Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
He also out ‘wokes’ Starmer as the only party leader with pronouns in his Twitter bio.
At last, an eye catching, vote winning policy.
they would be he can't say it has it adds to the red meat being thrown out for the culture warIf true, disgraceful. And enough to make him lose my support. This policy is the act of barbarians.
I fully hope and expect him to say it would be scrapped, so hopefully this is just a blip to ensure not off message in some unforeseen way.
Disgraceful.
it would be madness to comment either way now and fall into a tory trapJesus christ! Will that bloke stick his head above the parapet on any issue?
I'm going to end up voting for Ed Davey at the next GE at this rate!
Jesus christ! Will that bloke stick his head above the parapet on any issue?
I'm going to end up voting for Ed Davey at the next GE at this rate!
It's not an open door policy to allow people to ask for asylum.Genuine question, what would you regular posters do about the UK immigration policy? Rightly or not, the Government were given a mandate to do something about immigration, and as far as I know (I maybe wrong) we accept a pre set number of immigrants each year, but what about the apparently increasing number of people risking life and limb to arrive on our shores daily, should we let them settle? Should we deport them? Why havnt they settled anywhere on route to the UK?
Should the tax payer cough up for their costs? Should they be allowed to work?
Should we have an open door policy for any of the world's 7+ billion residents who fancy coming here? Should we cap the population? Or is there a practical and workable solution?
Clearly nothing is pleasing everyone at the moment, and I think it's time for a new discussion across political parties, so an agreed policy can be implemented that can be adhered to going forward.
I havnt got the answer, but I'd be interested in any workable ideas, as just using the issue to bash politicians isn't exactly helpful.
Leaving the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with people crossing the channel to claim asylum.Genuine question, what would you regular posters do about the UK immigration policy? Rightly or not, the Government were given a mandate to do something about immigration, and as far as I know (I maybe wrong) we accept a pre set number of immigrants each year, but what about the apparently increasing number of people risking life and limb to arrive on our shores daily, should we let them settle? Should we deport them? Why havnt they settled anywhere on route to the UK?
Should the tax payer cough up for their costs? Should they be allowed to work?
Should we have an open door policy for any of the world's 7+ billion residents who fancy coming here? Should we cap the population? Or is there a practical and workable solution?
Clearly nothing is pleasing everyone at the moment, and I think it's time for a new discussion across political parties, so an agreed policy can be implemented that can be adhered to going forward.
I havnt got the answer, but I'd be interested in any workable ideas, as just using the issue to bash politicians isn't exactly helpful.
they would scrap it but the tories what labour to say so they can ramp up a culture war line of attackDisgraceful.
I didn't say it did, did I?Leaving the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with people crossing the channel to claim asylum.
A civilised policy would allow anybody to ask for asylum, and the numbers who do are relatively few compared to populations. If they're found to deserve it, then it's often for some pretty bad shit, where any civilised country and people should be protecting them - however much I may think Johnson is a fool, imbecile etc. I haven't got to the stage of wanting to traverse countries for sanctuary! You have toask yourself, what makes people uproot their home and put themselves in peril? Has anybody on this board been motivated to claim asylum in the USA?Leaving the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with people crossing the channel to claim asylum.
I thought that international law said you had to claim asylum in the first safe haven you came to. (Again I may be wrong, I'm no expert, just trying to learn)It's not an open door policy to allow people to ask for asylum.
they would scrap it but the tories what labour to say so they can ramp up a culture war line of attack
If you're entering under the radar, you won't be packed off to Rwanda as they won't know you're here.I thought that international law said you had to claim asylum in the first safe haven you came to. (Again I may be wrong, I'm no expert, just trying to learn)
If your a genuine asylum seeker you shouldn't need to enter under the radar (so to speak)
I meant through non legal means. (Which is again contentious)If you're entering under the radar, you won't be packed off to Rwanda as they won't know you're here.
I thought that international law said you had to claim asylum in the first safe haven you came to. (Again I may be wrong, I'm no expert, just trying to learn)
If your a genuine asylum seeker you shouldn't need to enter under the radar (so to speak)
It's impossible to be an illegal asylum seeker.I meant through non legal means. (Which is again contentious)
But if you do arrive unannounced so to say, what do you think is the correct way to deal with these people?
Are they asylum seekers or are they economic migrants? Is there even a difference?
Should they get preferential access to housing and schools, should they get access to the NHS? should they be allowed to settle indefinitely And if so who pays?
