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.

[claraschu]

I agree with the OP and the letter from Oxford and Cambridge.

[plummyjam]

One of the Oxford rowers collapsed with exhaustion and had to be hospitalised after the restart.

Trenton Oldfield's actions were in no way harmless, what he did was calculated and he should have thought about the personal consequences to himself and his family before the protest and not least before updiffing his wife.

[friday16]

They have been accused of terrorism, yes, but most of them have not actually been tried in a court of law.

You know what? I don't care. British citizenship is a privilege. We know it's a privilege, because so many people are keen to obtain it. People who are nationals of another country who then apply to add a British passport to their collection are being given a privilege. It's not a right, and it's not something that should require "beyond a reasonable doubt" to remove.

If you want to insist that British citizenship, once granted, can only be rescinded subject to a criminal court's decision then there's a reasonable corollary: that if it's made harder to rescind, we should make it harder to obtain. If it's going to be a massive exercise to remove it, then it should be a similarly massive exercise to get.

So we could stop issuing citizenship on the basis of marriage or residence or refugee status, and make it equivalent to an MBE or DV clearance: the product of a combination of merit and deep investigation. If it's issued by a full-scale legal progress, we can make its withdrawal similarly governed.

Until then, it should removed on the same level of proof as it's issued.

But I do think you're keeping some interesting friends. Bilal al-Berjawi had his dual-nationality revoked, and died while fighting alongside Islamist insurgents in Somalia. His death was announced by al-Shabab as follows: "The martyr received what he wished for and what he went out for. Brother Bilal al-Berjawi was exposed to bombing in an outskirt of Mogadishu from a drone that is believed to be American. He was martyred immediately."

How unreasonable of us to not want him as a UK citizen.

[OddBoots]

I wish him luck in campaigning to allow his wife to return to Australia with him, despite him being a convicted criminal.

[friday16]

but it won't actually make the UK a better place

Yes it will. It shows that privileged, over-entitled trustafarians from other countries who come here, slag this country off, get in the way, make a nuisance of themselves and contribute nothing to either our economy or our culture aren't welcome. That's not a small benefit. Many of us would be quite happy to throw Bullingdon club tossers out too, but it's difficult because they have UK citizenship; here we have an LSE graduate with a private income who wanted to make an arse of himself, and luckily he isn't a British citizen. It's the gift that keeps giving, isn't it? Presumably we'll deport Vladimir Umanets (the tosser that wrote in felt tip on a Rothko and called it art) when he's released, too. Good: I wonder how Putin will react when he tries the same trick at home?

How many Polish workers, paying tax and helping build our economy, have felt the need to behave like this? If you want the definition of privilege "living in a £350k flat in East London while buggering around writing about intersectionality" looks like a pretty good definition, and it certainly beats working for a living, as does claiming benefit and tagging artworks. Polish migrant workers haven't had fully-funded scholarships to the LSE, nor have they found a magic money tree which funds them to be a professional arse. Given the government's net migration target (a blunt instrument, granted), throwing Oldfield out means margin in the targets for one more Polish worker. If his wife and child follow him, there's margin for a whole family. That seems like a good trade.

This isn't about poor downtrodden victims of the immigration system. This is about rich, entitled, privileged tossers taking advantage of this country's hospitality. If someone pisses on your floor, you aren't a bad host if you throw them out of your house.

[limitedperiodonly]

I don't want to throw Bullingdon Club members out of my country as it happens. Or BNP members, for that matter, however much I may despise them.

Polish workers and other legal economic migrants compete with UK workers for jobs and depress wages and working conditions, certainly in low-skilled, low-waged occupations.

I have nothing against migrants, not even law-abiding illegals, but that is true.

Therefore if I was in competition with one of your glorious Polish workers for a minimum wage job I might prefer them to be removed than a privileged ex-LSE tosser who wasn't interested in working.

Throwing out Trenton Oldfield is just another easy way for Theresa May to look hard and boost her campaign for the leadership Conservative Party.

It's a pointless gesture which doesn't make my country a safer or more just place for anyone else which is surely the point of deportation.

[sashh]

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.

OK this is going off topic but yes these rules can be extremely cruel.

My parents live in East Lancashire.

A father there had left his exwife and children in South Africa where her elderly parents lived. These are primary school aged children.

Exwife then commits suicide. The children can't live in their grandparent's old people's home permanently so their father tries to get them in to the UK.

But he is earning less than the £18600, but he is working and earning. He has a large extended family living close by who are willing and able to support him financially and materially.

But he still can't get the visas.

Fortunately this story has a happy ending because someone stepped in and got them on a plane with tourist visas.

I think the government only backed down because once the children were in Britain it was difficult to argue they would be better off with their father and large extended family than in a South African orphanage.

[Morloth]

The rules are not a secret.

[MistressDeeCee]

He's married with a baby daughter, they have a family life here - where's the compassion? He's already been punished the man isnt a murderer or comitted a heinous crime. Although as an immigrant, he may as well have as its so frowned upon nowadays.Seems to me days its if you're not a Brit then get lost, no looking into compassionate circumstances for you..too many people in UK have become extremely xenophobic and by the time they wake up to themselves the rest of the world will have left them & their smallmindedness way behind.

[friday16]

and by the time they wake up to themselves the rest of the world will have left them & their smallmindedness way behind.

He's Australian (and has remained so, even while slagging it off and living here for ten years). He might like to consider Australian immigration policy as an example to compare with UK policy. Ditto USA, Canada and (particularly) New Zealand. Few people in his position even without the conviction (ie low income, small child, wife) would be able to get anything other an a tourist visa into any of those countries. Which "rest of the world" were you alluding to who you imply has a more open-door immigration policy than ours?

[limitedperiodonly]

sashh I heard of a Briton with a Sudanese wife and a child who was born in Sudan. I don't think there will be a happy ending in their case.

Well, there will be for our Government's tough image on immigration, because he will have to live in Sudan if he wants to be with them. Therefore these people, who most of us would regard as British and are willing to work, won't be a drain on our society.

I don't know all the ins and outs but the way his British BIL was telling it the rules have fairly recently been changed.

So while not secret, the rules are not widely-known and this couple, who have a legitimate and long-standing marriage have been caught out.

[Morloth]

You need to find out about this stuff before you partner up with/have children with people from different countries.

It is important so that you don't end up in this sort of situation.

UK is the softest of soft touches.

He is laughing at you and slagging you off all at the same time.

By all means keep him! We have plenty of twats right here - when can we send them your way?

[MistressDeeCee]

friday16 Im well aware he's Australian. If Australian immigration policy is strict then Im assuming you mean, he should be flung out of UK in line with a policy he has nothing to do with . Ive no intention of going into detail about who has what immigration policy..deffo not on Mumsnet! & that was hardly the point of my post. My view is that he could be shown some compassion and Im not about to change that view, just because he isnt British. Ive no doubt tho, that others will soon enough be along to discuss immigration in detail so I'll leave you to it.

[marfisa]

DoubleLife said:

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.

...

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

You could hardly be more wrong on this count. He absolutely IS being singled out. There is no automatic deportation for non-citizen residents in Britain who have been convicted of a crime and served a prison sentence of less than 12 months. If they have been convicted and served less than a 12-month sentence, the decision of whether to deport them or not is discretionary. If they have served a sentence of 12 months or more, then something called 'mandatory deportation' kicks into play, but even then a judge would have discretion to overturn the order.

The case for deportation is even more dubious given that it was very unusual for him to receive a six-month sentence in the first place for the type of offence that he committed. He was singled out for special punishment then, and he is being singled out for special punishment now.

[marfisa]

As for dual nationals who have had their British citizenship removed, I wrote above, They have been accused of terrorism, yes, but most of them have not actually been tried in a court of law.

And friday answered:
You know what? I don't care.

That's the difference between your perspective and mine in a nutshell. I do care. Even if these people have committed atrocious crimes, they deserve to be tried and and convicted in a court of law before a punishment as severe as removal of citizenship is imposed. Fair legal process is what makes us DIFFERENT from terrorists and fascist regimes FGS. Otherwise we're just stooping to their level.

It's for similar reasons that I don't think Oldfield should be deported, although I would be the first to say that from everything I've read, he sounds like a bit of a prat. We don't deport people for being prats.

That's also why all those Oxbridge academics signed a letter in support of his case. It's not because they all think Oldfield is a great guy. It's the principle that is at stake.

[marfisa]

And to the poster who said that other Western countries have immigration policies that are even worse than the UK's, well yes, absolutely. The USA and Australia violate the human rights of refugees and immigrants every day. That doesn't get the UK off the hook. Do they really want to be part of a hall of infamy?

[friday16]

Even if these people have committed atrocious crimes, they deserve to be tried and and convicted in a court of law before a punishment as severe as removal of citizenship is imposed.

As I say: OK, if it requires a judicial review to remove citizenship, it should require a similar test to grant it. You tell me what you think is a reasonable standard for each end of the process, and provided they're the same, I'm happy. Granted on the basis of a simple form, signed off by a civil servant? OK, that's the threshold for removal. Only removed by a judge with right of appeal to a superior court? Fine, then that's the threshold for granting it.

Anyway, Oldfield has been tried and convicted in a court of law. Your talk about people being stripped of dual nationality without trial is irrelevant. He isn't a dual national, and has no UK nationality to be removed. He's here on (presumably) indefinite leave to remain, and it's been rescinded. Had he taken UK nationality and revoked his Australian nationality, this wouldn't have arisen. He apparently likes living here, right up to the point of doing anything about it. And he is getting due process: his case is being considered by a judge as we speak.

I simply don't understand what obligations I've got in terms of UK citizenship towards Somali terrorists who hate us but like the benefits system, or Australian citizens who hate us but like, oh, the vibrancy of the intersectionality or something. They're guests. They pissed on the floor. They get to make their case, our government decides. That's about the end of it.

[marfisa]

Yes, I agree that the dual national issue isn't directly relevant to Oldfield. I only brought it up because you made some comments about how he should have applied for citizenship already, implying that citizenship would offer some kind of absolute immunity. I think it's worth noting that under Theresa May, this isn't the case. And this speaks to the whole mindset of the current government.

[marfisa]

I simply don't understand what obligations I've got in terms of UK citizenship towards Somali terrorists who hate us but like the benefits system

Daily Fail much?

[friday16]

One of your examples of the poor misunderstood dual-nationals was an al-Shabab leader who was killed in Somalia while his wife was giving birth in London, according to that well-known fascist rag the Guardian. What other interpretation would you put on the events?

implying that citizenship would offer some kind of absolute immunity.

It would if he took British citizenship and revoked his Australian citizenship.

[AngelaDaviesHair]

Oldfield has been refused at this stage because, as muffinino has been saying, the rules require it. They are completely black and white (conviction=refusal) and there is no discretion to do things differently.

However, he can appeal and if he does, as I understand it there will be a broader review of the decision in which all the kinds of points people are making on this thread can be argued out. So there isn't necessarily a final decision for us to argue about.

I don't know, I don't take to the man or his wife, but at the same time it is easy to sneer about activists who are often massive twits and yet also socially useful and sometimes brave. We repress them and their protests at our peril, even when their protests are as inchoate and self-serving as Oldfield's.

[marfisa]

The rules are not completely black and white. Conviction does not equal refusal. There IS discretion to do things differently.

Sigh.

And Oldfield has already appealed. The hearing is today, thus all the press about it.