to think deporting Trenton Oldfield is just mean

[sashh]

Trenton Oldfield is the man who disrupted the boat race a couple of years ago.

He is an Australian married to a Briton with a baby daughter. He has lived in the UK for 12 years.

He has applied for a spousal visa and it has been rejected.

He did a stupid thing, for which he has paid with a prison sentence and a criminal record, why punish him more?

Exactly what good will it do to deport him?

Exactly how much harm will it do?

I have not put a link, there are loads of newspaper articles, web pages etc outlining the case.

I'm not sure that I believe that his spouse won't be able to join him here. I sponsored my (now ex) husband to come in to Australia, and whilst he had to provide police clearances from all of the countries that he had lived in, I was never required to provide any.

There are people who have committed no crimes and have been deported.

There are people who have committed no crimes and been refused a spousal visa.

Why should he be a special case just because he has some publicity? Which he got by committing a crime? Totally effing pointless protest too...

I couldn't find the link, but a short time after the London riots some of the comps in one of the worst-hit areas of London announced that (I think) 8 or 9 of their pupils had been offered Oxbridge places. That won't be the only similar story. He's behind the times on elitism.

YANBU, OP. Don't back down so easily! I can't believe how close-minded some of the comments on this thread are.

He did something wrong and stupid. He went to jail and paid the price. Why does he deserve to be punished twice, which is what would effectively happen if he were deported? Why do his innocent wife and child, British citizens, deserve to be punished as well? He should be allowed to stay if only for their sake.

The punishment proposed here is entirely disproportionate to the crime. I'm not condoning what he did - it was reckless and unjustifiable - but essentially it was a peaceful protest. The authorities want to deport him on the grounds that he is "not conducive to the public good". That is a very fuzzy standard to use. Deportation orders are not something that should be handed out like sweets.

Human rights are the core issue here, and after that, free speech.

Anyone who has had direct experience of being torn apart as a family by immigration issues would have a hell of a lot more sympathy than most of the above posters do.

He went to jail and paid the price. Why does he deserve to be punished twice, which is what would effectively happen if he were deported?

Then are you arguing that no-one should be deported? After all, deportation is always going to be an additional punishment for non-citizens over those available for citizens.

Why do his innocent wife and child, British citizens, deserve to be punished as well?

So are there any crimes that in your view would merit the deportation of someone who has a spouse and child in the UK?

Anyone who has had direct experience of being torn apart as a family by immigration issues would have a hell of a lot more sympathy than most of the above posters do.

His immigration issues are entirely self-inflicted. Firstly, if he'd wanted to stay, he could have taken UK citizenship at any point over the past ten or fifteen years, in which case we would not be having this debate. She has taken UK citizenship (she's originally Indian, I believe). He could have done. He chose not to. Secondly, if he'd not wanted to be subject to removal, he could have tried not breaking the law; I know, just a crazy idea. This is not some Kafka-esque hidden evidence persecution: he committed a crime, wittered on about his hatred for this country, and is now suddenly surprised to have been taken at his word.

free speech.

There are no free speech issues here at all. I'm pretty absolutist on free speech, and set the bar very high for restraint and very low for shouting "free speech issue". This is not a free speech issue.

By the way, you can see the family's, er, flexible attitude to inequality and elitism in the Guardian earlier this year. "At the time Naik was teaching in Saudi Arabia" Really? These are people committed to equality, justice and the end of oppression? So what the actual fuck was she doing working in one of the most unequal, unjust and oppressive regimes in the world? And what does Trenton think would have happened had he pulled a similar stunt there?

Big crime, little crime it doesn't matter.

When you are a guest in another country, you abide by the laws of that country or you get booted.

This is on him, he committed the crime and then created a baby (interesting timing there), he has created his own situation.

The visa rules are not a secret, it really isn't very hard to abide by most country's laws when you are visiting.

I have lived in and visited many countries over the last 20 years. Not once have I been asked to leave.

Really. Not. That. Hard.

