This flight to Rwanda

[Lither_1927]

Most sensible people will accept there is a problem but not one of them, including myself, can suggest a viable alternative. Some say set up an asylum processing centre in France. What then happens to those who fail the asylum process? Deport them to their point of origin some say. But the country at their point of origin may refuse to have them back or worse still the seekers will have destroyed their papers meaning they are effectively stateless. It seems it all comes back to the Rwanda solution as the least worse option unless we are content to allow things to continue as they are.

If we started deporting them the whole racquet would end within months, they'd stop coming.

[Rjk]

If we started deporting them the whole racquet would end within months, they'd stop coming.

based on what?

[Lither_1927]

Fair do’s Sludgie boy. Is there anyone you don’t know 😂

He chooses to live in a white ethno town. 99.9% white.
why he feels he can lecture others about taking on mass immigration i don't know. He's either a very dedicated wind up merchant or a bit tapped in the head

[Lither_1927]

based on what?

Based on basic economics of supply and demand. These economic migrants only began coming when the word got out that Western Europe was a soft touch.This phenomenon only began in a massive way during the 90s.

[jon1959]

'the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members'

It's hard to see how anyone can support this other than those so emotionally damaged that they take pleasure from hurting those who are worse off .Unfortunately now that Johnson is under pressure he will need to appeal more and more to the nutters on the back benches. Hopefully it's the death throes of a dead duck prime minister and his cult of wierdos but who knows how long it will continue with this awful lot.

Still, let's not criticise because the ex,ex,ex,ex leader of labour once thought about a similar policy for half an hour decades ago so let's just shout whatabout instead. It's a tragedy that the current Labour party are unable to condemn this scheme too heavily, other than for a cost reason, but the fact that they have to be careful to always appeal to Sun readers shows just who runs this country.

The idea that this would stop anyone from trying to get to the UK (often to be with their family) is a joke. It's already a journey which involves significant risk of harm/death so why would a 1 in godknows how big a number chance of being sent to Rwanda put anyone off ?

Claiming moral high ground? TICK
Anyone who thinks differently is a nutter? TICK
Defending Corbyn? TICK
Random comment on the Sun? TICK
Total absence of understanding of the issue? TICK
Total absence of any viable solution? TICK

JamesWales being an arse? TICK

[the other bob wilson]

If you genuinely believe Jeremy Corbyn was an anti semite then you are a victim of the MSM witch hunt to such a degree, that there isn't much hope for you as an independentcritical thinker.

All these people on this thread virtue signalling, if you want Britain to become a third world country. Keep importing the 3rd world. Hopefully you can house some in your spare bedrooms in your white ethno towns that you CHOOSE to live in.
We are taking in an immigrant population over the size of Cardiff each year, so unless you want to start concreting over the green belt, something has to give. As for this Rwanda stunt, it's exactly that. A stunt. Boris let in 1 million migrants last year. He's a joke who is making fools of white working class folk who are most affected by mass immigration.

Yay, bonus points for the use of the cliches virtue signalling and independent/critical thinker.

I said there was a problem under Corbyn, not that he’s an anti Semite - I don’t think it’s quite the same thing.

Agree about the use of the word stunt to describe the Rwanda sideshow.

[Vindec]

If we started deporting them the whole racquet would end within months, they'd stop coming.

Sadly most haven't got papers as they are told to destroy or are confiscated by the traffickers meaning there is nowhere to deport them to. Nobody has yet come up with a viable solution.

[life on mars]

You forgot "nationalise the railways" and "the government paying wages instead of businesses".

Wait, sorry. They were socialist policies that you said you wanted

Glad there is an acceptance of reality and humour in you reply everything I listed would be sizable to fund on top of the 400 billion already spent , plus the fuel subsidy support on its way , we need to cut taxes , for people , and business not chuck more subsidy around it will fire the inflation , qwhat is good is that unemployment is incredibly low .

[life on mars]

JamesWales being an arse? TICK

Rude Socialist reply instead of debate ( tick )

[JamesWales]

JamesWales being an arse? TICK

Thanks hun.

I do understand that the void where solutions can be written has to be filled with something and typically that is an ad hominem attack.

[caerkid]

There's little morality in just criticising a proposal and offering nothing in return IMO

Funnily enough my morals feel fine with which side of the 'dont send trafficked people to Rwanda' argument I'm standing on.

You say I'm taking the high ground but an ant's dangly bits couldn't get lower than our government on this one.

[jon1959]

Rude Socialist reply instead of debate ( tick )

I am just quoting JamesWales own words back to him. You remember surely - from the Politics Board just a few days ago where James and Dry Cleaning were doing their Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dories double act, and you were doing your best Michael Fabricant impression as back up.

As for debate, it is clear that illegal migration is a problem (for the migrants as well) with no easy solutions. Especially as the migrants are a mix of people looking for a better life and those who have suffered threats and torture. I would be on the side of the argument that focusses on prevention more than cure. Brutal regimes (sometimes backed by our government and allies), shattered economies (often in the Middle East following NATO attacks), dysfunctional international relationships that hinder joint action (increasingly with the EU), and a lack of resources to target the criminal gangs smuggling people - migrants, asylum seekers and trafficked women and children - go for the dealers before the users.

