First Rwanda flight leaving today

Also I only asked what should we do about the ima grants that are coming over if proven they are not persecuted
 
Omega said:
I did not say anyone wanting a better life is wrong but is that not a economic migrant. It’s racist to say parliament road is becoming full with gangs of Eastern European men. is living in denial there is a lot of tension between the Eastern European and Asian community is that racist.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand the word racism.

Talking about the negative impact of gangs and crime, not racism.

Judging everyone you see as a refugee a criminal, that's racist.
 
The Ruthsayer said:
So your argument is ‘The French are poor, but were the positions to be reversed, the UK would be worse’.
That, to me, is a weak response MA. Remember the French committed in Nov 2021 to prevent 100% of illegal crossings, aided by GBP54m of UK money.
Click to expand...
What @Chris_Boro said (y)

Plus despite the French not stopping crossings it doesn't not excuse us of our obligations under the Refugee Convention.
 
Over 70% of PEOPLE crossing the Channel are granted asylum. TBH without checking I think it might even be 71 or 77% - either way that is a massive majority of these people are legitimate asylum seekers.

The RW media would have you believe that the majority are economic migrants, that is simply not true.

The people who are not granted asylum can be returned to where they came from. The issue with that is since Brexit we hardly have any return agreements with EU countries so it's very hard to return people. Taking back control eh?

Here's a crazy idea... How about we spend a few quid in conjunction with the French Government and process cases in France? Ah, but then we can't send them all to Rwanda. This Government are so brazen with their plans to break every law they can - all to appeal to their knuckle dragging base.

If Rwanda was all that surely Sunak would have a holiday home there? Or Johnson's mates would let him use their Rwandan villas?

It is so sad how people are happy with this immoral policy.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I wouldn't expect the French to stop boat crossings.
Click to expand...
Why would they?

Now the UK is no longer part of the EU, France has no duty of care towards us, and no need to prevent onwards travel. In fact, by aiding onwards travel to the UK they are playing their part to reduce immigration into the EU.

But just whisper that last part as it doesnt fit the Brexit narrative of us taking control back from those pesky Europeans
 
Chris_Boro said:
France denied this and the UK never paid when they said they would.

We make £billions in arms sales to countries that have caused mass migration, so no I also wouldn't expect France to do anything.

Our country has more than enough resources to ensure its citizens can have a comfortable life and take its fair share of people we've caused to migrate in the first place, we just choose not to.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid your arguments are invalid.
1) What did the French deny? If not diligently implementing the prevention of illegal crossing, then note that I only quoted local people. Yes, the UK was late in paying, but it did pay.
2) We do make obscene profits from arms exports, but the French export a much greater amount. And their number one customer? The delightfully open society of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So the French have both a moral and legal duty (under their Constitution) to house and care for the migrants.
www.connexionfrance.com

France overtakes China as third biggest arms exporter, report shows

It increased its sales by 59% in the past 10 years, more than any other country
www.connexionfrance.com www.connexionfrance.com
3) I agree we have more than enough resources and wealth in this country for all to enjoy a good standard of living, but that is a separate discussion.
 
Billy69_uk said:
Why would they?

Now the UK is no longer part of the EU, France has no duty of care towards us, and no need to prevent onwards travel. In fact, by aiding onwards travel to the UK they are playing their part to reduce immigration into the EU.

But just whisper that last part as it doesnt fit the Brexit narrative of us taking control back from those pesky Europeans
Click to expand...
Yes it does, under their Constitution. To say nothing of the moral duty towards those Yemeni's fleeing KSA French weapons. Non?
 
This is purely a PR stunt to win votes. They have put a handful of people on a plane but it isn't ultimately going to make any difference to the number of people trying to seek refuge here. I have to laugh at the pathetic attempts to turn it round by suggesting that if you say Rwanda is a bad place to send people, you're being racist.
 
Littlejimmy said:
This is purely a PR stunt to win votes. They have put a handful of people on a plane but it isn't ultimately going to make any difference to the number of people trying to seek refuge here. I have to laugh at the pathetic attempts to turn it round by suggesting that if you say Rwanda is a bad place to send people, you're being racist.
Click to expand...
This 100% it's a pathetic dog whistle to the brexit bigots. no more, no less
 
The Ruthsayer said:
I'm afraid your arguments are invalid.
1) What did the French deny? If not diligently implementing the prevention of illegal crossing, then note that I only quoted local people. Yes, the UK was late in paying, but it did pay.
2) We do make obscene profits from arms exports, but the French export a much greater amount. And their number one customer? The delightfully open society of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So the French have both a moral and legal duty (under their Constitution) to house and care for the migrants.
www.connexionfrance.com

France overtakes China as third biggest arms exporter, report shows

It increased its sales by 59% in the past 10 years, more than any other country
www.connexionfrance.com www.connexionfrance.com
3) I agree we have more than enough resources and wealth in this country for all to enjoy a good standard of living, but that is a separate discussion.
Click to expand...

No, my arguments are valid and you're very arrogant to claim otherwise.

1) Guardian link to denial of 100% claim, it was a hope, assuming the UK paid in full at that time, which it never.

