No limits to immigration

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

UK’S 204,000 PASSPORTS GIVEAWAY
David Cameron has said he wants to cut net immigration to the “tens of thousands”

BRITAIN handed out passports at the “astonishing” rate of almost two every five minutes to make it the most open country in Europe to immigrants.
New research showed yesterday that an incredible 204,000 foreign nationals won British citizenship in 2009 – the highest across the continent.

That is 50 per cent more than second-placed France which let 136,000 become citizens.

It is more than double the 96,000 given the right to become German. Both countries are vastly bigger than the UK.

The figures, from the EU’s statistical wing Eurostat, came in the week the same body released predictions that the UK would leapfrog France and Germany to become the most populated EU country by 2060.
An estimated 79 million ¬people would be crammed in
.
Last night, critics said the statistics confirmed that the UK’s borders had been left wide open by the previous government. They warned Britain’s public services were buckling under the growing strain.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...#ixzz1OxydmNDk

Never mind though LWL should be happy with this news

[Hatchett]

Hello,

You know Bob, I think you have a problem. If you were just to chill out and look at these issues more rationally, I think you would find that there is not such a problem here as you try to make out.

I also think if you were to look around there is more of a serious issue closer to home, which does not include race or immigrants or anything of that nature.

It actually invloves National Millaise, and the results of Recession.

At the end of the day everyone has an inclination to find a scape goat for problems. But that is a cop out. It is a diversionary tactic to avoid the real issues.

Open your eyes and see the real world.

If you do then you could help.

Best wishes.

[TomTomKent]

which would mean that, in theory, you would be denied a right to appeal on a murder charge, regardless of evidence, based on the fact you had a dangerous driving conviction before.

I’m still of two minds whether you are just stupid or are totally ignorant of what the appeals process consists of. Being as I am a nice guy I’ll plump for the latter.

Right appeals 101. When a person is convicted in court he has the right to apply for the Right of Appeal. Note this is not a right to appeal, but a right to ask if he can or not. These appeals generally fall into two sections, appeal against conviction and appeal against sentence.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

If a person maintains he is innocent or he feels that the prosecution has not met the burden of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt he can, IF HE HAS NEW, COMPELLING AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE, ask that the conviction be set aside. The standard required is that if this new evidence was available for the first trial the balance of probabilities suggests that the person would not have been convicted. (See R vs. Barry George http://netk.net.au/UK/George.asp ) But there must be compelling evidence, you can’t just wake up one morning and ask for a do over.

APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
This is a fundamentally different situation. In this instance the convicted person agrees that his conviction is valid, but maintains that the punishment is unduly harsh. Recently the CPS have also had this right of appeal if they consider the punishment to be unduly lenient.

Now we come to the case of the illegal immigrant. First off he hasn’t been convicted in a court, his guilt is established by the fact that he is in the country without permission – that is sufficient. The action taken to remedy this situation is deportation. The illegal has the right to appeal this order. In other words he accepts he is an illegal but wishes to enter mitigation to prevent his deportation. You write:

Which still does not disqualify him from an appeal based on new evidence for where his family lives

Which is nonsense, it is not ‘evidence’ it is a circumstance. The fact he has a family does not alter the fact he is an illegal immigrant, however it might be grounds for setting aside the deportation order.

My position is quite simple. Any incomer who enters this country and commits a criminal act should be deported immediately, otherwise you are importing criminals and the taxpayer is paying for their own destruction. You go to Canada and commit a crime and see how long it takes for you to be on the next plane out.

Having explained that I do hope you will realise how silly your analogy of having a driving conviction preventing you from appealing a murder conviction is. Far from treating illegal immigrants differently we are treating them just the same as our own criminals. When they are released from prison they get a rail warrant to their home. So do illegal immigrants, they get a lift back to their home.

By the way little Tom Tom where are your lines I set you?

Bob, why for the love of all that is holy do you insist on mistaking the right to appeal against the findings of his immigration status for a an appeal against any given criminal offence? They are two seperate issues. The right to appeal one is not, and should not, be lost because of the other. He might fail, but that has nothing to do with his human right to have full access to the judicial process.

If you don't understand what other people are saying, just ask them to explain a little more. Especially if you want to try and imply others are stupid, as it ends up making things look worse for you. Or would you be more comfortable if I suggested that you were some kind of moron for not getting that things other than prison sentences can have appeals?

Having pointed that out, and seeing as how you want a criminal conviction to prevent an Immigration Status appeal, please explain how my analogy is stupid? Or any different in principle that one unrelated issue (a driving offence) preventing an appeal for an entirely seperate issue (if a criminal case doesn't float your boat lets say "a civil planning case" or "a paternity claim" or frankly anything else).

The fact his family now resides here is a change in circumstance. It is "evidence" in the terminology YOU were usinf, that I adopted in the hope you might actually make an effort to understand. As it failed, I will try again: "The chap can show he has family here in the UK, and as the right to family is one of the human rights enshrined in the 1998 HRA it is ample grounds for his appeal to be heard, and as a human being he has the right to access the full judicial system, meanings we have no grounds for his appeal not to be heard".

Now how about I set you some lines Bob: "Bob Hinton should not rely on blatant straw man attacks which leave him looking a fool." 100 times in chalk please.

[TomTomKent]

UK’S 204,000 PASSPORTS GIVEAWAY
David Cameron has said he wants to cut net immigration to the “tens of thousands”

BRITAIN handed out passports at the “astonishing” rate of almost two every five minutes to make it the most open country in Europe to immigrants.
New research showed yesterday that an incredible 204,000 foreign nationals won British citizenship in 2009 – the highest across the continent.

That is 50 per cent more than second-placed France which let 136,000 become citizens.

It is more than double the 96,000 given the right to become German. Both countries are vastly bigger than the UK.

The figures, from the EU’s statistical wing Eurostat, came in the week the same body released predictions that the UK would leapfrog France and Germany to become the most populated EU country by 2060.
An estimated 79 million ¬people would be crammed in
.
Last night, critics said the statistics confirmed that the UK’s borders had been left wide open by the previous government. They warned Britain’s public services were buckling under the growing strain.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...#ixzz1OxydmNDk

Never mind though LWL should be happy with this news

Gee "Critics" warned us of that did they? Oh no! Unnamed critics are far more scary than actual data!

My mistake: No they aren't. Especially when there is no data correllating the immigrants to any expenditure of resources, but there ARE figures correlating public services to other "strains", like, oh I don't know, the efficiency savings imposed over the same period. Strangeley immigrants also pay tax. I wonder how much strain the additional tax revenue places on straining services?

[TomTomKent]

Oh, and the Express has the story filed under "ShowBiz", need more be said?
Oh wait, yeah, the "Critic" is from UKIP. Hmm, not at all related to his political agenda then. UKIP are critical of any immigration figure that is not zero, but he offers no evidence to support the specific claim that any service is under strain as a direct response to the immigrants. It appears to be an opinion based on two numbers with no connection.

But hey, let's have more maths related fun. 204,000 sounds a lot, but if half of them pay any tax, that makes them more productive than the 87,000 criminals we have in prison. Now lets assume those 204,000 WERE unemployed, how much of an impact is that in reality? Well, for the same year, 2009, there were 2,490,000 unemployed people in the UK. That means that even if NONE of the 204,000 new passport holders had a job, then they would still only account for less than 9% of the total unemployed. Interestingly there were only 1,630,000 claims for JSA in the same period. Which, by the way FELL in December of of 2009, and the total number of unemployed only grew by 21000 over the three months up to October, the same time the number of JSA claiments FELL.

