Anger as 'hit and run' asylum seeker stays in Britain

[Strontium]

The As far as I am aware he has married a UK citizen and has 2 small children (both under 5).

Rules state that there would be no compelling reason as to why he/they could not re-locate back to Iraq as a family unit, as the children are not yet in their formative years (not started school yet).

 

 

I think the fact that his children are British, not Iraqi, seems like a fairly compelling reason for them to remain in this country. Bit difficult to justify sending people to a country they've never been to just because their dad commits a crime, don't you think?

[AnnaJu14]

Er, deportation has nothing at all do with the crime so how has anyone failed this country?

 

The only issue is his sentence length anything else is not interested in justice.

 

Er, certain crimes can quicken up the deportation process.

 

Should have given him a couple of years bird then deported him straight after. Whilst in prison he wouldn't have been able to form his precious family life and therefore have no claim under the HR act.

 

What about the right to life (another HR act) of a 12 year old girl. Killed by an uninsured, already banned and on bail shithouse coward illegal immigrant.

 

Fuck me who's side are we on?

[AnnaJu14]

I think the fact that his children are British, not Iraqi, seems like a fairly compelling reason for them to remain in this country. Bit difficult to justify sending people to a country they've never been to just because their dad commits a crime, don't you think?

 

The clue was in the 'formative years' quote.

 

Its a common term used by the Home Office.

 

Problem is (and its been latched on to ages ago) that people think that just because you have a sprog here that you can automatically stay here. Wrong.

 

They are called immigrations laws/rules for a reason. They are designed to help control the abuse of immigration. That which causes such controversy and spending on a daily basis.

[melons]

*insert bull shit here*

 

Deep down, do you really believe the tripe you're typing?

[TheBitch]

Deep down, do you really believe the tripe you're typing?

 

I just popped a cap in his silly ass.

[Fugitive]

JJT5Times should change his name to JJ5Daily Mail.

[Reacher]

I think we have enough idiots in this country without inviting more in.

[cochcaer]

JJT5Times should change his name to JJ5Daily Mail.

 

Why? This in the Graun says send him home too...

Are judges making the wrong decisions on human rights? | Michael White | Politics | guardian.co.uk

 

The picture painted is more criminal migrant than asylum seeker escaping persecution.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The spineless twat immigration judges have failed this country once again on this occasion.

 

How do you feel about immigration in general, JJ?

 

As far as I am aware he has married a UK citizen and has 2 small children (both under 5).

 

So that's three British citizens, yeah?

 

Rules state that there would be no compelling reason as to why he/they could not re-locate back to Iraq as a family unit, as the children are not yet in their formative years (not started school yet).

 

Can you let me know the source for this, JJ? Which rule are you using here?

 

If he truly loved his family he would not potentially argue against this.

 

Argue against what? His entire family moving to Iraq? He doesn't truly love his family if he doesn't move them to a war ravaged country? You're taking the piss, surely?

 

Oh and there is also an immigration law/paragraph on criminal activity by Asylum Seekers.

 

Again, source please. I'd like to check the document and paragraph to which you're referring. Thanks.

[King Emlyn]

They're two totally seperate issues though is what I'm saying.

 

(1) should he have got a longer prison sentence? Definately.

 

(2) Should he be allowed to stay in this country? Maybe, maybe not.

 

But one should not influence the other. You can't say "This bloke is a shoplifter, therefore send him back." I totally understand the anger of the father but as Melons has said, certain papers are exploiting it to suit their own agenda.

 

The Daily Mail for example, are using it to beat the drum about the Human Rights Act:

 

Asylum seeker Aso Mohammed Ibrahim who let girl, 12, die can stay in UK | Mail Online

 

Maybe you cant, but you should.

[cochcaer]

Again, source please. I'd like to check the document and paragraph to which you're referring. Thanks.

 

It was just something trumpeted by Cameron, his UK Bill of Rights that I think promised to deport foreign-national criminals, but now in office it's been shuffled away.

[Thomo123]

Can someone explain how it is legally possible for a man commiting such a crime to be given such a light sentance.

[gmac]

I think the fact that his children are British, not Iraqi, seems like a fairly compelling reason for them to remain in this country. Bit difficult to justify sending people to a country they've never been to just because their dad commits a crime, don't you think?

 

Scrotium, don't agree with many of your posts, your like a Roger Phillips rehash on the T/L/W, but don’t think I’d win many arguments with you. There’s logic to your posts but your also somewhat dispassionate, just wish you’d show a bit of emotion within these types of threads - base emotions sometimes rather than considered replies, think that would be something.

[Remmie]

Day took our jawbs!

 

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

I think the fact that his children are British, not Iraqi, seems like a fairly compelling reason for them to remain in this country. Bit difficult to justify sending people to a country they've never been to just because their dad commits a crime, don't you think?

 

Sad thing is Strontium, the kids would probably stand a better chance of growing up mentally and emotionally healthy without that piece of scum around to influence them.

[Stu Monty]

Scrotium, don't agree with many of your posts, your like a Roger Phillips rehash on the T/L/W, but don’t think I’d win many arguments with you. There’s logic to your posts but your also somewhat dispassionate, just wish you’d show a bit of emotion within these types of threads - base emotions sometimes rather than considered replies, think that would be something.

 

That's how you have to view the law though, without raw emotion. Just because I'd want to stove someone's face in for touching my missus doesn't mean I don't know that the law shouldn't see it that way.

