RE: The trouble with focusing on one man
Currently, in the UK, those who have arrived here by irregular means, without visas etc, can claim asylum, because it is accepted that asylum seekers are likely to be prevented from travelling through the usual means and arriving at recognised ports of entry. Those that do will have falsified passports and documents, because they are leaving countries where it is incredibly difficult to obtain the appropriate paperwork.
Claiming asylum, though, is not easy. You have to prove the threat if you remain in your country, and many applicants fail.
Those who enter recognised ports of entry with false documents, if they are picked up by immigration they will likely be returned within 24 hours.
I understand you feel lied to, but those on the opposite side of the debate also believe they have been lied to. Certain newspapers over here are known to exaggerate numbers. And it's not as though you can tell by looking who is here illegally and who isn't.
Most people in my country don't live at points of entry, legal or otherwise. Most have no idea how many are arriving. They get their stats from the media, which in this country is more inclined to overstate the problem, whilst the official government statistics may well understate it.
The difference between a criminal being sent to prison and separated from his family in his own country is just that. His or her children will likely be looked after by relatives, or at least someone who speaks their language. It's not quite the same as having survived what is likely to have been a horrendous journey, being separated from the only family they have, in a country where they don't speak the language.
It's possible to recognise that these people have done wrong in trying to come here illegally, and that it causes problems but still have some compassion for their situation. They are human beings.
2021 Script Writer of the Year
lancellot
RE: The trouble with focusing on one man
Yes, they are humans. Yes, I have compassion. But, if I am expected to follow the law, then is unreasonable to expect my guest (uninvited) to follow the law too?
The bottom line, and this is indisputable. Compassion is an emotion, a subjective feeling.
The law is objective. You cannot like it, but you cannot cry for democracy one day, then abandon it the next, when it is inconvenient.
Many of the illegals fled their countries because there was no law and order there. But if you break the laws in the country you flee to, then demand they not be followed, take to the streets riot, protest, burn our flag, and fly the flag of the country you fled.
Then you are telling and showing everyone why your home country had no law and order, and why you fled it. You are showing exactly who made your home country a mess. It wasn't the trees, or the rocks, or the water. It was the people.
RE: The trouble with focusing on one man
Yes, IF you break the law in the country you flee to. Yes, the law is objective. And you are quite right, individuals who do those things you mentioned should feel the force of that law in the same way any citizen would.
But the key word there is IF. Most of the people entering my country through irregular means who have managed to avoid being caught aren't out protesting and burning flags. They've got their heads down, hoping not to be noticed. Some, as aforementioned, might be working in illegal drug factories, which again means they aren't going to be drawing attention to themselves. And if they get caught farming cannabis, or whatever, then yes, by all means, throw the book at them.
Most of the protesters were born here or have legal rights to be here (which should be rescinded if they commit crimes, I agree).
We're talking about people arriving in the country in an unorthodox manner. Objectively, that is the law they broke and if we ignore for a moment the very subjective side of the law, which pertains to applying penalties and considerations relating to mitigating circumstances (I will come back to that) then yes, they should be deported on those grounds. NOT on the grounds of a subjective assumption that they will be protesting and burning flags if they are allowed in.
Coming back to where the law becomes subjective, we see that all the time in sentencing. The young male given leniency for rape because he was on the swim team and a good scholar. The white collar criminals given light sentences in 'open' prisons for embezzling millions whilst the habitual shoplifter from a poor background gets two years in Belmarsh.
We all know this system isn't anything like as objective as it should be. Definitely not in my country, where who your parents are gets you out of a lot of trouble.
And the law (in my country, at any rate) takes mitigating circumstances into account. A relative of mine who committed quite a serious crime avoided jail time because she had young children and had grown up in difficult circumstances. I might not totally agree with that, but the law takes these things into consideration. It assesses individual situations.
And that, for me is the problem with the implication of your last statement, Lancelott. Not that I don't agree with you about people being punished for crimes they commit, but the suggestion that those who flee to a different country cease to be individuals, that individual circumstances should not be considered and that decisions should be made about one individual based on what other individuals who happen to be 'from' the same country (even if it was 3 generations past) have done.
If the law is objective, it must also be blind. Judging those fleeing to your country on the basis of what someone else who on balance of probability did not enter the country in the same way simply because they share a destination of origin isn't objective.
I have no problem whatsoever with dealing with those who commit crimes. I have every problem with treating people as though they WILL commit those crimes because that's what others who look a bit like them did.
Mo Farah was a Somalian refugee. I don't assume every Somalian refugee is going to win a gold medal at the Olympics. If I don't assume that, then it isn't reasonable for me to assume every refugee is going to commit a crime.
RE: The trouble with focusing on one man
Gotta make a point here that Emma isn't going to like. I don't assume that every Somalian is a lazy SOB, but the vast majority of them are, and they have that reputation on their continent for a reason. And that is often the sort of reason why seemingly unfair things like rapid deportations end up happening: because too many people took advantage of the lax system at once. Now everyone else has to pay. It's not just Trump pushing back. It's the universe.
RE: The trouble with focusing on one man
Message edited:
My own nationality has enough stupid stereotypes for me to know how absolutely stupid that sort of thing is, as, frankly, does yours. It's a process of 'othering'. It's something humans have used to keep other races/nationalities out of any position of power in other nations. It's not much different to the famous 'class divide' in my own country. I'm working class. For centuries that would have put me in the 'thick and lazy' box. Which happened to rather suit those who weren't working class, as it kept the likes of me working for them and not for themselves. It's no wonder the upper classes, Churchill included, weren't keen on socialism. Their power rather relied on us not realising ours. I'm not going to drag up the obvious example of the stupidity and dangerousness of racial stereotyping, but I will use the stereotyping of Jews in my own country as an example. Despite Jews being encouraged to come to England centuries ago, they weren't liked. They were wanted because their religion permitted them to lend money. Ours, at the time, did not. They weren't liked because they did well for themselves. They were persecuted and slandered. Fact is, it's in some people's interest to have us believe negative stereotypes. It's a really easy way to stop those pesky foreigners from becoming threats. Make sure their names are blackened before they put a foot on your soil. All this is fear. Every nation does it, and the race/nationality concerned goes in cycles. It's a crude form of using public opinion as protection. Don't believe me? History bears me out, I'm afraid.
RE: The trouble with focusing on one man
Godsdammit,why does editing remove all the SPACING!
RE: The trouble with focusing on one man
That's a great question. I think I have brought it up to Tom before, but maybe it's time for us to ask again. I would prefer if all the forum text avoided rich text and just used the basic editor, the way it was previously,
1 -2-
Laugh Out Loud with a FanStory Author in Print!
Like to laugh? Click here for info. Support a FanStory author in print!
A Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer
A Poem About A Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer
A Poem About A Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer
Pays:
8 points. and 1.16 member dollars
Serendipitous Chapter 12 A
Beka and Heather discuss the upcoming marriage.
Beka and Heather discuss the upcoming marriage.
Pays:
10 points. and 1.23 member dollars