The 'Boat' People & Immigration

[horsefly 4,310]

5 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

 

Again, you’ve provided nothing to compare those financial figures to so we can’t say just how expensive the system is compared to letting those people stay in Australia while their cases are heard (as well as the hassle you then have trying to expel those whose claims are rejected).

Also comparing the offshore processing of people who have illegally entered another country to the crimes committed by the Third Reich and the Russians is extremely hyperbolic, and makes me suspect your main problem with the policy is the fact it’s a Tory one 

Nonsense repeated. So I shall repeat the obvious point that you can't seriously be claiming that the cost of providing social security benefits for a mainland supported immigrant would amount to over $9,000 a day. If you're really that keen to claim it would, feel free to demonstrate what is patently ludicrous. Likewise you ignore my point that many immigrants go on to work in the host country's economy and contribute positively to its tax income (as is the case in the UK).

As for your second point. I was responding to your false and ludicrous claim that the "popular" actions of a nation state should always trump the authority of an international organisation like the UN. I did NOT compare Australia's immigration policy to the Na*zis and Russians; you need to read what is written more carefully before you make such erroneous claims.

[horsefly 4,310]

23 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Enlighten me then, as every single article I’ve read on numerous media outlets have described it as offshore processing

Just because they call it that doesn't mean a thing. Under the scheme a successful appeal for asylum will NOT entitle the individual to return to the UK, FACT. 

[horsefly 4,310]

37 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Again, you’ve provided nothing to compare those financial figures to so we can’t say just how expensive the system is compared to letting those people stay in Australia

Being such a helpful person I've done the research for you. A single person (22yrs and over)  on Job seekers allowance gets $45 a day, so unless their housing allowance amounts to $9,000 a day you're going to struggle to claim that hosting an immigrant on the mainland gets even remotely close to the cost of off-shoring. 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-jobseeker-payment-you-can-get?context=51411

Edited June 16, 2022 by horsefly

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

apologies for biased racist policies that cost us billions. To a country that has an appalling human rights record, not that this matters to us, we just ignore it like all the other things we ignore.

[1902 1,167]

15 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

We’ve got nothing to compare those figures to though to know if they’re as expensive as you claim. There’s no denying that the numbers trying to get to Australia by boat have all but dried up, so what was it costing the Australians before in naval patrols to intercept and rescue these extra people before offshore processing was implemented, as well as the costs involved housing them in Australia while their application was heard and the hassle and expense of trying to remove those that failed? Without knowing that it’s impossible to say if the new system is expensive compared to what came before though I’d argue that the reduced number of people risking their lives and cutting off a source of income for people smugglers would be worth the extra financial cost.

The policy also enjoys popular support in Australia amongst the public, so to me that overrules any objections of the a UN. A democratically elected government takes precedence over an unelected supranational organisation 

"The policy also enjoys popular support in Australia amongst the public, so to me that overrules any objections of the a UN. A democratically elected government takes precedence over an unelected supranational organisation"

Basic human rights shouldn't be trumped by a majority in favour of removing them. That's incredibly dangerous totalitarian nonsense. Democracy is a value for sure, but it shouldn't be the only one.

[1902 1,167]

16 hours ago, horsefly said:

Anyone who thinks the problem of immigration is bad now, had better not contemplate the hundred-fold increase when global warming renders huge swathes of the world uninhabitable. There needs to be an urgent cooperative international solution to this issue, not some half-ar*sed, unworkable, narrow-minded nonsense from Patel.

Incidentally, the most seriously impacted countries by global warming also have the youngest and most rapidly expanding populations. It's going to be absolute carnage unless we work out a strategy in the next few years. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by 1902

[horsefly 4,310]

Andrew Marr gets it spot on:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/andrew-marr-hits-the-nail-on-the-head-with-monologue-about-the-rwanda-scheme/ar-AAYx2TS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0df77235d40e42a7b441e6518a9d2401

 

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

17 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

The policy also enjoys popular support in Australia amongst the public, so to me that overrules any objections of the a UN. A democratically elected government takes precedence over an unelected supranational organisation 

Wrong tense I'm afraid - it might have enjoyed popular support in some sections of the Australian population but there was also a great deal of opposition as well, which increased even further when the lid was eventually lifted on the absolutely appalling treatment meted out to the refugees off-shore - something that the 'democratically elected government' went to great lengths to keep secret from their citizens.

