I just wanted to respond to a comment on that last post. It got a bit long for the comments section so here it is.
I totally agree that countries have a right not to admit criminals, and I understand the desire to expel someone who has committed a crime, and I believe I clearly stated that above.
However, punishing an innocent person (the criminal’s family) for another’s crime (while it may seem to have a certain logic as we generally think of parents as “responsible” for their kids) is, I believe fundamentally immoral. And laws around the world back this up. It’s just not done. (Except for, as mentioned above, by the Nazi’s)
One of the questions raised while I was thinking about this is: How much of the foreigner-committed crime is committed by minors? There’s no stats mentioned in this article, just that in general, it’s much higher among immigrants. I’d be curious to see if there’s a difference. Because if there’s not the same substantial difference between crime among citizen minors and crime among immigrant minors, then why hold foreigners’ families responsible and not hold citizen parents similarly responsible? I would call that an anti-foreigner, or xenophobic distinction.
Regardless of there being a significantly higher amount of immigrant minor criminals this is obviously a scare tactic. The blog linked in the previous post even quotes someone who is counting on the fear factor of this legislation: “as soon as the first ten families and their children have been expelled from the country, then things will get better at a stroke.”
And I count that type of fear-mongering as xenophobic. I don’t believe that making an example of innocent people is a legitimate way to achieve social or political goals. I hope this clarifies. Thanks for commenting!