• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rochdale (UK) sex grooming gang citizenship appeal fails

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...-deprived-33-individuals-british-citizenship/

I haven't seen anyone in here advocating for the government to just fire out everyone and anyone. This was an organised grooming gang, with at least 47 victims, much like a terrorist group is organised and usually deals in death rather than sexual violence.

Two things:

1) Terrorists are basically fighting against the state, in that situation I can see the argument for citizenship being revoked if someone is tried and convicted of treason or terrorism. These guys, as despicable as they are, did not plot against or attack the state.

2) Theresa May was able to do that without a trial, in secret courts without having to provide the defendant with evidence of exactly what they were being accused of. Everything about that runs contrary to the rule of law but not many people seem to give a fuck about that.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Exactly where the were before: citizens shouldn't be stripped from their citizenship, regardless of whether they have an additional one or they were born in a different country.

When you apply to become a British citizen, you expressly give consent to a number of things. One is this:

7.6 I understand that a certificate of citizenship may be withdrawn if ... on the basis of my conduct the Home Secretary considers it to be conducive to the public good.

The man in question willingly agreed to this condition (if he hadn't, he wouldn't be a citizen). So why are we complaining when the pre-agreed sanction is applied for something both parties agreed in advance would be a breach of duty?
 

jonno394

Member
Just to be clear on your positions.


You guys would also be ok with the British government revoking citizenship for anyone for the same crime born there?

You can't revoke a birth right imo, you can revoke something granted to someone due to having moved and then lived in the country. Like if it were the children of these guys who had committed the crimes, they would have been born here so their citizenship is a birth right, not a granted thing.

As it stands, these men were granted nationality and it should be revoked if they act as reprehensibly as these guys have.
 

Hypron

Member
British citizens, crimes commited in britain. Seems like a british problem, don't seem fair to force them onto Pakistan.

That's my point of view as well. The UK granted them citizenship so I don't see why they should be treated differently from other British citizens.

All citizens should be equal, you shouldn't have two tiers of citizens based on where they were born.

Those pieces of shit should be put in jail in the UK.
 

Jumeira

Banned
Yeah read this earlier, so glad. What winds me up is that these vile individuals using 'muslim discrimination' while ignoring they're convicted child rapist, spiting on the face of real victims of racial violence and discrimination.

Pieces of shits, I'd rather they get packed into a rocket and fired into the sun.
 

Madness

Member
Because they're Canadian? If you won't treat Canadian citizens like they're Canadian then don't give them citizenship in the first place.

They are citizens as well. They have the right to be Canadian. They are a long time part of the 'national family' and should be treated like any other citizen. Either incarcerate them and attempt to rehabilitate them or keep them in prison for life if they're murderers or are too much of a danger. There should be serious, serious limits on revoking citizenship. It should only be possible with the worst of the worst cases, and only used very, very few times.

Naturalization ans naturalized Citizenship is a right and privilege for immigrants, refugees and birth citizens of other countries. It is why you swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the values and laws of the nation you are trying to get citizenship of. You waive that right and privilege when you commit major crimes, crimes such as murder, terrorism, homicide and violent sexual assault. These men groomed and gang raped little girls.

They have given away any chance to live a privileged life in these countries now. And yes, it may be unfair that they aren't treated like birthright citizens, but life is rarely fair. It is not fair to anyone else that they should pay to house these sex offenders for 50k-100k a year, leave people open to harm. These were not refugees escaping persecution and they were adults when they came.

camby.png
 

Khaz

Member
The man in question willingly agreed to this condition (if he hadn't, he wouldn't be a citizen). So why are we complaining when the pre-agreed sanction is applied for something both parties agreed in advance would be a breach of duty?

Are you also of the opinion that a contract is legal and binding regardless of whatever is written in?

Applying for citizenship can be done for many reasons. But ask most immigrant, and they will tell you that it's because they love the country they're trying to live in, and want to be part of it, by being able to vote, by paying taxes, etc. To be considered like any other citizen. Forcing an unjust condition (behave, or else) on such a contract puts them in a precarious condition for their whole life, of being a citizen but not quite a citizen, where there are forced to the same obligations but not given the same rights.

