6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

They could have stayed in France. Perfectly safe.

 

But no, not enough benefits there. They might have to work. So they threw the dice. The lure of benefits Britain was too strong. Decisions have consequences.

 

They would be fine in Rwanda. Just avoid the hotspots and it's no issue. More MSM hype.

 

They might have had to work for a living in Rwanda though.... that danger has passed thanks to British taxpayers.

 

Economic migrants playing the system.

 

Meanwhile British servicemen rot homeless on the streets.

A lot of unequivocal assertions there, but none backed up.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Not sure what a posit hat is but maybe a tin foil hat would be more appropriate for your bizarre conspiracy theories.

 

They are implementing the policy gradually to avoid a huge reaction from the woke MSM. 

 

Give it time. As long as Labour stay in the wilderness we will move in a positive direction. Labour would simply open the gates while back slapping at Islington wine parties.

Oh look, more baseless claims and of course blaming Labour.

 

Sorry Johnny, 14 years of Tory Government.

 

It is without question that it is the Tories who have lost control of the UK’s borders.

 

Are we still pretending that the Rwanda scheme will have any impact on immigrants crossing the channel in small boats?

 

 

Racist troll post reported/removed

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh look, more baseless claims and of course blaming Labour.

 

Sorry Johnny, 14 years of Tory Government.

 

It is without question that it is the Tories who have lost control of the UK’s borders.

 

160,000 asylum seekers granted amnesty by the backdoor, say MPs

Extract
Report says another 74,500 cases 'cannot be traced' while the immigration minister hails elimination of backlog from system
The report says that work has at last been concluded on 403,000 of the 450,000-strong backlog of cases. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/02/160000-asylum-seekers-granted-amnesty

John Reid reported in 2006 that there was a backlog of 450,000 cases

 

The government was last night forced to revise upwards claims that there were fewer than 250,000 failed asylum seekers in Britain after officials unearthed evidence that the figure was closer to 450,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jul/19/asylum.immigrationasylumandrefugees

Some cases were on file for up to 9 years

 

wouldn't it be great if humans didn't have to go through things like this in the first place. 

"How the Albanian mafia conquered the cocaine market in UK"

 

https://irpimedia.irpi.eu/en-albanian-mafia-uk-cocaine-supply/

 

40,000 last year alone. And hundreds more from Albania, that war torn country where people from Europe go on holiday, pouring in every week

 

Wonder who pays the £10K smuggler fee?, and where they disappear into?

22 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

160,000 asylum seekers granted amnesty by the backdoor, say MPs

Extract
Report says another 74,500 cases 'cannot be traced' while the immigration minister hails elimination of backlog from system
The report says that work has at last been concluded on 403,000 of the 450,000-strong backlog of cases. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/02/160000-asylum-seekers-granted-amnesty

John Reid reported in 2006 that there was a backlog of 450,000 cases

 

The government was last night forced to revise upwards claims that there were fewer than 250,000 failed asylum seekers in Britain after officials unearthed evidence that the figure was closer to 450,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jul/19/asylum.immigrationasylumandrefugees

Some cases were on file for up to 9 years

 

Yep, the Tories have lost control of the borders.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Seppius said:

"How the Albanian mafia conquered the cocaine market in UK"

 

https://irpimedia.irpi.eu/en-albanian-mafia-uk-cocaine-supply/

 

40,000 last year alone. And hundreds more from Albania, that war torn country where people from Europe go on holiday, pouring in every week

 

Wonder who pays the £10K smuggler fee?, and where they disappear into?

Perhaps the over £100,000,000 spent on the doomed from the start Rwanda scheme, would have been better spent on fighting criminal gangs.

 

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

They didn't arrive from Rwanda. 

 

That would have been a hell of a trip in a dinghy.

 

They are economic migrants looking to exploit the idiocy of the champagne socialists virtue signalling from their ivory towers.

Which of these ‘Champagne socialists’ you bang on about have any control whatsoever over UK borders or the enforcement of UK immigration laws?

 

If the answer is zero then are we to assume you are blaming the wrong people?

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yep, the Tories have lost control of the borders.

