Should we take the same action?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=491862&in_p age_id=1811

Would our politicians have the courage to take similar action in our country?

No promises of action in a couple of years time, after numerous debates and inquires, but immediately as the Italians have.

[vehelpfulguy]

I brought this up last week:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question47 5779.html

Unfortunately we in England are the most tolerant and easy going people (or maybe just lazy).

Even though almost eveyone you talk to has had enough of immigration, and thinks there has been far too much, we never actually get off our backsides and protest about it.

The only thing that has prompted the Italians to do something is the increasing crime rate over there which really has got out of hand.

And because we have voted in Labour for the last two terms it is a sort of tacit support for their open door policy.

If a party stood that was purely an anti-immigration party, and they began to get lots of votes, then the main parties would start to do something about it.

But there is not such a party (unles you count BNP which many people refuse to vote for) and the electorate are not crying out for one, so Labour will continue their open door policy as they feel the public support it as they continue to vote for them.

I really thought the British would start to rise up after the tube bombings a couple of years ago, but we just went "tut tut" and carried on with our lives.

By the time we do come to our senses it will be too late.

[Lonnie]

As vhg says, the British always leave it until its too late, but regarding your question, yes, we should implent the same policy, but won't, because this goverment wants to dilute the Britishness until there's no such thing.

Already the pride in this country is at its lowest ever.

[weeal]

Britain is far too soft and we dont stand up to the 'powers that be' to change things.
We are a doormat.

[naomi24]

Yes, we should - but our politicians won't have the courage to do it because we are far more politically correct than we ought to be, and 'human rights' are deemed paramount regardless of the damage done to the rest of society.

[Dassie]

Yes, we should definitely kick out all these undesirables but this action would pose 2 important issues:-

1) With Gordon Brown and his Scots MP evicted back to Scotland as definitely undesirable, how would the Labour Party function?

2) A new Enoch Powell would have to emerge suggesting we PAY for all the Brits who emigrated to come back to replace the 90% of the population deported to India, Pakistan, Arab countries, Romania, Poland and Chavland.

[kwicky]

With a legal aid system like the UK offers don't expect many changes. Any decisions made to tackle the immigration problem should be retrospective and we should try to re-open the stable door.

[Bazile]

arth

[ruby27]

I agree with all the previous posters. Lock them up, whilst simultaneously expelling them.

[Dassie]

ruby.....

What a good idea...........floating prisons?
With a bit of luck they'd end up running aground at Guantanamo Bay. But I'm not sure if BR has railprison to take Gordon & Co. back to Scotland!

[Oneeyedvic]

Should we take the same action?

Quote from your article: The Italian legislation, prompted by rising public anger at crimes committed by Romanian migrants, allows a judge to approve and sign an expulsion order against those who police say are a threat.

No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.

No, we should not bring in legislation like that.

I have absolutely no issue with people who abuse this country's hospitality (by breaking certain laws) being expelled (subject to certain conditions), but the Italian law is in my opinion draconian and ridiculous.

[Dassie]

Perhaps if the UK had "draconian" laws it would be in a better situation today.

Each individual should have an I.D card and then the Govt. would have a better idea of how many undesirables and immigrants are actually in the Country.
MI5 reckon over 2000 potential terrorists ( which probably means 4000 ).

If self-preservation is at stake I would hardly call it "ridiculous"

[sp1814]

Christ Almighty.

Oneeyedvic - I was about to post almost word-for-word what you posted.

Can anyone who is in favour of:

No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.

please explain your thinking???

Dassie - I had to read your post a couple of times, and I'm still not sure whether you're saying what I think you're saying...

Please clarify this point:

to replace the 90% of the population deported to India, Pakistan, Arab countries, Romania, Poland and Chavland

[sp1814]

Oh, and another (serious) question - seeing as most news reports focus on the radicalisation of Muslim youths...what do you suggest we do with those undesirables who are British???

Could we send them slightly abroad? Like to the Isle Of Man?

[THECORBYLOON]

How would an ID card identify undesirables? As for 90% not being British, eh? Do you expect the (seemingly) 10% to pay for all the millions to return to the UK? Would you pay for all the British prisoners in foreign gaols to return?

[cambus]

Don't believe what I'm reading on here.
I thought it was only a black face that could inflame the fires of racial hatred, now its a Scottish accent.
A truly unified nation, Little Britain.
The rivers will run with blood or whatever.

[Kromovaracun]

If the UK were to deport 'undesirables', I can imagine a good number of Britons being deported too...

As others have said, I don't there's anything wrong in principle with deporting immigrant criminals who have breached the country's law, but I think there's something heinously wrong about doing so without trial and without right of appeal.

[naomi24]

In defence of foreign undesirables, the question of where British undesirables should be deported to is often raised on AB. Clearly home-grown criminals cannot be deported since there isn't anywhere to deport them to, and therefore it's a spurious argument.

[Dassie]

Oh people.......READ my first post before you get on your high horses.

Is there such a Country as "Chavland" ?????

Gordon Brown deported to Scotland as "undesirable" ????

Can't you see through your blinkered vision to recognise a little tongue in cheek ???

Lighten up.

[Sweep2k]

naomi,

I read your posts with interest. You write very persuasively sometimes, but I do think it's a shame that you choose to sensationalise political correctness and human rights.

Think of the actual meaning of the words and the origin of the concepts and you'll realise that they are inherently good ideals. Pursued properly, they protect the vulnerable and make the world a better place.

What you, perhaps fairly, have an issue with is when they are taken to taken to ludicrous extremes or given undue prominence over other ideals, such as the protection of the public or common sense.

But to attack them per se - in their purest, rightest form - is Littlejohn-esque. It polarises the debate so that those who are more easily led by the tabloids then think of it as weak or wrong to protect the rights of human beings or to exercise fairness, reasonableness and tact - whatever the circumstances.

I'm sure this isn't your intention.

[sp1814]

Why are those who are 'pro' this ridiculous idea avoiding answering this:

Quote from your article: The Italian legislation, prompted by rising public anger at crimes committed by Romanian migrants, allows a judge to approve and sign an expulsion order against those who police say are a threat.

No proof of a criminal record is necessary and neither is a trial. There is no appeal.

How would that work?

Please - c'mon...are you saying that you'd be happy with this?