5 ms·

> No action whatsoever will be taken against Sir Mo and to suggest otherwise is wrong,” a spokesperson said. I agree the "he law should be solidly on his side

by worik 4y ago

> No action whatsoever will be taken against Sir Mo and to suggest otherwise is wrong,” a spokesperson said. I agree the "he law should be solidly on his side and not have to rely on the kindness of some civil servant " It is for Sir Mo Farah. Good on him, respect. But for Ahmed the minimum wage worker, they would be in detention and booked on an aeroplane to Rwanda before you could say "class ridden hell hole". Good on him. This is how all people should be treated. It is not true in England.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cm2187 4y ago
Not sure I understand the point you are making. That everyone should be able to cheat the immigration system?
- petesergeant 4y ago
  I suspect the OP is saying that children trafficked into a country they subsequently grew up in should probably be treated as victims and dealt with compassionately, whether or not they're widely loved sports stars
  - cm2187 4y ago
    I understand the intention but even then you are creating a loophole, i.e. you bring people under 18 illegally, they get the nationality through this loophole, then you need to grant visas to the parent who will care for them. It's basically the story of the loophole of "don't put children in jail and don't separate them from their parents either" at the US border. All good intentions, the consequences of which is that the number of illegal migrants coming with children has blown up, with children being used as a get out of jail card to enter the country illegally. I am all for making exceptions in case of exceptional contributions. But you can't create rules without looking at the consequences of the incentives you create.
    - vr46 4y ago
      This is false equivalence, children being trafficked and forced into servitude is nothing like a family entering a country without the correct visas. There is no loophole here, the child was rescued by social services.
    - random314 4y ago
      They are refugees, not illegal immigrants at the US Border fleeing Latin American countries bulldozed by the CIA
      - cm2187 4y ago
        When they cross the borders in Somalia they may be refugees. By the time they have crossed the borders, in and out, of 10 countries that are not at war, to land in the UK, they are economic migrants.
        danw1979 4y ago
        It’s such a bunk argument to suggest that because there are other countries physically inbeween the refugee’s homeland and Britain that they are economic migrants by the time they get here. If they all settled at the point closest to their homeland that wasn’t “at war” I’m pretty sure there would soon be conflict there. Britain is a rich, developed nation that is quite easily able to support our “fair share” of refugees along with the rest of Europe.
        origin_path 4y ago
        Being a refugee should not be (and isn't) a blank cheque to settle in whatever part of the world you want, financially supported by the locals regardless of whether they want you there or not. If it were that would be a perverse incentive to actually try and make your own country collapse, as it'd be easier to claim "refugee" status than fix domestic issues. This is doubly true given that some people are fanatical about the issue of fully open borders regardless of downsides, and will immediately expand the definition of "refugee" to incorporate anyone at all. The concept of a "climate refugee" is already being promoted, for example. Combined with the argument you're making here it is just a cynical attempt to hijack people's good natured desire to help genuine war refugees, into jackhammering unlimited migration and open borders into society without consideration of any costs. This must not be allowed to happen as this kind of abuse will ultimately result in the collapse of support for any kind of refugee and asylum support.
- beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
- lmm 4y ago
  That if enforcing the rules against a popular sports star would be unduly harsh, so would enforcing them against anyone else. One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens, but clearly something isn't right about how these laws are applied at the moment.
- bilekas 4y ago
  Mo Farah didn't cheat the system though. He was a victim of the trafficking and so the ops point is referring to not criminalizing the victim i think. Which makes sense. He didn't break the immigration law.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    He is a direct beneficiary though. Whether that is relevant in immigration law, I don't know, but it certainly is in other areas of criminal law (e.g. receiving stolen property, soliciting murder etcetera).
    - bilekas 4y ago
      > receiving stolen property Being in possession of stolen property is not necessarily a crime. If you buy something on eBay that was stolen without your knowledge you're not going to get charged. You may have to return it and be out of pocket probably, but not crime. As for soliciting murder that's a crime. There is an intent there. > He is a direct beneficiary though. What if instead of his lief today he was forced into the sex slave ? Would you still consider him a beneficiary ?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        If we're looking for mens rea then the moment a child is over 10, if they don't confess to being an illegal immigrant then they know what they're doing. As to your other question, they would be a victim as they are a slave. Return to their country of origin should still be favoured though (but not mandatory). If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? As such I'm not sure why that's relevant. Pointing out that something can become complex does not mean that the simpler cases we're actually discussing can't be solved.
        garyfirestorm 4y ago
        > If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? Are you forgetting that he has nothing to return to? Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by worik 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cm2187 4y ago

