Support NeoGAF

[Zvonimir Boban]

Touche, but I dont think anyone is saying to revoke citizenships of naturalized petty offenders or everything.

People being baffled that in this case theyre revoking citizenship of these monsters is mystifying to me.

Expecting British citzens, who committed a crime in Britain and were tried and convicted in a British court, to be locked up in a British prison is mystifying to you?

Things like the internal combustion engine and indoor plumbing must seem like fucking witchcraft.

 

[daviyoung]

If they were British-only monsters, no one would advocate them to have their nationality revoked and sent abroad.

yeh but they're not British-only are they? hence the difference

if they were British-born but naturalized citizens of another country then I'd imagine the reverse was true too, that they'd be told to go back to Britain to face trial there

 

[Khaz]

If something can legally be done though, why isn't it a right for a country to protect its citizens, and as cold as this may sound, protect it's tax payers money (it costs a fair bit of money to house someone in jail for life).

All their citizens. We're talking about people who where naturalised. Binationals. Binationals pay taxes too.

 

[Audioboxer]

Expecting British citzens, who committed a crime in Britain and were tried and convicted in a British court, to be locked up in a British prison is mystifying to you?

Things like the internal combustion engine and indoor plumbing must seem like fucking witchcraft.

No, because if you read the articles they are locked up in British prisons for their crimes. After they serve that is when they are getting deported.

All their citizens. We're talking about people who where naturalised. Binationals. Binationals pay taxes too.

Yes, but the country can legally ask them to leave. You cannot legally ask someone to leave who was born here and doesn't have a nationality anywhere else.

 

[Sasie]

My first reaction was that this is entirely warranted and they should be sent back. Citizenship or not, I honestly don't buy that if someone flee/move to another country at an adult age and have been there less then say five years that they are suddenly more British then whatever their home country happen to be.

That's not the case here though. The ring leader at least been in the UK since 1967, even if he spent his childhood in Pakistan he basically lived almost his entire life in the UK. That to me makes him their problem. Just send him to jail and throw away the key instead.

Countries needs to start taking integration seriously though. Allowing small communities of first/second generation immigrants to form that has little to contact with the rest of society is just asking for trouble.

 

[Paganmoon]

I'd seriously rather see countries make it harder to get a citizenship than being able to have it revoked.

Would basically class anyone not born in the country as second rate citizen.

Fuck these guys, but they should be sentenced just as any other Britt.

 

[Khaz]

yeh but they're not British-only are they? hence the difference

if they were British-born but naturalized citizens of another country then I'd imagine the reverse was true too, that they'd be told to go back to Britain to face trial there

What about British born who take another nationality? Should they also be stripped from their British nationality if they commit a terrible crime in Britain?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Oh it's ok then, they're monsters.

If they were British-only monsters, no one would advocate them to have their nationality revoked and sent abroad.

Double standards are ok when the outrage is high enough.

British-only monsters would stay in Britain

Pakistani-British monsters lose the British part and get sent back to Packistan.

Makes sense.

What about British born who take another nationality? Should they also be stripped from their British nationality if they commit a terrible crime in Britain?

This is something completely different. Its like a strawman across the street.

If a british born citizenship who happens to have dual national citizenship with say, Germany, commits a horrendous crime, they will most likely stay in Britain. Germany might even revoke their citizenship if its a heinous crime and they try to go to Germany, das boot.

 

[KZObsessed]

Oh it's ok then, they're monsters.

If they were British-only monsters, no one would advocate them to have their nationality revoked and sent abroad.

Double standards are ok when the outrage is high enough.

No, an equivalent example would be as follows:

British man moves to foreign country. Gets dual citizenship. Abuses children. Stripped of dual citizenship and deported back to Britain to serve life sentence.

This would be acceptable to any sane British person.

 

[Khaz]

Yes, but the country can legally ask them to leave. You cannot legally ask someone to leave who was born here and doesn't have a nationality anywhere else.

My point is not about the law. Its about ethics and decency. Bullshit laws are passed (and repelled every day.

 

[daviyoung]

What about British born who take another nationality? Should they also be stripped from their British nationality if they commit a terrible crime in Britain?

no

 

[Khaz]

No, an equivalent example would be as follows:

British man moves to foreign country. Gets dual citizenship. Abuses children. Stripped of dual citizenship and deported back to Britain to serve life sentence.

