Richard Dawkins Smacks Down on Rick Perry

[Nev]

I think the point is that it's not an "asylum seeker" problem, it's a problem with people in general.  Anything that increases the total population of an area - whether it's granting asylum, letting in tourists, or just letting people be born - is going to increase the total number of rapes and murders.

My point is that "letting people be born" is a phenomenon we already have, that inevitably produces individuals that will turn into criminals. Granting asylums will also produce new individuals that will turn to crime, but that is a problem that isn't unavoidable to us; we can't stop people from being born but we can stop them from coming here.

...I know how that sounds, so I'll clarify; I'm still not advocating a complete ban on asylum seekers. I'm just arguing that the bureucracy and the laws are there for a reason, and that the asylum-seeking system we have now is way too exploitable.

However, I'm amenable to evidence.  A lot of people who come from the world's rougher spots have different notions about the rule of law (understandable, as the rule of law is nonexistent or hopelessly corrupt in such places).  So, if you can show me some statistics - not anecdotes - indicating that asylum seekers or illegal immigrants or what-have-you increase the per capita crime rate, I'll concede the argument.

Certainly. http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/syyttr/2009/syyttr_2009_2010-12-16_tie_001_fi.html?ad=notify

Asylum seekers or illegal immigrants or what-have-you make 9% of all the crimes, while the percentage of them from the population of Finland is 4%.

[Neltharion]

However, most of those come from Russian or from the former Soviet Union, I don't think it says anything about Blacks, Arabs or Asians. But then again my finnish is not what it used to be.

Also, I don't read any hint of rapes/murders/muggings in there. It seems to be talking about minor fines and suspended prison sentences mostly.



And regardless of the fact that crime is commited by these "foreign scum" (channeling the Daily Mail there), it doesn't mean that all of them are going to commit such heinous crimes.

You can't damn the many because of the actions of the few. Doing so sounds exactly like someone from the EDL or BNP would say.

[Nev]

However, most of those come from Russian or from the former Soviet Union, I don't think it says anything about Blacks, Arabs or Asians. But then again my finnish is not what it used to be.

Russians and former soviets are the largest single group, yes, but those others you mentioned make the bulk of that statistic.

Also, I don't read any hint of rapes/murders/muggings in there. It seems to be talking about minor fines and suspended prison sentences mostly.

It covers all crimes, serious and minor. And Hieronymus asked if the immigration/asylum granting actually raises the per capita crime, so...

And regardless of the fact that crime is commited by these "foreign scum" (channeling the Daily Mail there), it doesn't mean that all of them are going to commit such heinous crimes

Yeah, but my point was that it does happen, and there'd be a simple solution to avoid these crimes. 

You can't damn the many because of the actions of the few. Doing so sounds exactly like someone from the EDL or BNP would say.

Actually we can. As I said, rationally thinking we don't owe the asylum seekers anything. Cold as hell, I know, but there it is.

I did remember to mention I don't actually support airtight borders?

[maledoro]

Is Rick Perry expected to seek asylum in any other country?

[Hieronymus]

...I know how that sounds, so I'll clarify; I'm still not advocating a complete ban on asylum seekers. I'm just arguing that the bureucracy and the laws are there for a reason, and that the asylum-seeking system we have now is way too exploitable.

You should have said that to begin with.  I have no problem letting rapists rot in third-world hellholes.  That's entirely reasonable.  The question is, how do you weed them out without excluding innocent people?

Actually we can. As I said, rationally thinking we don't owe the asylum seekers anything. Cold as hell, I know, but there it is.

Rationally thinking, sure - but what about common human decency?  I'd rather not live in a world where the general attitude toward strangers suffering is "fuck 'em."

[Nev]

Is Rick Perry expected to seek asylum in any other country?

Maybe, if his reception by the voters is anything like his reception here.

You should have said that to begin with.  I have no problem letting rapists rot in third-world hellholes.  That's entirely reasonable.  The question is, how do you weed them out without excluding innocent people?

