Priti Vacant has a plan, a deal with migrants plan.

[BlueHammer85]

So what does saying you wanted the Rwanda plan as a deterrent practically mean?

If you want them to stay how does that work?

I'm not interested in the fact that you have got your knickers in a twist, go and talk to someone who cares.

It’s prejudiced by the way.

Ok so you can’t quote me anything I’ve said and want to change it to the Rwanda plan now

I initially queried why the Rwanda plan could work as a deterrent- why would people risk their lives crossing the channel knowing they are going to be deported out of the country ? I honestly thought it could reduce the amount of people risking their lives making the journey over the channel. Which would be a good thing right ?

Here’s my post on this

BlueHammer85​

14 Jun 2022
I’m still trying my best to see this as a positive - I know that’s a no go

But what if … in 1 years time … channel crossings have fallen dramatically in numbers because migrants don’t wish to be deported to Rwanda?

I’m not saying we should turn are backs on migrants who wish to come to the UK and we absolutely should do all we can to make it fair across Europe

But the less people crossing the channel in dangerous water in dinghy’s is surely the aim here


- amongst that, I’ve clearly stated plenty of times - that we should be working with Europe and taking our fair share of Migrants and look at other ways to deter people making the journey over the channel - that’s not being prejudice, it’s wanting a practical solution to not wanting thousands of young men, women and children risking their lives and entering our shores on dinghy’s.

So you can paint me as secret racist Farage loving anti migrant person all you want - but you are very wrong, and everyone that knows my political views on here can back me up on that.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Didn't he previously say that anyone crossing by boat shouldn't be allowed to stay?

That’s making a judgement on people purely on their method of arrival.

He was also in support of the Rwanda plan. You don't have to be a swivel eyed right wing loon to have prejudices.

Not sure on the first bit mate - I meant the string of responses to which appeared to be off a few questions about it..............

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Ok so you can’t quote me anything I’ve said and want to change it to the Rwanda plan now

I initially queried why the Rwanda plan could work as a deterrent- why would people risk their lives crossing the channel knowing they are going to be deported out of the country ? I honestly thought it could reduce the amount of people risking their lives making the journey over the channel. Which would be a good thing right ?

Here’s my post on this

BlueHammer85​

14 Jun 2022
I’m still trying my best to see this as a positive - I know that’s a no go

But what if … in 1 years time … channel crossings have fallen dramatically in numbers because migrants don’t wish to be deported to Rwanda?

I’m not saying we should turn are backs on migrants who wish to come to the UK and we absolutely should do all we can to make it fair across Europe

But the less people crossing the channel in dangerous water in dinghy’s is surely the aim here


- amongst that, I’ve clearly stated plenty of times - that we should be working with Europe and taking our fair share of Migrants and look at other ways to deter people making the journey over the channel - that’s not being prejudice, it’s wanting a practical solution to not wanting thousands of young men, women and children risking their lives and entering our shores on dinghy’s.

So you can paint me as secret racist Farage loving anti migrant person all you want - but you are very wrong, and everyone that knows my political views on here can back me up on that.

No I'm saying that I am not apologising or retracting comments made after any slight misunderstanding of exactly what you said, when the end result is the same.

I haven't said anything about you liking Farage or being a right winger.

If you support people being sent to Rwanda before they have had their asylum application case heard on it's merits, then I'd say you are prejudiced.

They have been prejudged if they are put on a plane whith an outstanding application, and your deterrent is treating people as ends not means.

 

[BlueHammer85]

No I'm saying that I am not apologising or retracting comments made after any slight misunderstanding of exactly what you said, when the end result is the same.

I haven't said anything about you liking Farage or being a right winger.

If you support people being sent to Rwanda before they have had their asylum application case heard on it's merits, then I'd say you are prejudiced.

They have been prejudged if they are put on a plane whith an outstanding application, and your deterrent is treating people as ends not means.

IF the Rwanda plan meant zero people risking their lives crossing the channel whilst we work with Europe in tackling solutions and taking a fair share of migrants/refugees would you be supportive of it ?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

IF the Rwanda plan meant zero people risking their lives crossing the channel whilst we work with Europe in tackling solutions and taking a fair share of migrants/refugees would you be supportive of it ?

It had zero chance of stopping people trying to get in as they want to apply for asylum and this is their only perceived means of doing it.

It was our version of “Build the wall”.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

IF the Rwanda plan meant zero people risking their lives crossing the channel whilst we work with Europe in tackling solutions and taking a fair share of migrants/refugees would you be supportive of it ?

