I suspect the OP is saying that children trafficked into a country they subsequently grew up in should probably be treated as victims and dealt with compassionately, whether or not they're widely loved sports stars
I understand the intention but even then you are creating a loophole, i.e. you bring people under 18 illegally, they get the nationality through this loophole, then you need to grant visas to the parent who will care for them.
It's basically the story of the loophole of "don't put children in jail and don't separate them from their parents either" at the US border. All good intentions, the consequences of which is that the number of illegal migrants coming with children has blown up, with children being used as a get out of jail card to enter the country illegally.
I am all for making exceptions in case of exceptional contributions. But you can't create rules without looking at the consequences of the incentives you create.
> I understand the intention but even then you are creating a loophole, i.e. you bring people under 18 illegally, they get the nationality through this loophole, then you need to grant visas to the parent who will care for them.
Did anyone suggest that?
"Subsequently grew up in" implies to me that the evaluation is being made many years later, and at a point where they don't need their parents to care for them.
> It's basically the story of the loophole of "don't put children in jail and don't separate them from their parents either" at the US border. All good intentions, the consequences of which is that the number of illegal migrants coming with children has blown up, with children being used as a get out of jail card to enter the country illegally.
Do you have sources for this? I'm finding some very different stories in articles.
"creating a loophole" presupposes that we want to stop people as much as possible, from coming to our country.
I consider it an extraordinary privilege to have people wanting to flee here for safety and opportunity, and not just because they might turn out to be olympic athletes, but because they need us and we can help.
This is false equivalence, children being trafficked and forced into servitude is nothing like a family entering a country without the correct visas. There is no loophole here, the child was rescued by social services.
> All good intentions, the consequences of which is that the number of illegal migrants coming with children has blown up, with children being used as a get out of jail card to enter the country illegally.
I was curious so I googled (I'm a Brit and not up on the US)
It seems:
> Borderwide, about 15 percent of single adults and 65 percent of families are released into the U.S. rather than expelled, according to Customs and Border Protection data from April.
When they cross the borders in Somalia they may be refugees. By the time they have crossed the borders, in and out, of 10 countries that are not at war, to land in the UK, they are economic migrants.
No they do not cease to be a refugee when crossing a border, or many. That is simply a dismissive and disingenuous talking point pushed by the outrage media.
They cease to be refugees when they have settled somewhere or voluntarily returned to their country of origin. See the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
It’s such a bunk argument to suggest that because there are other countries physically inbeween the refugee’s homeland and Britain that they are economic migrants by the time they get here.
If they all settled at the point closest to their homeland that wasn’t “at war” I’m pretty sure there would soon be conflict there.
Britain is a rich, developed nation that is quite easily able to support our “fair share” of refugees along with the rest of Europe.
Being a refugee should not be (and isn't) a blank cheque to settle in whatever part of the world you want, financially supported by the locals regardless of whether they want you there or not. If it were that would be a perverse incentive to actually try and make your own country collapse, as it'd be easier to claim "refugee" status than fix domestic issues. This is doubly true given that some people are fanatical about the issue of fully open borders regardless of downsides, and will immediately expand the definition of "refugee" to incorporate anyone at all. The concept of a "climate refugee" is already being promoted, for example.
Combined with the argument you're making here it is just a cynical attempt to hijack people's good natured desire to help genuine war refugees, into jackhammering unlimited migration and open borders into society without consideration of any costs. This must not be allowed to happen as this kind of abuse will ultimately result in the collapse of support for any kind of refugee and asylum support.
It isn’t a blank cheque, because making it to safety in a preferred country is exceptionally difficult and expensive.
However, it is a blank cheque once you’ve surmounted those challenges and have arrived at the safe country you have chosen (and were able to reach), though most countries receiving such refugees are doing their best not to honour this obligation.
It’s worth noting that the UK tries hard to prevent refugees reaching our shores, but the vast majority that do, and apply for asylum, are granted it [1].
It's clearly not that difficult or expensive given the large numbers of people who manage to achieve it despite, theoretically, having no personal resources. If it were really exceptionally difficult then people wouldn't do it, as there's nothing wrong with the countries they crossed to get there.
