-
Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
I'm sure David Blunkett some 20 years ago proposed the same idea involving a third party off shore immigration solution, before retreating from the proposal , the question I have for any opposition party , what is your plan, and if this becomes a success or part success would a Labour government reverse or campain
too so so at the next election .
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
I'm sure David Blunkett some 20 years ago proposed the same idea
I don't think he did
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
I'm sure David Blunkett some 20 years ago proposed the same idea involving a third party off shore immigration solution, before retreating from the proposal , the question I have for any opposition party , what is your plan, and if this becomes a success or part success would a Labour government reverse or campain
too so so at the next election .
I think it’s high time we had a whataboutery board.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
I doubt it. But then people in government actually have to make tough decisions, instead of simply opposing everything. But then the British Left tend to get just as angry with Labour governments as they do Tories after a while. I think it's decision making and reality they actually fear most. :wave:
Poll published yesterday shows even Labour voters support the policy by 39% to 36%. I think in time people will slowly realise how repulsive and unsustainable the current situation is and something must be done to stop boats travelling from France.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status...55814705008644.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
I doubt the BNP or UKIP would reverse it.
Other than them yes.
Whats funny is well is the claim that this policy is somehow about caring for the migrants.😂😂😂
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
I doubt it. But then people in government actually have to make tough decisions, instead of simply opposing everything. But then the British Left tend to get just as angry with Labour governments as they do Tories after a while. I think it's decision making and reality they actually fear most. :wave:
Poll published yesterday shows even Labour voters support the policy by 39% to 36%. I think in time people will slowly realise how repulsive and unsustainable the current situation is and something must be done to stop boats travelling from France.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status...55814705008644.
I think a lot of Labour voters who generally favour left wing policies favour right wing policies when it comes to immigration.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hilts
I think a lot of Labour voters who generally favour left wing policies favour right wing policies when it comes to immigration.
What is the left wing policy on immigration? Historically free movement of people has been a right-wing policy akin to the free market. (See America for most of its history) For most of the last century left wing societies in Europe didn't let you move abroad - many required government permission to move cities even.
I don't think it's a left/right thing. It's about finding a solution that works and at the very least a solution that doesn't sub-contract out the process to global human trafficking gangs to enrichen themselves by providing the service.
I agree though that many Labour voters are not particularly "left wing". And nor should they be. Most people just want a decent society and dont really care which ideological branch of this social science provides it. It's as relevant as religious doctrine to the majority of people.
And thank f**k for that. Imagine how awful the world would be if everyone spoke like we do on here :hehe:
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
What is the left wing policy on immigration? Historically free movement of people has been a right-wing policy akin to the free market. (See America for most of its history) For most of the last century left wing societies in Europe didn't let you move abroad - many required government permission to move cities even.
I don't think it's a left/right thing. It's about finding a solution that works and at the very least a solution that doesn't sub-contract out the process to global human trafficking gangs to enrichen themselves by providing the service.
I agree though that many Labour voters are not particularly "left wing". And nor should they be. Most people just want a decent society and dont really care which ideological branch of this social science provides it. It's as relevant as religious doctrine to the majority of people.
And thank f**k for that. Imagine how awful the world would be if everyone spoke like we do on here :hehe:
From your posts on here I assume you have a different view of what 'a decent society' looks like than I do.
Values and political positions flow from that.
Confederate slave owners, Stalinist functionaries and Middle England cheerleaders for Enoch Powell all told themselves they were in favour of 'a decent society'.
But very different interpretations of decency.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jon1959
From your posts on here I assume you have a different view of what 'a decent society' looks like than I do.
Values and political positions flow from that.
Confederate slave owners, Stalinist functionaries and Middle England cheerleaders for Enoch Powell all told themselves they were in favour of 'a decent society'.
But very different interpretations of decency.
Same with the old mantra of "common sense", it means different things to different people.
It's a nice catch all for the hard of thinking.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Cartman
I don't think he did
He did honest, the left slapped him down.
Google it on de tinterty thingy
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hilts
I think a lot of Labour voters who generally favour left wing policies favour right wing policies when it comes to immigration.
Particularly Brexit voters
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
He did honest, the left slapped him down.
Google it on de tinterty thingy
I am struggling to find anything about it, could you please link it to help an old boy out.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
He did honest, the left slapped him down.
Google it on de tinterty thingy
David Blunkett did propose an 'out of EU' asylum processing location around 2003 (Albania and Russia were suggested places) and he was rightly slapped down by the EU, by TUs and by the Labour left - but it was not the same idea that Priti Patel has announced. It was put forward (by one of the most authoritarian and right wing Labour Home Secretaries ever - I know from personal experience) as an entry point to the EU - a clearing house - not as a deportation site from the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/...es.immigration
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Cartman
I am struggling to find anything about it, could you please link it to help an old boy out.
First rule of Stupid Club.....There is a Stupid Club! :hehe:
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jon1959
From your posts on here I assume you have a different view of what 'a decent society' looks like than I do.
Values and political positions flow from that.
Confederate slave owners, Stalinist functionaries and Middle England cheerleaders for Enoch Powell all told themselves they were in favour of 'a decent society'.
But very different interpretations of decency.
Ah, but this is where you are wrong, and it's a mistake many make. My view of a decent society will be almost identical to yours; good schools, good healthcare free at the point of use, a strong economy, low crime, a compassionate and caring welfare state for people to ensure they aren't destitute, a society where people work and play together, trust each other and do to others as they would have done to themselves etc etc etc. Barring a few tweaks (for example I value immaterial wealth more than many do) I suspect our outcomes are near identical, and they would be for 90% of people.
The difference is in how we think they are best achieved, and within that, the difference comes from the fact that I am not ideological. I will take what may be considered a 'left wing' solution where it works (for example in govt intervention on the economy) or what may be considered a 'right wing' solution where it works (for example in enforcing a fair immigration system).
I would suggest that you take more of an ideological as opposed to pragmatic position on things in an almost religious fashion - I briefly went to church as a kid, but for me the closest I got to a form of religion was in my younger days in various socialist movements where the adherence to doctrine was absolute - no variation was possible. When you are in that state of mind, the problems simply cannot operate outside of that doctrine.
So it becomes impossible to fathom a situation where asylum is taken advantage of for example. Or it becomes impossible to imagine that problems may exist within the NHS for example, even if in some cases understanding that is key to solving the problem.
I am sure we all agree that Britain should have a generous and fair immigration system but equally we understand we cant just house everyone that wants to come to the UK. Well the current system is broken. The most physically fit typically make it. It rewards those who throw away ID, it rewards criminal gangs, it punishes those who apply legally. We have people taking legal action to prevent the removal of hardened criminals who are foreign nationals. It's not working, for us or for anyone else and people should be open minded to recognising that and that what they perceive as their own decency may actually be exploited.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Ah, but this is where you are wrong, and it's a mistake many make. My view of a decent society will be almost identical to yours; good schools, good healthcare free at the point of use, a strong economy, low crime, a compassionate and caring welfare state for people to ensure they aren't destitute, a society where people work and play together, trust each other and do to others as they would have done to themselves etc etc etc. Barring a few tweaks (for example I value immaterial wealth more than many do) I suspect our outcomes are near identical, and they would be for 90% of people.
The difference is in how we think they are best achieved, and within that, the difference comes from the fact that I am not ideological. I will take what may be considered a 'left wing' solution where it works (for example in govt intervention on the economy) or what may be considered a 'right wing' solution where it works (for example in enforcing a fair immigration system).
I would suggest that you take more of an ideological as opposed to pragmatic position on things in an almost religious fashion - I briefly went to church as a kid, but for me the closest I got to a form of religion was in my younger days in various socialist movements where the adherence to doctrine was absolute - no variation was possible. When you are in that state of mind, the problems simply cannot operate outside of that doctrine.
So it becomes impossible to fathom a situation where asylum is taken advantage of for example. Or it becomes impossible to imagine that problems may exist within the NHS for example, even if in some cases understanding that is key to solving the problem.