British-born citizens, by being born there, and keeping living there, also agree on not breaking the law. The oath is just here to make the naturalised up to the same level of the birthed, who should already follow the law. They are both subjects to the same laws and both agree that if they break them, they should be punished. Yet, when the british-born gets caught, they don't have the threat of having their citizenship revoked. They are not subject to the same sentence.
 

wildfire

Banned
You can't revoke a birth right imo, you can revoke something granted to someone due to having moved and then lived in the country. Like if it were the children of these guys who had committed the crimes, they would have been born here so their citizenship is a birth right, not a granted thing.

As it stands, these men were granted nationality and it should be revoked if they act as reprehensibly as these guys have.

Being born in a country doesn't automatically grant citizenship in most countries including the UK.

Outside the Americas only 2 countries have unconditional citizenship.

Citizenship is less about being born to the land and about being raised into upholding the values of a community and in return that community gives you support. To make different rules for people who declare allegiance to one and only country will make it valid to change up the rules in future to put another group at a legal disadvantage. That harms the unity which is the underlying point of citizenship.



I
 
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.

The UK can still strip your citizenship even if it leaves you stateless.
 

Pusherman

Member
Naturalization ans naturalized Citizenship is a right and privilege for immigrants, refugees and birth citizens of other countries. It is why you swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the values and laws of the nation you are trying to get citizenship of. You waive that right and privilege when you commit major crimes, crimes such as murder, terrorism, homicide and violent sexual assault. These men groomed and gang raped little girls.

They have given away any chance to live a privileged life in these countries now. And yes, it may be unfair that they aren't treated like birthright citizens, but life is rarely fair. It is not fair to anyone else that they should pay to house these sex offenders for 50k-100k a year, leave people open to harm. These were not refugees escaping persecution and they were adults when they came.

camby.png

This doesn't make any sense because this unfairness is in an area of life under our completely control. We can create or remove this specific form of unfairness. IMO, citizenship should be the same whether it is by birthright or through naturalization. Dual citizenship should play no role in how a person is treated, even when that person is a criminal.

And they weren't adults when they came to Britain. The ringleader was 14 when he arrived.
 

Ogodei

Member
I don't care about these individuals at all, but, I don't believe citizenship should be something that is removable. They are British citizens and should be dealt with appropriately in the British justice system. They should be sentenced for life here.

Dual Nationals shouldn't be second class citizens. There should be protections for people, even for the worst of crimes, because otherwise the justice system can be abused.

Otherwise me might find ourselves in a world where British citizens could get deported to Australia for stealing some bread.

Stripping citizenship against someone's will is a violation of human rights law, i think. Or maybe that only qualifies if they have only one citizenship (e.g., don't make people stateless).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Are you also of the opinion that a contract is legal and binding regardless of whatever is written in?

No, but I do think this particular one is, as do the courts that just ruled on it.

Applying for citizenship can be done for many reasons. But ask most immigrant, and they will tell you that it's because they love the country they're trying to live in, and want to be part of it, by being able to vote, by paying taxes, etc. To be considered like any other citizen. Forcing an unjust condition (behave, or else) on such a contract puts them in a precarious condition for their whole life, of being a citizen but not quite a citizen, where there are forced to the same obligations but not given the same rights.

I don't think "don't rape underage girls, or else" is an especially unjust condition. I don't think someone is especially precarious for being subject to it. I am a dual national British citizen, and I've never felt threatened by the knowledge that if I rape an underage girl, I'd have my British citizenship stripped, because I don't possess that kind of inhumanity in me. Accordingly, my situation is not precarious.

British-born citizens, by being born there, and keeping living there, also agree on not breaking the law. The oath is just here to make the naturalised up to the same level of the birthed, who should already follow the law. They are both subjects to the same laws and both agree that if they break them, they should be punished. Yet, when the british-born gets caught, they don't have the threat of having their citizenship revoked. They are not subject to the same sentence.

