What's wrong with this story?

Rochdale sex grooming gang citizenship appeal fails

The above article refers to the case of a group of Pakistani men, living in Rochdale in northern England, who were convicted and imprisoned 5 years ago for grooming little white girls - some as young as 13 - for sex. And their attempt to avoid being deported to Pakistan.

It's the "deported" thing that I don't really understand.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should NOT be deported; frankly, like many of my fellow countrymen, I'm scratching my head as to what the heck they're doing here in the first place. There doesn't seem to be any sensible reason for it and the people's democratic wishes on the subject of mass immigration have never been solicited. Yes, deport away for heaven's sake, but don't stop there - deport them all unless they're doctors or chemical engineers. But I digress.

The fact is that, once a person has successfully immigrated from wherever, how can you then say - if they commit a heinous offence - that they should be deported?

Isn't that the same as saying, "They're not really British, everyone knows that. They'll have to behave or else they go back."?

Strange double standards from the foreigner-loving PTB.

a reply to: CJCrawley

The fact is that, once a person has successfully immigrated from wherever, how can you then say - if they commit a heinous offence - that they should be deported?

What I read there is a conflict of interest of what is immigration. In this case it seems that immigration is being deemed as 'successful' once immigrants reach their destination. The case being made for deportation most likely indicate that merely arriving somewhere does not complete the tasks of immigrating. So, until the actual determination of what is a successful immigration/integration into a said region you will always have this debate linger with no facilitation of remedy.

My personal belief is that... if your house burns down, and I then welcome you into my home to get settled, and you do not conform to the environment provided, or you provide what I feel to be a negative act or act or ill will towards the environment provided as a courtesy... then who provides the environment has every right to ask those who mesh into the environment to part ways or share company longer.

I understand this not not equate to countries, but it provides a general sense of why people get disturbed by unwelcome change in their environments. I often travel to cultures and areas outside my dwelling comforts... and every single time, I feel honored to practice the customs and traditions of the environment I am welcomed into. Not only does it show compassion for allowing me to share space and time, the effort to be aware and at least attempt customs local to the invitees is most certainly seen as appreciation by those who invite me. Any showing that I denounce or refuse their customs, and naturally I'd expect for my departure to be wished upon.

Opposites do not attract when it comes to where one lays their head at night.

a reply to: CJCrawley

When did you guys give up this?

this is part of the Elite's plan for the century.

Breed Schism everywhere, have everything implode, cash in.

Repeat.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
Rochdale sex grooming gang citizenship appeal fails

The above article refers to the case of a group of Pakistani men, living in Rochdale in northern England, who were convicted and imprisoned 5 years ago for grooming little white girls - some as young as 13 - for sex. And their attempt to avoid being deported to Pakistan.

It's the "deported" thing that I don't really understand.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should NOT be deported; frankly, like many of my fellow countrymen, I'm scratching my head as to what the heck they're doing here in the first place. There doesn't seem to be any sensible reason for it and the people's democratic wishes on the subject of mass immigration have never been solicited. Yes, deport away for heaven's sake, but don't stop there - deport them all unless they're doctors or chemical engineers. But I digress.

The fact is that, once a person has successfully immigrated from wherever, how can you then say - if they commit a heinous offence - that they should be deported?

Isn't that the same as saying, "They're not really British, everyone knows that. They'll have to behave or else they go back."?
Strange double standards from the foreigner-loving PTB.

They are serving a British sentence handed down by a British court, I see no reason to deport them at all, that's probably want they want, and the only interference there is likely to be from Pakistan itself, asking them to be able to finish their sentences in Pakistan, and I dare say that's not likely to happen.
The rest is a rant against God knows what, like it or not, Pakistan immigrants have been here a long time, many as long as Pakistan has existed and nothing to do with the EU migrant policy per se for instance. Pakistan was part of India, and my guess a British protectorate at some time. These guys are just low-life thugs, and deserve to be where they are, regardless of who or what they are, and any elevated status doesn't/shouldn't come into it either.

a reply to: ttobban

if your house burns down, and I then welcome you into my home to get settled, and you do not conform to the environment provided, or you provide what I feel to be a negative act or act or ill will towards the environment provided as a courtesy... then who provides the environment has every right to ask those who mesh into the environment to part ways or share company longer.