I see a selection bias in your comments there. There may be numbers of people who manage to achieve it but you can't strictly say if it was difficult or not unless you compare the number of people who tried and failed. You can't say it was not expensive unless you can demonstrate that some significant proportion of those who made it did not spend much money doing so.
Being a refugee does not mean you have no resources. Would you flee your home country without taking your valuables? Would you have no friends or relatives to call upon to offer some monetary assistance, if it meant the difference between life and death?
Most have few resources. The ones with more resources have more options about where they flee to.
You're proving my point here. You seem to think being labelled a refugee is literally a blank cheque and the only limit on where they settle should be how far they can get with whatever funds they take with them. Remember also that there are organizations that will happily pay people money to let them relocate to more desirable locations.
I don't really have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but people like you need to realize this - that sort of attitude and activism will sooner or later mean the end of the asylum system for everyone. We are already seeing credible candidates for Prime Minister want to withdraw from the ECHR to make deportations for failed asylum possible (not even easy, just possible) and it's because the public has no patience for the endless flood of "refugees" who inexplicably find France unacceptable. Abuse of the system will lead to it being terminated, and that will be popular with voters.
On average the equivalent of 0.05% of the UK population claims asylum each year [1]. Last year about 0.07%. That doesn't sound like an endless flood to me. The world unfortunately does have a lot of refugees in it, but we do not experience the consequences of that here, much as we may act as though we do.
I don't personally have a strong belief that refugees should have a blank cheque to settle anywhere. It might be fairer to permit refugees to travel further, as it's unclear why neighbouring countries should shoulder the burden. However, the only point I was making is that my understanding is that today they _do_ have that right, which is why countries make it so hard to arrive.
Mo Farah didn't cheat the system though. He was a victim of the trafficking and so the ops point is referring to not criminalizing the victim i think. Which makes sense. He didn't break the immigration law.
He is a direct beneficiary though. Whether that is relevant in immigration law, I don't know, but it certainly is in other areas of criminal law (e.g. receiving stolen property, soliciting murder etcetera).
Being in possession of stolen property is not necessarily a crime. If you buy something on eBay that was stolen without your knowledge you're not going to get charged. You may have to return it and be out of pocket probably, but not crime.
As for soliciting murder that's a crime. There is an intent there.
> He is a direct beneficiary though.
What if instead of his lief today he was forced into the sex slave ? Would you still consider him a beneficiary ?
If we're looking for mens rea then the moment a child is over 10, if they don't confess to being an illegal immigrant then they know what they're doing.
As to your other question, they would be a victim as they are a slave. Return to their country of origin should still be favoured though (but not mandatory). If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? As such I'm not sure why that's relevant. Pointing out that something can become complex does not mean that the simpler cases we're actually discussing can't be solved.
> If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return?
Are you forgetting that he has nothing to return to? Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?
> Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means?
Do you know how to conduct yourself properly in discussion? I’ll thank you for trying harder to from now on.
It’s his homeland, regardless of whether it’s war-torn or not. If he has nothing there or not is irrelevant to whether he wishes to go back. Which he could, or he could apply to stay, through the proper channels, which he also could (you’ll note I left open such a possibility).
None of which absolves him or whomever it was that trafficked him of their actions.
> Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point?
Yes, what are the chances? Perhaps it would be good to hear something more concrete from you on what those chances are.
> If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?
Because it's their home, and because hypothetically you haven't provided any reasoning as to why it would remain indefinitely dangerous, but I'm sure we can play this game of endlessly more unlikely and difficult situations so it will be interesting to hear the substance behind these hypotheticals.
Mens rea is the standard for something to be a crime, the assumption being that I cannot call it a crime without there being intent. Without intent it is not a crime.
Did he know that he was benefiting from using a false name? Was he of an age that the courts have deemed there to be a presumed ability to tell right from wrong? This test would be applied at every level of the justice system (at least every level above bare detection). It is a presumption of the system of criminal law in a common law jurisdiction, hence, it should be taken as said. Or I thought it would be.
The principle of charity is always a good place to start a discussion[1].
