View Poll Results: Should foreign criminals be deported?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, for any crime

    11 44.00%
  • yes, but only for serious crimes

    10 40.00%
  • no

    4 16.00%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61

Thread: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Population is the foundation of economic growth. In fact, until the last couple centuries, it was one of the only sources of economic growth
    that argument is so bad i actually got offended :p population growth does boost absolute gdp, but it lowers gdp per capita, which is the real measure for how well off people are. a country like bangladesh is not richer than sweden, even though it has more people...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    , we've spent the majority of our existence as migrant populations
    thats very misleading. yes, humans havd been moving around, but it was either into previously empty lands, or as an invasion of settled lands. immigration, as in a group moving into an already established society and peacefully integrating.. that was much rarer. usually it wad accompanied by violence and conquest. There was has definitely not been any kind of historic parallel to this modern kind of large scale peaceful immigration.

    If you wanted to be crack down on crime, then you should have argued about the restoration of penal colonies to ship all kinds of criminals there.
    nativity does play part. If they are "ours" it means it is our responsiblity to keep them in jail, and guard them etc. its not the responsibility of another country. This isnt leniency, as i am in favour of both literal life sentences and capital punishment for certain crimes, even if they are "our" people. ideally one would want to deport them too, but why would any country accept our criminals? they have no moral obligation to. its "our" criminals, we have to deal with them, just as foreign coutries should have to deal with theirs.

    Both those who voted that foreign criminals should be deported no matter the severity of the crime and those who accept deportation only for the most serious crimes share a common assumption. Namely, that migrants somehow commit crimes in greater frequency than natives and that their crimes are more violent.
    such an assumotion is not necessary in order to justify deporting criminal foreigners. Even if just a single one out of a million immigrants commited a crime, i would still want that sole person deported.

    You'd deport someone for an overdue speeding ticket, for example?
    afaik there is a difference between minor misdemeanors and crime. certain minor infractions ca be overlooked of course. but generally speaking, they are guests and they should be expected to behave well. Commiting crimes without major consequences is not a right.

    And who are those "foreigners" you want to deport so badly? Define them. Are they first generation immigrants, Americans with an immigrant background, illegal immigrants only?
    thats can spiral into a related topic, which isnt the topic of the thread. but, anyone with a foreign citizenship.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    that argument is so bad i actually got offended :p population growth does boost absolute gdp, but it lowers gdp per capita, which is the real measure for how well off people are. a country like bangladesh is not richer than sweden, even though it has more people...
    If you want to talk about the "real" measure of how well-off people are then you shouldn't be talking about GDP at all. Oman is not a better place to live in than Finland just because its GDP per capita is the same.

    Now back to my "argument." Population growth was essentially the source of economic growth until very recently, if you look at GDP growth before 1850, you'll see that economic growth was de facto tied to population growth. Hence why GDP per capita was flat.



    Demographics play a large part in economic growth. While it certainly is true that more people create more demand for resources, more people also add more productivity and more consumption to the economy, both components are the driving force behind economic growth. This is especially true for countries who are in a demographic crisis like Japan. A country that sells more diapers for adults than babies. Perhaps that saying is not quite accurate, but the minutia is irrelevant. The point is that as a population ages, it needs fresh bodies to work. Warnings of overpopulation are especially pointless when we consider historical data. United States real GDP per capita, a metric of your choice, has consistently grown, in spite of a fast growing population.

    Am I saying that population growth is the main source of economic growth? No, but it is an important component. Living conditions in any particular country, have much less to do with how many people it has, and much more to do with how the country is run.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Muh Global GEDEPEE

    When you look at Gdp in 1800 and realize that China altogether had a bigger GDP than all of Western Europe (during the industrial revolution!) you realize how stupid that indicator is. If there's something overused, abused in every possible way, misunderstood by a bunch of ''educated'' non-thinking people is GDP.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    So the only sources you read are those that backup your world view? I don't disagree with you Basil. I think that those that benefit from immigration, capital owners, should pay for the damage done by immigration. But you're not going to get that kind of legislation by supporting MAGA. Nor is selectively picking which immigrants to ban and which ones not to, going to to be problem-free. If it is even achievable.
    Where did I say that? I read Lant Pritchett and Michael Clemens as well, problem is they have zero intellectual integrity. The thing is, thanks to your side, now academics are obligated to discuss immigration not with facts, but as a moralistic issue where only one conclusion is acceptable. Pritchett compares achieving open borders to the abolition of slavery for instance. There's a clear ideological vision behind these people. And everyone knows that data that contraddict the liberal mantra are often buried and censored by the same academics to begin with.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...istake/528678/


    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Neither of those studies say what you think they say, and different cultures eventually homogenize anyway. What, you think all White British are pure Anglo-Saxons? What's the real difference between Finns and Estonians? Between Romanians and Bulgarians? British, Welsh, Scottish, Irish? All the different Germans? How about brown people? Can you tell them apart? Indians? Don't make me laugh. The only thing nationalism has done these last few years, is justify social conflict.
    No, tribal differences results in social conflict. People have been killing themselves over tribal reasons like religion or ethnic group since the beginning of times.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Population is the foundation of economic growth. In fact, until the last couple centuries, it was one of the only sources of economic growth.
    It is one of the sources and the one you should rely the least on. Mocked above.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Asians, especially immigrants in the last 30 years, are predominately educated and wealthy. That tends to correlate with lower crime rates. A much better comparison would be between poor whites, and low-skilled immigrants.
    It's not just education, it's culture, but yes. Indeed nobody ever complains about Asian immigrants. Unless you go to the UK where Asian includes Pakistani and boy you have issues there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Your crime issues aren't going to be solved by building a wall.
    Illegal immigrants have a higher crime rate than legal ones. That crime rate won't be brought down by forcing a mass legalization, which will encourage even more people to enter illegally. The wall is necessary to help keeping illegals out and end the debate with those liberals who have completely lost their mind over the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    And we did go through with this before Basil. Right up to the point where you compared two different data points from completely different data sets. Or are you still going to be defending that utter failure in not just statistics, but common sense?
    No, the dataset is the same dataset that liberals use to (rightfully) claim that overall immigrants have a lower crime rate than US citizens. Those are the same numbers, it also depends on which category you use. Here's the problem: you are overly eager to use the same data for a conclusion you do like, but when the same data tell you a conclusion you do not like, you do this.

