No limits to immigration

[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.

[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

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

He enjoyed being Mugabe's torturer... but judge says it's his human right to stay here at taxpayer's expense
At a party in the Hush Hush club, a chic Bristol nightspot, one guest clearly saw himself as the main attraction. Wearing a bright orange hat and winkle-pickers, the man quaffed flutes of Veuve Clicquot champagne and strutted around like a pop star or a Premier League footballer.

Yet Phillip Machemedze, he of the garish ensemble, is neither. No, this married playboy — regularly seen in local clubs with different girlfriends — is a cold-blooded killer and rapist, a man so violent he has admitted hacking the limbs off enemies so that they died slowly in agony.

A paid henchman for Robert Mugabe’s odious regime in Zimbabwe, the party-loving 44-year-old Machemedze has also confessed to smashing a man’s jaw with pliers and pulling out his teeth, as well as sexually assaulting women suspected of opposing the regime.

Not that this has proved any impediment to Machemedze’s good life in Britain. Indeed, the killer was at Hush Hush ten days ago to celebrate an astonishing — and scandalous — victory over British justice, and one with disturbing implications for our national security.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Oxun6oht

Once again we have allowed an odious person to remain in Britain. No doubt the LWL applaud the presence of this person in our country.

[Bob Hinton]

Poor little Tom Tom

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 Hinton]

Dr Hopper

Oh you've done it now. How dare you speak rationally about this very real problem. Stand by to be labelled a racist bigot!

[RonIpstone]

They do things differently in Australia. No Human Rights there, Mr Tucker was a habitual criminal and as he wasn't an Australian citizen, although he had his family there, he was deported back to the UK. I did not notice the Liberal Democrats make a fuss about this.

[DrHopper]

I suppose there are 2 strands to the debate.
Firstly, that concerning limits on immigration.
My own perspective is that there do need to be limits on immigration, simply because that makes sense - we cannot have an open border that allows everyone, from everywhere, to come in and live here - that is unworkable (particularly in terms of infrastructure), unrealistic, and would not fly with the indigenous population (including immigrants already here). The traditional right-wing, as well as the Daily Mail, Sun and even Times readers, and middle England, the working classes, and many 'normal' a-political people (in total, I would imagine this covers most of England) would not be pleased with a more relaxed attitude to immigration. Although you may disagree with this attitude, the fact that time and again immigration is at the top of lists of concerns displayed by the general population, means that that is what most people think. You cannot ignore that, nor can you shout it down, name-call, yell racist, nor argue that the majority is wrong. Whether they are or not is subjective; what is objective is that people think that way.

The second strand is, I think, more interesting, and yes, has more wide-ranging implications. An immigrant to this country is allowed to be here because we (the UK, the government, the authorities, the people, etc) let them. Leaving aside the 'illegal imiigration' problem for a moment, this situation is good, right and proper - the movement of people is no bad thing, and especially in terms of asylum. However, if that immigrant commits a crime he has the right to a trial, and a right to appeal against the verdict (within certain parameters, i.e. new evidence, etc.) But if the conviction sticks, and that there is no cause to doubt the conviction, and the crime is of a certain magnitude (less parking violation, more murder) then we have a problem. My belief is that, having chosen to commit a crime, he should be removed from this country immediately, with no prospect of appeal. He made his choice, he acted against the interests of the 'host' country, and therefore forfeits all rights within that country. The fact that he has a family in the UK is not my, nor anyone else's, problem, only his and theirs.
This may be a cold a cruel way of looking at things, but there you go. Given a life or death choice between a stranger and my daughter who am I going to choose? My own family of course. Not everyone is equal, as we all have different status' within the law and society - I don't believe that an immigrant, and especially not an asylum seeker, seeking sanctuary for his own safety, who commits a crime should be afforded the exact same treatment as a citizen - one is a guest, the other family. That is not to say that they are not both worthless, and that they should both ideally be removed from the country, but we are unfortunately stuck with our family members. The guest, however, must surely be asked to leave.

Slightly long-winded, but I don't think that such a complex series of debates can be reduced to soundbites - that is how we have ended up with what is undeniably a mess in the first place. In short, an immigrant can and should be treated differently when it comes to post-sentencing.

[TomTomKent]

Well, the simple answer is that he was not born here. No more reason is needed.
Just my two-pennorth.

Mind expanding on that a little? Not a criticism, but there is a wider issue and I'm not sure which angle you are coming from. Do you mean he should not be entitled to any appeal because he was not born here, he should not have any rights because he was not born here, or any of the shades of grey inbetween?

[DrHopper]

British Citizens are not booted from the country on release from prison, and do not forgoe their human rights when released from prison. Why should this person expect to be treated any differently simply because he was not born here?

Well, the simple answer is that he was not born here. No more reason is needed.
Just my two-pennorth.

