Someone did something horrific. I know what my response is going to be. I'm going light a bunch of shit on fire! Yeah, that'll show 'em. Oh, and it'll help me justify my racist window on the world.
I see Reform has their campaign strategy locked in.
Making Starmer look like an impotent confused peacock is so easy.
Personally, my opinion is criminals should be tried and punished in the country they offend in. Sending them back to some other country is not justice and in some cases is a way for them to not face any punishment.
They often do not face any charges.
For example. Someone from Brazil allegedly murders someone in Canada.
So they get sent back to Brazil. Is Brazil government going to prosecute them for a crime in another country of which they didn't conduct an investigation ? Where they have no jurisdiction?
It makes more sense that a person is held to the laws and justice of the people/country they did the crime in.
It's up to everyone to learn the laws and punishment system of the government of the place they are in. And not break those laws. or suffer the consequences.
Ever see the Star Trek episode “Justice”?
Yes.
I still think crimes should be prosecuted in the country they are committed in.
A few extreme examples doesn't excuse letting off a bunch of criminals just because they are foreigners.
So where is the line between an “extreme” example and a “reasonable” example? Is 15 years of imprisonment for stepping on money reasonable to you?
Cultural subjective opinion determines what is extreme and what isn't.
However you gave a trek episode that would fit that description for a western audience. Of which I am part of that audience.
That's why extreme examples are not that relevant. It's just an opinion. A biased opinion.
When you let the offending person's own culture determine if they did something wrong it's basically like cops investigating cops.
And we all know how often justice is served.
Deport violent immigrants
They get deported. But just like any criminal case, the person has the right to a fair trial to determine if they're guilty. Arresting police, the public, etc., don't determine guilt. The courts of justice do.
So while it does seem a bit wasteful, the process itself ensures that EVERYONE - regardless if you like them or not - gets a fair trial.
I'd also argue that there need be nuance. Let's say, there's a high earner immigrant who's been in the country for a decade without any legal issues. One night he's out celebrating with friends, and gets more drunk than usual. Completely unrelated to that drunkenness, he gets assaulted by a British man, who comes at him with fists flying. Our immigrant defends himself, but in said inebriated state, he uses more force than what the jury and judge later determine to be appropriate - turning his act of self defence into a charge of assault and battery. Given his clean history and that he didn't intend to cause the amount of harm that happened and that it was intended as self defence, his sentence is suspended, he sees no prison time, BUT, he is convicted of a violent crime. Technically, he's a violent criminal immigrant. Would you still want him deported?
There is a slight nuance between someone defending themselves and attacking people in public with machetes
Yes, exactly, you understand their point perfectly. Which is why a distinctly un-nuanced kneejerk reaction like "Deport violent immigrants" is neither wise nor helpful.
That's... my entire point. That we can't just say "deport all violent criminal immigrants", because as you can see, one can fall into that legal category without being part of the group you assumed. Context is important.