They get deported. But just like any criminal case, the person has the right to a fair trial to determine if they’re guilty. Arresting police, the public, etc., don’t determine guilt. The courts of justice do.
So while it does seem a bit wasteful, the process itself ensures that EVERYONE - regardless if you like them or not - gets a fair trial.
I’d also argue that there need be nuance. Let’s say, there’s a high earner immigrant who’s been in the country for a decade without any legal issues. One night he’s out celebrating with friends, and gets more drunk than usual. Completely unrelated to that drunkenness, he gets assaulted by a British man, who comes at him with fists flying. Our immigrant defends himself, but in said inebriated state, he uses more force than what the jury and judge later determine to be appropriate - turning his act of self defence into a charge of assault and battery. Given his clean history and that he didn’t intend to cause the amount of harm that happened and that it was intended as self defence, his sentence is suspended, he sees no prison time, BUT, he is convicted of a violent crime. Technically, he’s a violent criminal immigrant. Would you still want him deported?
That’s… my entire point. That we can’t just say “deport all violent criminal immigrants”, because as you can see, one can fall into that legal category without being part of the group you assumed. Context is important.
Yes, exactly, you understand their point perfectly. Which is why a distinctly un-nuanced kneejerk reaction like “Deport violent immigrants” is neither wise nor helpful.
Deport violent immigrants
They get deported. But just like any criminal case, the person has the right to a fair trial to determine if they’re guilty. Arresting police, the public, etc., don’t determine guilt. The courts of justice do.
So while it does seem a bit wasteful, the process itself ensures that EVERYONE - regardless if you like them or not - gets a fair trial.
I’d also argue that there need be nuance. Let’s say, there’s a high earner immigrant who’s been in the country for a decade without any legal issues. One night he’s out celebrating with friends, and gets more drunk than usual. Completely unrelated to that drunkenness, he gets assaulted by a British man, who comes at him with fists flying. Our immigrant defends himself, but in said inebriated state, he uses more force than what the jury and judge later determine to be appropriate - turning his act of self defence into a charge of assault and battery. Given his clean history and that he didn’t intend to cause the amount of harm that happened and that it was intended as self defence, his sentence is suspended, he sees no prison time, BUT, he is convicted of a violent crime. Technically, he’s a violent criminal immigrant. Would you still want him deported?
There is a slight nuance between someone defending themselves and attacking people in public with machetes
That’s… my entire point. That we can’t just say “deport all violent criminal immigrants”, because as you can see, one can fall into that legal category without being part of the group you assumed. Context is important.
Yes, exactly, you understand their point perfectly. Which is why a distinctly un-nuanced kneejerk reaction like “Deport violent immigrants” is neither wise nor helpful.