The reason there are some citizenships we cannot strip is not because those citizenships are afforded in principle additional rights, but simply that we cannot do so without making a person stateless, which is a greater harm. It's no different to giving a single parent a commuted sentence where a childless criminal might have been jailed, because taking away a carer is a greater harm. That doesn't mean single parents are a different legal class altogether to childless people, it's just a recognition of the fact that sentences are contextual.

EDIT: And to be clear, the distinction is not British-born vs not British-born. There have actually been some British-born citizens who have had their citizenships stripped where they possessed multiple citizenships, and so could have their British citizenship stripped without making them stateless. The distinction is: has single citizenship (and so would be made stateless) vs. has dual citizenships (and so would not be). In the event that you feel the need to rape an underage girl and not be deported for it, you can renounce one of your nationalities.
 

We never actually ratified the 1997 Convention, and so legally when the Conservatives gave themselves the power to do so in 2014, there was no obstacle, so actually we can. We shouldn't be able to, but we can.

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...d_Anderson_QC_-_CITIZENSHIP_REMOVAL__web_.pdf for the review.

Well, I stand corrected!

It seems like the UK wouldn't be able to deport the people it does this to though, since no other country would be obliged to take them. It's hard to see what it really accomplishes.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Well, I stand corrected!

It seems like the UK wouldn't be able to deport the people it does this to though, since no other country would be obliged to take them. It's hard to see what it really accomplishes.

The power has also never been used, and I'm not sure whether it actually would survive a court challenge anyway.

But still, pretty unacceptable. That's something we should change, at least.
 

jonno394

Member
Being born in a country doesn't automatically grant citizenship in most countries including the UK.

Outside the Americas only 2 countries have unconditional citizenship.

Citizenship is less about being born to the land and about being raised into upholding the values of a community and in return that community gives you support. To make different rules for people who declare allegiance to one and only country will make it valid to change up the rules in future to put another group at a legal disadvantage. That harms the unity which is the underlying point of citizenship.



I

I was really referring to my interpretation of it and why i am in agreement with the revoking of said citizenship, not the official letter of the law.
 

milanbaros

Member?
Don't agree with two tiered citizenship. They are citizens and as such should be tried, sentenced and serve their sentence in the U.K. Especially as they committed their crimes here.

The community and victims deserve this, not for them to be sent half way round the world.

Also not surprised to see the calls for the death penalty in this thread. Barbaric.
 
Don't agree with two tiered citizenship. They are citizens and as such should be tried, sentenced and serve their sentence in the U.K. Especially as they committed their crimes here.

The community and victims deserve this, not for them to be sent half way round the world.

Also not surprised to see the calls for the death penalty in this thread. Barbaric.

So....exactly what's happening then
 
If they had committed these crimes - and been caught - during the process of acquiring British citizenship, I don't think anyone would take issue with refusing them citizenship and then deporting them. Not doing so now because of what is effectively an arbitrary cut off seems ... Well, arbitrary.
 
They'll be executed back home I imagine. Can't say I sympathise at all

I doubt this. The UK and Pakistan have a long history and the UK has a large Pakistani population. Being deported wouldnt be an issue. I can't see why a Pakistani national who moved to the UK, got kicked out for the right reasons has anything to fear.
 
I don't care about these individuals at all, but, I don't believe citizenship should be something that is removable. They are British citizens and should be dealt with appropriately in the British justice system. They should be sentenced for life here.

Dual Nationals shouldn't be second class citizens. There should be protections for people, even for the worst of crimes, because otherwise the justice system can be abused.

Otherwise me might find ourselves in a world where British citizens could get deported to Australia for stealing some bread.

I agree
 
I don't think dangerous criminals like these should be set free in another country to abuse and terrorize their populace. Give them the punishment they earned. I hope the children they've hurt find some semblance of normalcy in their life eventually.
 
I don't think dangerous criminals like these should be set free in another country to abuse and terrorize their populace. Give them the punishment they earned. I hope the children they've hurt find some semblance of normalcy in their life eventually.

They're serving out their full sentence in the uk.
 

Derwind

Member
Is citizenship just a formality for some and not others?

