political parties. They are unpaid volunteers and should be selected on skill and ability, not through the old boys network.

It is a sad state of affairs when people start discussing the sixteen human rights listed in the 1998 HR Act as a bad thing, although in my experience those making the statements are only happy to waive the rights of others, and not of themselves. They would not dream of losing the right to work, family, free expression, fair trials or freedom from torture themselves. Oh they are happy for "criminals", "foreigners" or those who are "probably" terrorists to lose any rights, just so long as they are not the ones deemed to be a "criminal" or "probable terrorist".

If you will excuse the tangent, a number of right wing folks I know want the HRA repealed to justify "good old fashioned" Police Work. By which they mean Rough Justice. They say they would be happy to see the Police work confessions out of suspects they "knew" to be guilty, and loosen controls on evidence to ensure bad folk got what they deserved (I wouldn't call it justice) in short order.

But lets assume they get what they want. What if they are on the recieveing end. "Wont happen to me," they say. "I'm not a criminal." But does that matter any more? Now for you to be banged up (in all senses of the word "banged") it does not require you to have actually done anything, only for a Policeman to think you have.

By the same token, if we repeal the rights of Immigrants, or anybody else, what precedent does that establish? That if there are bad enough examples of criminals in any group we can repeal their rights? This discussion is about immigration, but I have heard the same arguments about those claiming benefits, Chavs, football supporters, the disabled or the mentally ill, (Paedophiles are clearly mentally ill, psychopaths and sociopaths are mentally ill, so clearly, I have been told before, the simple answer is to illiminate the mentally ill) or criminals (not "Violent" or "sexual" criminals, but just "criminals with enough offenses". This was suggested by somebody, who under his own plan would be "dealt with", by virtue of his own accumilated traffic offences and a few nights in a drunk cell).

Now, don't assume I am equating those arguments with any made here (beyond some posters assumption that a ban on immigration can be justified by a minority of crimes). Instead understand that when anybody makes a post that glibbly uses the words "human rights" as some kind of insult, I worry for the naive implications.

[TomTomKent]

Clarify this, a person arrives at immigration control at London Luton airport, he is a citizen of the USA and in that country he has just served a long custodial sentence for a variety of crimes the precise nature of which need not concern us but they include drugs and violence, he has expressed his desire to start a new life in the United Kingdom, where his brother has been resident for the last 20 years and who has secured for our would be emigrant accommodation and the offer of a job. Do we let him in? I say no, no matter how genuine his desire to live and work in the UK might be. Why take the risk? As you point out, we have enough undesirables of our own without importing more from abroad.

If you do not believe his intention is to live and work peacefully, and to contribute to your society, then you have your answer.

But note, that would be considerably different from the examples Bob has been posting of those who come to the UK without a genuine desire to work and with a genuine desire to be a criminal.

My personal belief is in rehabilitation, and yes, he would have the right in my personal opinion. In practice he would not be allowed his Visa (Mike Tyson, you may remember, was given a Visa to fight a boxing match in the UK which should have been illegal by the letter of the law).

There is a small amount of leway that can be given, because, for example, what is a crime in Zimbabwe on "political" grounds (like, happening to be gay) is not likely to be considered a crime here. Far from the lap of luxury some Journalists (like Richard Littlejohn, who is always happy to tell us what life in the UK is like, from the Florida Mansion he emmigrated to, so he could rant about immigration in peace) the holding facilities where you will be kept while your claim is processed is not like Butlins. It is closer to being a prison.

A thorny issue that will likely arise is one of "Assylum Seekers", which is often confused with immigrant. The terms are not interchangable, and unlike the popular interpretation saying "I claim assylum!" is not a no quibble meal ticket an illegal immigrant can claim if they are caught. Or rather they can claim to seek assylum, but they are not garunteed to recieve anything, and are likely to be held in a detention centre while their claim is processed.But, again, if a genuine assylum seeker is not a criminal, and desires to work and pay his due, what moral justification is there for denying them that right?

[Robert]

So, Tomtom, do you think that prisoners have a human right to vote?

[Robert]

How about this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12011868

I'm giving you a BBC link, so you can't say it was made up by nasty racists.

[TomTomKent]

In prison? No, that is not my interpretation of the law (just as they do not have the right for liberty while incarcerated).

Upon release when they return to society? Absolutely. Their debt is paid and they have both the same rights and responsibilities as anybody else. Responsibility being the pricetag for the rights.

[TomTomKent]

How about this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12011868

I'm giving you a BBC link, so you can't say it was made up by nasty racists.

And how is anybody expected to comment when the reason for the judges decision is not given? The report says he has family here, but also states his claim of assylum was "failed". It is irresponsible to comment with out all the evidence.

It is also irresponsible to assume individual cases can represent the full trend. Unless you are about to post details of the assylum seekers who did not run over little girls, or all the dangerous drivers who are not assylum seekers. As with Bob you are cherry picking individual cases, any one of which is statistically insignificant.

[TomTomKent]

Infact Robert, why should your example be treated any differently to this chap:

http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/9076317.Teen_charged_with_death_by_dangerous_driving/

Or this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-13713246

Or this one:

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/06/09/mother-of-sutton-coldfield-victim-in-drink-driving-death-hits-out-at-prison-sentence-97319-28846350/

All were tragic cases in which somebody died due to dangerous driving. The only difference with the story you posted was that these people were born in this country, why should that mean he forgoes rights on his release from prison while these people do not? Should we be exiling all dangerous drivers?

[Robert]

Tomtom

First, to judge from those links, two of the cases are apparently sub judice and it would be irresponsible to comment on them. You might like to edit your post and insert "allegedly" or something similar.

Second, the proposal is that prisoners vote while still in prison :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/04/prisoner-voting-convicts-human-beings

Third, if you are seriously arguing that because we cannot deport indigenous scum, we shouldn't deport foreign scum, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

[Robert]

Actually the second isn't sub judice as far as I understand it, since there's been no charge, but obviously it's unwise to make allegations.

[TomTomKent]

Tomtom

First, to judge from those links, two of the cases are apparently sub judice and it would be irresponsible to comment on them. You might like to edit your post and insert "allegedly" or something similar.

Second, the proposal is that prisoners vote while still in prison :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/04/prisoner-voting-convicts-human-beings

Third, if you are seriously arguing that because we cannot deport indigenous scum, we shouldn't deport foreign scum, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

That is the proposal, but as I said, it is not my opinion, as it is not how I think the law should be interpreted. There are allowances made for the practical necessity of detaining prisoners, and ensuring they are well treated. In my opinion the right to vote falls into this area.

As for the sub-judice issue, I don't see that as an excuse: They are on trial for the same crimes. Why should they be treated differently to the example you posted? If they are found guilty or innocent is not the issue, how they can expect to be treated by the justice system is.

So I ask again: Why should somebody born abroad have to forgoe any rights that oithers do not?

[Robert]

The sub judice issue is important - possible trials must not be prejudiced by external comment.

As for your last question, I've already admitted that there is nothing I can do to help you.