Not sure I understand the point you are making. That everyone should be able to cheat the immigration system?

petesergeant 4y ago
I suspect the OP is saying that children trafficked into a country they subsequently grew up in should probably be treated as victims and dealt with compassionately, whether or not they're widely loved sports stars
- cm2187 4y ago
  I understand the intention but even then you are creating a loophole, i.e. you bring people under 18 illegally, they get the nationality through this loophole, then you need to grant visas to the parent who will care for them. It's basically the story of the loophole of "don't put children in jail and don't separate them from their parents either" at the US border. All good intentions, the consequences of which is that the number of illegal migrants coming with children has blown up, with children being used as a get out of jail card to enter the country illegally. I am all for making exceptions in case of exceptional contributions. But you can't create rules without looking at the consequences of the incentives you create.
  - vr46 4y ago
    This is false equivalence, children being trafficked and forced into servitude is nothing like a family entering a country without the correct visas. There is no loophole here, the child was rescued by social services.
  - random314 4y ago
    They are refugees, not illegal immigrants at the US Border fleeing Latin American countries bulldozed by the CIA
    - cm2187 4y ago
      When they cross the borders in Somalia they may be refugees. By the time they have crossed the borders, in and out, of 10 countries that are not at war, to land in the UK, they are economic migrants.
      - danw1979 4y ago
        It’s such a bunk argument to suggest that because there are other countries physically inbeween the refugee’s homeland and Britain that they are economic migrants by the time they get here. If they all settled at the point closest to their homeland that wasn’t “at war” I’m pretty sure there would soon be conflict there. Britain is a rich, developed nation that is quite easily able to support our “fair share” of refugees along with the rest of Europe.
        origin_path 4y ago
        Being a refugee should not be (and isn't) a blank cheque to settle in whatever part of the world you want, financially supported by the locals regardless of whether they want you there or not. If it were that would be a perverse incentive to actually try and make your own country collapse, as it'd be easier to claim "refugee" status than fix domestic issues. This is doubly true given that some people are fanatical about the issue of fully open borders regardless of downsides, and will immediately expand the definition of "refugee" to incorporate anyone at all. The concept of a "climate refugee" is already being promoted, for example. Combined with the argument you're making here it is just a cynical attempt to hijack people's good natured desire to help genuine war refugees, into jackhammering unlimited migration and open borders into society without consideration of any costs. This must not be allowed to happen as this kind of abuse will ultimately result in the collapse of support for any kind of refugee and asylum support.
beepbeepcabbage 4y ago
lmm 4y ago
That if enforcing the rules against a popular sports star would be unduly harsh, so would enforcing them against anyone else. One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens, but clearly something isn't right about how these laws are applied at the moment.
bilekas 4y ago
Mo Farah didn't cheat the system though. He was a victim of the trafficking and so the ops point is referring to not criminalizing the victim i think. Which makes sense. He didn't break the immigration law.
- brigandish 4y ago
  He is a direct beneficiary though. Whether that is relevant in immigration law, I don't know, but it certainly is in other areas of criminal law (e.g. receiving stolen property, soliciting murder etcetera).
  - bilekas 4y ago
    > receiving stolen property Being in possession of stolen property is not necessarily a crime. If you buy something on eBay that was stolen without your knowledge you're not going to get charged. You may have to return it and be out of pocket probably, but not crime. As for soliciting murder that's a crime. There is an intent there. > He is a direct beneficiary though. What if instead of his lief today he was forced into the sex slave ? Would you still consider him a beneficiary ?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      If we're looking for mens rea then the moment a child is over 10, if they don't confess to being an illegal immigrant then they know what they're doing. As to your other question, they would be a victim as they are a slave. Return to their country of origin should still be favoured though (but not mandatory). If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? As such I'm not sure why that's relevant. Pointing out that something can become complex does not mean that the simpler cases we're actually discussing can't be solved.
      - garyfirestorm 4y ago
        > If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? Are you forgetting that he has nothing to return to? Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]