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)
    39.1%
  2. It’s a very good idea

    6 vote(s)
    26.1%
  3. It’s a dead cat to distract from Partygate

    8 vote(s)
    34.8%
  1. Since63

    Since63 Reservist

    I've come to the conclusion that a view is formed that such-and-such SHOULD be the case ergo, in the binary echo chamber, it IS the case and no amount of 'debate' will change that mindset.
     
  2. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    This seems to presuppose a war where everyone fights like a big footie ruck. The reality is that cluster bombs, bunker busters, thermobaric weapons, artillery and tanks will eliminate all but the most well dug in soldiers. Most armies can feed and arm a very limited number of soldiers so, unfortunately, not much call for Dad’s Army in modern warfare.

    Local resistance can put up a fight against invaders in urban areas, but the Russians have a plan for that, which is to level any habitation with you in it, leaving the city and anyone left in it completely destroyed.

    Best then to get out of the area unless you can actively join up. Head away and assist those who are young, ill or disabled to flee. No shame in doing that.
     
    Davy Crockett likes this.
  3. I read zero boat crossings for the last 3 days, not sure if that is true
     
  4. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett Reservist

    Nice reposte.
    Women and children first in my world
    Every MAN for themselves in yours .
    How do you sleep at night ?
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  5. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett Reservist

    I understand all of this but what would your reaction be if a bunch of Ukrainian men came across the channel in a dinghy leaving the vulnerable at home ?
    Serious question .
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  6. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett Reservist

    And BTW I am absolutely aghast at the West and it's constant bombing of Middle Eastern countries.
    I cannot condone this at all . We are . Guilty as charged .
     
  7. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    I sleep very well at night because (a) I'm drugged up to the eyeballs and (b) as Orwell never wrote said "...because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

    I pointed out elsewhere that the "Birkenhead Drill" had some very sinister origins as providing fresh meat for marooned sailors.

    I would love to have guidance on how a debate on the political ramifications of sending asylum seekers to the UK abroad became, in your eyes, a "...I'm braver then you..." competition?

    Also what's with the new writing style/format?
     
    sydney_horn likes this.
  8. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    I’d wonder why we had made it so tough to claim asylum that they needed to. I would want them treated with respect.

    The reason that we find it so hard to treat asylum seekers kindly is that we have had decades of treating each other unkindly. Both has to change.
     
  9. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    If a person has papers, ID or permissions and the wherewithal to travel lawfully to another country, then of course they may do so, and, if it is their wish, may then claim asylum in whatever country they arrive. That is just basic law, and this is what the UK case law was recognising this. It did not waive any laws that may have been broken to get to the final destination, and the judge in the case made that clear.

    There is no obligation on any person to claim asylum in any country they arrive in.

    Being able to travel if you are legally able to do so has no baring what so ever on illegal channel crossings. Thankfully, despite the gaslighting of the first, both links you gave also make it absolutely clear that, and brace yourself for this,

    A PERSON MUST PRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE AUTHORITIES OF THAT COUNTRY IMMEDIATELY ON ARRIVAL (IN ORDER TO REMAIN THERE LEGALLY), AND ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO REMAIN THERE UNTIL THEY OBTAIN THE WHEREWITHAL TO TRAVEL LEGALLY, OR ARE RETURNED TO WHERE THEY CAME.

    Neither of the links were suggesting that breaches and evasion of the law and authorities in friendly countries was permitted by International law.

    As the links point out, it is also proper for a country to send people back to where they came, based on circumstances.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  10. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Well, I am not sure how such a debate degenerated into, in the eyes of all the lefties on here, a "...I'm less racist and far more more virtuous than you..." competition. And that was before even the thread name had been typed in.

    But I guess we can stand a little more projection from you guys.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  11. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    It has something to do with many of them being economic migrants, and the fact that if they try to get here by dinghy and by stuffing themselves under a lorry.

    Labour know this. After all, they introduced the hostile environment concept, describing it as such in the bill, and built on it, during their last term. Do you think they did that just because they are a bunch of racists? Or because they thought that certain types of migration are undesirable and dangerous and should be discouraged?

    What is most revealing about your false position is that you seem not to accept any criticism of your view that if a person gets to these shores, however and for whatever, they should be treated the same a a genuine refugee coming out of a war torn country.

    Any realist or reasonable person would consider both sides of the matter, but to you, that is forbidden.

    I've got no problem with you believing it, I just have a problem with being able to believe that a person who is so obviously intolerant of others and, for reasons I have explained before, the modern equivalent of an old fashioned conservative gammon (same with GoBE), could really believe what you claim as your opinion.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  12. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    I said that about you weeks ago, and if I may give an example that proves your point...

    Your insistence, to the point of denying EU law and the stated opinion of the EU President, that the EU had a right to be involved in the Brexit referendum.

    You can prove your theory even further, about how the belief that something a person thinks should be right makes it right in their bubble, by explaining how you were not incorrect, and that even if it was barred to them through law, they still had a moral right to do so. I think that would cement your thesis perfectly.:)
     
  13. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Poster, who relies on twitter for info and whose only references are tweets, says that a poster, who constantly provides links to articles and law to support his arguments, dosen't really believe in the things he says.

    The forum terd has hit the bottom of the U bend and can't get up any momentum to rise over it.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  14. Since63

    Since63 Reservist

    Usual nonsense. Nothing you brought forward as your evidence included the assertion that anything the EU did was 'illegal'. Sir Simon Fraser's comments re: Tusk's comments that you referenced related to the 2019 GE, not the referendum itself. Fraser did indeed say they were ill-advised but he also took great pains to stress how Tusk's comments were those of a real friend of the UK. At no time did he impute any malicious intent and the one thing he categorically did not state was that it was 'illegal'. Had he thought it to be so, he would have said so.

    To conclude: in your world you think it SHOULD have been illegal, ergo it WAS.

    A constituency of one, it would seem.
     
  15. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Constituency of one? Very psychologically revealing. Particularly given that you emphasised the importance of a bubble in the delusion. I am an individual in here. You have many people to support you in your Hooter bashing. If you are unsure of what a bubble is, behold this forum. And it certainly isn't a Hooter affirming zone. I exist in your bubble mate. Not you in mine. So, doctor, me thinks thou hast diagnosed thine own self.

    The proof... Despite the EU law specifically saying they could not do it (it doesn't matter that you don't think it says it, because the EU says it says it); despite senior diplomats saying it is improper; and despite the EU President saying that he would have got the sack for doing it, if it hadn't been done in what was basically his "so long and thanks for all the fish" speech, you still insist that the EU were morally entitled to involvement in Brexit, because they had an interest in the outcome. That, perfectly, demonstrates you enacting the behaviour your recently attributed to me.

    Your little ditty about Fraser is poorly made. He is a diplomat. The last thing he will say is what he is thinking, but will be designed to diplomatically discourage what he knows is improper behaviour by a senior foreign politician. That is the very job of diplomats. The fact he said anything on it at all is a stunning indication of how out of order Tusk was. The BBC attributed his words to a comment on Tusks speech, so I am happy to go with them. If it turns out he had also said it before about Tusk, more power to him. I mentioned that he saw Tusk as a friend of the UK myself, with the intention of showing that his comments were not made from a pro Brexit point of view. Thank you for reiterating it.

    Seriously? You think a top diplomat would say 'you have broken the law' to the top ranking man in the EU? You are more deluded and into the bubble than even I feared.

    I appreciate that you will not see it, for the reasons given in your little theory, but given that it is in EU law, and is a universally understood concept, that third countries do not interfere in other countries democracy, I think you can take it to the bank that you were entirely correct in your assumption about lunatic beliefs finding affirmation in a bubble. I am only sorry that is your own behaviour (which can so easily be invoked by pointing out you were catastrophically wrong to according to all the evidence - you have repeatedly proven you cannot accept that Hooter may be right about anything), rather than mine, that proved your point.

    Go on. Do it again. Every one on here knows the EU are not permitted to do be involved in our democracy.

    And don't get me started on your 'I am not absolutist, and never say something is absolutely right or wrong'.

    Just remember you didn't respond to my post showing you actually doing what you said you never did. It wasn't hard to find you contradicting your pompous claim to virtue. You still haven't explained why you lied about that. Remember too, that I have always responded to you, even if it was to admit I was wrong.

    There is only one of us two in a bubble, and I am afraid it is not me.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  16. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Disgusting effect of the Rwanda scheme just simply being announced...

    https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...s-detected-in-small-boats-18-to-24-april-2022

    Just imagine all those people who are no longer choosing to come to the UK, but instead are now volunteerinh to remain in the detestable hellscape of the EU, where they will, on a daily basis, be exposed to the life threatening hatred of EU immigration policy, from which only the UK can shelter them.

    Disgusting that the UK should force such depravity upon them.

    Oh no. Turns out they just prefer the EU to the UK now they may find themselves in Rwanda, where previously they just preferred the UK. Funny that.

    Just think of the lives saved by not having people smugglers shipping people illegally over the channel. That at least is something worth recognising.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  17. Good to see it's working... so far

    IMO next task for the government needs to be opening immigration desks is embassies around the world where real refugees in need of real help can apply for asylum, and where accepted receive travel assistance

    That + Rwanda should be the nail in the coffin of industrialised people smuggling
     
    HenryHooter and iamofwfc like this.
  18. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    This thread seems to show that the greatest problem the lefties and remainers on here have, regarding tory policy, is the fear that it may actually work, and turn out to be a reasonable and effective way to achieve a practical goal.

    They really would prefer to talk about how bad things are than actually do something about it.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  19. Steve Leo Beleck

    Steve Leo Beleck Squad Player

    It's far too early to tell. From the official stats (not the MI that you read in that link):

    In 2021, there were no recorded small boat arrivals on the majority of days. At least one small boat crossing occurred on 154 out of 365 days (around 2 in every 5).

