Why we fail to deport those who we should deport

I was sore, yes. Who wouldn’t be? My heart went out to him, and I wished trouble hadn’t knocked on his door. But my own back was against the wall now.

-Raymond Carver, ‘Elephant’

NEWS FROM UNCIBAL

A country – England, Italy, Switzerland, Egypt, South Korea, Uruguay – is, among many things, a home. It is nice to welcome people into one’s home. But it is not very nice when guests overstay their welcome, or cause trouble. When that happens, the homeowner is within his or her rights to eject the now-unwanted guest.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, and it is what lies behind the desire to control national borders and determine who should, or should not, be permitted to come to a country and remain there. And in my experience, having lived as an immigrant in another country for a large chunk of my adult life, most immigrants intuitively understand and accept this, and think of it as normal. I certainly never had a problem in principle with the idea, when living in Japan, that if I committed a criminal offence, overstayed my visa, or lost my employment, I would have to leave the country, for all that it would have been regrettable.

The intelligentsia across the West has, however, been studiously ignoring what intuition should have been telling them for some decades now. It is easy to attribute this to status-signalling, or over-exuberant ‘wokeness’. No doubt this plays a part in the problem. And I have written extensively about the topic before as a matter of political philosophy. But, ultimately, at the coal face it boils down to something simpler. When it comes down to actual, concrete circumstances, there is a reluctance – even a squeamishness – about taking a decision which may end up inflicting harm. To put it even more bluntly, our societies have become characterised by a reluctance to take tough decisions. This is generally evident in all aspects of life. And it affects the judiciary just as much as it does, say, parents or schoolteachers.

A recent, highly illustrative example came across my desk just the other day. In the recent Upper Tribunal decision of AA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UI-2024-003512, a decision to deport an Afghan immigrant, AA, was successfully appealed, on the grounds that he had a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ if returned to Afghanistan. This, in the judge’s view, would therefore have violated his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) not to made subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

The facts are not stated clearly in the judgment (tribunal decisions are disgracefully difficult to parse, at times) but it seems to be the case that back in 2010 AA was originally supposed to have been deported to Iran, after having told the authorities – apparently having entered the country unlawfully as a child some time before that – that he was Iranian. For some reason that is not made clear, he seems to have remained in the UK, and in 2022 (a mere twelve years later) after having been identified for removal, changed his story, and claimed to be an Afghan national who would face a violation of his Article 3 rights if returned to that country ‘due to his mental health, his drug addiction and [the fact] that he would be destitute’.

AA, you see, suffers from PTSD and depression, is a long-term heroin addict currently recieved a prescribed does of methodone, and is apparently homeless. He has also been in the UK for a long time and would not look or behave like a practicing Muslim. He would therefore potentially face ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’ if returned to Afghanistan for a number of reasons:

• He has a ‘membership of a particular social group, being that of a person with mental health and addiction issues or who is likely to be perceived to be westernised’ (One has to love the implication that having mental health and addiction issues is a feature of ‘being westernised’ – who said Upper Tribunal judges didn’t have a sense of humour?)
• On the balance of probabilities, he ‘does in fact fear’ persecution in Afghanistan ‘given his long term drug addiction and mental health issues’ and given that ‘he is not a very religious person’
• There is a risk of harm to him on return to Afghanistan because drug addicts there are ‘forced to go cold turkey without access to methadone or counselling’, because ‘mental health support’ is lacking in the country, because he ‘may be seen as non-Afghani or non-Muslim’, and so on
• There would be an ‘absence of State protection’, i.e., from the local police such as they exist
• AA would be unlikely to be able to relocate from Afghanistan after having been returned there

Now, let’s be as generous as we can: one feels sorry for AA, as one should feel sorry for anybody who has strayed down the wrong path in life and ended up in a bad situation. There but for the grace of God go all of us; he is a human being and is entitled to pity and compassion accordingly. And one also feels a sense of shame at the frivolity and hubris of the British State for allowing the situation to arise in the first place that a child from Afghanistan can arrive here unlawfully, be allowed to remain indefinitely, but be allowed to go off grid for over a decade and fall as a consequence into drug addiction and destitution. How much more humane would it have been simply to have non-porous borders?

But the problem is that there are millions upon millions of other people in the world who it is also proper to feel sorry for, and the UK is a small and crowded country with an already unaffordable welfare state that is facing great economic problems and which would rapidly beggar itself if it allowed all of those people to come here to live. To extend the analogy of the home, it is a house which has become rather ramshackle and dilapidated, whose owners already work too many hours and spend too much money supporting family members who are incapable of or unwilling to work, and which is running out of rooms in which to house all of the waifs and strays who have been allowed in to live. The last thing it needs is to take on more and more problem cases, in other words. It has troubles enough of its own.

Leaving legal obligations to one side, then (although I cannot resist reiterating a point I have made repeatedly on this Substack before, which is that it is not really the ECHR’s fault that our judges take such a slovenly and sloppily generous approach to interpreting its provisions, as here), the country needs to have a much more clear-eyed, and – I am afraid to say – ruthless approach when it comes to these matters. Pity is, generally speaking, a laudable emotion. But it is not an end in itself. And there are times when pity has to be felt, but ignored in the interests of other objectives – such as, for example, national safety, security, and the public purse.

One can talk, in other words, about legal changes, and one can elucidate the reasons why the British welfare state seems so insatiably desperate for ever more sheep to add to its flock as a matter of political philosophy. But ultimately the problem, more than anything else, comes down to a societal unwillingness to fail to be nice. When a distasteful decision is to be made, we collectively cringe. And so the house gets fuller and fuller, and falls into worse and worse disrepair, and there is less and less of everything to go round for its growing band of disparate inhabitants. We do not have the wherewithal to say, with enough strength and fortitude, that we’re sorry for the rest of the world’s troubles, but our beloved home is in serious danger of collapse, and we therefore have a big enough repair job on our hands as it is. We want to be welcoming to people who will contribute and help with the restoration work. But we don’t want bad guests who will take advantage of our generosity when we can least afford it.

