Clueless politicians -

[Observer II]

The saga of the Rwanda resettlement scheme for "illegal" migrants has rattled on for a while now,  and we've finally arrived at a Bill to support deportations to Rwanda.  There's still no assurance that the HR Lawyers and the ECHR won't block it, but the argument being put forward by the Tories, is that it will provide a "deterent" to migrants crossing the channel.   Well, if the possibilty of drowning doesn't provide a deterent, hard to see if the possibility of being deported to Rwanda will deter them either.   Listening to Labour politicians, they correctly say the processing of asylum applications needs to be speeded up and the backlog erased, then any migrant refused asylum can be sent back.  Well, if it's as easy as that, why have we got hotels full of migrants awaiting decision ?  Why not a presumed refusal for any migrant who enters the UK illegally, then they can all be sent back asap ?  But the big lie still remains,  this Tory Gov is allowing record numbers of migrants to enter the UK "legally" via visas,  all requiring health, education and housing for dependents.  The reality is the Con/Lib/Lab uni-party has no intention of responding to the majority of the population that wants curbs on immigration, clearly we need Reform of our political system, so it represents the views of the majority of our people.    😠

[Confused52]

To understand this business you need to read the Illegal Migration Act 2023, The Rwanda Bill and the Rwanda Treaty and understand them at the same time.

The expectation is that most of the people whose claims the HR lawyers normally extract money from will be in Rwanda at the time of their appeal. How likely is it that the lawyers will want to spend their fees visiting their clients? The courts can still get to process appeals but the clients will have to get to the UK on a Government chartered plane from Kigali, no doubt with a finite capacity. Rwanda has undertaken to keep track of the migrants that are sent there but they are free to leave Rwanda at their own request. The grounds for appeal have been significantly reduced, in fact to wording which mirrors the kind of conditions that applied to cases that would generate urgent injunctions from the EHCR.

All urgent interim injunctions from the ECHR will be turned down, that was already possible but civil servants acted upon them instead, in future the new law rejects them unless a minister expressly permits them. In any case the EHCR is undertaking a review of this process which is likely unpopular with many members of the Council of Europe so there may not be as many urgent measures in the future.

If you believe that Politicians can't sort it out why on earth do you think that ranting about it here will have any effect. Remember Starmer doesn't want to sort it out, he has a vested interest in it failing as do the Lib Dems and the Reform Party. The target of the proposal is HR lawyers because they are the problem, without them the chances of getting into the UK are small.

[Observer II]

Don't know how you dismiss the Reform Party on this one, when they've consistently campaigned against migration.  As for the Tories, they are all over the place, with 5 factions at each other's throats. Not forgetting of course that Boris invited over 2million HK Chinese over, plus Afghans and Ukrainians.  Our current political class have no interest in following public opinion, and accept the globalist agenda for de-nationalising the nation state, in pursuit of somekind of woke world utopia. And now we hear the Union representing the UKBF staff, is set to challenge the Rwanda Policy through the courts, no wonder we couldn't get them to turn back the migrants at sea.   😠

[Confused52]

Because Reform can't get into power unless it is with the opposition, what is the point of a political party that doesn't want to be in power? Think Lib Dems.

The PCSU were told that they could not intervene in the last Rwanda case by the supreme court because their job was to do what the Government said, i.e. Civil Servants so if you don't like what you are told to do then resign or do the job. Since we don't have a written constitution suggesting that a law passed by Parliament is unconstitutional would be no mean feat. With Lady Hale gone I don't think the Supreme Court will try inventing another completely imaginary bit of Common Law to strike down an Act of Parliament. That Parliament is sovereign is the closest thing we have to a Constitution and Statute Law can, and has, struck down Common Law but not the other way round.

it is not about Public opinion, it is about votes.

[Observer II]

Public opinion translates into votes,  but it takes time for the penny to drop in the case of the Plebs.   

[Lt Kije]

4 hours ago, Observer II said:

Public opinion translates into votes,  but it takes time for the penny to drop in the case of the Plebs.   

Are most of the public bothered about migration or just the right-wing????

At the moment there is no legal way into the UK for refugees, and there has not been for a few years, which then forces them to get on a boat!!!, instead of putting plasters on a system that is not fit for purpose, blow it up and start again from scratch,sadly most that get here by boat, are staying because it turns out they are refugees, you need to have a system that lets refugees in, but stops migrants who are economic, sadly people, Observer included don't see a difference, and lump them all into one group. that's why people that arrive by boat are staying, no legal way to get here so they are forced onto boats, set up a legal channel

[Observer II]

This is the nature of woke liberal naivity:  Refugees would naturally reflect the totality of a civilian population, affected by war or natural disaster. That means there would be a mix of women and children.  Refugees are more likely to be destitute, so couldn't afford the £thousands demanded by traffickers. No, the reality is, that the majority of these chancers coming across the channel in small boats, are young men of military age, fleeing military service or just economic migrants, who, having established a beach head, will no doubt arrange to bring their wider families over to join them.    They will destroy the social cohesion of the UK, and the rest of Europe; indeed it's already happening.   😠

[Bill]

If they were all genuine refugees fleeing persecution or war then as soon as they’re outside their country they’re basically safe. As soon as they continue on looking for what they believe will give them a better standard of living, they’re no longer refugees but economic migrants. It’s glaringly obvious and I can’t understand how some people can’t see this.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

Frankly, I can't believe any politician on this issue anymore;  I keep hearing Labour politicians saying "get rid of the backlog and deport those that fail their asylum applications" -  deport to where ?    The only answer to the boats, is what should have happened all along, intercept them at sea, and take them back to France, rather than taxi them into the UK.  If the UKBF refuse to do it, sack them all and employ contractors who will or order the RN to do it.   As for all the hand wringing over the ECHR, France has just off loaded some and totally ignored the ECHR, Shengen has collapsed and EU Countries are manning border check points to turn back migrants. 

[ninearches]

I can't help thinking that Rishi's nearly £300 million to Rwanda would have been better spent on re-forming the Home Guard  to keep our borders safe.

One of the problems we have in the UK is that we have a so called labour shortage even though the latest figures say 1.5 million are unemployed. Various ,diverse governments have created a culture of stay at home benefits to disguise true unemployment figures for many years now & have also created a culture where seasoned benefit recipients can run rings around governments & get more for staying at home than working with all its attendant expenses. What we are seeing is a shortage of labour in poorly paid jobs ,made worse by increases in earnings post covid. Like it or not ,there is still a need for low paid workers who are not bound by the minimum wage & the gap is waiting to be filled with immigrants. There is a large part of the economy that is only too willing to encourage them to keep coming.

I think Rwanda is too far to send these people though...why not Scotland then we would have a shorter border to police ?

[Observer II]

Some good points there Dave, which begs the question of who has created this dependent society, which Party ?    😠

[Lt Kije]

5 hours ago, Bill said:

If they were all genuine refugees fleeing persecution or war then as soon as they’re outside their country they’re basically safe. As soon as they continue on looking for what they believe will give them a better standard of living, they’re no longer refugees but economic migrants. It’s glaringly obvious and I can’t understand how some people can’t see this.

 

Bill 😊

Have you read the act, as refugees they do not have to apply for refugee status in the first safe country they come to, there is good reason for that Bill, just look at Greece, which is snowed under and cannot cope!!, very easy to say when you are not on the border of a failed state, miles away from the trouble zones, its someone else's problem

[Observer II]

But they are not "refugees",  the vast majority are young males, seeking an economic improvement, who have the cash to pay traffickers.

[Bill]

No, I haven’t read the act, I’m just using what I believe to be common sense and logic.

Understandably Greece is the first country they encounter but to get to the UK they need to pass through about a dozen others where they could claim refugee status, so the question is why don’t they? My uneducated guess is that they believe the UK is paved with gold.

If these people were true refugees then there should be an even mix of sexes and age groups, but we see an overwhelming majority of young males, why is that? And if they are mostly male, why do church leaders and politicians constantly harp on about needing to safeguard vulnerable women and children?

