Deportation of illegal migrants

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Yesterday was the busiest small boat day since mid April so the threat of flying people to Rwanda is a successful deterrent

Or, the successful stalling tactics are a reassurance to those using the small boats.

Don’t get me wrong, we shouldn’t be doing this - but short-sighted observations that look great on Twitter don’t ultimately help anyone, and in any case the question is really a moral one, not a practical one. We shouldn’t be doing it even if it does work.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Migration watch claimed it was 98% not so long ago, is it true, I dont know but how do you deport a failed applicant if you font know where they're from



That's funny? We are sending people to a place where anyone who disagrees with the regime potentially has to move here to be safe and you find that amusing

MigrationWatch UK has an anti-immigration agenda so can hardly be claimed to be an authoritative source.

You obviously have not come across dark humour. I find it ironic that we send asylum seekers to Rwanda and we get a plane load back in return. I find that hilarious

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Carrie on Johnson, you surely meant!

I like it

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Carrie on Johnson, you surely meant!

[Sephiroth]

I'd just like to make clear where I stand on all this lest one or two of you regard me as an anti-immigrant hawk.

1/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, object to Muslim males, without identity documents, seeking asylum in the UK when there's the whole of Europe for them to claim asylum. Rationale revolves round not knowing whom we would be receiving, nor their affiliations, nor their jihadist/terrorism leanings given past terrorism events, particularly from Muslim migrants to the UK..

2/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, fully support genuine refugees from anywhere who seek to come to the UK on any valid legal premise - be that UK law, ECHR or UNHCR treaties. In that regard, I expect them to have a valid basis for fleeing their country, able to reasonably prove this and I'd be sympathetic to families or women with children.

3/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, do not want to set a precedent for millions of Muslims coming to this country and totally destroying our culture by reason of their numbers and eventual possible domination of politics (an agenda I ascribe to either/both of Saudi Arabia/Iran). Diversity is not a democratic principle; it has the potential to destroy indigenous culture.

4/
Because we are signatories to the ECHR, we must abide by its rules. I believe that those rules should be updated to deal with the present trafficking crisis and the Guvmin needs to tell us what it is planning in that regard. My rationale is simply to look at 1930s Germany, when that country turned to institutional racism without there being any backstop (not that such a backstop would have worked); whilst I don't expect that to happen here, creeping exceptions to human rights can occur in any democracy and I don't want to see that here.

5/
I don't like the EU - specifically the power-grabbing Commission. But, when we were in, I did approve of Free Movement and was content with the Single Market/Customs Union. But UK sovereignty has trumped all that. We now need to get the UNHCR/EHCR articles updated. That'll take some time but in the meantime, we must find legal methods to stop the people trafficking.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I, like other reasonable people on this thread, object to Muslim males, without identity documents, seeking asylum in the UK when there's the whole of Europe for them to claim asylum.

I object to anyone seeking asylum in the UK if they are passing through Europe to do so.

If they are genuinely fleeing, they should be seeking it in the first country they reach, not crossing several of them (and a dangerous sea) just to get to the UK.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

time for plan B

His music isn’t to everyone’s taste, but I’m not sure playing it will be that much of a deterrent…

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Hugh

His music isn’t to everyone’s taste, but I’m not sure playing it will be that much of a deterrent…

Dunno, repeated blasts of 'Stay Too Long' will probably be more successful than the current shambles.


I can't help wondering if we still had access to EuroDac if that could help with those repeatedly attempting crossings.

[GrimUpNorth]

My comments & suggested edits in red

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'd just like to make clear where I stand on all this lest one or two of you regard me as an anti-immigrant hawk.

1/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, object to Muslim males, without identity documents, seeking asylum in the UK when there's the whole of Europe for them to claim asylum. Rationale revolves round not knowing whom we would be receiving, nor their affiliations, nor their jihadist/terrorism leanings given past terrorism events, particularly from Muslim migrants to the UK..

1. Maybe consider replacing reasonable people with paid up Conservatives?

2/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, fully support genuine refugees from anywhere who seek to come to the UK on any valid legal premise - be that UK law, ECHR or UNHCR treaties. In that regard, I expect them to have a valid basis for fleeing their country, able to reasonably prove this and I'd be sympathetic to families or women with children.#

2. Maybe consider adding something along the lines of making the process for the people you [the Conservatives] approve of a bit easier, like visa applications for Ukrainians in Ukrainian instead of just English? Saying and doing are quite different, it's a shame we have a government that likes to say things but when it comes to the doing is all to often lacking.

3/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, do not want to set a precedent for millions of Muslims coming to this country and totally destroying our culture by reason of their numbers and eventual possible domination of politics (an agenda I ascribe to either/both of Saudi Arabia/Iran). Diversity is not a democratic principle; it has the potential to destroy indigenous culture.

3. Just ingrained Conservative dogma, also see comment for para 1.

4/
Because we are signatories to the ECHR, we must abide by its rules. I believe that those rules should be updated to deal with the present trafficking crisis and the Guvmin needs to tell us what it is planning in that regard. My rationale is simply to look at 1930s Germany, when that country turned to institutional racism without there being any backstop (not that such a backstop would have worked); whilst I don't expect that to happen here, creeping exceptions to human rights can occur in any democracy and I don't want to see that here.

