Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Says the Rwandan government as regards the plan to resettle migrants to Africa. Should we?" Do a tour first Tom.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Send the cabinet to live in refugee conditions for a month, no special privileges, and then we'll see." So no late night working events? I'm not sure that will go down well  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Says the Rwandan government as regards the plan to resettle migrants to Africa. Should we?" A hard no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Send the cabinet to live in refugee conditions for a month, no special privileges, and then we'll see." Ironically, many of the Cabinet wouldn't be here in the UK if it hadn't been for the economic migration of their forefathers. Patel, Javid and Sunak all spring to mind. Boris himself is an immigrant of the economic variety. Yet, they treat people genuinely fleeing warzones like Syria in the way that they do. It's ridiculous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Considering Rwanda's record on human rights, I think that sending people there is disgusting. Cal" Absolutely agree  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Population replacement is underway in the UK. " No, it is not. In fact, this is a racist conspiracy theory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See no problem with them going. They have passed through dozens of safe countries but decided still to attempt the dangerous journey over the channel. They should not even be processed in rawanda, they should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported. Population replacement is underway in the UK. Our infrastructure cannot handle everyone who wants to come. If they have a visa then they do contribute to the UK and can stay. But these people who enter illegally cost everyone higher taxes to pay for them " What total and utter claptrap, with overt racism included. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See no problem with them going. They have passed through dozens of safe countries but decided still to attempt the dangerous journey over the channel. They should not even be processed in rawanda, they should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported. Population replacement is underway in the UK. Our infrastructure cannot handle everyone who wants to come. If they have a visa then they do contribute to the UK and can stay. But these people who enter illegally cost everyone higher taxes to pay for them " Interesting view. Not sure I agree with your arguments tho: Ignore international law and the Geneva convention. Controversial. Instead we should send to a country with a population a fifth of ours. And a land mass something like a tenth. So more dense populated. Oh, and one that hasn't gone through the same period of peace and stability. Feels like NIMBY. How do they get a visa if they are fleeing persecution? That assumes they have a passport etc to start with ! How much extra tax do you really think it costs us? Given they can't claim benefits and use a lot of the stuff taxes go to.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See no problem with them going. They have passed through dozens of safe countries but decided still to attempt the dangerous journey over the channel. They should not even be processed in rawanda, they should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported. Population replacement is underway in the UK. Our infrastructure cannot handle everyone who wants to come. If they have a visa then they do contribute to the UK and can stay. But these people who enter illegally cost everyone higher taxes to pay for them What total and utter claptrap, with overt racism included. " Whatever his/her opinion and lack of statistics to support the view, did it warrant your response with this language and tone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See no problem with them going. They have passed through dozens of safe countries but decided still to attempt the dangerous journey over the channel. They should not even be processed in rawanda, they should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported. Population replacement is underway in the UK. Our infrastructure cannot handle everyone who wants to come. If they have a visa then they do contribute to the UK and can stay. But these people who enter illegally cost everyone higher taxes to pay for them What total and utter claptrap, with overt racism included. Whatever his/her opinion and lack of statistics to support the view, did it warrant your response with this language and tone?" I’d say so, yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See no problem with them going. They have passed through dozens of safe countries but decided still to attempt the dangerous journey over the channel. They should not even be processed in rawanda, they should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported. Population replacement is underway in the UK. Our infrastructure cannot handle everyone who wants to come. If they have a visa then they do contribute to the UK and can stay. But these people who enter illegally cost everyone higher taxes to pay for them What total and utter claptrap, with overt racism included. Whatever his/her opinion and lack of statistics to support the view, did it warrant your response with this language and tone?" I'd say so, yes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Either way and with some career expert knowledge of the issue, there are very very few genuine refugees affected by this policy. " walk this one through for me. Given, what 70pc of asylum requests are accepted, how can this be ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Considering Rwanda's record on human rights, I think that sending people there is disgusting. Cal Absolutely agree "This - I know someone who was MP during the genocide and is still deeply affected by what they saw | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See no problem with them going. They have passed through dozens of safe countries but decided still to attempt the dangerous journey over the channel. They should not even be processed in rawanda, they should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported. Population replacement is underway in the UK. Our infrastructure cannot handle everyone who wants to come. If they have a visa then they do contribute to the UK and can stay. But these people who enter illegally cost everyone higher taxes to pay for them " Please post this in your profile text. People with these awful political views don’t deserve decent sex. Posting it in your profile should sicken most good people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever his/her opinion and lack of statistics to support the view, did it warrant your response with this language and tone?" I'd say it warranted much more! Ignorance, at best. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I always thought being racist was to discriminate with the colour of a persons skin. Dealing with illegal entry is more protective nationalism rather then skin tone and the whole world being nation divided would be guilty of this. Either way and with some career expert knowledge of the issue, there are very very few genuine refugees affected by this policy. What would be nice though is for government to back this up by setting out trade policy to improve infrastructure and living conditions in the poorer countries. " Racism is discrimination based upon race. Race does not always equal skin colour difference. For example, Caucasian people (white) may discriminate against Slavic people (also white). Bengali people may discriminate against Gujarati people. Etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"See no problem with them going. They have passed through dozens of safe countries but decided still to attempt the dangerous journey over the channel. They should not even be processed in rawanda, they should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported. Population replacement is underway in the UK. Our infrastructure cannot handle everyone who wants to come. If they have a visa then they do contribute to the UK and can stay. But these people who enter illegally cost everyone higher taxes to pay for them " I'm calling absolute bollocks on this comment...especially the population replacement bit! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Says the Rwandan government as regards the plan to resettle migrants to Africa. Should we?" Not a chance it’s probably the worst thing that could ever happen, we’re supposed to be world leaders as a country and we’re trying to adopt archaic practices, I notice Pritti Patel’s parents didn’t choose Rwanda when they fled Uganda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Says the Rwandan government as regards the plan to resettle migrants to Africa. Should we? Not a chance it’s probably the worst thing that could ever happen, we’re supposed to be world leaders as a country and we’re trying to adopt archaic practices, I notice Pritti Patel’s parents didn’t choose Rwanda when they fled Uganda" Priti Patel's parents left Uganda before Idi Amin expelled people. They were economic migrants in the truest sense of the word! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Either way and with some career expert knowledge of the issue, there are very very few genuine refugees affected by this policy. walk this one through for me. Given, what 70pc of asylum requests are accepted, how can this be ?" Sheer bureaucracy and poor judicial process. The true facts are 95% of initial applications are refused, simply because most are economic migrates. Dealing with these deters support for genuine refugees, for instance the Yazidi people where the UK simply turned our backs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever his/her opinion and lack of statistics to support the view, did it warrant your response with this language and tone? I'd say it warranted much more! Ignorance, at best." There's a lot of ignorance about Rwanda but that's not stopping people... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Racism is discrimination based upon race. Race does not always equal skin colour difference. For example, Caucasian people (white) may discriminate against Slavic people (also white). Bengali people may discriminate against Gujarati people. Etc. " I see your point in the wider context and agree. Kurds endure terrible treatment in Turkey, however this wider term is often linked to religion, in some way. I just believe it unfair to term a previous poster racist because they simply believe in protecting the UK border from illegal entry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". Either way and with some career expert knowledge of the issue, there are very very few genuine refugees affected by this policy. walk this one through for me. Given, what 70pc of asylum requests are accepted, how can this be ? Sheer bureaucracy and poor judicial process. The true facts are 95% of initial applications are refused, simply because most are economic migrates. Dealing with these deters support for genuine refugees, for instance the Yazidi people where the UK simply turned our backs. " where can I see this true fact? Are you saying of all the people who come in, 95pc aren't claiming asylum ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No way what's wrong with Linton on ouse! There are hundreds of little villages around the country that will welcome in these young men with open arm." Yes I’m sure there are loads of local authorities who are just lining up to accept close to 2000 migrants double of what Linton-on-Ouse’s population at the moment | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Racism is discrimination based upon race. Race does not always equal skin colour difference. For example, Caucasian people (white) may discriminate against Slavic people (also white). Bengali people may discriminate against Gujarati people. Etc. I see your point in the wider context and agree. Kurds endure terrible treatment in Turkey, however this wider term is often linked to religion, in some way. I just believe it unfair to term a previous poster racist because they simply believe in protecting the UK border from illegal entry." Where did she call someone racist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Racism is discrimination based upon race. Race does not always equal skin colour difference. For example, Caucasian people (white) may discriminate against Slavic people (also white). Bengali people may discriminate against Gujarati people. Etc. I see your point in the wider context and agree. Kurds endure terrible treatment in Turkey, however this wider term is often linked to religion, in some way. I just believe it unfair to term a previous poster racist because they simply believe in protecting the UK border from illegal entry. Where did she call someone racist? " I didn't call anyone racist. I called a post containing racism codswallop | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Rwanda plan is disgusting. It's red meat thrown to a certain section of fools + racists." So anyone that doesn't agree with you is a fool and a racist? Why don't you just call them a nazi and be done with it???  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Rwanda plan is disgusting. It's red meat thrown to a certain section of fools + racists." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Rwanda plan is disgusting. It's red meat thrown to a certain section of fools + racists. So anyone that doesn't agree with you is a fool and a racist? Why don't you just call them a nazi and be done with it??? "That's pretty much what she said.. to be fair.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Racism is discrimination based upon race. Race does not always equal skin colour difference. For example, Caucasian people (white) may discriminate against Slavic people (also white). Bengali people may discriminate against Gujarati people. Etc. I see your point in the wider context and agree. Kurds endure terrible treatment in Turkey, however this wider term is often linked to religion, in some way. I just believe it unfair to term a previous poster racist because they simply believe in protecting the UK border from illegal entry. Where did she call someone racist? I didn't call anyone racist. I called a post containing racism codswallop "Didn't come across that way.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Rwanda plan is disgusting. It's red meat thrown to a certain section of fools + racists. So anyone that doesn't agree with you is a fool and a racist? Why don't you just call them a nazi and be done with it??? "To be fair, they could just be fools... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner ." Have you housed any homeless army veterans recently? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Racism is discrimination based upon race. Race does not always equal skin colour difference. For example, Caucasian people (white) may discriminate against Slavic people (also white). Bengali people may discriminate against Gujarati people. Etc. I see your point in the wider context and agree. Kurds endure terrible treatment in Turkey, however this wider term is often linked to religion, in some way. I just believe it unfair to term a previous poster racist because they simply believe in protecting the UK border from illegal entry. Where did she call someone racist? I didn't call anyone racist. I called a post containing racism codswallop
Didn't come across that way.. "It did, Tom. You seem to be trying to ‘stir shit ‘ again, what is going on here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Have you housed any homeless army veterans recently? " Think you have the wrong thread this is about Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Penny Farthing" Is he hiring a plane to take the refugees to Rwanda ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Have you housed any homeless army veterans recently? Think you have the wrong thread this is about Rwanda. " If you care about homeless army veterans then you obviously must have offered to house them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Have you housed any homeless army veterans recently? Think you have the wrong thread this is about Rwanda. If you care about homeless army veterans then you obviously must have offered to house them?" I didnt mention if i cared or not nor did i mention veterans you are going of topic . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Have you housed any homeless army veterans recently? Think you have the wrong thread this is about Rwanda. If you care about homeless army veterans then you obviously must have offered to house them? I didnt mention if i cared or not nor did i mention veterans you are going of topic ." Not at all, you suggested that people who were opposed to sending refugees should help by housing them, do you care about homeless veterans? If you do you should set an example and house a few | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner ." I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda." It is an interesting take, that is why I mentioned homeless veterans (the right love to compare them with refugees) . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. It is an interesting take, that is why I mentioned homeless veterans (the right love to compare them with refugees) . " Ah the old "should look after our own" argument! Spoiler alert, if the government treats refugees worse, they won't suddenly start giving a shit about British people! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are told the refugees will be staying in a hotel with a pool. The temperature is 28 degrees. As only 37 are scheduled to fly tomorrow (and most may win their appeals) there will be lots of spare seats on the plane. How about giving the places to holidaymakers who have had their flights cancelled at the last minute ? " A hotel with a pool, sounds nice , I wonder how much that will cost per head? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A hotel with a pool, sounds nice , I wonder how much that will cost per head? " Andrew Mitchell MP says about £30,000 each | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A hotel with a pool, sounds nice , I wonder how much that will cost per head? Andrew Mitchell MP says about £30,000 each" Wow, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A hotel with a pool, sounds nice , I wonder how much that will cost per head? Andrew Mitchell MP says about £30,000 each" That's a lot of money to distract Conservative voters from the billions they burn or hand to their pals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda." Eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. Eh? " Eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. Eh? Eh?" Eh? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. Eh? Eh?" Exactly, why do you think that people that appose the stupid and very expensive Rwanda idea should house these refugees? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. Eh? Eh? Exactly, why do you think that people that appose the stupid and very expensive Rwanda idea should house these refugees? " I don't i just made a suggestion, its up them, what's your solution ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. Eh? Eh? Exactly, why do you think that people that appose the stupid and very expensive Rwanda idea should house these refugees? I don't i just made a suggestion, its up them, what's your solution ? " My solution is to sack the Home Secretary and employ someone who knows what they are doing, that is what I pay my taxes for | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda." Hiding your comments in the quote just makes them even more confusing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. Eh? Eh? Exactly, why do you think that people that appose the stupid and very expensive Rwanda idea should house these refugees? I don't i just made a suggestion, its up them, what's your solution ? " Maybe house them with Daily Mail readers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. Eh? Eh? Exactly, why do you think that people that appose the stupid and very expensive Rwanda idea should house these refugees? I don't i just made a suggestion, its up them, what's your solution ? Maybe house them with Daily Mail readers?" I notice you get more daft the longer the threads go on . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All of you that want them here I suggest you take them in to your home,I'm sure if enough do it government I'm sure would help you,as its cheaper than hotel stays,don't say you only have one bedroom can't feed my family lead by example,then those left send to Rwanda,everyone a winner . Having an idea don't make it right wing,but calling it right wing because you disagree is very left wing,what is your idea to the problem ? I enjoy the far right reducing the options for refugees to. A. Staying at a non-hateful persons house. B. Rwanda. Eh? Eh? Exactly, why do you think that people that appose the stupid and very expensive Rwanda idea should house these refugees? I don't i just made a suggestion, its up them, what's your solution ? Maybe house them with Daily Mail readers? I notice you get more daft the longer the threads go on ." To clarify. I am making fun of your suggestion for non-Daily Mail readers to house refugees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are told the refugees will be staying in a hotel with a pool. The temperature is 28 degrees. As only 37 are scheduled to fly tomorrow (and most may win their appeals) there will be lots of spare seats on the plane. How about giving the places to holidaymakers who have had their flights cancelled at the last minute ? " It all sounds jolly on paper, but they will not be permitted to move freely in Rwanda until/unless approved for asylum there and that may take a very long time. They don't have any options other than a) remain in Rwanda and see what happens or b) go back to the country they've sought to leave due to the danger they are in. Even if asylum is granted in Rwanda eventually, will Rwandan society treat these people fairly? Will they be discriminated against? Will they be free to practice their own religion? To seek employment fairly and freely? Access education fairly? Etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are told the refugees will be staying in a hotel with a pool. The temperature is 28 degrees. As only 37 are scheduled to fly tomorrow (and most may win their appeals) there will be lots of spare seats on the plane. How about giving the places to holidaymakers who have had their flights cancelled at the last minute ? It all sounds jolly on paper, but they will not be permitted to move freely in Rwanda until/unless approved for asylum there and that may take a very long time. They don't have any options other than a) remain in Rwanda and see what happens or b) go back to the country they've sought to leave due to the danger they are in. Even if asylum is granted in Rwanda eventually, will Rwandan society treat these people fairly? Will they be discriminated against? Will they be free to practice their own religion? To seek employment fairly and freely? Access education fairly? Etc." Of course they will. It's not a third world country | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are told the refugees will be staying in a hotel with a pool. The temperature is 28 degrees. As only 37 are scheduled to fly tomorrow (and most may win their appeals) there will be lots of spare seats on the plane. How about giving the places to holidaymakers who have had their flights cancelled at the last minute ? It all sounds jolly on paper, but they will not be permitted to move freely in Rwanda until/unless approved for asylum there and that may take a very long time. They don't have any options other than a) remain in Rwanda and see what happens or b) go back to the country they've sought to leave due to the danger they are in. Even if asylum is granted in Rwanda eventually, will Rwandan society treat these people fairly? Will they be discriminated against? Will they be free to practice their own religion? To seek employment fairly and freely? Access education fairly? Etc. Of course they will. It's not a third world country " It is a ‘third world country’ however, being in that list is not necessarily a negative | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are told the refugees will be staying in a hotel with a pool. The temperature is 28 degrees. As only 37 are scheduled to fly tomorrow (and most may win their appeals) there will be lots of spare seats on the plane. How about giving the places to holidaymakers who have had their flights cancelled at the last minute ? It all sounds jolly on paper, but they will not be permitted to move freely in Rwanda until/unless approved for asylum there and that may take a very long time. They don't have any options other than a) remain in Rwanda and see what happens or b) go back to the country they've sought to leave due to the danger they are in. Even if asylum is granted in Rwanda eventually, will Rwandan society treat these people fairly? Will they be discriminated against? Will they be free to practice their own religion? To seek employment fairly and freely? Access education fairly? Etc. Of course they will. It's not a third world country " Erm. It is a third world country, Tom. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just read that the court has upheld the original decision that the flight can proceed. Oddly though I also read that the court case to determine if this scheme is lawful is not until next month. I would have thought proving it is lawful or not would have had to happen first" Oh no  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just read that the court has upheld the original decision that the flight can proceed. Oddly though I also read that the court case to determine if this scheme is lawful is not until next month. I would have thought proving it is lawful or not would have had to happen first" Not for current government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do we as a nation accept the law, campaign to change it or block the runway ..." As citizens we have freedoms to protest, campaign and vote for change. If you're the PM however, you don't really need to bother with the law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are told the refugees will be staying in a hotel with a pool. The temperature is 28 degrees. As only 37 are scheduled to fly tomorrow (and most may win their appeals) there will be lots of spare seats on the plane. How about giving the places to holidaymakers who have had their flights cancelled at the last minute ? It all sounds jolly on paper, but they will not be permitted to move freely in Rwanda until/unless approved for asylum there and that may take a very long time. They don't have any options other than a) remain in Rwanda and see what happens or b) go back to the country they've sought to leave due to the danger they are in. Even if asylum is granted in Rwanda eventually, will Rwandan society treat these people fairly? Will they be discriminated against? Will they be free to practice their own religion? To seek employment fairly and freely? Access education fairly? Etc. Of course they will. It's not a third world country Erm. It is a third world country, Tom. " It is supposedly a very safe country | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The jackboot left will stop this .. mark my words.. " Why is it only the left who don't want to waste millions on trafficking humans to Rwanda? Bit insulting to the rest of us non-lefties. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We are told the refugees will be staying in a hotel with a pool. The temperature is 28 degrees. As only 37 are scheduled to fly tomorrow (and most may win their appeals) there will be lots of spare seats on the plane. How about giving the places to holidaymakers who have had their flights cancelled at the last minute ? It all sounds jolly on paper, but they will not be permitted to move freely in Rwanda until/unless approved for asylum there and that may take a very long time. They don't have any options other than a) remain in Rwanda and see what happens or b) go back to the country they've sought to leave due to the danger they are in. Even if asylum is granted in Rwanda eventually, will Rwandan society treat these people fairly? Will they be discriminated against? Will they be free to practice their own religion? To seek employment fairly and freely? Access education fairly? Etc. Of course they will. It's not a third world country Erm. It is a third world country, Tom. It is supposedly a very safe country " Backtracking now. Ok. This is from Amnesty International's latest summary on Rwanda. "Violations of the rights to a fair trial, freedom of expression and privacy continued, alongside enforced disappearances, allegations of torture and excessive use of force." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course they will. It's not a third world country " Ooh, this is awkward... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is supposedly a very safe country " Tom, have you been drinking? What's going on?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. " Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda." Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is supposedly a very safe country Tom, have you been drinking? What's going on? "He’s all over the booze! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey." Rwanda was always a ridiculous dramatic headline from a ridiculous government. How do we stop the scourge of illegal migrants coming to these shores though? It’s been an issue for over 30 years. How do you determine who needs our help when they have somehow traveled from another continent allegedly without any ID or a phone. Don’t tell me “nobody is illegal if they claim asylum “. They have arrived by illegal means. I have to queue and show a passport if I go to France, not jump in a lorry or get in a dinghy. Don’t refer me to an agreement drawn up in the 50s that most of the world hasn’t signed and is clearly outdated. It’s a French problem, let them sort it out. They are our friends and neighbours so we will of course help. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Complicated topic but will just leave this here... The entire leadership of the Church of England has denounced the Rwanda migrant flights as an “immoral policy that shames Britain”" I saw that report today and all I could think about was the Babaric Crusader Wars.. No time for the established church... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey. Rwanda was always a ridiculous dramatic headline from a ridiculous government. How do we stop the scourge of illegal migrants coming to these shores though? It’s been an issue for over 30 years. How do you determine who needs our help when they have somehow traveled from another continent allegedly without any ID or a phone. Don’t tell me “nobody is illegal if they claim asylum “. They have arrived by illegal means. I have to queue and show a passport if I go to France, not jump in a lorry or get in a dinghy. Don’t refer me to an agreement drawn up in the 50s that most of the world hasn’t signed and is clearly outdated. It’s a French problem, let them sort it out. They are our friends and neighbours so we will of course help." Step 1. Stop believing that immigrants cause all the problems. This issue is vastly overplayed by the government and right wing media. Step 2. Provide more help to integrate successful applicants to integrate into British society. Step 3. Work with French authorities to investigate and crack down on those who traffic people across the channel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Complicated topic but will just leave this here... The entire leadership of the Church of England has denounced the Rwanda migrant flights as an “immoral policy that shames Britain” I saw that report today and all I could think about was the Babaric Crusader Wars.. No time for the established church... " I'm disappointed in you - this thread doesn't show you in a good light. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey. Rwanda was always a ridiculous dramatic headline from a ridiculous government. How do we stop the scourge of illegal migrants coming to these shores though? It’s been an issue for over 30 years. How do you determine who needs our help when they have somehow traveled from another continent allegedly without any ID or a phone. Don’t tell me “nobody is illegal if they claim asylum “. They have arrived by illegal means. I have to queue and show a passport if I go to France, not jump in a lorry or get in a dinghy. Don’t refer me to an agreement drawn up in the 50s that most of the world hasn’t signed and is clearly outdated. It’s a French problem, let them sort it out. They are our friends and neighbours so we will of course help. Step 1. Stop believing that immigrants cause all the problems. This issue is vastly overplayed by the government and right wing media. Step 2. Provide more help to integrate successful applicants to integrate into British society. Step 3. Work with French authorities to investigate and crack down on those who traffic people across the channel. " Agree with point 3. Point 2, what if they have no wish to integrate? what if they just can’t? Point 1, I’m not blaming them for any problems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Complicated topic but will just leave this here... The entire leadership of the Church of England has denounced the Rwanda migrant flights as an “immoral policy that shames Britain” I saw that report today and all I could think about was the Babaric Crusader Wars.. No time for the established church... " there barbaric, there the barbaric crusade wars.... And then there's the Rwanda policy ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey. Rwanda was always a ridiculous dramatic headline from a ridiculous government. How do we stop the scourge of illegal migrants coming to these shores though? It’s been an issue for over 30 years. How do you determine who needs our help when they have somehow traveled from another continent allegedly without any ID or a phone. Don’t tell me “nobody is illegal if they claim asylum “. They have arrived by illegal means. I have to queue and show a passport if I go to France, not jump in a lorry or get in a dinghy. Don’t refer me to an agreement drawn up in the 50s that most of the world hasn’t signed and is clearly outdated. It’s a French problem, let them sort it out. They are our friends and neighbours so we will of course help. Step 1. Stop believing that immigrants cause all the problems. This issue is vastly overplayed by the government and right wing media. Step 2. Provide more help to integrate successful applicants to integrate into British society. Step 3. Work with French authorities to investigate and crack down on those who traffic people across the channel. Agree with point 3. Point 2, what if they have no wish to integrate? what if they just can’t? Point 1, I’m not blaming them for any problems." What proportion does not wish to integrate? Define how big an issue it is and we can decide how much attention and effort to give the matter. The 25% of irregular immigrants crossing the channel would not need to if the additional billions being spent on the new refugee policy was spent on assessing their status closer to their countries of origin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey. Rwanda was always a ridiculous dramatic headline from a ridiculous government. How do we stop the scourge of illegal migrants coming to these shores though? It’s been an issue for over 30 years. How do you determine who needs our help when they have somehow traveled from another continent allegedly without any ID or a phone. Don’t tell me “nobody is illegal if they claim asylum “. They have arrived by illegal means. I have to queue and show a passport if I go to France, not jump in a lorry or get in a dinghy. Don’t refer me to an agreement drawn up in the 50s that most of the world hasn’t signed and is clearly outdated. It’s a French problem, let them sort it out. They are our friends and neighbours so we will of course help. Step 1. Stop believing that immigrants cause all the problems. This issue is vastly overplayed by the government and right wing media. Step 2. Provide more help to integrate successful applicants to integrate into British society. Step 3. Work with French authorities to investigate and crack down on those who traffic people across the channel. Agree with point 3. Point 2, what if they have no wish to integrate? what if they just can’t? Point 1, I’m not blaming them for any problems." Who doesn't want to integrate. They want to come here for a better life. Of course they want to be a part of British society. Point 1. You and I don't, but a large proportion of the population are obsessed with blaming immigrants for everything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Says the Rwandan government as regards the plan to resettle migrants to Africa. Should we?" It failed when Israel tried the same thing, so..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I see people against this move but no solutions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions."Lol Are you unable to think of anything except human trafficking people to Rwanda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey. Rwanda was always a ridiculous dramatic headline from a ridiculous government. How do we stop the scourge of illegal migrants coming to these shores though? It’s been an issue for over 30 years. How do you determine who needs our help when they have somehow traveled from another continent allegedly without any ID or a phone. Don’t tell me “nobody is illegal if they claim asylum “. They have arrived by illegal means. I have to queue and show a passport if I go to France, not jump in a lorry or get in a dinghy. Don’t refer me to an agreement drawn up in the 50s that most of the world hasn’t signed and is clearly outdated. It’s a French problem, let them sort it out. They are our friends and neighbours so we will of course help. Step 1. Stop believing that immigrants cause all the problems. This issue is vastly overplayed by the government and right wing media. Step 2. Provide more help to integrate successful applicants to integrate into British society. Step 3. Work with French authorities to investigate and crack down on those who traffic people across the channel. Agree with point 3. Point 2, what if they have no wish to integrate? what if they just can’t? Point 1, I’m not blaming them for any problems. What proportion does not wish to integrate? Define how big an issue it is and we can decide how much attention and effort to give the matter. The 25% of irregular immigrants crossing the channel would not need to if the additional billions being spent on the new refugee policy was spent on assessing their status closer to their countries of origin." Evidence shows the majority do not Integrate. Mind you, that depends on how you define integration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey. Rwanda was always a ridiculous dramatic headline from a ridiculous government. How do we stop the scourge of illegal migrants coming to these shores though? It’s been an issue for over 30 years. How do you determine who needs our help when they have somehow traveled from another continent allegedly without any ID or a phone. Don’t tell me “nobody is illegal if they claim asylum “. They have arrived by illegal means. I have to queue and show a passport if I go to France, not jump in a lorry or get in a dinghy. Don’t refer me to an agreement drawn up in the 50s that most of the world hasn’t signed and is clearly outdated. It’s a French problem, let them sort it out. They are our friends and neighbours so we will of course help. Step 1. Stop believing that immigrants cause all the problems. This issue is vastly overplayed by the government and right wing media. Step 2. Provide more help to integrate successful applicants to integrate into British society. Step 3. Work with French authorities to investigate and crack down on those who traffic people across the channel. Agree with point 3. Point 2, what if they have no wish to integrate? what if they just can’t? Point 1, I’m not blaming them for any problems. What proportion does not wish to integrate? Define how big an issue it is and we can decide how much attention and effort to give the matter. The 25% of irregular immigrants crossing the channel would not need to if the additional billions being spent on the new refugee policy was spent on assessing their status closer to their countries of origin. Evidence shows the majority do not Integrate. Mind you, that depends on how you define integration. " Where is the evidence? Because that sounds untrue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whether you hold any measure of what Amnesty International say about Rwanda, or the NGO Human Rights Watch, then perhaps you may care to take notice of the US State Department and their assessment of Rwanda. Summarised as below. They warn: “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisals against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidna ppings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organisation, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organisations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organisations.” With that in mind, no right-minded person would send another there. Essentially, if you are comfortable sending an asylum seeker there, then you are complicit in the abuse they suffer whilst there. And your UK taxes are paying for that complicity. As are mine, and this is not done in my name nor conscience. The government of the day are making me complicit against my will and the abuse these asylum seekers suffer is abhorrent. Let's hope they read your post and stop coming if they think they will be sent to Rwanda. Or let's hope the government treats them with some respect and helps people in need. Bizarre concept for some, I know, but hey. Rwanda was always a ridiculous dramatic headline from a ridiculous government. How do we stop the scourge of illegal migrants coming to these shores though? It’s been an issue for over 30 years. How do you determine who needs our help when they have somehow traveled from another continent allegedly without any ID or a phone. Don’t tell me “nobody is illegal if they claim asylum “. They have arrived by illegal means. I have to queue and show a passport if I go to France, not jump in a lorry or get in a dinghy. Don’t refer me to an agreement drawn up in the 50s that most of the world hasn’t signed and is clearly outdated. It’s a French problem, let them sort it out. They are our friends and neighbours so we will of course help. Step 1. Stop believing that immigrants cause all the problems. This issue is vastly overplayed by the government and right wing media. Step 2. Provide more help to integrate successful applicants to integrate into British society. Step 3. Work with French authorities to investigate and crack down on those who traffic people across the channel. Agree with point 3. Point 2, what if they have no wish to integrate? what if they just can’t? Point 1, I’m not blaming them for any problems. What proportion does not wish to integrate? Define how big an issue it is and we can decide how much attention and effort to give the matter. The 25% of irregular immigrants crossing the channel would not need to if the additional billions being spent on the new refugee policy was spent on assessing their status closer to their countries of origin. Evidence shows the majority do not Integrate. Mind you, that depends on how you define integration. " What evidence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions."not sure I follow a no return policy. I guess the kit knowing origin bit is where they claim cpuntryu A for asylum, we don't believe them, and so don't know where to send .. is that right ? It is tricky. But not the problem Rwanda is solving. Other than making it Rwandas problem. How many cases are like that which you describe ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions."Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for . But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) "Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever? If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id."Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda? Then they can crack on contributing to society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society."So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id."So we should give them the opportunity to work and prosper here rather than in Rwanda, right? If they do that they will automatically be contributing to our society. You don't actually have any of the data that you are discussing it seems. You appear to be using opinions and prejudice (meaning yours and others view on other people's motivation and behaviour based on general appearance). Would it not be better to look at the actual data to form solutions and allocate resource and effort around it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
So we should give them the opportunity to work and prosper here rather than in Rwanda, right?
If they do that they will automatically be contributing to our society.
You don't actually have any of the data that you are discussing it seems.
You appear to be using opinions and prejudice (meaning yours and others view on other people's motivation and behaviour based on general appearance).
Would it not be better to look at the actual data to form solutions and allocate resource and effort around it? "So you want an open boarder policy too then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?"Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme? The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel. Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?"Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. "sending ppl who may have valid asylim claims to Rwanda is not the same as not deporting ppl with no right to stay here. What do other countries do with the cases you describe ? It's feels like it's a problem every country will have ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. sending ppl who may have valid asylim claims to Rwanda is not the same as not deporting ppl with no right to stay here.
What do other countries do with the cases you describe ? It's feels like it's a problem every country will have ..."why do you think these court cases are going on? only the people without valid claims are going do keep up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. sending ppl who may have valid asylim claims to Rwanda is not the same as not deporting ppl with no right to stay here.
What do other countries do with the cases you describe ? It's feels like it's a problem every country will have ..."Well the eu sends them to Turkey and pays them to look after them but that seems ok for some reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. sending ppl who may have valid asylim claims to Rwanda is not the same as not deporting ppl with no right to stay here.
What do other countries do with the cases you describe ? It's feels like it's a problem every country will have ...Well the eu sends them to Turkey and pays them to look after them but that seems ok for some reason. "isn't the eu turkey arrangement more like the Dublin accord. More akin to "send them back to France". I'm not sure if it has been said that it's okay... Seems like plenty of voices against it. And is the EU our benchmark ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. "Actually, no. I'm not suggesting that nobody is deported if they do not have a valid claim. However, if it is not possible to identify their country of origin with an invalid claim, then we are stuck with indefinite detention. That is their risk. Deportation at unknown cost and consequence sounds a little foolish to me. What proportion of asylum claims are rejected? What is the cost? Should we deport people with valid asylum claims to a different country? If so, why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. sending ppl who may have valid asylim claims to Rwanda is not the same as not deporting ppl with no right to stay here.
What do other countries do with the cases you describe ? It's feels like it's a problem every country will have ...Well the eu sends them to Turkey and pays them to look after them but that seems ok for some reason. isn't the eu turkey arrangement more like the Dublin accord. More akin to "send them back to France".
I'm not sure if it has been said that it's okay... Seems like plenty of voices against it.
And is the EU our benchmark ? "No i was pointing out what they do when ask the question "what do other countries do with the cases you describe" nothing more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. sending ppl who may have valid asylim claims to Rwanda is not the same as not deporting ppl with no right to stay here.
What do other countries do with the cases you describe ? It's feels like it's a problem every country will have ...why do you think these court cases are going on? only the people without valid claims are going do keep up."..and it would appear that the majority should not be on the flight. Only 7/130 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?"Nope. I didn't say that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. sending ppl who may have valid asylim claims to Rwanda is not the same as not deporting ppl with no right to stay here.
What do other countries do with the cases you describe ? It's feels like it's a problem every country will have ...Well the eu sends them to Turkey and pays them to look after them but that seems ok for some reason. isn't the eu turkey arrangement more like the Dublin accord. More akin to "send them back to France".
I'm not sure if it has been said that it's okay... Seems like plenty of voices against it.
And is the EU our benchmark ? No i was pointing out what they do when ask the question "what do other countries do with the cases you describe" nothing more.""that seems ok" made it feel like we were comparing. Have I missunderstood the EU turkey arrangement. It looks like it's returning asylum seekers (similar to Dublin) rather than sending to a 3rd country. There also appeared to be a quid pro quo arrangement with taking on refugees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that "Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nobody is suggesting an "open door" policy. Why jump to that dramatic extreme?
The suggestion, generally, it to enable legitimate routes to applying for asylum closer to the areas where people in distress are. Easier to assess legitimacy and identify individuals. If asylum applications fail there, there is no reason to travel.
Why resistant to this idea unless the only thought is to hope that the UK takes the minimum of responsibility for refugee contributions because we are at the end of a long route?Of course you are, if you are not going to deport people who have no right to be in the uk that is an open door policy.I can see that working very well. sending ppl who may have valid asylim claims to Rwanda is not the same as not deporting ppl with no right to stay here.
What do other countries do with the cases you describe ? It's feels like it's a problem every country will have ...why do you think these court cases are going on? only the people without valid claims are going do keep up.
..and it would appear that the majority should not be on the flight. Only 7/130"Thats what the justice system is for mate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats."Lol It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda. My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure. "How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure. "And your suggestion on people who have no right to be here? im not seeing any answers on this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The people who wish us harm, as you put it, actually seem to be in government at the moment." Too right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm."how is Rwanda going to cope with hundreds of millions ... It suprsies me we can't tell where people are from... Surely there are ways via language and accents. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure. And your suggestion on people who have no right to be here? im not seeing any answers on this. "No answer is better than trafficking humans to Rwanda at the cost of millions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm."I dunno, maybe stop reading the Daily Mail or equivalent? "Bad foreigners who wish us harm"? Lol. Are these imaginary people worse than real life British people that do us harm. IE the current government? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm.
I dunno, maybe stop reading the Daily Mail or equivalent?
"Bad foreigners who wish us harm"? Lol. Are these imaginary people worse than real life British people that do us harm. IE the current government?"I’m no fan of this government but I wouldn’t say they wish us harm. Not sure why you have referenced a newspaper? Or your point about bad British people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Mail seems to be the choice insult of some of the Looney Left. God only knows why. It's only a newspaper.." Why is it you think that only "loony left" are opposed to spreading hate and misinformation? Bit rude to everyone else who opposes such things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm.
I dunno, maybe stop reading the Daily Mail or equivalent?
"Bad foreigners who wish us harm"? Lol. Are these imaginary people worse than real life British people that do us harm. IE the current government?
I’m no fan of this government but I wouldn’t say they wish us harm. Not sure why you have referenced a newspaper? Or your point about bad British people."Was using real life "bad British" people in response to imaginary "bad foreigners". And you're right. I don't think the government specifically wish us harm. We're inconsequential to them, so they do us harm and it doesn't even register. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Mail seems to be the choice insult of some of the Looney Left. God only knows why. It's only a newspaper.. Why is it you think that only "loony left" are opposed to spreading hate and misinformation? Bit rude to everyone else who opposes such things." I would of thought that your discription of the Daily Fail fits many other newspapers. I put it in the same bracket as the Guardian but then I do try and get a balanced view from many sources .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Mail seems to be the choice insult of some of the Looney Left. God only knows why. It's only a newspaper.. Why is it you think that only "loony left" are opposed to spreading hate and misinformation? Bit rude to everyone else who opposes such things. I would of thought that your discription of the Daily Fail fits many other newspapers. I put it in the same bracket as the Guardian but then I do try and get a balanced view from many sources .. " The Guardian isn't known for promoting hate in the same way as The Daily Mail or Express. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Mail seems to be the choice insult of some of the Looney Left. God only knows why. It's only a newspaper.. Why is it you think that only "loony left" are opposed to spreading hate and misinformation? Bit rude to everyone else who opposes such things. I would of thought that your discription of the Daily Fail fits many other newspapers. I put it in the same bracket as the Guardian but then I do try and get a balanced view from many sources .. The Guardian isn't known for promoting hate in the same way as The Daily Mail or Express. " I’m sure newspapers are not allowed to promote ‘hate’. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Mail seems to be the choice insult of some of the Looney Left. God only knows why. It's only a newspaper.. Why is it you think that only "loony left" are opposed to spreading hate and misinformation? Bit rude to everyone else who opposes such things. I would of thought that your discription of the Daily Fail fits many other newspapers. I put it in the same bracket as the Guardian but then I do try and get a balanced view from many sources .. The Guardian isn't known for promoting hate in the same way as The Daily Mail or Express. I’m sure newspapers are not allowed to promote ‘hate’." You may pick a better word if you wish. Hate is easier than "very strong negative emotive stories targeting minorities". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Mail seems to be the choice insult of some of the Looney Left. God only knows why. It's only a newspaper.. Why is it you think that only "loony left" are opposed to spreading hate and misinformation? Bit rude to everyone else who opposes such things. I would of thought that your discription of the Daily Fail fits many other newspapers. I put it in the same bracket as the Guardian but then I do try and get a balanced view from many sources .. The Guardian isn't known for promoting hate in the same way as The Daily Mail or Express. I’m sure newspapers are not allowed to promote ‘hate’. You may pick a better word if you wish. Hate is easier than "very strong negative emotive stories targeting minorities"." Think a paper 'promoting hate' would be closed down. Perhaps you mean newspaper articles that disagree or contradict your views | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Daily Mail seems to be the choice insult of some of the Looney Left. God only knows why. It's only a newspaper.. Why is it you think that only "loony left" are opposed to spreading hate and misinformation? Bit rude to everyone else who opposes such things. I would of thought that your discription of the Daily Fail fits many other newspapers. I put it in the same bracket as the Guardian but then I do try and get a balanced view from many sources .. The Guardian isn't known for promoting hate in the same way as The Daily Mail or Express. I’m sure newspapers are not allowed to promote ‘hate’. You may pick a better word if you wish. Hate is easier than "very strong negative emotive stories targeting minorities". Think a paper 'promoting hate' would be closed down. Perhaps you mean newspaper articles that disagree or contradict your views " Yes, you could say that. I am opposed to articles spreading hate and misinformation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats."I gave you an answer. Did you not like my one? "Actually, no. I'm not suggesting that nobody is deported if they do not have a valid claim. However, if it is not possible to identify their country of origin with an invalid claim, then we are stuck with indefinite detention. That is their risk. Deportation at unknown cost and consequence sounds a little foolish to me. What proportion of asylum claims are rejected? What is the cost? Should we deport people with valid asylum claims to a different country? If so, why?" Is the Channel really "filled with boats" or likely to be? What's the proportion who take this route compared to those who overstay visas? Why do you believe that there is no way of setting up processes for assessing asylum claims before travel? If they are in place and not used then it would be relatively straightforward to return people to the start of their journey having not made use of the opportunities available to them. They could even be offered a subsistence payment/aid to stay where they are if they would otherwise qualify for asylum at a significant saving to the UK taxpayer. That used to be what part of the foreign aid budget was used for... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm.". Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China? This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics? Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Says the Rwandan government as regards the plan to resettle migrants to Africa. Should we?" The rooms shown on the news looked okay to me, nice and clean like a hotel, and warm weather too, beats staying in a Glasgow shithole with streets covered in litter and dog poo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?"Nobody coming from China and I’m Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?
Nobody coming from China and I’m
Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again. "So where are these jundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK coming from? Why am I mentioning Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Because thousands of people who "could" come from those countries was the zero data dramatic scare story used for Brexit. Very similar to your made up figure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?
Nobody coming from China and I’m
Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again.
So where are these jundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK coming from?
Why am I mentioning Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Because thousands of people who "could" come from those countries was the zero data dramatic scare story used for Brexit. Very similar to your made up figure."Whatever the figure there are a few clever people making a fortune out of it. Didnt cherie blair have an ethical law firm making millions when tony was PM? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?
Nobody coming from China and I’m
Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again.
So where are these jundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK coming from?
Why am I mentioning Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Because thousands of people who "could" come from those countries was the zero data dramatic scare story used for Brexit. Very similar to your made up figure."Africa, Middle East. Countries where what manufacturing they had has been wiped out. A growing young population with very little hope and seeking a better way of life. Can’t blame anyone for that, human nature. I only remember the issue of Turkey becoming EU members being used as one of the many lies peddled by Johnson - a serial liar of course. Iraq & Syria nothing to do with Brexit as you know full well. Great win for England cricket as I type this by the way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?
Nobody coming from China and I’m
Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again.
So where are these jundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK coming from?
Why am I mentioning Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Because thousands of people who "could" come from those countries was the zero data dramatic scare story used for Brexit. Very similar to your made up figure.Whatever the figure there are a few clever people making a fortune out of it. Didnt cherie blair have an ethical law firm making millions when tony was PM?"Not very relevant. Do you actually know how much money is "made" on this, or is this opinion and innuendo? Are you able to quote figures for government and defence costs? Who spends more? What is the cap on legal aid payments? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?
Nobody coming from China and I’m
Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again.
So where are these jundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK coming from?
Why am I mentioning Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Because thousands of people who "could" come from those countries was the zero data dramatic scare story used for Brexit. Very similar to your made up figure.
Africa, Middle East. Countries where what manufacturing they had has been wiped out. A growing young population with very little hope and seeking a better way of life. Can’t blame anyone for that, human nature. I only remember the issue of Turkey becoming EU members being used as one of the many lies peddled by Johnson - a serial liar of course. Iraq & Syria nothing to do with Brexit as you know full well.
Great win for England cricket as I type this by the way."Really? Is there any information on this or have you made an assumption with no data? Syria and Iraq were also on a flyer sent around by Farage to drum up fear, because they were next door to Turkey. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-vote-leave-accused-of-fanning-the-flames-of-division-after-publishing-controversial-map-a7067701.html Are you behaving any better that Johnson in making unsupported assertions like this? Also drumming up fear... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?
Nobody coming from China and I’m
Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again.
So where are these jundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK coming from?
Why am I mentioning Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Because thousands of people who "could" come from those countries was the zero data dramatic scare story used for Brexit. Very similar to your made up figure.
Africa, Middle East. Countries where what manufacturing they had has been wiped out. A growing young population with very little hope and seeking a better way of life. Can’t blame anyone for that, human nature. I only remember the issue of Turkey becoming EU members being used as one of the many lies peddled by Johnson - a serial liar of course. Iraq & Syria nothing to do with Brexit as you know full well.
Great win for England cricket as I type this by the way.
Really? Is there any information on this or have you made an assumption with no data?
Syria and Iraq were also on a flyer sent around by Farage to drum up fear, because they were next door to Turkey.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-vote-leave-accused-of-fanning-the-flames-of-division-after-publishing-controversial-map-a7067701.html
Are you behaving any better that Johnson in making unsupported assertions like this? Also drumming up fear..."Drumming up fear on a swingers website. Right. It’s a realistic issue to raise and not that far fetched. Forgive me but I didn’t read any literature from Nigel Farage. Time for Europe to re write or withdraw from any outdated immigration charters just in case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?
Nobody coming from China and I’m
Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again.
So where are these jundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK coming from?
Why am I mentioning Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Because thousands of people who "could" come from those countries was the zero data dramatic scare story used for Brexit. Very similar to your made up figure.
Africa, Middle East. Countries where what manufacturing they had has been wiped out. A growing young population with very little hope and seeking a better way of life. Can’t blame anyone for that, human nature. I only remember the issue of Turkey becoming EU members being used as one of the many lies peddled by Johnson - a serial liar of course. Iraq & Syria nothing to do with Brexit as you know full well.
Great win for England cricket as I type this by the way.
Really? Is there any information on this or have you made an assumption with no data?
Syria and Iraq were also on a flyer sent around by Farage to drum up fear, because they were next door to Turkey.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-vote-leave-accused-of-fanning-the-flames-of-division-after-publishing-controversial-map-a7067701.html
Are you behaving any better that Johnson in making unsupported assertions like this? Also drumming up fear...
Drumming up fear on a swingers website. Right. It’s a realistic issue to raise and not that far fetched. Forgive me but I didn’t read any literature from Nigel Farage. Time for Europe to re write or withdraw from any outdated immigration charters just in case. "I suspect there is going to be too much of a gap between you and others to discuss plans if hinders of millions of refugees to the UK is something you see as reasonable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are not having an open door policy what asylum seeker would you deport and to where? If they have no ID and fail the application and loose any appeals do we deport or lock up for life? How many would the UK have to lock up for life? Is locking them up for life fair, many serious criminals don't face life so should an asylum seeker? Is there any circumstance where you would deport an asylum seeker?" do we have an open door policy today ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What i would like to know from people against this move is what do you do with the people who are here illegally who you cannot return to their original country because either you dont know what it is or their is a none return policy? Keep them in a detention camp the rest of their lives ?
I see people against this move but no solutions.
Exactly that 3000 people a year and unless they fess up and say where they are from they stay in the camp. It’s the more humane and safe way rather than dumping in the middle of the continent of Africa which we will be paying a lot more for .
But if we offered a safe route those numbers would drop as they would rock up with ID. ( some forged I’m sure) Is it ? i know what i would prefer a chance to work and integrate in a country rather than fester in some uk internment camp are you saying we should keep these people locked up for ever?
If as you say they would rock up with id why dont they do that in the 1st place when they board the boats in France? i cant see the logic in your argument as far as i can see they dont have id so they can lie about their age and where they originate from.The genuine ones would keep their id.
Why not integrate them into the UK I stead of "letting them fester" or human trafficking them to Rwanda?
Then they can crack on contributing to society.So you are saying just have an open boarder policy then? let anyone who wants to come to the uk is that your plan?
Nope. I didn't say that Well what is your solution to those who need deporting due to being illegal? you said why not integrate them into the uk, that is an open boarder policy if everyone who entered the uk was allowed to stay what else could you call it? and will only lead to the channel filled with boats.
Lol
It's ridiculous to suggest that the only options are open boarders or trafficking humans to Rwanda.
My suggestion is to treat people with dignity and respect. Stop using immigrants as a scapegoat for government failure.
How many becomes too many though? Just heard that over 200 have landed in the last two hours. Hundreds of millions could be attracted to the UK as China has sucked jobs away, could we cope with that? Especially with the added challenge of no ID and instructions to claim they are from whatever country is best and lie of their age. We have no idea if they are just lovely people seeking a better way of life or mad bad foreigners that wish us harm..
Hundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK from China?
This sounds overly dramatic and made up. Where did this information come from? Where would these people who's jobs China has "taken" come from? Did you just make it up based on a tenuous grasp of economics?
Is this like all of the Turkish, and therefore Syrians and Iraqis, that "will" come to the UK without Brexit?
Nobody coming from China and I’m
Puzzled at your mention of Turkey, Syria, Iraq. Please read my post again.
So where are these jundreds of millions "could" be attracted to the UK coming from?
Why am I mentioning Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Because thousands of people who "could" come from those countries was the zero data dramatic scare story used for Brexit. Very similar to your made up figure.
Africa, Middle East. Countries where what manufacturing they had has been wiped out. A growing young population with very little hope and seeking a better way of life. Can’t blame anyone for that, human nature. I only remember the issue of Turkey becoming EU members being used as one of the many lies peddled by Johnson - a serial liar of course. Iraq & Syria nothing to do with Brexit as you know full well.
Great win for England cricket as I type this by the way.
Really? Is there any information on this or have you made an assumption with no data?
Syria and Iraq were also on a flyer sent around by Farage to drum up fear, because they were next door to Turkey.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-vote-leave-accused-of-fanning-the-flames-of-division-after-publishing-controversial-map-a7067701.html
Are you behaving any better that Johnson in making unsupported assertions like this? Also drumming up fear...
Drumming up fear on a swingers website. Right. It’s a realistic issue to raise and not that far fetched. Forgive me but I didn’t read any literature from Nigel Farage. Time for Europe to re write or withdraw from any outdated immigration charters just in case. "It isn't "realistic" though, is it? You have nothing to back that other than your own opinion. You are also conflating economic migration with refugees and asylum. This is not the same thing at all, is it? Mass migration is far more likely to be caused by climate change than China. The solution to that is taking finding a fix seriously, but that is a completely different topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are not having an open door policy what asylum seeker would you deport and to where? If they have no ID and fail the application and loose any appeals do we deport or lock up for life? How many would the UK have to lock up for life? Is locking them up for life fair, many serious criminals don't face life so should an asylum seeker? Is there any circumstance where you would deport an asylum seeker?do we have an open door policy today ? " Not sure how you describe the government's policy correctly but as we seem to deport people i would guess we don't. However when deportations occur they are criticized. So it was a general set of questions to anyone who cares to give their ideas or views. Reading the thread it seems the only alternative to deporting those with failed claims is to lock them up fir life. What's your views on my questions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are not having an open door policy what asylum seeker would you deport and to where? If they have no ID and fail the application and loose any appeals do we deport or lock up for life? How many would the UK have to lock up for life? Is locking them up for life fair, many serious criminals don't face life so should an asylum seeker? Is there any circumstance where you would deport an asylum seeker?do we have an open door policy today ? Not sure how you describe the government's policy correctly but as we seem to deport people i would guess we don't. However when deportations occur they are criticized. So it was a general set of questions to anyone who cares to give their ideas or views. Reading the thread it seems the only alternative to deporting those with failed claims is to lock them up fir life. What's your views on my questions" I've said earlier it is tricky. But I'm not sure how many people we have whom we don't know their country of origin. You'd have thought language and accents would give it away. Especially nowadays with, dare I say it, technology | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are not having an open door policy what asylum seeker would you deport and to where? If they have no ID and fail the application and loose any appeals do we deport or lock up for life? How many would the UK have to lock up for life? Is locking them up for life fair, many serious criminals don't face life so should an asylum seeker? Is there any circumstance where you would deport an asylum seeker?do we have an open door policy today ? Not sure how you describe the government's policy correctly but as we seem to deport people i would guess we don't. However when deportations occur they are criticized. So it was a general set of questions to anyone who cares to give their ideas or views. Reading the thread it seems the only alternative to deporting those with failed claims is to lock them up fir life. What's your views on my questionsI've said earlier it is tricky. But I'm not sure how many people we have whom we don't know their country of origin. You'd have thought language and accents would give it away. Especially nowadays with, dare I say it, technology " People are complaining because they are using science to determine peoples ages so i doubt technology will please them either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are not having an open door policy what asylum seeker would you deport and to where? If they have no ID and fail the application and loose any appeals do we deport or lock up for life? How many would the UK have to lock up for life? Is locking them up for life fair, many serious criminals don't face life so should an asylum seeker? Is there any circumstance where you would deport an asylum seeker?do we have an open door policy today ? Not sure how you describe the government's policy correctly but as we seem to deport people i would guess we don't. However when deportations occur they are criticized. So it was a general set of questions to anyone who cares to give their ideas or views. Reading the thread it seems the only alternative to deporting those with failed claims is to lock them up fir life. What's your views on my questionsI've said earlier it is tricky. But I'm not sure how many people we have whom we don't know their country of origin. You'd have thought language and accents would give it away. Especially nowadays with, dare I say it, technology People are complaining because they are using science to determine peoples ages so i doubt technology will please them either." is it using science on general... Or the consequence of sending a u18 to Rwanda if they get it wrong.... Context is important !! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
