Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 170 posts

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#151

Post by garyfirestorm »

brigandish wrote: post #134
bilekas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> receiving stolen property Being in possession of stolen property is not necessarily a crime. If you buy something on eBay that was stolen without your knowledge you're not going to get charged. You may have to return it and be out of pocket probably, but not crime. As for soliciting murder that's a crime. There is an intent there. > He is a direct beneficiary though. What if instead of his lief today he was forced…

If we're looking for mens rea then the moment a child is over 10, if they don't confess to being an illegal immigrant then they know what they're doing. As to your other question, they would be a victim as they are a slave. Return to their country of origin should still be favoured though (but not mandatory). If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? As such I'm not sure why that'…

> If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return?

Are you forgetting that he has nothing to return to? Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#152

Post by brigandish »

garyfirestorm wrote: post #151
brigandish wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're looking for mens rea then the moment a child is over 10, if they don't confess to being an illegal immigrant then they know what they're doing. As to your other question, they would be a victim as they are a slave. Return to their country of origin should still be favoured though (but not mandatory). If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? As such I'm not sure why that'…

> If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? Are you forgetting that he has nothing to return to? Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?

> Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means?

Do you know how to conduct yourself properly in discussion? I’ll thank you for trying harder to from now on.

It’s his homeland, regardless of whether it’s war-torn or not. If he has nothing there or not is irrelevant to whether he wishes to go back. Which he could, or he could apply to stay, through the proper channels, which he also could (you’ll note I left open such a possibility).

None of which absolves him or whomever it was that trafficked him of their actions.

> Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point?

Yes, what are the chances? Perhaps it would be good to hear something more concrete from you on what those chances are.

> If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?

Because it's their home, and because hypothetically you haven't provided any reasoning as to why it would remain indefinitely dangerous, but I'm sure we can play this game of endlessly more unlikely and difficult situations so it will be interesting to hear the substance behind these hypotheticals.

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#153

Post by sonotathrowaway »

brigandish wrote: post #105
bilekas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mo Farah didn't cheat the system though. He was a victim of the trafficking and so the ops point is referring to not criminalizing the victim i think. Which makes sense. He didn't break the immigration law.

He is a direct beneficiary though. Whether that is relevant in immigration law, I don't know, but it certainly is in other areas of criminal law (e.g. receiving stolen property, soliciting murder etcetera).

So does intent - trying to prosecute someone for the indirect benefits they gained as a victim of crime is morally perverse.

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#154

Post by notch656a »

komadori wrote: post #136
notch656a wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know for instance Norway has suggested allowing illegal immigrants onward voyage to Svalbard where there are no public benefits but also no visa requirements to work, which allow them to technically stay in Norway and still have work authorization without becoming a public charge. I think this kind of clever problem solving is really the kind we need to overcome some of these challenges.

There are no public benefits in Svalbard because they send anyone who can't support themselves back to Norway. The economy is small and dominated by a few state-owned employers who own almost all the housing and rent it to their employees. Sending illegal immigrants from Norway to Svalbard is not a practical suggestion.

Norway's own politicians and people were the ones suggesting it. Not being Norwegian myself I'm relying on those in Norway to suggest these ideas. Both the FrP and Green Party have come up with plans to make it practical.

> send anyone who can't support themselves back to Norway

I mean for illegal immigrants; if they can't support themselves they can be sent back to their own country. They have no right to stay in mainland Norway, so that won't be a problem.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norwegian-po...

https://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/4956-frp-politician-propo...

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#155

Post by origin_path »

_benedict wrote: post #144
origin_path wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a refugee should not be (and isn't) a blank cheque to settle in whatever part of the world you want, financially supported by the locals regardless of whether they want you there or not. If it were that would be a perverse incentive to actually try and make your own country collapse, as it'd be easier to claim "refugee" status than fix domestic issues. This is doubly true given that some people are fanatical ab…

It isn’t a blank cheque, because making it to safety in a preferred country is exceptionally difficult and expensive. However, it is a blank cheque once you’ve surmounted those challenges and have arrived at the safe country you have chosen (and were able to reach), though most countries receiving such refugees are doing their best not to honour this obligation. It’s worth noting that the UK tries hard to prevent ref…

It's clearly not that difficult or expensive given the large numbers of people who manage to achieve it despite, theoretically, having no personal resources. If it were really exceptionally difficult then people wouldn't do it, as there's nothing wrong with the countries they crossed to get there.

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#156

Post by sangnoir »

Gollapalli wrote: post #113
sangnoir wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the working and middle classes that are most harmed by immigration. Didn't farmers complain that British (working class?)citizens[1] weren't up for picking fruits after East Europeans hit the Brexit? The same working & middle class rely on cheap fruits, so it's not a simple equation where fewer immigrants = better jobs. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-61568286

There's a difference between a complaint and a reality. British working class citizens likely wouldn't wish to pick fruits, at the wages that British farmers wish to pay them. Actually, that's sort of the point. British working class labour being undercut by foreign labour.

