Prince Charles told by U.K. leaders to stop meddling in politics amid immigration comment backlash

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What is wrong with going to Rwanda ?

Rwanda is a safe Country and the refugees want to go to a safe Country

Nothing at all if it’s where you choose to go.

 

But the UK Government must obey the law and may not unlawfully deport people to Rawanda, though as demonstrated in the High Court that was the Government’s intention.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nothing at all if it’s where you choose to go.

 

But the UK Government must obey the law and may not unlawfully deport people to Rawanda, though as demonstrated in the High Court that was the Government’s intention.

Do you disagree with people going to other Countries illegally ?

[jastheace]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

So they have a choice of three safe Countries ; France , U.K and Rwanda .  

Why do they prefer to stay in the U.K ?

they had a choice of a lot more that they passed through to get to Calais. but to answer your question.... would be more controversial than this topic already is.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Do you disagree with people going to other Countries illegally ?

Entering the UK to seek asylum is not illegal.

 

Do you agree with everyone, including the Government being held accountable to the law?

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Entering the UK to seek asylum is not illegal.

 

Do you agree with everyone, including the Government being held accountable to the law?

Aren't they required to stay in the first safe Country they get to ?

A Court has ruled that the flights to Rwanda are legal 

[Mr Meeseeks]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Entering the UK to seek asylum is not illegal.

 

Do you agree with everyone, including the Government being held accountable to the law?

If you think the majority are genuine asylum seekers then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

If the Rwandan plan works out those genuine asylum seekers may get back to Britain at some stage.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Aren't they required to stay in the first safe Country they get to ?

A Court has ruled that the flights to Rwanda are legal 

Irrelevant, once in the UK they are subject to and have the protections of UK law.

 

Entering the UK to seek asylum is not illegal.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

If you think the majority are genuine asylum seekers then I have a bridge to sell you.

 

If the Rwandan plan works out those genuine asylum seekers may get back to Britain at some stage.

I don’t have need if a bridge thank you.

 

That’s a big ‘If’.

[Mr Meeseeks]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t have need if a bridge thank you.

 

That’s a big ‘If’.

Do you think the majority entering the UK illegally are genuine asylum seekers?

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Irrelevant, once in the UK they are subject to and have the protections of UK law.

 

Entering the UK to seek asylum is not illegal.

There is a strong suspicion that they aren't genuine  Asylum Seekers and that they are actually people trying to enter the U.K without the necessary  visa , 

[ozimoron]

41 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What is wrong with going to Rwanda ?

Rwanda is a safe Country and the refugees want to go to a safe Country

For a start they were in a safe country. What was wrong with leaving them there?

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There is a strong suspicion that they aren't genuine  Asylum Seekers and that they are actually people trying to enter the U.K without the necessary  visa , 

Refugees never have a visa,

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Mr Meeseeks said:

Do you think the majority entering the UK illegally are genuine asylum seekers?

I have no idea.

 

But if they are not ‘Asylum seekers’ then why is the Government trying to deport them under the  under the Government’s ‘Rwanda Asylum Plan’?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There is a strong suspicion that they aren't genuine  Asylum Seekers and that they are actually people trying to enter the U.K without the necessary  visa , 

Then deal with that in the UK immigration courts under UK law.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Refugees never have a visa,

Not always so.

 

Visas issued to Ukrainian refugees being an example.

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Refugees never have a visa,

Yes, some have been refused a UK spouse  visa and thus come across by boat without a visa

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then deal with that in the UK immigration courts under UK law.

What is wrong with going to Rwanda ?

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What is wrong with going to Rwanda ?

I’ve already answered your question, once again incase you missed it:

 

40 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nothing at all if it’s where you choose to go.

 

But the UK Government must obey the law and may not unlawfully deport people to Rawanda, though as demonstrated in the High Court that was the Government’s intention.

 

[Credo]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What is wrong with going to Rwanda ?

