Wednesday, May 03, 2006

A Land of Opportunity

I suppose I’m politically incorrect but I suspect that I’m a member of the silent majority.

The fuss over the failure to deport foreign criminals, such as the recidivist Somali burglar, Mustaf Jama, featured on the front page of two of today’s papers goes on. Somalia is considered too dangerous to send anyone back to, including the US military, for those of you who watched the film, “Black Hawk Down” and Cardiff, I’m told by a police officer friend, is now home to the largest population of Somali refugees in the UK, most of whom I’m sure, are living peaceful and law abiding lives.

The figures for re-offending foreign prisoners and in particular, those from Jamaica and Nigeria are not encouraging. The Civitas think-tank has issued calculations suggesting that nearly 700 of the 1,023 foreign offenders released since 1999 without being considered for deportation would have committed new crimes within two years.

Civitas said that Home Office data suggested a reconviction rate of 67.4 per cent for ex-prisoners, which amounted to 689 out of the 1,023.

Of the 288 released since last August - when ministers knew of the problem - an estimated 141 would have been convicted again within a year, the think-tank said.

But here’s a thought. If someone like Mustaf Jama, a key suspect in the killing of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky knew that if he abused our hospitality, he would, after being found guilty by the courts, be deposited back into to the lawless hell-hole he came from, would he be less inclined to commit a crime here?

One might argue that contemplating the consequences of their actions is not a strength of most criminals and that the threat of immediate deportation would not make any significant behavioural difference but then why should the British tax payer be expected to pick up the prison and re-offending costs of men like Mustaf Jama and others with more violent inclinations?

Why, I wonder, can’t the European Union governments get together and agree on some small changes to the Human Rights legislation to protect the interests of the indigenous populations of the member states; i.e. we welcome refugees but in return for our accepting you and giving you generous state support, you agree to live your life in a lawful manner. If you don’t, Abou Hamza, Mustaf Jama and many thousands of others, your’e on the next flight out to where we believe you came from originally, regardless of whether you have ripped-up your passport or not.

But society doesn’t work that way and such a fantasy is immoral, unjust and unfair to the majority of those who choose to take refuge here. Wouldn’t you agree?!




6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am sure most of the Somalis that have been given refugee status in Britain are law abiding. I would however like to know how many of them are in receipt of state benefits.
I would also like to know how many Dutch nationals of Somali origin are receiving the dole. How many have been convicted of benefit fraud? (claiming in more than one country) Of course we will never be told as that would be a racial slur.

Personally I find the whole business disgusting. Of the "refugees" we have, how many came through Dover and claimed asylum? Why were any of them granted on this basis since they have come from a European country?

The shambles at the Home Office may finally bring it home to Joe public what has been going on in Croydon for the past 15 years or more. The Czech and Slovak Roma for example. Why are they still here? Do they honestly expect us to believe that these countries persecuted them. If that were so why are they full EU members?

Our border control policy (dictated by Europe) has become a laughing stock but the only people laughing are the shyster lawyers and the bogus applicants.

James Maskell said...

Please correct me if Im wrong, but with respect of the foreign nationals, I think its because those countries have become part of the EU, therefore they dont face the same immigration process as say Somalians. You are right though, before their entry into the EU, the foreign nationals should have been sent back.

About those coming through a third party country, I remember the case of foreign nationals coming through Germany and won a court case saying they could stay in Britain, despite having signed in Germany first. So I think theres a legal precedent on that one.

Anonymous said...

You are correct that EU nationals can't be removed unless subject to deportation order and we have seen what a fiasco that is! Though technically if they are "economically inactive" (on the dole) they lose their right to remain here. Unfortunately a judge has recently ruled they are then eligible for a council house. My argument was that Roma should have been deported to their homelands since they were from countries that were due to become full members of the EU. Surely that would constitute a "safe place" so why are they still here getting housing benefit etc.?

As for the German case the failed asylum seekers claimed that returning them to Germany (under the "Dublin" agreement) was a violation of their human rights because Germany was not a safe place. The judge ruled this as "manifestly unfounded" They were most likely allowed to stay in Britain because the Home Office is manifestly incompetant and the lawyers would have the case tied up in the courts for years. Then you get their "MP" on the case and the Home Office gives up. However quite a few Turks were shipped back to Germany and the Germans booted them back to Turkey tout suite so it does work sometimes.

As an aside Britain, Germany and Austria are among the few European countries routinely fingerprint their asylum claimants. This allows bogus applicants to be shipped back to Germany from here. You might like to ask your MP how many of the people loitering in Calais are ever fingerprinted by the French to establish their identity. They don't do it because they know they then become liable to get them back under Dublin.

Anonymous said...

Are we really having to accept that Parliament is no longer paramount in this country? If that is the case, we need to rescind all Human Rights legislation, get out of Europe or elect a Government as soon as we can that is prepared to treat as its primary responsibility the safety and well being of its citizens and to hell with what anyone else thinks in the world community. We must be the softest touch in the world which is probably why we have such a large problem like this.

James Maskell said...

Interesting choices.
1, Repeal all human rights legislation. I cant think of any government on this earth that would dare do that. That would horrify the international community and isolate us.

2, Leave the EU. Not an option I like but to each his own I guess. A less severe option to option 1, it could damage our trade with other countries and would cause us some damage in terms of diplomatic influence. For the world's fouth richest economy, is it worth the risk?

3, elect a Government that will...world community. For those with an interest in human rights (thinking of anon 8:37 here), what are Britain's obligations legally with regard to immigration and asylum? Also, how would you know that the party chosen for the above reason isnt just saying it to get the votes, full well knowing that ultimately its not going to happen due to legal obligations? Britain is a key member of the UN for example.

Anonymous said...

isn't it the fact that bush and blair are the creators of the new world order, surely if your gonna pay to police the world to create a safer better world,you gotta pay to imprison those nasty people and where better than on our own soil where we the righteous ones can give them all the correction they need and lead them onto the path of righteousness just like ourselves, god bless us all, here endeth the lesson.
hehe i'm sorry had a few drinks