Can’t even kick out the imported criminals

Doesn’t seem to matter which political party is in power when they call for swift repatriation of illegal immigrants, for all their good intentions (seemingly) they founder on the rock of the legal system.

A judge cut the sentence of an illegal immigrant and drug dealer yesterday to help him escape deportation.
Vincent Miller was kicked out of the UK twice but managed to return and stay for more than a decade by stealing the identities of British citizens.
Yet when the 33-year-old was sentenced, the judge said sending him home to Jamaica would be ‘devastating’ for his three children.

Now whilst in general I’m in favour of an open borders policy, with the proviso that those who come here get nothing until they have paid into the system via taxation the equivalent of 10 years minimum on a wage (housing, medical, unemployment etc.) However until we do get such a system then anyone who turns up illegally gets thrown out immediately after 1 appeal. We can set skill levels and job vacancies for legal immigrants (assuming we leave the EU) but you turn up expecting a meal ticket and free house then sorry no, go back to where you came from or France whichever is closest.

Personally I’m of the opinion that until the system is totally shaken up you cannot get an entry visa to the UK in the UK nor be able to claim asylum in the UK, it has to be done in the country you come from or the next one along, no entry visa = no entry and off on the next plane home. Until the law is changed however you get situations like the above where do-gooders try to play the system to keep their pets in the country and supposedly safe from harm. The country is full, there aren’t enough jobs to go around and those of us who pay tax are getting a little tired of supporting those who have contributed nothing to the UK. Perhaps we could even put our visa application centre in the Russian capital or Pyongyang, turn up in person, no postal applications.
It’s time to end this human rights farce, leave the EU and repudiate any U.N treaties on refugees that allow lawyers to block deportation.

Charity begins at home, not with asylum seekers no matter how endangered they are, though I’m prepared to make exceptions for those with valuable skills.

12 comments for “Can’t even kick out the imported criminals

  1. john in cheshire
    August 18, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    When the white indigenous population are protected by the people they are paying for those services, then we can begin to restore the levels of civilisation that my forefathers fought to defend. Immigrants have no rights once they break our laws, as far as I am concerned.

  2. Paul
    August 18, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    In Switzerland, non-Swiss citizens who commit certain crimes are automatically deported along with their families. The Swiss People’s Party brought about the initiative and it passed last year with 53% of the vote.

    See here.

    Notice that the Bee Bee Cee is very quiet about the sort of direct democracy the Swiss enjoy.

    The more I read about the Swiss People’s Party, the more I like them. Their “sicherheit schaffen” poster is the stuff of legend for instance.

    • August 19, 2011 at 6:51 am

      They also fail to mention the level of private gun ownership too, unless it’s with a note of tacit disapproval…

      • August 19, 2011 at 10:54 am

        Nobody tell the BBC about Vermont unless you want to start the biggest head popping session in British history. 🙂

        On second thoughts, let’s tell ’em. 😈

  3. john in cheshire
    August 18, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Paul, I wish I was a Swiss citizen. I spent some time in your country on holiday and found it to be very pleasant; especially the campsites that I used, lol.

  4. Paul
    August 18, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    I’m not Swiss. I’m British; I’ve never set foot in Switzerland. 😉

    • john in cheshire
      August 18, 2011 at 7:49 pm

      OK sorry.

  5. nemesis
    August 18, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    Yes, Mr Quiet Man – I agree with your premise and have been posting very similar ideas:
    Allow anyone in on a 10year visa – but no benefits. If they are genuine asylum seekers they can be helped by charitable outfits and 10yrs should be sufficient time to reassess the situation in their home country. Economic migrants would have to be self supporting which would deter alot from coming here in the first place. 10years of being a model citizen would allow them to apply for permanent settlement. Immediate deportation for any serious crimes.

    • August 19, 2011 at 6:47 am

      Likewise. I’ve been saying for ages that a very porous if not completely open border wouldn’t be a problem providing incoming migrants, whether asylum seekers or not, don’t get given money taken from taxpayers and must either make their own living, subsist on charity, starve or return home. No free help, not even with the language barrier – well, not state help anyway.

      News that the money taps have run dry will put off a large number, but crucially will not dissuade those who had always planned to make a home and a contribution. These are the true economic migrants, the ones who can see that they can make a better life for themselves, and since they create wealth and work countries should welcome them. The ones you don’t want, the ones usually referred to as economic migrants, I suggest should really be thought of as ‘benefit migrants’. The difference is very important to me since I think of myself as an economic migrant, but having never taken a cent from the state I am not a benefit migrant.

      I’d suggest only a couple of changes. First off the immediate deportation for serious crimes doesn’t go far enough. It should be made clear that citizenship conferred on someone or permanent residency granted to them can be stripped at a later date if need be. Australia certainly retains this indefinitely as an ultimate sanction over people with permanent resident status and has used it a couple of times in the last few years to send a rapist and a paedophile back to countries they hadn’t even lived in as adults (in both cases they were returned to England – sorry). I believe Australia is also able to do this with naturalised citizens, though I haven’t heard of it being done.

      With that change made you no longer need a span of as long as ten years before permanent residency can be granted. From my perspective as a migrant I’d point out that those who wish to build a business and create jobs will struggle to do so if permanent residency is impossible for at least a decade, so you might well find that entrepreneurial talent deciding to go elsewhere. Come to think of it it would make things unreasonably tough on those who want to work for someone else too. If the country can still boot them out if need be even after permanent residency or citizenship is granted this period can be far shorter and you could even grant many migrants permanent residency from day one. For example, because my missus is an Aussie I was never a temporary resident – spouses skip straight to permanent resident status, though spouse visas aren’t cheap (including agent’s fees I think mine cost a couple of grand – sterling, not dollars) and are not granted without you both supplying a small mountain of evidence to prove that the relationship is legit as well as the usual health and police checks that you’d expect. At the time you could become an Aussie citizen as quickly as two years after making the move, but since then it’s been increased to four. I reckon that’s probably about right.

      • August 19, 2011 at 6:55 am

        I wish it really were that simple, but it’s probably not. There’s other ways of making a living, after all, especially considering the alternatives in their home countries. And the majority population of Britain will never, ever support open borders. Not even if everyone who entered was a millionaire philanthropist.

        • August 19, 2011 at 10:51 am

          I wish it really were that simple, but it’s probably not.

          Why not? Many countries – and I now live in one – benefitted enormously from immigration in the days before welfarism corrupted the process and encouraged the stream of workers and entrepreneurs to be swamped by a flood of people asking for freebies. All the efforts directed towards tackling asylum seekers are just treating the symptom, not the disease.

          Let me try an anaology. If you’re attracting a lot of moths you can run around like a maniac trying hopelessly to complete the Sisysphean task of putting up and repairing netting, or you could try turning off all those kilowatt floodlights your idiot friend suggested you put up to help the moths see where they’re going. Putting up and maintaining nets not only eats up a great deal of your time and energy, finite resources you could doubtless put to better use, but they also stop the bees who would otherwise pollinate the flowers in your garden and perhaps provide you with honey. You could have the nets up and turn the lights off, but with so many fewer moths coming the effort is proportionately even greater than it was before, and of course you still lose out on the benefits of letting the bees move freely. Forgoing the nets in favour of a swatter or a few traps and turning the lights off gets you everything: a big cut your ‘leccy bill while dealing only with the handful of moths that random chance sends your way, and allowing the bees to get on with making your garden beautiful and making the base for your summer mead making project.

          And no, I’m not forgetting that individual bees can sting, but since for the overwhelming majority it means suicide for the individual bee most would rather get dirty with the flowers and get on with making that honey.

          And the majority population of Britain will never, ever support open borders. Not even if everyone who entered was a millionaire philanthropist.

          Sadly that’s all too believable. Sticking with the same analogy, the last several years has seen dozens and dozens of floodlights put up and the use of netting that has mesh wide enough to let a large badger through. With all the moths that have come flooding through it’s small wonder that the handful of bees go largely unnoticed and that the homeowners would vote for solutions which require more effort and deprive them of bee-ish products. It’ll probably be years before the majority sees the advantages of allowing free movement for the bees as separate from the nuisance of the plague of moths and start demanding solutions that accommodate the bees, though I suspect a majority would happily turn the floodlights off today. However, that’s actually the first step. Nobody’s suggesting we pull all the nets down while those damn lights are still shining. Turn the lights off tonight and pull the nets down one day next week, and spend the time in between cleaning jars for the honey we’ll collect over the coming summer.

          • nemesis
            August 19, 2011 at 11:55 pm

            Like the bee/moth analogy. Another advantage of the open border policy is that it would stop any accusations of race discrimination.

Comments are closed.