Sex offenders to be denied asylum rights in new law

31 comments

1. >the Conservatives said the measures were “too little, too late”.

   Gosh, if only there had been some other party in charge for 14 years that could have acted soon enough.

2. *Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said this would “ensure these appalling crimes are taken seriously” but the Conservatives said the measures were “too little, too late”.*

   It’s hard to stand out for shamelessness in politics, but Jesus Christ the Tories do a good job of it.

3. [deleted]

4. Can’t wait for the Nonce Rights campaigners to start blocking the streets of London in protest.

5. Honestly watching the conservatives since the election has been like watching Trump.

   They speak before even realising that THEY have been running this shit for 14 fucking years.

   It’s actually baffling.

   Labour has made some unpopular choices amongst some groups sure. At least they have actually done something in their term though.

   UK politics makes me want to claw my eyes out sometimes.

6. [removed]

7. How is that not the law ???

   When I heard the argument the UK is not exactly importing the best (doctors, lawyers etc) I thought it was just hyperbole.

   You mean to tell me they’ve literally been taking in sex offenders ?

   Absolutely insane.

8. Time to perform my patriotic duty for my country. Dress up like a slutty teenage girl and bait them into touching me so they get deported

9. Well ok but this is pointless if they can’t actually get rid of them.

   Our problem is mostly not overly generous asylum criteria, it’s that people that are declined can’t be sent home.

10. What a pointless empty statement – they might be ‘denied asylum’, but they most certainly won’t be deported; people in most countries have a dim view of sex offenders, and as such they’ll claim it isn’t safe to be sent back…and they won’t be.

11. Being gay is a sexual offense in some countries… im assuming the nature of the offense will be considered?

12. Should be all asylum seekers who illegally enter the uk. Detention and then send them back. Apply for visa like a normal person

13. Lets hope this goes through.

    Common W for the government

14. Call me stupid but I would deny asylum to anybody who has committed any sexual offence and violent crime

15. “No sir, not a sex offender, Mr Home Office man, sir! Proof, sir? Oh no my passport must’ve failed into the Channel! My name, sir? Smith, sir!”

    It’s not like anyone’s going to fess up to being a mass rapist

16. >Terrorists, war criminals and any other criminals whose offences carry a sentence of one year or more can already be refused asylum under the Refugee Convention.
    >Under the changes, this will be extended to anyone convicted in the UK of a crime which places them on the sex offenders register, regardless of the length of their sentence.

    Can’t help but think there’s a glaring issue here that offences bad enough to be registered are routinely getting less than a year’s sentence.

17. Death Penalty for Paedos. Win the next election. Who loses here?

18. This is going to be an extremely unpopular thing to say, but this is an awful policy.

    1. It is unconscionable to deport someone to a place of mortal danger because they committed a crime, full stop. If they commit a crime here, they can serve their punishment here like anyone else. Best case scenario with this policy, we punish someone twice for the same crime. At its worst, it’s remote execution.

    2. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent for stripping prisoners and migrants of their basic rights. Prisoners get to have visits from family, solicitors, etc. If we take away rights from some prisoners because we’ve decided they’re extra morally bad, we’ll further dehumanise them and create opportunities for worse policies later for British prisoners too. And in terms of migrants, it’s very easy to see how one might expand the principle to deporting any asylum seeker convicted of other crimes as well.

    3. Underage teenagers that have consensual sex or send consensual sexual messages are technically committing offenses under the current law. Although there is guidance to ensure these prosecutions don’t go ahead where there isn’t public interest, it’s very possible to prosecute those relationships.

19. We shouldn’t be accepting anyone with any criminal records.

20. Also revoke any asylum seekers in the UK who are sex offenders.

21. The worst part is that the tory government funded NGOs that lobby for open borders and provide legal aid to asylum seekers who have been rejected, I’d love to know if this has stopped under labour, but given that Starmer is a gimp for law, I doubt it.

22. >Terrorists, war criminals and any other criminals whose offences carry a sentence of one year or more can already be refused asylum under the Refugee Convention.

    >Under the changes, this will be extended to anyone convicted in the UK of a crime which places them on the sex offenders register, regardless of the length of their sentence.

    What exactly is this covering? Public nudity?

    >However, a Home Office source said ministers would be hoping to tackle instances like that of Abdul Ezedi, who was granted asylum despite being a convicted sex offender.

    …He was convicted of sexual assault. If his sentence was under a year you’re focusing on completely the wrong issue.

23. Hopefully when they’re throwing their passports into the Channel on the way over they keep a copy of their Criminal Record.

    What does it matter if we can’t remove them back to wherever they came from?

24. Any asylum seeker who:

    A: commits a serious crime such as mugging, sexual assault, grievous bodily harm, burglary – should have their asylum status immediately revoked

    B: If an asylum seeker returns to their home country (i.e. [for a holiday or to visit family](https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-seehofer-warns-refugees-who-take-syria-vacations/a-50069317)) this should also trigger an immediate revocation of their status

    C: And really, no illegal migrant should be allowed to claim asylum in the first place, so illegal channel migrants should be automatically deported. We should **only** bring in refugees directly from refugee camps.

    If labour introduced these rules they would keep out Reform for a generation.

25. I commend this direction of new laws ,but it utterly disgusts me it has to bought into being. How people seeking refuge in a country providing sanctuary carry out such depravity.

26. Obviously this is a good thing, but kind of demonstrates the point that the immigration thing is a wild goose chase. Are Reform voters going to praise this and Starmer/Labour? Or are they just going to say its not enough? Because nothing Labour could do would ever be enough because Reform will always promise to do more, thats their entire M.O. go as extreme right on the immigrant debate as they can. And if any party makes a step towards them, they just take another step right.

27. They make it sound like they’ve done something fantastic, WHY THE FUCK WERE YOU GIVING SEX OFFENDERS ASYLUM IN THE FIRST PLACE??! I honestly fucking despair with this country sometimes

28. I’m sure the Immigration Tribunal judges will give it a stern ignoring and wank on about the primacy of the HRA

29. This is pretty huge, and what a lot of reform voters have been shouting about. Good to see. Hopefully at the end of the Labour term we’ve got solid progress.

30. In some of the countries people seek asylum from they are considered a sex offender if they are homosexual, and the records in some of these places are far from detailed.
    How would this work?

31. So anyone whose repressive government has labelled them as a sex offender for being LGBTQIA is(like they want to do in the US) can’t escape to the UK?

    Like how are they deciding if someone counts as a sex offender when there are STILL women and men in the USA who are on the register for being lesbian or GAY (with other consenting adult partners) ?

Comments are closed.