    This is also quite telling about the liberal mindset, which completely shuts down in front of data that simply give you an undesired conclusion, something that factually destroys your point of view. Liberalism today is primarily about being unable to accept anything outside the liberal paradigm, regardless of how factually correct that is. Bezmenov was right.
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; July 22, 2019 at 02:03 AM.

  4. #24
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,141

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    thats very misleading. yes, humans havd been moving around, but it was either into previously empty lands, or as an invasion of settled lands. immigration, as in a group moving into an already established society and peacefully integrating.. that was much rarer. usually it wad accompanied by violence and conquest. There was has definitely not been any kind of historic parallel to this modern kind of large scale peaceful immigration.
    This smells of the great replacement conspiracy theory. Firstly, the violent migrants of the ancient times were just that - of the ancient times. There's no organized migration of certain 'types' of people into your lands with the intention to murder you and pillage what they can. What happens is that people are following the principles of supply and demand and flock to where they stand a better chance to make a living. In the case of the US, this is just importation of dirt cheap labor force that's employed in occupations specifically designed for them. This is not just true now, it were true at the turn of the 2oth century, as the seminal work of W.E.B Du Bois shown back in 1897. In this study, you will see that certain occupations were considered so low that were only reserved for certain castes of people, namely the African Americans and the immigrants. Like maids.

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    nativity does play part. If they are "ours" it means it is our responsiblity to keep them in jail, and guard them etc. its not the responsibility of another country. This isnt leniency, as i am in favour of both literal life sentences and capital punishment for certain crimes, even if they are "our" people. ideally one would want to deport them too, but why would any country accept our criminals? they have no moral obligation to. its "our" criminals, we have to deal with them, just as foreign coutries should have to deal with theirs.
    Firstly, do you take into account the fact that the crime was conducted in your country, and we can possibly trace its roots and causes from something within your country and not the mother country of the immigrant? Just a fraction of a percent starts off with the intention of committing crimes as they decide to migrate, the crushing majority just wants to work hard and make money to send back to their families. Therefore, if the crime was done in your country, and shaped in your country isn't also logical that it should be punished in your country?

    In fact, as others have pointed out, you already dole out punishment for the crime and then you deport the foreigners. And given the terrifying state of your prisons, it is the US who's exporting crime and not the other way around. Imagine being a country sending off a normal citizen to get him back a hardened criminal. Yeah. I'd be pissed at you, America.

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    such an assumotion is not necessary in order to justify deporting criminal foreigners. Even if just a single one out of a million immigrants committed a crime, i would still want that sole person deported.
    Well, that's your opinion.

    afaik there is a difference between minor misdemeanors and crime. certain minor infractions ca be overlooked of course. but generally speaking, they are guests and they should be expected to behave well. Commiting crimes without major consequences is not a right.
    Therefore you hold foreigners to different standards than native people, on the justification that the're "guests"? That's called discrimination. And going to jail for the appropriate amount of time is not 'a major consequence' for you?


    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    can spiral into a related topic, which isn't the topic of the thread. but, anyone with a foreign citizenship.
    It's part of the topic of this thread because it will help understand the scope of this discussion. Thank you for answering.

    Glossary:

    discrimination

    /dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
    Leren uitspreken

    noun

    • 1.
      the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.


    PS.: Yay, 2,ooo posts!
    Last edited by Kritias; July 22, 2019 at 02:31 AM.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  5. #25

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Muh Global GEDEPEE

    When you look at Gdp in 1800 and realize that China altogether had a bigger GDP than all of Western Europe (during the industrial revolution!) you realize how stupid that indicator is. If there's something overused, abused in every possible way, misunderstood by a bunch of ''educated'' non-thinking people is GDP.
    Maybe because the Qing dynasty was at its historical peak by the year 1800. The First Opium War didn't occur until 1840, and that was due to the flow of silver, which was threatened when China tried to end the Opium trade.

    GDP is just an indicator, it can be used stupidly, but it does not itself exhibit such traits.

    Where did I say that? I read Lant Pritchett and Michael Clemens as well, problem is they have zero intellectual integrity. The thing is, thanks to your side, now academics are obligated to discuss immigration not with facts, but as a moralistic issue where only one conclusion is acceptable. Pritchett compares achieving open borders to the abolition of slavery for instance. There's a clear ideological vision behind these people. And everyone knows that data that contraddict the liberal mantra are often buried and censored by the same academics to begin with.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...istake/528678/
    Because immigration is a moralistic issue... Just like the slave trade was. Or should we have broken that down to simple economics too? How about abortion? Should that be a pure discussion of economics? What a ridiculous complaint.

    No, tribal differences results in social conflict. People have been killing themselves over tribal reasons like religion or ethnic group since the beginning of times.
    Yeah, except they don't stop killing each other just because they live in different countries. Nor do they kill each other because they live in the same countries. Once we get rid of the Brown people and Black people, when should I expect American Irish and American Italian to start killing each other Basil? Within twenty years or thirty? Or are we suddenly not tribal once we split each other up on the basis of skin color?

    Opposing immigration because "muh social cohesion" is hilarious. As if immigration will be the magic bullet that improves social cohesion, or destroy it. Such simplistic thinking is what made the Soviet Union fail.

    It is one of the sources and the one you should rely the least on. Mocked above.
    Which I already said. Please. Mocked my statement? Do tell me what's so wrong with my statement. I'm waiting.

    Illegal immigrants have a higher crime rate than legal ones. That crime rate won't be brought down by forcing a mass legalization, which will encourage even more people to enter illegally. The wall is necessary to help keeping illegals out and end the debate with those liberals who have completely lost their mind over the issue.
    You're arguing against something nobody said, nor nobody is saying. Mass legalization isn't a solution to crime, it's an elimination of a solution without a problem. Administrative resources should be pushed into helping people assimilate into the country and to look for real criminals instead of illegals looking for work.

    Moreover, the wall won't solve the crime issue. Organized crime won't be deterred by walls, evidence already shows that drugs come through secured check points too, and in large quantities. Nor will criminals be deterred from entering a country simply because a wall is built. Not only do criminal organizations have far more resources than poor people trying to immigrate. But they have much more determination to defeat walls than those who are looking for a better life.

    The wall is a PR stunt and a solution to a different problem, not externalities of immigration.