Fuck these pieces of shit but they should face criminal charges & face judgement in the country they have citizenship status in.
 

Walshicus

Member
I don't care about these individuals at all, but, I don't believe citizenship should be something that is removable. They are British citizens and should be dealt with appropriately in the British justice system. They should be sentenced for life here.

Dual Nationals shouldn't be second class citizens. There should be protections for people, even for the worst of crimes, because otherwise the justice system can be abused.

Otherwise me might find ourselves in a world where British citizens could get deported to Australia for stealing some bread.

I agree 100%. Citizenship should not be something you can lose once acquired.
 
If they are citizens they should be punished in the UK like everyone else. I wouldn't feel sympathy for them wherever they are sent, but if they are naturalised, it should, by rights be dealt with in the UK...
 
Don't agree with two tiered citizenship. They are citizens and as such should be tried, sentenced and serve their sentence in the U.K. Especially as they committed their crimes here.

The community and victims deserve this, not for them to be sent half way round the world.

Also not surprised to see the calls for the death penalty in this thread. Barbaric.
Indeed. Fully agreed with this. After all, I thought that the justice system was supposed to be blind? That it was supposed to treat all defendants the same, regardless of their age, their race, their sex, etc, and justice is served regardless of such factors. But how can it possibly be said to be blind if the punishment one faces depends on one's place of birth? That your punishment will differ from someone else convicted of the same charge, because you were born one place and your counterpart another?

That's the exact opposite of "blind justice." That's just discrimination, through and through. And no matter how terrible the crime we shouldn't let that be an excuse to let our own base natures slip through and become monsters ourselves. When two people are accused of the same crime, the punishment shouldn't differ depending on factors such as place of birth as that's something uncontrollable, innate, and has nothing to do with the crime itself which remains the same regardless of such factors.

There should not be one punishment for people born here, and a different standard for those born there. No, justice should indeed be served, but it should be blind to such differences and the same punishment should be handed down regardless of who the guilty party is. That's what justice is.

Lady Justice would be shaking her head over anyone who's alright for two competing different sets of punishments for different groups of people. Fuck that.
 
Indeed. Fully agreed with this. After all, I thought that the justice system was supposed to be blind? That it was supposed to treat all defendants the same, regardless of their age, their race, their sex, etc, and justice is served regardless of such factors. But how can it possibly be said to be blind if the punishment one faces depends on one's place of birth? That your punishment will differ from someone else convicted of the same charge, because you were born one place and your counterpart another?

That's the exact opposite of "blind justice." That's just discrimination, through and through. And no matter how terrible the crime we shouldn't let that be an excuse to let our own base natures slip through and become monsters ourselves. When two people are accused of the same crime, the punishment shouldn't differ depending on factors such as place of birth as that's something uncontrollable, innate, and has nothing to do with the crime itself which remains the same regardless of such factors.

There should not be one punishment for people born here, and a different standard for those born there. No, justice should indeed be served, but it should be blind to such differences and the same punishment should be handed down regardless of who the guilty party is. That's what justice is.

Lady Justice would be shaking her head over anyone who's alright for two competing different sets of punishments for different groups of people. Fuck that.

The thing is, the justice system has done its job and punished these guys. The stripping of citizenship is a decision made by the Home Secretary because she felt like it
 

Chinner

Banned
what's wrong with you people? you're talking about stripping people of their citizenship? have you all gone mad?? and y'all will be the first to complain when the government keeps pushing the envelope with surveillance and stripping you of even more rights.
these people committed a crime, they were found guilty, they go to jail. that's it!
Well, you know, we're becoming a county of fascists
 
Fuck these pricks. The amount of anti Pakistan treatment some of my friends got because of these guys. Usually I would say stripping citizenship is wrong but the Ahmed guy doesn't even care about the crime he committed but only whether he can still stay here. Sending him back to Pakistan would be the real punishment for him.
 
The thing is, the justice system has done its job and punished these guys. The stripping of citizenship is a decision made by the Home Secretary because she felt like it

Because the Home Secretary is satisfied that it would be "conducive to the public good" to do so.

