What to do with undesirables

New York, that's where the illegal migrants are going, that and the other "Sanctuary Cities", they love `em in those places, or so the municipal leaders tell their subjects.
 
Chris Wilson said:
New York, that's where the illegal migrants are going, that and the other "Sanctuary Cities", they love `em in those places, or so the municipal leaders tell their subjects.
Click to expand...

All those cities are economic power houses... gee I wonder why. Perhaps they’re actually ‘desirable’. Even trump knows they’re desirable he still hires them.
 
If they are that desirable why do they enter the US and other countries illegally? Desirable employees are usually welcome to enter most countries legally...
 
Raymond Lin said:
Somebody missed the joke.
Click to expand...

It was patently obvious that you were referring to that 18th and 19th century Victorian lark, transporting of convicts, but just for kicks, I decided to ignore that, and treat your suggestion as a kosher one.
If it makes you feel better, I’ll put my hand up and say, Australia?, Transportation? What’s that?
 
Jean-F said:
It was patently obvious that you were referring to that 18th and 19th century Victorian lark, transporting of convicts, but just for kicks, I decided to ignore that, and treat your suggestion as a kosher one.
If it makes you feel better, I’ll put my hand up and say, Australia?, Transportation? What’s that?
Click to expand...

That’s even worse. So you basically known what I am on about, ignore the joke and went onto something completely that I was not on about and attacked me on a point that I was not making...weirdo!

It’s like you decided on purpose to pick a fight for no reason when I wasn’t looking for one. You need help.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
That’s even worse. So you basically known what I am on about, ignore the joke and went onto something completely that I was not on about and attacked me on a point that I was not making...weirdo!

It’s like you decided on purpose to pick a fight for no reason when I wasn’t looking for one. You need help.
Click to expand...

I think that you’re overreacting a tad there pal, take a chill pill.
I don’t need help, and I wasn’t looking for a fight, where did I attack you?
I interpreted your post which suggested Australia, as an attempt to say, “Look at me, I can come up with a devilishly witty idea for where to send the ISIL girl.”
I didn’t see that as humour, my idea of funny jokes, comes from hearing comedians like Tommy Slayton, and Louis C.K., and if you think that your wit can match theirs, then you’re mistaken, IMO.
But hey, keep cracking away, my shoulders are broad.
 
Jean-F said:
I think that you’re overreacting a tad there pal, take a chill pill.
I don’t need help, and I wasn’t looking for a fight, where did I attack you?
I interpreted your post which suggested Australia, as an attempt to say, “Look at me, I can come up with a devilishly witty idea for where to send the ISIL girl.”
I didn’t see that as humour, my idea of funny jokes, comes from hearing comedians like Tommy Slayton, and Louis C.K., and if you think that your wit can match theirs, then you’re mistaken, IMO.
But hey, keep cracking away, my shoulders are broad.
Click to expand...

I am over reacting? lol I made a joke, and you self admitted to take it seriously and I AM over reacting?

What a weirdo...
 
StriderX said:
That’s what happens when you give human rights to British citizens, guess you hate having your freedoms huh, so long as it hurts the right people you’d be happy to be chattel?
Click to expand...


The woman is no longer a British citizen. The whole thing has the smell of Keith Vaz all over it, IMO. How he can be allowed to remain on the Home Affairs Select Committee is open to conjecture.
 
Orionaut said:
Well, Back to topic...

It would appear that we make Lawyers fat by throwing taxpayers money at them!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...egal-aid-despite-stripped-UK-citizenship.html
Click to expand...

If the government will take populist choices and strip citizens of there rights then they can expect appeals and these will of course attract legal aid when the complainant is in a refugee camp. I don't like the girl, her attitude or agree with what she's done but saying she is no longer British and can go and live in a country she has never even visited instead was never going to stand up in court. Imagine the reverse and a foreign country decided to send it's IS fighters here because they had a tenuous claim to a British passport?

They should save a fortune and allow her to return now as that is what will happen after we waste millions on court cases, she should then be charged under UK law, have a trial in a UK court and be locked up in a UK prison until such time as she is no longer a risk to the country. We may not like it but all British citizens have these rights no matter what horrible mistakes/decisions they made it's part of what makes our country great.
 
StriderX said:
That’s what happens when you give human rights to British citizens, guess you hate having your freedoms huh, so long as it hurts the right people you’d be happy to be chattel?
Click to expand...


Perhaps the longer term lesson here is that we should be a bit more choosy as to who we allow to become citizens in the first place.

The feudal idea that one can acquire citizenship simply by being born somewhere may have made sense when international travel was rare and only something that only a small proportion of people ever did.

But in a world where you can travel to the other side of the planet in hours and it is common for people and families to move country for work or whatever it no longer does so.

(Even in my own childhood, and I am not yet of retirement age, it was still common for people to make long journeys by sea. 2 weeks to SA, 6 weeks to Australia !)
 