I am sure we all agree that Britain should have a generous and fair immigration system but equally we understand we cant just house everyone that wants to come to the UK. Well the current system is broken. The most physically fit typically make it. It rewards those who throw away ID, it rewards criminal gangs, it punishes those who apply legally. We have people taking legal action to prevent the removal of hardened criminals who are foreign nationals. It's not working, for us or for anyone else and people should be open minded to recognising that and that what they perceive as their own decency may actually be exploited.
Why is it every single self proclaimed enlightened centrist turns out to be pretty right wing under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doucas
Why is it every single self proclaimed enlightened centrist turns out to be pretty right wing under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Thanks for illustrating my point so promptly. :thumbup:
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Ah, but this is where you are wrong, and it's a mistake many make. My view of a decent society will be almost identical to yours; good schools, good healthcare free at the point of use, a strong economy, low crime, a compassionate and caring welfare state for people to ensure they aren't destitute, a society where people work and play together, trust each other and do to others as they would have done to themselves etc etc etc. Barring a few tweaks (for example I value immaterial wealth more than many do) I suspect our outcomes are near identical, and they would be for 90% of people.
The difference is in how we think they are best achieved, and within that, the difference comes from the fact that I am not ideological. I will take what may be considered a 'left wing' solution where it works (for example in govt intervention on the economy) or what may be considered a 'right wing' solution where it works (for example in enforcing a fair immigration system).
I would suggest that you take more of an ideological as opposed to pragmatic position on things in an almost religious fashion - I briefly went to church as a kid, but for me the closest I got to a form of religion was in my younger days in various socialist movements where the adherence to doctrine was absolute - no variation was possible. When you are in that state of mind, the problems simply cannot operate outside of that doctrine.
So it becomes impossible to fathom a situation where asylum is taken advantage of for example. Or it becomes impossible to imagine that problems may exist within the NHS for example, even if in some cases understanding that is key to solving the problem.
I am sure we all agree that Britain should have a generous and fair immigration system but equally we understand we cant just house everyone that wants to come to the UK. Well the current system is broken. The most physically fit typically make it. It rewards those who throw away ID, it rewards criminal gangs, it punishes those who apply legally. We have people taking legal action to prevent the removal of hardened criminals who are foreign nationals. It's not working, for us or for anyone else and people should be open minded to recognising that and that what they perceive as their own decency may actually be exploited.
I think if you are going to accuse someone of being ideologically driven, you should at least give examples. Jon tends to give a pretty good account of how he reached a certain position in my opinion.
The outline of this policy on .gov looks eerily similar to the mandate of ice under trump (I say trump because I am not aware how they operate now, it might he exactly the same under biden). It gives the home office carte blanche to remove anybody who has entered illegally, it says it will take into account the quality of their claim, but considering they will want to get numbers down as far as possible and these cases will be low hanging fruit, I don't believe it.
I don't think it will discourage channel crossings unless the proper channel for claiming asylum is fair and transparent. The proper channel for an asylum claim states that your application may not be considered if you have travelled through a third country, which covers almost everybody.
This policy is a way to utilise the fact that we are an island and shield the UK from a migrant crisis that it has helped cause. If we are shielded from it, then it will not be a priority to work together internationally to fix the causes.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Cartman
I think if you are going to accuse someone of being ideologically driven, you should at least give examples. Jon tends to give a pretty good account of how he reached a certain position in my opinion.
The outline of this policy on .gov looks eerily similar to the mandate of ice under trump (I say trump because I am not aware how they operate now, it might he exactly the same under biden). It gives the home office carte blanche to remove anybody who has entered illegally, it says it will take into account the quality of their claim, but considering they will want to get numbers down as far as possible and these cases will be low hanging fruit, I don't believe it.
I don't think it will discourage channel crossings unless the proper channel for claiming asylum is fair and transparent. The proper channel for an asylum claim states that your application may not be considered if you have travelled through a third country, which covers almost everybody.
This policy is a way to utilise the fact that we are an island and shield the UK from a migrant crisis that it has helped cause. If we are shielded from it, then it will not be a priority to work together internationally to fix the causes.
It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.
My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.
Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.
My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.
Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.
What a stretch of imagination it is to say that most people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum system. As someone else posted setting up a processing centre on French soil could be part of that and would take the traffickers out of the system or at least reduce down their activity to the small proportion of people who don't have their applications accepted. As this seems by far the biggest issue for you rather than the people arriving sounds like a winner for you.
