Laughing
Well-known member
It's actually a bit worse than that. The ECHR is the bedrock of the good friday agreement, you can't have one without the other
Rwanda plan unlawful!
- Thread starter Easterside_Red
- Start date
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
Absolutely correct. It's underpins all of it.
The pathetic negotiations, up to and including the Windsor framework shows how little they actually care about NI though.
What the hell are you talking about ? I even mentioned that Syria and Sudan are war zones . I’m not going to list every single place that has a war going on because there are many and it’s hard to keep up
Might as well get it out of your system to be honest. Anything that challenges policies that inevitably leads to everyone getting in anyway is met with the “racist “ card . It’s honestly boring , and completely counterproductive.
Let’s be honest , you know some of these peoples situations just as well as I do . Your solution is to take everyone at face value and believe them under the guise it’s compassionate . I don’t . My life experiences (and others in the general public) usually mean you shouldn’t take everyone at face value . People lie all the time, especially to get something they want .
The eu have also unveiled the latest policy of making nation states not taking their fair share of migrants pay those states who do . It’s already causing eu fracturing, because Poland and Hungary yet again will defy it. I also think the policy is far too lenient. It isn’t going to stem the tide of right wing politics engulfing europe
Just to re-iterate how serious it’s getting too, some eu states have also voiced support exploring the Rwanda scheme like Britain . Denmark is one
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
The last bit is legally wrong. Dublin was implemented in the UK at the time of Brexit, as in all member states except Denmark which needed a separate arrangement because of its Maastricht opt out in this area, by Council Regulation No 343/2003 so its ceasing to apply was a direct consequence of Brexit.
Doesn’t make any difference to the mess it’s created of course.
Redka
Well-known member
Yes you need to be able to discuss immigration on this site without being called racist - for one it’s just really lazy !
Laughing
Well-known member
I would have to check what you have written, but if my memory serves we were offered the opportunity to remain within the dublin agreement. You are right about the mess though, and it was probably deliberate.
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
But race is a factor for many.
You can't just ignore things because they are uncomfortable. It's lazy to just dismiss things that are actually pertinent to be in the conversation.
Laughing
Well-known member
Race may be a factor, you are correct. It is, however, a perfectly valid, albeit abhorrent political viewpoint. Wanting controlled immigration doesn't make you a racist, though all racists want little or no immigration unless its to mow their large lawns.
Redka
Well-known member
But how can we even have a conversation with that view. It may be for some but people can also have different views about immigration policy.
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
We just have been.
See my posts and others. Not everyone is saying this is all about race. But we all need to acknowledge it is a factor, I think attitudes towards Afghani and Ukrainian refugees crisis shows that to an extent.
Instead of worrying about other people's reasons, debate yours, if race isn't an issue articulate what is instead of pointing fingers and trying to muddy/shut down the debate because you are uncomfortable talking about race.
JonnyHistory
Well-known member
I'm not sure anyone here has suggested that.
What has been suggested is a subsection of supporters for the Rwanda law specifically, race is a factor. This law will do nothing to control or deter immigration. It is also expensive, will require us to leave important global bodies (ECHR and UN refugee charter) and treats people like cattle rather than people.
When you consider the previous and that most refugees are genuine and when they are given asylum give a net benefit to society fiscally and culturally to the country. What reason is there left to support it? For those people a significant cohort of people will support this because of their racial views.
If you are not one of them that's fine, you will have reasons, add them to the debate and don't worry about other people's abhorrent views. To say race is a factor for some is not saying every supporter of the policy is racist. As I said in my previous post they could be stupid and ignore facts or have no respect for humanity but not be racist.
The fact is by every measure this policy is abhorrent and will do nothing to fix the issue. That can only be solved by proper tried and tested processes and proper points of entry.
Let me ask you one question. If the death penalty does not deter murderers (statistically proven) why would a half baked probably illegal policy deter someone from reaching safety?
140,000 per person and statistically 80% plus of them will be genuine refugees who's claims will be accepted. In what way does this policy benefit anyone?
Laughing
Well-known member
To be clear I am not supporting the Rwanda scheme not the illeagal immigration bill.
I don't think we have too many asylum seekers.
This was not the point I was making. I was simply saying that it is a valid political viewpoint to want controlled immigration. Not that I wanted it particularly. I would like to see investment in services to support everyone who lives here regardless of where they were born. The government... Hmmm not so much as it doesn't suite their divisive policies and messaging.