Asylum Seekers To Be Sent To Rwanda

Discussion in 'Politics 2.0' started by Moose, Apr 14, 2022.


Is it a good idea to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?

  1. It’s a very bad idea

    9 vote(s)
  2. It’s a very good idea

    6 vote(s)
  3. It’s a dead cat to distract from Partygate

    8 vote(s)
  1. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    What about the donkey? Though thinking about it, its probably an inflatable, to make the crossing.
  2. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    But conjugation of the auxiliary verb "to of" is OK?
  3. As we are celebrating Easter:
    I particularly Thérèsé Côfféy's Fray Bentos pie.
    K9 Hornet and Moose like this.
  4. Made me think of this:
  5. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Funny that you guys, outraged by the UK using Rwanda in such a way today, didn't think of accepting it was a positive reason for Brexit a few years back then, isn't it?

    Or are you criticising the UK for being so far behind the trend?

    So transparent.
    iamofwfc likes this.
  6. lm_wfc

    lm_wfc First Team

    Do you think no one has any right to claim asylum in another country? We were wrong to let any potential victims of the Nazis in during ww2?

    How many asylum seekers do you think we should accept and what is YOUR number, and how do you decide who meets that requirement?

    I'm sure there will be some nonsense about young healthy single men who should stay and fight in their countries civil war instead of fleeing. Who do you think the Syrians should have picked up a gun for, chemical gasser Assad or his opponents ISIS?
    Moose and Ghost of Barry Endean like this.
  7. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    How about, people escaping war torn country?

    I thought that was roughly the usual.

    France is not war torn, nor is Iran, where the largest number of nationals crossing the channel as illegal economic migrants are coming from.

    How many illegal economic migrants coming here from countries that have no internal or external conflict do you think we should take in every year?

    The facts of the matter really do not seem to reflect the virtual signalling "refugees escaping war" story going on in this thread.
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  8. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    This is the idiocy of current nationalist, right wing politics. Fulfilling international obligations to refugees now equals ‘virtue signalling’.

    This is all continued post-crash fall out. We had far fewer debates like these pre-2008. They were fringe ideas. Now mainstreamed to justify inequality by throwing the angry less well off a bone. After all, asylum and immigration means little to you if you have several homes, dozens of acres and a trust fund. It’s something this latest iteration of UKIP/Britain First Tories promote to prevent resentment heading the way of the elite.

    How to share a planet with such hard hearts?
  9. Filbert

    Filbert Leicester supporting bloke

    ‘Virtue signalling’ and while we’re at it ‘woke’ are two of the most hilarious words/phrases in the English language.

    They’re on their way out of the door thankfully and are dying with the angry, impotent old ****s who want to label people as such.
  10. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Virtue signalling and "woke", in the derogatory use, are perfect descriptions of views that exist on two levels.

    Firstly, they are the dog whistles of the vangaurd to the foot soldiers, uttered knowingly by people who know they are spinning reality, always carefully done in ways that allows them plausible deniability of the message they know their foot soldiers will hear and believe as if what is said, though evidently rubbish (like the reasons for people's genuine concerns about immigration that will get them accused of being racist). You can tell who is talking this type of fake news because the language used will always allow a vault face on the topic. Such as, 'I only said it could lead to that' or 'I only meant the bad ones when I said white people." These people know they are talking fake news, but do so for a political purpose.

    And secondly, they are the accepted dog whistle reaction views, which the foot soldiers 'mostly' believe (I was very unconvinced by the "spat the dummy" tears shed by the young white people protesting against the tories, sorry, protesting against the use of oil recently), who can repeat the fake message as if it is real, citing references, but mostly relying on the fact that they are more virtuous than thou, rather than actually arguing a point. The last thing these people want is to get to grips with the facts, because the facts seldom support their world view.

    Like this discussion. You guys are simply chanting mantras, and saying 'look at all you racists', yet you don't have a clue who the migrants coming into this country are (the lefty descriptions of why a person wants asylum in the UK does not match the circumstances of the young Iranian and Iraqi men coming across peaceful and safe Europe to get here), what the international rules are and how they are applied (you want us to act, in the complete absence of a border with Ukraine, as if we had an emergency clearing centre on our door step, like no other country would do), and you cheapen the plight of genuine war refugees, the women and childred desperately seeking safety, ushered to the border by the young men of Ukraine, who then have to stay behind to fight for their country's survival.

    I am afraid virtue signalling and woke describe you guys completely. You haven't got a scooby about the real world, just how you think the imaginary world should be. Even the left in America (on MSNBC even) are starting to say that woke white virtue signallers do not represent the people they are pandering to, and although they would hate for people to say it, still call themselves Democrats and cross themselves at the name of Trump, they sound more and like Republicans every day.

    I think that within the year you will be saying how silly and 'too far' woke and vitual signalling politics went back in 2022, and I'll bet you won't even recognise the the irony when you do.
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  11. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    I'm not sure how or why "woke" has become an insult anyway. I think any right minded person would want to be alert to injustice in society.

    I suspect it is thrown around by people as a broad insult without knowing what it actually means. But, as you say, I think it's dying out with the old farts that tend to use it in a derogatory way.

    1. past of wake1.
    1. alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
      "we need to stay angry, and stay woke"
  12. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    Especially when the RW is trying popularise "Awaken" which has some very sinister overtones with the Nazi's prevision usage:

    Screenshot 2022-04-20 at 09-47-51 Deutschland erwacht.png
    sydney_horn likes this.
  13. reids

    reids Squad Player

    Except it's you who doesn't seem to understand that, with the constant calling of refugees illegal (despite that not being the case), have to stay in the first safe country and thinking that refugees have to come from war torn countries. FYI a refugee doesn't have to be escaping a war torn country, they can also be fleeing persecution and considering the human rights record of Iran certainly isn't out of the question.
    sydney_horn likes this.
  14. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    Unfortunately too many people use the term "illegal" without understanding the law.

    Yes, the entry into the UK made by these people is "illegal" in that they have not entered through a recognised border crossing with the necessary visa/passport.

    But the moment they claim to be a refugee to someone in authority (e.g. a police man/woman) they are no longer "illegal".

    That is international law and UK law. But that doesn't stop people, including MPs and even Ministers, referring to refugees as illegal immigrants as it suits their agenda and plays to their ignorant, and yes racist, support.
    Calabrone, Since63 and reids like this.
  15. Since63

    Since63 Reservist

    As on other issues, I think some people can tend to elide their belief it SHOULD be illegal into a statement of fact that it IS illegal.
  16. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    It's a straw man. People use it (and similar tactics) to avoid discussing a topic on the basis of facts.
  17. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Everything we ever say about the left on here, making up words to put in people's mouths, talking fake news and, both, complete ignorance of the situation AND what the other side is talking about.

    Do you not know the difference between refugees and immigrants? Really? Are you suggesting I don't know the difference?

    Show me where I described refugees (whom I have said, repeatedly, should be given refuge) as being 'illegal', then review your post, and if you have any decency, appologise. For the record, there is no such thing as an illegal refugee, fleeing one country to find refuge abroad. The very idea of an illegal refugee is utter b******s to me.

    Or you can just say Hooter is a rude d**k, and ignore me, because I pointed out something you said that was a completely fabricated argument about nothing I ever said, like everyone else does.

    I am not expecting a reply.
    iamofwfc likes this.
  18. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    How can it be a straw man when the 'woke' people consider themselves woke?

    It is a derogatory usage of a term that has a genuinely noble meaning, but is being used by shysters and morally bereft political groups to shield themselves from criticism, whilst preaching the most hateful and un-just rhetoric you can imagine, holding people resposible for the sins of their great, great, great, great, great, great grandfathers (whether or not they sinned). Something like two or three percent of the population giving society (society being anathema to them) bubbly loose stool because they are offended that some people seem to be able to cope with life, whilst they struggle, because they think they are the reason for everyone else being here on earth.


    I am sorry, but I am afraid the modern 'woke' attitude (as opposed to the genuine woke), IMHO, will, some time in the near future, be recognised and considered to be a mental health issue manifesting itself as anti social behaviour on a scale of global mass hysteria, somewhat akin to the madness that consumed half of Europe in the last century (nazi Germany and communist Russia), leading to the extermination of millions of people and subjugation of many millions more, because society came to believe that it was right to punish people for thinking the wrong way, or being notionally different types of human beings.

    I just hope everyone is happy with the sides they have picked, because I think there will be a few surprises about who turns out to be the good guys.
    iamofwfc likes this.
  19. wfcmoog

    wfcmoog Tinpot

  20. Rubber Dinghy Refugees, Bro.
    Filbert likes this.
  21. reids

    reids Squad Player

    I do but the difference can often be blurred, so I was using the word refugee to cover all those seeking refuge in the UK rather than the literal definition of the word in this context, - but fine, replace the word refugee in my post with immigrant or asylum seeker and my point still stands, despite you trying to deflect it as always :)
  22. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Yeah. And a friend of mine is currently a UK refugee in Rio lying on the beach for a couple of weeks, having sought refuge in a four star hotel with beach views. She'll be back in a week to claim asylum in her nice little pad in West London.

    I'm not too bothered by your definition of a refugee, because you are the only person who will give it any credibility. Attempting to change the meaning of 'refugee' to mean anyone that wants to come here to an degree of need that you will define when it is convenient to do so, will not see you be taken seriously, and this forum is likely the only place you would get away with it.

    Anyone who already has refuge in the EU and chooses instead to come to the UK is a migrant by any stretch of the imagination, and if they come here illegally, when lawful options are available, they are by definition an illegal immigrant. They are not refugees, and to compare them to the women and children escaping from war in Ukraine, saying goodbye to their husbands and fathers at the border, should really be a matter of shame for you.

    When you adjust your post to mean illegal immigrants, which is what I am talking about, then the post becomes redundant. I am not deflecting your question; it is simply not addressing the subject I have been talking about, other than that I have said refugees should be given refuge.

    Last edited: Apr 22, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  23. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Fantastic. Attempting to smear the right wing by pointing out that the left wing, for several decades now, has been using a nazi style term equating to "Awaken? We have awoken. We are woke!" Very sinister when considered in the terms you set in the post above.

    Your confession by projection is noted.
    iamofwfc likes this.
  24. Since63

    Since63 Reservist

    I'm off to find the fatted calf as apparently definition of terms is relevant to debate.
  25. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    If the forum needs to have 'refugees' defined for it, then it probably isn't the best place to have a conversation about refugees.
    iamofwfc likes this.
  26. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

  27. reids

    reids Squad Player

    This was the post I was referring to - just to avoid any confusions regarding language - safe country blah blah - irrelevant, not in the immigration laws so makes no difference. Illegal blah blah, again not illegal unless they don't claim asylum and run off once they reach land (which is rare as most boats are intercepted). All doesn't matter in regards to immigration law, which is the point I was trying to make before the deflection shields went up.

  28. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Quote the immigration law, please, because I think you may be mistaken. Or you can save yourself looking for it, because I have linked to it below. And you have once again proven that you do not have a clue what you are talking about, and are reacting to left wing, anti UK dogwhistling when you make your arguments on here.

    Here's the gen on entering the UK, stating what is legally required to do so...

    Those are legal requriements, and anyone who does not adhere to them is entering the country illegally. Please provide your proof that most boats are intercepted, and explain what you believe these people do when they are not intercepted that means they should not be considered as illegal immigrants.

    Meanwhile, have a look at this, defining what is considered to be a refugee...

    Which states that determination of whether a person is a refugee or not is down to the laws of the state in which they seek protection. So if the UK says that individuals arriving illegally on our shores from EU countries are immigrants (not refugees), because the goal of a genuine refugee is achieved when they arrive in the first safe country (see the Dublin accord), then immigrants they are, and Rwanda will be their destination, should the plan come to fruition.

    And here is said UK law on the matter, making it absolutely clear that your "safe country blah blah - irrelevant" comment was, well, irrelevent, and total and utter rubbish...

    You can find that Government statement in context here...

    Remember also that the EU (as does practically the whole world) see illegal migrants in the same way as the UK, they consider safe third-countries in exactly the same way we do, and reserve the right to return individuals to safe third-countries they have passed through. See the Dublin accord and the individual laws of member countries (here is an article on the Irish law on the matter

    There is nothing novel or unique about the way we recognise or consider the status of individuals. Indeed, France is considered to be tougher on them than we are, whilst Germany is considered softer.

