Deporting Foreign Criminals - Why?

The deportation of foreign criminals has made the headlines again because of a flight to deport a group of people to Jamaica. The right-to-reside in the UK (or lack thereof) is particularly complicated for people who hail from former colonies and hence the headlines.

https://news.sky.com/story/calls-to-halt-deportation-of-50-people-to-jamaica-11930498

Part of the focus of this recent story is that many of these people came to the UK very young and have no meaningful connection with Jamaica.

However I want to focus on the bigger question about deporting criminals. I do not get the logic of it - in fact I think it's a really irresponsible thing for a wealthy country to do.

Here's the relevant bit of UK law:
From UK Migration Lawyers
Grounds for Deportation of Convicted Criminals UK

A person may be deported if they are not a British Citizen, and have been convicted of a criminal offence.

A foreign national can also be deported under s3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971 if a criminal court makes a ‘recommendation’ that he or she should be as part of its sentence.

Under section 3(5) (a) of the Immigration Act 1971, a foreign national may also be deported if the Secretary of State has decided that deportation would be beneficial to public good.

Under UK immigration law (s32 UK Borders Act 2007) a foreign national may be subject to ‘automatic deportation’ if he or she has been convicted of an offence in the UK, and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months or more. This is because their deportation is automatically considered to be beneficial to public good.

Hence there is a settled point of law that if you are not a UK national then in addition to serving a prison sentence, you are also likely to be deported.

My problem here is two-fold:

1) This is not even justice.
A UK citizen who commits a crime serves the sentence that said crime incurs and is then released into the community. A non-UK citizen gets two sentences: the jail time and then deportation.

2) (And this is the one that worries me): It is creating a social problem for countries who in most cases will be less able to deal with it than we are in the UK.
Prisons are a topic I have thought about quite a bit and there is a fuller discussion to be had about the purpose of a criminal justice system but in general, I would posit the following;
a) People should not be released from prison if they are a threat to public safety - that's why we have parole boards
and b) People should come out of prison rehabilitated (or at least part of an on-going process).

UK recidivism is around 30% across the board in the first year after release from custody.

So let's look at what is happening here in reality:
A UK citizen is released from prison after serving their time - often with nowhere to live and almost-always no job. The support is poor and about a third will re-offend.

A Non-UK citizen is deported to a country they may have not been to for decades (The Home Office clearly does not care as long as we send them somewhere) - with nowhere to live, no job and often very little or no ties to the locality. In addition they may well experience significant culture-shock if they have not lived there for years. This is especially true if they came to the UK very young. As far as I know, no data exists but I would suggest that the offending rate will be significantly higher than 30%

So, what has happened is that the United Kingdom (one of the richest countries in the world) has exported criminals to a place where they are more likely to commit offences and where the local resources to provide rehabilitation or to respond to offences are significantly less than in the UK.

How is this a responsible or even acceptable way for a rich country to behave?

On the other hand, it's really good politics....

AFZ
«13

Comments

  • Australia does this too. There was a High Court decision today which reportedly decided that non-citizens who are Aboriginal (there is a means of working this out in the decision) are not subject to immigration law and have the right to live here. I'm yet to read it. The media says its huge, and it certainly sounds it. I'm on my phone so can't link.

    We have a very difficult and complex immigration system. We also have a Govt which is hardline anti-immigrant. As a result, the minister is not exercising his discretion in favor of people subject to deportation because, say, they have been in Australia all their lives and don't speak the language or have any connection with their 'home' country. That said, I believe that New Zealanders rate very highly as deportees.

    I have some sympathy for the 'easy in, easy out' approach to immigration. I would like to more or less take on anybody who wants to come here, but on the understanding that if they do commit an offence they will be liable for deportation. I think such a policy would ease the political difficulties with open door immigration. Ministerial discretion is appropriate.
    l recognise that this scheme is a pipe dream.

    I'm not too fussed with deporting the odd individual to a poor country, but I am concerned if thousands are. I also think that people coming here as kids should not be deported 30 years later.
  • Additionally, the government appear to have successfully conflated a number of things; by majoring on the aspects of 'foreign criminals' and 'serious crimes'. It also appears that those deported a very mixed groups -- including possible children of the Windrush generation who had never gone through the registration process.