What about the people already living in your house? Don't the same expectations and forfeits apply?

Apparently not because home-grown criminals aren't deported.

Hence the double standards.

a reply to: CJCrawley

Defining things are being stretched too far to be able to funnel down an accurate remedy... just like I stated in my last post.

Now you are stretching the variables to relate to the people that are already living into my house, as somehow they are to be defining or even considered to be in the same realm as what I define as an immigrant.

So can you see how the double standard is being created out of thin air here? You are trying to find a singular remedy for multiple subjects, so of course there will come a double standard... if the are standards to set for at least 2 differently defined subjects. It's a needle in a hay stack you seem to be on the look for.

How I would relate to crimes committed by those that live in my house currently are certain to be different then how I relate a newcomer to my environment. A certain comfort level has already been determined and established by those that occupy my environment. To apply credit to what you are saying, would be to consider all that occupy my environment as a neutral companion once a new energy begins to occupy the environment. No way in hell would I disrespect those that share my space by allowing negativity to disrupt the already established comfort levels.

If someone I live with (in my dwelling and property) is involved with a crime... as an aggressor or a victim, then my actions stem from a place of 'love'. Once I leave my nest, I will not involve myself in the crimes of others... until it involves me or loved ones... then I will move in to eliminate the negativity. I may say... what a shame, or I wish they deported those people... but, the justice system in place to represent the citizens then takes jurisdiction to the crimes that were committed. Outside of our nests, all we can do is put our companions we live with in the safest area we feel possible and vote for the politicians that best represent my immigration policy opinions.

See... there is another variable added. What I want for my environment I live in, and what I wish for my government to do. Does that now make my opinons a triple standard?

Please, I have ADHD... please try to limit persecuting values to one subject at a time!

all unemployed non citizens should be deported, we have enough unemployed citizens, we don`t need to importing more unemployed people. they can be unemployed in their own countries just as well as they can be unemployed here.

a reply to: CJCrawley

Here's what I find wrong with the story.

These guys are in prison, and they are fighting deportation? Are they getting near the end of their sentence and want to stay in England after they get out? If so, they only got five years for trafficking children?

Finally, doesn't the UK have a Gitmo-like facility they can be deported to?

Yes indeed Pakistanis have been in the UK for many many years same as West Indians & Indians. However, what I've noticed where I am up North is that the more that have arrived here the less they integrate. They have no need to integrate like they did in the 60s & 70s as due to the sheer numbers, they have colonised and created their own Pakistani colonies inside the UK. They don't even need to learn the language anymore as many areas have signs in various languages, they have their own shops, places of worship, Community Centres etc. This is where multi culturalism has gone wrong. You cannot effectively police or govern when you have a country with other "little countries" within who place their own laws above those of the country they live in. The continuing habit of bringing in a husband or wife from Pakistan for families with multiple children should stop. There are more than enough people here already for arranged marriages surely? (i used to be an immigration solicitor in Bradford...I've plenty of experience of how they work the system including trying to bribe me with beer and crates of wine! lol)

If these guys are actually British citizens and I presume not or the subject of deportation wouldn't be being discussed, then they will serve their time and go back to Rochdale and disappear

a reply to: CJCrawley

If someone enters another country, and commits heinous crimes, it's not unreasonable to deny them citizenship. If they already have it, and then commit such crimes, then, yes, it's reasonable to revoke that, and deport them, because they are not meeting the standards for that citizenship. People take an oath to become a citizen, which includes following the laws of the land.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The logic doesn't follow for me.

