What about OUR human rights?
Whilst watching "Question Time?" last night in Cantebury, the issue of Human Rights was asked by one member of the public, concerning foreigners who had committed crimes within the UK and were due to be deported back to their country of origin.
As im sure you can respect, i was most supportive of such a notion, but the question also emerged concerning those criminals who fled to this country fleeing from persecution in their home lands. Should we deport them back to such places?
Now most of the panel (including Simon Hughes and Ken Clarke) were not supportive of this measure because it would "affect their Human Rights", but myself on the other hand...I could not be more in favour of deporting a foreign criminal out of the UK.
In my opinion, those foreigners who commit crimes in the UK have already forfeited their Human Rights, especially if they have committed murder, rape, assult, e.t.c.
It has always been my belief that the number one responsibility of any government is to protect the people, and to protect the people, you have to do whats best in our interests, and not whats best for those who have no regards for our safety (or our country) whatsoever.
One man in the audience actually summed it up very well, stating "why are we so concerned about protecting their human rights? What about protecting our human rights"?.......couldnt have said it better myself.
But then, you do get the minute few who would rather see a foreign criminal kept here at our own expense, such as one woman (who seemed rather irrate at the gentlemans remarks) claiming "How can you say that about them.....they are still human.....they are still people"?
Im afraid not madame.......in my opinion...i regard anyone who endangers the lives of my fellow citizens as anything but human. This government gets so wound up about protecting foreign criminals human rights that it completely forgets to protect the human rights of its own people, and you dont have to be a genious to see that something is wrong with that.
But then the question still remains of where do you deport them? Well...in my opinion......as long as its not in Britain...i couldnt care less. Im not saying that we should deport them back to their domestic country (after all, two wrongs dont make a right), but none-the-less, as long as they are outside of our British borders, they are not my case to worry about. If you want to endanger our lives, you pay the consequences......deportation.
But then, saying that, you still have to ask yourself the question of "Why are they here in the first place"? After all, the European legislation towards asylum and immigration states that asylum seekers (fleeing from persecution in thier home country's) must claim asylum at the nearest, safest country to their domestic persecution........but since when did Britain become the nearest safe-haven for these people?
Should we deport foreign criminals back to their home countries?
As im sure you can respect, i was most supportive of such a notion, but the question also emerged concerning those criminals who fled to this country fleeing from persecution in their home lands. Should we deport them back to such places?
Now most of the panel (including Simon Hughes and Ken Clarke) were not supportive of this measure because it would "affect their Human Rights", but myself on the other hand...I could not be more in favour of deporting a foreign criminal out of the UK.
In my opinion, those foreigners who commit crimes in the UK have already forfeited their Human Rights, especially if they have committed murder, rape, assult, e.t.c.
It has always been my belief that the number one responsibility of any government is to protect the people, and to protect the people, you have to do whats best in our interests, and not whats best for those who have no regards for our safety (or our country) whatsoever.
One man in the audience actually summed it up very well, stating "why are we so concerned about protecting their human rights? What about protecting our human rights"?.......couldnt have said it better myself.
But then, you do get the minute few who would rather see a foreign criminal kept here at our own expense, such as one woman (who seemed rather irrate at the gentlemans remarks) claiming "How can you say that about them.....they are still human.....they are still people"?
Im afraid not madame.......in my opinion...i regard anyone who endangers the lives of my fellow citizens as anything but human. This government gets so wound up about protecting foreign criminals human rights that it completely forgets to protect the human rights of its own people, and you dont have to be a genious to see that something is wrong with that.
But then the question still remains of where do you deport them? Well...in my opinion......as long as its not in Britain...i couldnt care less. Im not saying that we should deport them back to their domestic country (after all, two wrongs dont make a right), but none-the-less, as long as they are outside of our British borders, they are not my case to worry about. If you want to endanger our lives, you pay the consequences......deportation.
But then, saying that, you still have to ask yourself the question of "Why are they here in the first place"? After all, the European legislation towards asylum and immigration states that asylum seekers (fleeing from persecution in thier home country's) must claim asylum at the nearest, safest country to their domestic persecution........but since when did Britain become the nearest safe-haven for these people?
Should we deport foreign criminals back to their home countries?
posted by James.R.Skinner at 4:58 pm
34 Comments:
The reason the illegal immigrants come here in the first place is because they "know their rights" and how cared for they will be.
They can even work right under the nose of Home Office staff and get away with it, it's so laughable.
I agree Elle...i was also quite amazed that our own Home Office (who are the watch-dog for illegal immigrants) were employing them as staff cleaners! If the Home Office cannot even recognise them right under their noses...then how can New Labour claim that illegal immigration has gone down since 1997?
Well done James. Except... its just a fucking lie. These people were employed by your mates in the private sector. On their first day of being ciontracted out to the Home Office they were found to be illeghal immigrants. Pity those twats who employed them in the first place didn't trouble to make the same checks.