[Ponz]

That's how you have to view the law though, without raw emotion. Just because I'd want to stove someone's face in for touching my missus doesn't mean I don't know that the law shouldn't see it that way.

 

It debases the legal system when a criminal exploits one law to avoid sanction under another. The fact that he had the two kids while the threat of deportation was looming should negate the "family life" argument.

 

And liberals defending this decision should consider that alot of deserving ayslum seekers will be punished due to the political environment created by not deporting this turd.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It debases the legal system when a criminal exploits one law to avoid sanction under another. The fact that he had the two kids while the threat of deportation was looming should negate the "family life" argument.

 

And liberals defending this decision should consider that alot of deserving ayslum seekers will be punished due to the political environment created by not deporting this turd.

Wrong.

 

It demonstrates the integrity of the legal system when someone found guilty of a crime gets the appropriate sentence for that crime - with no extras based on their country of birth.

 

The man's a cunt who did a terrible thing - and deserves the same punishment any other cunt in this country would get.

[Strontium]

Sad thing is Strontium, the kids would probably stand a better chance of growing up mentally and emotionally healthy without that piece of scum around to influence them.

 

 

Really, is that what you think? How about if one of your own parents had fucked up when you were a kid, would you feel the same way about them?

[a stoner]

I don't understand how he can be seeking asylum as his home country is now a democratic state including freedom of speech, freedom of expression and a right to a personal life. Why would e need asylum in this country now unless he has commited crimes in his home country that would imprison him for life or be sentenced with death and if he has committed such crimes surely he should face a court in his home country for these crimes and not hide in the UK.

Plenty of other countries have laws in place to sent criminal back to their home country if any crime is committed on their soil but this guy stays and gets a pathetic 4 months for killing someone.

There is something seriously wrong in this country when most other countries would impart massive sentences for the same incident.

[King Emlyn]

That's how you have to view the law though, without raw emotion. Just because I'd want to stove someone's face in for touching my missus doesn't mean I don't know that the law shouldn't see it that way.

Insofar as judging evidence and arriving at a verdict based on that evidence then i agree. However when sentencing then the emotional scars that have been left and the devastation caused should be represented in the sentence. I believe in treating everybody, no matter how vile, humanely but as you know i also believe in massive prison sentences; and i really do mean massive.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I think a lot of people are missing out on a rather important point in this case. This Iraqi man has NOT been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. The court has judged that his Article 8 right to a family or private life in the United Kingdom would be interfered with if he were to be removed from the UK. This decision leaves it up to the UK Border Agency/Home Office to grant him a form of leave to remain in the United Kingdom that is known as discretionary leave, which is entirely different to asylum.

 

As for the arguments of the children not yet beginning their formative years, this is an argument that only applies to non British Citizen children, and were both parent are non British Citizens, which is not the case in the case at hand.

 

Also, as for the poster who said there is a rule that prevents people from being granted status in the UK due to their committal of a criminal offence, again, that is partly true. The rule, well the Article, is Article 1 (f) (b) of the Refugee Convention, which states that an individual is excluded from asylum and Humanitarian Protection when they have committed a serious, non-political offence, OUTSIDE the country of refuge. Therefore, this article is not applicable to the case at hand for numerous reasons:

 

- the offence was committed in the UK, therefore not outside the country of refuge,

- the offence is not a serious one, which for the purpose of this rule, is defined as an offence that would usually attract a custodial sentence of 2 years or more, and

- the rule only excludes people from asylum and Humanitarian Protection (i.e. when their Article 2 and 3 rights to life and protection from cruel and inhumane treatment or torture would be breached). The rule does not exclude an individual from being granted discretionary leave when their right to a family/private life under Article 8 is breached, as is the case in the case at hand.

 

Therefore, while some may find the decision morally questionable, it is the correct legal decision and I think it is likely to be upheld at appeal also.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I don't understand how he can be seeking asylum as his home country is now a democratic state including freedom of speech, freedom of expression and a right to a personal life. Why would e need asylum in this country now unless he has commited crimes in his home country that would imprison him for life or be sentenced with death and if he has committed such crimes surely he should face a court in his home country for these crimes and not hide in the UK.

Hehe.

 

You're funny.

[Stu Monty]

Hehe.

 

You're funny.

 

Aye. I think we should send him on holidy there to enjoy the full benefits of the blossoming paradise that is Iraq.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I don't understand how he can be seeking asylum as his home country is now a democratic state including freedom of speech, freedom of expression and a right to a personal life. Why would e need asylum in this country now unless he has commited crimes in his home country that would imprison him for life or be sentenced with death and if he has committed such crimes surely he should face a court in his home country for these crimes and not hide in the UK.

Plenty of other countries have laws in place to sent criminal back to their home country if any crime is committed on their soil but this guy stays and gets a pathetic 4 months for killing someone.

There is something seriously wrong in this country when most other countries would impart massive sentences for the same incident.

 

So, by this logic, we should not grant ANYBODY asylum or humanitarian protection if they have committed what is technically a criminal offence in their country of origin, irrespective of the punishment for that offence and in situations were the punishment for the offence in that country is in no way deserving to the "crime" committed?

 

I give you the perfect example of adultery in Iran. Adultery is a "crime" in Iran. Not just any crime though, one which attracts a death sentence, normally by way of stoning.

 

So, by your logic, if somebody has committed the "crime" of adultery in Iran and is going to be stoned to death, should they not be granted some form of refuge just because their actions are technically a crime?

 

Complete nonsense.