Politics

[fatolive]

15 minutes ago, royal white said:

Yes I get that, but in general, not just asylum, immigration. We have folk coming from all over the world. Your usual clowns like Nic thing they’re all coming from war zones. They’re not. People from these countries are trying to enter illegally when they can start the process back home 

We do, but not generally on the dinghies . 98% claim asylum ( not sure how many are successful) 

most come from countries at war or with known persecution regimes , all valid reasons for asylum. 
home office figures (2018-21)

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-migrants-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/

 

[fatolive]

10 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

How many people are we supposed to bring into the country?  We have a government voted into power to reduce immigration, sadly we cannot cure all the worlds ills, we are already one of the most populated countries in Europe and it’s vitally important that we manage immigration so that first and foremost those here are looked after. 

Bit we are taking people from Rwanda in exchange aren’t we? 
we aren’t really reducing the numbers . 

[royal white]

4 minutes ago, fatolive said:

We do, but not generally on the dinghies . 98% claim asylum ( not sure how many are successful) 

most come from countries at war or with known persecution regimes , all valid reasons for asylum. 
home office figures (2018-21)

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-migrants-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/

 

Most people I would think aren’t to bothered about folk coming from war zones. It’s all the other countries where 1000s are coming from. If they’re trying to get in through the back door then straight away it should cause concern. Why wouldn’t they apply at home? Why are they risking their lives to get here? (not just dinghies, but as stowaways) and why do people here want to help them? 

[Mounts Kipper]

6 minutes ago, fatolive said:

Bit we are taking people from Rwanda in exchange aren’t we? 
we aren’t really reducing the numbers . 

We are taking folk in exchange, the deal with Rwanda is an attempt to deter folk from trying to cross the channel. That way folk can come from managed channels. I repeat my earlier question how many folk are we going to allow into the country? It cannot be an open ended number, something needs to change. 

[Judge Fudge]

If England was a war zone, I’d use whatever money I had available to pay the people smugglers to get my children to a safe country. I wouldn’t leave them behind.

 

My missus and kids would be the first to leave to safety.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Judge Fudge

[fatolive]

2 minutes ago, royal white said:

Most people I would think aren’t to bothered about folk coming from war zones. It’s all the other countries where 1000s are coming from. If they’re trying to get in through the back door then straight away it should cause concern. Why wouldn’t they apply at home? Why are they risking their lives to get here? (not just dinghies, but as stowaways) and why do people here want to help them? 

Don’t think they do mate, think it’s the genuine ones people are concerned about 

if we reverse your post, why are people happy that we are sending genuine asylum seekers who have risked their lives to get here? 

 The fact whether they are genuine or not is determined in Rwanda , where they’ll then stay if they are. 
we are not just sending illegal immigrants we are sending genuine asylum seekers, sending them to a place where our own government complained on human rights grounds about peoples treatment 
 

then we bring in some from Rwanda 

just doesn’t sit right with me and doesn’t make sense either, though agree with stopping the dinghies somehow, I just don’t think this is the way .

 

[fatolive]

2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

We are taking folk in exchange, the deal with Rwanda is an attempt to deter folk from trying to cross the channel. That way folk can come from managed channels. I repeat my earlier question how many folk are we going to allow into the country? It cannot be an open ended number, something needs to change. 

Aye I know, that’s why I said we are not reducing them but think at cross purposes 

in fairness, yes the fact the government are exchanging them could show that it is the dinghie issue they’re trying to stop and not immigrants per se 

but still not comfortable with sending genuine ones to Rwanda  

[royal white]

2 minutes ago, fatolive said:

Don’t think they do mate, think it’s the genuine ones people are concerned about 

if we reverse your post, why are people happy that we are sending genuine asylum seekers who have risked their lives to get here? 

 The fact whether they are genuine or not is determined in Rwanda , where they’ll then stay if they are. 
we are not just sending illegal immigrants we are sending genuine asylum seekers, sending them to a place where our own government complained on human rights grounds about peoples treatment 
 

then we bring in some from Rwanda 

just doesn’t sit right with me and doesn’t make sense either, though agree with stopping the dinghies somehow, I just don’t think this is the way .

 

That’s what I said, most people wouldn’t be to bothered about folk coming from war zones. But why are people illegally trying to get here from Turkey? Egypt? Albania? Vietnam? Pakistan? No one is answering this question. They can start the process at home, they’re not though. Now ask yourself why are they not

[fatolive]

Just now, royal white said:

That’s what I said, most people wouldn’t be to bothered about folk coming from war zones. But why are people illegally trying to get here from Turkey? Egypt? Albania? Vietnam? Pakistan? No one is answering this question. They can start the process at home, they’re not though. Now ask yourself why are they not

but they’re not the ones on the dinghies in the main , according to this anyway, so if those nationalities are coming they still will even without the dinghies 

[royal white]

2 minutes ago, fatolive said:

but they’re not the ones on the dinghies in the main , according to this anyway, so if those nationalities are coming they still will even without the dinghies 

But they were the ones due on last nights flight. 