    No, the dataset is the same dataset that liberals use to (rightfully) claim that overall immigrants have a lower crime rate than US citizens. Those are the same numbers, it also depends on which category you use. Here's the problem: you are overly eager to use the same data for a conclusion you do like, but when the same data tell you a conclusion you do not like, you do this.
    You picked numbers from two different data sets, that used two different populations, two different methodologies, and if memory serves correctly, two different time periods though they did have some areas of overlap. The fact that you continue to defend that disaster is evidence that you use look for evidence to enforce your beliefs, instead of letting evidence inform them.

    This is also quite telling about the liberal mindset, which completely shuts down in front of data that simply give you an undesired conclusion, something that factually destroys your point of view. Liberalism today is primarily about being unable to accept anything outside the liberal paradigm, regardless of how factually correct that is. Bezmenov was right.[/QUOTE]

  6. #26
    Cookiegod's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    1,886

    Icon2 Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Therefore you hold foreigners to different standards than native people, on the justification that the're "guests"? That's called discrimination.
    No it's not discriminatory in principle. Simple example: Let's say you're from Greece and live in Holland (but not since that long). You rape someone in Holland and get sentenced by the court. Most likely they'll not only sentence you the appropriate amount of years in jail, they'll also have you deported afterwards.

    Is deportation to Greece a punishment?
    No, it's not!

    And this is the main problem with this thread, including the poll at the top.

    It depends MUCH LESS on the crime than on other circumstances. Sure, if you've stolen a chocolate bar, deportation would be excessive, and to my knowledge isn't normally done.

    Far more relevant, however, is
    • HOW LONG that person has lived in the country he committed the crime in and how strong his ties are to this country.
      You are much, much less likely to get deported if you've lived here for decades, and/or if you have for example a wife and a kid here who are citizens.
    • HOW STRONG his ties to his country of origin are.
    • whether or not he can reasonably expect danger in his country of origin. Extradition to Libya or Syria: Almost impossible from the EU.
      Extradition to Romania from Denmark: Standard practice, as I recently found out after what a friend of mine had to suffer through.


    Now you can't face this argument without understanding WHY deportation is being done in the first place, and whom it benefits the most.

    It is being done for the good of the country where they live in, because said criminal is a burden on society here.
    He costs a lot of money for his trial and jail sentence, which he has to serve before being sent home.

    Deportation reduces crime here but does not necessarily lead to an increase at his country of origin - he is more likely to have a network there that aids his rehabilitation.

    Most importantly: IT BENEFITS THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES BY FAR THE MOST!
    Because guess who suffers by far the most from them? Those that are constantly exposed to them.

    It's really easy to be a political correct sjw if you haven't experienced that world, or haven't family members who feel threatened by it. Because I do.
    And those criminals not only threaten people around them, they're also a bad influence on the youth they interact with, and can drag them down that line.

    Crime follows the Pareto distribution: The vast majority is being committed by a very small fraction of the population.

    IF the circumstances are correct, and even if the crime is mediocre but with clear ill intent (e.g. repeat theft, violence, etc.), repatriation is the sensible, smart, moral and correct thing to do.

    It makes no sense whatsoever that they should be allowed to stay, ruin the lives of many around them, bring the mostly well functioning immigrant communities into disrepute, when so many other immigrants are being sent home without having committed a crime.

    DEPORTATION IS NOT A PUNISHMENT!
    .







    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    No one cares what Derc has to say.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post

    Because immigration is a moralistic issue... Just like the slave trade was. Or should we have broken that down to simple economics too? How about abortion? Should that be a pure discussion of economics? What a ridiculous complaint.
    Lmao liberalism. So you want to discuss the economic side of immigration without separating it from the alleged moralistic side? And that one is an even bigger fraud that the economic one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post

    Opposing immigration because "muh social cohesion" is hilarious. As if immigration will be the magic bullet that improves social cohesion, or destroy it. Such simplistic thinking is what made the Soviet Union fail.
    And that's already the most retarded thing of the thread, because when social cohesion drops to critical levels, you have civil war like Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Syria.
    So yes, muh social cohesion.

    Do you know which countries used to peak for social cohesion? The Scandinavian ones. Yes, the ones you'd like to copy in terms of social policy. Problem is, as David Goodhart pointed out, you don't get enough support for social policies if your society is not socially cohese and that only happens if it's highly homogenous.
    I can also go with Alesina who pointed out how social cohesion is beneficial for economic growth decades ago, but then again he lost his mind on diversity as well, against his own findings, just as further evidence that ideology trumps facts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post

    You're arguing against something nobody said, nor nobody is saying. Mass legalization isn't a solution to crime, it's an elimination of a solution without a problem. Administrative resources should be pushed into helping people assimilate into the country and to look for real criminals instead of illegals looking for work.

    Moreover, the wall won't solve the crime issue. Organized crime won't be deterred by walls, evidence already shows that drugs come through secured check points too, and in large quantities. Nor will criminals be deterred from entering a country simply because a wall is built. Not only do criminal organizations have far more resources than poor people trying to immigrate. But they have much more determination to defeat walls than those who are looking for a better life.

    The wall is a PR stunt and a solution to a different problem, not externalities of immigration.
    Most board crossers are not organized crime. Organized crime is an issue within the issue. And the idea that mass legalization is never proposed as solution to illegal immigrants is bs. The whole use by liberals of the term ''undocumented'' is a Derrida style deconstruction of the issue to present it in the vision liberals prefer: if the problem is just ''documents'' then the solution is to give them ''documents''. Aka amnesty.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    You picked numbers from two different data sets, that used two different populations, two different methodologies, and if memory serves correctly, two different time periods though they did have some areas of overlap. The fact that you continue to defend that disaster is evidence that you use look for evidence to enforce your beliefs, instead of letting evidence inform them.
    Ahahahaha holy ing liberalism: ''data are good only when they support my desired conclusion''.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Firstly, the violent migrants of the ancient times were just that - of the ancient times. There's no organized migration of certain 'types' of people into your lands with the intention to murder you and pillage what they can.
    yes.. I said that. read what i write..

    What happens is that people are following the principles of supply and demand and flock to where they stand a better chance to make a living.
    and I don't blame. But it makes them better off, it doesn't make the natives better off, as there's usually a net wealth transfer involved. So consequently, you can't blame the natives for wanting to keep them out. But that's off topic.