Don't believe me? Hey I can find newspaper articles too. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/r...two-years.html

So perhaps the strain was felt elsewhere? The total population in the UK in 2009 was 61.8 Million. That is 61,800,000. Meaning that the TOTAL number of new passports, 204,000 accounts for less that one third of one percent of the population. 0.33%. And THIS is apparently putting us at "Breaking point"?

Now lets tott up all of the criminals Bob has posted stories about and wonder how they fit into the equation. He seems to have mentioned slightly less than 204,000 of them by my count...

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

Hello,
Open your eyes and see the real world.

Best wishes.

Little man I have seen more of this real world than you could possibly imagine.

[Bob Hinton]

Not the Tom Tom again!

Bob, why for the love of all that is holy do you insist on mistaking the right to appeal against the findings of his immigration status


Having pointed that out, and seeing as how you want a criminal conviction to prevent an Immigration Status appeal,

.

I'm sorry you are obviously too dense to understand written English. Let me try again in big letters so it might strike home.

HE CANNOT APPEAL AGAINST HIS IMMIGRATION STATUS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW. ALL HE CAN DO IS TO APPEAL HIS DEPORTATION ORDER.

The reason I am saying he should not be allowed to appeal anything is that he should never have been allowed in the country in the first place as he is a convicted criminal. Since being here he has committed a string of other violent offences culminating in murder. This piece of rubbish should have been flushed down the sewer as soon as the authorities laid hands on him.

You seem very concerned about his human rights but show absolutely no sympathy with the rights of others not to have glasses shoved in their faces and not to be beaten to death with an iron bar.

But then you are a LWL

[TomTomKent]

Oh lordy.... Bob, do I really have to reduce thisto sesame street levels?

If his deportation order is over ruled, then his immigration status has changed. He will have gone from being an illegal alien about to be deported, to an alien allowed to stay with inthe country legally.

What ever other offences has committed, be it parking fines, murder or death by dangerous driving, this does not negate his right to appeal against deportation. It may convince the judge to decide against him, but it does not overrule his right to access the full judicial system. Get that now? If you commit murder you still have the right to a divorce, if you get speeding tickets you can still appeal against your neighbours planning permission, and this guy still has the right to fight hisdeportation order and get his immigration status changed.

Oh look, another strawman attack. I "don't care" about the rights of others? Where exactly have I said that? Oh, i didn't. I have not commented at all on what I think of the crime, or the victims, only that it does not negate the right to access the judicial system. Still, is Bobs suggestion any better? Why surely if we send him abroad that will stop him! Apparently he can't possibly be violent abroad. Oh wait he already was. Yeah we will be deporting him to a country where he may well have other victims , so what is to stop me making the same arguments? "Bob doesn't care about the feelings of the victims in another country! He wants to dump them with some evil scum!"

Wow itreally is easier to argue against things people didn't actually say. No wonder Bob does it so often.

Or I could just try to be patronising and call other posters "little man", but who would want to undermine any credability their arguments may have had.


None of which distracts us from the question that has yet to be answered; why should he forgoe any human right that a British citizen is not expected to give up? British citizens are not expected to lose access to the judicial system on releasefrom prison regardless of their crime. They are not expected to give up their right to family. There are people with worse records who will expect to be released with all human rights, yet you would deny another? Why?

[Stephen Thomas]

why should he forgoe any human right that a British citizen is not expected to give up? British citizens are not expected to lose access to the judicial system on releasefrom prison regardless of their crime. They are not expected to give up their right to family. There are people with worse records who will expect to be released with all human rights, yet you would deny another? Why?

Well I hate to agree with Bob Hinton as I think he's a bit of a creepy character but I think he does have a point here regarding this particular foreign 'gentleman'. Aren't British citizen's rights for British citizens?

[TomTomKent]

Well I hate to agree with Bob Hinton as I think he's a bit of a creepy character but I think he does have a point here regarding this particular foreign 'gentleman'. Aren't British citizen's rights for British citizens?