Fortunately for the Australians their democracy is a bit more effective than the UK's and that government is now the ex-government after a right good kicking in the election that followed and not just from the opposition but from many of their own previously staunch supporters.

So actually, maybe the idiots Johnson and Patel following the Australian example is a good thing in the long run, for most of us anyway, but no consolation to the poor ****s who are being put through the wringer in a bizzarre attempt to keep a lying, incompetent and corrupt PM in post a few weeks longer.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,592]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

Just because they call it that doesn't mean a thing. Under the scheme a successful appeal for asylum will NOT entitle the individual to return to the UK, FACT. 

Sorry, but are you absolutely sure about that? If the UK courts have deemed an  asylum process successful then it would be unlawful to prevent access, surely?

[benchwarmer 625]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sorry, but are you absolutely sure about that? If the UK courts have deemed an  asylum process successful then it would be unlawful to prevent access, surely?

The idea is, I believe, that once they arrived in Rwanda the UK would wash its hands of them, and it would be up to Rwanda to process their applications and decide whether or not they could remain there.  If not, Rwanda would deport them to heaven knows where. 

Presumably the terms of the UK-Rwanda agreement are designed to prevent them being deported back here, but I guess it's possible that international law could override this.  How funny would that be, if it wasn't so serious?

Edited June 16, 2022 by benchwarmer

[Naturalcynic 662]

In amongst all of the disagreement about the accuracy of statistics, I think the real meat of this argument is being lost.  Essentially it boils down to whether or not we feel that uncontrolled and uninvited immigration, often for economic reasons, is a problem.  Given the large numbers arriving unannounced every day on the shores of Kent, I suspect the generally silent majority feel that it is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed.  Exactly how is the question, but pretending it’s not a problem and then opposing every measure the Government takes to try to address it really isn’t helpful.

[horsefly 4,310]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sorry, but are you absolutely sure about that? If the UK courts have deemed an  asylum process successful then it would be unlawful to prevent access, surely?

Yep! I'm absolutely sure. Here's a link to the relevant Full Fact pages: https://fullfact.org/immigration/rwanda-policy-refugees/

"The government is planning to send asylum seekers who arrived to the UK illegally to Rwanda, so their asylum claims can be considered there under Rwanda’s domestic asylum system. Under this scheme, if successful, they will not return to the UK, but will have refugee status in Rwanda. If they are not successful, they may be removed from Rwanda."

So, the scheme basically forces the individuals concerned to apply for asylum in Rwanda and not the UK. Yep! that's how corrupt this bunch of shysters are.

Edited June 16, 2022 by horsefly

[Herman 9,823]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Yep! I'm absolutely sure. Here's a link to the relevant Full Fact pages: https://fullfact.org/immigration/rwanda-policy-refugees/

"The government is planning to send asylum seekers who arrived to the UK illegally to Rwanda, so their asylum claims can be considered there under Rwanda’s domestic asylum system. Under this scheme, if successful, they will not return to the UK, but will have refugee status in Rwanda. If they are not successful, they may be removed from Rwanda."

So, the scheme basically forces the individuals concerned to apply for asylum in Rwanda and not the UK. Yep! that's how corrupt this bunch of shysters are.

Do you think Fen was shocked at how low the brexit government could go?

[horsefly 4,310]

19 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

In amongst all of the disagreement about the accuracy of statistics, I think the real meat of this argument is being lost.  Essentially it boils down to whether or not we feel that uncontrolled and uninvited immigration, often for economic reasons, is a problem.  Given the large numbers arriving unannounced every day on the shores of Kent, I suspect the generally silent majority feel that it is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed.  Exactly how is the question, but pretending it’s not a problem and then opposing every measure the Government takes to try to address it really isn’t helpful.

Just who has "pretended it's not a problem"? No one on this thread has said anything of the sort. What people object to is a proposal that is unethical, and very likely illegal under international law. It is also utterly preposterous in its costs and administration. The current £120m deal with Rwanda will see at best a couple of hundred people deported there, so that should cover about one-day's worth of boat people. What do you propose for the next 363 days? We should learn from Israel's disastrous experiment with sending immigrants to Rwanda, and take a careful look at the $9,000 a day per person cost that Australia incurs for its off-shoring. There is nothing remotely helpful in inventing a completely ridiculous scheme in order to deflect from Johnson's and the Tory Party's dreadful performance in government.

