David Lammy and Jamaican deportees

[Myohmy111]

David Lammy’s speech, in which he is critical of the government’s decision to deport convicted offenders to Jamaica, was very impassioned. However, it was disingenuous of him to have made the connection between this issue and the Windrush scandal. The two are not the same; the Windrush debacle was a disgrace and involved numbers of innocent individuals being caught up and deported illegally to the Caribbean . Those who were deported today were convicted criminals who served at least 12 months in prison and crucially, they were subject to due process. Unless there is evidence to indicate that other nationals of different ethnicities and races, such as white Australians, have not been subject to the same level of enforcement of this policy , he is wrong to label it as a racist move by the government.

Jamaica was only granted independence in 1962. So it’s likely that those being deported were born to British parents. The Rolf Harris point stands...

I wonder what people would think if someone had come from say Russia as a baby and have lived in the UK all their life. Had been brought up in the UK, Been to a UK school, lived in Britain, was as British as everyone else - and then committed a crime - maybe they had fallen on hard times - not difficult in austerity Britain - and had been given a sentence of 12 months. Maybe she just needed some money to survive.

Then had been released and this policy had been implemented.

A 35 year old mum sent to Russia because she was a foreign born.

Would people think that 'she was a foreign born scum who should automatically be deported and shouldn't have committed a crime' - or would they think that some compassion should be shown?

(this hasn't happened as far as I know - but it's the logical argument people are applying)

Things are never as easy as they appear.

Can I just quietly point out that the Home Office charter planes on an alarmingly regular basis to return people to lots of different countries. I'm not entirely sure why this one has raised so many eyebrows if I'm honest. This happens regularly. We also keep a lot of foreign National offenders, who have served their sentences in prison as we don't transfer them to immigration detention centres.

People in the UK literally have no idea how our immigration services work. It's pretty worrying

Those who were deported today were convicted criminals who served at least 12 months in prison

Not so. At least one man had only served two months, that was 11 years ago, and he has lived a blameless life since and leaves a wife and child. The original sentence should have been the end of it.

I find it incredibly ironic that two drug users who have never been charged with a crime because they are white upper class politicians could stand and claim "but some of them have drug charges".

There is systemic racism in policing and the CJS so there is a statistically higher chance that these people will have been charged with crime.

At least one man had only served two months,

And it was for something that he could no longer even be prosecuted for (ie a "crime" that is no longer a crime).

The idea that these people are all serious criminals is just blatant racist stereotyping from people who are too lazy to look at the facts.

However, he certainly needs to employ more critical thinking when it comes to race

So you've considered carefully that many white foreign nationals have not been charged with these crimes because they are white and therefore less likely to be arrested, charged, and deported? Or that the people who are reporting them have admitted openly to crimes?

I suppose in the future, we will find a lot of children of EU immigrants being deported to the EU to places such as Romania - even though they have lived all their life in the UK from being babies - technically in the future, your 80 year old next door neighbour could be sentenced for a crime and then deported to a country they have never lived in except for a few months.

The problem with blanket policies with no thought behind them is the law of unintended consequences.

Can someone explain how David Lammy is racist given that racism requires a systematic disadvantage to a specific race? Or are we just saying he doesn't side with white people and therefore is racist?

I'm from a minority group but am white and have received very little discrimination. I see POC experiencing racism daily from professionals and the general public.

Or, alternatively, Lammy is a principled, passionate and compassionate politician who calls out injustice wherever and whenever he sees it

Thats how he has always seemed to me

anyone who doesn’t have colour in their skin is a racist

TBF thinking white people don't have any colour in their skin is kinda racist.

I actually love David Lammy, and agree with a lot of what he says. Am I going to get worked up about rapists and attempted murderers being deported- no.

Or are we just saying he doesn't side with white people and therefore is racist? Yeah, that's about the size of it...

I think there is an element of racism but I think it goes further back - black men are far more likely to be convicted of a crime than white men and then given a stiffer sentence.

I have no sympathy with an armed robber being deported, but the example given above of someone who got into a fight and served 2 months of a 12 months sentence - query whether he would have been sentenced to jail at all if white. And if he hadn't have been sentenced to jail would he have been on the list of deportees.

I’d love to kick out all British born criminals convicted of rape etc but kick them out to where

See to me this is the other side of the coin. If there are people in that group that committed serious crimes and we're afraid that they will repeat offend, and they are people that grew up in the UK, went to school in the UK etc I don't think it's right to wash our hands of them and dump them in Jamaica where presumably there's less money for probation officers etc (although Christ knows the UK has fucked it's own probation service in recent years so maybe they are safer in Jamaica)

Why aren’t we deporting the white chap who lied, took cocaine, had the police at his door regarding a ‘ domestic’ incident and who open uses racist language. He was born in New York send him back.

I don’t see it as us saying “you aren’t British get out”, I think of it as “get out, oh you’re not British now we have a legal case”. As I Said I’d love to kick out of British born serious criminals but you can’t put them anywhere else legally.

Gilead probably because it isn’t a “serious” crime. I don’t think we should deport drug abusers or shop lifters. There were also deportation plans to the Middle East etc. Wasn’t just to the Caribbean.

David Lammy is brilliant. His point is that youngsters brought to this country as children had no say in this and should be our responsibility when they have been socialised and antisocialised in this society.

In the case of youngsters groomed and set to work selling drugs by gangs, we owe them a duty of care to protect them and help them find a place in society.

@malylis

First, plenty of people hold Australian and British citizenship. I expect Rolf Harris is one of them.

Second, the Windrush deportees were not British citizens. They were citizens of various places with an indefinite right to remain in the UK.

The Home Office messed up hugely re Windrush, but the reality is that Rolf Harris would have proved much more easily that he was absolutely entitled to remain, if the HO had put him on a wicked Noah's Ark pending transportation to Australia. The two situations aren't comparable.

@SoVeryLost

No it doesn't.

It's complicated, but there is a good Wiki article about British nationality law and its history here:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law

The tl:dr version is that those from ex-colonies lost their British nationality when the places they were from became independent. That wouldn't apply to Harris as his parents were from the UK (which obviously didn't become independent from itself).

So we want to get rid of some criminals that have caused pain and suffering to others...For once we are doing the right thing but as usual you have the do gooders out in force.

and should be our responsibility when they have been socialised and antisocialised in this society.

I think this is nothing more than obvious. The UK is far from the only country that deports in these circumstances, but it's still a really odious thing to do. No country should be dumping its home-grown criminals on another.

And if one of your family members were the victims of these crimes I'm sure the reaction to sending them back would be very different.