[fatolive]

3 minutes ago, royal white said:

But they were the ones due on last nights flight. 

I don’t know who was on it to be honest ,  thought some of the first were from Syria ? but you can claim asylum for loads of reasons other than fleeing war zones and there’s loads of reasons why you couldn’t start it at home 

it’s the fact the general process is we are processing them in Rwanda and won’t know if they're genuine or not that doesn’t sit right with me . 

[Ani]

I have been drinking but one question for people supporting this approach to flying people to Rwanda.

Would we have this approach if Boris had not been caught partying during lockdown ? 
 

Be honest. 
 

I said it before we have a PM whose position is so untenable but desperate to hold on he would do and say anything. We are in terms of political policy a step away from monkey tennis and smell my cheese. 

[royal white]

1 minute ago, fatolive said:

I don’t know who was on it to be honest ,  thought some of the first were from Syria ? but you can claim asylum for loads of reasons other than fleeing war zones and there’s loads of reasons why you couldn’t start it at home 

it’s the fact the general process is we are processing them in Rwanda and won’t know if they're genuine or not that doesn’t sit right with me . 

Already refused? Criminal? 
 

What else

[fatolive]

Just now, royal white said:

Already refused? Criminal? 
 

What else

Need to get out , enemy of the regime , political undesirable , wrong religion , fear of prison for beliefs ,anti government sentiment .

Just few that can land you in trouble  in the countries you named, think the list for asylum claim reasons is available 

even Julian Asange claimed asylum , he was from Australia I think? America maybe 

 

[Nowack]

5 minutes ago, Ani said:

I have been drinking but one question for people supporting this approach to flying people to Rwanda.

Would we have this approach if Boris had not been caught partying during lockdown ? 
 

Be honest. 
 

I said it before we have a PM whose position is so untenable but desperate to hold on he would do and say anything. We are in terms of political policy a step away from monkey tennis and smell my cheese. 

Minister on Newsnight basically admitted it was about getting votes at the next election.

[royal white]

9 minutes ago, fatolive said:

Need to get out , enemy of the regime , political undesirable , wrong religion , fear of prison for beliefs ,anti government sentiment .

Just few that can land you in trouble  in the countries you named, think the list for asylum claim reasons is available 

even Julian Asange claimed asylum , he was from Australia I think? America maybe 

 

So then come to the U.K. legally first. Don’t pay some criminal gang 1000s to get here illegally. 
 

Albanians need a tourist visa. So There’s no need for them to enter illegally is there. Same with the other nationalities mentioned.

 

https://www.ivisa.com/united-kingdom-blog/united-kingdom-standard-visitor-visa-for-citizens-of-albania

Edited June 15, 2022 by royal white

[fatolive]

1 minute ago, royal white said:

So then come to the U.K. legally first. Don’t pay some criminal gang 1000s to get here illegally. 

How would you get here ? And define legally .
bear in mind that getting here anyway possible isn’t illegal if you are an asylum seeker 

 

[royal white]

3 minutes ago, fatolive said:

How would you get here ? And define legally .
bear in mind that getting here anyway possible isn’t illegal if you are an asylum seeker 

 

Get a tourist visa and get on a plane.  

[mickbrown]

2 hours ago, Casino said:

Im fairly sure thats a dail mail, FACT

Indeed.

Otherwise known as absolute bollocks.

[fatolive]

2 minutes ago, royal white said:

Get a tourist visa and get on a plane.  

Not sure if that’s a serious answer or sarcastic but either way the beds calling so I’ll leave it there 

 

[mickbrown]

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

There is no right or wrong in who you choose to vote for, just a different opinion as to what each individual wants from government, the Tory party currently are acting on immigration as per their manifesto and what they were voted in to do, and by the way I didn’t vote for them either. 

Could you point me to the word 'Rwanda' in the manifesto please?

Ta very much.

 

[royal white]

Just now, fatolive said:

Not sure if that’s a serious answer or sarcastic but either way the beds calling so I’ll leave it there 

 

Of course it’s serious, I’ve added a link above for visa applications to get in the U.K. it’s a simple process and a lot cheaper than the criminal route. There’s no reason for people from many of the countries I have mentioned to be here illegally unless they have a chequered past. 

[mickbrown]

24 minutes ago, Nowack said:

Minister on Newsnight basically admitted it was about getting votes at the next election.

Looks like it's a vote winner for a few on here.

[mickbrown]

59 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

We are taking folk in exchange, the deal with Rwanda is an attempt to deter folk from trying to cross the channel. That way folk can come from managed channels. I repeat my earlier question how many folk are we going to allow into the country? It cannot be an open ended number, something needs to change. 

So we're bringing fewer back than we are sending out?

[fatolive]

2 minutes ago, royal white said:

Of course it’s serious, I’ve added a link above for visa applications to get in the U.K. it’s a simple process and a lot cheaper than the criminal route. There’s no reason for people from many of the countries I have mentioned to be here illegally unless they have a chequered past. 

Not illegal if they’re asylum seekers mate that’s the point 

You want people to get a visa and then claim asylum when they get here ?