Why everywhere J'cans guh dem affi

[Lazie]

mek we look bad? Now 3-yr sentence for J’can bank robber in NZ. Bwoy!

[Jawge]

see my posted to Iman. It's the way Ja's society is structred. It cannot hold up in today's global village. If Ja continues all she will export is crime.

[Gamma]

you are so modest, but that is perhaps because you have so much to be modest about!!!

[ReggaeMike]

What should ideally be done is to get tough with the passports. Last time I checked, having a passport is still a privilege, not a right. Anybody caught doing any offence and/or deported should have their passport revoked for a given period of time. That way other countries won't have to do the work for us by, you know, imposing visas.

[Assasin]

Even people who are deported for none criminal offenses.
people with valid visas have it revoked and sent back to Jamaica. Should they also face this?

[Lazie]

Even people who are deported for none criminal offenses.
people with valid visas have it revoked and sent back to Jamaica. Should they also face this?

I like his idea excepting those with none criminal offenses should go through that.

[ReggaeMike]

Even people who are deported for none criminal offenses.
people with valid visas have it revoked and sent back to Jamaica. Should they also face this?

Well it depends.

Do those deported for non-criminal offences cause the rest of us to be considered in a bad light? What kind of offences are we talking about as well? What kind of offences are people deported for which aren't criminal offences?

If the visa is revoked and the person is sent back to Jamaica there must be a reason (unless we are talking about North Korea or some such place where the reason can be as simple as speaking your mind), so why should they be allowed to travel on a passport and make customs officials everywhere else view us suspiciously as though we were all just criminals waiting for a chance to let loose?

EDIT: Remember at the back of your passport (and in every country's passport) there is a little notice saying that "this passport is the property of xxxyz government" and noting that it can be revoked at any time. There is also absolutely no internationally recognized right to being able to travel out of one's country. There is a recognized freedom of movement within states, but between states it is still considered to be a privilege that various states may or may not grant (so the EU states grant their citizens freedom of movement between each other, but India and Australia require just about everyone to have a visa).

[Assasin]

"If the visa is revoked and the person is sent back to Jamaica there must be a reason "

it is easier to deport people than you think. I know of a friend who was sent back because they though he had fake papers. It took him years to rectify that with the US embassy while he travelled other place. This is some I know and his papers was 100 genuine.

There are many cases of people been deported for very minor offenses, nothing to do with anything criminal. If you go to Cayman from Jamaica and just walking around chances immigration will want to pick you up and send you back. I know because I have been there. As immigration tell Mr. Chen(UDC) they don't have to give you a reason, so that also mean they don't have to have one(really).

Another question if someone overstay in a country are they deserving not to have a passport again?

[ReggaeMike]

"If the visa is revoked and the person is sent back to Jamaica there must be a reason "

it is easier to deport people than you think. I know of a friend who was sent back because they though he had fake papers. It took him years to rectify that with the US embassy while he travelled other place. This is some I know and his papers was 100 genuine.

There are many cases of people been deported for very minor offenses, nothing to do with anything criminal. If you go to Cayman from Jamaica and just walking around chances immigration will want to pick you up and send you back. I know because I have been there. As immigration tell Mr. Chen(UDC) they don't have to give you a reason, so that also mean they don't have to have one(really).

Another question if someone overstay in a country are they deserving not to have a passport again?

But that isn't really a case for a valid deportation. In his case if he came home and the reason given was "fake papers" and it was seen at home that his papers weren't fake then of course he should keep his passport. However the reason given is a pretty serious reason for deportation. Having fake papers is a criminal offence since it is fraud. If someone is deported and they really do have fake papers, then their passport should be seized since God knows what else they were planning to do.

What kind of minor offences are we talking about here? Misdemeanours? Because "misdemeanours" are technically criminal offences, just not as serious as "felonies".

Immigration officials are notorious for being arbitrary and uncouth. However, it isn't like we as a society haven't given them reasons to believe that they are justified in being harsh with us. If we don't look like we are dealing with the problems presented by those who go abroad and do various horrid things to give us a bad name, then the other countries will do it for us and usually by imposing visas. Look on the UK drug mule issue. We had people being sent back but the government did not even appear to be seriously trying to deal with the issue other than the usual "we will put the police on the issue". Drug lords kept sending mules because the visa-free regime meant it was easy to send just about anybody and the UK got peeved. Now here's a question or three: Did any of the drug mules get their passport seized/revoked? If not, how could the UK government take us seriously if we allowed people who were known to be carrying drugs in their bodies to continue flying out of the country whenever they wanted to? What was to prevent them from changing their name via deed poll and getting a new passport and boarding a new flight and escaping any list of known drug mules that customs officials might have at the airport?

With overstaying I can't really sympathize unless someone's flight was delayed or you are in the hospital. If you are given until X time according to the visa, what on earth could force you to overstay except for flight delays or someone beating you to a pulp (or a car running you over)? If someone overstays for any other reason it is going to naturally raise the suspicions of the immigration officers and they will eventually start viewing all people from a given country as a potential flight-risk. Generally if someone overstays maybe a day to a week I would say revoke the passport for 6 months. If you overstay any longer it should be revoked for at least a year. Any violation of the visa regime basically breaks whatever trust the immigration officials decided to extend to the citizens of our country. The more violations there are the less trust they will be willing to extend and the more likely they will just pick you up and want to send you back without giving a reason. It's a vicious, positive feedback cycle. Since we shouldn't expect foreign immigration officers to break it (unless we are okay with submitting ourselves to foreign control) then it is up to us to do something about it and do what is within our powers to do.

If Jamaican citizens are perceived to be well behaved abroad (or if the state is seen as attempting to prevent badly behaving citizens from going abroad) then we will eventually get treated better. As an example take the Bahamas, Antigua-Barbuda, St. Kitts-Nevis, Seychelles and Maritius - their citizens since about 2009 have enjoyed visa-free travel to the European Union's Schengen zone (and they never lost their visa-free travel to the UK and Ireland which are outside the Schengen zone).

[Assasin]

Whie e have a lot of bad citizens we have people who are good and have valid reason to travel and they shouldn't be treated as criminals. In the case of the fake paper there was nothing fake about the man paper and the immigration officers weren't interested. The man never committed any crime so why should his passport be taken? The fact is immigration department have a lot of power and they can abuse it if they want as you can bring charges against them and win(it is very hard).

As I said in Cayman if you look like you lost immigration officer will pick you up. The fact is you can't limit the rights of so many people especially if they didn't commit a crime. If they are criminals then yes.

Yes we have a lot of bad people but they can't treat everybody with the same brush. We simple have to do a better job growing our youngsters but we can't just take away freedom to move and make a living if they are not criminals.

[ReggaeMike]

Whie e have a lot of bad citizens we have people who are good and have valid reason to travel and they shouldn't be treated as criminals. In the case of the fake paper there was nothing fake about the man paper and the immigration officers weren't interested. The man never committed any crime so why should his passport be taken?

I never said it should be. I said in his case he should keep it. In cases where the papers are fake it should be taken.

The fact is immigration department have a lot of power and they can abuse it if they want as you can bring charges against them and win(it is very hard).

As I said in Cayman if you look like you lost immigration officer will pick you up. The fact is you can't limit the rights of so many people especially if they didn't commit a crime. If they are criminals then yes.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Yes we have a lot of bad people but they can't treat everybody with the same brush.

The problem is that they do treat everybody with the same brush and they do it because we have a lot of bad people (with varying degrees of how bad they are, from those who abuse the visa rules to those who go to places like NZ on work permits and attempt to rob banks).

We simple have to do a better job growing our youngsters

Quite true. Passport revocation alone won't do it.

but we can't just take away freedom to move and make a living

As I pointed out before, moving between countries is not a right. You nor I have any right whatsoever to leave the country of our nationality. If any government in any country decided it didn't want to give out any passports anymore there is no court in world which would find in our favour should we decide to sue.

if they are not criminals.

That's the key point and the one I've been stressing. Criminal = someone who commits a crime. Crime = violation of a law. So if our citizens go abroad and abuse/violate other countries immigration laws or other kinds of laws then they have committed criminal acts and shouldn't be allowed to soil what is left of our good name. If there were tough measures against the delinquents then other countries (such as Costa Rica) may not feel the need to get tough with all Jamaicans in general and then those Jamaicans who do want to go abroad for tourism or to work will eventually be able to do so without immigration officials thinking every one of them is either a drug mule or a drug lord.

[Bricktop]

There is also absolutely no internationally recognized right to being able to travel out of one's country.

Absurd init

[ReggaeMike]

Absurd init

No why?

Not everything under the sun has to be a right.

I for one do not believe that people should have this so-called right to water or food. Water is not a man-made product or some social construct or cultural construct. It comes from the sky as rain or from rivers, lakes or the ocean. If no rain nuh fall and the rivers and lakes run dry and there is no desalination plant, then people could a bawl and sue fi dem rights all dem want, but dem not getting any water because there isn't any to get.

People should absolutely be given water if they pay for it or if they need it (so if you find a man dying of thirst you must give him water), but outside of that I don't see where people can get off demanding some kind of right to water.

With international travel why should there be a right? There are too many rights in this world where people do not take responsibility for said rights. Rights must go hand in hand with responsibility. If you aren't going to be responsible then you lose those rights - that's the whole basis of the justice system. You act irresponsibly with your freedoms and abuse or take away someone else's rights (e.g. right to life, right to freedom of movement within a country) and your rights get taken away (right to life, right to freedom of movement within a country, right to vote). Break a law (again be irresponsible) and you are sometimes punished by having certain rights taken away (right to freedom). Out here everyone has the right to vote and we abuse it by just voting for people without thinking about the consequences. Of course it does have repercussions in that the country now finds itself in the mess it currently is (so I guess the saying that every country gets the government it deserves is partly true), only it seems the electorate hasn't learned that doing the same thing over and over (voting JLPNP) and expecting different results (utopia as opposed to the current situation) is the definition of insanity. I wouldn't want to go back to qualified voting since that is far too easy to abuse and would be a backward step. Education is the key.

Back in the 1940s when they came up with the whole idea of the right of freedom of movement within countries, they were smart enough to realize that freedom of movement between countries would be abused. It would mean people would just go where they wanted even if they didn't need to and thus eventually overburden the social system of the receiving country. Imagine those people who were deported because of something they actually did (like causing a disturbance or carrying out petty theft or in the case of the guy in NZ attempt major theft); then imagine that countries decided to ban them or impose some special visa on them. They could sue and probably win. If people aren't going to act with maturity by showing responsibility, why would it be absurd if a particular privilege was not transformed into a right?

[Rockman]

Respectfully disagree with de watah part.
I believe that water because of its importance is now seen as potentially the most profitable business, and they could not care any less whether you die if you can't afford it.As such I am very concern about our nation's water supply, the polution and corporatization of it.
There are examples where the aforementioned occurred,and surely the consensus among the masses adversely affected is water isn't a commodity, not learning...will be disastrous as the threat is real.




Blessed

[Sickko]

I know all of us here are vagrants and have criminal intentions becuase we dont run away to live in the great virtuous USA, you damn fool...