Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Should immigrants be deported when they commit a serious crime? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's all about ethics. You don't go to someone else's house and start littering here and there. You are basically representing your country in another country. By committing such crimes, you earn a bad name for yourself and your community. There are quite a few examples (it would sound a bit racist though)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maths and cheesecake)
    That's horrible, so residents who do not hold citizenship are inferior to the citizens ? and ready to be deported whiles citizens who commit exact same crime are given a second chance ?
    Citizens, unlike non-citizens, have an unconditional right of residency. Non-citizens have been granted a right of residency that is conditional on observing certain conditions, such as not committing crimes.

    If you think that all non-citizen residents should have the same legal rights as citizens, do you think non-citizens should be able to vote in elections? How about people here on student visas, asylum seekers whose applications haven't been processed yet, or people who happen to be visiting on holiday at a time when an election is called?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viridiana)
    There are agreements between countries though, right? For example about extradition. This way the English citizen and his punishment would be a problem of the British government, not the French one; it seems fair to me.


    I'm not British but the way but hope to come as an immigrant one day so I'm kind of digging my own grave. But I'm not planning on doing bad things either
    I agree with that. What it was actually on my mind was... answering simply "yes" to your question, sounds a bit selfish to me. People should think of other people too. It makes me feel like many are happy with other people to suffer, as long as they got rid of the criminal. Is this ethic?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Of course. Otherwise the best way to become a citizen of a country would be to go there and commit a serious crime.
    How does committing a crime make one a citizen ? I'm baffled by the lack of logic in that answer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cinnamon.S)
    I agree with that. What it was actually on my mind was... answering simply "yes" to your question, sounds a bit selfish to me. People should think of other people too. It makes me feel like many are happy with other people to suffer, as long as they got rid of the criminal. Is this ethic?
    But if the criminal is punished either way, what is the problem? Just dumping the criminal somewhere in the world without warning anyone about it would be bad, but if you hand them over to the authorities in his country it's just letting the system work correctly, not making people suffer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jitesh07)
    By committing such crimes, you earn a bad name for yourself and your community. There are quite a few examples (it would sound a bit racist though)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's the reason why I am ashamed to say where I am from
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viridiana)
    Choose between:
    a) punish them and allow them to stay
    b) deport them
    c) send them to prison then deport them
    Thank you.

    If they are from a country with a similar justice system to our own and we have suitable treaties so can trust that country to carry out the sentence we give out, then (b) otherwise (c).

    On the flip side, I also believe that a country should be responsible for its own citizens including its own criminals and treat them appropriately: no three-strikes-and-its-life, no death penalty, invest in probation services, help offenders to not re-offend, help them off drugs, train them while in prison, etc.

    But for someone to go to a country and commit a serious crime there and then expect anything other than fair punishment and to be sent back to the government that should be responsible for them - I do not think that is reasonable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maths and cheesecake)
    I'm baffled by the lack of logic in that answer.
    I'm baffled by the lack of logic of your question.

    You seemed to imply that if an immigrant from country A goes to country B and commits a serious crime, then country B should give that person the same rights as a natural citizen of country B.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No. This system would just lead to more murders and attacks on the British people. For some criminals, being sent home to be dealt with in a country that has a warped view on justice or has a corrupt system, is exactly what they want. By deporting them, you lose control over them and their whereabouts. It's not as simple as saying we'll trust the country on the other end because other countries have ulterior motives and do as they please. Double crossing and corruption is real and we need to accept that. I'd rather them be kept in this country within our system and dealt with.

    We do have an obligation to protect our people by locking them up indefinitely and cutting costs to provide them with the bare minimum. I'd rather that than release a murderer back to Pakistan, only for them to find their way back to Afghanistan and commit a horrible attack in revenge. A lot of the people who have committed horrible crimes have actually been interrogated and detained by our intelligence agencies only to be released due to not having enough on them or getting enough information out of them for it to be fair to keep them detained any longer.

    The system you propose is far more dangerous than the costs associated with imprisoning them. In short, I simply do not trust other countries at the top end to work in this country's interest and therefore we should do it ourselves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    (...)
    Yeah you seem a reasonable person about it. Personally I think death penalty should be included as a possibility in modern countries. I'm not saying everyone should be killed for everything and I know there can be mistakes. However, when I see Norway where Anders Breivik gets 21 years because it's the biggest possible punishment in the Norwegian system... I'd rather they had death penalty. In the case of this guy, there's no doubt he did it and that he doesn't deserve to live off the money of the people whose children he murdered...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Citizens, unlike non-citizens, have an unconditional right of residency. Non-citizens have been granted a right of residency that is conditional on observing certain conditions, such as not committing crimes.

    If you think that all non-citizen residents should have the same legal rights as citizens, do you think non-citizens should be able to vote in elections? How about people here on student visas, asylum seekers whose applications haven't been processed yet, or people who happen to be visiting on holiday at a time when an election is called?
    I am not questioning the fact that citizens have certain privileges that non-citizens do not enjoy, however treating an identical criminal offence differently depending on citizenship, is that within the parameters of said privileges.

    I find that highly dubious, I would call it gloomy nationalism, and I fail to see the logic in it.