    Firstly, do you take into account the fact that the crime was conducted in your country, and we can possibly trace its roots and causes from something within your country and not the mother country of the immigrant?
    Can you give me an example of a cause originating in my country, that would cause an otherwise decent immigrant to rape and murder, and therefore he is not to blame for his actions and should not be deported? Because remember we are not speaking of just minor crimes here..

    In fact, as others have pointed out, you already dole out punishment for the crime and then you deport the foreigners.
    yes, deportation wouldn't be instead of the punishment of course. It has less todo with what the criminal deserves, and more about protecting society from him. If someone is a guest, and does bad things, then clearly we don't have any reason to trust him among us any longer. and since he is a guest, he has somewhere else to go.

    Well, that's your opinion.
    no, you made an illogical conclusion. One does not need to assume foreigners are more ciminal in order to want to deport foreign criminals.

    Therefore you hold foreigners to different standards than native people, on the justification that the're "guests"? That's called discrimination.
    yeah no duh I hold them to different standards and discriminate. Thats the point of citizenship. non-citizens DO have less rights. it's supposed to be that way.

  9. #29
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,897

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    In the UK, under the Immigration Act 1971 sections 3(5) and 3(6), the UK Secretary of State has the power to make an order of deportation against a foreign criminal.
    In France, any undocumented foreigner who commits a crime will be deported.
    Spain deported 54,963 immigrants between 2013 and 2017
    North American countries, US and Canada, have a policy of deporting criminals who are non-nationals when they have served their prison sentence.
    In Germany, such deportations are currently banned, but Syrian refugees who commit crimes or support terror organizations should be deported back to Syria, according to the Interior Minister.
    The European Court of Justice has ruled that countries cannot deport people who would be in serious danger in their countries of origin, even if they commit crimes. However, they could lose their refugee status.
    I agree with the ECJ's decision.
    ---
    What worries me most: according to the Interpol there are thousands of international gangs operating in the EU, and 70% of these operate in multiple countries with members from across the world.Among the gangs detected in my peaceful country, there are criminals from 60 countries, that they have "international criminal cooperation, mobility and range" (sic)
    Even worse, Europol: Organized crime goes ′high-tech′ | News | DW | 09.03.2017

    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
    Harry Truman Oct. 10th, 1952

  10. #30
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,782

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Unfortunate states like Iraq and Syria have truly suffered from foreigners, coming from a variety of places, including Europe, who enter the country illegally and immediately commit the most villainous crimes. There are many cases of men and women (like Linda Wenzel or "Jennifer W."), who are determined to impose their silly beliefs on the locals and enforce them through torture, murder and slavery. Considering the limited financial means of relatively impoverished Baghdad or Damascus, I believe they have the right to deport these criminal individuals back to where they came from uninvited. Imprisoning them for life may seem convenient for France or Germany, but forcing disintegrated Iraq and Syria to take care of unrepented terrorists can morally be rather controversial, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Yes but also immigration advocates should be legally responsible for the crimes committed by migrants.
    Collective punishment has been forbidden, ever since its main advocates, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, were vanquished. Don't get me wrong, imprisoning all these Salafist and right-wing extremists for their bigoted ideology and the crimes committed by a number of their activists would certainly generate some very interesting reactions. However, violating the 4th Genava Convention is neither ethically justifiable nor legally possible.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; July 22, 2019 at 08:09 AM. Reason: Cannot into English.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Unfortunate states like Iraq and Syria have truly suffered from foreigners, coming from a variety of places, including Europe, who enter the country illegally and immediately commit the most villainous crimes. There are many cases of men and women (like Linda Wenzel or "Jennifer W."), who are determined to impose their silly beliefs on the locals and enforce them through torturing, murder and slavery. Considering the limited financial means of relatively impoverished Baghdad or Damascus, I believe they have the right to deport these criminal individuals back to where they came from uninvited. Imprisoning them for life may seem convenient for France or Germany, but forcing disintegrated Iraq and Syria to take care of unrepented terrorists can morally be rather controversia.
    I actually have more faith in the iraqi and syrian justice system to deliver justice to such foreign terrorists, namely capital punishment. It would be a real travesty if they were sent back to the west, and either given a smaller punishment, or allowed to walk free, as in sweden.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Collective punishment has been forbidden, ever since its main advocates, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, were vanquished. Don't get me wrong, imprisoning all these Salafist and right-wing extremists for their bigoted ideology and the crimes committed by a number of their activists would certainly generate some very interesting reactions. However, violating the 4th Genava Convention is neither ethically justifiable nor legally possible.
    I love how you conventiently left out the Commies.

    Hypocrisy aside, it's not collective because ''immigration advocates'' is not a race, nor a religious group, nor anything else. It requires a single individual promoting publicly determinate ideas. Liberals are fond of saying ''freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences''. I agree.

  13. #33
    Commissar Caligula_'s Avatar The Ecstasy of Potatoes
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    The alcoves in the Koningin Astridpark
    Posts
    5,718

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    I love how you conventiently left out the Commies.

    Hypocrisy aside, it's not collective because ''immigration advocates'' is not a race, nor a religious group, nor anything else. It requires a single individual promoting publicly determinate ideas. Liberals are fond of saying ''freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences''. I agree.
    Ya do realise collective punishment isn't about race, religious groups or anything else? Its merely about punishing 10 people for the actions of 1 person, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    No it's not discriminatory in principle. Simple example: Let's say you're from Greece and live in Holland (but not since that long). You rape someone in Holland and get sentenced by the court. Most likely they'll not only sentence you the appropriate amount of years in jail, they'll also have you deported afterwards.

    Is deportation to Greece a punishment?
    No, it's not!

    And this is the main problem with this thread, including the poll at the top.

    It depends MUCH LESS on the crime than on other circumstances. Sure, if you've stolen a chocolate bar, deportation would be excessive, and to my knowledge isn't normally done.

    Far more relevant, however, is
    • HOW LONG that person has lived in the country he committed the crime in and how strong his ties are to this country.
      You are much, much less likely to get deported if you've lived here for decades, and/or if you have for example a wife and a kid here who are citizens.
    • HOW STRONG his ties to his country of origin are.
    • whether or not he can reasonably expect danger in his country of origin. Extradition to Libya or Syria: Almost impossible from the EU.
      Extradition to Romania from Denmark: Standard practice, as I recently found out after what a friend of mine had to suffer through.