> Actually, that's sort of the point. British working class labour being undercut by foreign labour.

Sure, that may work in a purely hypothetical construct with rational economic agents, no second-order effects, farmers that are OK with going out of business, no political pandering, a the Conservative government that cares about labor (the class) and spherical cows.

Why are the anti-immigration politicians, now that they have "taken back control" - still keeping the immigration pipeline running? Just with fewer EU immigrants.

Blaming foreign laborers for systemic problems is a lazy cop-out: that is the bloc with the least say.

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#157

Post by Feritio »

cm2187 wrote: post #83
petesergeant wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the OP is saying that children trafficked into a country they subsequently grew up in should probably be treated as victims and dealt with compassionately, whether or not they're widely loved sports stars

I understand the intention but even then you are creating a loophole, i.e. you bring people under 18 illegally, they get the nationality through this loophole, then you need to grant visas to the parent who will care for them. It's basically the story of the loophole of "don't put children in jail and don't separate them from their parents either" at the US border. All good intentions, the consequences of which is th…

How does a child help you immigrate into the USA?

They will just deport the whole family.

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#158

Post by olivermarks »

closeparen wrote: post #108
olivermarks wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tragedy of the commons (or in this case mass immigration to the 'commons') https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impa... example 5

Wages do not work like groundwater. There is no fixed exogenous workload or pool of national income such that fewer people get bigger shares. This was cutting edge thinking at the time of the Industrial Revolution but it turned out to be totally wrong. Obviously, or standards of living in Western countries today would be much worse than in Malthusianism's heyday, given our now much higher populations.

Disagree. UK socialists last century when the country was still a manufacturing powerhouse were clear about the concept of a nation state with nationalized health, energy, travel etc, union membership and fair taxation for A FINITE NUMBER OF CITIZENS.

Fraternal relationships with similar nation states (all singing the nationale together) was arguably one of the reasons for the creation of the common market (which of course mushroomed over time into the huge undemocratic bureaucratic monster it now is).

Naturally those benefits (literally in some cases) were very attractive to people like Mo Farah's family from afar decades ago and the UK and Europe were empathetic to allowing some immigration.

The tragedy of the commons is epitomized by globalization, the vast offshore empire that now controls the planet. The globalists want compliant, overpopulated workforces with no negotiating skills in all countries and thus encouraging borderless society. The result is mediocre wages, large amounts of trafficking of in some cases literally slave labour and few opportunities for what used to be termed the working classes.

These are huge global problems that are currently spinning out of control due to the globalists also controlling the central banks which have enabled finacialization of everything and now ferocious inflation

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#159

Post by clort »

origin_path wrote: post #155
_benedict wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t a blank cheque, because making it to safety in a preferred country is exceptionally difficult and expensive. However, it is a blank cheque once you’ve surmounted those challenges and have arrived at the safe country you have chosen (and were able to reach), though most countries receiving such refugees are doing their best not to honour this obligation. It’s worth noting that the UK tries hard to prevent ref…

It's clearly not that difficult or expensive given the large numbers of people who manage to achieve it despite, theoretically, having no personal resources. If it were really exceptionally difficult then people wouldn't do it, as there's nothing wrong with the countries they crossed to get there.

I see a selection bias in your comments there. There may be numbers of people who manage to achieve it but you can't strictly say if it was difficult or not unless you compare the number of people who tried and failed. You can't say it was not expensive unless you can demonstrate that some significant proportion of those who made it did not spend much money doing so.

Re: Sir Mo Farah reveals he was trafficked into the UK using another child’s name

#160

Post by _benedict »

origin_path wrote: post #155
_benedict wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t a blank cheque, because making it to safety in a preferred country is exceptionally difficult and expensive. However, it is a blank cheque once you’ve surmounted those challenges and have arrived at the safe country you have chosen (and were able to reach), though most countries receiving such refugees are doing their best not to honour this obligation. It’s worth noting that the UK tries hard to prevent ref…

It's clearly not that difficult or expensive given the large numbers of people who manage to achieve it despite, theoretically, having no personal resources. If it were really exceptionally difficult then people wouldn't do it, as there's nothing wrong with the countries they crossed to get there.

Being a refugee does not mean you have no resources. Would you flee your home country without taking your valuables? Would you have no friends or relatives to call upon to offer some monetary assistance, if it meant the difference between life and death?

Most have few resources. The ones with more resources have more options about where they flee to.

Post reply on HN