Thread: US Acquisition of Greenland

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Why am I not surprised that you are perfectly comfortable using that term.

Does it really make any difference if you type the full word or just substitute a couple of ** ? everybody knew what you meant by ni**ers !

Originally Posted by pickel

You might want to rethink that statement.

Trump claimed they were Venezuelan gangsters and deported them to El Salvador. A judge wanted proof of that, as some were considered to not be involved in gangs and he was using the enemy aliens act to do it. What is it with you and Looper and your problem with the rule of law? If it applies to everybody, it applies to you.

Think yourself lucky you have trump. This is the kind of shite the UK has to put up with, thanks to leftist human rights lawyers and foreign ctiminals who use every loophole in the book to circumvent the law.

This is just of many cases costing taxpayers millions as foreign criminals fight deportation orders.
Give me trumps method any time.



Pakistani paedophile escaped deportation because it would ‘harm his children’

Home Office appeals against ‘wrong’ decision after judge rules it would be ‘unduly harsh’ on man’s toddlers if he was forced to leave UK


Home Affairs Editor.
Tim Sigsworth

10 February 2025 12:58pm GMT

A Pakistani father who was jailed for child sex offences escaped deportation because it would be “unduly harsh” on his children.

The unnamed father of two toddlers, who was granted anonymity by an immigration court, had been banned from living with his children since he was convicted of trying to get three “barely pubescent” girls to engage in sex and was jailed for 18 months.

However, a lower tribunal judge ruled that he should not be deported back to Pakistan because it would be “unduly harsh for the children to be without their father”.

The Home Office appealed against the decision and was backed by Judith Gleeson, an upper tribunal judge, who set aside the ruling, criticising it as “contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable”. The case is ongoing.

It is the latest case in which foreign criminals have been allowed to remain in the UK by immigration tribunals because they have ruled that deportation would breach their rights to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Others uncovered by The Telegraph include a Polish serial offender whose deportation was halted after a court ruled he was a father figure to his 12-year-old nephew, who would face a “disproportionate” impact if he was removed, and an Albanian criminal allowed to stay in Britain partly because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets.


The Pakistani man was granted leave to remain in the UK after coming to join his wife, with whom he has two children, aged three and four, in 2018.

In March 2021, he started targeting the “pre-pubescent” girls, aged 12, 13 and 14, who were in fact decoys in what was believed to be an undercover police operation, the court was told.

It continued for 18 months until his arrest in August 2022 and subsequent imprisonment that December, when he was also made subject to a deportation order by Suella Braverman, the then home secretary.

In sentencing him to 18 months in jail, the judge was damning in ruling that he was “in denial” about the offences and making excuses, leading to the conclusion that there was “very little prospect” of rehabilitation.

The judge also said there would be no significant impact on his wife or children by jailing him because he was “not living in the family home, for obvious reasons”. He was also placed on the sex offenders register and banned from using social media to contact any underage girls.

Despite this judgment, the lower immigration tribunal judge who heard his appeal against deportation accepted that it would be “unduly harsh” to separate him from his children, whom he was being allowed to see for up to 12 hours a day under “supervised contact.”

The judge also “placed weight” on the wife’s claim that she felt partly responsible for his online grooming of the girls because she had not been able to have sex with him after being admitted to hospital to be treated for Covid.

The court was told: “Her guilt would be an additional burden and would detrimentally impact her ability to care for her children, albeit not at a level requiring social services intervention.”

The judge ruled: “In light of the above matters, considered cumulatively, I am satisfied that it would be unduly harsh for the children to be without their father.”

‘Rationally insupportable’
However, Ms Gleeson backed the Home Office appeal against the judgment, saying: “The first-tier judge’s findings of fact and credibility are contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong, and rationally insupportable.”

She said the judge had failed to take account of the strength of the sentencing judge’s remarks, adding: “His characterisation of these offences as a mere blip in the appellant’s life is unsound and inadequately reasoned.

“The emphasis on the wife’s failure to provide intimate relations to her husband when she was unwell and/or a new mother, does not explain why the claimant felt the need to engage with barely pubescent girl children online. The absence of marital relations is no excuse, and should not have been given weight in the judge’s reasoning.”

She referred the case back to the lower-tier tribunal to be reconsidered.

A Home Office spokesman said: “Foreign nationals who commit heinous crimes should be in no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free on Britain’s streets, including removal from the UK at the earliest possible opportunity.

“Since the election, we’ve removed 2,580 foreign criminals – a 23 per cent increase on the same period 12 months prior.”

It comes as both Labour and Tories are trying to head off the electoral threat from Nigel Farage’s Reform UK whose hardline “freeze” on non-essential immigration and “turn-back the boats” plan has helped his party overtake both Tories and Labour and top the latest opinion polls.

On Monday, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, published for the first time videos and photos of foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers being forcibly put on deportation flights as part of efforts to deter illegal migration and demonstrate Labour’s tough approach to a sceptical public.

There are, however, more than 34,000 outstanding appeals, many using human rights laws to challenge their removal, which could hamper efforts to fast-track deportations.

Sir Keir Starmer and his attorney general have made clear that they will not withdraw from the ECHR and that the Government is committed to upholding the rule of international law.

Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, said the Pakistani paedophile case was “another insulting abuse of our immigration system”. “I have serious concerns about the capabilities of the lower tribunal judge who made the initial decision. There has to be accountability for judges that make decisions that are plainly wrong,” he added.

Chris Philp, shadow home secretary, said: “This case is yet another sick joke. Dangerous foreign criminals are routinely abusing human rights legislation to stay in this country with absurd claims that defy common sense. It is unacceptable that judges are allowing these ludicrous claims and the law must be urgently changed to prevent this from happening. We cannot have dangerous foreign criminals and illegal immigrants staying in this country based on obviously spurious human rights, modern slavery and asylum claims that defy common sense. These people need to be rapidly deported.”


© Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited 2025

Originally Posted by taxexile

hes a politician

He ran on the fact that he wasn’t a politician, but a “businessman”.

Originally Posted by taxexile

what do you expect. at least his vices are out in the open

By vices, do you mean the 34 felony indictments, the sexual assault convictions, the tax evasion, the 6 bankruptcies and multiple failed businesses?
Or are you talking about all the millions he made off merchandise he’s tried to hawk while president, like hats, guitars, tennis shoes, Bibles, and trading cards? Are those the vices you’re referring to?

Originally Posted by taxexile

they are all the same, they just wear different suits.

No, some are just sleazy conmen, trying to make a buck.

Originally Posted by taxexile

give me Trump’s method anytime

Yeah! Fuck due process and the Constitution! As long as they’re rounding up the bad guys! So what if innocent people get caught up in the mayhem.

A Maryland man with protected legal status was sent to the notorious prison in El Salvador following an "administrative error," a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official admitted in a sworn declaration on Monday.Kilmer Armado Abrego-Garcia who has a U.S. citizen wife and 5-year-old child is currently at CECOT, the notorious prison in El Salvador.
The filing is part of a new lawsuit filed by Abrego-Garcia's attorneys who are requesting that the government of El Salvador return him to the U.S. after being sent there "because of an administrative error."

https://6abc.com/post/ice-admits-adm...son/16114829/#

Tax and Looper, most people and judges don't care if gangsters get deported to El Slavador. They just want proof that that is actually who is being deported. It's got nothing to do with soft hearted lefties.

Originally Posted by mikenot

Does it really make any difference if you type the full word or just substitute a couple of ** ? everybody knew what you meant by ni**ers !

And yet another racist twat crawls out of the woodwork.

^ then explain how it is ok for you to clearly imply the N word with everybody knowing what you meant, but it is not ok for somebody else to write it in full ?
If you write that "you're a f***ing ni**er" do you seriously think that person is going to be less offended than if you wrote it in full?

Meanwhile Muskrat to doge a bullet and misbehave elsewhere

Making America GRATE again.

Originally Posted by pickel

Tax and Looper, most people and judges don't care if gangsters get deported to El Slavador. They just want proof that that is actually who is being deported.

There is a trade-off between the benefit to the community of expediting the process and the benefit to the individual of giving them some measure of appeals process. It seems at times that this balance leans too far towards the individual with seemingly endless recourse to appeals, which is what this action is in response to, I think.

If expediting the process results in a measurable increase in error rate then that error rate may still be within an acceptable margin. All judicial processes result in some error rate. You just need to determine what your acceptable error rate is and trade that cost off against the benefit of getting a cleaner society more quickly.

Errors can still be rectified even if prisoners are offshore. Australia transports all its illegal immigrants to offshore detention centres. Some of the centres are in other Pacific nations. The UK was looking at a detention facility in Africa I think.

Originally Posted by beachbound

Yes, it’s a shame that pesky Constitution, keeps getting in the way.

I think the constitution, as it was worded, was intended to be aimed at US citizens.

If I were a guest visiting the United States I would certainly not join any form of political demonstration. It would just feel like it was taking a liberty with the hospitality and visiting opportunity being afforded.

I feel it is just not appropriate for visitors, be they tourists, working visa or students or whatever to take part in political demonstrations in general.

Student visitors in particular, who are privileged visitors gaining academic benefit, should keep their heads down and get on with their studies. I would be supportive of a rewording of the visa terms and conditions of the US (or Australia or any western nation) to explicitly discourage temporary visitors from taking part in political demonstrations. Visitors should reserve this behaviour for the safety of home turf.

Do you think any Islamic state would hesitate for a moment to sling any westerner participating in pro-Israel demonstrations in jail?

I think guests need to remember that they are guests and not citizens, whatever country they happen to be in, even if that be a lovey dovey Western individual-rights-loving nation.

Originally Posted by Looper

I think the constitution, as it was worded, was intended to be aimed at US citizens.

Best you stop embarrassing yourself with your level of ‘thinking’…

Originally Posted by Loopey

I think the constitution, as it was worded, was intended to be aimed at US citizens.

If I were a guest visiting the United States I would certainly not join any form of political demonstration. It would just feel like it was taking a liberty with the hospitality and visiting opportunity being afforded.

I feel it is just not appropriate for visitors, be they tourists, working visa or students or whatever to take part in political demonstrations in general.

Student visitors in particular, who are privileged visitors gaining academic benefit, should keep their heads down and get on with their studies. I would be supportive of a rewording of the visa terms and conditions of the US (or Australia or any western nation) to explicitly discourage temporary visitors from taking part in political demonstrations. Visitors should reserve this behaviour for the safety of home turf.

Do you think any Islamic state would hesitate for a moment to sling any westerner participating in pro-Israel demonstrations in jail?

I think guests need to remember that they are guests and not citizens, whatever country they happen to be in, even if that be a lovey dovey Western individual-rights-loving nation.

You would have made a great Nazi.

Originally Posted by beachbound

You would have made a great Nazi.

While I disagree with Looper on this, I think that is too strong and despite his model storm troopers he is perhaps one of those god fearing church going conservatives in public.

I think in his private life he is more welcoming to all comers.