This is the kind of hypothetical that doesn't work in the real world.

We aren't doing the second thing. The Rwanda plan isn't compatible with that strategy it was all part of stirring up hatred and division.

I don't see the point of going down this discussion it is political fan fiction, I don't believe you are so dense to believe that such a situation was ever likely.

To expect there would be zero boat crossings is fantastical thinking.

Also there are other dangerous forms of crossings, such as in the back of lorries that you might push them towards instead.

I wouldn't support anything that degrades the convention on refugees as a matter of principle.

 

[Cricket Blue]

The Rwanda plan has made things worse. Patel is absolutely useless and when Truss gets the PM job she will likely not be home secretary.
Disgraceful

 

[ROCKET80]

They’re trying to get from France to Britain because of the lifestyle they can get here rather than France. They’ll know the success rate of people crossing the Channel and what their chances are of making it, before they do.

If they know that the majority are being caught and processed properly away from the UK, and they’re not genuine refugees, then they won’t try it.

Allowing everyone in the world to apply for refugee status from wherever they are isn’t sustainable, there’s too many.

Wondering what do you mean by "lifestyle they can get here rather than France"?

Getting caught and being processed somewhere else isn't a deterrent, again most people making the journey are unlikely to know that's what happens.

It's not everyone though:

Around 73% of refugees settle in countries neighbouring their country of origin.

In the year ending Sept 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants in the EU+, followed by France. When compared with the EU+, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (under half the number of applicants to France). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK. (stats taken from the UNHCR)

The UK knows where the majority of people applying for asylum are from, so making easier routes for them to apply makes sense.

Personally I'd rather pay for someone to work on a frivolous application, than pay for boats to patrol the sea, staffing at a centre for housing illegal economic migrants, paying for their basic necessities when in the centre, then paying to deport them.

 

[El_george]

This is the kind of hypothetical that doesn't work in the real world.

We aren't doing the second thing. The Rwanda plan isn't compatible with that strategy it was all part of stirring up hatred and division.

I don't see the point of going down this discussion it is political fan fiction, I don't believe you are so dense to believe that such a situation was ever likely.

To expect there would be zero boat crossings is fantastical thinking.

Also there are other dangerous forms of crossings, such as in the back of lorries that you might push them towards instead.

I wouldn't support anything that degrades the convention on refugees as a matter of principle.

I've stopped getting my knickers in a twist about this these days because the 1.2million visas issued last year dwarfs the 30,000 people who may come by other means. There is something seriously wrong with the demographics of this country and I don't know how that is ever going to be solved. We are living in a time of globalisation: products, energy, people and the whole idea of nation states and borders is becoming a bit dated. Strangely, there are still wars though!

But I have a question: was the Rwandan plan ever realistic? I mean negotiations occurred, a deal was signed & I assume money gets paid (but not now I guess as none have gone there). Was it perhaps just a ruse: announce the plan to get support from the tory voters, even the new red wall ones who probably are in favour in the main - then wait for the lawyers to block it and then get even more support by saying meddling lawyers have ruined it.... When the build up to the next election occurs and people on the door step ask about immigration, the prospective candidates can say: we tried, but left-wing lawyers blocked it, people like Keir Starmer....!

Or is that too much of a conspiracy theory?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I've stopped getting my knickers in a twist about this these days because the 1.2million visas issued last year dwarfs the 30,000 people who may come by other means. There is something seriously wrong with the demographics of this country and I don't know how that is ever going to be solved. We are living in a time of globalisation: products, energy, people and the whole idea of nation states and borders is becoming a bit dated. Strangely, there are still wars though!

But I have a question: was the Rwandan plan ever realistic? I mean negotiations occurred, a deal was signed & I assume money gets paid (but not now I guess as none have gone there). Was it perhaps just a ruse: announce the plan to get support from the tory voters, even the new red wall ones who probably are in favour in the main - then wait for the lawyers to block it and then get even more support by saying meddling lawyers have ruined it.... When the build up to the next election occurs and people on the door step ask about immigration, the prospective candidates can say: we tried, but left-wing lawyers blocked it, people like Kier Starmer....!

Or is that too much of a conspiracy theory?

No that's entirely possible. The third placed candidate previously disowned her own positive comments about trans women in order to appeal to bigots.

The UKIP style bullshit culture wars is all this intellectually and morally bankrupt party has.