Addressing the comments I had on the Immigration Post

So I got a few objections to my post on UK Immigration the other day, and I'd like to address them in a more structured manner than just plainly answering in the comment field.

Here we go:

Short answer: you're not making sense, any of you.

"1You're comparing Isa to a criminal in prison, saying that even if the laws are wrong, someone who's not complying with them should not be released. You realise he's not a criminal, right? He hasn't broken any laws, and he's not in prison - he's in an immigration detention centre, a place where the UKBA can send any asylum seeker at any point in the asylum process at their own discretion."  - Kit's comment here.

1) Isa's asylum application has been denied, that is, he was deemed not to fill the criteria needed to get british citizenship. Without a citizenship or a visa, he is then not allowed on British soil, thus as far as the law is concerned, yes, he is a criminal to be removed from this country. I don't particularly agree with those laws, but nevertheless by being here without a visa/citizenship he violates them, thus making him a criminal. You can't argue with that.

"2. You're completely trivialising the whole concept of hunger strikes - you realise he's not the first person to refuse food as a form of protest, don't you? Do you think it would have been acceptable for the government to just let the hunger-striking suffragettes die because "they made a choice not to eat"? Hunger striking is a legitimate form of protest and the detention centre's decision to ignore it and let him die is a hugely unethical thing to do." Kit's comment here.

2) Right, so you're mixing apples and pears here. Whether or not he's the first person to refuse food, or if such protests are "legitimate" ways of protesting is beside the point. The detention centre has no responsibility to act according to some ethics where certain actions would result in certain effects. Hunger striking is a personal choice, a protest anyone is allowed to participate in, but it does not change any moral aspects of this debate. Such actions carries consequences, something Isa's fully aware of. What if we'd carry such an idea further? What you're essentially saying is that because hunger is a legitimate form of protest (wait, who's even to determine what ways to protest are legitimate and what ways are not?), he is to be released from whatever law he's found not to comply with. If that is the case, I believe we'd have quite some hunger strikes going on in British prisons, and you'd have a hard time distinguishing Isa's right to be released over theirs.

"3. No-one is "blaming" Virgin Airlines for taking him as a passenger - Virgin are being petitioned because they have the ability to refuse to accept him as a passenger. If you had been involved in any anti-deportation campaigns before, you would know that this was a very valid and useful method of helping people at risk of deportation. Yes, there are other airlines the UKBA could put him with, but because his flight is booked THIS WEDNESDAY on a Virgin flight, their refusal to take him would mean new removal arrangements would have to be made with a different airline, buying him extra time in this country. Other airlines would then also be more likely to refuse to take him if they knew that Virgin had already refused." Kit's comment here.

Thanks for reducing my experiences in earlier campaigns, and no, such measures have had very little success from what I've seen.
Two things. First, yes you are "blaming" Virgin Airlines, trying to "lobby" them and persuading them to on ethical grounds obstain from providing a service the British State pays them to do. Second, why would other airlines refuse? If indeed you would create large enough a public demand/critique against moving him, there'd be other airlines or transport methods that would comply. That's how choice works in a voluntarily-based market. Your only valid point here is that enough protest could possibly buy him some marginal amount of time. Question is, is the effort and time you invest in that tiny amount of time worth the tradeoff? No improvements have been made to its actual cause, and British Immigration laws will produce more Isas in the future, thus making your actions rather futile. Beside, you have very little hope of actually save Isa from deportation - only prolong it, as you yourself admitted.

"Also, I'm pretty sure he's been declared medically unfit for detention, which means the government are breaking their own laws by keeping him prisoner. He actually is seriously ill, even above and beyond his hunger strikes - he has a range of other, preceding conditions including severe depression. 
Trust me when I say we ARE fighting the state on these issues, but allowing companies to do disgusting things just because the state is ultimately to blame is like allowing someone to shoot people just because they didn't make the gun!" Katie's comment here.

Again we come back to the criteria for which someone is allowed to stay in this country. Both of you are arguing that medically unfit people are to be deemed in a less severe manner because of this condition. I don't know the details of the UK Asylum process in this aspect, and you're welcome to enlighten me. I can, on the other had, object to the logic of such claim. The idea of an Asylum process is to only allow citizenship to those who are found complying with certain criteria, that is to filter some other people out of it. If there then is outside pressure (and the Home Office somehow unlikely would take that into consideration) that some criteria (medical condition) is more important than others, that would mean the proccess is somewhat undermined. Not a complete waste of time, I'd say, but it is based on the assumption that such a proccess is justified to begin with and that it only has to be mended where it fails. I refuse such an assumption, whereas you, by arguing medical condition, actually comply with it.

Katie says that we ARE fighting the state. I'd love to see where and how. All I see is some socialist-based critique against companies for performing services the State payed them for. That's not very "fighting the state", is it? Besides, you analogy is halting; shooting someone is an aggression against someone, while making a gun is not. That is, if we'd follow your analogy considering it correct, that'd mean the State (for making the gun/deciding to deport) is innocent and the Companies (for shooting/actually deporting) are to blame.

Frankly, it's the other way around. Virgin airlines provide a service that is usefull and demanded by lots of people; quickly transporting someone or something from one place to another. That is and can be used for a variety of reasons (just like a gun); their action is not inherently "evil" or unethical. Whereas the State's actually is. Deporting someone cannot be morally justified, and it's here the actual unethical action occurs.

___

So, thanks for your comments, but yes I do have a fairly good idea about this issue and I still suggest you to reallocate time and efforts towards the real enemy; the state and it's laws about limiting people's movement within whatever territory it claims to belong to it.