    Taking part in the political discourse of a nation should be a privilege for the citizens of course, but a tax paying non-citizen isn't inferior to a citizen as far as society is concerned, well at least in my opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No sensible person would answer no, as it would only come out of illogic and/or BBC propaganda. That these support interfering in deserts to remove serious crime, then defend the 'right' of serious criminals to stay is having double standards found scattered everywhere on the left. They are criminals who should be removed from society, so why are they effectively invited here to be removed from society, at the taxpayer's cost and disgust, seeing as they would not have been allowed here if they were known to be serious criminals because even labour party scum of the earth realise that we have no duty to be civil to them
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    (...)
    I'm not sure if you understood me right, but I'm not saying to just drop them right into Pakistan. I'm saying, say, let them serve their time and then send them back? And not let them on your own streets.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maths and cheesecake)
    I am not questioning the fact that citizens have certain privileges that non-citizens do not enjoy, however treating an identical criminal offence differently depending on citizenship, is that within the parameters of said privileges.
    If the grant of residence was conditioned on good behaviour then yes. No one is suggesting that citizens and non-citizens would receive different fines or custodial sentences, just that non-citizens' residency can be revoked whereas citizens' residency can't.

    I find that highly dubious, I would call it gloomy nationalism, and I fail to see the logic in it.

    Taking part in the political discourse of a nation should be a privilege for the citizens of course, but a tax paying non-citizen isn't inferior to a citizen as far as society is concerned, well at least in my opinion.
    He is: he is taxed but cannot vote on how that tax money should be used, or how much tax should be levied. He is essentially paying protection money to citizen mafiosos, if you want to view it like that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viridiana)
    But if the criminal is punished either way, what is the problem? Just dumping the criminal somewhere in the world without warning anyone about it would be bad, but if you hand them over to the authorities in his country it's just letting the system work correctly, not making people suffer.
    You're naively assuming the country you will hand them over to will work in your country's interests. Numerous countries have had terrorists handed over to them in the past only for them to do deals with terrorists groups when hostages have been taken in. It's primarily why loads of countries now go by 'we don't deal with terrorists' because by doing so you set a dangerous precedent. Other countries will work in their own interests, not ours.

    (Original post by Viridiana)
    I'm not sure if you understood me right, but I'm not saying to just drop them right into Pakistan. I'm saying, say, let them serve their time and then send them back? And not let them on your own streets.
    No. They should be jailed indefinitely here so we can know of their whereabouts and what they're up to. The scenario I described could still happen upon release anyway. I'm a firm believer that some people simply can't be rehabilitated and need the life long support of a structured system. Yes it'd be costly but if it means one innocent life saved its a cost worth paying.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    You're naively assuming the country you will hand them over to will work in your country's interests. Numerous countries have had terrorists handed over to them in the past only for them to do deals with terrorists groups when hostages have been taken in. It's primarily why loads of countries now go by 'we don't deal with terrorists' because by doing so you set a dangerous precedent. Other countries will work in their own interests, not ours.



    No. They should be jailed indefinitely here so we can know of their whereabouts and what they're up to. The scenario I described could still happen upon release anyway. I'm a firm believer that some people simply can't be rehabilitated and need the life long support of a structured system. Yes it'd be costly but if it means one innocent life saved its a cost worth paying.


    But you know I'm not talking about terrorists. (not exclusively)

    If a Pakistani/Ukrainian/French/American rapes someone and say spends 10 years in a British jail, should they be allowed to stay in the country afterwards?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viridiana)
    However, when I see Norway where Anders Breivik gets 21 years because it's the biggest possible punishment in the Norwegian system... I'd rather they had death penalty.
    I'd rather they changed their system such that they could sentence someone to "a full life tariff" (never coming out) or "an indeterminate sentence" (probably never coming out).

    We got rid of the death penalty because miscarriages of justice do happen and you cannot undo a death sentence.

    Personally, I believe a government is their to protect and serve the people, not the other way around. I do not think a modern democracy should have the right to kill its citizens. I'm not happy about them killing other countries' citizens either.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    I'd rather they changed their system such that they could sentence someone to "a full life tariff" (never coming out) or "an indeterminate sentence" (probably never coming out).

    We got rid of the death penalty because miscarriages of justice do happen and you cannot undo a death sentence.

    Personally, I believe a government is their to protect and serve the people, not the other way around. I do not think a modern democracy should have the right to kill its citizens. I'm not happy about them killing other countries' citizens either.

    Yes... But the job of the country is to protect its citizens. Sometimes they'd be better protected if the bad guy was simply gone, in extreme cases. But I'm not an extreme fan of death penalty either, I see that is has some grave disadvantages.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jitesh07)
    It's all about ethics. You don't go to someone else's house and start littering here and there. You are basically representing your country in another country. By committing such crimes, you earn a bad name for yourself and your community. There are quite a few examples (it would sound a bit racist though)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Which is, let's be honest here, going to be the main argument against it, "you're being racist" or "you're just being xenophobic", whichever is relevant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The only way to sort this issue out seems to be by grading the sort of offences. For e.g.:-

    Grade-1:- e.g. Terrorism/inciting Hatred/Provocative Behavior towards a community; Murder;Large-Scale Money Scams; Sexual Assault.

    Grade-2:- e.g. Theft. Vandalism.

    Grade-3:- e.g. Rash/Drunk Driving

    A grade-1 offence should lead to deportation after serving the jail term in the host country (in case of life term send him back to his country and ensure that he gets jailed over there)

    A grade-2 offence would initially lead to the corresponding jail term in the host country. Repeat offenders to be deported with a ban from entering the host country and its allies (such as in the EU) for the rest of his/her life.

    A grade-3 offence should lead to community service and/or a jail term plus, banning him/her from driving in any part of the country.

    This sort of system would be beneficial imo. Although, it should be enforced properly, i.e., no loopholes in the system so that the offender doesn't get away easily.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.