Probably nothing if that's where you wanted to go.   There's nothing wrong with Brunei either, but I suspect a lot of people wouldn't be happy if instead of the plane taking them to Thailand decided to just drop them off in Brunei.  

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve already answered your question, once again incase you missed it:

 

 

Oh yeah , And replied that it was indeed lawful for the U.K to fly people to Rwanda , as the UK Court ruled

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Oh yeah , And replied that it was indeed lawful for the U.K to fly people to Rwanda , as the UK Court ruled

But the court has also prevented a number of deportations.

 

The cost to tax payers of this ill-conceived policy is climbing by the minute.

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, jastheace said:

the cross channel migrants left a safe country....

Irrelevant, once in the UK they are subject to and protected by UK law.

[Bday Prang]

None of them have visas  they don't even have passports, as one of the first things they do is to destroy any evidence of where they come from (so they can't be sent back) Apparently it costs thousands of pounds for them to get to the UK so they are not exactly destitute are they?  Most of them that get taxied in by the coastguard or even worse by the RNLI seem to have smartphones

 99.9% of them are young males and nobody ever mentions what the eventual social impact of importing so many unaccompanied young males will be! 

 The fact of the matter is that no right minded UK citizen wants them in the UK.  those that claim to welcome them are limited to the usual collection of human rights lawyers, who are no doubt making a good living off the back of this, and a very vocal minority of leftie "activists" 

  If it  is illegal  to send them to Rwanda, then the law needs to be changed, simple as that as Rwanda is the best place for them. Prince Charles would be better occupied trying to control his ginger haired "son" and his pedo brother

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

None of them have visas  they don't even have passports, as one of the first things they do is to destroy any evidence of where they come from (so they can't be sent back) Apparently it costs thousands of pounds for them to get to the UK so they are not exactly destitute are they?  Most of them that get taxied in by the coastguard or even worse by the RNLI seem to have smartphones

 99.9% of them are young males and nobody ever mentions what the eventual social impact of importing so many unaccompanied young males will be! 

 The fact of the matter is that no right minded UK citizen wants them in the UK.  those that claim to welcome them are limited to the usual collection of human rights lawyers, who are no doubt making a good living off the back of this, and a very vocal minority of leftie "activists" 

  If it  is illegal  to send them to Rwanda, then the law needs to be changed, simple as that as Rwanda is the best place for them. Prince Charles would be better occupied trying to control his ginger haired "son" and his pedo brother

And the U.K is quite welcoming to genuine refuges , like those people fleeing Ukraine and Hong Kong 

[baboon]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But the court has also prevented a number of deportations.

 

The cost to tax payers of this ill-conceived policy is climbing by the minute.

Ahh, Chomper... They got their hard Brexit and soon more to come with invoking Article 16, teaching that bloody EUSSR a lesson. They are sending the 'parasites' to Rwanda. They can be rid of those pesky Scotch (sic) as soon as the Scots get their referendum.

And yet they are still apoplectic... 

[Mac Mickmanus]

22 minutes ago, baboon said:

Ahh, Chomper... They got their hard Brexit and soon more to come with invoking Article 16, teaching that bloody EUSSR a lesson. They are sending the 'parasites' to Rwanda.

Completely ignoring the fact that it was E.U/ France who took them to the U.K 

[itsari]

22 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Charles will be the last British king. the revulsion will be palpable once he assumes the throne. Australia will be the next Republic.

For you maybe the last king of the UK  

Good to see the back of a colony run by a bunch of racist bigots .

Only hope for the colony is to have representation from the immigrants . Fresh blood in the colonies veins 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Completely ignoring the fact that it was E.U/ France who sent them to the U.K 

Nobody sent them anywhere.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Nobody sent them anywhere.

"Took" then, the French Navy took the refugee into UK waters

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Completely ignoring the fact that it was E.U/ France who sent them to the U.K 

Fact?

 

Please provide evidence of this claimed ‘fact’?