But I thought I did say it? For the last few pages I've pretty much been going with "for the sake of the arguement" and "what if"- mentalities. Looking back now, I guess I could've been more clear about it...

Rationally thinking, sure - but what about common human decency?  I'd rather not live in a world where the general attitude toward strangers suffering is "fuck 'em."

I agree, to an extent. When you exchange the suffering of strangers to the suffering of your own people, you're doing something wrong. The line has to go somewhere, though I admit I don't have a fucking clue where. That is why I find both the "Open the borders now!" and "Keep all those fuckers out!"- attitudes equally bad.

[SM]

Is Rick Perry expected to seek asylum in any other country?

He can come here if he doesn't mind being locked up mandatory detention for a couple of years.

Is the Republican side really down to Perry, Bachmann and Romney?  How could Obama not shit it in against that lot?

[maledoro]

Is the Republican side really down to Perry, Bachmann and Romney?  How could Obama not shit it in against that lot?

This headline says it all...

[SM]

Yeah - that's why I nicked it on page 2.

But are they really the frontrunners right now?  Bachmann and Perry seem too nutty to attract votes from anyone but ultra conservatives (to the point that it may galvanise people to actually vote against them).  And there didn't seem to be much love for Romney last time round.

[maledoro]

I don't know if they are genuine frontrunners; but there is more talk about them than the others.

[SM]

Did I hear they have a debate on Wednesday?  Should be a scream.

[NERMAL]

Why do so called asylum seekers not go back home after the dust has settled? After the regime has been toppled? After the grass starts growing again? Will they go back to their homes and culture and loved ones?

Nope. Here to stay. If they gotta come, they come as guests. Guests eventually go home.

While also on the subject of criminal/anti-social activities, we had a Somali 'asylum seeker' here who thought it would be a good idea to rape an eleven year old girl because he wanted a wife and 'that's the way it's done back home'. Does he get sent back home to live the dream? Nope. Incarceration at the tax-payer's expense. What about those who like to extoll the virtues of Sharia Law (in capitals because it's the LAW, Allah dammit!) and won't consider the law of the land to apply to them. Britain has had Iraqi families who don't really like the idea of free women and kill their own fucking daughters for looking out side the faith for love. Do they get punted back to the land of sand? Nope. Incarceration again. At the cost of the good people who opened their arms to welcome them in the first place.

Bottom line is if an immigrant, illegal, Asylum Seeker, or otherwise, will not abide by the laws and conventions of the society of which they wish to emigrate to, then they can peddle their butts back whence they came.

This is not a matter of culture. I don't expect old people to learn a brand new language. I expect them to respect our laws. "When in Rome" so to speak.

[Hieronymus]

Why do so called asylum seekers not go back home after the dust has settled? After the regime has been toppled? After the grass starts growing again? Will they go back to their homes and culture and loved ones?

Because when it happens at all, it takes years for a society like that to stabilize.  In that time, a family ends up putting down roots in a new place.  And, with very few exceptions, the new regime quickly becomes as corrupt as the old one, leaving the country not much better off than it was to begin with.

Do they get punted back to the land of sand? Nope. Incarceration again. At the cost of the good people who opened their arms to welcome them in the first place.

You talk about incarceration as if it's no big deal.  Now, that may be your opinion, and if so, it's worth discussing (separately), but it is the punishment used for most native citizens who commit crimes.  Why have different punishments for the same crime based on where someone was from originally?

Furthermore, if you do deport a rapist, how can you count on them getting punished at all for it back "home?"  After all, if rape is "how it's done back home," their country of origin won't see anything to punish.

[NERMAL]

 

But they won't be here threatening to do it again. Can you really condone the act of killing your own child for going against the expectations of Sharia? If that's what they want, go home.

Grow roots? Like weeds?