This would be acceptable to any sane British person.

So no matter what additional citizenship you take, the one that counts is the original one?

no

That's some mighty argument you have here.

 

[Isotropy]

I'm sorry. There are people DEFENDING them?

No.

Stop.

For fuck's sake.

They were mistakenly given citizenship under the false pretence that they were not child rapists. But they are. Revoke citizenship. Tie them to a rocket and aim it back at wherever the fuck they came from.

 

[DBT85]

So no matter what additional citizenship you take, the one that counts is the original one?

Yes.

You can have as many as you like, but if you start breaking the laws (and we're not talking about piddly shit here are we?) of that country you shouldn't expect to keep any additional ones.

 

[Audioboxer]

My point is not about the law. Its about ethics and decency. Bullshit laws are passed (and repelled every day.

Wouldn't you say its about ethics and decency when you choose to go and live in another country and said country accepts you? As in, ethics and decency on YOUR part TOWARDS the country that decided to let you in? One could say you forego your access to said countries decency in its Universal health care and welfare system when you start raping and trafficking in minors. Hence, serious crimes warrant serious punishment.

Can you accept pretty much everyone in this topic makes the clear distinction between petty crime and raping children? Also, I've already said it would be immoral to send someone back to a war zone. So what decency exactly are you talking about?

 

[daviyoung]

That's some mighty argument you have here.

you asked a question, I answered it

it was a really simple question

So no matter what additional citizenship you take, the one that counts is the original one?.

it's jus soli, and generally the first citizenship you have you're too young to make that choice

in the case of these guys, they made the choice to become British citizens

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Am I the only one who thought of a gang of like sexual hairstylists from the title?

 

[KZObsessed]

So no matter what additional citizenship you take, the one that counts is the original one?

Depends on the legal system of the country the crimes are committed in and how they decide justice should be served according to their laws. I really don't see the issue to be honest.

And to be honest, I also find it a little sickening that someone could appear to be more outraged at child rapists losing their newly acquired passports than the fact they raped children.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Yes.

You can have as many as you like, but if you start breaking the laws of that country you shouldn't expect to keep any additional ones.

Yup. Having a citizenship outside of your original one is a privilege.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yes.

You can have as many as you like, but if you start breaking the laws (and we're not talking about piddly shit here are we?) of that country you shouldn't expect to keep any additional ones.

Not really. Dual nationals always have the option of surrendering their original citizenship. If they did that, their second citizenship couldn't be stripped as it would leave them stateless.

These guys chose not to do that. It was their choice.

Yup. Having a citizenship outside of your original one is a privilege.

That's not really how it works - see above.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

No, because if you read the articles they are locked up in British prisons for their crimes. After they serve that is when they are getting deported.

If they don't die in prison then they can get out of jail and end up on the sex offenders register like every other British rapist piece of shit.

All this does is makes dual nationals nothing more than second class citizens. "Why don't these foreigners integrate properly when we keep telling them that they're inferior to people born in the country?"

I'm sorry. There are people DEFENDING them?

No.

Stop.

For fuck's sake.

They were mistakenly given citizenship under the false pretence that they were not child rapists. But they are. Revoke citizenship. Tie them to a rocket and aim it back at wherever the fuck they came from.

Who is defending them?

 

[collige]

Unless I'm missing something, why is it preferable for them to be deported than to have the face justice in the UK? Would they be free to go after being deported? Even if not, I would generally thing that the UK has a better criminal justice system than Pakistan.

 

[DBT85]

Not really. Dual nationals always have the option of surrendering their original citizenship. If they did that, their second citizenship couldn't be stripped as it would leave them stateless.

These guys chose not to do that. It was their choice.

Indeed.

If they had surrendered their home nations citizenship then they would have been treated like any me or my brother or any other british only citizen.

 

[Pusherman]

More @ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38909352

This was a high-profile case back in 2012 . Like Rotherham this was another situation where the police failed



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring

I seen this brought up again tonight on the BBC news. Considering the debates on GAF about deportation I think this is a valid case to study for the merits of terrible people losing citizenship and being sent back to where they emigrated from. More so if it is not currently a war zone.

Why? They are British citizens and should be punished as British citizens. No reason to bring up deportation. I don't think deportation should be a punishment for citizens.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

If they don't die in prison then they can get out of jail and end up on the sex offenders register like every other British rapist piece of shit.

