Just begging the question.
All I know is you don't deter people from crossing by promising them a beautiful, safe haven if they do.
So, I'm wondering - what the deterrent is?
i'm guessing a shanty town in an unsafe country.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 2,549
Quote: Lazzard @ 19th March 2023, 11:06 AMSo, I'm wondering - what the deterrent is?
i'm guessing a shanty town in an unsafe country.
Prisons wouldn't be an effective deterrent if they were comfy, luxurious places, so why should it be any different for this group of intentional lawbreakers? The potential for ending up thousands of miles away from one's intended destination might be a strong deterrent. I can tell you that allowing immigrants to illegally enter my country (after signing a promise to appear at an official hearing *wink-wink*) has been a disaster. I wish we, too, had a 20-mile stretch of ocean between us and the millions who try to sneak into the country rather than an ankle-deep ditch of a river along our southern border.
Quote: DaButt @ 19th March 2023, 12:22 PMPrisons wouldn't be an effective deterrent if they were comfy, luxurious places, so why should it be any different for this group of intentional lawbreakers? The potential for ending up thousands of miles away from one's intended destination might be a strong deterrent. I can tell you that allowing immigrants to illegally enter my country (after signing a promise to appear at an official hearing *wink-wink*) has been a disaster. I wish we, too, had a 20-mile stretch of ocean between us and the millions who try to sneak into the country rather than an ankle-deep ditch of a river along our southern border.
So don't tell the world it's a "beautiful, safe haven" then.
The Tories can't have their cake and eat it.
it's forced deportation, end of.
You can agree or disagree as to whether you think it's proportionate.
But you don't get the luxury of pretending it's not cruel and inhumane.
PS And they're only illegal because we offer them no legal way of applying for asylum.
Quote: Lazzard @ 19th March 2023, 12:29 PMBut you don't get the luxury of pretending it's not cruel and inhumane.
If they have food, water, and shelter from the elements, then it's not cruel or inhumane. Uncomfortable or inconvenient living conditions do not equate to cruelty.
Quote: DaButt @ 19th March 2023, 12:37 PMIf they have food, water, and shelter from the elements, then it's not cruel or inhumane. Uncomfortable or inconvenient living conditions do not equate to cruelty.
You make it sound idyllic.
Quote: Lazzard @ 19th March 2023, 12:39 PMYou make it sound idyllic.
If a tent in Rwanda isn't someone's idea of a good time, they may rethink their plans to enter the UK illegally.
The Rwanda plan won't act as a deterrent, the smugglers/gangs (whoever is organising these people's passage across the channel) aren't exactly going to be "ooooo cripes, they're sending these people to Rwanda, better quit my lucrative scam!" they aren't going to care and people fleeing something might not even know (or will chance it even if they did).
The boats will still come because the legal routes are bottlenecked/clogged/f**ked (pick your adjective).
Even thousands who are/were in Afghanistan after we and America upped and left who were eligible are having trouble, and as revealed this week some were told to seek permission from the taliban(!) to leave.
Former Home Secretary Priti Patel has threatened to sue her successor Suella Braverman in a row over migrant policy.
After being told Ms Braverman's Home Office had put the blame for overcrowding at Manston asylum processing centre in Kent on her, Ms Patel is understood to have phoned Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and said if Ms Braverman did not retract the claim within an hour she would start legal action for defamation.
It is the latest twist in a 'cold war' between the two, with allies of Ms Patel claiming she is being 'scapegoated' for policy failures associated with the small boats crisis.
Personally I would love to see the both of them, in the ring, beating the living crap out of each other
Ding ding! 🥴🥊
Quote: DaButt @ 19th March 2023, 12:37 PMIf they have food, water, and shelter from the elements, then it's not cruel or inhumane. Uncomfortable or inconvenient living conditions do not equate to cruelty.
While you are entitled to your opinion on the welfare of others. Personally I find this type of description as cold heartless and out of touch with basic humanity.