    And the EU has sent actual refugees to Rwanda (linked to in a post above) for processing that could take years. That is actual refugees escaping from Syria, not crossing into the EU from Dover, yet they have you guys criticising the UK for not taking more of the economic migrants that they themselves fail to prevent from entering the EU.

    People on here seem to know nothing. All they are doing is reacting to dogwhistles that rely on an ignorance of reality and impressionable virtue signallers.

    I enjoyed that.
    iamofwfc likes this.
  29. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Summing up the forum's last couple of months on the EU front, it turns out...

    Remainers know nothing about actual EU law, and will even argue against it, in denial of its effects, when wishing to make a point they have been dog whistled into believing is reality. For example, that the eu is entitled to be involved in domestic uk politics, even when the EU is rampantly adamant it is not, and describes the trouble it could get into for doing so.

    Remainers/lefties know nothing about National and Internatonal law or its effects regarding immigration, believe it is legal to cross an International border without permission and without papers, and do not know the difference between a refugee (a person seeking refuge from a place they are not safe) or an economic migrant (a person leaving a safe place of refuge because they like the look of another country).

    Remainers/lefties do not understand that practically every country in the world has a similar outlook on refugees, immigrants and illegal immigration, or that the UK is among the more friendly and accepting places for an immigrnt to arrive in, according to people who settle here.

    iamofwfc likes this.
  30. reids

    reids Squad Player

    Oh dear, where to begin with this utter travesty of a post - Oberster F*hrer der SS Patel has really done a number on you.

    That's not the immigration law - this is the immigration law

    1. (c) Proof of identity need not be provided where:
      1. (i) the applicant’s passport, national identity card or travel document is held by the Home Office at the date of application; or
      2. (ii) the applicant’s passport, nationality identity card or travel document has been permanently lost or stolen and there is no functioning national government to issue a replacement; or
      3. (iii) the applicant’s passport, nationality identity card or travel document has been retained by an employer or other person in circumstances which have led to the applicant being the subject of a positive conclusive grounds decision made by a competent authority under the National Referral Mechanism; or
      4. (iv) the application is for limited leave to enable access to public funds pending an application under paragraph 289A of, or under Part 6 of Appendix Armed Forces or section DVILR of Appendix FM to these Rules; or
      5. (v) the application is made under Part 14 of these Rules for leave as a stateless person or as the family member of a stateless person; or
      6. (vi) the application was made by a person in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection; or
      7. (vii) the applicant provides a good reason beyond their control why they cannot provide proof of their identity.
    So it seems as if you don't necessarily need a passport after all. As stated previously earlier on in this thread - you can't claim asylum in the UK whilst abroad. It is possible to claim asylum without a passport or documents. It is not illegal to claim asylum. I'll let you join those dots.

    I don't have proof as it's impossible to prove, however there is very good visibility in the English channel, there are regular patrols by both the French and British Navy and it's in the governments interests to meet any boats so that everyone is safe and the proper protocol followed compared to boats landing and the passengers disappearing. So taking that into consideration I'd imagine a vast majority are intercepted. If they are not intercepted and don't seek to claim asylum when arriving then they are most definitely classed as illegal immigrants, and i've never claimed anything to the contrary.

    The key word there is might, not definitely, not won't be considered, but might. It's incredibly difficult to arrive here without passing through another safe country first, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our bit. As such the reality is very very few people are returned when claiming asylum (we returned exactly 50 people last year after declaring a person had a connection with another safe country - usually meaning they've already claimed asylum in another country). But the fact remains that neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another and there is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.

    Ah yes, the Dublin accord, another great success of the "taking back control of our borders" con that hoodwinked a good chunk of the population into voting for Brexit (40% of people who voted for Brexit gave immigration as their main reason for voting for leave). Although we didn't really transfer many (<250 in 2019) people out via it anyway.

    You failed to remember I also criticized the EU for that on a previous page.

    Right back at ya. Don't bother replying as I won't be reading it as this thread is depressing af.
    Moose and sydney_horn like this.
  31. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    I can only imagine the drivel you are replying too @reids. You are best to ignore it.

    Anyone claiming that you have to claim asylum in the first "safe country" you arrive in is wrong. Even UK case law supports this position.

    And refugees are not the same as immigrants, illegal or otherwise. They are refugees and subject to some very real restrictions (e.g. unable to work, need to report to the home office on a weekly basis etc etc) until their application is assessed.

    If they are successful they are given leave to stay for 5 years after which they can apply for settled status.

    If unsuccessful they are no longer refugees and subject to deportation.

    That is the law. Those are the facts.
  32. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    That is the most incredible piece of cope imaginable, but good for you, actually putting in some effort into an answer, even if you the best you end up with is, "I imagine", "might", "I don't have proof, but there is good visibility in the channel", "you don't need a passport after all (but, as the law points out, you do need to make arrangements if you are coming from a safe country, and not just jump on a dinghy).

    I still stand by my words.

    Even if you apply the rules you link to, it does not make crossing the channel in a dinghy a legal act (your point being that they are not illegal migrants, I think, given you now seem to be trying to catch me out on some minor technicalities), as the people we are discussing are coming from a safe country, and UK law, as with the laws of EU and other countries world wide, do not automatically recognise people travelling from a safe country to be refugees, for the reasons explained.

    A refugee can turn up with nothing but the clothes on their back, and should be looked after and taken in. BUT, despite your deflection (and conflation of migrants with refugees), WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT MIGRANTS, who are expected to follow the lawful procedures before entering the UK, as the laws you linked to explain in painful detail. Do me a favour. Trust the laws you are referring to yourself, do not quote them, proving what I am saying is correct, and then claim that I am in some way incorrect, or that your original claim, that the dinghy migrants are not crossing illegally, was somehow correct.

    If you read the Dublin accord, as an example of one piece of typical law, you will see that you are arguing against accepted international conventions and laws. But at least you will begin to see how the world, outside the forum bubble, sees the matter.

    I appreciate that your criticism of the EU sending refugees to Rwanda is genine and in keeping with your criticisms of the UK. But if you would criticise the EU for their Rwanda strategy, then think for a moment why it is that everyone is doing this type of thing. Rwanda is the eleventh most welcoming country regarding refugees and migrants, level with Ireland, and is welcoming people that they hope to provide with a meaningful role in developing the country, ready to provide training and accommodation, and is investing the money received from the EU and UK to provide it. I am not being critical of the EU when I bring it up. I am merely pointing out the hypocrissy of people on here, who haven't got a clue what the real situation is across the world, and how the UK's strategies are not far removed from those of the EU, and are to some extent less draconian (we are only sending people we believe to be economic migrants).

    There is a wider picture full of nuance and common themes, but you would think, from reading this thread, that the UK is the only country in the world that is trying to discourage economic migration at levels that they are struggling to cope with.

    You are right. This thread is depressing. On a serious subject such as refugees seeking shelter from dangerous countries, all we are getting from the left is UK bashing and virtue signalling lumping desperate refugees from Ukraine in with young men from Iran and Iraq for economic reasons.

    Thoroughly depressing, and I am afraid you guys ought to be ashamed. I have no problem with criticisms, but this treating economic migrants coming from safe countries as if they are refugees I find most unpleasant.
    iamofwfc likes this.
  33. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett Reservist

    All I know is this :
    If this country was under threat from invasion , would I bail out and leave women children or the elderly to their fate . Or would I stay , fight , create delay so that they could get away ?.
    I know the answer to this .
    In my world women children the infirm and the elderly should be cared for . No doubt. Welcome.
    Young men ? Nah .
    Because , let's imagine Putin's mob are in Tunbridge Wells with permission to loot pillage and sack as they will . Would it be acceptable for young men to clear off and leave everyone else to their fate ?
    Either this is acceptable or it is not . There is no grey area. AFAIAC.
    FTR I would be shooting deserters .
    These words may not resonate with some who like to tell everyone else how nice they are .
    But what type of man bails out or apologies for other men who bail out on those that I have highlighted ?
    iamofwfc likes this.
  34. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

  35. It's clear that wahnkychops' only motivation now is to be a wind-up merchant. You know he's posting stuff he doesn't believe. Starve him of his oxygen. And if he really does believe it, he is such a massive cahunt that he is unworthy of interaction. That goes for his dribbling little sidekick too, should he ever actually post anything.

Share This Page