All this does is makes dual nationals nothing more than second class citizens. "Why don't these foreigners integrate properly when we keep telling them that they're inferior to people born in the country?"

They could have become "first class citizens" any time they wanted. For whatever reason they chose not to.

 

[daviyoung]

All this does is makes dual nationals nothing more than second class citizens. "Why don't these foreigners integrate properly when we keep telling them that they're inferior to people born in the country?"

they have all the rights that other Brits do up until they commit child rape

 

[*Splinter]

lol that's not his first name! That's just how you address some judges.

Are you sure? "Mr Justice McCloskey"

 

[shandy706]

Trafficking children?!!

I'll personally take care of them if given clearance. You don't hurt kids...period.

 

[TimeEffect]

I dont want them roaming pakistan

They should be behind bars forever. Can they at least be behind bars in pakistan?

 

[Audioboxer]

If they don't die in prison then they can get out of jail and end up on the sex offenders register like every other British rapist piece of shit.

All this does is makes dual nationals nothing more than second class citizens. "Why don't these foreigners integrate properly when we keep telling them that they're inferior to people born in the country?"

That's some real whatsaboutism you have going there that you take child rapists and turn it into "foreigners integrating properly".

Again, we're not talking petty crimes here, stealing, or a traffic violation and then mass deporting these people. This is as serious a crime as you can get, outside of murder, but try telling the emotionally and mentally damaged girls, hey, at least you weren't murdered!

Why? They are British citizens and should be punished as British citizens. No reason to bring up deportation. I don't think deportation should be a punishment for citizens.

They are being punished as British citizens, and then Britain is deciding within its legal rights they are unwelcome to carry on living within the society after their sentences are up.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Are you sure? "Mr Justice McCloskey"

Yes, I'm sure

 

[Khaz]

Wouldn't you say its about ethics and decency when you choose to go and live in another country and said country accepts you? As in, ethics and decency on YOUR part TOWARDS the country that decided to let you in? One could say you forego your access to said countries decency in its Universal health care and welfare system when you start raping and trafficking in minors. Hence, serious crimes warrant serious punishment.

Dual wielding citizenship shouldn't be second-class citizenship. A British-born person can be the shittiest asshole, doing terrible illegal things without any respect and decency for their native land, and it's cool. But if you bear an additional nationality, that's it! you get out of my country.

Can you accept pretty much everyone in this topic makes the clear distinction between petty crime and raping children? Also, I've already said it would be immoral to send someone back to a war zone. So what decency exactly are you talking about?

Where do you draw the line though? At what crime? Do you realise you are treating all binationals as lesser citizens, subject to different laws just because they happen to be born in a different country? There is already a clear line, which is drawn at giving the citizenship to someone. If a foreigner commits a crime, he's expelled. But once we decide someone gets to have the citizenship, he should be treated equally as any other citizen.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Why? They are British citizens and should be punished as British citizens. No reason to bring up deportation. I don't think deportation should be a punishment for citizens.

Basically this. Otherwise you are clearly telling people there are social tiers. If they are citizens, try them in a British court of law and lock them up of necessary.

Also IMO having dual citizenship shouldn't have an effect on the outcome.

 

[Mega]

Slippery slope argument fails until that actually happens. In the meantime, let the UK be rid of a gang of rapists who targeted numerous young girls. Also, read up on naturalization. You promise to abide by the laws of the country you are wanting citizenship for, these people didn't.

In Canada, we have long deported naturalized citizens back to their home countries for violent or major crimes ie. Homicides, violent sexual assault. It makes ZERO sense to keep them here when they were not refugees fleeing persecution and are going to be a harm to the citizens of this country. Why should taxpayers spend 50-100k a year housing and feeding them either?

This is where I also stand. You took an oath to be an upstanding citizen and instead form a network to more effectively prey on and rape kids. That's one of the strongest ways to send a message that you revoke your citizenship, renounce your new country and need to be sent packing. The host nation's law abiding citizens should not be burdened with decades of taking care of such vile people.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

That's some real whatsaboutism you have going there that you take child rapists and turn it into "foreigners integrating properly".

Because I can see the big picture. Do you trust this government with the power to strip citizenship away from immigrants? Especially when they can use the good old "Ah, we can't actually tell you the details of what you're being charged with because y'know, national security"

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that.

Again, we're not talking petty crimes here, stealing, or a traffic violation and then mass deporting these people. This is as serious a crime as you can get, outside of murder, but try telling the emotionally and mentally damaged girls, hey, at least you weren't murdered!

Yeah, that's why they're being locked up for decades. That's the punishment for being despicable human beings, the government shouldn't be able to tack on extra punishment because they're a bit foreign.

 

[Audioboxer]

Dual wielding citizenship shouldn't be second-class citizenship. A British-born person can be the shittiest asshole, doing terrible illegal things without any respect and decency for their native land, and it's cool. But if you bear an additional nationality, that's it! you get out of my country.



Where do you draw the line though? At what crime? Do you realise you are treating all binationals as lesser citizens, subject to different laws just because they happen to be born in a different country? There is already a clear line, which is drawn at giving the citizenship to someone. If a foreigner commits a crime, he's expelled. But once we decide someone gets to have the citizenship, he should be treated equally as any other citizen.

I think we should be able to look at a child rape/sex ring case without going "but what about x!". This happened, this ended up in convictions, and this is a reality.

If you can accept a country can legally revoke your citizenship after accepting you, what exactly are you arguing for, that countries SHOULDN'T be able to do this at all? I think you'll find most can, and most do have very precise and stringent legalities around it.

I'll guess there are some American posters in here, so ~ http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

Grounds for Denaturalization

Although rare, it is possible for a naturalized U.S. citizen to have his or her citizenship stripped through a process called "denaturalization." Former citizens who are denaturalized are subject to removal (deportation) from the United States. Natural-born U.S. citizens may not have their citizenship revoked against their will, but may choose to renounce their citizenship on their own.

This article covers the grounds for having one's citizenship revoked, the basics of the denaturalization process, and defenses to denaturalization.

I'll point it out again, in the UK you are protected from ending up in a position of statelessness.

Because I can see the big picture. Do you trust this government with the power to strip citizenship away from immigrants? Especially when they can use the good old "Ah, we can't actually tell you the details of what you're being charged with because y'know, national security"

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that.



Yeah, that's why they're being locked up for decades. That's the punishment for being despicable human beings, the government shouldn't be able to tack on extra punishment because they're a bit foreign.

You're arguing about the "big picture" in your head in a topic about convicted child rapists/traffickers? This is the kind of topic you read and thought this is a slippery slope? I'll say it again, convicted child rapists/traffickers. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and "fear of the big bad government". These individuals have also been able to have the chance to appeal, and that is what this topic is about, their appeals were turned down by a judge, in a court of law. No one is shipping them off out a back door in a wooden crate without any legal jurisdiction.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Dual wielding citizenship shouldn't be second-class citizenship. A British-born person can be the shittiest asshole, doing terrible illegal things without any respect and decency for their native land, and it's cool. But if you bear an additional nationality, that's it! you get out of my country.

Where do you draw the line though? At what crime? Do you realise you are treating all binationals as lesser citizens, subject to different laws just because they happen to be born in a different country? There is already a clear line, which is drawn at giving the citizenship to someone. If a foreigner commits a crime, he's expelled. But once we decide someone gets to have the citizenship, he should be treated equally as any other citizen.

The line is already drawn at sexual trafficking of children. When you start hearing stories of a dual citizenship wielding citizen being deported for petty theft, then maybe your argument will hold. But yes, as of right now if you come to another country, get naturalized, and sexually exploit children, then they deserve to have that privilege of citizenship of their hosting country to be revoked.

 

[Khaz]

This is where I also stand. You took an oath to be an upstanding citizen and instead form a network to more effectively prey on and rape kids. That's one of the strongest ways to send a message that you revoke your citizenship, renounce your new country and need to be sent packing. The host nation's law abiding citizens should not be burdened with decades of taking care of such vile people.

Natural-born citizen should take an oath too, else they should be deported to Australia. We don't want any scum who don't uphold the flag and the Queen in our country!

 

[Khaz]

The line is already drawn at sexual trafficking of children. When you start hearing stories of a dual citizenship wielding citizen being deported for petty theft, then maybe your argument will hold. But yes, as of right now if you come to another country, get naturalized, and sexually exploit children, then they deserve to have that privilege of citizenship of their hosting country to be revoked.