    It may work as a deterrent, it may not - time and verified data will tell. But you have to be an aching simpleton to look at one week's data and conclude it's already a roaring success before it's even come into effect, without even knowing what the rates of crossings were the previous year or what the sea conditions were like for that week...
     
    sydney_horn likes this.
  20. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Seems unlikely that people already on route will have been deterred within a day or so. And while an end to dinghy crossings would be very welcome, an almost complete end to asylum is not.
     
    sydney_horn likes this.
  21. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    How does this equate to an end to asylum? I know it is difficult for you guys to take in, but ANYONE travelling here legally can request asylum when they arrive, or at any point that they are here.

    Simply kying about the subject whilst (now) feigning ignorance of laws that you guys have been alluding is a little undignified.

    Very much what you guys do though.

    If this has worked in any way, it has only been to reduce the number of illegal crossings, and nothing else. That is the only issue here: attempting to take control of immigration into this country, part of which includes our involvement in refugee schemes, under which we have gained a reputation as a welcoming and tolerant destination, above counties such as France and Italy.

    If these guys are no longer travelling here, then they are no worse off in France. If they cannot claim asylum in the UK, then they can do so in France. What is your problem with that? What is it that causes your heart to bleed about that?

    It is just a matter of remainers responding to the dogwhistle EU arguments that are, in reality, just whinging about the fact that they have no control over their own internal and external borders, and want the UK to mitigate for their inadequacies.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  22. I think this might be one of those few times we are completely aligned

    To me controlled immigration should never mean no immigration, it should mean bandwidth to help those who really need help, encouraging those who add (social) value, and protecting the wealth and wellness (and not wage undercutting) existing communities
     
  23. reids

    reids Squad Player

    200 detained in the channel today. Guess it's not working so well after all..
     
    Ghost of Barry Endean likes this.
  24. reids

    reids Squad Player

    And another 100 today.
     
  25. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Got to wait for the people smuggler pre-bookings to run down first mate. Else those murderous b'stards sticking people in dinghys'll end up in trouble with ABTA.
     
  26. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    254 Sunday, 293 yesterday.

    This is the incompetent Government you get that chases and is sustained by populist headlines. Failure after failure.
     
  27. They've today announced that their timeline has been put back because of anticipated legal cases. Just a sham - populist headline that they know they can't carry out. And all the defenders of it are mugs.
     
    Moose likes this.
  28. GoingDown

    GoingDown "The Stability"

    It’s hardly the governments fault if the people smugglers aren’t being honest about what happens when they get to the UK is it?

    We just have to hope the bad smugglers go out of business so the moral ones can take over!
     
  29. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    With the developing market of people smugglers perhaps we'll see people smugglers with the optimum price-point/service delivery ratio emerging and forcing lesser people smugglers to up their game and compete with the market leaders. The free market/profit based service is really beating the stale and low value 'state-backed' offering.
     
  30. GoingDown

    GoingDown "The Stability"

    ‘Local people smuggler is pleased’
     
    Bwood_Horn likes this.
  31. Steve Leo Beleck

    Steve Leo Beleck Squad Player

    Over 700 in the last three days. Just goes to show the utter lack of critical thinking from the people crowing (or liking posts) earlier in this thread about it "aLrEaDy WoRkInG" despite not even being in effect.
     
    Moose likes this.
  32. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Perhaps you could read the OP on the subject again, so you can see just how incorrect and BS this comment actually is.

    People get things wrong, especially you guys. It was made clear that any reaction was to the announcement, and not the implementation.

    Don't you guys ever get tired of being just totally and utterly wrong, on so many occasions, even when the reality is sitting there in front of you saying, "Hi, its me!"

    Maybe I jumped the gun on the reaction this time? But so what? When was the last time I got something wrong, like the effects of the EU's level playing field, or the unlawful involvement of third countries in domestic politics?
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  33. Steve Leo Beleck

    Steve Leo Beleck Squad Player

    You were unequivocally wrong here - no ifs, no buts. You saw that there hadn't been any crossings for a few days so decided you'd indulge in some gloating that the announcement had had an immediate deterrent effect without once stopping to engage your brain and think if it might a little more complex than that.

    Probably wouldn't be bragging about always being right either when you were promoting a full on conspiracy theory about Trump's stolen election not so long ago. And asserting your own, demonstrably incorrect, interpretations of the law doesn't make you right about that either .

    You seem to have convinced yourself that the reason people don't engage with you is the strength of your arguments. In fact, it's the exact opposite, they are mainly long winded streams of nonsense.
     
  34. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    I'm not bragging about always being right, but about seldom being wrong, comparing extremely favourably with you guys, who make a habit of not just being unequivocally wrong, but naively so to the point, in normal circumstances, that would usually translate to both shame and embarrasment, but you keep trucking on telking everyone else they know nothing. You guys frequently demonstrate that you have zero understanding of the subjects you are ranting on about.

    How many of you guys stand up and own it when you get it wrong? I do, just have, and do so practically every time. Yet You guys would rather make yourselves look stupid by insisting, for example, that the EU have a right to involvement in UK domestic politics, when every common understanding of the the subject says no, and EU and international law agrees.

    You have a victory mate. Ad that to the other little comforts that you cling to so desperately, such as 'Hooter hasn't studied law, so doesn't know what he's talking about." You spend more time trying to convince yourself than you do me, I think.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.

Share This Page