|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 7:24:50 GMT
First flight to go today Shameful Might even be empty Gonna cost a fortune All this whilst with highest taxes since the 40s, worst cost of living crisis in decades, climate emergency, poised to rip up international law, and the economy tanking More interested in their divisive culture wars than sorting out the real issues What a bunch of c*nts Worst Government and worst cabinet of my lifetime What have we become  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2022 11:46:40 GMT
Tony Blair's government easily beats Johnson's in terms of cruelty seeing as they were responsible for the mass murder of millions of people.
Remember Blair and the Labour Party -aided by the Tories-broke International Law themselves by going to war in Iraq.
And what did they do for these services to 'the people'?
They knight the fucker!
Typical British state-they reward war criminals and murderers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 12:04:58 GMT
Good point
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 14, 2022 12:22:21 GMT
The numbers of economic migrants illegally attempting to enter Britain via the Channel keeps ramping up. We have to take firm action as we cannot possibly house them all, and this government – whatever its other shortcomings – is stepping up to the plate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 12:30:51 GMT
The numbers of economic migrants illegally attempting to enter Britain via the Channel keeps ramping up. We have to take firm action as we cannot possibly house them all, and this government – whatever its other shortcomings – is stepping up to the plate. Why are they coming though? That’s the question that is at the root of any solution This “solution” is just playing to the basest instincts of their must unpleasant supporters |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 14, 2022 12:35:46 GMT
They're coming because they perceive Britain as a soft touch, with a generous benefits system.
That doesn't mean they left their homes for that reason – many of them may have been genuine refugees. But the international refugee system specifies that refugees need to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach: they do not get to choose where they settle.
By attempting to cross from France to the UK they forfeit their automatic right to asylum and become economic migrants whom we can accept or reject as we please. The government is absolutely right to take firm action to prevent this abuse of the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 12:39:17 GMT
The numbers of economic migrants illegally attempting to enter Britain via the Channel keeps ramping up. We have to take firm action as we cannot possibly house them all, and this government – whatever its other shortcomings – is stepping up to the plate. Also they are not "economic migrants" they are people with legitimate asylum claims The majority of people arriving on small boats are from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria and Eritrea These are some of the most chaotic places in the world where there is civil and ethnic conflict, and political persecution. Most of the claims are successful. The Gov't's policy is to try to stop them arriving and now, with Rwanda, to make it less appealing to head here The Gov't response is NOT stepping up to plate - far from it |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 14, 2022 12:41:58 GMT
Also they are not "economic migrants" they are people with legitimate asylum claims No, they're not. They were people with legitimate asylum claims until they came to the first safe country and then left it because they wanted to live elsewhere. At that point they became economic migrants. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 12:44:08 GMT
They're coming because they perceive Britain as a soft touch, with a generous benefits system. That doesn't mean they left their homes for that reason – many of them may have been genuine refugees. But the international refugee system specifies that refugees need to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach: they do not get to choose where they settle. By attempting to cross from France to the UK they forfeit their automatic right to asylum and become economic migrants whom we can accept or reject as we please. The government is absolutely right to take firm action to prevent this abuse of the system. Soft touch my arse The UK should offer for many the hope of freedom and potential economic security I'm totally ashamed by Johnson, Patel and their ilk Horrible horrible people No wonder the Church of England, Prince Charles and every other compassionate person here agrees that dumping people in Rwanda is completely unacceptable I know you have far right views but you need to have a good long think about what you're advoating here - it's totally inhuman |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 12:45:26 GMT
Also they are not "economic migrants" they are people with legitimate asylum claims No, they're not. They were people with legitimate asylum claims until they came to the first safe country and then left it because they wanted to live elsewhere. At that point they became economic migrants. If that were the case why are - for example - in excess of 80% of all asylum claims from Eritreans accepted? |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 14, 2022 12:48:59 GMT
It's quite simple, Lord E: by choosing to leave one safe country for another, these people lose their status as refugees, meaning we have no obligation to take in any of them. The fact that we are even prepared to process their asylum claims shows considerable largesse on the part of the British authorities, particularly as previous "refugees" have borne children who turned into mass murderers (for example, Salman Abedi, who carried out the Manchester suicide bombing).
The only policy that will work is to offer these people little or no hope of settling here, so they will have no incentive to cross the Channel in unsafe home-made boats. In the long term, it is a policy that will save many lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 12:49:04 GMT
The strategy is obviously to deter asylum seekers from coming here
Once here, their claims are likely to succeed
Truss has literally just said the self same thing...
"Flights would deter people from crossing Channel"
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on Jun 14, 2022 12:50:28 GMT
No, they're not. They were people with legitimate asylum claims until they came to the first safe country and then left it because they wanted to live elsewhere. At that point they became economic migrants. If that were the case why are - for example - in excess of 80% of all asylum claims from Eritreans accepted? Because we're a soft touch and we're prepared to go above and beyond our international obligations to treat economic migrants who originated as refugees as though they still held refugee status. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 12:53:17 GMT
I've just heard Truss refer to them as "asylum seekers"
Liz Truss said "the first flight taking asylum seekers to Rwanda would take off on Tuesday afternoon with few people on it" + "the important point was the principle"
She is trying to stop people from wanting to come here because we have to grant asylum in legitimate cases (as mentioned above - 80% of all asylum claims from Eritreans are accepted)
If their claims had no merit they would be sent back
The other part of the strategy is to keep them in limbo hell as the claims take months and even years to process - this in the hope they give up
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on Jun 14, 2022 12:56:20 GMT
To be eligible you must have left your country and be unable to go back because you fear persecution (this is the rule on the Gov's website) - this clearly applies to the people coming from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria and Eritrea - which is where the vast majority of refugees come from
"Soft touch" is just a phrase bandied around by the Daily Mail to whip up their easily triggered readership
|
|