I think I'm just going to repeat my earlier position, which is that however awful this person is, stripping citizenship is not a thing that we should allow as a tool of justice. It's essentially a button the state can press at any time to bypass courts and requiring probable cause. I'm aware of the vague loophole of her conceivably having Bangledeshi citizenship. I consider that a reach. IF she can make it back here under her own power, then she has a right to be admitted and banged up due to the copious evidence of her crimes.

Orionaut said:
Perhaps the longer term lesson here is that we should be a bit more choosy as to who we allow to become citizens in the first place.

The feudal idea that one can acquire citizenship simply by being born somewhere may have made sense when international travel was rare and only something that only a small proportion of people ever did.

But in a world where you can travel to the other side of the planet in hours and it is common for people and families to move country for work or whatever it no longer does so.

(Even in my own childhood, and I am not yet of retirement age, it was still common for people to make long journeys by sea. 2 weeks to SA, 6 weeks to Australia !)
Click to expand...

Genuine question: What approach would you take to granting citizenship if not born here? It seems to me other approaches run the risk of creating a sub-class without rights such as in Saudi Arabia where you have a large population of what are effectively indentured servants - often without the ability to leave.
 
StriderX said:
All those cities are economic power houses... gee I wonder why. Perhaps they’re actually ‘desirable’. Even trump knows they’re desirable he still hires them.
Click to expand...

Almost all the economic power of those big cities is generated by a minority who are absolutely not illegal immigrants, they are stockbrokers, tech pioneers etc. The idea that illegal immigration is a massive contributor to the US economy is deeply flawed. But beyond that, it is by definition, criminal.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society that has the rule of law than make £50 extra a year.
 
Schlong&Stable said:
Almost all the economic power of those big cities is generated by a minority who are absolutely not illegal immigrants, they are stockbrokers, tech pioneers etc. The idea that illegal immigration is a massive contributor to the US economy is deeply flawed. But beyond that, it is by definition, criminal.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society that has the rule of law than make £50 extra a year.
Click to expand...

California (the only state that has state wide sanctuary) has the highest wealth inequality by state of the entire USA. It also has the highest number of welfare recipients (proportionally) of any state, a colossal housing price crisis and sky high homelessness in the big cities. Just to support your point. Basically you have the Silicon Valley / Tech industry making a fortune, the non-urban working people trying to pay the taxes and surcharges that the tech elite can afford but they can't. And then the illegal immigrant population. A rise in house prices or your landlord putting up your rent - both are things that would show up as an increase in GDP.

Just to support what you say.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am over reacting? lol I made a joke, and you self admitted to take it seriously and I AM over reacting?

What a weirdo...
Click to expand...


As has been suggested, how about going back to agonising about “let the bint back in, keep the bint out?”
You THINK that you made a joke, it didn’t make me smile, you want to call me a weirdo? knock yourself out.
With apologies to Catherine Tate, “look at my face Raymond, am I bovvered?”
 
All the people supporting the "rights" of this terrorist need to consider such publicity at this time is absolute Manna from heaven to the far right and garners them exponential support. Just saying... ;) Finland has just seen a huge rise by a far right party, thanks to immigration causing a break down in law and order. if Finland go to the right just wait to see where less tolerant nations lean in the EU elections.
 
Schlong&Stable said:
Almost all the economic power of those big cities is generated by a minority who are absolutely not illegal immigrants, they are stockbrokers, tech pioneers etc. The idea that illegal immigration is a massive contributor to the US economy is deeply flawed. But beyond that, it is by definition, criminal.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society that has the rule of law than make £50 extra a year.
Click to expand...

Then why is trump constantly trying to break the law? Do you support his efforts?

He’s the one that wishes to release the illegal immigrants. Regardless, if you don’t want immigration (legal), then you must have inflation, productivity increases or increasing taxes to continue growth and prosperity.

Clearly with record high deficits this year, the idea of smaller government is well and truly dead, the gop have had plenty of time to secure their ‘aims’, yet choose not to every time. They’ve chosen to reduce taxes, yet people they’re supposed to help have less money... inflation is kept unnaturally low by the FED... so that’s out as well.

Proaductivity seems to be ok, but a lot of it seems to be worthless PR than actual products...

You can’t have what you want and not expect disaster if you won’t compromise elsewhere, it’s basic algebra. It stops being about the economic argument and we’re left with the stereotypes and xenophobic undertones, that people wilfully choose to ignore it is farcical, and seemingly by design.

So while you focus your ire on undeserving people probably poorer than you are, your wealth is being sequestered by the elite, which includes the orange ****, the Russian billionaires, the pretty sitters in Silicon Valley.

/This is merely the most obvious example of people hurting themselves by trying to hurt others, I could easily have chosen middle England, rural France, conservative Turkey, people who see populism as a gateway to personal riches... only to be betrayed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom