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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Rwanda had said they'd take a maximum of 300 people over several years " they haven't. They said they could do 300 immediately tho that number may have changed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits?" £0.00 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits?" I don't think the tax payer should pay anything towards the drive to whip up support for the Tories from people who are xenophobic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits?" If the scheme works as a deterrent and stops people crossing the channel, a few hundred million spent would be a reasonable investment in saving lives and cutting the costs of support to those that make it here. If it doesn't act as a deterrent after all the negativity of how unsafe Rwanda is, nothing will work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits? If the scheme works as a deterrent and stops people crossing the channel, a few hundred million spent would be a reasonable investment in saving lives and cutting the costs of support to those that make it here. If it doesn't act as a deterrent after all the negativity of how unsafe Rwanda is, nothing will work. " Is that a few hundred £millions per person sent? It sounds like it's approaching giving each of them nonstop first class round the world flights, without the ability to land again at a UK airport | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits? If the scheme works as a deterrent and stops people crossing the channel, a few hundred million spent would be a reasonable investment in saving lives and cutting the costs of support to those that make it here. If it doesn't act as a deterrent after all the negativity of how unsafe Rwanda is, nothing will work. " The point of the Rwanda scheme is to garner support from Tory voters who defected to Reform/BNP/UKIP. Nothing to do with trying to reduce channel crossings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits? If the scheme works as a deterrent and stops people crossing the channel, a few hundred million spent would be a reasonable investment in saving lives and cutting the costs of support to those that make it here. If it doesn't act as a deterrent after all the negativity of how unsafe Rwanda is, nothing will work. Is that a few hundred £millions per person sent? It sounds like it's approaching giving each of them nonstop first class round the world flights, without the ability to land again at a UK airport " Let’s turn this on its head for a moment. If the Rwanda scheme helped those who crossed the channel, by providing them with housing, employment, education and healthcare, would you support it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits? If the scheme works as a deterrent and stops people crossing the channel, a few hundred million spent would be a reasonable investment in saving lives and cutting the costs of support to those that make it here. If it doesn't act as a deterrent after all the negativity of how unsafe Rwanda is, nothing will work. " 830 arrivals in last seven days It’s no deterrent | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits?" Migration watch says a one million pound cost for each one that stays in UK over their lifetime (housing, support, legal, state pension, benefits etc etc ) 215,500 here according to home office £215,500,000,000 cost if they all stay, and assuming no more arrive to push costs higher . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits? If the scheme works as a deterrent and stops people crossing the channel, a few hundred million spent would be a reasonable investment in saving lives and cutting the costs of support to those that make it here. If it doesn't act as a deterrent after all the negativity of how unsafe Rwanda is, nothing will work. Is that a few hundred £millions per person sent? It sounds like it's approaching giving each of them nonstop first class round the world flights, without the ability to land again at a UK airport Let’s turn this on its head for a moment. If the Rwanda scheme helped those who crossed the channel, by providing them with housing, employment, education and healthcare, would you support it? " That sounds good. A. Helps people. B. Doesn't embolden xenophobes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. If the total number of people is reduced, the total expense would be much less the money we spend now. Not to mention avoiding problems with social and economic integration. Whether it works or not is going to be interesting to see." As was pointed out by the Rwandan president, Rwanda is not a prison and anyone sent there (with their resettlement money) is free to leave at any time and make their way back to wherever they choose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits?" I still feel this will not get of the ground and be bogged down in legal challenges. I see today that those involved already plan challenges if implemented. If anyone is actually sent it will be so few and so late in the year that it won't have time to be tested. Labour have already said they will scrap it regardless, even if in the unlikely event it goes ahead and works as designed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. " Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? " If the total number of people is reduced, the total expense would be much less the money we spend now. Not to mention avoiding problems with social and economic integration. Whether it works or not is going to be interesting to see." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? " If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. If the total number of people is reduced, the total expense would be much less the money we spend now. Not to mention avoiding problems with social and economic integration. Whether it works or not is going to be interesting to see. As was pointed out by the Rwandan president, Rwanda is not a prison and anyone sent there (with their resettlement money) is free to leave at any time and make their way back to wherever they choose. " And that costs a lot of money. Remember they already paid so much money to the smugglers to get into UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? " Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£1.8 million a head to Rwanda says Whitehall 215,500 on home office asylum application list That’s £389,900,000,000 if they are all sent. Equivalent cost £14,366 to each UK household. Add the record 830 that arrived in the last week, to cost another £1,494,000,000 to deport. Government on a spending spree with this policy. " I presume you know the costs are paid from the foreign aid budget. So if the cost of asylum seekers was zero that money would get spent abroad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. " So the people who reached France which is a safe country and yet decided to pay people smugglers a lot of money to come to UK would be totally fine with being sent to Rwanda? You know it's much cheaper to just go to Rwanda instead if they are fine with that right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. So the people who reached France which is a safe country and yet decided to pay people smugglers a lot of money to come to UK would be totally fine with being sent to Rwanda? You know it's much cheaper to just go to Rwanda instead if they are fine with that right?" They're risking their lives crossing the channel, they aren't going to be out of by the Tories spunking hundreds of millions trafficking less than 1% of them to Rwanda. I'm mind-blown that anyone is taking this scheme as anything other than a Tory PR exercise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. So the people who reached France which is a safe country and yet decided to pay people smugglers a lot of money to come to UK would be totally fine with being sent to Rwanda? You know it's much cheaper to just go to Rwanda instead if they are fine with that right? They're risking their lives crossing the channel, they aren't going to be out of by the Tories spunking hundreds of millions trafficking less than 1% of them to Rwanda. I'm mind-blown that anyone is taking this scheme as anything other than a Tory PR exercise. " I don't know where you got the 1% from. Why would anyone risk their lives and also pay money to criminals to make the crossing if there is a good chance that they will be only sent to Rwanda? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. So the people who reached France which is a safe country and yet decided to pay people smugglers a lot of money to come to UK would be totally fine with being sent to Rwanda? You know it's much cheaper to just go to Rwanda instead if they are fine with that right? They're risking their lives crossing the channel, they aren't going to be out of by the Tories spunking hundreds of millions trafficking less than 1% of them to Rwanda. I'm mind-blown that anyone is taking this scheme as anything other than a Tory PR exercise. I don't know where you got the 1% from. Why would anyone risk their lives and also pay money to criminals to make the crossing if there is a good chance that they will be only sent to Rwanda?" When you say "good chance" you mean an extremely slim chance? Why are we even discussing this, the scheme has fuck all to do with deterring people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hardly a subject for this particular forum,surely" It's a politically driven agenda, that's already cost many £millions. It's also using parliamentary time and resources, when other things could be being addressed. It seems a sinkhole, that's draining money and resources and will likely have limited results. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£1.8 million a head to Rwanda says Whitehall 215,500 on home office asylum application list That’s £389,900,000,000 if they are all sent. Equivalent cost £14,366 to each UK household. Add the record 830 that arrived in the last week, to cost another £1,494,000,000 to deport. Government on a spending spree with this policy. I presume you know the costs are paid from the foreign aid budget. So if the cost of asylum seekers was zero that money would get spent abroad. " The foreign aid budget not going to cover £389bn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. So the people who reached France which is a safe country and yet decided to pay people smugglers a lot of money to come to UK would be totally fine with being sent to Rwanda? You know it's much cheaper to just go to Rwanda instead if they are fine with that right? They're risking their lives crossing the channel, they aren't going to be out of by the Tories spunking hundreds of millions trafficking less than 1% of them to Rwanda. I'm mind-blown that anyone is taking this scheme as anything other than a Tory PR exercise. " What other options are there If they stay, we pay If they are deported, we pay | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hardly a subject for this particular forum,surely It's a politically driven agenda, that's already cost many £millions. It's also using parliamentary time and resources, when other things could be being addressed. It seems a sinkhole, that's draining money and resources and will likely have limited results. " So let them stay Migration watch says each one will cost £1,000,000 in housing benefits healthcare etc etc Like Andrew Neil told Sunak, cheaper to send them to boarding school than £1.8mill a head to Rwanda. Which they are free to leave at any time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£1.8 million a head to Rwanda says Whitehall 215,500 on home office asylum application list That’s £389,900,000,000 if they are all sent. Equivalent cost £14,366 to each UK household. Add the record 830 that arrived in the last week, to cost another £1,494,000,000 to deport. Government on a spending spree with this policy. I presume you know the costs are paid from the foreign aid budget. So if the cost of asylum seekers was zero that money would get spent abroad. The foreign aid budget not going to cover £389bn " Well firstly they wouldn’t all get sent to Rwanda and secondly they wouldn’t all go at once anyway! Where did you get you figure from because at the end of December there were 129,000 people on the waiting list . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£1.8 million a head to Rwanda says Whitehall 215,500 on home office asylum application list That’s £389,900,000,000 if they are all sent. Equivalent cost £14,366 to each UK household. Add the record 830 that arrived in the last week, to cost another £1,494,000,000 to deport. Government on a spending spree with this policy. I presume you know the costs are paid from the foreign aid budget. So if the cost of asylum seekers was zero that money would get spent abroad. The foreign aid budget not going to cover £389bn Well firstly they wouldn’t all get sent to Rwanda and secondly they wouldn’t all go at once anyway! Where did you get you figure from because at the end of December there were 129,000 people on the waiting list ." Asylum caseload As of June 2023, the total ‘work in progress’ asylum caseload consisted of 215,500 cases. Of these, 138,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision, 5,100 were awaiting the outcome of an appeal, and approximately 41,200 cases were subject to removal action. The total asylum caseload has more than doubled in size since 2014, driven both by applicants waiting longer for an initial decision and a growth in the number of people subject to removal action following a negative decision. Hm Government . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hardly a subject for this particular forum,surely It's a politically driven agenda, that's already cost many £millions. It's also using parliamentary time and resources, when other things could be being addressed. It seems a sinkhole, that's draining money and resources and will likely have limited results. " £8 million a day while they are here £290 million for first 200 deportees. Hundreds billions to deport them all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. So the people who reached France which is a safe country and yet decided to pay people smugglers a lot of money to come to UK would be totally fine with being sent to Rwanda? You know it's much cheaper to just go to Rwanda instead if they are fine with that right? They're risking their lives crossing the channel, they aren't going to be out of by the Tories spunking hundreds of millions trafficking less than 1% of them to Rwanda. I'm mind-blown that anyone is taking this scheme as anything other than a Tory PR exercise. What other options are there If they stay, we pay If they are deported, we pay " Option 1. Don't spunk 100s millions on a scheme to attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties. Option 2. Work to reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place. (War, climate change, political unrest etc). Option 3. Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media. Option 4. Invest a small amount of money in processing claims more quickly and efficiently. Then we can get those who qualify up and working. A combo of all these things would help. The government has precisely zero interest in doing anything meaningful. The immigration issue is an extremely useful tool for them. Who would they blame and use as a distraction technique, if they couldn't use the tried and trusted 'those people in that small boat over there cause your problems, nothing to do with us'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. So the people who reached France which is a safe country and yet decided to pay people smugglers a lot of money to come to UK would be totally fine with being sent to Rwanda? You know it's much cheaper to just go to Rwanda instead if they are fine with that right? They're risking their lives crossing the channel, they aren't going to be out of by the Tories spunking hundreds of millions trafficking less than 1% of them to Rwanda. I'm mind-blown that anyone is taking this scheme as anything other than a Tory PR exercise. What other options are there If they stay, we pay If they are deported, we pay Option 1. Don't spunk 100s millions on a scheme to attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties. Option 2. Work to reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place. (War, climate change, political unrest etc). Option 3. Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media. Option 4. Invest a small amount of money in processing claims more quickly and efficiently. Then we can get those who qualify up and working. A combo of all these things would help. The government has precisely zero interest in doing anything meaningful. The immigration issue is an extremely useful tool for them. Who would they blame and use as a distraction technique, if they couldn't use the tried and trusted 'those people in that small boat over there cause your problems, nothing to do with us'. " Option 2 The Institute for Economics and Peace predicts that in the worst-case scenario, 1.2 billion people could be displaced by 2050 due to natural disasters and other ecological threats.UN endorsed this study. 5 Oct 2023 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Option 1. Don't spunk 100s millions on a scheme to attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties. " It would be useful for a debate if you don't parrot this line in every one of your post. " Option 2. Work to reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place. (War, climate change, political unrest etc). " If only it was that easy. Most political issues which happen there cannot be solved by Western interference. And many people wouldn't want Western countries to interfere in other countries internal matters. Also, how exactly are we going to stop them from prosecuting gays? " Option 3. Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media. " Any one with decent education and common sense would know that having open borders is a disaster for any country. So stop putting yourself in a pedestal. You aren't as well educated as you think you are. " Option 4. Invest a small amount of money in processing claims more quickly and efficiently. Then we can get those who qualify up and working. " Someone comes into this country and says he is bisexual and will be prosecuted in his home country for this. How will you process this claim quickly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The point of the law is to stop people from showing up within the borders. Do you believe that, or are you joking/trolling? If the law is passed, I think it will impact the number of people crossing. Do you think people who know there is a good chance that they will be sent to Rwanda still try to get into UK? Yes. It will make zero difference. The government knows full well. The only point of the whole scheme is for the Tories to win back support from those they may have lost to Reform/BNP/UKIP etc. especially in the run up to the election. So the people who reached France which is a safe country and yet decided to pay people smugglers a lot of money to come to UK would be totally fine with being sent to Rwanda? You know it's much cheaper to just go to Rwanda instead if they are fine with that right? They're risking their lives crossing the channel, they aren't going to be out of by the Tories spunking hundreds of millions trafficking less than 1% of them to Rwanda. I'm mind-blown that anyone is taking this scheme as anything other than a Tory PR exercise. What other options are there If they stay, we pay If they are deported, we pay Option 1. Don't spunk 100s millions on a scheme to attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties. Option 2. Work to reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place. (War, climate change, political unrest etc). Option 3. Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media. Option 4. Invest a small amount of money in processing claims more quickly and efficiently. Then we can get those who qualify up and working. A combo of all these things would help. The government has precisely zero interest in doing anything meaningful. The immigration issue is an extremely useful tool for them. Who would they blame and use as a distraction technique, if they couldn't use the tried and trusted 'those people in that small boat over there cause your problems, nothing to do with us'. Option 2 The Institute for Economics and Peace predicts that in the worst-case scenario, 1.2 billion people could be displaced by 2050 due to natural disasters and other ecological threats.UN endorsed this study. 5 Oct 2023" Any monetary help you do for these countries go into the pockets of politicians. Any direct political interference has been a disaster so far. It's not a feasible option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think it’s a bizarre way to deal with immigration. I don’t have any other ideas though but then I’m not in government "I agree that it's bizarre purely because no one wants to touch the actual laws around asylum seeking process which aren't suited for modern times. Instead of changing them, they want to get around it with these bizarre methods. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think it’s a bizarre way to deal with immigration. I don’t have any other ideas though but then I’m not in government
I agree that it's bizarre purely because no one wants to touch the actual laws around asylum seeking process which aren't suited for modern times. Instead of changing them, they want to get around it with these bizarre methods. "I’m curious…what should be changed about the asylum seeking process? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Option 1. Don't spunk 100s millions on a scheme to attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties. It would be useful for a debate if you don't parrot this line in every one of your post. " We're not allowed to mention the reason for the Rwanda scheme, when discussing the Rwanda scheme? How would they make it easier? " Option 2. Work to reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place. (War, climate change, political unrest etc). If only it was that easy. Most political issues which happen there cannot be solved by Western interference. And many people wouldn't want Western countries to interfere in other countries internal matters. Also, how exactly are we going to stop them from prosecuting gays? " Most of the time, not-interfering would be the answer. Not sure why you want to jump straight to the opposite? What has "prosecuting gays" got to do with this point? " Option 3. Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media. Any one with decent education and common sense would know that having open borders is a disaster for any country. So stop putting yourself in a pedestal. You aren't as well educated as you think you are. " We don't have open boarders. So no worries there. Why are you trying to make this about me? Let's try to stay on subject. " Option 4. Invest a small amount of money in processing claims more quickly and efficiently. Then we can get those who qualify up and working. Someone comes into this country and says he is bisexual and will be prosecuted in his home country for this. How will you process this claim quickly? " Maybe you could explain how this bizarre question is related to the point being made? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I just think it’s a bizarre way to deal with immigration. I don’t have any other ideas though but then I’m not in government "It's bizarre because the intention isn't to "deal with immigration". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We're not allowed to mention the reason for the Rwanda scheme, when discussing the Rwanda scheme? How would they make it easier? " The Rwanda plan has been at work since the time of Boris Johnson when Tories were having popilar support. So your "reason" is illogical. If you still want to make the claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence. " Most of the time, not-interfering would be the answer. Not sure why you want to jump straight to the opposite? " How exactly are you going to solve other countries problem without interfering? " What has "prosecuting gays" got to do with this point? " Many asylum claims are made under the grounds that they are gay and their country has death penalty for gay. Same with people claiming that they belong to different religions which are oppressed by Islamic countries. If you want to get rid of the reasons these people are immigrating, you need to stop those countries from prosecuting minorities. How are you supposed to do that? " We don't have open boarders. So no worries there. " Anyone in the world can show up inside our borders and claim that they just want asylum. We won't charge them even of their asylum claims are bogus. So yes, we have open borders. " Why are you trying to make this about me? Let's try to stay on subject. " You had the sheer arrogance to claim that people against immigration need more education and are just falling for media. Numerous highly educated countries like Denmark and Japan are strictly against immigration. They all have their reasons for it. If you are too narrow minded to think that being against immigration is due to lack of education, it's probably you who needs better education. " Option 4. Invest a small amount of money in processing claims more quickly and efficiently. Then we can get those who qualify up and working. Maybe you could explain how this bizarre question is related to the point being made?" The bizarre point you made is that you can just throw a "small amount of money" to process claims quicker. But it's complicated in reality. If someone just claims he is bisexual or gay, how are you going to validate his asylum claims? BTW you promised me that you would never judge an entire group of people together(even the Nazis). And here you are making blanket statements about Tory voters and people against immigration. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We're not allowed to mention the reason for the Rwanda scheme, when discussing the Rwanda scheme? How would they make it easier? The Rwanda plan has been at work since the time of Boris Johnson when Tories were having popilar support. So your "reason" is illogical. If you still want to make the claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence " I'm not making any claim. As you pointed out they've been using this bullshit scheme to get support from those further to the right for a while. It's working. " Most of the time, not-interfering would be the answer. Not sure why you want to jump straight to the opposite? How exactly are you going to solve other countries problem without interfering? " I dunno where you're going with this, I didn't say anything about solving other countries problems. " What has "prosecuting gays" got to do with this point? Many asylum claims are made under the grounds that they are gay and their country has death penalty for gay. Same with people claiming that they belong to different religions which are oppressed by Islamic countries. If you want to get rid of the reasons these people are immigrating, you need to stop those countries from prosecuting minorities. How are you supposed to do that? " This is unrelated to any points I was making. And don't know this diversionary point has to do with anything. " We don't have open boarders. So no worries there. Anyone in the world can show up inside our borders and claim that they just want asylum. We won't charge them even of their asylum claims are bogus. So yes, we have open borders. " We don't, at all. But if you're demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-immigrant propaganda. Then fair play. " Why are you trying to make this about me? Let's try to stay on subject. You had the sheer arrogance to claim that people against immigration need more education and are just falling for media. Numerous highly educated countries like Denmark and Japan are strictly against immigration. They all have their reasons for it. If you are too narrow minded to think that being against immigration is due to lack of education, it's probably you who needs better education. " You seem to have made up a load of stuff about me, got angry about it, and decided to insult me based on the rhubarb you made up. Let's try to stay on topic. " Option 4. Invest a small amount of money in processing claims more quickly and efficiently. Then we can get those who qualify up and working. Maybe you could explain how this bizarre question is related to the point being made? The bizarre point you made is that you can just throw a "small amount of money" to process claims quicker. But it's complicated in reality. If someone just claims he is bisexual or gay, how are you going to validate his asylum claims? " You seem to be suggesting that some difficulty in certain types of claims from certain types of people are what we need to legislate for? Why are you picking this one fringe example? " BTW you promised me that you would never judge an entire group of people together(even the Nazis). And here you are making blanket statements about Tory voters and people against immigration." Don't know where you got this from, I was extremely specific about it not being a blanket statement about Tory voters. Let's try to stay on track instead of making it personal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not making any claim. As you pointed out they've been using this bullshit scheme to get support from those further to the right for a while. It's working. " You used the words "attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties". The plan has been there even before Reform took away some Tory votes. " I dunno where you're going with this, I didn't say anything about solving other countries problems. " Your option 2 was "reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place." Isn't this basically solving other country's problem? " This is unrelated to any points I was making. And don't know this diversionary point has to do with anything. " See above -"reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place" One of the factors is prosecution of minorities. It is clearly related. You just don't have an answer. " Anyone in the world can show up inside our borders and claim that they just want asylum. We won't charge them even of their asylum claims are bogus. So yes, we have open borders. We don't, at all. But if you're demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-immigrant propaganda. Then fair play. " I clearly explained how anyone could get into this country without being charged for it. If there is anything wrong with what I said, point that out. Instead if you repeatedly parrot the same thing, it's clear that you are the one who has fallen to propaganda. " You seem to have made up a load of stuff about me, got angry about it, and decided to insult me based on the rhubarb you made up. Let's try to stay on topic. " Your option 3 was "Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media." You threw an insult at everyone who is anti immigration as being poorly educated. I just pointed out your arrogance. If you speak like this about other people, get ready to hear something like this about yourself too. You know.. actions have consequences. " You seem to be suggesting that some difficulty in certain types of claims from certain types of people are what we need to legislate for? Why are you picking this one fringe example? " Every asylum request is about someone telling that they are prosecuted or their lives are in danger. These are not simple issues that can be proven easily. We has some men lying about religious conversion caught recently and apparently it was going on in large scale. It's ridiculous that your solution is just to throw small money " Don't know where you got this from, I was extremely specific about it not being a blanket statement about Tory voters. Let's try to stay on track instead of making it personal." Just go back to option 3. You made a blanket statement about anyone who is anti-immigration. That's pretty bigoted I must say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not making any claim. As you pointed out they've been using this bullshit scheme to get support from those further to the right for a while. It's working. You used the words "attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties". The plan has been there even before Reform took away some Tory votes. I dunno where you're going with this, I didn't say anything about solving other countries problems. Your option 2 was "reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place." Isn't this basically solving other country's problem? This is unrelated to any points I was making. And don't know this diversionary point has to do with anything. See above -"reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place" One of the factors is prosecution of minorities. It is clearly related. You just don't have an answer. Anyone in the world can show up inside our borders and claim that they just want asylum. We won't charge them even of their asylum claims are bogus. So yes, we have open borders. We don't, at all. But if you're demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-immigrant propaganda. Then fair play. I clearly explained how anyone could get into this country without being charged for it. If there is anything wrong with what I said, point that out. Instead if you repeatedly parrot the same thing, it's clear that you are the one who has fallen to propaganda. You seem to have made up a load of stuff about me, got angry about it, and decided to insult me based on the rhubarb you made up. Let's try to stay on topic. Your option 3 was "Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media." You threw an insult at everyone who is anti immigration as being poorly educated. I just pointed out your arrogance. If you speak like this about other people, get ready to hear something like this about yourself too. You know.. actions have consequences. You seem to be suggesting that some difficulty in certain types of claims from certain types of people are what we need to legislate for? Why are you picking this one fringe example? Every asylum request is about someone telling that they are prosecuted or their lives are in danger. These are not simple issues that can be proven easily. We has some men lying about religious conversion caught recently and apparently it was going on in large scale. It's ridiculous that your solution is just to throw small money Don't know where you got this from, I was extremely specific about it not being a blanket statement about Tory voters. Let's try to stay on track instead of making it personal. Just go back to option 3. You made a blanket statement about anyone who is anti-immigration. That's pretty bigoted I must say. " You seem to have just descended into making up bollocks about me, getting angry about it and insulting me based on the bullshit you just made up. So how about we drop it and let the thread get back on track? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you support deportation to Rwanda - What amount (£) do you think is the reasonable maximum per person effective cost that UK taxpayers should pay? 0.25 of a £million? More, less or no limits? I don't think the tax payer should pay anything towards the drive to whip up support for the Tories from people who are xenophobic. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not making any claim. As you pointed out they've been using this bullshit scheme to get support from those further to the right for a while. It's working. You used the words "attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties". The plan has been there even before Reform took away some Tory votes. I dunno where you're going with this, I didn't say anything about solving other countries problems. Your option 2 was "reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place." Isn't this basically solving other country's problem? This is unrelated to any points I was making. And don't know this diversionary point has to do with anything. See above -"reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place" One of the factors is prosecution of minorities. It is clearly related. You just don't have an answer. Anyone in the world can show up inside our borders and claim that they just want asylum. We won't charge them even of their asylum claims are bogus. So yes, we have open borders. We don't, at all. But if you're demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-immigrant propaganda. Then fair play. I clearly explained how anyone could get into this country without being charged for it. If there is anything wrong with what I said, point that out. Instead if you repeatedly parrot the same thing, it's clear that you are the one who has fallen to propaganda. You seem to have made up a load of stuff about me, got angry about it, and decided to insult me based on the rhubarb you made up. Let's try to stay on topic. Your option 3 was "Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media." You threw an insult at everyone who is anti immigration as being poorly educated. I just pointed out your arrogance. If you speak like this about other people, get ready to hear something like this about yourself too. You know.. actions have consequences. You seem to be suggesting that some difficulty in certain types of claims from certain types of people are what we need to legislate for? Why are you picking this one fringe example? Every asylum request is about someone telling that they are prosecuted or their lives are in danger. These are not simple issues that can be proven easily. We has some men lying about religious conversion caught recently and apparently it was going on in large scale. It's ridiculous that your solution is just to throw small money Don't know where you got this from, I was extremely specific about it not being a blanket statement about Tory voters. Let's try to stay on track instead of making it personal. Just go back to option 3. You made a blanket statement about anyone who is anti-immigration. That's pretty bigoted I must say. You seem to have just descended into making up bollocks about me, getting angry about it and insulting me based on the bullshit you just made up. So how about we drop it and let the thread get back on track? " I quoted the exact words you used. If there was anything factually wrong, point out those words instead of crying that you are being insulted. If you can't handle being insulted, you shouldn't insult others by making smug remarks about having a "better educated population". Again, the exact words you used that you can easily scroll up and see. But I am pretty sure you will deny | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If in the unlikely event the government get this up and running to a decent scale (most arrivals being sent to Rwanda) and it actually is shown to be working by deterring the crossings should it be continued by the incoming Labour government or ripped up and try an alternative?" assuming labour are voting against the proposal to define Rwanda as safe (for processing asylum changes) then I struggle to see how they can. They may however look for another country that can process safely. Tbh chances of getting this running in next few months look slim, even if legislation passes. This will go to echr who will side with our SC. My guess that this is the plan. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not making any claim. As you pointed out they've been using this bullshit scheme to get support from those further to the right for a while. It's working. You used the words "attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties". The plan has been there even before Reform took away some Tory votes. I dunno where you're going with this, I didn't say anything about solving other countries problems. Your option 2 was "reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place." Isn't this basically solving other country's problem? This is unrelated to any points I was making. And don't know this diversionary point has to do with anything. See above -"reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place" One of the factors is prosecution of minorities. It is clearly related. You just don't have an answer. Anyone in the world can show up inside our borders and claim that they just want asylum. We won't charge them even of their asylum claims are bogus. So yes, we have open borders. We don't, at all. But if you're demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-immigrant propaganda. Then fair play. I clearly explained how anyone could get into this country without being charged for it. If there is anything wrong with what I said, point that out. Instead if you repeatedly parrot the same thing, it's clear that you are the one who has fallen to propaganda. You seem to have made up a load of stuff about me, got angry about it, and decided to insult me based on the rhubarb you made up. Let's try to stay on topic. Your option 3 was "Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media." You threw an insult at everyone who is anti immigration as being poorly educated. I just pointed out your arrogance. If you speak like this about other people, get ready to hear something like this about yourself too. You know.. actions have consequences. You seem to be suggesting that some difficulty in certain types of claims from certain types of people are what we need to legislate for? Why are you picking this one fringe example? Every asylum request is about someone telling that they are prosecuted or their lives are in danger. These are not simple issues that can be proven easily. We has some men lying about religious conversion caught recently and apparently it was going on in large scale. It's ridiculous that your solution is just to throw small money Don't know where you got this from, I was extremely specific about it not being a blanket statement about Tory voters. Let's try to stay on track instead of making it personal. Just go back to option 3. You made a blanket statement about anyone who is anti-immigration. That's pretty bigoted I must say. You seem to have just descended into making up bollocks about me, getting angry about it and insulting me based on the bullshit you just made up. So how about we drop it and let the thread get back on track? I quoted the exact words you used. If there was anything factually wrong, point out those words instead of crying that you are being insulted. If you can't handle being insulted, you shouldn't insult others by making smug remarks about having a "better educated population". Again, the exact words you used that you can easily scroll up and see. But I am pretty sure you will deny "Please stop the personal attacks, and bullshit. I haven't insulted others. Stop taking my posts out of context and making up bollocks. Let's try to keep to the topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If in the unlikely event the government get this up and running to a decent scale (most arrivals being sent to Rwanda) and it actually is shown to be working by deterring the crossings should it be continued by the incoming Labour government or ripped up and try an alternative?assuming labour are voting against the proposal to define Rwanda as safe (for processing asylum changes) then I struggle to see how they can. They may however look for another country that can process safely. Tbh chances of getting this running in next few months look slim, even if legislation passes. This will go to echr who will side with our SC. My guess that this is the plan. " I certainly share your scepticism on it getting up and running especially in any meaningful way. Interesting point about the fact that if they insist Rwanda is not safe then they probably will not keep the scheme even if it is working and therefore saving life's. Pride before lives. I read that other countries have already been approached regarding replicating the Rwanda scheme through there would likely be a gap between an immediate stop of Rwanda and starting at a new place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not making any claim. As you pointed out they've been using this bullshit scheme to get support from those further to the right for a while. It's working. You used the words "attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties". The plan has been there even before Reform took away some Tory votes. I dunno where you're going with this, I didn't say anything about solving other countries problems. Your option 2 was "reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place." Isn't this basically solving other country's problem? This is unrelated to any points I was making. And don't know this diversionary point has to do with anything. See above -"reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place" One of the factors is prosecution of minorities. It is clearly related. You just don't have an answer. Anyone in the world can show up inside our borders and claim that they just want asylum. We won't charge them even of their asylum claims are bogus. So yes, we have open borders. We don't, at all. But if you're demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-immigrant propaganda. Then fair play. I clearly explained how anyone could get into this country without being charged for it. If there is anything wrong with what I said, point that out. Instead if you repeatedly parrot the same thing, it's clear that you are the one who has fallen to propaganda. You seem to have made up a load of stuff about me, got angry about it, and decided to insult me based on the rhubarb you made up. Let's try to stay on topic. Your option 3 was "Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media." You threw an insult at everyone who is anti immigration as being poorly educated. I just pointed out your arrogance. If you speak like this about other people, get ready to hear something like this about yourself too. You know.. actions have consequences. You seem to be suggesting that some difficulty in certain types of claims from certain types of people are what we need to legislate for? Why are you picking this one fringe example? Every asylum request is about someone telling that they are prosecuted or their lives are in danger. These are not simple issues that can be proven easily. We has some men lying about religious conversion caught recently and apparently it was going on in large scale. It's ridiculous that your solution is just to throw small money Don't know where you got this from, I was extremely specific about it not being a blanket statement about Tory voters. Let's try to stay on track instead of making it personal. Just go back to option 3. You made a blanket statement about anyone who is anti-immigration. That's pretty bigoted I must say. You seem to have just descended into making up bollocks about me, getting angry about it and insulting me based on the bullshit you just made up. So how about we drop it and let the thread get back on track? I quoted the exact words you used. If there was anything factually wrong, point out those words instead of crying that you are being insulted. If you can't handle being insulted, you shouldn't insult others by making smug remarks about having a "better educated population". Again, the exact words you used that you can easily scroll up and see. But I am pretty sure you will deny
Please stop the personal attacks, and bullshit.
I haven't insulted others.
Stop taking my posts out of context and making up bollocks.
Let's try to keep to the topic. "Again, you made the statement that "Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media." This is an insult you threw at people who are against immigration. I did not make it up. You can scroll up and see these were the exact words you used. I just pointed out your arrogance. You can't make posts like this and start crying when people call you out on it. I made numerous points about how all the "options" you said are just plain ridiculous. You haven't made a single factual response to it. No answer to how we should validate the claims of people claiming to be gay. No answer to how exactly we want to solve the problems from which these people are supposedly running away from, without interfering with other countries' internal affairs. All I see is repeated responses that "it's unrelated", even after I quoted your options 2 and 4. If you want to debate in good faith, you have to answer questions posed at you properly instead of disowning things you said which have been clearly quoted to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not making any claim. As you pointed out they've been using this bullshit scheme to get support from those further to the right for a while. It's working. You used the words "attract Tory voters back from fringe right wing parties". The plan has been there even before Reform took away some Tory votes. I dunno where you're going with this, I didn't say anything about solving other countries problems. Your option 2 was "reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place." Isn't this basically solving other country's problem? This is unrelated to any points I was making. And don't know this diversionary point has to do with anything. See above -"reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place" One of the factors is prosecution of minorities. It is clearly related. You just don't have an answer. Anyone in the world can show up inside our borders and claim that they just want asylum. We won't charge them even of their asylum claims are bogus. So yes, we have open borders. We don't, at all. But if you're demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-immigrant propaganda. Then fair play. I clearly explained how anyone could get into this country without being charged for it. If there is anything wrong with what I said, point that out. Instead if you repeatedly parrot the same thing, it's clear that you are the one who has fallen to propaganda. You seem to have made up a load of stuff about me, got angry about it, and decided to insult me based on the rhubarb you made up. Let's try to stay on topic. Your option 3 was "Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media." You threw an insult at everyone who is anti immigration as being poorly educated. I just pointed out your arrogance. If you speak like this about other people, get ready to hear something like this about yourself too. You know.. actions have consequences. You seem to be suggesting that some difficulty in certain types of claims from certain types of people are what we need to legislate for? Why are you picking this one fringe example? Every asylum request is about someone telling that they are prosecuted or their lives are in danger. These are not simple issues that can be proven easily. We has some men lying about religious conversion caught recently and apparently it was going on in large scale. It's ridiculous that your solution is just to throw small money Don't know where you got this from, I was extremely specific about it not being a blanket statement about Tory voters. Let's try to stay on track instead of making it personal. Just go back to option 3. You made a blanket statement about anyone who is anti-immigration. That's pretty bigoted I must say. You seem to have just descended into making up bollocks about me, getting angry about it and insulting me based on the bullshit you just made up. So how about we drop it and let the thread get back on track? I quoted the exact words you used. If there was anything factually wrong, point out those words instead of crying that you are being insulted. If you can't handle being insulted, you shouldn't insult others by making smug remarks about having a "better educated population". Again, the exact words you used that you can easily scroll up and see. But I am pretty sure you will deny
Please stop the personal attacks, and bullshit.
I haven't insulted others.
Stop taking my posts out of context and making up bollocks.
Let's try to keep to the topic.
Again, you made the statement that "Have a better educated population that doesn't fall so easily for all the any immigration rhetoric from the government and media."
This is an insult you threw at people who are against immigration.
"This is your interpretation that you're upset over. Not what I said. " I did not make it up. You can scroll up and see these were the exact words you used. I just pointed out your arrogance. You can't make posts like this and start crying when people call you out on it. " Tiresome. Please stop the personal attacks. " I made numerous points about how all the "options" you said are just plain ridiculous. You haven't made a single factual response to it. No answer to how we should validate the claims of people claiming to be gay. No answer to how exactly we want to solve the problems from which these people are supposedly running away from, without interfering with other countries' internal affairs. All I see is repeated responses that "it's unrelated", even after I quoted your options 2 and 4. If you want to debate in good faith, you have to answer questions posed at you properly instead of disowning things you said which have been clearly quoted to you. " I don't see the point in attempting to debate anything with you anymore. All you do is get upset about your bizarre interpretations of what was said, then lash out with personal attacks and insults that don't bear any relation to anything. If you're unable to have any kind of civil conversation, or discuss the points without personal attacks then I'll just leave you to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This is your interpretation that you're upset over. Not what I said. " Then please enlighten us with the correct interpretation of your option 3. Why do you feel the necessity of "better educated population" in order to handle immigration issue? " I don't see the point in attempting to debate anything with you anymore. All you do is get upset about your bizarre interpretations of what was said, then lash out with personal attacks and insults that don't bear any relation to anything. If you're unable to have any kind of civil conversation, or discuss the points without personal attacks then I'll just leave you to it. "Your option 2 is "Work to reduce factors that force people to leave their homes in the first place. " I pointed out that the factors involve civil war and prosecution of minorities. How exactly are we going to solve the problem without interfering in other countries' internal affairs? Which part of the question is wrong and why? Why do you think this is uncivil conversation? Is pointing out the mistakes in your arguments considered uncivil these days? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