Why a government pandering to people's wish for a good, decent, fair and compassionate asylum system would come up with gunboats in the Channel and forced expulsion to the middle of Africa when there are legal options being opened up rather than closed down is anyone's guess.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.
My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.
Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.
It isn't just about it 'working', taking a rocket launcher to the dinghy's half way across the channel would 'work' as a deterrent. It needs to also be a solution that we believe matches the ethos of the country we live in. I don't think the policy meets that requirement. Add that to the high financial cost, and the strong possibility that it won't reduce attempts and it is a no go for me.
The more I read the official agreement, the more it looks like the prime intention is to give the government political cover to start removing illegals without assessing their case fairly, i.e. their method of entry trumps their actual claim to asylum.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
What a stretch of imagination it is to say that most people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum system. As someone else posted setting up a processing centre on French soil could be part of that and would take the traffickers out of the system or at least reduce down their activity to the small proportion of people who don't have their applications accepted. As this seems by far the biggest issue for you rather than the people arriving sounds like a winner for you.
Why a government pandering to people's wish for a good, decent, fair and compassionate asylum system would come up with gunboats in the Channel and forced expulsion to the middle of Africa when there are legal options being opened up rather than closed down is anyone's guess.
As I've said before - Are France happy with your solution? Would it work? Do France want that on their soil? What happens to those who fail the process and travel on boats anyway. It's an idea, but Im not sure you're proposal works.
You do a disservice to the Navy when you speak of gunboats. Thats the kind of emotive language that removes this debate from reality into sensation.
No forced expulsions either, other than a consequence for doing something illegal and if you are in France you are in a safe country, so it's a decision people will have to make.
The long term solution of course is to make the world a more egalitarian place, I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Again, this needs sorting, especially with anticipated future global migration trends
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
As I've said before - Are France happy with your solution? Would it work? Do France want that on their soil? What happens to those who fail the process and travel on boats anyway. It's an idea, but Im not sure you're proposal works.
You do a disservice to the Navy when you speak of gunboats. Thats the kind of emotive language that removes this debate from reality into sensation.
No forced expulsions either, other than a consequence for doing something illegal and if you are in France you are in a safe country, so it's a decision people will have to make.
The long term solution of course is to make the world a more egalitarian place, I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Again, this needs sorting, especially with anticipated future global migration trends
Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work
Well that took all of 10 minutes with a calm head!
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Cartman
It isn't just about it 'working', taking a rocket launcher to the dinghy's half way across the channel would 'work' as a deterrent. It needs to also be a solution that we believe matches the ethos of the country we live in. I don't think the policy meets that requirement. Add that to the high financial cost, and the strong possibility that it won't reduce attempts and it is a no go for me.
The more I read the official agreement, the more it looks like the prime intention is to give the government political cover to start removing illegals without assessing their case fairly, i.e. their method of entry trumps their actual claim to asylum.
Completely agree with your first point. It has to fit our ethos. The current set up (which a disturbing number of people seem okay with in my opinion) isn't. It's unfair, favours the fitter or wealthier, is dangerous and enriches criminal gangs whilst creating unknown levels of migrants whom we then have to check, care for and ingratiate into society at not inconsiderable cost.
Doing the right thing DOES cost money, I dont mind that. Im proud we are one of the worlds biggest foreign aid donors even after the recent cut. But the point is we are NOT doing the right thing at the moment.
I think this is worth trying. No one forces anyone to come here, by definition they are in a safe country at the moment and there are legal means to coming to the country they can (and should) try.
None of us know if this policy will work, but I suspect it is worth trying and I wonder whether it is something other countries will do - we know already Denmark (centre left govt btw) is at least talking about this - does anyone know if their scheme is in operation and working?
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work
Well that took all of 10 minutes with a calm head!
It's only a few paragraphs old bean - and I didnt want to leave it more than ten minutes as I'm sure you want to read what I have to say before getting on and enjoying your easter sunday. And you claim i lack compassion! :shrug:
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
It's only a few paragraphs old bean - and I didnt want to leave it more than ten minutes as I'm sure you want to read what I have to say before getting on and enjoying your easter sunday. And you claim i lack compassion! :shrug:
Thought the point was to look at things rationally with that famed open mind of yours. My mistake. Enjoy the egg hunt!
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
Thought the point was to look at things rationally with that famed open mind of yours. My mistake. Enjoy the egg hunt!
I don't think those important principles require hour long breaks in-between..
Thanks, you too. I was up at 6am in my bunny outfit.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Thanks for illustrating my point so promptly. :thumbup:
But you say you don't care if it's left or right if it works. We've had an extreme right wing government for 12 years and literally everything is getting worse and every single post you make is defending it.
You site poor examples such as minimum wage going up while completely failing to understand that inflation has increased by far more so this shows that what you've said about following the best ideas as being compelte rubbish.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyril evans awaydays
Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work
Well that took all of 10 minutes with a calm head!
Think the UK have tried to talk with the French sadly they don't like us and have thier own racist views
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
Think the UK have tried to talk with the French sadly they don't like us and have thier own racist views
You probably missed that I cut and pasted your mates, James Wales views.
Having said that, I'm sure you have links in your social media to French racist views that hate the idea that natural born French are minorities in their cities as much as you do.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doucas
But you say you don't care if it's left or right if it works. We've had an extreme right wing government for 12 years and literally everything is getting worse and every single post you make is defending it.
You site poor examples such as minimum wage going up while completely failing to understand that inflation has increased by far more so this shows that what you've said about following the best ideas as being compelte rubbish.
Extreme right wing government for 12 years? That's a ridiculous statement and you know it. Pretty offensive to those in history that have genuinely suffered under extreme right-wing governments.
You aren't right on the one example given either- Minimum wage has increased at well above the rate of inflation in the last few years (and rightly so)O
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
It's interesting though. I was just pondering the successful extremes we have had in government in my lifetime. Probably from the left it was Harold Wilson's governments in the 70s. On the right Thatcher's 2nd administration after she purged the "wets" with Norman "on your bike" Tebbit took some beating.
I can't think of anything else that matches the cynical crowd we have today though, how about you?
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
They are being sent to Rwanda for an all expenses paid holiday in the sun while sumptuous accommodation is arranged for their return along with a full suite of welfare benefits.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Come on lads, FFS! Don't wonder why the government can't stop illegal immigration, ask why they are facilitating it.
The cute reasoning is May signed up to the UN's Global Compact for Migration. But that doesn't fly because it is non-binding.
The Fifth Columnists inside the UK, those MPs who wear different colour rosettes but play for the same side, have been implementing the Kalergi Plan for decades.
English Channel during 2020 - Nigel Farage witnesses illegal migrants entering British waters - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEW-nd2OsAo
Same location in 2021, nowt's changed - Nigel Farage spots migrant boat crossing English Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70yLMRUvX3I
Ask yourself why Nigel Farage has the energy to expose this caper when news crews from ITV, BBC, Channel 4 and 5 along with the aforementioned Fifth Columnists refuse to. It's the same reason why all those very carefully and deliberately omitted telling their constituents and viewers that the manufacturers of the clot shots enjoyed absolute financial indemnity for their 'safe' products... and that's because they didn't and still don't want people to know.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Completely agree with your first point. It has to fit our ethos. The current set up (which a disturbing number of people seem okay with in my opinion) isn't. It's unfair, favours the fitter or wealthier, is dangerous and enriches criminal gangs whilst creating unknown levels of migrants whom we then have to check, care for and ingratiate into society at not inconsiderable cost.
Doing the right thing DOES cost money, I dont mind that. Im proud we are one of the worlds biggest foreign aid donors even after the recent cut. But the point is we are NOT doing the right thing at the moment.
I think this is worth trying. No one forces anyone to come here, by definition they are in a safe country at the moment and there are legal means to coming to the country they can (and should) try.
None of us know if this policy will work, but I suspect it is worth trying and I wonder whether it is something other countries will do - we know already Denmark (centre left govt btw) is at least talking about this - does anyone know if their scheme is in operation and working?
Well depends how you define success. This pivots our immigration system to one whereby your method of entry is the key part of your claim, if you arrive illegally then your claim will not be assessed, despite the fact that the majority who arrive illegally and present themselves to the authorities are currently approved for asylum. This would be okay if the official channels weren't deliberately slow (and a cynic might say about to get a whole lot slower). We want to use the asylum process as a tool for virtue signalling British generosity rather than as a way to genuinely help those in need.
The other side of this is a barbarism of the proposed process. Under the agreement we shall present a list of names/details of illegal immigrants to the UK (the document doesn't mention a cut off so this could include people who entered the UK at any point) to Rwanda and they will pick who they will take. The person will then be given a short period of time to successfully appeal before being shipped off to Rwanda. At no point do they get asked if they want to go or whether they want to return to their country of origin. At no point does the person's claim to asylum get assessed.
It isn't clear if this will reduce channel crossings but I think you could be pretty sure it will reduce the likelihood of anybody who is here illegally willingly interacting with an institution of the state (i.e. reporting a crime, attending a hospital for urgent medical care).
I think you need to be very clear about what you are supporting here:
- It ensures that the UK will help less genuine asylum seekers than before.
- It allows for people who arrive (or have previously arrived) illegally to be forcibly deported without their claim to asylum being assessed.
- There is no evidence it will reduce human trafficking.
- It incentivises illegal entrants to not interact with society, increasing the likelihood of them being taken advantage of.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Extreme right wing government for 12 years? That's a ridiculous statement and you know it. Pretty offensive to those in history that have genuinely suffered under extreme right-wing governments.
(and rightly so)O
So you're just going to ignore austerity deaths, covid deaths (right wing countries had worse death rate than lefts ones) nevermind the dramatic increase in poverty over the past 12 years then?
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doucas
So you're just going to ignore austerity deaths, covid deaths (right wing countries had worse death rate than lefts ones) nevermind the dramatic increase in poverty over the past 12 years then?
Sorry? What? Start again. You have just mentioned a few random (but important) cherry picked stats there and not delved into them at all, whilst of course not mentioned a great many random (but important) stats on other topics.
I'm not arguing whether left or right-wing governments handled Covid better, because I don't view things through that binary narrow spectrum. Equally, I'm not arguing whether Catholic or Protestent countries handled it better, or capitalist or communist countries. I strongly suspect that no clear pattern emerged and in terms of Covid restrictions, they don't fit easily into a left/right scale anyway as all, in normal times, were extremely authoritarian.
My point is that you said Britain has had an extreme right-wing government for 12 years, which is clearly absolutely nonsense and clear hyperbole even for this board.
It's fine, we all exaggerate, but no need to double down on it
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Sorry? What? Start again. You have just mentioned a few random (but important) cherry picked stats there and not delved into them at all, whilst of course not mentioned a great many random (but important) stats on other topics.
I'm not arguing whether left or right-wing governments handled Covid better, because I don't view things through that binary narrow spectrum. Equally, I'm not arguing whether Catholic or Protestent countries handled it better, or capitalist or communist countries. I strongly suspect that no clear pattern emerged and in terms of Covid restrictions, they don't fit easily into a left/right scale anyway as all, in normal times, were extremely authoritarian.
My point is that you said Britain has had an extreme right-wing government for 12 years, which is clearly absolutely nonsense and clear hyperbole even for this board.
It's fine, we all exaggerate, but no need to double down on it
It isn't though is it. The current government are extreme right wing e.g. priviatise everything, send assylum seekers to Rwanda, you're absolutely deluded if you think otherwise. I then provided facts to show people have suffered under this extreme right wing government.
Honestly if you were Russian you'd defend Putin.
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
I've tried reading through some of the replies , apologies if I missed the straight answer to the OP as there are so many moving goalposts, is the question too tough ??
Again would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwanda Solution????
Simple yes or no will do instead of the usual personal attacks .
-
Re: Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by
life on mars
I've tried reading through some of the replies , apologies if I missed the straight answer to the OP as there are so many moving goalposts, is the question too tough ??
Again would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwanda Solution????
Simple yes or no will do instead of the usual personal attacks .
Were the replies too difficult to understand?
Yes although there isn't really anything to reverse yet.