illegal immigration

[wesimmo]

I've never voted for the labour party in my life and have actively campaigned against the current and previous incumbents of my constituency seat (one of whom was selected by momentum against the wishes of the local party) but clearly yes I am a raving left wing lunatic!

In a thread where detention camps are designed to make people hate their life and guards are encouraged to give beatings, you're pretty left wing TBF.

 

[potatolord]

I don't, i find it unreasonable to say "If you cannot assess whether people might present a risk to the country of arrival, that's a serious problem. It taints everyone with suspicion."

You can keep trying to misrepresent what you actually said by trying to add "attempt" and "require" but that's not going to change your original premiss, the premiss i took issue with and that you keep trying to misinterpret as some sort of cometary about mental illness, feelings, and reasonableness.

You have speculated on my paranoia and that of others. We may disagree on whether a suspicion response is fair or reasonable, but that is solely a matter of opinion. Can we leave discussions of paranoia there, please?

As I said, I'll leave arguing over the inclusion/ omission of "attempt", and the impact of that to my intended message, from my earlier posts to the lawyers.

I disagree with your suggestion that

To remind you this all started with me saying that if somewhere like Russia sent us all their prisoners that the best we could do is incorporate those people into society and get them working, paying taxes, and generally being productive members of society because we would not have access to any evidence whatsoever on any previous crimes committed in the country that's sending them. You can asses them all you like but without evidence you only have their word to go on and it's not like their going to tell you that they were in a Russia gulag 3 weeks ago for mass murder.

That would be taking a huge gamble with public safety, given they are known prisoners and the gravity of their offence is unknown. You can't take that on trust and hope for the best.

In my view, the best thing is to have a rigorous assessment, based on evidence. That has to apply to all, or it's worthless. I appreciate that can range from difficult to impossible to do, but you have to try.

If people are unwilling to provide bona fides, then in my view they will be viewed with suspicion and should be subject to further investigation. I see that as a reasonable response where someone will not comply with a request for clarification of identity. Maybe you don't, but this is all just opinion.

Where people do provide details, those should be checked, where possible. As above, can be difficult to do.

To move this on, can you give your views on whether assessment should take place, and what form that should take? We can then see if we have any common ground and go from there.

 

[The Running Man]

To make a point we are suspicious about every person that enters or leaves our country.

Otherwise we wouldn't have passports and immigration officers/checks at the airport.

This is the defacto response, irrespective of reason for entering the country. It is not unreasonable to wait to check or screen each person as they enter for various reasons and is policy implemented by virtually every country globally - with the exception of shengen rights which we had already opted out of.

 

[Murphy]

You have speculated on my paranoia and that of others. We may disagree on whether a suspicion response is fair or reasonable, but that is solely a matter of opinion. Can we leave discussions of paranoia there, please?

As I said, I'll leave arguing over the inclusion/ omission of "attempt", and the impact of that to my intended message, from my earlier posts to the lawyers.

It's not speculation, it's an opinion and one that i suspect would be shared by most reasonable people. I've also not suggested that other people are paranoid, quiet the opposite in fact as I've told you most reasonable people wouldn't treat every person entering the country with suspicion simply because border control officials have not been able to asses what risk every single person entering the country poses. I know most reasonable people wouldn't do that because that's what currently happens, not everyone entering the country is assessed for the risk they present to the country and the vast majority of the country does not treat them with suspicion. They don't do that because most people understand that it's wrong to discriminate against a group of people simply because some people in that group maybe wrong'uns.

Most reasonable people don't treat all Russians with suspicion simply because two tourists came from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral and left behind some nerve agent.

I disagree with your suggestion that

That would be taking a huge gamble with public safety, given they are known prisoners and the gravity of their offence is unknown. You can't take that on trust and hope for the best.

In my view, the best thing is to have a rigorous assessment, based on evidence. That has to apply to all, or it's worthless. I appreciate that can range from difficult to impossible to do, but you have to try.

If people are unwilling to provide bona fides, then in my view they will be viewed with suspicion and should be subject to further investigation. I see that as a reasonable response where someone will not comply with a request for clarification of identity. Maybe you don't, but this is all just opinion.

Where people do provide details, those should be checked, where possible. As above, can be difficult to do.

To move this on, can you give your views on whether assessment should take place, and what form that should take? We can then see if we have any common ground and go from there.

