h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"when the prison term is over, I can't understand why someone should be "considered for" deportation. The way I see it, even if you're a LEGAL immigrant, if you get imprisoned for something - *anything*, doesn't have to be murder, rape etc. - then as far as I'm concerned you're on the next plane back where you came from."

I suppose one reason might be whether the person has family or not. If a person who is a legal immigrant (whether a refugee or not) is convicted of a criminal offence, one might take the view that his or her family who are legally settled in this country (possibly for a *very* long time) ought not to be punished too. Clearly there are going to be difficult decisions to make here.

Another point to think about in this kind of debate is that deportation of criminals cuts both ways. If we expect to be able to deport foreign criminals under certain circumstances, we should also expect our own exports to be returned to us - so we shouldn't do unto other countries what we would not want doing unto us.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1539284,00.html
for example.

Because some people are genuinely misguided, but do act of decent principles.

After all that stupid woman from Liberty acts out of the best of principles, but her stance on CCTV is utterly ridiculous.

I agree with a lot of what Otto said.

It's not just if they have family either - I think if you have legally lived in this country for a long time, and commit a low level crime (you can go to prison for not paying debts, for example) you're entitled to be punished in the UK once, and not punished again by being sent back to a country that you no longer have a link to.

Secondly, dumping people in Somalia. You are going to have to spend a lot of taxpayers money, as the only practical border is the Kenya/Somalia frontier, one of the most dangerous in the world (I know you don't care about the person being repatriated, but you might be bothered when his guards get shot/taken hostage).

sprout

It's a shame we don't have penal colonies any more really. The case for transportation's kinda neat in this context.

B

>Secondly, dumping people in Somalia. You are going to have to spend a lot of taxpayers money, as the only practical border is the Kenya/Somalia frontier, one of the most dangerous in the world (I know you don't care about the person being repatriated, but you might be bothered when his guards get shot/taken hostage).<

I'm sure we can suffer the cost of a parachute.

The US still has one. That's basically what Guantanamo bay is, except without the messy business of trials and lawyers and all that.

sprout

Mmm. Tempting. Or prison hulks. That'd sort the problem out.

Ah well, they did try converting a ship on the Thames into a prison.

It sank. Bit cheap, you see...

Well, there are those who would consider that a result.

In fact, we had one till recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weare_%28HM_Prison%29

sprout

This post has been removed.

Blue, if you don't have political cronyism as a problem anymore, then that's a plus. And I agree wholeheartedly it would be easier done by an incoming government, not a currently entrenched one. But still, would it really be that damaging politically to attempt reform?

I mean, the implication is that everyone beleives everything is running "just great!!", and that by attempting reform in the 9th year, a government would shatter that illusion. From the talk on this board, it doesn't really seem like that illusion exists in the first place? So what's the danger then?