If a country immigrates someone, it has to accept that any number of scenarios could play out. Notwithstanding that, it agrees that said individual is a naturalised citizen.

I don't think it's fair to revoke that citizenship if their behaviour doesn't come up to scratch. You have to remember that it knew in advance that this was indeed a possibility and granted citizenship anyway.

It's not fair because native citizens have an advantage due to the mere happenstance of having been born there...even if their ethnocultural background is different from their country of birth.

For example, there are many ethnoculturally Pakistani Muslim undesirables in the UK who can't be deported because they were born in Britain.

What do we do about those? Well, we lock them up.

That's all that should happen. Once citizenship has been granted, it ought not to be revoked.

If there is a problem with the behaviour of a certain category of immigrants, it might be an idea to be more careful about immigrating them in the first place.

But that wouldn't be very popular with the globalists.

a reply to: CJCrawley

The fact is that, once a person has successfully immigrated from wherever, how can you then say - if they commit a heinous offence - that they should be deported

The British Nationality Act 1981 states :-

The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.]

www.legislation.gov.uk...

I think that deporting child sex offenders would be conductive to the public good.

Kill them for their crimes.
Then the issue of citizenship isn't a problem.

Make this form of sexual exploitation and slavery a capital offence for anyone convicted of it.

Job done.

Hell, I'll happily don the black hood and swing the axe if it comes to it.

a reply to: alldaylong

The British Nationality Act 1981 states

I know what it states. I disagree with it.

I think that deporting child sex offenders would be conductive to the public good.

But you can't deport them all, only those who weren't born here. I don't think there should be any distinction between being born here and not being born here. Either you are a citizen or you're not. It shouldn't make any difference where you happen to have been born - citizenship has been granted.

If they are criminals, punish them.

a reply to: CJCrawley

OK being in a country on a visa I's a contract. Your are not a citizens but you promise to abide by the laws of said country. Failure to comply with the contract can lead to it being voided in this case that would mean being deported. Think of this like a driver's licence to get one you have to agree to follow the rules. If they revoke your licence for not following the rules or public endangerment the contract is voided.

I think the problem is people are confused about the end game for an immagrant. It isn't to get to the country or even work there it's to become a citizen. Anything along the way can prevent that from happening as it should.

a reply to: CJCrawley

But you can't deport them all, only those who weren't born here.

The 4 convicted where not born in The U.K.

So what's your concern ?

a reply to: alldaylong

My concern is that we are creating a two-tier population of privileged natives and immigrants who have to mind their p's and q's. Which is divisive.

What's the point in inviting the whole world and his dog to emigrate here then throwing our hands up in horror whenever some of them commit a crime? For heaven's sake, what were they expecting?

I didn't invent mass immigration. Personally, I think it's barmy, it's certainly undemocratic, and I hate it.

But since we're stuck with it, why are we dividing the population?

What goes for these 4 guys should go for any citizens who commit a similar crime. Why deport them when there are thousands of others whom we can't and wont deport?

a reply to: CJCrawley

Why deport them when their are thousands of others whom we can't and wont deport?

Anyone born outside The U.K. is liable for deportation for numerous reasons.

Anyone born in The U.K. not so.

That's The Law as it stands.

a reply to: CJCrawley

Where does a Country deport one of it's citizens to if laws are made equal for natural citizens as compared to immigrants? That is exactly why you can't deport natural citizens... they already reside in their native Country.

As well, like has been said a few times in this thread. Landing your 2 feet on a Country's soil and being granted authorization to begin the citizenship process does not necessarily mean that one is offered the full rights of natural citizens. Think of it as probation, when one gets out of prison... they are monitored and kept tabs on to make sure a cohesive transition is more likely.

It seems like you get all these points, just don't agree that immigrant mayhem was allowed to flourish to begin with. I fully agree with that, although life forces us to play the hands that are dealt to us... with an added hope that things will change for the better when tough decisions need to be made on the fly.