Problem is you don't know do you, you suspect they're prisoners but you have zero evidence to support that because like i said if somewhere like Russia decided to send over prisoners neither the Russian government nor the prisoners themselves are likely to confess to them being prisoners.

Also it's got nothing to do with being unwilling to provide documentary evidence showing that a person is what they claim to be, like i said in liberal democracies people typically operate on the premiss of innocent until proven guilty. If you've got no evidence to suggest someone is guilty of something, and you don't as you only have a suspicion, then most reasonable people would give them the benefit of doubt, just like most people do with every Russia tourists they come across despite a couple of wrong'uns.

Moving on: Assessment should take place in the same way as they do now, there should be a presumption of innocents and if border control officials think someone looks *suspicious then they should investigate further.

*From what i understand border control officials typically lookout for certain behaviour, that there's certain things that draw their attention.

 

[potatolord]

It's not speculation, it's an opinion and one that i suspect would be shared by most reasonable people. I've also not suggested that other people are paranoid, quiet the opposite in fact as I've told you most reasonable people wouldn't treat every person entering the country with suspicion simply because border control officials have not been able to asses what risk every single person entering the country poses. I know most reasonable people wouldn't do that because that's what currently happens, not everyone entering the country is assessed for the risk they present to the country and the vast majority attention.

It's just opinion on both our parts, let's leave it at that.

Problem is you don't know do you, you suspect they're prisoners but you have zero evidence to support that because like i said if somewhere like Russia decided to send over prisoners neither the Russian government nor the prisoners themselves are likely to confess to them being prisoners.

Also it's got nothing to do with being unwilling to provide documentary evidence showing that a person is what they claim to be, like i said in liberal democracies people typically operate on the premiss of innocent until proven guilty. If you've got no evidence to suggest someone is guilty of something, and you don't as you only have a suspicion, then most reasonable people would give them the benefit of doubt, just like most people do with every Russia tourists they come across despite a couple of wrong'uns.

According to your example, they were Russian prisoners, and I replied based on that.

"Most reasonable people" is pretty open to interpretation and debate. Let's leave it at that...

Moving on: Assessment should take place in the same way as they do now, there should be a presumption of innocents and if border control officials think someone looks *suspicious then they should investigate further.

*From what i understand border control officials typically lookout for certain behaviour, that there's certain things that draw their attention.

I don't disagree with much of that. Where we probably would disagree is that I think people should provide evidence of identity and where that is not done, their claim should be further investigated.

 

[Murphy]

I don't disagree with much of that. Where we probably would disagree is that I think people should provide evidence of identity and where that is not done, their claim should be further investigated.

We don't even disagree on that, personally I'd say everyone should provide evidence of identity, that's what passports are for after all. However a passport doesn't indicate if someone is, was, or has been in prison. Given two Russians entering the country one of them being a Russian prisoner and the other not, there's no way of knowing if Russian person 'a' with a passport or Russian person 'b' with a passport is the prisoner that Russia is sending over so you have to treat them both as innocent until proven guilty. You'd assume that wouldn't take long as one of the two would return home while the other does not.

 

[potatolord]

We don't even disagree on that, personally I'd say everyone should provide evidence of identity, that's what passports are for after all. However a passport doesn't indicate if someone is, was, or has been in prison. Given two Russians entering the country one of them being a Russian prisoner, there's no way of knowing if Russian person 'a' with a passport or Russian person 'b' with a passport is a prisoner that Russia is sending over so you have to treat them both as innocent until proven guilty. You'd assume that wouldn't take long as one of the two would return home while the other does not.

It's not the best example, to be fair. Russia has a stringent visa system, both in and out. A mate lives there, so i know a bit about that, due to his moaning.

I see identity verification as a critical step to granting entry to any country.

Beyond that it all gets a bit tricky...

 

[Skunkworks]

To remind you this all started with me saying that if somewhere like Russia sent us all their prisoners that the best we could do is incorporate those people into society and get them working, paying taxes, and generally being productive members of society...

And here lies the problem. The system is being run by people that cannot recognise potential danger, or hedge their bets it won't affect them personally. I imagine your notion of integrating these unidentified foreign criminals would change if they were all to be housed in your street. And if it doesn’t change I fear for anyone whose safety you’re responsible for.

If Home Office staff could be held criminally culpable for a lack of due diligence when rubber stamping the entry of people that then go on commit serious crimes you can bet the system will become a whole lot more discerning.

Genes that can't recognise danger tend to remove themselves from the pool. Remember the 2 that got stabbed because they went to a meeting with someone who’d been jailed for being a jihadi? Or the numerous stories of naive liberals getting murdered by going to dangerous places? I'm all for that when they're only endangering themselves, but when this kind naïve fool is responsible for refugee/asylum policy they end up endangering us all.

 

[Murphy]

And here lies the problem. The system is being run by people that cannot recognise potential danger, or hedge their bets it won't affect them personally. I imagine your notion of integrating these unidentified foreign criminals would change if they were all to be housed in your street. And if it doesn’t change I fear for anyone whose safety you’re responsible for.

I think that says more about your imagination and as usual poor comprehension and/or reading skills TBH. Firstly they're not "unidentified foreign criminals" they're identified, like i said that's what passports are for. Secondly neither you nor I know if they're criminals or not, because again like i said neither Russia nor the person in question is likely to tell you if they should still be in a Russian prison. And finally my "notion" of integrating these so called "unidentified foreign criminals" wouldn't change one iota if they were to be housed on my street or anyone's whose safety I'm "responsible" for because, seemingly unlike you, i take people as i find them and try not to discriminate against someone simply because of whatever group they may or may not belong to, i try not prejudge someone.

Genes that can't recognise danger tend to remove themselves from the pool. Remember the 2 that got stabbed because they went to a meeting with someone who’d been jailed for being a jihadi? Or the numerous stories of naive liberals getting murdered by going to dangerous places? I'm all for that when they're only endangering themselves, but when this kind naïve fool is responsible for refugee/asylum policy they end up endangering us all.

Have you been reading Mein Kampf again? Are these genes that are recognising danger talking to you?

 

[arknor]

Only uk is willing to welcome them with open arms..... weird no one else wants these hard working "loyal" people

 

[VincentHanna]

Are you completely ignorant to the goings on between Russia, Belarus and the two of them attempting to sow discord by encouraging them to Belarus and then escorting the migrants to the border with Poland, and now Ukraine?

I think you'll also find Germany has taken over a million migrants.

 

[Murphy]

I'm still trying to workout who "them" are and how we're welcoming "them" with open arms.

Is "them" illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, refugees or a selection of all three.

 

[Skunkworks]

I'm still trying to workout who "them" are and how we're welcoming "them" with open arms.

Is "them" illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, refugees or a selection of all three.

You have a lot of trouble with everyday speech. But I'm sure it's everyone else, not you.

 

[Murphy]

You have a lot of trouble with everyday speech. But I'm sure it's everyone else, not you.

Go on then Einstein, enlighten me on who "them" are and while you're at it when you started to hear other peoples thoughts in your head.

Because so far, based on your history of poor comprehension and/or reading skills, i suspect you're simply a demonstration of the Dunning–Kruger effect when it comes to the English language.

EDIT: Also, as you're resorting to your usual ad hominem attacks, you may want to lookup what the word "speech" means in a dictionary, you wouldn't want to embarrass yourself (yet again).

 

[Skunkworks]

Because so far, based on your history of poor comprehension and/or reading skills, i suspect you're simply a demonstration of the Dunning–Kruger effect when it comes to the English language.

lol

EDIT: Also, as you're resorting to your usual ad hominem attacks, you may want to lookup what the word "speech" means in a dictionary, you wouldn't want to embarrass yourself (yet again).

Double lol

 

[Murphy]

So that's a no then, you don't know who arknor was referring to when (s)he used the term "them" so you thought you'd make perhaps one of your least constructive posts so far.

You're not exactly covering yourself in glory here.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

So that's a no then, you don't know who arknor was referring to when (s)he used the term "them" so you thought you'd make perhaps one of your least constructive posts so far.

You're not exactly covering yourself in glory here.

The "This is fine" meme was created with you in mind.

 

[Murphy]

The "This is fine" meme was created with you in mind.

Given your post history in SC I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[arknor]

So that's a no then, you don't know who arknor was referring to when (s)he used the term "them" so you thought you'd make perhaps one of your least constructive posts so far.

You're not exactly covering yourself in glory here.

clues in the thread name

 

[Murphy]

clues in the thread name

So you agree that we're encouraging people to enter the country undocumented?