Citizenship is not a privilege. If it was, any citizen could be stripped of theirs.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Dual wielding citizenship shouldn't be second-class citizenship. A British-born person can be the shittiest asshole, doing terrible illegal things without any respect and decency for their native land, and it's cool. But if you bear an additional nationality, that's it! you get out of my country.

Where do you draw the line though? At what crime? Do you realise you are treating all binationals as lesser citizens, subject to different laws just because they happen to be born in a different country? There is already a clear line, which is drawn at giving the citizenship to someone. If a foreigner commits a crime, he's expelled. But once we decide someone gets to have the citizenship, he should be treated equally as any other citizen.

That's not what this is based on. There's plenty of British-citizenship-only citizens who were born overseas, e.g. all British citizens who were born in India.

 

[Kayhan]

Citizenship is not a privilege. If it was, any citizen could be stripped of theirs.

It is when you are a nationalized citizen originating from a different country.

Britain generously gave you citizenship and you repay them by raping children? Get the fuck out.

 

[God Dayumm]

When someone is deported for a crime, does the natural country immediately put them in jail?

I don't like that this becomes a matter of citizenship. If it were up to me I would keep them in the UK in solitary or execute them right in there, not release them back into their country to be free and potentially come back a few years later.

Deportation is not proper or enough punishment for these animals

 

[Audioboxer]

When someone is deported for a crime, does the natural country immediately put them in jail?

I don't like that this becomes a matter of citizenship. If it were up to me I would keep them in the UK in solitary or execute them right in there, not release them back into their country to be free and potentially come back a few years later.

Capital punishment is illegal in the UK. As for the country jailing them, for all intents and purposes they serve their sentence in the UK. The UK isn't deporting them to serve a sentence, it's deporting them as they are deemed unfit and a danger to society, having done something serious enough for the UK to revoke their citizenship.

This isn't the same as someone being deported to face trial abroad. It's basically the UK saying sorry, you're not getting a second chance in our society after you serve punishment for the crime(s) committed. They'll undoubtedly be blacklisted and won't be able to reapply for citizenship. This is why there is protection around statelessness. To strip a resident born here of their citizenship would leave them in a state of statelessness.

 

[TipsyArchmage]

If deportation is too harsh then I have no issues with child rapists being executed

 

[Khaz]

It is when you are a nationalized citizen originating from a different country.

You're not a better citizen just because you were born here.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Citizenship is not a privilege. If it was, any citizen could be stripped of theirs.

It is when you go to another country and decide to live there.

Your home country? Citizen to that country is your right. Going to a different country? Its a privilege.

You're not a better citizen just because you were born here.

Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that if you werent natural born, that your extra citizenship can and will be revoked if you sexually traffic children.

 

[Lashley]

Good. With a bit of luck they'll be executed back home.

 

[Audioboxer]

You're not a better citizen just because you were born here.

I'm pretty certain no one, especially not the UK legal system thinks anyone is a "better citizen" who is a child rapist and trafficker just because they are a native.

People can only be punished within the legal confines of what a government can do. As above, and as I've pointed out a few times now a citizen born in a country cannot have their citizenship be taken as it leaves them stateless.

It's the same in America

Although rare, it is possible for a naturalized U.S. citizen to have his or her citizenship stripped through a process called "denaturalization." Former citizens who are denaturalized are subject to removal (deportation) from the United States. Natural-born U.S. citizens may not have their citizenship revoked against their will, but may choose to renounce their citizenship on their own.

It is when you go to another country and decide to live there.

Your home country? Citizen to that country is your right. Going to a different country? Its a privilege.

Pretty much. Although the truth of the matter is more around legalities than privileges, but I know what you mean.

 

[Khaz]

That's not what this is based on. There's plenty of British-citizenship-only citizens who were born overseas, e.g. all British citizens who were born in India.

That's true, it's based on brown muslims born abroad committing a terrible act on children.

The part to be punished (and extremely severely, fucking scum), is what they did to these children. NOT the terrible crime of having an additional passport in addition to your completely legit British nationality.

I'm pretty certain no one, especially not the UK legal system thinks anyone is a "better citizen" who is a child rapist and trafficker just because they are a native.

And yet, the native would be punished differently.

 

[DBT85]

You're not a better citizen just because you were born here.

Nobody is claiming that where you are born determines whether you are better citizen or not.

I'm a British national, I AM better than these men who are BOTH Pakistani and British nationals.

Is that because I was born here? No, its because I've not committed one of the most heinous crimes possible.