[horsefly 4,310]

14 minutes ago, Herman said:

Do you think Fen was shocked at how low the brexit government could go?

Somehow I doubt it. 

[benchwarmer 625]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

pretending it’s not a problem and then opposing every measure the Government takes to try to address it really isn’t helpful.

No one is pretending it isn't a problem.  But the bottom line is that Brexit, which we were led to believe would deal with uncontrolled immigration, has if anything made it worse.  The government knows this but won't admit it and is thrashing around in the dark.  Any scheme which objectively identified the root causes and sought to address them effectively would have my support.  This clearly is not it.

Edited June 16, 2022 by benchwarmer

[KernowCanary 214]

Rwanda is so random, did they just throw a dart on a map to choose it?. If the deportation place to deter them from dinghy crossing the channel, was that of Somalia, I would have got it.

[duke63 545]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

In amongst all of the disagreement about the accuracy of statistics, I think the real meat of this argument is being lost.  Essentially it boils down to whether or not we feel that uncontrolled and uninvited immigration, often for economic reasons, is a problem.  Given the large numbers arriving unannounced every day on the shores of Kent, I suspect the generally silent majority feel that it is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed.  Exactly how is the question, but pretending it’s not a problem and then opposing every measure the Government takes to try to address it really isn’t helpful.

All the money this Government has wasted, stolen and given to their mates over the last few years plus the cynical use of tax laws to prevent some of their own ministers having to pay tax in THIS country, i suspect all that could have kept most immigrants in luxury places for the rest of their lives.

Dont believe the **** that the likes of Farage, Patel and Johnson feed you.

Its cyncial politics designed to take the spotlight away from what they are really doing to the lives of you and me.

[duke63 545]

27 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

No one is pretending it isn't a problem.  But the bottom line is that Brexit, which we were led to believe would deal with uncontrolled immigration, has if anything made it worse.  The government knows this but won't admit it and is thrashing around in the dark.  Any scheme which objectively identified the root causes and sought to address them effectively would have my support.  This clearly is not it.

You cannot get away from the root cause which is that in many cases their Country of their origin has been destroyed by western Governments and they see no point in remaining there.

[horsefly 4,310]

12 minutes ago, KernowCanary said:

Rwanda is so random, did they just throw a dart on a map to choose it?. If the deportation place to deter them from dinghy crossing the channel, was that of Somalia, I would have got it.

I think the Patel was searching around for a popular African country and noticed that Kagame won the last election in Rwanda gaining 98.63% of the votes. Her super-powered brain sparked into life and she thought, "Wow! the people must love him so much. That's the perfect place to send asylum seekers attempting to escape corrupt regimes. All I need Rwanda to do is empty a few blocks of flats containing the survivors of a genocidal civil war and we could top up the 800,000 murdered victims with our pesky boat people". 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Its funny how the Government have an specific online site for Ukranians to apply to stay yet there isn't spepcific ones for Syrians, Afghans.

[Creative Midfielder 2,002]

39 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sorry, but are you absolutely sure about that? If the UK courts have deemed an  asylum process successful then it would be unlawful to prevent access, surely?

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will decide the whole mad process is unlawful in a couple of weeks time or whenever it is that they are going to take a proper look at it.

As for being absolutely sure, I've certainly heard Horsefly's point made by a lot of different people on many occasions over the past few weeks and I've never heard a rebuttal of it, although TBF with Pretty Vacant in hiding apparently and some idiot called Pursglove doing the media round we are very unlikely to hear anything remotely coherent from the Home Office. Even judged by the incredibly low standards this guy was a real revelation to me - he is either so thick that he genuinely doesn't know anything about the policy he was speaking to or so scared to give out any information whatsoever because he knew/guessed/assumed that anything meaningful he said would get him into trouble with his malign bosses.

Just when you think this government can't possibly get any worse...............🙄

[duke63 545]

13 hours ago, benchwarmer said:

No one is pretending it isn't a problem.  But the bottom line is that Brexit, which we were led to believe would deal with uncontrolled immigration, has if anything made it worse.  The government knows this but won't admit it and is thrashing around in the dark.  Any scheme which objectively identified the root causes and sought to address them effectively would have my support.  This clearly is not it.