2) France are under no further obligations to take more than us because of their own, and equally ridiculous, arms sales. Them selling more is not a justification for us to expect them to do vastly more than we do, which is a fact. Many of which are Syrians whose second language is English.

Our own actions are what matters in relation to accepting refugees as a result, we should be creating safe routes for those wishing to flee the bombs and guns we sell.

3) No it isn't a separate discussion, we should be creating safe routes so people trafficking is irrelevant, instead we are people trafficking refugees to Rwanda, which isn't going to stop people trafficking and will cost us vastly more as well as any morality.

The UK wants its cake and to eat it too, no sharing.
 
Chris_Boro said:
No, my arguments are valid and you're very arrogant to claim otherwise.

1) Guardian link to denial of 100% claim, it was a hope, assuming the UK paid in full at that time, which it never.

2) France are under no further obligations to take more than us because of their own, and equally ridiculous, arms sales. Them selling more is not a justification for us to expect them to do vastly more than we do, which is a fact. Many of which are Syrians whose second language is English.

Our own actions are what matters in relation to accepting refugees as a result, we should be creating safe routes for those wishing to flee the bombs and guns we sell.

3) No it isn't a separate discussion, we should be creating safe routes so people trafficking is irrelevant, instead we are people trafficking refugees to Rwanda, which isn't going to stop people trafficking and will cost us vastly more as well as any morality.

The UK wants its cake and to eat it too, no sharing.
Click to expand...
Chris, firstly apologies if you thought my comment arrogant, I was expressing my opinion, for which I believe I have valid reasons.
1) We we’re discussing different topics; you the prevention of crossing, me the payment to assist.
2) I do not disagree with this. However, I was responding to the point that you wouldn’t expect ‘France to do anything’. My argument was that they had a genuine moral duty, given their arms sales to KSA and its ilk.
3) Yes, a more equitable distribution of wealth would have many benefits, one of which you highlight. My meaning (it is never easy to condense complex arguments in a short message) was that the wholesale re-ordering of society deserves its own thread.
 
Pembroke said:
When the UK was a member of the EU were you ashamed of the Government contributing resources to EU-funded migrant detention centres in Africa?
Click to expand...

I was not aware of this and if I had been I would have been equally disgusted. It is a shame we are no longer a member of the EU to vote for change - but then again under this Government they would not think that it was wrong.

Just because people were not up in arms about this does not mean they can't disagree with the Rwanda plan though. It could well be that people were not aware, as I stated, I wasn't.
 
The Ruthsayer said:
Chris, firstly apologies if you thought my comment arrogant, I was expressing my opinion, for which I believe I have valid reasons.
1) We we’re discussing different topics; you the prevention of crossing, me the payment to assist.
2) I do not disagree with this. However, I was responding to the point that you wouldn’t expect ‘France to do anything’. My argument was that they had a genuine moral duty, given their arms sales to KSA and its ilk.
3) Yes, a more equitable distribution of wealth would have many benefits, one of which you highlight. My meaning (it is never easy to condense complex arguments in a short message) was that the wholesale re-ordering of society deserves its own thread.
Click to expand...

No worries.

They are all part of the same issue, the UK expect France to stop boarder crossings, yes France should do all they can to save lives and they are far from good on this issue, but the UK's policy is not fair and is exacerbating the problem, while expecting everyone else to take more than their fair share just because of geography.

At some point France will not comply, especially when the best, most cost effective solution is to create safe routes into the UK, a policy this government refuse to consider while very publicly blaming France for it all.

France cannot prevent all crossing, is just not possible, and declaring a morality war just ends up with more desperate people stuck in the middle.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I was not aware of this and if I had been I would have been equally disgusted. It is a shame we are no longer a member of the EU to vote for change - but then again under this Government they would not think that it was wrong.

Just because people were not up in arms about this does not mean they can't disagree with the Rwanda plan though. It could well be that people were not aware, as I stated, I wasn't.
Click to expand...


People are disagreeing with something that has no outcome, but mute on humanitarian abuses in EU funded centres.

www.amnesty.org

Libya: Horrific violations in detention highlight Europe’s shameful role in forced returns

People are being returned to horrific conditions in detention in Libya with the cooperation of the EU. Amnesty International is calling on the EU to suspend all border control cooperation.
www.amnesty.org www.amnesty.org

The EU has been off shoring migrants for an extended period of time to a number of nations. The poster was indicating the UK was sinking to a low. The EUs low, the one the UK helped fund? The EU's low is murder, beatings, sexual violence, extortion, forced labour, and inhuman conditions in EU centres.

Sorry but offshoring has been part of EU policy for decades, offshoring is increasing out of the EU, and we can study that policy of decades to inform our views.

Any observable history and standard in Europe is relevant to discussion.
 
Last I heard the flight had 11 passengers, which gives a shameful policy a hint of farce too.

I never thought I'd live to see a British government enact such a morally bankrupt policy such as this, do these people have an ethical compass?

How do they decide between what is right and wrong, because this really makes we wonder whether they have any humility at all.

If it had happened a century ago, then it would have been a little less shocking, but now, it's another stain on our history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top