4. Consider deleting all text after the first sentence. It's time for the Conservatives to stop thinking they can just change rules that are a bit inconvenient or will upset the harder right of the party. As Mrs G says, it's time for Boris to grow a pair and represent the whole country and not just a few people hiding away in a WhatsApp group.

5/
I don't like the EU - specifically the power-grabbing Commission. But, when we were in, I did approve of Free Movement and was content with the Single Market/Customs Union. But UK sovereignty has trumped all that. We now need to get the UNHCR/EHCR articles updated. That'll take some time but in the meantime, we must find legal methods to stop the people trafficking.

5. Was this because most of the EU is white and not on the whole Muslim i.e. looks like most of us. I feel the impacts of the loss of cheap foreign labour is starting to bite and maybe just maybe, like other reasonable people on this thread leavers are starting to see the impact.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

My comments & suggested edits in red

You just don't like Conservatives.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'd just like to make clear where I stand on all this lest one or two of you regard me as an anti-immigrant hawk.

1/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, object to Muslim males, without identity documents, seeking asylum in the UK when there's the whole of Europe for them to claim asylum. Rationale revolves round not knowing whom we would be receiving, nor their affiliations, nor their jihadist/terrorism leanings given past terrorism events, particularly from Muslim migrants to the UK..

2/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, fully support genuine refugees from anywhere who seek to come to the UK on any valid legal premise - be that UK law, ECHR or UNHCR treaties. In that regard, I expect them to have a valid basis for fleeing their country, able to reasonably prove this and I'd be sympathetic to families or women with children.

3/
I, like other reasonable people on this thread, do not want to set a precedent for millions of Muslims coming to this country and totally destroying our culture by reason of their numbers and eventual possible domination of politics (an agenda I ascribe to either/both of Saudi Arabia/Iran). Diversity is not a democratic principle; it has the potential to destroy indigenous culture.

4/
Because we are signatories to the ECHR, we must abide by its rules. I believe that those rules should be updated to deal with the present trafficking crisis and the Guvmin needs to tell us what it is planning in that regard. My rationale is simply to look at 1930s Germany, when that country turned to institutional racism without there being any backstop (not that such a backstop would have worked); whilst I don't expect that to happen here, creeping exceptions to human rights can occur in any democracy and I don't want to see that here.

5/
I don't like the EU - specifically the power-grabbing Commission. But, when we were in, I did approve of Free Movement and was content with the Single Market/Customs Union. But UK sovereignty has trumped all that. We now need to get the UNHCR/EHCR articles updated. That'll take some time but in the meantime, we must find legal methods to stop the people trafficking.

Brilliant post, well said.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

MigrationWatch UK has an anti-immigration agenda so can hardly be claimed to be an authoritative source.

Even if they're exaggerating by half it's still an obscenely high number and I'd say they're a better source than fullfacts opinion piece

You obviously have not come across dark humour. I find it ironic that we send asylum seekers to Rwanda and we get a plane load back in return. I find that hilarious [COLOR="Silver"]

It's dark humour now, looked to me like someone gloating about a few people getting triggered without seeing the bigger picture and still not seeing it apparently, much like when you were saying it was racist because Ukranians werent being treated like this whilst ignoring we've spent the last 6 years telling Europeans to get out of the country

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Even if they're exaggerating by half it's still an obscenely high number and I'd say they're a better source than fullfacts opinion piece

FullFacts was not an opinion piece. Julian and Pierre misunderstood it and I don't blame them them as it could have been clearer. But it was no opinion piece.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Even if they're exaggerating by half it's still an obscenely high number and I'd say they're a better source than fullfacts opinion piece



It's dark humour now, looked to me like someone gloating about a few people getting triggered without seeing the bigger picture and still not seeing it apparently, much like when you were saying it was racist because Ukranians werent being treated like this whilst ignoring we've spent the last 6 years telling Europeans to get out of the country

I'd prefer an unbiased source that proved that most channel crossing individuals are passport discarding economic migrants with an option on Islamic terrorism. Call me Mr Picky

Your point on telling Europeans to Foxtrot Oscar after Brexit and then allowing a few back as refugees is an interesting one.

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You just don't like Conservatives.

But Seph, this lot are not "Conservatives" as most people with an awareness of the past would define them. They are light years away from the "One Nation" Conservatives, and those of the Thatcher & John Major eras.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

FullFacts was not an opinion piece. Julian and Pierre misunderstood it and I don't blame them them as it could have been clearer. But it was no opinion piece.

Originally Posted by ianch99

I'd prefer an unbiased source that proved that most channel crossing individuals are passport discarding economic migrants with an option on Islamic terrorism. Call me Mr Picky

Your point on telling Europeans to Foxtrot Oscar after Brexit and then allowing a few back as refugees is an interesting one.

Where do you think MigrationWatch got that figure from, made it up? Or from Baroness Hoey who said it in the House of Lords on 25/11/21 except she said most of the 98% claiming to be asylum seekers destroyed documents

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

We now need to get the UNHCR/EHCR articles updated. That'll take some time but in the meantime, we must find legal methods to stop the people trafficking.

Other countries in the EU successfully returned migrants to other countries; using the Dublin Agreement; we just didn't use it much. We need to get closer to our friends in the EU and re-join the agreement. Our current threats to break international treaties make this pretty hard at the moment.

I'm not sure trying to change UNHCR/EHCR articles is the way to go. Having locations in Europe where asylum-seekers could apply for asylum and be accepted or declined in a timely manner seems a sensible way of reducing numbers coming in by small boats.