Again, your picking up on words, how about having a bash at answering a few of the straight forward questions?It's impossible to be an illegal asylum seeker.
You said through non legal means. It's impossible to be an illegal asylum seeker.Again, your picking up on words, how about having a bash at answering a few of the straight forward questions?
I'm all ears
So then you'd be an economic migrant?You said through non legal means. It's impossible to be an illegal asylum seeker.
You would be somebody who they wouldn't know was here, so they would be unable to send you to Rwanda.So then you'd be an economic migrant?
Is that what your saying?
So what about the ones who they do know are here, presumably the ones who get off boats on the coastline and are apprehended ? Or who are discovered while still in the act of crossing.You would be somebody who they wouldn't know was here, so they would be unable to send you to Rwanda.
Well if they're not seeking asylum, then they wouldn't be sent to Rwanda anyway. We have the right to return them to their home state. Rwanda makes no difference to them whatsoever.So what about the ones who they do know are here, presumably the ones who get off boats on the coastline and are apprehended ? Or who are discovered while still in the act of crossing.
Again, at that point we have the right to return them to their home state, and Rwanda makes no difference to that.And what about those who enter the country with perfectly normal visas, but deliberately over stay?
OK, I get that, then why not just return them to their home state?Again, at that point we have the right to return them to their home state, and Rwanda makes no difference to that.
Jesus christ! Will that bloke stick his head above the parapet on any issue?
I'm going to end up voting for Ed Davey at the next GE at this rate!
they would scrap it but the tories what labour to say so they can ramp up a culture war line of attack
Rwanda has become the destination for asylum seekers. They are repatriated there for their asylum case to be sorted out there, rather than here. This is being done before any decision has been made as to the validity of their case.OK, I get that, then why not just return them to their home state?
Any Genuine asylum case can be dealt with through the asylum system (whatever that is) the rest should be treated with humanity and respect while awaiting extradition/deportation to their homeland.
OK I know that's very simplistic, but why has Rwander replaced their country of origin?
Seems bizarre, if they are successful in their claim, do we have to pay to fly them back to the UK? And if they are unsuccessful do we then have a responsibility to fly them to their country of origin? If their claims take time, who pays for their stay in Rwanda?Rwanda has become the destination for asylum seekers. They are repatriated there for their asylum case to be sorted out there, rather than here. This is being done before any decision has been made as to the validity of their case.
Apparently, this is a deterrant.
If they're successful, they get to live in Rwanda. If they're unsuccessful, they can apply to stay in Rwanda anyway!Seems bizarre, if they are successful in their claim, do we have to pay to fly them back to the UK? And if they are unsuccessful do we then have a responsibility to fly them to their country of origin? If their claims take time, who pays for their stay in Rwanda?
Again I can't see this ever being a longtime workable solution. And the Labour Party don't seem to offer any realistic alternative other just opposing the government on everything while having no alternative option to offer.
Hence why I think its time for a cross party solution, and a all party think tank to address the issue for the future.
What mandate were you referring to then?I didn't say it did, did I?
It's utterly shameful.Fuck me, I hope they like Rwander!!!
I can see why the government might see this as some kind of deterant, but Jesus h christ its no fucking solution!
Fuck me, I hope they like Rwander!!!
I can see why the government might see this as some kind of deterant, but Jesus h christ its no fucking solution!
The government could start by dealing with the real big issue for illegal immigration. Visa overstay. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are through Visa overstay, in other words they arrive at Heathrow or wherever with a valid short stay visa, clear customs and then disappear, presumably into the black employment market for the majority of them. Start by A) acknowledging that then B) dealing with that.Genuine question, what would you regular posters do about the UK immigration policy? Rightly or not, the Government were given a mandate to do something about immigration, and as far as I know (I maybe wrong) we accept a pre set number of immigrants each year, but what about the apparently increasing number of people risking life and limb to arrive on our shores daily, should we let them settle? Should we deport them? Why havnt they settled anywhere on route to the UK?
Should the tax payer cough up for their costs? Should they be allowed to work?
Should we have an open door policy for any of the world's 7+ billion residents who fancy coming here? Should we cap the population? Or is there a practical and workable solution?
Clearly nothing is pleasing everyone at the moment, and I think it's time for a new discussion across political parties, so an agreed policy can be implemented that can be adhered to going forward.
I havnt got the answer, but I'd be interested in any workable ideas, as just using the issue to bash politicians isn't exactly helpful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?