But it isn't called the "British Rights Act", it's the "Human Rights Act". Unfortunately the principle does not allow us to choose who does or does not deserve them. I don't think the "gentleman" is a good person, I don't expect his deportation order to be overturned. I don't even want him in the country. But because of what he done, not because of where he was born. And that does not change the due process or his established rights. If we allow his rights to be denied, then by extension we allow anybodys rights to be denied on principle. The precedent would be that perfectly good and honest immigrants intending to work will be denied due process simply because somebody does not like them.

Then hey, why limit it to immigrants? Why not declare that a Pikey doesn't deserve human rights either? Or gay people? Or black people?

But more importantly in the case of this "gentleman", let's give Bob the benefit of the doubt and say it is the fact he is a criminal, not a foreign citizen that marks him out. Now we ask why the same rights are not denied to our home grown violent thugs and sex offenders? There are people who have caused just as much harm, to just as many (or more) innocent folks in our prisons who will be released. Yet they retain their rights for being born here? Why? Being born here does not make them good people. It does not over rule our disgust at what they have done. Why is the distinguishing feature where the person was born, and not who the person was?

This gent is no more indicitive of the whole of the migrant community than Fred West or Peter Tobin would be of British Citizens. Yet should I expect my rights to be diminished because of those freaks? No. Should others expect their rights reduced on the off chance they may be like this gent? No.

[Hatchett]

Hi Bob,

"Little man I have seen more of this real world than you could possibly imagine."

Well Bob I wonder who is the little man here!

Best wishes.

[Bob Hinton]

Not again............

death by dangerous driving, this does not negate his right to appeal against deportation.

How many times do I have to point this out? If you don't understand the written word get someone to explain it to you. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO APPEAL.

Not for an immigrant not for a British person and not as far as I know in most civilised countries of the world. What you have is the right to APPLY to appeal. Do you get that now?

What should happen with an illegal immigrant is that he should be barred from entering this country if he has a criminal record - as many many other countries in the world do. If he is already in this country then he should be deported immediately. If he wishes to apply for the right to appeal that deportation then he is perfectly at liberty to do so - in his home country not here, because if you leave him in this country he will continue to commit many many more crimes.

With complex problems like this it is often a good idea to reduce it to a more understandable level.

Let us say a man breaks into your home and murders your wife. Are you saying that when the police arrive to arrest him you are quite happy to let him stay in your home while he lodges an appeal against his arrest and removal from your home? Of course not. Then why do you expect behaviour which would not be tolerated in your home be tolerated in your country?

Unless of course you are one of many who are quite happy for people to get hurt as long as it isn't you.

[Bob Hinton]

Greetings.

Well I hate to agree with Bob Hinton as I think he's a bit of a creepy character but I think he does have a point here regarding this particular foreign 'gentleman'. Aren't British citizen's rights for British citizens?

Well that's a first Stephen, I've never been labelled 'creepy' before, I would like to know why you think me creepy?

[Bob Hinton]

Confused.com

What I don't understand about certain people who maintain criminals have the automatic right to enter our country illegally with the intention of committing more crimes, is why most of the civilised world don't agree with them.

If you have a criminal record you cannot enter the USA, except for really exceptional circumstances. Australia, New Zealand and many more countries do not let you enter either.

Are they all denying people their 'human rights' or are they simply trying to protect their citizens from predators.

If a foreign soldier tried to enter the UK with the intention of killing the inhabitants not doubt these same people would expect them to be stopped. Why then are they quite happy to admit the same person if he takes his uniform off?

On second thoughts I'm quite sure Tom Tom would have welcomed the Nazis with open arms so as not to deny them their human rights to invade us!

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Bob,

"Little man I have seen more of this real world than you could possibly imagine."

Well Bob I wonder who is the little man here!

Best wishes.

Wonder away, but please don't accuse me of not knowing what the real world is like, at a guess I would say I've seen more of it than you have.