    Now you can't face this argument without understanding WHY deportation is being done in the first place, and whom it benefits the most.

    It is being done for the good of the country where they live in, because said criminal is a burden on society here.
    He costs a lot of money for his trial and jail sentence, which he has to serve before being sent home.

    Deportation reduces crime here but does not necessarily lead to an increase at his country of origin - he is more likely to have a network there that aids his rehabilitation.

    Most importantly: IT BENEFITS THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES BY FAR THE MOST!
    Because guess who suffers by far the most from them? Those that are constantly exposed to them.

    It's really easy to be a political correct sjw if you haven't experienced that world, or haven't family members who feel threatened by it. Because I do.
    And those criminals not only threaten people around them, they're also a bad influence on the youth they interact with, and can drag them down that line.

    Crime follows the Pareto distribution: The vast majority is being committed by a very small fraction of the population.

    IF the circumstances are correct, and even if the crime is mediocre but with clear ill intent (e.g. repeat theft, violence, etc.), repatriation is the sensible, smart, moral and correct thing to do.

    It makes no sense whatsoever that they should be allowed to stay, ruin the lives of many around them, bring the mostly well functioning immigrant communities into disrepute, when so many other immigrants are being sent home without having committed a crime.

    DEPORTATION IS NOT A PUNISHMENT!
    I don't agree with all of that, but its well argued which is a nice change from the usual political discussion on this site.
    Last edited by Commissar Caligula_; July 22, 2019 at 08:24 AM.




  14. #34

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar Caligula_ View Post
    Ya do realise collective punishment isn't about race, religious groups or anything else? Its merely about punishing 10 people for the actions of 1 person, for example.
    Liberal immigration advocacy is what results in the action of that person. Cause and effect. I'm not punishing people who did nothing.

  15. #35
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,141

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    No it's not discriminatory in principle. Simple example: Let's say you're from Greece and live in Holland (but not since that long). You rape someone in Holland and get sentenced by the court. Most likely they'll not only sentence you the appropriate amount of years in jail, they'll also have you deported afterwards.

    Is deportation to Greece a punishment?
    No, it's not!

    And this is the main problem with this thread, including the poll at the top.

    It depends MUCH LESS on the crime than on other circumstances. Sure, if you've stolen a chocolate bar, deportation would be excessive, and to my knowledge isn't normally done.

    Far more relevant, however, is
    • HOW LONG that person has lived in the country he committed the crime in and how strong his ties are to this country.
      You are much, much less likely to get deported if you've lived here for decades, and/or if you have for example a wife and a kid here who are citizens.
    • HOW STRONG his ties to his country of origin are.
    • whether or not he can reasonably expect danger in his country of origin. Extradition to Libya or Syria: Almost impossible from the EU.
      Extradition to Romania from Denmark: Standard practice, as I recently found out after what a friend of mine had to suffer through.


    Now you can't face this argument without understanding WHY deportation is being done in the first place, and whom it benefits the most.

    It is being done for the good of the country where they live in, because said criminal is a burden on society here.
    He costs a lot of money for his trial and jail sentence, which he has to serve before being sent home.

    Deportation reduces crime here but does not necessarily lead to an increase at his country of origin - he is more likely to have a network there that aids his rehabilitation.

    Most importantly: IT BENEFITS THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES BY FAR THE MOST!
    Because guess who suffers by far the most from them? Those that are constantly exposed to them.

    It's really easy to be a political correct sjw if you haven't experienced that world, or haven't family members who feel threatened by it. Because I do.
    And those criminals not only threaten people around them, they're also a bad influence on the youth they interact with, and can drag them down that line.

    Crime follows the Pareto distribution: The vast majority is being committed by a very small fraction of the population.

    IF the circumstances are correct, and even if the crime is mediocre but with clear ill intent (e.g. repeat theft, violence, etc.), repatriation is the sensible, smart, moral and correct thing to do.

    It makes no sense whatsoever that they should be allowed to stay, ruin the lives of many around them, bring the mostly well functioning immigrant communities into disrepute, when so many other immigrants are being sent home without having committed a crime.

    DEPORTATION IS NOT A PUNISHMENT!
    A few comments on your reply.

    1. Immigrants have a reason for leaving their previous country, may that be unemployment, political instability, religious/political persecution etc. In addition to these reasons, no one leaves their country out of their own volition; either the economy was destroyed or unemployment has soared, a war erupted, or a civil war is going on. It's always the last step in a long process of trying and failing to survive in their home country. You can read the Polish Peasant, a sociological study about Polish immigrants to Western Europe and the US for a deeper understanding on why repatriation is a punishment.

    2. The money it costs to trial, jail and guard the few comparatively immigrants who do get to commit crimes [check Cato Institute link on my first post here] is clearly been offset by the benefits a next-to-nothing workforce brings into the economy.

    3. Clearly, you don't know how immigration works. Immigrants do not pick themselves and go to a country they know no one and nothing about. This is a common misconception. Immigrants go to places other co-nationals have successfully gone in the past and are first incorporated in the co-national network already established. The various Greektowns, Chinatowns, Koreatowns etc are a perfect example of this process. In the case a family relative does not exist in the town the immigrant first arrives, a friend of the family or a patron of that family makes sure to set up the immigrant with a temporary job [basically to repay the money they borrowed from someone back in the old country for the trip]. So, their rehabilitation (if that's even an objective for deportation) can be accomplished in the existing networks the immigrant has in the country he immigrated to.

    4. The immigrants themselves would be even better assisted by allocating some funds for their protection by better policing their streets and better incorporating into the new country. The mostly well functioning immigrant communities, as you admitted yourself, are not therefore fore-mostly blighted by disrepute because of the comparatively minimal crime that happens, but because demagogues denounce them as the problem for literally everything under the sun.

    5. You assume that I have no experience of immigrants as you accuse me of sjwing. Let me inform you that I am and I still live in Greece. In a once middle class neighborhood during the 60s that turned into an immigrant dumping ground during the 80s - 90s and still is today. I know very well how it feels to be living right next to immigrants. It has also eliminated much of my bias and prejudice, too.

    Moving on.