This problem Britain has – the problem of small boats, of indefinite leave to remain, of the ECHR, of non-refoulement, of visa overstayers, of people coming to the country without the desire to integrate – will, more than anything else, only be solved when we have a judiciary, and a governing class in general, which is willing to say, very simply and squarely, to a man like AA: ‘I pity you. You have been unfortunate. Life has dealt you a rough hand. If you are sent back to Afghanistan, if that is indeed where you are from, you may face much greater hardships than you do here. It may go badly. But I am afraid that you have no legal right to be here and you will have to go back anyway.’

That will figuratively have to happen in the form of legal changes, of course. But it will also have to happen in a more visceral way – through people being willing to grit their teeth and set pity to one side. One can pity somebody without taking responsibility for their care indefinitely; one can pity somebody while informing them of bad news. Pity for a stranger does not trump love for one’s family; pity does not trump the national interest. And it is not in the national interest for this situation, in which illegal migration goes not only unpunished but rewarded, to continue.

How we get to that position is, however, another question, and one fears that it may only happen when the situation has become so desperate that attitudes naturally harden. By then it might even be too late. That this should be a realistic possibility – and it is – is a bleak reality for the country to have to confront. It is time, though, to start confronting it, and to think seriously about whether it is pity that ought to govern immigration law, or other more pressing imperatives. We are pitying ourselves into disorder and social decay. We need to be willing not to be nice.

---

This article (An Excess of Pity) was created and published by News from Uncibal and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Labour’s gaslighting you again –here’s why

Labour’s latest plan to “get tough” is not what it’s cracked up to be

Support Our Work

MATT GOODWIN

There was a time, not so long ago, when I used to think Labour politician Yvette Cooper was competent.

I never really agreed with what Cooper had to say but I do remember thinking that compared to the vast majority of Labour MPs she might at least be good at her job.

But then she took power.

For much of the last year, Yvette Cooper has mismanaged almost every crisis that has come her way.

She has weakened our borders, inflamed divisions within our society and shown little if any regard for the British people.

She is visibly and now spectacularly failing to stop the boats, presiding over a plan that anybody who knows anything about the borders could have told you years ago was always doomed to fail.

In the aftermath of the Southport atrocities, she then joined Keir Starmer in casually deriding millions of British people as “far right” and “misinformed”, while simultaneously withholding information about the attacks from them.

She has called, repeatedly, to expand the use of so-called ‘non-crime hate incidents’, despite the police openly admitting they do not bother to analyse the data they collect and do not even know if they work, not to mention the threat they pose to free speech.

Yvette Cooper has also, consistently, failed the hundreds of thousands of women and girls who were raped, sexually assaulted and abused by the Pakistani Muslim gangs, by refusing to push for a dedicated, statutory national inquiry, diluting her earlier plan to hold five largely meaningless local inquiries in random areas, and kicking the issue into the long grass.

She did that while dismissing women who were calling for single-sex spaces, the protection of vulnerable girls from trans people and children from puberty blockers as “getting caught up in a culture war”.

She has claimed, over and over again, that Labour are “removing more illegal migrants than ever before” while failing to inform the British people that most of these are going voluntarily while the Home Office and Labour government are actually approving the vast majority of asylum claims being made in this country.

She is now presiding over the absurd reality of the British people having their own money used by the Home Office and the state to outbid them in the private housing sector so that the state can prioritise illegal migrants who break our laws.

And now, today, Yvette Cooper is out there doing the media rounds while gaslighting the British people yet again, claiming she and Labour are “getting tough” on foreign sex offenders while doing no such thing.

What am I talking about?

I’m talking about Yvette Cooper’s and the Labour government’s latest announcement, today, that they plan to refuse refugee and asylum protection for foreign nationals who commit sex offences in Britain, such as rape and sexual assault.

Under the new plan, “any conviction of a crime that qualifies a foreign national for the sex offenders register will lead to them being denied refugee status, toughening our approach to border security through stricter enforcement of the rules”.

Sounds good, right?

After all, I’ve written about and campaigned for these changes myself, pointing out that while Labour has refused to share information with the British people about what is really going on in this country the fact of the matter is that foreign nationals are more than three times as likely than British nationals to commit sexual offences against women and girls.

As I wrote back in January, nearly 10,000 foreign nationals were arrested for sexual offences in the first 10 months of last year across England and Wales, while in London foreign nationals account for two-thirds, some 67 per cent, of all sex offence arrests.

Meanwhile, specific nationalities —such as Afghans and Eritreans—are more than twenty times more likely to account for sexual offences than British citizens, while, overall, foreign nationals are 71 per cent more likely to be responsible for sex crimes.

So, if you take the evidence seriously, which I thought politicians were supposed to do, then it’s obvious that we need a tougher approach and one that makes it crystal clear that Britain and the British people will no longer tolerate people who do not tolerate our own laws and ways of life.

But let me be straight with you because, clearly, very few other people in this country are willing to be straight with you.

This is not what Yvette Cooper and the Labour government are giving you today.

Far from it.

What they are doing, in classic Labour Party fashion, is gaslighting you —leading you to think they are doing something when they are doing no such thing.

Let me explain why and set out what we really need to do to keep people safe.

Matt Goodwin: continue reading

*****

Serco and Labour to trash England with 5-year contracts to rent homes for migrants.

The Starmer regime is continuing the programme of paying Serco to house immigrants in homes across England, offering 5-year contracts to landlords, investors and agents to rent homes for migrants.

DAVID KURTEN

WATCH:

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.