 

 

From what I know and recall John Reid was the Home Secretary from 2006-2007 and the Government in power was The Labour Party with Prime minister Tony Blair

8 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

From what I know and recall John Reid was the Home Secretary from 2006-2007 and the Government in power was The Labour Party with Prime minister Tony Blair

The Government now and for the past 14 years is a Tory Government.

 

Well last time I looked.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Government now and for the past 14 years is a Tory Government.

 

Well last time I looked.

And who was responsible for asylum claims from 1997-2010 maybe you didn't understand when John Reid stated there was 450,000 backlog of asylum claims in 2006

John Reid reported in 2006 that there was a backlog of 450,000 cases

 

The government was last night forced to revise upwards claims that there were fewer than 250,000 failed asylum seekers in Britain after officials unearthed evidence that the figure was closer to 450,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jul/19/asylum.immigrationasylumandrefugees

Some cases were on file for up to 9 years

 

59 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

And who was responsible for asylum claims from 1997-2010 maybe you didn't understand when John Reid stated there was 450,000 backlog of asylum claims in 2006

John Reid reported in 2006 that there was a backlog of 450,000 cases

 

The government was last night forced to revise upwards claims that there were fewer than 250,000 failed asylum seekers in Britain after officials unearthed evidence that the figure was closer to 450,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jul/19/asylum.immigrationasylumandrefugees

Some cases were on file for up to 9 years

 

Is John Reid the Home Secretary?

 

Or are engaging in whataboutary?

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh look, more baseless claims and of course blaming Labour.

 

Sorry Johnny, 14 years of Tory Government.

 

It is without question that it is the Tories who have lost control of the UK’s borders.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Is John Reid the Home Secretary?

 

Or are engaging in whataboutary?

My Post was in reply to your statement it is the "Tories who have lost control of the UK’s borders"

which is factually incorrect as both the conservatives and the Labour party have failed asylum seeker claims hence John Reid stating in 2006 that there was a backlog of 450,000 asylum seeker claims 

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Meanwhile British servicemen rot homeless on the streets.

A national shame for sure, but totally unconnected to the issue of immigration. Ex servicemen are living and dying on the streets because we have a greedy, corrupt and uncaring government. If all immigration was to end tomorrow, the squaddies' situation wouldn't change one jot as long as we have the nasty party in charge.

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Are we still pretending that the Rwanda scheme will have any impact on immigrants crossing the channel in small boats?

 

 

When it is actually implemented it will.   No illegal immigrants will make the risky journey across the channel if it is just a longer, more expensive, more dangerous and more complex way of getting to Kigali.  

 

Of course if you are happy for these people to continue to drown in the channel making this dangerous crossing then you would of course be against measures taken to remove the incentive to make such a dangerous journey.   

1 hour ago, James105 said:

When it is actually implemented it will.   No illegal immigrants will make the risky journey across the channel if it is just a longer, more expensive, more dangerous and more complex way of getting to Kigali.  

 

Of course if you are happy for these people to continue to drown in the channel making this dangerous crossing then you would of course be against measures taken to remove the incentive to make such a dangerous journey.   

Your statement on the efficacy of a policy that is currently ruled unlawful is an baseless assumption.

 

Your second paragraph is an ad hominem.

 

 

1 hour ago, James105 said:

When it is actually implemented it will.   No illegal immigrants will make the risky journey across the channel if it is just a longer, more expensive, more dangerous and more complex way of getting to Kigali.  

 

Of course if you are happy for these people to continue to drown in the channel making this dangerous crossing then you would of course be against measures taken to remove the incentive to make such a dangerous journey.   

You're confusing incentive with impediment. The incentive would be unchanged even if they were shot on site. They are escaping intolerable situations in their own country. That won't change unless the rich countries act to sort out corruption and lawlessness in the source countries. Punishing them on arrival does nothing to reduce incentives. The far right just want to build walls and ship them off to the salt mines to punish them for coming instead of working to help remove the push factors.