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    yes.. I said that. read what i write..


    and I don't blame. But it makes them better off, it doesn't make the natives better off, as there's usually a net wealth transfer involved. So consequently, you can't blame the natives for wanting to keep them out. But that's off topic.


    Can you give me an example of a cause originating in my country, that would cause an otherwise decent immigrant to rape and murder, and therefore he is not to blame for his actions and should not be deported? Because remember we are not speaking of just minor crimes here..


    yes, deportation wouldn't be instead of the punishment of course. It has less todo with what the criminal deserves, and more about protecting society from him. If someone is a guest, and does bad things, then clearly we don't have any reason to trust him among us any longer. and since he is a guest, he has somewhere else to go.


    no, you made an illogical conclusion. One does not need to assume foreigners are more ciminal in order to want to deport foreign criminals.


    yeah no duh I hold them to different standards and discriminate. Thats the point of citizenship. non-citizens DO have less rights. it's supposed to be that way.

    Clearly, some of the natives profit very much from immigration and that's the reason it keeps on going. Whether it's house owners who overcharge immigrants, or companies/individuals who employ them in less than the minimum wage, or families that gain status from having their foreign maid, gardeners, dog walker etc the reason why immigration is a thing is because it helps the economic system moving forwards and most of the middle class and up employ them.

    I never said immigrants who commit crime are not to blame. I said that every criminal has undergone a process where they turn from normalcy to criminality, and that process according to most sociological studies has begun after they arrive in the host country. If this process is the outcome of their integration in the new society, then it's also the new society's duty to iron them out. Otherwise it morally irredeemable to use migrants for the lowest pay, lowest status work in narrowly better conditions to modern trafficking and, when they break, to toss them back to their old countries.

    Again, the 'guest' argument is very dubious. From a moral standpoint guests usually are treated way better than what we've seen immigrants go through. In every culture the guest has a status of honor, no? You wouldn't put your guest to landscape your garden or clean your house for less than minimal pay and no social security. You'd do that to your quasi-slave though...

    On the comment of citizenship, I always believed that the distinction between citizens and non-citizens were the presence of civic rights, ie the ability to vote, assembly and run for public office. Non-citizens in that way have all the obligations of a citizen [except being obliged to defend the country during war] and none of the benefits. But apparently, the non-citizens should also be treated differently under the law. Besides the teasing now, non-citizens are not supposed to be treated differently; this hasn't been the case for a very long time, and has been reaffirmed consistently, such as when the committee for the universal human rights decided so. I know it happens in practice but then the authorities need to find some legal reasoning for that to be barely acceptable.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  16. #36
    Cookiegod's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    1,886

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commissar Caligula_ View Post
    I don't agree with all of that, but its well argued which is a nice change from the usual political discussion on this site.
    Thanks for the compliment. That's probably why most people ignore it.

    Jokes aside, convincing others/having my counterpart agree with me is never my goal. I'm either doing it as a sport or to gain perspective myself.
    So I am interested in hearing what you don't agree with. Maybe an agreement can be found or some insight be gained.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    A few comments on your reply.

    1. Immigrants have a reason for leaving their previous country, may that be unemployment, political instability, religious/political persecution etc. In addition to these reasons, no one leaves their country out of their own volition; either the economy was destroyed or unemployment has soared, a war erupted, or a civil war is going on. It's always the last step in a long process of trying and failing to survive in their home country. You can read the Polish Peasant, a sociological study about Polish immigrants to Western Europe and the US for a deeper understanding on why repatriation is a punishment.

    2. The money it costs to trial, jail and guard the few comparatively immigrants who do get to commit crimes [check Cato Institute link on my first post here] is clearly been offset by the benefits a next-to-nothing workforce brings into the economy.

    3. Clearly, you don't know how immigration works. Immigrants do not pick themselves and go to a country they know no one and nothing about. This is a common misconception. Immigrants go to places other co-nationals have successfully gone in the past and are first incorporated in the co-national network already established. The various Greektowns, Chinatowns, Koreatowns etc are a perfect example of this process. In the case a family relative does not exist in the town the immigrant first arrives, a friend of the family or a patron of that family makes sure to set up the immigrant with a temporary job [basically to repay the money they borrowed from someone back in the old country for the trip]. So, their rehabilitation (if that's even an objective for deportation) can be accomplished in the existing networks the immigrant has in the country he immigrated to.

    4. The immigrants themselves would be even better assisted by allocating some funds for their protection by better policing their streets and better incorporating into the new country. The mostly well functioning immigrant communities, as you admitted yourself, are not therefore fore-mostly blighted by disrepute because of the comparatively minimal crime that happens, but because demagogues denounce them as the problem for literally everything under the sun.

    5. You assume that I have no experience of immigrants as you accuse me of sjwing. Let me inform you that I am and I still live in Greece. In a once middle class neighborhood during the 60s that turned into an immigrant dumping ground during the 80s - 90s and still is today. I know very well how it feels to be living right next to immigrants. It has also eliminated much of my bias and prejudice, too.
    Well congratulations. A non-immigrant telling an immigrant he doesn't know how immigration works.

    I did leave my country out of my own volition. My parents left their countries (yes, plural) of their own volition as well. As did many in my family, which is spread out over several continents and half a dozen of countries. So yeah. Apparently we don't exist.

    Then you talk about civil wars. Well congratulations again: I already talked about that. It's close to impossible to deport people to countries such as Libya or Syria. Nor am I advocating for it.
    So that goes exactly nowhere.

    Then you mention unemployment and faltering economies. You think countries allow anyone in? That they act out of humanitarian concern? Nope. The government does everything in its power to not let the low class, almost illiterate dude stay. Oh, you have a masters in engineering? Well come right in, because you're going to make us some money!

    So I'm happy for you that you like it in Greece with your new neighbours. Ever think about why your economy sucks while up in the north we're doing so well? Well while you get to hang out in your "once middle class neighbourhood turned immigrant dumping ground", I get to hang out with Greek masters of engineering. That's called brain drain. But this thread isn't about immigration, per se, which again, I'm not against. A big part of my social circle is nonnative as well. I do have a problem with the sugar coating and the imbalance that ruins their country of origin, but that's besides the point. This thread isn't about immigration per se, it's about deportation.

    Most of your argument then builds on the presumption US (natives) vs THEM (immigrants). You don't see the problem with that? Doesn't that seem a bit right-wing to you, if you think about it?
    You think "Greektown/Chinatown/Koreatown" is one big happy happy family with a united front? You think the criminals living there get up at 7AM, travel to a different neighborhood and "work" there? No, the overwhelming majority of victims have criminals of the same demographic.

    You think the average immigrants works hard to pay taxes so some lowlife can go to jail and afterwards go right back to make his life worse?
    You think he's happy about the gangs threatening his kids, not the kids of some upper class white family, no, his kids worse? Or just as bad, them influencing his kid a bad way and send them on a downwards spiral that has them end up in jail as well? The hell they do.

    Again: Some cousins of mine live in a Malmö ghetto. I didn't believe the no-go-zone myth (and it's still not as bad as redneck Americans claim) until THEY told me.
    Some gang wants to assert dominance in a sector? They'll shoot the biggest dude they can find there. Doesn't matter if he's part of a gang or not. But he is not going to be native, because that's not where this happens. It happens right where they live. And they drag their communities down with them.

    The moment my cousins are done with school, they'll be out of that ghetto as well. They are not going to come back. They, as luck has it, also plan to emigrate. VOLUNTARILY.
    They don't plan on committing crimes and they sure as hell also don't want to be thrown in one box with thugs.

    So stop pretending like immigrants are some sort of Illuminati doing a big conspiracy that stick together no matter what. They/we are not. No one wants the thugs more gone than their communities.

    And there definitely are some problematic deportation practices. The deportation of immigrant criminals isn't on that list. Or if it is, it's going to be very far down. At least for me.

    I reserve my condemnation for such cases as when a school class suddenly finds out it lacks a girl because she, alongside her entire family and after living there for years, got raided by the police at 5AM and deported without even a chance to say goodbye.

    And yes, that does happen.
    .







    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    No one cares what Derc has to say.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Clearly, some of the natives profit very much from immigration and that's the reason it keeps on going. Whether it's house owners who overcharge immigrants, or companies/individuals who employ them in less than the minimum wage, or families that gain status from having their foreign maid, gardeners, dog walker etc the reason why immigration is a thing is because it helps the economic system moving forwards and most of the middle class and up employ them.
    needless to say I have much to say about this topic, but not in this thread. You can revive this thead
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...our-time/page4
    or join the discussion here
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...Thread/page194

    I never said immigrants who commit crime are not to blame. I said that every criminal has undergone a process where they turn from normalcy to criminality, and that process according to most sociological studies has begun after they arrive in the host country. If this process is the outcome of their integration in the new society, then it's also the new society's duty to iron them out. Otherwise it morally irredeemable to use migrants for the lowest pay, lowest status work in narrowly better conditions to modern trafficking and, when they break, to toss them back to their old countries.
    they way I see it, it is not we that "bring" immigrants here, but immigrants that come here voluntarily. We don't "use" them for the lowest pay, they choose to come here, knowing what the conditions are, including that they go back if they break the law.

    Again, the 'guest' argument is very dubious. From a moral standpoint guests usually are treated way better than what we've seen immigrants go through. In every culture the guest has a status of honor, no? You wouldn't put your guest to landscape your garden or clean your house for less than minimal pay and no social security. You'd do that to your quasi-slave though...
    again, they come by choice, we don't "put" them anywhere.

    On the comment of citizenship, I always believed that the distinction between citizens and non-citizens were the presence of civic rights, ie the ability to vote, assembly and run for public office. Non-citizens in that way have all the obligations of a citizen [except being obliged to defend the country during war] and none of the benefits. But apparently, the non-citizens should also be treated differently under the law. Besides the teasing now, non-citizens are not supposed to be treated differently; this hasn't been the case for a very long time, and has been reaffirmed consistently, such as when the committee for the universal human rights decided so. I know it happens in practice but then the authorities need to find some legal reasoning for that to be barely acceptable.
    By what, other than the law, are citizens and non-citizens supposed to be treated differently?... Being a citizen means you are treated differently.. importantly, if you are not a citizen the state has less responsibiliy for you, so it can ship you off if you are a problem.

  18. #38
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,141

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Well congratulations. A non-immigrant telling an immigrant he doesn't know how immigration works.

    I did leave my country out of my own volition. My parents left their countries (yes, plural) of their own volition as well. As did many in my family, which is spread out over several continents and half a dozen of countries. So yeah. Apparently we don't exist.

    Then you talk about civil wars. Well congratulations again: I already talked about that. It's close to impossible to deport people to countries such as Libya or Syria. Nor am I advocating for it.
    So that goes exactly nowhere.

    Then you mention unemployment and faltering economies. You think countries allow anyone in? That they act out of humanitarian concern? Nope. The government does everything in its power to not let the low class, almost illiterate dude stay. Oh, you have a masters in engineering? Well come right in, because you're going to make us some money!

    So I'm happy for you that you like it in Greece with your new neighbours. Ever think about why your economy sucks while up in the north we're doing so well? Well while you get to hang out in your "once middle class neighbourhood turned immigrant dumping ground", I get to hang out with Greek masters of engineering. That's called brain drain. But this thread isn't about immigration, per se, which again, I'm not against. A big part of my social circle is nonnative as well. I do have a problem with the sugar coating and the imbalance that ruins their country of origin, but that's besides the point. This thread isn't about immigration per se, it's about deportation.

    Most of your argument then builds on the presumption US (natives) vs THEM (immigrants). You don't see the problem with that? Doesn't that seem a bit right-wing to you, if you think about it?
    You think "Greektown/Chinatown/Koreatown" is one big happy happy family with a united front? You think the criminals living there get up at 7AM, travel to a different neighborhood and "work" there? No, the overwhelming majority of victims have criminals of the same demographic.

    You think the average immigrants works hard to pay taxes so some lowlife can go to jail and afterwards go right back to make his life worse?
    You think he's happy about the gangs threatening his kids, not the kids of some upper class white family, no, his kids worse? Or just as bad, them influencing his kid a bad way and send them on a downwards spiral that has them end up in jail as well? The hell they do.

    Again: Some cousins of mine live in a Malmö ghetto. I didn't believe the no-go-zone myth (and it's still not as bad as redneck Americans claim) until THEY told me.
    Some gang wants to assert dominance in a sector? They'll shoot the biggest dude they can find there. Doesn't matter if he's part of a gang or not. But he is not going to be native, because that's not where this happens. It happens right where they live. And they drag their communities down with them.

    The moment my cousins are done with school, they'll be out of that ghetto as well. They are not going to come back. They, as luck has it, also plan to emigrate. VOLUNTARILY.
    They don't plan on committing crimes and they sure as hell also don't want to be thrown in one box with thugs.

    So stop pretending like immigrants are some sort of Illuminati doing a big conspiracy that stick together no matter what. They/we are not. No one wants the thugs more gone than their communities.

    And there definitely are some problematic deportation practices. The deportation of immigrant criminals isn't on that list. Or if it is, it's going to be very far down. At least for me.

    I reserve my condemnation for such cases as when a school class suddenly finds out it lacks a girl because she, alongside her entire family and after living there for years, got raided by the police at 5AM and deported without even a chance to say goodbye.

    And yes, that does happen.
    What I never asserted: That immigrants who commit crime do not predominately target other immigrants. That immigrant towns are happy towns where immigrants hold hands and break into song as if they were in a disney movie.

    What I asserted: That immigrants commit crime to a fraction of the crimes committed by natives. That immigrant towns are the first stop of new arrivals who, using the pre-established networks, begin to integrate and search for their first temporary job to pay off the debt of coming to the host country.

    You really like jumping to conclusions, don't you? This is the second time and I will expect an apology this time. Even though I am not a migrant myself [as of yet, you never know] my family on both sides have immigrant backgrounds. From Istanbul where they were deported from in 1953 for ethnic reasons, and from Ismir where due to the Lausane treaty they were 'exchanged' from. Members of my family have lived as gastarbeiders. So I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what immigration and deportation is. You can un-facepalm yourself now.

    Immigration works through push and pull factors existing between the host and the origin country. Every study ever done on immigration asserts this. The 'push' factors could be as immediate as war, economic catastrophe etc and indirect such as lack of opportunity, low wages etc. So, despite your claim of voluntarily deciding to leave your country, its more probable you were sufficiently pushed by your origin country to make that decision. No one just decides to leave like that. The emotional bonds with the home country are strong and to break them requires a long process. The international literature on migration has pointed towards this process.

    Talking about immigration, you make a mistake into working the Greek friends you have into the conversation. For anyone who doesn't know how the EU works, ever since the Schengen treaty the EU nationals are free to work, travel and live in other EU countries. In addition, while deportation is possible the process is so painstakingly bureaucratic and time consuming that the story of the little girl ousted in a night raid shows the ridiculousness and the double standards of deportation practices and whom you mean to be foreigners.

    You talking about Greek economy and the brain drain and how you're doing so much better because of reasons is an obvious attempt at derailing the conversation. Since I am lazy and I have no will to break your prejudice on this subject, I will point you towards the documentary Debtocracy to do it for me.

    Having said the above, you assert that deportation assists the immigrant communities from having criminals living amongst them. While I understand the logic behind the argument, I think that getting to serve the sentence should not be compounded by deportation due to the fact that criminals are hardened and more connected with crime in prison, only to be unleashed in the origin country that they decided to leave from. Here's a report pointing towards deportation acting as an export of criminality to the origin countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    needless to say I have much to say about this topic, but not in this thread. You can revive this thead
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...our-time/page4
    or join the discussion here
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...Thread/page194


    they way I see it, it is not we that "bring" immigrants here, but immigrants that come here voluntarily. We don't "use" them for the lowest pay, they choose to come here, knowing what the conditions are, including that they go back if they break the law.


    again, they come by choice, we don't "put" them anywhere.


    By what, other than the law, are citizens and non-citizens supposed to be treated differently?... Being a citizen means you are treated differently.. importantly, if you are not a citizen the state has less responsibility for you, so it can ship you off if you are a problem.
    Studies on migration have shown a cyclical model of importing a reserve workforce, the immigrants, to the host countries to assume tasks too odious for the natives and estabish new status classifications through the employment of immigrants in personal services. Reading up a little on migration will leave you with no doubt of this process. I suggest starting with sociologists Huw Beynon or Richard Brown. Also, I think I provided a link to the Human Rights Watch in my previous post. Have you read it, or I do the research for nothing?

    While you personally don't "put" the immigrants anywhere, countries are moving people around to accomplish their needs for very low skill, very low pay work needs.

    As I already pointed out above, it is unethical to put criminals to jail, harden them up, connect them with an international network of criminals they meet or associate during their time in prison and then ship them off to their country of origin. The case of El Salvador, in the link from the Doctors without Borders should be sufficient proof of this argument.

    Again, due to human rights treaties you cannot 'legally' treat someone less than anyone else, citizenship or not. That's discrimination and it incurs a hell of a fine if proven to be the case. Your citizenship gives you the extra right to be able to vote and to be voted on for public office, in some countries' cases enroll in the army and civil service. I don't argue that discrimination doesn't happen in practice, but its not the outcome of any legal stature; it is the outcome of prejudice, bigotry and legal loopholes that allow for such practices to continue.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

  19. #39

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kritias View Post
    Again, due to human rights treaties you cannot 'legally' treat someone less than anyone else, citizenship or not. That's discrimination and it incurs a hell of a fine if proven to be the case. Your citizenship gives you the extra right to be able to vote and to be voted on for public office, in some countries' cases enroll in the army and civil service. I don't argue that discrimination doesn't happen in practice, but its not the outcome of any legal stature; it is the outcome of prejudice, bigotry and legal loopholes that allow for such practices to continue.
    Can you provide any "human rights treaties" that say deporting criminal aliens is "discrimination", and provide for a "hell of a fine"?

  20. #40
    Kritias's Avatar Petite bourgeois
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,141

    Default Re: Should criminal foreigners be deported?

    Quote Originally Posted by Infidel144 View Post
    Can you provide any "human rights treaties" that say deporting criminal aliens is "discrimination", and provide for a "hell of a fine"?
    That was sly. The quote you base your question on discusses the discrimination of citizens and non-citizens under the law. I never asserted that deportation of unauthorized immigrants who committed crimes is discriminatory. Only that it is unethical because you dump hardened criminals from your jails back to their respective countries.
    Last edited by Kritias; July 23, 2019 at 06:13 AM.
    Under the valued patronage of Abdülmecid I

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •