The problem with being known to the authorities

So the bomber has been known to them for 5 years. Multiple reports of he’s a dodgy one.

And? What could have been done? He had some dodgy ideas, certainly. But he didn’t actually do anything. Until, of course, he did.

Ecksian fantasies aside we’re not going to have internment for anyone who claims that suicide bombing is acceptable. So, what should have been done?

71 comments on “The problem with being known to the authorities

  1. If we’d known he’s been popping over to IS in Syria (or Libya) we could have him for treason: we are waging a war against them after all.

    From what we know of his family, I wonder if they were good candidates for asylum. I suspect they were opponents of Gadaffi from the ahem, Islamic nutjob tendency. We don’t have to grant asylum to those who wish us ill, point them in the direction of Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

  2. ” We don’t have to grant asylum to those who wish us ill, point them in the direction of Qatar or Saudi Arabia.”

    This.

  3. Seems there was enough circumstantial evidence and concerns raised by the public to have a proper investigation into him. That would likely have turned up something that could stand up in court.

    By the way, how is it that asylum seekers / refugees get to take trips back home? If it’s safe for them to do this then surely they don’t need asylum anymore.

  4. Recognise ISIS as a state (that’s what they want, right?). Declare war on them – finding a reason shouldn’t be hard. Intern the dicey ones for the duration of hostilities.

  5. Because you seek asylum. And then when it’s granted you’re a legal resident. You don’t get that withdrawn when the old home is safe again.

    On the reasonable grounds that sure, maybe Germany was safe for Jews in 1946 but did someone who left in 1933 have to go back there?

    OK, not that we had the same asylum rules then as now but.

  6. “OK, not that we had the same asylum rules then as now but.”

    The world, and the nature of the threat, has changed since then. Time the legislation reflected that:

  7. What you mean Julia is that it is time the law reflected *your* prejudice, not other’s.

    Well, that’s a cure worse than the disease. I don’t want a government that throws out legitimate residents because other people of their sort are not what you want.

  8. “We don’t have to grant asylum to those who wish us ill, point them in the direction of Qatar or Saudi Arabia”

    I still don’t get why the want to come here in the first place if they hate us so much.

    Wasn’t he born here? That would make him a British citizen who could come and go as he pleased.

    I

  9. That’s me educated then. I thought asylum was a temporary state.

    Even so, if shouty beardy angry chap starts taking trips to where the real nutters live then surely that’s probable cause.

  10. We could decriminalise khat, make prisons a place where the first amendment on religion applies, and let local authorities set minimum wage levels.
    Unemployment among young Sunnis is quite high, and being priced out of the labour market cannot be good for them.
    Not much else really – a bit more support for policing and prisons perhaps.

  11. We could stop allowing people to come from Islamic parts of the world to the UK maybe? Would require no reduction of liberty for people in the UK

  12. When a young man who is clearly no oil painting chooses to kill lots of young women, the root cause is sexual frustration. Now lots of young men get sexually frustrated but it takes Islam to turn them in to mass murderers.

    We could just try to get them laid.

    But the Ecksian response is better. No immigration from Muslim countries. Close the mosques. No child benefits for immigrants. Don’t patronise their businesses. Make life as uncomfortable as possible.

  13. @TimW, @Geoff

    As G said, if it’s safe (enough) for them to return then they don’t need asylum anymore. That you “don’t get that withdrawn when the old home is safe again” is the case, but should not be. When it is sufficiently safe, asylum should end and the family should return.

    I’d be happy to have an exemption for exceptional cases, such as “this bloke’s the best heart surgeon ever, we’re keeping him if he likes”. Though I’d be very concerned that any exemption would be stretched and abused, so maybe better overall to simply not have it. Yes, I realise this means no marrying a local and having an anchor baby. But we are doing refugees a favour by offering asylum.

    I do bear in mind when debating asylum that there but for the grace of God go I, so I never propose conditions I wouldn’t be happy to accept. And to be fair, anyone refusing what I said above can’t actually be all that desperate, can they?

    @MagnusW: yep, I’ve noticed that the assholes that hit the news are almost always ugly bastards too. Same with non-celeb SJWs.

  14. Reassign all the police who are monitoring for ‘Islamophobia’ on Twitter, to surveillance on potential terrorists?

  15. Re Tim’s post @ 7:11
    At various times I’ve put up people in my home, when they’ve needed shelter. The longest instance I can remember was over 6 months. But in no case was there ever a presumption, this was a permanent arrangement. No-one’s used the opportunity to redecorate the spare room, marry & start a family. When the need expires, they depart.
    In what way, apart from the stupidity of the legislation forced on us by over-generous-with-our-hospitality politicians, are asylum seekers any different?

  16. A further point.

    Some folks see the risk from the asylum system as too great and want it gone.

    Others, like me, see it as something precious than needs to be preserved.

    If strict conditions are necessary to maintain an asylum system and keep saving lives that are genuinely in specific and imminent danger, that’s what we should do. I happen to think they are.

    (I’ve encountered refugees through acquaintances. They admitted lying completely to get asylum. Both from a country that a number of my friends pass to and from all the time without trouble. Small sample, but it tells me the current system is open to easy abuse.)

  17. The police love to enforce some law ‘banning islamophobia’ so if being rude about Muslimes is a crime, therefore those encouraging and agreeing with radical islamic violence must also be committing a crime.

  18. Never mind any of your “Ecksian fantasies” crap Tim. What I put forward were actual measures that might do some good.

    As for the guns bit–well this country has no shortage of cucks who can’t or won’t think outside the box of their pathetic idea of what’s possible. Even without shooters the ideas I put forward will tackle the problems. You personally have come with zero so lets hear your plan. You going to throw Scandium at them?

    So called “Realistic” bullshit is why we likely are going to lose and either have to fight a horrific civil war or see the next generations as a despised second claas minority in what used to be their country.

  19. I have great sympathy with your point of view, Mr Ecks. It seems increasingly likely that adherence to precious liberal values will be the ruin of us all.

  20. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

    Muslim women in Europe averaging 2.2 children , compared to European average of 1.5. We’ve got a 2 child rule on new child tax credit claims since 6th April this year so this will put
    a squeeze on further breeders for the purpose of a benefit claim. They are not going to take over. Secularism, opposition to green belts, computers and many others have higher rates of growth. Imv of course

  21. Ecksian fantasies aside we’re not going to have internment for anyone who claims that suicide bombing is acceptable.

    You’re very close to begging the question there, Tim. We had internment in NI, and – given the clear intention to do us harm of a significant proportion of the Muslim population in these islands – it seems very likely that at some point in future we will have it again.

    Personally I favour stopping all Muslim immigration, closing mosques etc, and paying people to leave: but it’s very obvious none of this will happen until the blood of many, many more innocents has been shed.

    Because weakness.

  22. Bongo–does the 2 child rule apply per man or per woman?

    If it is only 2 kids per man benefit that might help.

    If two kids per woman and he has up to 4 of them in tow that isn’t going to help much is it?

  23. BiS: The only liberal values being ditched by my ideas are those pertaining to the group who are the source of the trouble.

    My ideas would preserve liberal values for native Britons and –in the case of gun rights–greatly increase them. Those values were won by the toil sacrifice and death of our valiant forefathers. We extended them to groups who were invited in by none of our doing and they have been bloodily flung back in our faces.

    And please don’t say we voted for imports. I will be voting for Dress Up May for Brexit alone. NOTHING else about her package of electoral bullshit is acceptable to me but I still have to suffer it because of the rotten nature of political activity. Trade-off they call it I think. Well migration is a largely unwanted trade off but we have been stuck with it.

  24. @Bloke in North Dorset”
    I still don’t get why the want to come here in the first place if they hate us so much. ”
    Because
    “Allah tells us that those who migrate for the sake of Allah, seeking to earn His pleasure and that which is with Him, leaving behind their homelands, families and friends, leaving their countries for the sake of Allah and His Messenger to support His religion, then they are killed, i.e., in Jihad, or they die, i.e., they pass away without being involved in fighting, they will have earned an immense reward.”
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2492

  25. Chester Draws: “What you mean Julia is that it is time the law reflected *your* prejudice, not other’s.”

    No, what I mean is it’s time we stopped being the world’s policeman, hotel and punching bag to every waif and stray that can claim asylum or refugee status on the flimsiest of excuses.

  26. @Bloke in North Dorset

    “Wasn’t he born here? That would make him a British citizen who could come and go as he pleased. ”
    Actually being born here does not make you a British citizen.
    The solution is simple stop the Hijrah before it is too late.
    I would ban trying to enforce Sharia and have a stronger attitude – appeasement banning any critic of Islam etc has not worked.
    Of course this bloke came here after 14th Feb 1989 – so we should have learnt our lesson by then.

  27. @JuliaM
    “No, what I mean is it’s time we stopped being the world’s policeman, hotel and punching bag to every waif and stray that can claim asylum or refugee status on the flimsiest of excuses.”
    Good point. Why would any Salafi want to come here and not Saudi?

  28. On the subject of those born to foreign parents in the UK being British nationals:
    There’s a strange thing. I gather we have no objection to those born in the UK to UK born parents claiming Irish nationality.
    Odd that.

  29. Ecks: If two kids per woman and he has up to 4 of them in tow that isn’t going to help much is it?
    If he has 4 women then three other men have none. The growth rate of a population is determined by the offspring of the women.
    If there’s any evidence that Islam is recruiting extra women from outside the communities for this purpose then let’s hear it.

  30. “It seems increasingly likely that adherence to precious liberal values will be the ruin of us all.”

    We didn’t adhere 100% to liberal values from 1939 to 1945. We put some of them aside, did what we had to do, then returned to our former way of life. We need to do the same again, not in exactly the same way, but we need to put aside all this ‘human rights’ nonsense that prevents any action, implement what is firm but fair to control Muslim extremism and then wait and see how it pans out.

    The idea that we as a country either grant 100% human rights for everyone, Muslim terrorist and tweenie concert goer alike, or we are a police state a la Soviet Russia is nonsense, and an insult to the memory of our forefathers who fought for our freedoms. We are perfectly capable to acting in a fair (but effective) manner. The people saying otherwise are the ones who want nothing done because they want the Islamics to win.

  31. If asylum is a permanent state then how can the Jordanians and others legally keep the great grandchildren of those who abandoned Israel in 1948 (in the hope and anticipation of the Arab armies driving the Jews into the sea) in tent cities and townships, without citizenship or legal rights?

    Most Europeans seem not to accept that we have a duty to “integrate” (at our expense) millions of Muslim Arab men who follow a culture that is utterly inimical to the European way of life. It doesn’t help that that culture is the only one of many immigrant cultures that complains about its status and that its fringe elements murder hundreds of Europeans per year in the name of supplanting European with Islamic culture.

    I think you could, however, persuade most Europeans that we have a duty to shelter them for the duration of hostilities and no more. Some small minority of them will for sure make their own way in the west, and good luck to them. The rest of them can go back the way they came and rebuild their country.

    That way, Merkel could arguably have sold ten times the number to Germans.

  32. NDReader – you can use google the same as me, I guess, but in 2001 the census apparently showed that there were 21,000 Muslim/non Muslim marriages in the UK.

    It is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a non Muslim woman ‘of the book’, but not for a Muslim woman to marry a non Muslim man.

    Of course there will be cases which disprove the rule, but I suspect that they remain the exception.
    There are no more recent figures that I can quickly find, but there are a lot of people saying the trend is rising quite dramatically.

    I don’t want to go all Ecksy, but some proportion of Muslim men clearly see themselves as being in the vanguard of an invasion. If you can take your enemy’s women (as they see it) and impregnate them, that’s a two-fer – especially if the enemy wasn’t really planning to do any impregnating himself, being more concerned with holidays, pop concerts, the pub etc.

    (The sheer juvenility of many western men of quite some age would be amusing, if it wasn’t so sad.)

  33. BiG – have you had some sort of epihany? I seem to recall you being a bit more ‘Ironman’ about this kind of thing. No snark intended, just interested.

  34. NDReader: “If he has 4 women then three other men have none.”

    Are you serious?

    The male female balance across the entire muslim world may be of academic interest but are you honestly trying to suggest that a lack of muslim women is going to hold back numbers in the UK? When more arrive or are born every day. In a closed fixed community one man’s multiple wives would be another mans sore-through-over-exertion hand but that is hardly the case in the UK or the West generally.

    Are you related to JG Reeder by any chance?

  35. @bis,

    That’s because citizenship law is the province of each individual country, and it changes quite regularly. In the case of the UK it has changed a lot in the last few decades.

    You’re British if UK law regards you as a British citizen, and Irish if Irish law recognises you as an Irish citizen. And Britain will no more “recognise” your Irish citizenship than Ireland will recognise your British citizenship. Each will treat you as its own national, and not as a forriner.

    Some countries don’t allow multiple nationality and often achieve that by having a “sunset” clause (you automatically lose citizenship at 18, say, if you don’t renounce any others by then). But none of them can totally enforce it. Iran doesn’t recognise dual citizenship but also won’t let you renounce Iranian citizenship. So there are plenty of dual German-Iranian citizens even though both countries would rather they had only one.

  36. @Interested, I have had no epiphany. I am an avowed multiculturalist (of sorts) even though that went out of fashion 10 years ago.

    One of those cultures making a deadly play, or even developing the intention, to supplant European cultures as the dominant culture in Europe has no part in that. . Islam is a threat to Europe, on a cultural as well as security level, mainly because we seem to have imported an aggressively isolationist strand. Israel copes fine with a far higher, and in some places far more visible proportion of Muslim population than Europe. In Manchester, women’s dress has changed in the last 20 years from brightly coloured to full black chador, and the curry houses stopped selling alcohol. That’s chilling.

    I’ve thought this way for at least 10 years. It’s the black-and-white thinkers like Ecks and SMFS who want to caricature me into holding ONLY wishy-washy liberal internationalist opinions, just because quite a lot of them are.

  37. “That way, Merkel could arguably have sold ten times the number to Germans”

    I doubt it, because they’d have known she was lying. No western state is going to deport over a million people without that State being on the brink of revolution and violent innsuurection. Even then I think the German State would prefer to turn its weapons on the natives rather than the newcomers.

  38. Every time I see the BBC and the Guardian with screaming headlines about how some Muslim terrorist was “known to the authorities” and did nothing, I ask myself are they calling for Internment based on tip offs from the public?

  39. Geoff: you’re mixing up asylum with refuge. A refuge is a temporary escape from danger – pedestrian refuge in the middle of a road, breakdown refuge along a motorway with no hard shoulders, fire refuge a place protected from fire while the rest of the building burns down, high ground when your home is flooded. Asylum is an abandonment of the original location.

  40. @BiG – ah ta. Yes, that’s not far from my own view, though I prefer incomers to adopt British culture.

  41. @Bloke in Germany
    “If asylum is a permanent state then how can the Jordanians and others legally keep the great grandchildren of those who abandoned Israel in 1948 (in the hope and anticipation of the Arab armies driving the Jews into the sea) in tent cities and townships, without citizenship or legal rights?”
    They have different rules from us.

  42. @Interested,

    It’s usually possible to adopt the culture of your new home without abandoning (all of) your old one.

  43. But then successful asylum seekers become refugees.

    Gov website: “You must apply for asylum if you want to stay in the UK as a refugee.”

    I’m not getting your point, jgh, or what it adds to the discussion.

    If this is about what tern should be strictly applied, then I’m guessing Geoff and I favour “temporary refuge” rather than “asylum”.

  44. @Jim
    May 25, 2017 at 9:56 am
    I really hope that you are Amber Rudd’s pen name but I doubt it.

  45. @BiG – absolutely. Did it myself in my years abroad, though there’s a difference i) when the stay abroad is temporary, albeit lengthy and ii) when religious imperatives drive the attitudes to culture. That’s the issue with British Islamists – they’re a permanent fixture, and they take religious law above the rest. Ain’t no way their daughters are marrying Terry next door.

  46. The problem with Jim’s point, which is otherwise sound, is that a lot of us no longer trust the State or its fanboys anymore.

    I think Iraq was the last straw for me. But we’ve also had Global Cooling, Goebbels Warming, the Remain campaign, diesel, “no loss of sovereignty”… again, I reckon we could go on all day listing examples of public sector lies.

  47. > Ain’t no way their daughters are marrying Terry next door.

    This is pretty much the marker of whether a culture is integrated: do they allow their daughters to marry indigenous people of the host nation? Some people accuse the Polish of not being integrated, with their own shops and the odd Polish-language church service. But by and large, they are happy to let their British men marry their daughters. Other cultures vary: the Hindus are generally ok with it, the Sikhs a bit less so, and of course the Religion of Peace is at the bottom of the table.

  48. @Jim

    I wasn’t calling you a State fanboy, BTW. Just noticed what I read could be interpreted that way, which was not my intent.

  49. By the way, how is it that asylum seekers / refugees get to take trips back home? If it’s safe for them to do this then surely they don’t need asylum anymore.

    One lot in the UK were taking summer holidays back to Syria!

  50. Andrew M,

    “Some people accuse the Polish of not being integrated, with their own shops and the odd Polish-language church service. But by and large, they are happy to let their British men marry their daughters. Other cultures vary: the Hindus are generally ok with it, the Sikhs a bit less so, and of course the Religion of Peace is at the bottom of the table.”

    At a certain level, there’s nothing wrong with not integrating. I don’t play nicely with others, whether that’s people of white or brown skin. I hang out with a few weirdos, know more about Korean cinema than the Premier League. I’ve got mates who go to BDSM clubs and mates who dress up as stormtroopers on weekends for charity.

    I’m all in favour of diversity, until someone starts wanting to stop me doing my thing, or trying to murder my family. Then, I want them stopped. Preferably, kicked out of the country and on the other side of a professional force that will kill them if they try and come over our border.

  51. I know a “refugee” from Colombia who went home on holiday as soon as she got her British passport.
    (She lives here as being a single mum is not a profession in Colombia).

  52. Interested: “you can use google the same as me, I guess, but in 2001 the census apparently showed that there were 21,000 Muslim/non Muslim marriages in the UK.”
    So accepting this and all of your subsequent inferences, 2% of Muslim males will marry a woman from outside their community. That’s not high on my list of worries right now.

  53. Cynic said: “When it is sufficiently safe, asylum should end and the family should return.”

    I guess the hurdle to get over is getting the UK state to declare former war torn places as safe to return asylum seekers to.

    Imo this is the root of the problem when it has come to the West’s recent desire to set the middle east and north africa alight. Had it been about peacekeeping rather than regime change we would have kept out of much of it and had quicker resolutions to places like Syria.

  54. True enough Gareth. That’s where I think “specific and imminent” from a later post of mine comes into play.

    I wouldn’t consider a warzone alone to be specific.

    I wouldn’t consider “fear of persecution” immediate or specific.

    But I am sure there will be people suffering specific and immediate fear for their lives that they can prove beyond reasonable doubt.

    What IS has been doing to the Yazidis, maybe. That sounds to me, a layman, as specific and immediate. A person paid to make that judgement certainly should be expected not to screw it up.

    As an aside, that is one of things I don’t like when us laymen get asked “well how should we do X” by TPTB. If you’re paid to assess welfare claimants, or immigration applications, or asylum seekers, you are being paid to get it right. You are being paid to figure out how to get it right. I didn’t tell my builder how to do the bulding, I told him what I wanted. If it wasn’t possible, he was at liberty to decline the job and not take my money.

  55. Cynic: it’s the destruction of the English language by people who want words to mean what they want them to mean instead of what they do mean. A pedestrian refuge in the middle of the road isn’t your permanant destination, it’s a temporary stopping point until you can leave it to get to safety.

    If I was seeking asylum and was granted refuge I would be incredibly pissed off. I want f***g asylum, not a refuge.

    And the system is broken when people needing a temporary place of safety are automatically granted asylum instead.

  56. I myself was an economic refugee for several years in the 1990s. I spent that time building up resources to get back home again – *NOT* making my refuge my permanant home.

  57. @Cynic: no offence taken. I am by no means a State fanboy, my point is more that the State Establishment have to come to realise the severity of the situation and accept that Islamic society is inferior to Western Society. Then accept that 100% adherence to a set of rules that have only been in place for 20 years is not necessary or possible when one’s own existence is at stake. And I consider the Islamic threat to be an existential one to the democratic West as great as that of Nazism or Communism. And we didn’t attempt to fight those with our hands tied behind our backs.

    Because if the current State Establishment refuse to accept this and act responsibly, in ways they did to combat other existential threats to the nation, then they will be swept away by people far more illiberal than they could ever imagine being, on a wave of popular support for harsh and downright nasty measures. This is what I fear – we already have Trump and Le Pen, one elected, one maybe one election away from being elected, if the French Establishment do another 5 years of sticking their heads in the sand. They are not dictators but it doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to see another 5-10 years of the current situation continuing and the Establishment pretending nothings wrong, for a real (Godwin alert!) Hitler type figure to emerge. And emerge very fast, because there will be a pent up groundswell of public demand for such action that has been suppressed for years. Trump and Le Pen are straws in the wind, showing which way things are going.

    Thats my fear, and why I consider it necessary for liberals (in the true sense of the word) to act illiberally in order to save liberalism. Otherwise its dead, killed by the Islamics if they win, or killed by the popular fascist who will be elected to defeat the Islamics.

    Its like the old idea, who is the best person to be given powers over other people? Answer, the person who really really doesn’t want those powers, not the person who does want to have the whip hand over others. So the best people to act illiberally are the liberals, because they will let go when the danger is past. The ones who seek power from the outset will never let go afterwards.

  58. Two suggestions:

    1) Anyone without citizenship convicted of a violent crime should be deported, irrespective where they came from. Doesn’t address ‘home-grown’ terrorists, but should stop some others.

    2) Stop granting asylum to *known* terrorists / violent offenders (Google ‘Mohsin Akram’ or ‘Fowzi Nejad’).

    Not a panacea but might as well pick the low hanging fruit first.

  59. I find a bit of historical perspective helps.

    In past times, we banned Jews and Catholics (more or less) – and it worked, too.

    (no, I’m not commenting on the morality or otherwise of what Edward I and Henry VIII did, simply pointing out what they did in response to issues of their day)

    In the last few decades, we’ve made it illegal to say anything to offend brown people and the gays. And it worked, too. People watch their tongues in public lest they be measured up for a jail cell a la Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson.

    (See above re morality)

    There’s no fundamental reason why we can’t effectively make a hostile and widely unpopular alien religion more or less illegal, or at least highly circumscribed, on our shores.

  60. Declare them outlaw! If a person expresses their loyalty to Islam they have stated they do not accept British law or the British Government and they have declared that they believe people who don’t follow Mohammed should be enslaved or killed.
    People who are hostile to the State should be removed from it. Such people should not share the benefits of a society to which they are hostile. This has been the method of dealing with people within the country who do not accept the sovereignty of the Government since before William the Conqueror.
    All outlaws can be interned and encouraged to leave the country.

  61. @jgh: I’m not sure that follows with “asylum”, given the root of the word Google’s out as “late Middle English (in the sense ‘place of refuge’, especially for criminals)”. Happy to be corrected though – I despite what has been done to the word “bigot”. And I was thoroughly educated here on why “far-right” specifically and only refers as a term of convenience to a bunch of socialists and fascists (so basically lefties, but we didn’t want to offend a certain allied set of lefties). As for “liberal”… weep.

  62. @Jim

    Glad I didn’t offend. Sometimes when you read something after you post, you realise it says something you don’t want it to.

    An alternative, unrealistic though, would be that we have more true liberty. Let an Englishman say what he thinks and keep what he earns. Bye-bye welfare state; hello free speech; threaten a man’s family and possessions, don’t waste your time complaining if you get put down. Not gonna happen.

    I read a good piece by a Liberal (rather than a liberal) bemoaning the stupidity of his fellow travellers for calling Trump “literally Hitler”, because as you point out, the real thing isn’t happening (yet). In his case, he was pissed at his gang for continually crying wolf, in that every Republican president had been “literally Hitler”, yet none had been close to being literally Hitler. His fear was that if “literally Hitler” ever did turn up, no-one would heed the warnings.

  63. Anon: “Doesn’t address ‘home-grown’ terrorists…”

    Deporting their parents might. If only we didn’t have the wretched ECHR.

  64. @NDReader ‘So accepting this and all of your subsequent inferences, 2% of Muslim males will marry a woman from outside their community. That’s not high on my list of worries right now.’

    I couldn’t give a shit about your list of worries, I was just lmgtfying after you asked the question. ‘Thanks’ would have sufficed.

  65. Why would any Salafi want to come here and not Saudi?

    Interestingly, it’s almost impossible to immigrate to Saudi: their immigration laws are very tight and citizenship is not guaranteed even after living there for decades.

  66. The Saudis, Qataris, etc. don’t let them in because they know exactly what trouble they’d be importing. This is partly why they won’t let Palestinians become citizens: it was they who tried to asssasinate the King of Jordan.

  67. In Canada there is the right to revoke status for refugees etc. If circumstnaces change There is a case where they are trying to deport someone (or they were a few months ago) as they pointed out that popping back to the home country to attend a family wedding meant threat/risk wasn’t a factor anymore so status no longer required

  68. @BniC
    “In Canada there is the right to revoke status for refugees etc. If circumstnaces change There is a case where they are trying to deport someone (or they were a few months ago) as they pointed out that popping back to the home country to attend a family wedding meant threat/risk wasn’t a factor anymore so status no longer required”
    Very reasonable.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.