Because then it was an EU problem of which we were a part. Now its an EU problem AND a UK problem and the EU countries will do what is right for them and they no longer have any interest in what happens in the UK. Its our problem to deal with alone.

Edited June 17, 2022 by duke63

[benchwarmer 625]

Patel banging on again this morning about leaving the European Court of Human Rights because of the "scandalous" grounding of Rwanda flights.  Does she think we don't know that leaving the ECHR would entail leaving the Council of Europe as well?  The latter is simply not an option.  Sound and fury signifying nothing.

[Surfer 1,547]

As predicted, deliberate conflation of ECHR with Brexit. A qualified Attorney General would know better, but she's just another sycophant like Patel, Sunak, Raab, Dorries and Truss.  

Edited June 19, 2022 by Surfer

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 16/06/2022 at 11:03, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

apologies for biased racist policies that cost us billions. To a country that has an appalling human rights record, not that this matters to us, we just ignore it like all the other things we ignore.

It can't be a racist policy as the policy is not based on race, it is based on nationality, and the right to enter the UK based upon nationality. If you just chuck the accusation of racism at everything then you dilute and undermine the meaning of that word to the point where real racism gets ignored.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

59 minutes ago, Surfer said:

As predicted, deliberate conflation of ECHR with Brexit. A qualified Attorney General would know better, but she's just another sycophant like Patel, Sunak, Raab, Dorries and Truss.  

We don't need people of other nationalities telling this nation how we will govern ourselves. Most of us are grown up enough to take on the responsibility of self-government. It's called exercising one's sovereignty. If other countries feel the need to have some supra-national organisation meddling in their internal affaires then bully for them, but it is not for us to have Johnny Foreigner what we have to do.

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

8 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

We don't need people of other nationalities telling this nation how we will govern ourselves. Most of us are grown up enough to take on the responsibility of self-government. It's called exercising one's sovereignty. If other countries feel the need to have some supra-national organisation meddling in their internal affaires then bully for them, but it is not for us to have Johnny Foreigner what we have to do.

What an absolutely naïve way of viewing the world.

There are hundreds of thousands of examples of individuals and communities being screwed over by governments worldwide. It is not an act against sovereignty to use the organisations we have played instrumental parts in establishing to ensure that rights we have codified into law are followed. 

That's all it is. Follow the law and there won't be any problems. Get rid of them, and when our governments try to remove our rights and oppress people, you'll only have yourselves to blame that they get away with it. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 minute ago, Terminally Yellow said:

What an absolutely naïve way of viewing the world.

There are hundreds of thousands of examples of individuals and communities being screwed over by governments worldwide. It is not an act against sovereignty to use the organisations we have played instrumental parts in establishing to ensure that rights we have codified into law are followed. 

That's all it is. Follow the law and there won't be any problems. Get rid of them, and when our governments try to remove our rights and oppress people, you'll only have yourselves to blame that they get away with it. 

We have a good system to get rid of those who fail to govern us properly, and a good system of justice to bring those who transgress before the courts. In fact our system is so good many countries around the world have copied our systems of justice and government for their own countries. And our system is good because at its heart it is based on the democratic choices made by ordinary citizens. So if its all the same to you, I will keep our system that allows us to remove the ****s, than hand it over to some supra-national organisation of foreigners to do what they will.

'Follow the law and there won't be any problems'. What a shallow argument.

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

42 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

We have a good system to get rid of those who fail to govern us properly, and a good system of justice to bring those who transgress before the courts. In fact our system is so good many countries around the world have copied our systems of justice and government for their own countries. And our system is good because at its heart it is based on the democratic choices made by ordinary citizens. So if its all the same to you, I will keep our system that allows us to remove the ****s, than hand it over to some supra-national organisation of foreigners to do what they will.

'Follow the law and there won't be any problems'. What a shallow argument.

Absurd and so, so stupid. We have no system beyond waiting for an election to be called. A once a half decade event. Do you know how often the law can be broken in 5 years? Let alone by someone in a position of power. 

It's not a difficult concept, even for you little islander flag waving morons. The courts exist to uphold the law. Don't break the law, these institutions can't intervene. 

It's not imposition by a foreign body, it's obeying the rules we signed up to.