This flight to Rwanda

[+ the native hipster]

There’s loads of British folk who move abroad, there’s even TV programmes dedicated to them. Got a genteel name for them as well...ex-pats, they don’t mix with the locals, they attempt to create a little UK in the sun.....every time ex-pat is uttered on the box I shout immigrant. I’m wrong though I s’pose, they’re white.

They return to these shores every now and again though for doctor’s appointments or various other NHS things.

do the brits [whites] abroad get to decide what films are shown in their new country?

[Eric the Half a Bee]

do the brits [whites] abroad get to decide what films are shown in their new country?

Do immigrants here get that luxury?

[+ the native hipster]

Do immigrants here get that luxury?

errr lady of heaven?

[splott parker]

do the brits [whites] abroad get to decide what films are shown in their new country?

Yep, on the campsites, a different ‘Carry On’ between housey housey sessions

[blue matt]

There’s loads of British folk who move abroad, there’s even TV programmes dedicated to them. Got a genteel name for them as well...ex-pats, they don’t mix with the locals, they attempt to create a little UK in the sun.....every time ex-pat is uttered on the box I shout immigrant. I’m wrong though I s’pose, they’re white.

They return to these shores every now and again though for doctor’s appointments or various other NHS things.

Every country has ex-pats, its not a British thing, the Chinese have " China town " in various cities around the world

When I Lived in Sydney, you had communities of ex-pats from various countries, I was involved in the Lebanese community as I was dating the daughter of a Lebanese immigrant, it was very tight knit, the older generation refused to speak to me, would often abuse me in arabic, it was funny, I would be abused by them for being white and she was abused by Australians for not being white still makes me chuckle

[lardy]

I would be interested to know if posters think there should be limit to what the UK can take in. Or should we just say balls to it lets just ferry everyone in who wants to be British.

In all the threads like this, I've never seen anyone who thinks there should be no border or immigration policy. Nobody thinks we should let absolutely anybody in.

[Dorcus]

Spot on Eric. This "native Brit" thing is utterly vacuous.

Here's a question I always like (apologies for the dates being a tad approximate) - how many people ("native Brits", I suspect, in the parlance of 'Lither') were there at 10,000BCE on the British Isles? The answer is precisely zero. The British Isles were believed to have been completely uninhabitable during the last ice age when the channel froze and vast ice sheets covered northern Europe. So, I'd say there are no "native Brits". It's an utterly vacuous and stupid idea. All British people are, by definition, immigrants.

However, let's carry on with the nutty concept to show how ridiculous it is even if you bend it a little. How many on here have done one of the popular DNA family history tests? And of that tested group, how many had 100% British DNA in their results? The answer is none of course. British DNA is an amazing and diverse mixture drawn from wave upon wave of immigration, conquest and railways (if you don't know the way the advent of railways in the C19th led to a much more diverse gene pool, have a Google).

There is no "native British" race, there is no white race, there is no Welsh race. Surprisingly, there is only one race - human - and we are all equal under the sun whether the numbnuts racists posting on here like it or not.

Spot on, there is only one race...Homo Sapiens. It might be that people will only eventually realise this when we get to meet an alien life form. All this bickering over skin colour is tedious and unnecessary. We've all got much more to be worried about and we should all stick together to address these issues.

[JamesWales]

I'm amazed that this thread has descended into:

1 - some actual racism
2 - lots of accusations of racism
3 - zero solutions

[Rjk]

I'm amazed that this thread has descended into:

1 - some actual racism
2 - lots of accusations of racism
3 - zero solutions

solution :

setup a British centre in Calais where people can apply for asylum before they cross the border, and if it is granted arrange safe transport for them.

[JamesWales]

solution :

setup a British centre in Calais where people can apply for asylum before they cross the border, and if it is granted arrange safe transport for them.

Does Macron support this? What if those who fail or are tired of waiting still sail to the UK anyway?

[OurManFlint II]

I'm amazed that this thread has descended into:

1 - some actual racism
2 - lots of accusations of racism
3 - zero solutions

Maybe properly establish it's actually a problem that needs a solution. Given this ill thought through plan, its seems clear to me that it's not a massive concern, they just needed a few column inches to keep people like you happy so hatched this sh1t show.

[the other bob wilson]

Maybe properly establish it's actually a problem that needs a solution. Given this ill thought through plan, its seems clear to me that it's not a massive concern, they just needed a few column inches to keep people like you happy so hatched this sh1t show.

Two by elections this week.

[JamesWales]

Maybe properly establish it's actually a problem that needs a solution. Given this ill thought through plan, its seems clear to me that it's not a massive concern, they just needed a few column inches to keep people like you happy so hatched this sh1t show.

Shocking as it may seem, but different people have different concerns, and are capable of thinking about more than one thing at once. I think it's reasonable to object to what's been happening tbh.

[OurManFlint II]

Shocking as it may seem, but different people have different concerns, and are capable of thinking about more than one thing at once. I think it's reasonable to object to what's been happening tbh.

i-m not sure what you mean, sorry.

[az city]

I'm amazed that this thread has descended into:

1 - some actual racism
2 - lots of accusations of racism
3 - zero solutions

Morning Jimbo.

I don't see anything "amazing" about 1 and 2. In fact, 2 occurring as a result of 1 is clearly logical and expected.

What I am amazed by is everyone just letting you get away with your nutty critique of the Rwanda disgrace by implicitly claiming it's acceptable because nobody has a "better" alternative. You know and I know that is BS.

Evaluate the policy at hand on its merits alone. The Rwanda disgrace is completely unacceptable on so many levels.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Morning Jimbo.

I don't see anything "amazing" about 1 and 2. In fact, 2 occurring as a result of 1 is clearly logical and expected.

What I am amazed by is everyone just letting you get away with your nutty critique of the Rwanda disgrace by implicitly claiming it's acceptable because nobody has a "better" alternative. You know and I know that is BS.

Evaluate the policy at hand on its merits alone. The Rwanda disgrace is completely unacceptable on so many levels.

Absolutely.

Talking about a separate issue, it is often thought that Wales gets a bad deal from the UK in terms of the Barnett formula, dished out by England. My solution is to burn and kill every Englishman. Some might be outraged, but nobody has a better alternative, this should seem perfectly acceptable.....

[JamesWales]

Absolutely.

Talking about a separate issue, it is often thought that Wales gets a bad deal from the UK in terms of the Barnett formula, dished out by England. My solution is to burn and kill every Englishman. Some might be outraged, but nobody has a better alternative, this should seem perfectly acceptable.....

Except, many people have viable alternatives, such as renegiating the Barnett formula is probably a better deal, and is doable. Of course, Wales actually gets significantly more than it puts in from the UK central pot. Not that that makes every element of the Barnett formula ideal. Scotland gets a much better deal of course.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Except, many people have viable alternatives, such as renegiating the Barnett formula is probably a better deal, and is doable. Of course, Wales actually gets significantly more than it puts in from the UK central pot. Not that that makes every element of the Barnett formula ideal. Scotland gets a much better deal of course.

There we are. Kill the English. We still don't have a viable alternative.

[JamesWales]

Morning Jimbo.

I don't see anything "amazing" about 1 and 2. In fact, 2 occurring as a result of 1 is clearly logical and expected.

What I am amazed by is everyone just letting you get away with your nutty critique of the Rwanda disgrace by implicitly claiming it's acceptable because nobody has a "better" alternative. You know and I know that is BS.

Evaluate the policy at hand on its merits alone. The Rwanda disgrace is completely unacceptable on so many levels.

No it isn't. Calling a burglar a burglar is legitimate. Calling everyone a burglar isn't. It is perfectly legitimate to object to the current state of affairs, and think it's a policy worth trying. As usual, the language of those who oppose it is hyperbolic and defamatory to mask an absence of any viable alternative.

Why is it BS? This isn't kindergarten, or some lecture theatre where rich lecturers preach theories to rich students. This is real life. Adults should be able to discuss a policy and come up with solutions.

The current situation benefits rich migrants from safe countries over those perhaps more in need from warzones. It enriches criminal gangs who rarely use their proceeds for good causes and places a significant burden on the UK taxpayer to house, feed and process a presumably almost limitless number of people.

So yes, offer an alternative solution if you are so determined that this policy is wrong.

[Eric Cartman]

No it isn't. Calling a burglar a burglar is legitimate. Calling everyone a burglar isn't. It is perfectly legitimate to object to the current state of affairs, and think it's a policy worth trying. As usual, the language of those who oppose it is hyperbolic and defamatory to mask an absence of any viable alternative.

Why is it BS? This isn't kindergarten, or some lecture theatre where rich lecturers preach theories to rich students. This is real life. Adults should be able to discuss a policy and come up with solutions.

The current situation benefits rich migrants from safe countries over those perhaps more in need from warzones. It enriches criminal gangs who rarely use their proceeds for good causes and places a significant burden on the UK taxpayer to house, feed and process a presumably almost limitless number of people.

So yes, offer an alternative solution if you are so determined that this policy is wrong.

Isn't the obvious alternative just to make the legal route better? The fact that the vast majority of people entering illegally would obtain asylum status legally should tell you that the legal system is too slow or too hard to access. So speed it up or make it easier to access. Does this policy fix that? If not then all you are ensuring is to reduce the number of asylum seekers we take as a country.

The reason people use hyperbolic language to describe the policy is because unfortunately in relative terms, this is an extreme response and for a lot of people, crosses into uncomfortable territory. Which begs the question, how extreme would Patel's policy need to be for you to think it wasn't 'worth trying'? Presumably you have a line over which we shouldn't step. What if this deterrent doesn't work, how would you step it up a notch?

[JamesWales]

Isn't the obvious alternative just to make the legal route better? The fact that the vast majority of people entering illegally would obtain asylum status legally should tell you that the legal system is too slow or too hard to access. So speed it up or make it easier to access. Does this policy fix that? If not then all you are ensuring is to reduce the number of asylum seekers we take as a country.

The reason people use hyperbolic language to describe the policy is because unfortunately in relative terms, this is an extreme response and for a lot of people, crosses into uncomfortable territory. Which begs the question, how extreme would Patel's policy need to be for you to think it wasn't 'worth trying'? Presumably you have a line over which we shouldn't step. What if this deterrent doesn't work, how would you step it up a notch?

Not necessarily, because that could lead to very high numbers, as there are an awful lot of political opponents or people otherwise eligible for asylum in many countries who may wish to make Britain home.

Without some kind of rules and sensible management, the situation quickly becomes totally unsustainable and the public lose faith, especially when they are facing financial crisis of their own.

In answer to your question, I think this is a pretty unprecedented situation that requires a pretty unprecedented solution. I would support the UK taking more from warzones or proper channels. It's the means they arrive and our inability to do anything about it that is the issue

It amazes me how people see no issue at all. Naivity causes a lot of it I guess, and the fact a lot of people want the current govt to fail so are content for any crisis to help do that.

[az city]

No it isn't. Calling a burglar a burglar is legitimate. Calling everyone a burglar isn't. It is perfectly legitimate to object to the current state of affairs, and think it's a policy worth trying. As usual, the language of those who oppose it is hyperbolic and defamatory to mask an absence of any viable alternative.

Why is it BS? This isn't kindergarten, or some lecture theatre where rich lecturers preach theories to rich students. This is real life. Adults should be able to discuss a policy and come up with solutions.

The current situation benefits rich migrants from safe countries over those perhaps more in need from warzones. It enriches criminal gangs who rarely use their proceeds for good causes and places a significant burden on the UK taxpayer to house, feed and process a presumably almost limitless number of people.

So yes, offer an alternative solution if you are so determined that this policy is wrong.

Jimbo, I've looked at your answer and given it an 'F'.

The question asks us to evaluate the Rwanda policy on its singular merits.

You keep invoking a response to an alternative question which might invite candidates to examine the comparative merits of the Rwanda policy. That is a different question.

(P.S. What's your problem with people in higher education? One begins to suspect you're one of those Tory anti-expert types.)

[JamesWales]

Jimbo, I've looked at your answer and given it an 'F'.

The question asks us to evaluate the Rwanda policy on its singular merits.

You keep invoking a response to an alternative question which might invite candidates to examine the comparative merits of the Rwanda policy. That is a different question.

(P.S. What's your problem with people in higher education? One begins to suspect you're one of those Tory anti-expert types.)

AZ, as mentioned, I would suggest the merits in trying this are (in no particular order) to stop enriching criminal gangs and people traffickers, reduce illegal immigration, restore faith in the system, allow the most needy to be prioritised first, demonstrate that we have a system in place that can remove people who travel from safe countries (because otherwise we have to theoretically accept anyone who travels) and to reduce the long term costs of caring for and processing peoples applications. It's about building a system the British tax payer has faith in.

None of us know for sure how a policy will operate in practice, but I would suggest it is worth trying, because the current situation is failing - it allows wealthier migrants from a safe country to effectively jump the queue, and we have to have some kind of limit of numbers that the country can take - being able to reduce the flow is critical. Australia have tried a similar method, which I gather has largely worked, and we know other countries are looking at it. I don't consider it inhumane, and I think it's worth trying.

No issue with higher education (I have an MSc and my GCSE's). I was just stressing that this is real politik, not theory, which I know you favour, as it is happening as we type.

Thanks for the F, (to a question you seem to have asked subsequently) though I sense you base your marks on how much people agree with you, so I am happy to receive it and I'm glad I dont have to pay the university fees either ;)

[cyril evans awaydays]

I'm amazed that this thread has descended into:

1 - some actual racism
2 - lots of accusations of racism
3 - zero solutions

Explain what the problem you are seeking a solution for again.

[JamesWales]

Explain what the problem you are seeking a solution for again.

Illegal immigration, exploitation of the asylum system, criminal gangs, dangerous crossings, cost of dealing with it all when the country has enormous domestic problems of its own, potential sowing of discord as a result of the above.