I find it hard to disagree tbh.
 
I'm all for them being deported after such a disgusting and calculated crime. Why should my tax money house them in prison for the rest of their lives when they've destroyed so many lives through their crimes?
There's no rehabilitation to be had with this type of criminal, they're not going to serve their sentence then come back into a British community as reformed and law abiding citizens. They're literal scum, child rapists and they deserve no sympathy.

Personally, I don't think they'll make it to getting deported back to their home countries. British prisons are notoriously violent towards paedophiles and in all likelihood, they'll get branded, or even killed by other inmates.
 
It's an emotive subject but it seems that what the state is doing the them is legal while what they did wasn't. Naturalisation is different to birth in that you normally have to vow to live by the law and if you break that vow the naturalisation can be claimed to be void. I don't even know what their punishment would be in Pakistan. I believe that crimes like this are actually viewed by the public with less tolerance in Britain than there. If my knowledge of public opinion is current then it's likely if a referendum was put to the public to reinstate the death penalty specifically asking if it should be extended to crimes like this it would probably pass. Removal of the death penalty in the UK was never really driven by a mass democratic movement to put it mildly.
 

Syder

Member
I don't like the idea of scrubbing away someone's citizenship but when someone has committed crimes as heinous as this it's hard to have sympathy.

At the end of the day it's just moving offenders off to another country where ultimately children will still be in danger.
 

Matt_09

Member
I agree with the deportation of these men. Their crimes are horrific and they will be a danger to young people if they are allowed back into society. With that in mind our Government must be confident that once deported, they will not be able to pose further threat. This may be very difficult to garuntee but we have to reach an agreement somewhere on this.

Like most discussions of politocs and society these days we have to avoid the binary approach and consider each case on it's own metits. And we have to stop assuming race plays a factor in cases involving non-white people. Yes these men are Asian, but their crimes speak for.themselves and this is why they have been judged as they have. I have worked in a prison with foreign convicts of all races and have to say that crime and hatred does not discrominate. I had a white Polish man who was alleged.to have badly beaten a woman. He openly discussed his hatred of women. I have no doubt he will reoffend. If he posed a severe threat to woman in Britain, is convicted and shows no sign of repenting l, he should be deported ASAP.

As for citizenship, it is a tough one. However by becoming a citizen of the UK you agree to certain values and laws, sign a good behaviour agreement of sorts and live here for 5 years. If citizenship has to be earned, it can be revoked (as abhorent as that is, some people will never change and the state can step in to remove a threat) i stress, I see this as a single case and each case should be viewed on it's individual merits.
 
I agree with the deportation of these men. Their crimes are horrific and they will be a danger to young people if they are allowed back into society. With that in mind our Government must be confident that once deported, they will not be able to pose further threat. This may be very difficult to garuntee but we have to reach an agreement somewhere on this.

Like most discussions of politocs and society these days we have to avoid the binary approach and consider each case on it's own metits. And we have to stop assuming race plays a factor in cases involving non-white people. Yes these men are Asian, but their crimes speak for.themselves and this is why they have been judged as they have. I have worked in a prison with foreign convicts of all races and have to say that crime and hatred does not discrominate. I had a white Polish man who was alleged.to have badly beaten a woman. He openly discussed his hatred of women. I have no doubt he will reoffend. If he posed a severe threat to woman in Britain, is convicted and shows no sign of repenting l, he should be deported ASAP.

As for citizenship, it is a tough one. However by becoming a citizen of the UK you agree to certain values and laws, sign a good behaviour agreement of sorts and live here for 5 years. If citizenship has to be earned, it can be revoked (as abhorent as that is, some people will never change and the state can step in to remove a threat) i stress, I see this as a single case and each case should be viewed on it's individual merits.
But why? What purpose does that serve, that incarceration does not? What can only be achieved through those ends?

And if that's the case, then do you feel that punishment should apply to anyone convicted of the same crime? Because I don't see why it shouldn't. Yes, that will leave some people completely stateless. But that's not London's problem, is it? The important thing is look out for our own, right? What happens to them wherever they wind up is completely irrelevant and the only thing that matters is keeping others safe from them, by any means necessary, so if that means some people become stateless, that's terribly sad, but it's a necessary cost to keep everyone else safe, using the exact same logic, right?

Or is that not necessary after all, and there's never a good enough reason to make a person stateless? In which case, what's the difference here? What end can only be served by revoking their citizenship, and what positive does that bestow that can only be obtained that way, and not through alternative options such as simple incarceration?

Because I can't think of any positive that this accomplishes that isn't already accomplished by actions such as incarceration, but I can see lots of negatives, such as making those who have dual-citizenship feel like a lower tier of citizens compared to natural born Brits, lowering integration, increasing resentment, and making radicalization by nefarious groups all the more simple. What benefits come from revoking the citizenships of these men that can't be obtained through other options and are worth those kind of risks and trade-offs? Because at least personally, I can't think of anything. I can't think of anything this accomplishes other than just channeling rage and vengeance, but not actually accomplishing anything that wouldn't already be accomplished by just locking them away, and certainly not anything that justifies the trade-offs for this kind of approach on top of that.
 
But why? What purpose does that serve, that incarceration does not? What can only be achieved through those ends?

And if that's the case, then do you feel that punishment should apply to anyone convicted of the same crime? Because I don't see why it shouldn't. Yes, that will leave some people completely stateless. But that's not London's problem, is it? The important thing is look out for our own, right? What happens to them wherever they wind up is completely irrelevant and the only thing that matters is keeping others safe from them, by any means necessary, so if that means some people become stateless, that's terribly sad, but it's a necessary cost to keep everyone else safe, using the exact same logic, right?

Or is that not necessary after all, and there's never a good enough reason to make a person stateless? In which case, what's the difference here? What end can only be served by revoking their citizenship, and what positive does that bestow that can only be obtained that way, and not through alternative options such as simple incarceration?

Because I can't think of any positive that this accomplishes that isn't already accomplished by actions such as incarceration, but I can see lots of negatives, such as making those who have dual-citizenship feel like a lower tier of citizens compared to natural born Brits, lowering integration, increasing resentment, and making radicalization by nefarious groups all the more simple. What benefits come from revoking the citizenships of these men that can't be obtained through other options and are worth those kind of risks and trade-offs? Because at least personally, I can't think of anything. I can't think of anything this accomplishes other than just channeling rage and vengeance, but not actually accomplishing anything that wouldn't already be accomplished by just locking them away, and certainly not anything that justifies the trade-offs for this kind of approach on top of that.

Makes Daily Mail readers happy innit? Shouldn't that be the ultimate purpose of any government?
 

Derwind

Member
As an aside, what about someone who enters a country while in infancy? Is there whole existence just a formality that can be altered at a whim? What legal oath could they take that they understand or what decision could they have been a party to when immigrating?

Why not just call them second-class citizens and be done with it because they obviously aren't being regarded in the same way as their same-age counterparts born in the country in question.

The country given citizenship should be permanent and non-revocable.

If a naturalized citizen commits a crime, they should be treated exactly like a citizen by birth. Otherwise make it abundantly clear that they aren't "real" citizens and be done with it.

No more of this mental gymnastics and moral relativism that is required to pretend their is any equality between citizenship statuses. Just call them temporary dwellers or 50% citizens.. or what other moniker works to remind you & them exactly what they are.
 
The country given citizenship should be permanent and non-revocable.

Well, OK, suppose that 100 people want to enter. We can guess that 5 of them will commit serious crimes. It's unfortunate but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and so on and so on.

Current policies mean that 20 of them are allowed in meaning that there is a 1% chance of something awful happening. But that person can be kicked out. That's not fair so the law changes.

So the law changes and there is a big backlash saying that the entry standards needs to be raised because that 1% chance event happened twice. In order to crack down on that risk the only option is to make naturalisation a tougher process. Politicians feel that 0.25% risk means less risk to their seats so now 5 people are allowed in. 15 people are not allowed in, in case 1 of them has to be sent back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom