Terminally ill man facing deportation after criminal conviction pleads to spend his last days at home
Terminally ill man facing deportation after criminal conviction pleads to spend his last days at home
Robert Taylor has lived in Australia since he was a baby but is facing deportation after being convicted for aggravated burglary. There are calls for him to be allowed to die with his family beside him.
Sorry I don't care what crimes he committed. He did his time and deporting him to a foreign country he has never seen is a death sentence even without the cancer.
Simple fact is he is Australian in evewry way except the piece of paper. Our society made him and he is our problem. Foisting our problems off on foreign countries is a dangerous precedent.
It’s a good thing the UK has never fobbed criminals off on Australia. Wait a minute…
This is probably a ragebait article, but I'm surprised that the ABC published it. I really feel no sympathy for this man, especially since this was not his first conviction. His first conviction, where he escaped the cancellation of his visa, should've been the shot across the bow that caused him to clean up his act. But not, he chose to commit again, despite his kids.
What I'm also surprised by is that a human rights lawyer too up his case. There are far more worthy human rights cases to take up. This guy's is cut and dry if you ask me. Yes he has a sob story, but it was also predictable, and the law is clear as mud.
His kids and family are the real losers here. They're stuck with a deadbeat dad who they won't be able to send off properly, all because of their dad's choices.
My BIL is an immigration lawyer. People like the person in the article often come to him for help.
Forgetting the person for a moment, there’s a reason why cases like these are very important. No one wants to establish any kind of precedent where someone can be automatically deported, especially when they have dependent family in the country.
Second, just deporting someone without a consideration of where (or what) they’re going back to is something that just shouldn’t happen. You could be condemning someone to persecution or it could be as simple as sending someone back to a country they were born in but never learned the language or no longer have any connection to i.e., no family or anyone who can ensure their welfare once they get there, or even where the individual is no longer recognised as being a national (stateless).
It’s very complex and not something that I can accurately sum up in a comment (ianal), but put simply, we have a responsibility to the individual regardless of whether their circumstances are of their own doing or not.
I’m all for “toe the line” but the law just isn’t black and white. There’s plenty of scenarios under which someone can end up with a conviction recorded against them, and some of them are not exactly reasonable if it were to become a basis for deportation.
I get that not all cases are clear cut and I'm all for human rights lawyers fighting for cases like the Biloela family, who have done nothing wrong. But this guy's case is pretty black and white. He had ample opportunities to become a citizen, and to stop being a dickhead, but chose not to at every turn. Meet consequences.
I would argue fighting cases like this is more likely to create precedent that ends up being more conservative than it should be. If the case was someone who was sentenced to > 12 months in prison for some trivial like not paying a traffic fine because they didn't receive the fine due to not having a permanent address and then having their visa cancelled, that's worth fighting. But because this guy fought to stay, the traffic fine guy is gonna have to also fight this precedent that didn't need to happen.
This is my point. Don't fight cases that don't pass the pub test unless you want to set a precedent that closes legal openings for those that are worth fighting for.
And no we're not responsible for this guy. We're responsible for our citizens for legal reasons, but this guy chose not to become a citizen. He had decades to take it but didn't. He doesn't get to now choose to put the responsibility on our country because it now suits him.
As a big supporter and consumer of Aunty's content for over three decades now, I have to turn my back. The quality of the writing and the basic proofreading notwithstanding, the editorial choices are now such a turn off.
The click bait headings that all other news sources discarded back in 2015 are still being used, and the focus on individual, anecdata designed to either rage bait or pull at heartstrings is just plain condescending and manipulative.
I don't want to read 50 different articles about a single mum with 8 children and 4 more on the way who's struggling with childcare costs.
I don't want to read about a DINK couple who are struggling with repayments on their investment property.
There's real issues at the core of both of these that once would be explored with journalistic vigor, but these Women's Day style pieces are just infuriating crap.
Fuck the LNP for their years of cuts and fuck Ita Buttrose.
The Guardian mobile app is great.
Sorry for my rant below, it's not relevant to what you've posted.
I agree. Seems like we've given this guy ample opportunity to make a life here, and to be a good dad. It's very sad for his family, but yeah he's got to go.
That's not an excuse for deportation. He was ten months old when he immigrated. He is an Australian, and it's sick and wrong that your government doesn't recognize that.
Sorry but he doesn't have citizenship, so he isn't Australian. Doesn't matter if he migrated here when he was 1 day old.
He hasn't gotten citizenship, he's a British citizenship by birth. Whilst in this case I would afford him empathy as he is on his way out, to others in a similar situation...too bad so sad, apply for a visa like every other non Australian or sell your assets and move back.
Why didn't he get his citizenship? Australia and UK both allows dual