WTF??!! UK can't deport Somali criminals and has to pay them

Remove all ads!

It's almost the other way around in fact. The political party is dependent on any decently large demographic that supports them. The Democratic party "depends" on winning elections because of the African American vote in any place where African Americans make up a significant part of the constituency. You could say the same thing for Evangelical Christians and the Republican Party.

 

Monty Python would approve this comment!c

 

If you want to bring morality into it, I question why the established citizens or a country are expected to act morally 100% of the time, even if it means consistently being victimized by immigrants (legal or illegal, doesn't matter in this case) who behave in a stunningly IMMORAL fashion. If they didn't want to risk being sent back to a living hell in Somalia, why didn't these worthless bastards just NOT COMMIT CRIMES? And spare me the lame ass excuses -- we all have a choice of whether to commit crimes like

and decent people choose not to. It's not a case of "stealing medicine for my fatally ill wife that otherwise I could never get." Spare me the ethics 101 horsefeces.

I have no problem with law abiding immigrants who (by that definition) enter a country legally and behave in a legally obedient manner. If we are a decent society we will even give some help to those who are less fortunate.

But once they spit on the country that succored them, they should either be sent back to their country of origin to die, quickly or slowly, I don't care, or we should just save the jet fuel and execute these mother <snippers> on the soil of the country they have urinated on. Just because they had crappy lives doesn't give them the excuse to make the lives of others crappy.

 

Damn LKD - don't hold back - tell us how you really feel.

 

I would like to point out the quite significant difference between refugees and immigrants. Immigrants leave their country by choice, refugees are forces out by a humanitarian crisis. These two were refugees and not immigrants. You might call it semantics but there's also a legal difference between the two especially when deportation is concerned.

I also don't quite get what you are rambling on about. These two will still be tried and most likely convicted for their crimes and face serious jail time. The compensation they get is only to cover for the court costs (or so I imagine, if they are left with any money for themselves then I agree that the compensation would be unjustified). They won't be sent to Somalia though since they'd probably be tried in some Islamic court and possibly sentenced to something like being stoned to death. Sending someone knowingly to a fate like that is not moral in my opinion and the European justice system agrees.

 

This is probably a post for a new thread, but here goes. The Democrats are the party of the poor. That isn't saying that all Democrats are poor, but it is almost universal that all the poor vote Democrat. They do so because the Democrats (Vastly more than Republicans) believe that government should assist (by this I mean take care of) the poor. Whereas Republicans are always looking for welfare/unemployment reform Democrats are looking to expand welfare/unemployment benefits, etc.

This is why the poor overwhelmingly vote Democratic as their politicians keep the checks flowing and therefore they are dependent on a political party for their well being. Imagine if you will what would happen if we had twenty years of Republican dominance at all levels of the executive and legislative branches of government (federal and state). In the eyes of the poor (and Democrats) this would be a disaster as welfare would probably disappear as we know it.

Clearly this is one of the reasons that the Democrats are pushing the DREAM act. It is a wildly unpopular bill that would allow millions of illegals to become citizens, but the same as African Americans if given the chance to vote they would probably vote 90+% for Democrats and would sway local and national elections possibly forever. More than one conservative considers this the USA's path to suicide.

It is a shame. In the 50+ years since the civil rights movement our government has basically given the poor enough cash and benefits to survive and they keep voting to keep what they consider the gravy train rolling.

 

Ooooooooh, someone's milk has gone off!

You're right though, well said.

 

I don't believe that's true. I think they tend to want to help the poor, but we don't have a political party that exclusively represents the poor.

That's completely false. A lot of poor, white, evangelicals in the South vote Republican. Some of the most hard core conservative voters in the South are dirt poor and they seldom vote for Democrats.

Really? The poor are not well taken care of by any political party in the US. They mostly get substandard housing, medical care and education. And most of these programs were done by both parties back in the 1960s and 70s. As an example, both Bob Dole and George Mcgovern [together] crafted the school lunch programs for poor kids, a program that would be laughed out by the toads who populate today's Congress.

Byt reform, you mean "end." Don't lump unemployment and welfare together. They are not the same thing.

You never claimed the "poor" were dependent, you claimed blacks were dependent. Funny, how you changed that up. It went from being about race and immigration, to a thread about the "poor" being dependent on on a political party. That is something different. Still, not even true but something that we can debate on substance. And that would be a different thread [since it's really not about immigration, Snook, but something a little different]. It is true that poor people are dependent to large extent on government programs, which is a bit different than "a political party."

Dream Act? Wasn't that under GW Bush and a Republican Congress? Isn't that still being sponsored by some Republicans?

 

I was always taught that a person is responsible for their own fate and for their own actions, to me morality is a waste of thought.

 

I agree that the state needs to protect its citizen against all criminals and that's why we have courts and prisons.

 

Do not worry lads, Fortress Europe is almost finished. You will not have to worry about scary dark skinned people coming into your neighbourhoods much longer. ...

 

one thing I want to know, is who told these people that the UK is such a great place to be, they travel across most of Europe to get here and they chance getting through the channel tunnel, why?

 

That is the question innit? They risk everything to maybe get a job cleaning toilets and living six people in a tiny apartment. Now why would anyone be willing to do that?

 

But think of all the other countries on the way, for example, if theyre coming from Romania, they could try Hungary, Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgum or France.... why the UK?

 

Wherever they can get a visa. I knew a woman who fled TO Iran as a stepping stone to coming to Canada.

 

...and before the civil rights act of 1964, they overwhelmingly voted republican. I fail to see a point here. The shift in the voting habits of the black community is based on very basic reality that the republican party was on the wrong side of the civil rights act of 1964. Not only that, but Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. all ran for president using racist codewords. Trump got a lot of press by insisting that our president only achieved his success because of affirmative action. The image problem that the republican party has with the black community was earned. Until the party learns to muzzle its own racists and abandons racially charged political advertising, it's image problem will remain.