Crazy Somali Criminal Addict Allowed to Stay

British news:

A Somali criminal seeking asylum in the UK has avoided deportation after a judge ruled that returning him to his home country would cause him too much "stress."

The unnamed asylum seeker, who has been dependent on alcohol since 2006, would suffer stress if deported to Somalia, which would worsen his mental health.

Judges in the upper immigration tribunal ruled that deportation would breach article three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against persecution and inhumane treatment.

The Home Office had argued the man, jailed for unspecified crimes, could receive necessary medication and treatment in Somalia for his schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations.

The Upper Tier Tribunal was told the man moved to the UK in 1999 when he was 29, claiming his family faced persecution due to their clan membership.

He was accompanied by his support worker during the hearing and was described as having a "high level of vulnerability" and "complex needs" with long-standing health problems.

"The severity of his mental health problems is closely linked to his stress levels and use of alcohol," the tribunal noted.

The man has been "significantly dependent" on alcohol since 2006 and has served prison time for crimes that were not specified in court papers.

The whole asylum system needs to be abolished. It is just a system for importing the worst people.

Here is a good Libertarian debate:

Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh debate the resolution, "Government restrictions on the immigration of peaceful and healthy people make sense from a libertarian standpoint, especially in present-day America."

Comedian and host of the podcast, Part of the Problem, Dave Smith defends the resolution. Taking the negative is Alex Nowrasteh, the Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. He's the coauthor (with Benjamin Powell) of Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions.

Smith argues that the big majority of Americans do not want mass immigration, and they elected Pres. Trump to stop it. A Libertarian should want to let those people live as they wish, instead of swamping them with Somali refugees or other immigrants.

Nowrasteh argues that government should not have the power to restrict anyone's travel. He also cited academic studies claiming that immigration was beneficial.

So if immigration is beneficial, why is almost everyone against it? It is not, of course, if it forces unwanted lifestyle changes on people.

A telling point was that Smith has kids. He narrowly won the debate, according to their voting rules.

A point of issue was that USA has tight immigration rules from 1925-65, and they have been dramatically loosened since then. Which policy was better for the nation?

Many other changes went on in the XX century, so this is not a great argument either way. But I think we had nicer and more pleasant communities back then, and a lot less crowded. About 90% of the immigration has been for the worse.