Hanaguma

Not unloading them, just towing them back. Or blocking their entry into UK territorial waters. No need to take the people on board at all. Besides, the last time the British military unloaded boats on the coast of France was to LIBERATE the place.

Depends. How many actually make landfall in the UK versus how many are found at sea and brought ashore by patrols? If the latter is more common then it will certainly BE a deterrent to just tow them back to France.

I think Megs expected to be the "new face" of the Royal Family, and would be able to bring them into what she saw as the modern (progressive era). That was true for a while, after the wedding etc. But she soon enough faded into the background a bit again. Kate is far more likeable and hard working and gave a lot more of her time to charities. This is the cause of Meghan's tantrum and all the <deleted> that followed. As a typical Hollywood progressive, Meghan is used to the idea that merely mouthing the right platitudes, perhaps sending a tweet, is enough. Enough to be praised and adored. She didn't understand that, for the Royals, they have to actually do the work. Press the flesh, go to hospital openings, attend events, etc. Simply holding the "correct" political and social positions doesn't cut it.

My understanding is that asylum seekers must present themselves at designated points of entry into the US. Simply crossing the border at any point is a crime, regardless of the intention.

Into French waters is enough. Sorry, but these people are choosing to risk themselves by crossing. If the British continue to rescue them and bring them ashore in old Blighty, it will only encourage more of the same. Once a few boatloads are returned, the rest will notice and the practice will become less frequent.

Technosaur me would also say just physically take out the battery to shut it down then start again. But what do I know...

No doubt the press was nasty. Then again, it was ALSO nasty to Kate Middleton in the beginning. Here is an article from Buzzfeed about it.... Her phone was hacked 155 times by one tabloid reporter at the now-defunct News of the World. She and her sister, Pippa, were nicknamed the “Wisteria Sisters'' due to their perceived social climbing. Paparazzi took photos up her skirt when she entered and exited vehicles. Endless stories citing anonymous sources were published about how members of the royal family, including the Queen, disapproved of her relationship with William. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/kate-middleton-media-tabloid-press-prince-william-dating Meghan was just next in line for the treatment. Not defending it, just saying that it was par for the course for anyone joining the Family.

How about just towing the boats back to France before they land?

And what 'treatment' was that- the jewels, the wedding, the 10 bedroom cottage on a palace grounds, the constant servants 24/7, the public adoration... Truly she went in with eyes totally shut, expecting to bring her progressive and modern agenda along. Didn't happen.

Those mean nothing. Every member of the Royals gets the same treatment (if not worse) from the gutter press. The public at large was 1000% behind them, as were the whole of the mainstream media. The truth is that Meghan just couldn't stand playing 'second fiddle' to Kate. Basically she wanted the perqs of the job (servants, palace etc) without putting in the hours.

Seems to me that Meghan was genuinely adored by the public when she came on the scene. Her and Harry's wedding were the event of the year, millions watched and cheered. If there were to be any racism or hatred, it would have started early on. Not later. So, what happened? IMHO it started when Meghan realized that she was expected to be a PART of "The FIrm", and not it's star. She became insanely jealous of William and Kate especially, and it showed. Megs has a very high opinion of herself- based on what exactly I have no idea. Yet it shows. So she went from victor to victim. And started looking for any possible 'evidence' to support her incorrect ideas. And now we are here.

The US has given 4.4 billion dollars to Nicaragua alone. I think they are doing their part.

I think you may have hit the problem- the "option of being deported or self deporting". How many will choose the latter and then simply refuse to do so? I think the American case is rather different than in other countries because the motivation is primarily economic. This is how the US ended up with a shadow population of perhaps up to 20 million people. Reagan granted a one time amnesty, decades ago. Yet the problem persisted. To me, a well run guest worker program would be a decent start if it would ease the crisis at the border, but only when done in conjunction with actual security along the southern frontier.

True. Meghan DOES flip a mean briefcase!

Yes, and they all look remarkably un-persecuted and well rested, despite travelling thousands of kilometers to arrive at the US border. It is patently obvious that most are simply seeking economic opportunity. Which explains why remarkably few families can be seen trying to cross into the US. They are not seeking refuge until it is safe to return to their respective countries. They are trying to migrate permanently. As for the Ukranians, I agree with you. They could just as easily have stayed in the safe regions of their own country. I have no desire to host them in mine. At worst, they can be housed in neighboring lands for a fraction of the cost to send them by air to distant lands.

Debatable. I would say urinating on the traditions and beliefs of another country from a position of profound ignorance might be considered as dishonourable. Acting the diva when those around you try to help you is dishonourable. Attacking people who cannot fight back is dishonourable. Demanding privacy and then taking part in a 6 hour Netflix show is dishonourable.

I think you forgot to add the /s tag at the end of your message!

Good. Just look at the photo. Those are not starving refugees, fleeing imminent death. Looks like a lot of healthy young people, mostly men. Not families on the run from death squads.They look like people who just stepped off a bus and are going for a walk in the countryside. Not to mention the trash and mess they are leaving behind. They can't even pick up after themselves to show a bit of respect for the country they want to enter.

Seems that Clarkson, ironically, is being made to walk the (digital) streets being pelted with poo. But actually, he is right. Megs is the ultimate spoiled diva, who sees the world through a prism of "me me me". She was eager to make the journey from b-list actress to a-list royal. And when that didn't happen, she spit the dummy and began to cry.

...and so another World Cup is decided, essentially, on a coin toss. Well, I suppose it is somewhat justified, since Argentina scored first in extra time. But truly an anticlimactic way to decide what is at heart a team sport.

For sure, she definitely passes the 'paper bag test'.

Harry really does come across as being, to be charitable, less than intelligent or bright. He talks like a little boy. Clearly Megs has his nutmegs hidden deep in her purse. The amazing irony of them complaining about the Royal Family, when that is all they have to show for themselves, is juicy. They have no discernable personality, no sense of humour, and nothing to offer the world other than tempting stories about that which they claim to loathe, the Royal Family.

I am sure you can, which highlights your prejudice. Besides, how would the restaurants in question even know if two people eating together are a couple or not? I don't think gay folks walk around wearing "I AM GAY and SO IS HE/SHE" t-shirts.

Actually not. The business did not want to produce something that they did not agree with. The sexual preference of the customers was irrelevant. A straight couple wanting a specially designed website for a gay wedding would also have been turned down.

Let's see... Texas restaurant, nearly 10 years ago, owner says it was inappropriate behavior and not sexuality NYC case, management supports gay customers and fires bad employee. California case, no follow up so can't comment. If they happened as written, they are reprehensible. But the difference seems to be that they were isolated to one or two staff, and in two cases management was not on board with the behavior. In the political cases, they happened with full support of management, which is much worse.