[TomTomKent]

No I labelled him a vicious and brutal man because he shoved a glass in his girlfriends face in Germany before he even got here - hence before he started dragging it all out with appeals.

Which still does not disqualify him from an appeal based on new evidence for where his family lives, or from his human rights. British Citizens are not booted from the country on release from prison, and do not forgoe their human rights when released from prison. Why should this person expect to be treated any differently simply because he was not born here?

[Bob Hinton]

Bare in mind also he was "a vicous and brutal man" in your words, for something that happened during the appeals process. .

No I labelled him a vicious and brutal man because he shoved a glass in his girlfriends face in Germany before he even got here - hence before he started dragging it all out with appeals.

[TomTomKent]

Of course he should have no right of appeal. The man was a dangerous, violent criminal who entered this country illegally. These are facts and not in dispute. Unfortunately the law allows him to delay his removal by allowing him to appeal - the law should be changed.

Your example of me being in prison and being refused an appeal is ludicrous. Of course I would be refused leave to appeal if I had no new evidence - that is present law. This man could not have new evidence which would show he wasn't a convicted criminal because that is a fact not open to challenge.

It's like me being convicted for a crime and then demanding an appeal because I didn't like the verdict!

Your silliness over this matter shows you in your true colours with absolutely no thought to the victims of this vicious brutal man.

Ah, but if you had new evidence you obtain the right to appeal. Just as the assylum seeker did: He now had evidence that his family was in the UK. One of the sixteen human rights protected by the 1998 HRA is the right to family.

Bare in mind also he was "a vicous and brutal man" in your words, for something that happened during the appeals process. Obviously my psychic powers are not as adept as yours, as I am not sure how an appeal can be denied on the basis of an inncident that had yet to happen.

And there are further implications to your words that should not go unnoticed: Should all convicted criminals be forced to leave the country (or are you still discriminating against foreigners)? If somebody can be declared "dangerous" because of past convictions, should, as you heavily imply, that remove their right to appeal on sepperate processes (you do not specify the guy should have his right to appeal denied in his immigration case, but should have it repealed full stop based on a past conviction) 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.

Even dangerous violent criminals are human, there are no exceptions to human rights.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

There should be no right of appeal? So again, why should foreigners not recieve that right? Or do we simply repeal it for all? Are you suggesting we give up a major principle of the justice system, or that people who don't happen to be born here don't deserve the same rights (and you still haven't given a single reason why, leaving us to assume petty bigotry).

I wonder what you would say were you ever in prison, for something you may not have done. I am pretty sure you would hold the right rather dear then. But what is that? It wont happen to you? Tsk tsk, the family of the victim "knew" it was you. Let's ask them...

Of course he should have no right of appeal. The man was a dangerous, violent criminal who entered this country illegally. These are facts and not in dispute. Unfortunately the law allows him to delay his removal by allowing him to appeal - the law should be changed.

Your example of me being in prison and being refused an appeal is ludicrous. Of course I would be refused leave to appeal if I had no new evidence - that is present law. This man could not have new evidence which would show he wasn't a convicted criminal because that is a fact not open to challenge.

It's like me being convicted for a crime and then demanding an appeal because I didn't like the verdict!

Your silliness over this matter shows you in your true colours with absolutely no thought to the victims of this vicious brutal man.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

Nope. We will simply state "annectdotal evidence" and "subjective views", no doubt filtered through your own perspective. He has not told "us" anything, he told you.

Did we expect anything else from the LWL?

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

[Bob Hinton]

And again...

Two burglars 'tied up pensioner and stripped her of jewellery before leaving her to die of hypothermia on bedroom floor

Tragic: Pensioner Eveline Kelmenson suffered 'a slow death' from hypothermia, a court heard

A spinster was gagged, bound and left to die in her bedroom by two Polish burglars, the Old Bailey heard today.

Kuba Dlugosz, 33, and Szymon Wyrostek, 26, locked 83-year-old Eveline Kelmenson inside her large north London home after stripping her of a gold necklace and wedding ring.

The Jewish pensioner, known as Lina, suffered a 'slow death' from hypothermia over the days that followed as she lay helpless on her bedroom floor unable to free herself from the restraints.

Jurors heard the break-in had taken place overnight on November 27 and 28, 2008.

But police only found her body five weeks later, on January 1 2009, after relatives became concerned that she could not be contacted.

Inside the property, a five-bedroom terraced house in Leweston Place, Stamford Hill, officers found three chisels which Dlugosz and Wyrostek had used to force entry.

Both men were 'burglars, robbers' who had committed a string of offences in their native Poland and in London, where they had arrived in 2007.

More...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Or9CjNJY

Oh dear, a couple more imports that seem to have gone wrong – the scamps. They put on their application forms they wanted to work here – it’s a pity their work consisted of robbery, violence and burglary! Still never mind eh? I’m quite sure the LWL are pleased that more criminals have been successfully imported into Britain.