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

161–170 of 170 posts

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

#161

Post by origin_path »

_benedict wrote: post #160
origin_path wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're proving my point here. You seem to think being labelled a refugee is literally a blank cheque and the only limit on where they settle should be how far they can get with whatever funds they take with them. Remember also that there are organizations that will happily pay people money to let them relocate to more desirable locations.

I don't really have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but people like you need to realize this - that sort of attitude and activism will sooner or later mean the end of the asylum system for everyone. We are already seeing credible candidates for Prime Minister want to withdraw from the ECHR to make deportations for failed asylum possible (not even easy, just possible) and it's because the public has no patience for the endless flood of "refugees" who inexplicably find France unacceptable. Abuse of the system will lead to it being terminated, and that will be popular with voters.

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

#162

Post by pmyteh »

mabbo wrote: post #149
zarzavat wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, once he receives assurances from the Home Office that no action will be taken, that is the end of the matter, and it would be legally problematic for a subsequent government to reverse that.

As the world moves further towards authoritarianism, how secure do you think Sir Mo feels about that? In his shoes, would you be brave enough to speak out politically against a government in power, given his situation?

You're both right. The Home Secretary's statement that no action will be taken can form the basis of a 'legitimate expectation' which is enforceable by judicial review if a future government changes its mind.

Would I risk that, given current government threats against both refugees and the continued availability of effective judicial review? I'm not sure. Probably not.

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

#163

Post by wizofaus »

notch656a wrote: post #30
mrtksn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that if the immigrants were legal they would not work as hard and leech the social system unlike the natives?

I think the vast vast majority would continue to work hard. But leachers do exist, and given the opportunity, some will. The thing is the ones that are here illegally are already self selected as ones willing to work without social supports. ----------- >Leechers exist among natives too. Any particular reason to believe that it’s worse with the immigrants? No in fact I've stated the opposite. The incentive structure…

Illegal immigrants may well be hard working, which is admirable, but are they also educating themselves to be more productive (i.e. able to generate more wealth from the same number of hours worked?) If not, then they're not contributing towards growth in living standards/alleviation of poverty.

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

#164

Post by wizofaus »

bruceb wrote: post #51
notch656a wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that immigrants are a good thing. Especially illegal immigrants if they have no way to benefit from tax benefits but are forced to pay into it. It means they're basically forced to be a net benefit. The key is to make sure any benefits offered to immigrants are not a net drain on society. Usually this is the case, particularly if you just deny illegal immigrants any service while forcing them to pay taxes, bu…

> I agree that immigrants are a good thing. Especially illegal immigrants if they have no way to benefit from tax benefits but are forced to pay into it This is misstating the situation. 1. People working under the table don't pay taxes. 2. Those who do pay taxes are not earning that much as such not paying much tax 3. They do get benefits. For example CA gave illegal immigrants payments. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wi…

They don't pay income tax, sure, but it's pretty hard to avoid other taxes.

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

#165

Post by wizofaus »

mrtksn wrote: post #42
raverbashing wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good, that's a more colorful story You can find the ones that don't work in the same places you find the locals that don't work (not saying it's the majority - and it might be even smaller than local unemployment). Or you can search for statistics around that area. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/mi... > estimated the net fiscal contribution of EEA migrants in the financial year (FY) 2016/17…

non-EEA probably means illegal immigrants too. You can’t really contribute into the social security system when you are not allowed to work legally. That doesn’t mean that you don’t contribute to the society through your hard work. I’ve met people with refugee status who did receive some benefits and worked hard illegally. I’m not going to count them as a cost, they were working in construction jobs, making honest li…

That last point is always been the way I've seen it - especially here in Australia, the idea that anyone would risk their lives and travel half way across the world in subhuman conditions just to be able to spend their life bumming off social security seems pretty laughable. Indeed they're exactly the sort of people I'd think we need more of in this country, yet neither side of politics is budging from this absurd (and probably illegal) position of not allowing anyone that arrives by boat an option to even apply for asylum on our shores.

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

#166

Post by _benedict »

origin_path wrote: post #161
_benedict wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're proving my point here. You seem to think being labelled a refugee is literally a blank cheque and the only limit on where they settle should be how far they can get with whatever funds they take with them. Remember also that there are organizations that will happily pay people money to let them relocate to more desirable locations. I don't really have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but people like y…

On average the equivalent of 0.05% of the UK population claims asylum each year [1]. Last year about 0.07%. That doesn't sound like an endless flood to me. The world unfortunately does have a lot of refugees in it, but we do not experience the consequences of that here, much as we may act as though we do.

I don't personally have a strong belief that refugees should have a blank cheque to settle anywhere. It might be fairer to permit refugees to travel further, as it's unclear why neighbouring countries should shoulder the burden. However, the only point I was making is that my understanding is that today they _do_ have that right, which is why countries make it so hard to arrive.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statist...

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

#167

Post by tim333 »

Feritio wrote: post #157
cm2187 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was curious so I googled (I'm a Brit and not up on the US)

It seems:

> Borderwide, about 15 percent of single adults and 65 percent of families are released into the U.S. rather than expelled, according to Customs and Border Protection data from April.

>Hastings said they are released not because of official Biden administration policy but because Mexican authorities refuse to take back more than a certain number each day. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/under-biden-cro...

So I guess you cross illegally with a dingy or some such, hope to be in the 65% and then apply for asylum.

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

#168

Post by brigandish »

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #153
brigandish wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mens rea is the standard for something to be a crime, the assumption being that I cannot call it a crime without there being intent. Without intent it is not a crime.

Did he know that he was benefiting from using a false name? Was he of an age that the courts have deemed there to be a presumed ability to tell right from wrong? This test would be applied at every level of the justice system (at least every level above bare detection). It is a presumption of the system of criminal law in a common law jurisdiction, hence, it should be taken as said. Or I thought it would be.

The principle of charity is always a good place to start a discussion[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

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

#169

Post by lazyasciiart »

olivermarks wrote: post #49
lazyasciiart wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#NoTrueExperienceWithImmigrants

At least you're honest with your comment.

I'm sorry, it was actually a complete lie. Aside from having significant experience with immigrants to my home country, I became one myself as an adult. Better luck with your next attempt to argue from lack of experience!

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

#170

Post by brigandish »

brigandish wrote: post #133
closeparen wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the leverage employers can have over immigrants is a big problem. An illegal immigrant who goes to the authorities with a wage theft claim risks being arrested and deported herself. Even a highly educated tech worker at Facebook cannot switch to Google without jeopardizing his family's status in the United States. The harsher the climate towards immigrants in laws and officialdom, the easier they are to exploit.…

> The harsher the climate towards immigrants in laws and officialdom, the easier they are to exploit. The anti-immigration voters who demand this harshness are shooting themselves in the foot a bit, and should reconsider. That ignores opportunity cost. There's a reason there are camps at Calais, and it's because those in the camps believe - rightly or wrongly - that they are better off applying for asylum in Britain…

It hasn't taken long for the policy to prove this true. From[1]:

> Numbers in this category have also grown significantly in recent months. Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said that the increase is in response to a new UK policy being introduced which threatens to deport new arrivals into the UK to Rwanda in central Africa.

[1] https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/what-should-be-done-ire...

Post reply on HN