And incarceration is no big deal if compared to the 'life threatening tyranny' that they were fleeing. Part of being allowed to stay wherever they are trying to settle should be the proviso that if they break the law, then goodbye. Hasta la Vista. Enjoy a trip home that would in the long run be cheaper/economically more viable than being the guest of the State/Her Majesty. "What about the family of the guy who commits the crime?" Guess what? As the provider of the family, he determines what happens to that family. He goes, they go. Is that really so hard?

Feed and house asylum seekers, or the homeless already living in the country? Charity unfortunately begins at home.

[deezelboy]

Yes, but what if one or more of these people rape, kill or mug someone while they're waiting for their request to be processed? That's the part that puts me off so. There's a potential to cause harm to our own people, when we aren't in any way obligated to take asylum seekers in in the first place. Cold, I know, but that's rational thinking for you.

If a country's signed up to the UN Human Rights Declaration, then it's obliged to take asylum seekers.  If they're an EU country they've also signed on to some agreements to take asylum seekers, which are somewhat more binding than the UN Declaration.

As to rationality, it depends on what a country's objectives are.  If they simply seek to protect the lives of their own citizens, then it's perfectly rational to turn away asylum seekers on the border.

If the objective is to save lives or ensure safety, as with the Human Rights Declaration (where states are obliged to do this for all people and not just their citizens), then you could create a pretty simple metric to determine if it's worth letting people in. I'd suspect that this would always come out on the side of allowing them to enter the border rather than be deported, however. 

This doesn't still explain how my country could do it with much less. With this I'm referring to the vast natural riches many African countries have, which we have always lacked. When these natural riches are combined with the sizable development aid, I don't see why not even one of the third world countries have been able to get their shit together in all this time.

Very different circumstances.  Practically the whole of Africa was owned by the Europeans, and divided up as they saw fit.  Post WWII nobody had the cash to support their empires, and they left, usually leaving behind very hastily constructed and rather artificial states.

As a result a lot of states then had problems with internal conflicts, some of which still go on today.  These problems were further exacerbated by the Cold War, with both players seeking to add the newly independent states as allies.   

Yes, there are a lot of resource rich states in Africa.  But resources are the bottom end of the product cycle - the cheapest things you can buy.  Obviously if a state had a decent amount of manufacturing capacity as well then it could be making a lot more money, but the problem is investing in that.  Loans and aid comes with conditions, and these conditions are usually beneficial to the loaners.  As a result, while there's been investment in the infrastructure needed to exploit the resources, the actual exploitation is maintained by foreign companies.

Some of them are getting their shit together, though.  Nigeria's been one of the fastest growing economies in the last three years, for example. 

Why do so called asylum seekers not go back home after the dust has settled?

I don't think they have much of a choice, do they?  If they've been granted asylum and the state then decides that conditions in their home country have improved enough, they get repatriated.

Britain has had Iraqi families who don't really like the idea of free women and kill their own fucking daughters for looking out side the faith for love. Do they get punted back to the land of sand? Nope. Incarceration again. At the cost of the good people who opened their arms to welcome them in the first place.

Well, you have two choices.  You can deport them - and there are considerable problems with why you granted them asylum in the first place if you do that - and they go free.

Or you can lock them up in your own country which ensures that they are in fact punished for their crime.  When they're released you can always check the conditions of their home country and, if they've improved, repatriate them.

So it really comes down to whether you want a bit of justice for a murdered girl, or you want to save the taxpayer a few bob.

In the Mahmod case, which I think is the one you're referring to, the UK went as far as to extradite two of the suspects from Iraq.  Clearly justice was more important than washing the UK's hands of them.

"What about the family of the guy who commits the crime?" Guess what? As the provider of the family, he determines what happens to that family. He goes, they go. Is that really so hard?

Bit tough on the whole honour killing thing, isn't it? 

"Thank you for testifying that your dad killed your sister.  The good news is that due to your testimony your dad was found guilty.

"The bad news is that now you're going to be deported with him.  We'd like to wish you the best of luck with your new future, hopefully it won't be that brief."