    So having cried crocodile tears on the issue it's back to business as usual - and worse, this seems to be electorally popular among their constituents.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    The issue in this case isn't "deporting foreign criminals". It's finding an excuse to deport criminals who have been here all their lives and aren't really foreign at all.
  • I could say a lot, angrily, about this topic.

    Institutional justice always penalises disadvantaged groups and foreigners are among them. @alienfromzog is right that a policy of deportation gives the lie to any notion of rehabilitation.

    In my view deportation is carried out in order to be able to deliver a tough anti-immigration message (which may help electorally) and also as a deterrent to future immigrants (for which it has little or no effect that I can see).
  • Enoch wrote: »
    The issue in this case isn't "deporting foreign criminals". It's finding an excuse to deport criminals who have been here all their lives and aren't really foreign at all.

    Exactly.

    I think if you are in the UK on a fixed term visa, with the expectation that you will return to your home country on expiry of that visa, then deportation isn't necessarily different from cutting short any other agreement that can be terminated if there is misconduct. But some of these people are only non-citizens because they were told they don't need to adopt British citizenship.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    The issue in this case isn't "deporting foreign criminals". It's finding an excuse to deport criminals who have been here all their lives and aren't really foreign at all.

    Well, we used to deport criminals with British nationality as well. We're not allowed to do that any more, but we're still perfectly happy to get rid of as many of them as we can.
  • The UK courts used to impose penalties which are no longer available, including transportation to penal colonies in Australia and execution. I don't see any justification for reintroducing transportation, not least because other countries don't want to be the dumping ground for our rubbish (whether that's unreformed convicts or plastic bottles).

    In relation to the current situation we have two questions to answer:

    1. Should the government impose additional penalties over and above what the judge sentenced someone too, based on whether or not they can claim non-UK citizenship? That looks an awful lot like discrimination, if two people are tried and convicted of the same crime and are judged to be equally involved and the judge sentences both to three years in prison, why should criminal A, who was born in the UK, get to return to friends and family on release whereas criminal B, who was born overseas but lived moved here as a child, find himself sent to a country he doesn't know away from all his friends and family? Surely that means B has received a greater penalty for the same crime than A. Which can't be right. If the government wants to deport criminals then they need to empower the courts to impose a sentence of exile, with the judge able to balance prison time with exile to give a fair sentence.

    2. Why should other countries have to take in people who have practically no connection to that country just because the UK government wants to create a hostile environment for immigrants? Especially someone who the British prison system has failed to rehabilitate (and, even if the prisons had succeeded in rehabilitation they'd be working towards making someone able to live lawfully in the UK, we'd not expect them to be able to help people live in different countries).

  • The explanation is obviously racism. Which is social good. Apparently.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited February 11
    Apparently Downing Street is "bitterly" upset that the courts have prevented some of the deportees being deported on the grounds that they have been unable to access legal help during their detention. There is a Westminster bubble which has not taken on board the implications of the 2019 election. So I heard on the radio.
  • ...
    1. Should the government impose additional penalties over and above what the judge sentenced someone too, based on whether or not they can claim non-UK citizenship? ...
    If it was an either/or that would be more reasonable, then. If the person could show more significant ties to the country, then they serve the jail time. Otherwise, deport.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited February 11
    Permanent leave to remain and/or citizenship should result from living in the UK longer than a set period - e.g. 7 years and as a result of passing from childhood to adulthood in this country.

    A lot of these problems are caused by ridiculous citizenship rules.
  • Permanent leave to remain and/or citizenship should result from living in the UK longer than a set period - e.g. 7 years and as a result of passing from childhood to adulthood in this country.

    A lot of these problems are caused by ridiculous citizenship rules.

    And quite a high set of charges for complying with them.
  • You can do like Trump does, declare all undocumented aliens criminal and then make them prove that they deserve to stay in the US. Then begin to deport them ins spite of the fact they can demonstrate that they will be killed in their country of origin.

    At the same time start reducing aid to programs that are set up that are designed to reduce violence in those countries of origin, because--well--those countries are not doing enough to stop the flow of illegal immigration in the first place. (See, the vicious cycle here?)

    In the meantime US immigration judges are either retiring or resigning because they are accusing the US Department of Justice of unfair labor practices. Story here.

    Whatever happened to the saying "I was a stranger, and you welcomed me?"
  • Maybe we shouldn't assume that all of those fighting deportation are otherwise blameless citizens who just took a wrong turn. It is reported that one, convicted of drug dealing in Jamaica, was convicted of burglary and GBH (with a chisel) on the day before he was given Leave to Remain and after release from his sentence for that went on to kill a woman in front of her 6 year old child. Of course, I can understand why the Jamaicans might not want him back but do we really think we should honour the LR in these circumstances.
  • Maybe we shouldn't assume that all of those fighting deportation are otherwise blameless citizens who just took a wrong turn. It is reported that one, convicted of drug dealing in Jamaica, was convicted of burglary and GBH (with a chisel) on the day before he was given Leave to Remain and after release from his sentence for that went on to kill a woman in front of her 6 year old child. Of course, I can understand why the Jamaicans might not want him back but do we really think we should honour the LR in these circumstances.

    My point is that both are problematic:

    If they are (as you put it) 'otherwise blameless citizens who took a wrong turn' then it's clearly desperately unfair and (arguably) a cruel and unusual punishment for minor offences.
    (And clearly some of the people we are talking about fit this category).

    If it's someone who committed violence and then on-release committed murder, why the hell are we releasing them to walk-free in another country? Because if murder is wrong, it's just as wrong in Kingston* as it is in Kingston**...

    AFZ

    *Jamaica
    **South-West London.
  • The UK courts used to impose penalties which are no longer available, including transportation to penal colonies in Australia and execution. I don't see any justification for reintroducing transportation, not least because other countries don't want to be the dumping ground for our rubbish (whether that's unreformed convicts or plastic bottles).

    In relation to the current situation we have two questions to answer:

    1. Should the government impose additional penalties over and above what the judge sentenced someone too, based on whether or not they can claim non-UK citizenship? That looks an awful lot like discrimination, if two people are tried and convicted of the same crime and are judged to be equally involved and the judge sentences both to three years in prison, why should criminal A, who was born in the UK, get to return to friends and family on release whereas criminal B, who was born overseas but lived moved here as a child, find himself sent to a country he doesn't know away from all his friends and family? Surely that means B has received a greater penalty for the same crime than A. Which can't be right. If the government wants to deport criminals then they need to empower the courts to impose a sentence of exile, with the judge able to balance prison time with exile to give a fair sentence.

    I think if one criminal has agreed to visa conditions that include not committing serious crimes, and then gets deported for committing a serious crime, he is simply getting what he signed up for. The UK citizen hasn't signed up for any such thing, hence he is treated differently.

    Where this gets iniquitous, though, is:
    1. People who entered the UK as minors, and who can't therefore be said to have signed up to anything;
    2. The Windrush cohort, who were basically told they didn't need to bother about citizenship.

    My understanding is that the deportation flight to Jamaica includes some from both of these categories.
  • Permanent leave to remain and/or citizenship should result from living in the UK longer than a set period - e.g. 7 years and as a result of passing from childhood to adulthood in this country.

    A lot of these problems are caused by ridiculous citizenship rules.

    That's not an unreasonable idea.

    The idea of deporting foreign criminals seems quite reasonable to me - if you're in our country as a guest and you break the rules, you have to leave. Offenses for which you are chucked out should be the same as those for which you'd be denied a visa in the first place.

    The unreasonable bit is classing people who have lived in the UK since childhood as "foreign".
  • Exactly.
  • Canada is much the same. If a person who is not a citizen commits an offence for which they might receive a sentence of two years or more, the Crown can request a deportation order at sentencing. There is provision for when the receiving country is too dangerous a place (e.g., Somalia, Libya, etc) so the ex-con can work legally until we can find a place which will receive them-- there's rarely a country raising their hand to accept them. I knew of a case about ten years ago when it became clear that a particular person's time in limbo was getting ridiculous. The Department decided to issue him a minister's permit (I used to have to process these-- they are exemptions from the Act) so that he could proceed to become a landed immigrant/permanent resident again and, should he keep his nose clean, take citizenship after 3 years. As deportation orders, once issued, must be executed, our Enforcement people contacted the US authorities to allow us to do a Buffalo shuffle (we drive them to the border, walk them over the line thereby formally deporting them, the US folk stamp their document, and they walk right back, and are admitted under their new documentation).

    The idea is much as @Leorning Cniht outlines; if our hospitality is abused, out you go. Citizenship is fairly easy to obtain (3 years of legal residence, a working knowledge of English or French if you are under 60, and the exam) and the citizenship take-up rate is fairly elevated so there is a general assumption that, if someone has not taken up citizenship, that this is their choice. However, some people did not know that they were not citizens, having come to the country as small children with parents who did not take care of the paperwork.

    The public support for the policy is really quite high.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I assume that there are review procedures. I don't know details of that here, but assume that it's complicated and designed to discourage review applications. They show up from time to time in the Federal Court decisions and of course in headlines here now of the case of 2 of the First People where the High Court held that they could not be deported.
  • Thinking about it, I'm not sure I see the point of 'indefinite leave to remain' as a status.

    If the UK is happy for someone to be in the country regardless of their employment status, and that person also wants to be in the country regardless of their employment status, then why not just go for citizenship? If one is worried about 'immigrants costing us money', I think you cost pretty much the same (in terms of access to public services) with ILR as with citizenship.

    But I'm probably missing something.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited February 12
    The ILR is one factor that complicates everything, just as EU settled status will now do. I think it exists primarily because many countries do not permit dual citizenship, and folk often want/need to retain links and access to countries where other members of their family live. The specific Windrush issue (applies to other commonwealth countries I think) is an empire relic. Come to the mother country, you won’t need papers it will be fiiiine.

    That said, the UK claims to have dual citizenship - but it appears to be second class citizenship and can be removed at the discretion of the Home Secretary. So we should probably stop calling it that.

    I note some people on twitter asking how come Rolf Harris wasn’t deported - it s a valid question.
  • One of the main reasons for not moving from indefinite leave to remain to full citizenship is the cost, the fees for the process are quite substantial and beyond the means of many (and, in some cases there are also additional costs associated with ceasing to be a citizen of another country). These are currently £1330 person (£1012 for under 18s), if you are a citizen but want confirmation that costs £250. Which, of course, is on top of the costs of getting the indefinite leave in the first place. In many cases the benefits of gaining citizenship are minimal; those from Commonwealth nations have the right to vote, which is about all that's gained, and now it appears that citizenship also gives you a bit more protection from deportation if you commit a minor crime (but not total protection as certainly in some extreme cases the government have shown willingness to remove citizenship to allow deportation).

    Of course, as is the case in several instances at the moment, people simply don't know if they're a citizen. If they came here as children they may assume that they are citizens. Also non-UK EU citizens living here now form an additional group of people with uncertain status.
  • The ILR is one factor that complicates everything, just as EU settled status will now do. I think it exists primarily because many countries do not permit dual citizenship, and folk often want/need to retain links and access to countries where other members of their family live.

    That said, the UK claims to have dual citizenship - but it appears to be second class citizenship and can be removed at the discretion of the Home Secretary. So we should probably stop calling it that.

    I think it can be removed if the Mail deems you sufficiently foreign-looking. All the victims so far seem to have been mysteriously brown.
  • Yup !
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host
    edited February 12
    One of the main reasons for not moving from indefinite leave to remain to full citizenship is the cost, the fees for the process are quite substantial and beyond the means of many (and, in some cases there are also additional costs associated with ceasing to be a citizen of another country). These are currently £1330 person (£1012 for under 18s), if you are a citizen but want confirmation that costs £250.

    And the fees are in themselves part of the hostile environment. The cost of becoming a British citizen is an outrage.

    By way of comparison, in order to become a French citizen, I paid a processing fee for the princely sum of €55 plus about €200 in auxiliary fees for taking a French language exam and getting documents translated.
  • The lesson seems to me to be: If you're thinking of taking up a life of crime, make sure beforehand that you're a UK citizen.
  • One of the main reasons for not moving from indefinite leave to remain to full citizenship is the cost, the fees for the process are quite substantial and beyond the means of many (and, in some cases there are also additional costs associated with ceasing to be a citizen of another country). These are currently £1330 person (£1012 for under 18s), if you are a citizen but want confirmation that costs £250.

    And the fees are in themselves part of the hostile environment. The cost of becoming a British citizen is an outrage.

    By way of comparison, in order to become a French citizen, I paid a processing fee for the princely sum of €55 plus about €200 in auxiliary fees for taking a French language exam and getting documents translated.
    Visa costs (and documentation required) are also excessive. When I got my visa to work in Japan I had a letter from an official in Japan confirming the job I was taking was real and valid, a couple of pages of an application form to fill in, went into the consulate in Edinburgh, handed over the form, letter and my passport ... 15 mins later walked out with the visa for the princely sum of absolutely nothing, not even an administrative fee. I guess my employer might have paid something at the Japanese end. To get the three visa's required when Flausa moved over we took in box files of documentation, sat through extensive interviews, and paid hundreds of quid each time.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    The lesson seems to me to be: If you're thinking of taking up a life of crime, make sure beforehand that you're a UK citizen.
    A UK citizen without any tie to another nation such that the UK government can feel justified to arbitrarily strip you of your UK citizenship because you're entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.
  • The costs levied for citizenship, etc, are scandalous and indefensible.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The only argument could be that if you can afford these costs, we have no objection to giving you citizenship.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    The issue in this case isn't "deporting foreign criminals". It's finding an excuse to deport criminals who have been here all their lives and aren't really foreign at all.

    Exactly.

    I think if you are in the UK on a fixed term visa, with the expectation that you will return to your home country on expiry of that visa, then deportation isn't necessarily different from cutting short any other agreement that can be terminated if there is misconduct. But some of these people are only non-citizens because they were told they don't need to adopt British citizenship.

    The unholy mess about what people were told and what records were kept is an extra complication in the UK that most other countries don't have. There's a whole other argument there about whether the government ought to be stopped from acting on the basis that someone is a non-citizen when the legal status of someone has been open to such doubt.

    The more general question, though, about deporting people who aren't citizens... well it kind of requires a bigger examination what citizenship is for.

    Australian courts have had many, MANY cases over the years of people who've lived in Australia since childhood (sometimes even infancy) and who (unlike the UK situation) were never told that they legally 'belonged' to Australia in that way, but who also never felt the need to formalise their relationship with the country in that way. Until of course things went wrong. Then it turned out that they were a guest, not a family member, and could be kicked out.

    Citizenship is as much a statement between countries as it is about individuals, though of course it has impacts on individuals. But fundamentally it's about countries being able to look at a person and say "whose responsibility is this person"?

    And so countries feel quite entitled to look at a problem person and say "well, according to all the international law about citizens and passports and so on, you're THEIR responsibility not ours" and kick the guest out.

    I won't go into the brand new Australian decision on indigenous people who aren't citizens, because it's hugely complicated and fraught with difficulty and will provide legal academics in this country with material for essays for the next couple of decades.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Very conscious of that last paragraph, but to clarify what I said before, it seems that the majority opinions were that First People could not be deported, not just the 2 whose cases were before the court. It is an enormously complicated decision indeed.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited February 12
    Gee D wrote: »
    Very conscious of that last paragraph, but to clarify what I said before, it seems that the majority opinions were that First People could not be deported, not just the 2 whose cases were before the court. It is an enormously complicated decision indeed.

    Never mind "not just the 2", it's "not even the 2". They couldn't agree whether one of the 2 people was in the class of people they'd just decided on principle couldn't be deported. He's still in detention.

    That's how complicated this is. You're correct, it's a legal ruling creating a much larger category of people who are not 'aliens' and who therefore aren't subject to this deportation law. And the category is pretty much based on an existing test from Mabo about Aboriginality.

    But there were just 2 people actually before the court, and in 1 of those 2 cases the majority who'd agreed on this principle couldn't agree on whether it applied to the individual person who wanted to know whether or not he's going to get kicked out of the country. They don't actually know whether he's Aboriginal. Him claiming to be so is not enough. His fate is still to be determined.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thanks for the clarifications. I'd barely glanced at the decision and decided that it was not pre-dinner reading. I'll bear your comments in mind tomorrow.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    The lesson seems to me to be: If you're thinking of taking up a life of crime, make sure beforehand that you're a UK citizen.
    A UK citizen without any tie to another nation such that the UK government can feel justified to arbitrarily strip you of your UK citizenship because you're entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.
    ITYM because a UK court decides that you would be entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    The lesson seems to me to be: If you're thinking of taking up a life of crime, make sure beforehand that you're a UK citizen.
    A UK citizen without any tie to another nation such that the UK government can feel justified to arbitrarily strip you of your UK citizenship because you're entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.
    ITYM because a UK court decides that you would be entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.

    Nope, it was the Home Secretary who stipped Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship. In theory, she is entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship but all indicators are that she will not get it and thus be rendered stateless.

    The legal process is on-going; a tribunal thus did not overturn the Home Secretary's decision but I think a high enough court will. I am definitely not a lawyer and could be completely wrong but I know the principle that the executive must obey the law and it is illegal to make someone stateless. I cannot see how HMG's little trick gets round that law...

    AFZ
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    The lesson seems to me to be: If you're thinking of taking up a life of crime, make sure beforehand that you're a UK citizen.
    A UK citizen without any tie to another nation such that the UK government can feel justified to arbitrarily strip you of your UK citizenship because you're entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.
    ITYM because a UK court decides that you would be entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.

    Nope, it was the Home Secretary who stipped Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship. In theory, she is entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship but all indicators are that she will not get it and thus be rendered stateless.

    Sorry yes, the aspect I was trying to focus on was that someone in the UK had made that decision based on their understanding of Bangladeshi citizenship law -- which seemed hubristic to say the least.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    The whole issue of how stripping of citizenship actually occurs and who "does" it (or whether it even requires a person making a decision as such) is another issue fraught with difficulty.

    There's been at least one situation here where there might have been a genuine belief that someone was not being made stateless but that belief was erroneous. So what then?

    Mind you, we also managed to deport Australian citizens from Australia a couple of times...
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    The lesson seems to me to be: If you're thinking of taking up a life of crime, make sure beforehand that you're a UK citizen.
    A UK citizen without any tie to another nation such that the UK government can feel justified to arbitrarily strip you of your UK citizenship because you're entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.
    ITYM because a UK court decides that you would be entitled to apply for citizenship elsewhere.

    Nope, it was the Home Secretary who stipped Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship. In theory, she is entitled to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship but all indicators are that she will not get it and thus be rendered stateless.

    Sorry yes, the aspect I was trying to focus on was that someone in the UK had made that decision based on their understanding of Bangladeshi citizenship law -- which seemed hubristic to say the least.

    Indeed and it's the same case of populism trumping any kind of morality.

    Is it good politics to stop Ms Begum from coming back to the UK? 100% yes; she's a terrorist who's done terrible things and hates the UK... - or whatever line a politician chooses to use. Hence this is the kind of thing a certain kind of politician loves: It's a political win at absolutely no cost.

    But the truth is this:

    Either she is a vulnerable woman who was groomed as a minor or she is a threat to public safety. (Or potentially both). Either way, she is the UK's responsibility - the idea that a country as poor as Bangladesh and with which she has no real connection (I'm not even sure if she's ever been there) should take her because it suits a certain UK political agenda is obscene.

    And ultimately a UK Home Secretary who thinks he does not need to follow the law is a far bigger threat to the UK than ISIS ever was.

    AFZ
  • The main reason they thought they could get away with it in Shamima Begum’s case is that the second nationality she is supposedly entitled to is that of a developing country inhabited by brown people.

    They’d never wear it if it was the other way round. For example, my son is a French citizen who is entitled to British nationality by virtue of having a British parent (me). At this stage we haven’t got round to doing the paperwork. If in some hypothetical future he committed a crime and the French government tried to strip him of his citizenship, I can’t imagine the UK accepting for a minute that he was one of theirs.
  • I think we're conflating three (maybe four, maybe more) questions into "can a country deport 'foreign' criminals?"

    1) Is deportation appropriate if the receiving country is of essentially similar nature and values to the deporting one? (Maybe from the UK to Ireland, or France, or Canada)
    2) What if the deportee has much stronger links to the deporting country than to the receiving country? (maybe someone who arrived in the deporting country as a child)
    3) What if the receiving country is much poorer than the deporting country? (the UK to Jamaica scenario)

    I find myself saying 'yes' to all three of these questions, albeit with decreasing enthusiasm as we go down the list - and I thank this thread for clarifying the points around (2) and (3) which further reduces my enthusiasm for those points. But then we come to another question which I think is implicit in the original post:

    4) What if a legitimate deportation process is being used unfairly? (proportionately more black Jamaicans are being deported for committing heinous crimes than white Canadians for committing the same offence)

    And I find myself saying 'no' to this. So what I'm saying is that it's not necessarily British law that is wrong, but the use that the British government is putting it to.
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    I think we're conflating three (maybe four, maybe more) questions into "can a country deport 'foreign' criminals?"

    *snip*

    4) What if a legitimate deportation process is being used unfairly? (proportionately more black Jamaicans are being deported for committing heinous crimes than white Canadians for committing the same offence)

    And I find myself saying 'no' to this. So what I'm saying is that it's not necessarily British law that is wrong, but the use that the British government is putting it to.

    I don't want to be argumentative but am curious about your source on this. While I was not on the enforcement side (not did I ever want to be), in my days (many moons ago) occasionally deportation files would pass under my eyes on their way into briefing book. My vague memories recall Belgium and Israel following on the US, but that was likely due to that brief period's caseload more than the real or more current situation. In any case, there was no tracking of race or ethnicity in records so it might have even been the case that the Belgians were of African origins.
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    I think we're conflating three (maybe four, maybe more) questions into "can a country deport 'foreign' criminals?"

    *snip*

    4) What if a legitimate deportation process is being used unfairly? (proportionately more black Jamaicans are being deported for committing heinous crimes than white Canadians for committing the same offence)

    And I find myself saying 'no' to this. So what I'm saying is that it's not necessarily British law that is wrong, but the use that the British government is putting it to.

    I don't want to be argumentative but am curious about your source on this. While I was not on the enforcement side (not did I ever want to be), in my days (many moons ago) occasionally deportation files would pass under my eyes on their way into briefing book. My vague memories recall Belgium and Israel following on the US, but that was likely due to that brief period's caseload more than the real or more current situation. In any case, there was no tracking of race or ethnicity in records so it might have even been the case that the Belgians were of African origins.

    My source? It must be muddled thinking on my part. I have been reading this thread as saying there is deportation to Jamaica, and (I have inferred) that this reflects poorly on the British government.

    Now you point it out, I think I have overinterpreted what has been said here - from the specific of the current deportations of criminals to Jamaica, to the general of the current government's deportation policy.
  • Lots of chatter as to why Rolf Harris wasn't deported. Maybe he's a UK citizen, plus of course, he's white.
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    I think we're conflating three (maybe four, maybe more) questions into "can a country deport 'foreign' criminals?"

    *snip*

    4) What if a legitimate deportation process is being used unfairly? (proportionately more black Jamaicans are being deported for committing heinous crimes than white Canadians for committing the same offence)

    And I find myself saying 'no' to this. So what I'm saying is that it's not necessarily British law that is wrong, but the use that the British government is putting it to.

    I don't want to be argumentative but am curious about your source on this. While I was not on the enforcement side (not did I ever want to be), in my days (many moons ago) occasionally deportation files would pass under my eyes on their way into briefing book. My vague memories recall Belgium and Israel following on the US, but that was likely due to that brief period's caseload more than the real or more current situation. In any case, there was no tracking of race or ethnicity in records so it might have even been the case that the Belgians were of African origins.

    My source? It must be muddled thinking on my part. I have been reading this thread as saying there is deportation to Jamaica, and (I have inferred) that this reflects poorly on the British government.

    Now you point it out, I think I have overinterpreted what has been said here - from the specific of the current deportations of criminals to Jamaica, to the general of the current government's deportation policy.

    I, too, was muddled. You were referring to UK practice, and your reference to white Canadians confused me. I was talking about Canadian deportation practice. We have our own stuff which reflects poorly, and we don't want to be confused with the poorly reflecting activities of other places-- sometimes they're meaner, and sometimes they're not!
  • If it's someone who committed violence and then on-release committed murder, why the hell are we releasing them to walk-free in another country? Because if murder is wrong, it's just as wrong in Kingston* as it is in Kingston**...

    Would you prefer it if we never released violent offenders?
  • If it's someone who committed violence and then on-release committed murder, why the hell are we releasing them to walk-free in another country? Because if murder is wrong, it's just as wrong in Kingston* as it is in Kingston**...

    Would you prefer it if we never released violent offenders?

    That's a fair question. Although ironically you are affirming my point.

    What I would prefer is that for non-violent offenders, custodial sentences became rarer. For violent offenders, I want appropriate sentences and functioning parole and rehabilitation services.

    What is both implicit and explicit in the arguments by those in favour of deportations is this:
    You don't want these people walking about on our streets!
    If that is true then the answer cannot be to have them walking about on someone else's streets. That is desperately immoral.

    Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect system and of course, there will always be risk-assessments and problems but underpinning the argument (and I suspect missed by many) is an admission that the criminal justice system is failing. It should not be taken as read that a violent offender will commit more violence once released. Either they should have a longer sentence or a more effective rehabilitation and parole service.

    Unless I am very much mistaken, relocating someone to another country is not likely to make them more law-abiding and hence we are literally exporting crime.

    AFZ
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    2) What if the deportee has much stronger links to the deporting country than to the receiving country? (maybe someone who arrived in the deporting country as a child)

    In fairness I think there should not be anyone in this category; if your ties are much stronger to the UK than to Jamaica, then you should be a UK citizen.

    As others have said, the reason why such people do exist is because the path to citizenship is broken and strewn with expensive bureaucratic hurdles.

    The solution should really be to fix the citizenship system, rather than the system of deporting people.

    (Half the screwups in my work occur because system A feeds into system B and is broken, and, rather than fix system A, they decide to tweak system B to accommodate its brokenness.)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Very conscious of that last paragraph, but to clarify what I said before, it seems that the majority opinions were that First People could not be deported, not just the 2 whose cases were before the court. It is an enormously complicated decision indeed.

    Never mind "not just the 2", it's "not even the 2". They couldn't agree whether one of the 2 people was in the class of people they'd just decided on principle couldn't be deported. He's still in detention.

    That's how complicated this is. You're correct, it's a legal ruling creating a much larger category of people who are not 'aliens' and who therefore aren't subject to this deportation law. And the category is pretty much based on an existing test from Mabo about Aboriginality.

    But there were just 2 people actually before the court, and in 1 of those 2 cases the majority who'd agreed on this principle couldn't agree on whether it applied to the individual person who wanted to know whether or not he's going to get kicked out of the country. They don't actually know whether he's Aboriginal. Him claiming to be so is not enough. His fate is still to be determined.

    Having spent some hours today on it (it's been raining!) I am not much further tan yesterday in understanding the decisions. Can't help wondering what Dixon would have written - probably a half dozen pages at the most, and would have taken the majority with him in simple concurring.
Sign In or Register to comment.