Perhaps its the fact that you live in a country where the poor die if they can't afford medicine. That is not a criticism of your country just an insight into what some people see as 'Cruel'
But that aside the reality is that this is no more than a 'Potemkin Village' aimed at creating outrage against the ECHR once the courts deny them the right to sell people to a third world war torn country.
Immigration has been an issue since the Beaker people, what is needed is a practical workable solution negotiated with the relevant countries who's cooperation would be required to ensure its viability.
It will not be resolved through sound bites and hatred alongside the false narrative that is creating the pseudo intellectual debates regarding acceptable conditions in camps that will never see the occupants they are intended for.
Quote: Teddy Paddalack @ 19th March 2023, 2:27 PMWhile you are entitled to your opinion on the welfare of others. Personally I find this type of description as cold heartless and out of touch with basic humanity.
Perhaps its the fact that you live in a country where the poor die if they can't afford medicine. That is not a criticism of your country just an insight into what some people see as 'Cruel'
And you live in a country where more than 7 million people are on waiting lists for medical treatment, but both of us know that the number of poor people who are denied life-saving treatment here because they can't pay is close to zero, as is the number of people who die due to lengthy NHS waiting times.
I have several friends who are labor & delivery nurses at south Texas hospitals. The number of uninsured, illegal aliens who show up at the hospital, deliver a baby, and then leave the public with the bill is staggering: I've read that as many as 1/4 of all births fall into this category.
The people who are sneaking across the border in my country are fully aware that they will be able to obtain free medical treatment, and I'm sure that those who are attempting to enter your country are attracted by the same potential for economic and medical benefits. I'm as empathetic as someone can be, but I'm realistic enough to understand that my country cannot sustain unlimited numbers of immigrants.
I don't know how it works with the UK's people smugglers, but here in the States, it can be said with certainty that everyone who crosses our southern border does so after paying violent drug cartels either directly or indirectly. These cartels control every inch of the border and manipulate the flow of immigrants to facilitate their drug trafficking. Illegal immigration is not a harmless or victimless operation, and hundreds of thousands of people have died on both sides of the border due to the cartels and their activities.
I think our situation is very different to yours.
The people who get scooped up in the channel are asylum seekers.
When processed, 60% are granted asylum ie 60% of those claims are deemed valid.
It is not illegal to seek asylum.
Sneaking into the country, failing to announce yourself to Border Police and then working without official sanction is illegal.
People used to do it in the back of lorries.
So - 'arriving' without permission isn't illegal - 'entering' is.
Except now, in a change of law that allows the wholesale deportation pf people - the very fact you have crossed the channel makes you ineligible for asylum.
In other words - of 60% of the people who get sent to Rwanda would have - previously - had their asylum cases deemed vaild, and given leave to stay and start a new, legal life in the UK - possibly filling some of 100's of thousands of job vacancies.
And there is now no legal way of claiming asylum.
We've moved the goalposts, essentially.
And of course, they know full well it will be deemed illegal by International law.
Which is the whole point - to start a fight, to replace the one we had over Brexit.
Brexit wasn't an argument, it was a democratic vote. The only argument was - remainers never shutting up for 6 years.
And now you want unknown unidentifiable aliens to run rampage across the country.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 19th March 2023, 4:48 PMAnd now you want unknown unidentifiable aliens to run rampage across the country.
Don't remember saying that.
In fact *checks notes* I said the opposite.
Might want to cut back on the GBNews for a bit - rots your brain.
Not sure it does your soul much good either.
Well they may not be around for much longer hopefully....
GB News made a loss of more than £30m in its first year on air, as the right-leaning news channel invested in hiring presenters to combat the launch of rival TalkTV.
The controversy-prone channel which launched in June 2021 racked up a pre-tax loss of £30.7m in the year to the end of May 2022, a period in which it hired former Ukip leader Nigel Farage to host a nightly primetime show.
It's probably due to all the tories they employ - greedy f***ers
DUP to vote against Rishis brilliant new Brexit deal for ireland
Now there's a MASSIVE shocker