The guy seems like a wanker, really if you guys want to keep him, it is no skin off my nose, but bloody hell you are a bunch of softies and he will be laughing his arse off if he gets his way.

friday16, I would support deporting someone who actually DID present a threat to the public good. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Oldfield does indeed fit this criterion. If he had presented a real danger to society, presumably he would have been jailed for longer than six months. As the OP said in her post, 'Exactly what good will it do to deport him?'

His immigration issues are entirely self-inflicted.
And his wife and child? In what way is their dilemma 'self-inflicted'?

It's interesting that you seem to think that if he had become a naturalised British citizen, everything would be fine. In fact, the government now has the power to remove the citizenship of naturalised British citizens if they deem a naturalised citizen to be not conducive to the public good. And this is happening increasingly frequently. So yes, citizenship might offer an additional layer of protection, but it's by no means fail-safe.

he wittered on about his hatred for this country
Source please?

And even if he did 'witter on', does anyone who criticises a country deserve to be deported from that country? All right then. But this isn't a free speech issue. Oh, definitely not.

Look, nothing I've read about this man makes me like him. But he doesn't deserve to be deported for saying things that people don't like.

friday16, your arguments are getting wilder by the moment. Teaching in an oppressive regime is not OK? Schools, colleges and universities are often places where people are resisting/undermining the oppressive regime.

morloth, I think that the length of time he had spent in the UK is relevant. After 12 years you are more than 'a guest'.

Not sure this debate will go anywhere because I suspect what's really underlying it is an anti-immigration versus a pro-immigration bias. If you see immigrants as second-class people, you're not going to be bothered by riding roughshod over their human rights.

But he isn't being deported for saying things people don't like.

Well that depends on his visa marfisa.

He is a guest if his visa status says so.

I have been an immigrant in the UK, we lived there for almost 6 years and I am an Australian.

I have a child born in the UK.

When we decided to go there, we applied for visas, we had a good read of the rules.

Basically it boils down to 'behave yourself and don't cost us any money'.

He had choices, he was an idiot, now he has fewer choices.

The child was born after he was convicted. He knew full well what could, and probably would, happen to him, and then imposed that on a baby. This is entirely his own fault.

But not the baby's fault!

And his wife and child? In what way is their dilemma 'self-inflicted'?

It has been inflicted upon them by their husband/father.

If you see immigrants as second-class people

Who sees them as second class people?

So anyone who would be deported after being convicted of a crime, gets to stay if they have a child?

That's going to end well.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to a family life. This right should be overridden only if a person represents a genuine danger to the state.

Here by the way is the text of the letter that hundreds of members of Oxford and Cambridge universities signed:

^As staff, students, and alumni of Cambridge and Oxford Universities, we are calling on the Home Secretary to stop deportation proceedings against Trenton Oldfield for disrupting the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race in April 2013.

We neither believe that this action constituted an infraction serious enough to warrant such a heavy penalty, nor accept that it establishes that Mr Oldfield is ‘undesirable, has unacceptable associations and could be considered a threat to national security’.

The Boat Race is a game; its disruption should not result in any individual’s deportation. Certainly its disruption should not be cause to separate an individual from his family, which includes a recently-born child.

We note that the race was completed successfully and no one was harmed by Mr Oldfield’s actions. We do not wish this draconian penalty to be applied in the name of an event representing our institutions.^

And his wife and child? In what way is their dilemma 'self-inflicted'?

The child was conceived after he was convicted, so has been introduced into this as a pawn for fairly cynical reasons. She appears to be as deluded as him, rather than being some naive innocent.

In fact, the government now has the power to remove the citizenship of naturalised British citizens

Only if they are dual nationals. You would have thought that given he dislikes Australia as well (" I no longer felt comfortable being part of the colonial situation there, the occupation of Aboriginal lands. I felt I was undermining their lives.") he would have revoked his Australian citizenship and become a UK citizen. Well, aside from the "London being one of the most unequal cities in the developed world" thing he and his wife bang on about, which will come as something of a surprise to people in Mumbai slums. Or indeed Riyadh. Presumably his wife stays in hotels with no windows when she visits there.

And this is happening increasingly frequently.

About twenty cases, all of them associated with terrorism, most of them involving people who have travelled abroad and are using UK citizenship as a flag of convenience while engaged in violence. The bar is rather higher. You're welcome to look at the list of cases and tell me the ones you'd want living next door to you.

does anyone who criticises a country deserve to be deported from that country?

No. But it makes the case that you have strong ties to a country in which you have committed a crime rather harder to make. And rather begs the question of why, given you're actively choosing to live somewhere rather than remaining in the place you were born and have right of abode, you would choose to live somewhere that you don't like.

Would I deport him were I home secretary? No. He and his wife are arses deserving of ridicule, not dangers to our society. But do I care overmuch if May wants to make an example of him pour encourager les autres? Not particularly. He's a privileged layabout who thinks that because he's got an MA and can spell intersectionality he should be exempt from the law that applies to the little people. And as a graduate of the LSE, his animus towards Oxbridge for being elitist is pretty hilarious.

No, it is his fault that his baby will be without their father.

His, all his.

It is all on him. Nobody else.

He has done this, not the UK.

Having a baby doesn't mean you get to ignore the law. In any case he broke the law and then had the baby, that doesn't seem at all suspicious to you? Does he really think that the UK are that gullible?

When I had my baby in the UK, it was made clear to me what the rules would be around that. I made the choices for my children. If I had just decided not to bother with all the rules, my baby would have been put in a similar position and that would have been my fault.

I have far more sympathy for the many people who live apart from their children because spousal visas are refused due to the governments discriminatory immigration policy.

There are loads of (mainly women) UK citizens raising children alone as they don't earn enough to bring their (often high earning) partners into the UK. There are men who have never seen their children because they can't afford to visit and earn enough to maintain two homes in different countries. Often the non EU citizen can't even get a tourist visa as the refusal of a spousal visa counts against them. The government tried to deport a head teacher from USA a few weeks ago. His crime was his wife didn't earn over the £18600 needed to stay in the UK. Luckily for them the Scottish government stepped in as there is a severe shortage of head teachers in rural Scotland. Most people aren't so lucky.

People think being married is enough to bring your spouse into the UK, or living here most of your life, or having children born here. It's not. I feel for the bloke but the amount of people in this situation through no fault of their own is staggering.

I do know something about some of the cases of people who have had their British citizenship stripped from them, friday. They have been accused of terrorism, yes, but most of them have not actually been tried in a court of law. And twenty cases may not sound like many, but when you consider that even during World War II, in the conflict with Nazi Germany, only a few dual nationals were stripped of their British citizenship (four, to be precise), Theresa May's actions start to look pretty heavy-handed.

I agree with you about the UK's discriminatory immigration policy, daykin. Completely dreadful.

People think being married is enough to bring your spouse into the UK, or living here most of your life, or having children born here. It's not.

Yes, this, so much this!

Personally, I think that Oldfield's appeal will probably fail, and his wife and child will suffer. Because the immigration authorities don't give a damn about human rights conventions - if they don't have to, why should they? And the UK will be rid of a bloke who is a bit bonkers but in no way harmful to the "public good" at all.

I don't get the issue here. It's not a punishment or singling him out in any way, it's a basic immigration - you break the law, you don't get to stay here.

Once you open the law up to degrees of criminal behaviour it becomes impossible to enforce with any degree is consistency or fairness. And basically, why should the rules be loosened anyway? Who would it benefit? Uk citizens? The economy? Attitudes to immigration? No benefit to changing a clear and enforceable condition of immigration.

Why should he be any different? He has a criminal record, he doesn't get to stay. Simples.

Why should the uk choose to have him? He hasn't shown any respect for his host country, of shown that he will abide by our laws.

Of he wanted to stay and keep his family in tact, he could have chosen to do so.

And I say this on the context of having actively fought a human rights case for years, pouring all my mo eh and effort into an extremely complicated and awful situation, and knowing first hand exactly where the unfairness lies in our system... But this is not one of those cases.

Man breaks law, man breaks immigration condition... Man whines and whines about unfairness... Err, nope, no sympathy for him (idiot). Sympathy for wide and child, yes, but he has done this to them, nobody else.