58 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You're confusing incentive with impediment. The incentive would be unchanged even if they were shot on site. They are escaping intolerable situations in their own country. That won't change unless the rich countries act to sort out corruption and lawlessness in the source countries. Punishing them on arrival does nothing to reduce incentives. The far right just want to build walls and ship them off to the salt mines to punish them for coming instead of working to help remove the push factors.

They are travelling from France to get to the UK and a significant number are economic migrants.  It is not punishing them to send them to Rwanda unless you have the somewhat racist view that Rwanda is inferior to the UK.   It will only need a month or two of enacting this policy and once word gets out that making a dangerous crossing is just a more complex route to get to Rwanda then they will not make that dangerous crossing that has already taken so many lives.   

1 minute ago, James105 said:

They are travelling from France to get to the UK and a significant number are economic migrants.  It is not punishing them to send them to Rwanda unless you have the somewhat racist view that Rwanda is inferior to the UK.   It will only need a month or two of enacting this policy and once word gets out that making a dangerous crossing is just a more complex route to get to Rwanda then they will not make that dangerous crossing that has already taken so many lives.   

THe migrants know they die in the thousands trying to cross the seas and oceans to get to various countries but it has made no difference. People will flee war and poverty regardless of the consequences. Yours is just a far right talking point. It's wrong.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your statement on the efficacy of a policy that is currently ruled unlawful is an baseless assumption.

 

Your second paragraph is an ad hominem.

 

 

Well Parliament just needs to change the law so that the policy is lawful and make it watertight enough so that even the leftist judges  of the appeal court cannot overrule it.   I believe the democratically elected parliament is still able to make laws to enact their policies.

 

I was responding to your baseless comment that the policy would not work.   Evidence from Australia suggests that this policy does work as they already used similar to solve the problem over there. 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

THe migrants know they die in the thousands trying to cross the seas and oceans to get to various countries but it has made no difference. People will flee war and poverty regardless of the consequences. Yours is just a far right talking point. It's wrong.

I said they are travelling to the UK from France.   You may consider that to be a "far right" talking point but that does not make it incorrect.  It is factually accurate.   

 

Another factually correct statement I made is that a significant proportion of illegal immigrants are economic migrants and are not fleeing war at all.   They might well be fleeing poverty but that is not a valid claim for asylum and makes them economic migrants.  To enter the UK for economic reasons they need to apply for the correct visa just like every other legal migrant to the UK, not jump on a dinghy and enter illegally.  

Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda! What could go wrong? ????

11 minutes ago, candide said:

Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda! What could go wrong? ????

It is not the same country as 25 years ago, there is a lot of opportunity. If they had taken the $10,000 it cost them to get to the UK and gone straight there, they could open a nice business there maybe?

 

https://www.visitrwanda.com/investment/how-to-invest/starting-a-business/

15 minutes ago, candide said:

Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda! What could go wrong? ????

Who cares once they have arrived there!

8 hours ago, James105 said:

Well Parliament just needs to change the law so that the policy is lawful and make it watertight enough so that even the leftist judges  of the appeal court cannot overrule it.   I believe the democratically elected parliament is still able to make laws to enact their policies.

 

I was responding to your baseless comment that the policy would not work.   Evidence from Australia suggests that this policy does work as they already used similar to solve the problem over there. 

Once again you parade your ignorance of how law and governance work.

 

The Rwanda Scheme infringes numerous laws and international treaties.

 

It’s not simply a matter of changing the law.

 

How the unlikely possibility of a tiny fraction of immigrants being sent to Rwanda will deter people who have already demonstrated their willingness to face extreme risks is a mystery.

Judges over ruling the elected government. 

 

How democratic.

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Judges over ruling the elected government. 

 

How democratic.

The Government were not elected to act outwith the law.

 

Holding a Government accountable to the laws enacted by Democratically elected Governments is Democratic.

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Government were not elected to act outwith the law.

 

Holding a Government accountable to the laws enacted by Democratically elected Governments is Democratic.

 

 

 

 

Straight from the left wing authoritaion playbook.

 

Ultimately this was down to the opinion/decision of unelected judges reversing the decision of a democratically elected government. 

 

Unelected people in positions of power going against the will of the people and the government they elected.

 

Not unlike a banana republic. Shameful.