What I wouldn't jump on and defend is a cynical deflection policy of removing people without a fair or legal process (see posts above) that is massively expensive, cobbled together as red meat for Tory voters, and places vulnerable people in legal or administrative limbo on a different continent through a contract with a state that is still accused of human rights abuses. At least the ECRH has put a temporary stop on this - and prevented a 54 year old Iraqi torture victim being used as a prop in the Tory culture wars!

[Lither_1927]

Funnily enough my morals feel fine with which side of the 'dont send trafficked people to Rwanda' argument I'm standing on.

You say I'm taking the high ground but an ant's dangly bits couldn't get lower than our government on this one.

These trafficked people are paying 5.000 pounds a go and they're coming from a safe secure country. They are economic migrants chancing their arm.
And they're massively encouraged by NGOs funded by Jewish Billionaire Soros and Co

[JamesWales]

I am just quoting JamesWales own words back to him. You remember surely - from the Politics Board just a few days ago where James and Dry Cleaning were doing their Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dories double act, and you were doing your best Michael Fabricant impression as back up.

As for debate, it is clear that illegal migration is a problem (for the migrants as well) with no easy solutions. Especially as the migrants are a mix of people looking for a better life and those who have suffered threats and torture. I would be on the side of the argument that focusses on prevention more than cure. Brutal regimes (sometimes backed by our government and allies), shattered economies (often in the Middle East following NATO attacks), dysfunctional international relationships that hinder joint action (increasingly with the EU), and a lack of resources to target the criminal gangs smuggling people - migrants, asylum seekers and trafficked women and children - go for the dealers before the users.

What I wouldn't jump on and defend is a cynical deflection policy of removing people without a fair or legal process (see posts above) that is massively expensive, cobbled together as red meat for Tory voters, and places vulnerable people in legal or administrative limbo on a different continent through a contract with a state that is still accused of human rights abuses. At least the ECRH has put a temporary stop on this - and prevented a 54 year old Iraqi torture victim being used as a prop in the Tory culture wars!

Expensive! Don't make me laugh! We are, correct me if I am wrong, spending nearly £5m a day to house people coming from a safe country (from the blessed EU no less!) who are rich enough to jump the queue and fund criminal gangs to get here ahead of other people who apply legally.

That's £35m a week, when the country supposedly cannot afford a hundred other things.

This is an extremely complex situation, that is true, and we have to have empathy and clearly prevention is better than cure, correct, but we are where we are and the situation needs sorting because the situation is being massively exploited.

From what I can see, as a floating voter, one side are trying to sort it. The other are offering zero solutions and filling that gap with insults at those who are at least offering them.

[Rjk]

Expensive! Don't make me laugh! We are, correct me if I am wrong, spending nearly £5m a day to house people coming from a safe country (from the blessed EU no less!) who are rich enough to jump the queue and fund criminal gangs to get here ahead of other people who apply legally.

That's £35m a week, when the country supposedly cannot afford a hundred other things.

This is an extremely complex situation, that is true, and we have to have empathy and clearly prevention is better than cure, correct, but we are where we are and the situation needs sorting because the situation is being massively exploited.

From what I can see, as a floating voter, one side are trying to sort it. The other are offering zero solutions and filling that gap with insults at those who are at least offering them.

floating voter??

[Undercoverinwurzelland]

These trafficked people are paying 5.000 pounds a go and they're coming from a safe secure country. They are economic migrants chancing their arm.
And they're massively encouraged by NGOs funded by Jewish Billionaire Soros and Co

Ah, there we have it - blame the Jews.

[JamesWales]

floating voter??

Yeah. I split my vote in the last local elections.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Yeah. I split my vote in the last local elections.

Ukip and Tory?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Fair do’s Sludgie boy. Is there anyone you don’t know 😂

I know stanni , for that is his name , very well

[JamesWales]

Ukip and Tory?

Tory and Labour.

The fact that I debate with far-left people and those who view things completely in black and white terms on here when I think they are wrong doesn't mean I don't recognise there are fine Labour councillors and a sensible party there beneath it all.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

He chooses to live in a white ethno town. 99.9% white.
why he feels he can lecture others about taking on mass immigration i don't know. He's either a very dedicated wind up merchant or a bit tapped in the head

I am moving soon . I might move in next door to you 😏

[Lither_1927]

I am moving soon . I might move in next door to you 😏

Haha
Cowbridge not white enough for you any more?

[Lither_1927]

Ah, there we have it - blame the Jews.

Jews are generally big proponents of immigration into Europe and America, they openly boast about it. Yet they don't want immigration into Isreal which has extremely strict immigration laws.
Here's a quote from Barbara Learner Spectre, a very influential Jewish advocate of mass immigration.

"Europa has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and jews will be resented for our leading role”

[Rjk]

Jews are generally big proponents of immigration into Europe and America, they openly boast about it. Yet they don't want immigration into Isreal which has extremely strict immigration laws.
Here's a quote from Barbara Learner Spectre, a very influential Jewish advocate of mass immigration.

"Europa has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and jews will be resented for our leading role”

and so he doubles down with some more anti semitism

[Lither_1927]

and so he doubles down with some more anti semitism

I'm not being anti semitic.
What have i said that's inaccurate?

How is it anti semetic to say Jews are big advocates of mass immigration. When the adjoining quote confirms it?