Polly Toynbee's 'Hard Work' focus's on the miserable conditions that these private sector firms give their workers. I'd recomend reading it James - it could teach you a bit of compassion that your 'medium' won't.
Firstly, if you cannot keep your foul language to a minimum Cllr Bob Piper, then i suggest you do not comment on this website anymore. Its not just your website to comment on.
Secondly...why are you (yet again) blaming this on the Tories when they've had nothing to do with this? The Home Office (which you should know is under Labour control) employed illegal immigrants as cleaners...the very same home office which is responsible for seeking out such immigrants. They cant even find these people when their working right under their noses, let alone when their hiding some where in the UK. Im afraid this is one situation where you cannot use the Tories as yet another scape-goat......sorry.
...in relation to anthropax however, i suggest you research into such people as Derek Acorah, Colin Fry and John Edward. These are not evil people as you so imply...their work is merely for the benefit of others, and they are all members of the church. I think you would be stupid to judge these people before you actually found out about them.
What is Piper on about: "Employed by your mates in the private sector"!
Excuse me, but whos been in charge of the country for the past 10 years? I think youll find it was YOUR mates Labour who employed these illegals!
Agreeing with Ellee, people only come here because they know its an easy ride. By law, they are supposed to claim asylum at their nearest safe country (as james says) but they come here because the benefits are high, and in all truth, they get more rights than white British people such as myself. Labour have shoved us out the way just to accomodate everybody else.
Precisely, so its no wonder why our country is at breaking point with illegal immigrants (especially as Blair admitted 3 days ago that there was no way of telling how many asylum seekers there were in the country). I hate to say i told you so...but doesnt that state that Enoch Powell's predictions were correct?
If, Mr Skinner, you take the tiniest trouble to read what I actually wrote, rather than what you wanted me to write, you will find that I never mentioned the Conservatives employing anybody.
In fact, you are wrong. The Home Office entered into a contracting arrangement with a private contractor (Techclean) as cleaners, on the basis that cleaning isn't actually a Home Office function.
Far be it from me to suggest that it should be the responsibility of the employers to check to see whether their employees are legally in the country, as opposed to the people they are contracted out to.
Otherwise, presumably the Ministry of defence could be held responsible if an aircraft manufacturer employed illegal immigrant on a contract making say, helicopters.
Apologies for the bad language. In that respect at least, you are correct.
Im slightly confused Bob, you claim that:
"These people were employed by your mates in the private sector"...
but then claim that:
"you will find that I never mentioned the Conservatives employing anybody".
Considering you've related the Conservatives to "my mates" before, please clarify the argument that you are trying to make. You seem to be switching from one side of the argument to the other.
James, in the previous post you quote scripture saying 'judge not, lest yourselves be judged'. You feel able to decide who is worthy of having human rights and therefore being human - that sort of attitude leads to the concentration camp.
In regards to "The Thinker 82", neither myself nor im sure Ellee can say we've been in the situation of an illegal immigrant...but like most "pro-asylum radicals", you still continue to ignore the question:
Why are they here if by law, they are supposed to claim asylum at the nearest safe country to their persecuted land?
In regards to anthropax also, im glad you can somehow pathetically twist every little thing i say into a pro-nazi statement...but please keep your comments relating to the question.
"The UK does not allow entry clearance for individuals to seek asylum, therefore the only way someone can do so is to enter illegally".
Im sorry, but what political democracy are you talking about?
The Conservatives in 2005 were campaigning to reduce the legal asylum limit down to 50,000 a year, so claiming that the UK does not offer asylum is absolutely absurd.
As for your "hunting ban" comment, i suggest you read the article at the bottom of this page entitled "Fox Hunting: Re-Consideration". That way, atleast you will get my side of the hunting opinion before making rash judgements on the matter.
And im assuming you want me to accept that as an excuse to why we should accept so many illegal immigrants?
The point i believe you've missed out is that when they've applied for asylum (and failed)...they still remain in this country anyway, regardless of what our asylum laws state.
And even after all this...you have still failed to answer the question i made in the declared in the first place....why are they here?
Tell me, whats wrong with asylum seekers claiming refuge in Italy, France, Germany, or even Spain? Britain offering ridiculously high benefits for asylum seekers perhaps?
If thats the case thinker 82, then how come it seems that these poeple have more rights than us in this country...they get benefits, free health care, free housing, and tax immunity. Abu Hamza being the perfect example of that.
"Britain takes less asylum seeekers than many european countries"
Incorrect, as i would ask you to refere to Home Office Statistics on this issue, showing the number of asylum seekers entering different European countries each year:
UK: 97,860
Germany: 78,760
Netherlands: 43,890
Belgium: 42,690
France: 38,590
Austria: 18,280
Even you can not deny that these statistics show that the UK takes more asylum seekers each year than any other country, and is ever continuing to rise.
The only thing asylum seekers and illegal immigrants contribute to is multi-culturalism and we all know what a load of crap that is.
You are allowing yourselves to be distracted from what I see as the point of this post; namely what to do about foreigners who are in the UK and then subsequently misbehave.
My answer is simple: Unless they have become naturalised Britons (at which point they should enjoy all the rights and priveliges of "Brits by birth"), foreigners live in the country as our guests.
If I were to stay in someone's home and I misbehaved, I would fully expect to be asked to leave. To my mind the same philosophy should be applied to someone who is a guest in the country.
Put simply: "You are welcome here provided you obey the rules. Misbehave and we will have no hesitation sending you back to whatever hellhole you come from".
If that were made publicly clear I guess there'd have a lot less foreigners residing in Her Majesty's Prisons.
RM
Oh, and before Bob and his pc chums start accusing me of being some sort of nasty nazi: I am an expat Englishman living in a foreign country. This country has a modern constitution with all the required liberal attachments. Yet despite these, were I to commit a crime here I could expect to be put on the first plane to Heathrow as soon as I had completed my sentence. The same would be the case if I hailed from China, Afghanistan or N Korea.
Which is the point i was making throughout my post. If you cannot obey the rules of this country, then you can have no other expectations but to be deported back to your homeland, regardless of political disputes and anti-human rights practices going on there.
James,
do you think we should have a referendum on our continuation with the Human Rights Act?
In all truth, i think the Human Rights Act 1998 is too small an issue to be decided over a national referendum. A matter such as remaining within the EU; maybe. But i think its the governments decision to whether the act should be repealed from British law.
But isnt the whole idea of a democracy that the public decide which policies should be passed?
But, Chi, if we decide everything by referendum why the hell are we paying 600 plus crooks and mountebanks to keep a bunch of green leather benches in Westminster warm?
I agree with James; issues that change the constitutional foundation of the country (Eu membership, devolved parliaments etc) should be a matter for a referendum. For the rest, let our elected representatives do their jobs and face the consequences at the ballot box every four to five years.
RM
I will also say that i agree with this. Parliament must do its job in passing laws, but anything that changes our political foundations (such as the EU) should be decided by the electorate.
Just caught up with all these comments.
Nobody objects to genuine asylum seekers, I was a member of Amnesty International and would gladly give food and shelter myself to a deserving case.
It's the freeloaders, those who know their "rights", the benefits they can enjoy here which are not reciprocated in their Member State.
Quite right. Genuine asylum seekers with a deserving case have every right to be helped by this government, but 2005 figures show that only 1 asylum seeker in 20 is here for that reason...most only come to Britain just to "sponge" off tax payers money, and not help with our economy in any way whatsoever.
Oh and Bob,
If you were an employer (as opposed to yet another politician, cllr) you would know that the organisation that hires contractors is eaually responsible for the contractor's own employees. The main thrust of this was driven by concrns for safety and proper pay, but as with all regulation the effect goes further.
Thus the Home Office is equally responsible for ensuring that the employees of its contractors are properly documented and legally entitled to work in Britain. Since there are reports that these illegals have been working for up to five years, it does seem fair to suppose that the (Labour led) Home Office has been failing in yet another of its duties. The fact that this very same Home Office is also responsible for controlling immigration into the country is simply a delicious irony.
RM
In addition, does it concern anyone that our UK Home Office is being run by an ex-British Communist Party member, who felt that Britain would be better off under the control of the former Soviet Union than our own parliament?
Yes, it's worrying isn't it James. But it doesn't get mentioned by the BBC because, in reality, people in the BBC would quite like the Soviet Union or Communists to be running the country... and old dross like Bob Piper too.
What a government we have! We have a communist running our home office, illegal immigration through the roof, political correctness gone mad, and a recession just round the corner!
Well.....so the statistics say anyway, and with all the job losses occuring, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we endured a recession soon.
James.R.Skinner said: "If you cannot obey the rules of this country, then you can have no other expectations but to be deported back to your homeland, regardless of political disputes and anti-human rights practices going on there."
That sounds great until you think for about 5 seconds about the reality of it.
You may be in denial about this, but there are many governments around the world where these 'anti-human rights practices' as you delicately put it, basically consist of torturing and killing people found inconvenient to their President or his cronies.
Should we really be sending people to certain death for driving without a tax disc?
And further to your point of 'to the nearest safe country', it is frequently dramatically easier in Africa (at least, probably the same applies in most of the third world) to get to the UK than the neighbouring country. Land transport to the next country usually takes days, over dirt roads, and may require crossing a warzone. A flight to London takes a few hours, if (unlike most) you have the money for it.
The other big problem is that oppressive regimes act in solidarity. A political activist won't be saved from Gaddafi's wrath by going to any of the neighbouring countries, for example. They will probably beat him up on Gaddafi's behalf on arrival, and then return him directly to the Libyan secret service for more.
Post a Comment
<< Home