I’m in favour of offering help to those in genuine need, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to differentiate between needs and wants.

 

Bill 😊

[Confused52]

I have read the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and Section 2 makes it clear that if: (1) They entered illegally (2) on a date after the Act was passed (3) not to have come
directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which their life and liberty were threatened ...(an example of which is given as)  if, in coming from such a country, they passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened and (4) the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it; then the Secretary of State has a duty to remove them!

So you understand the Act without reading it and someone else has read it but didn't understand what he read, again.

[Lt Kije]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

No, I haven’t read the act, I’m just using what I believe to be common sense and logic.

Understandably Greece is the first country they encounter but to get to the UK they need to pass through about a dozen others where they could claim refugee status, so the question is why don’t they? My uneducated guess is that they believe the UK is paved with gold.

If these people were true refugees then there should be an even mix of sexes and age groups, but we see an overwhelming majority of young males, why is that? And if they are mostly male, why do church leaders and politicians constantly harp on about needing to safeguard vulnerable women and children?

I’m in favour of offering help to those in genuine need, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to differentiate between needs and wants.

 

Bill 😊

Why should there be a mix of sexes,???and actually women and children do travel, but not in the same numbers, some kids drowned last year as I remember, the right wing press don't report it as it goes against there agenda

[Bill]

Rather than ask me why there should be, maybe you should try asking yourself why there isn’t, and when you work it out perhaps you could let me know. 😉

As for the media not reporting any children drowning during the crossing, that’s a load of old cobblers. I don’t read newspapers and haven’t a clue which news channels are left or right, but I manage to see these reports on the telly. I think that anyone that allows their political views to dictate what news is taken in could easily come to such a conclusion. After all, if you never read or watch certain streams, how would you know they don’t report it?

Let’s stick to the facts though. The vast majority of the boat people are young males prepared to risk their lives and those of others because they believe the UK would give them a better standard of life than the rest of the countries they’ve travelled through, and to me, that makes them economic migrants rather than refugees.

 

Bill 😊

[Lt Kije]

13 hours ago, Bill said:

Rather than ask me why there should be, maybe you should try asking yourself why there isn’t, and when you work it out perhaps you could let me know. 😉

As for the media not reporting any children drowning during the crossing, that’s a load of old cobblers. I don’t read newspapers and haven’t a clue which news channels are left or right, but I manage to see these reports on the telly. I think that anyone that allows their political views to dictate what news is taken in could easily come to such a conclusion. After all, if you never read or watch certain streams, how would you know they don’t report it?

Let’s stick to the facts though. The vast majority of the boat people are young males prepared to risk their lives and those of others because they believe the UK would give them a better standard of life than the rest of the countries they’ve travelled through, and to me, that makes them economic migrants rather than refugees.

 

Bill 😊

For most of the refugees, the trip can take years, in many of the Countries women don't have the same rights, it's a long and perilous trip, not really safe for males let alone women and children, but I suspect you already know that Bill, and I read all media, left and right, As to a better standard of living Bill, both Germany and France offer more to refugees than we do!!!, And France and Germany both take a lot more refugees in than we do!!!

[Observer II]

Where do you get these ideas from ?   "France offer more to refugees than we do" -  like living in slum camps around Calais, and sleeping rough.  While in the UK they get hotel accomodation.    

[Confused52]

Under the Dublin convention they can only apply for asylum in one EU country, and they all share fingerprints. They do not apply in France and hence get no benefits because they might want to go elsewhere if they don't make in to the UK. It is probably better to go to Germany if not the UK so registering in France is a very bad plan. You would think that would make France want to stop the problem but apparently causing nuisance to the UK is preferable.

[Observer II]

It's interesting that the latest effort by these illegals,  resulted in their boat capsizing and one drowning. They were "rescued" by a French boat and taken to Calais.  This shows that if there was goodwill on the part of the French, they could stop this farce permanently. The fact that they don't, shows a lack of goodwill, despite the UK paying them £millions to do so.  The French argue, that our soft approach to the treatment  of these migrants, is the big draw; so we're basically the victims of our own generosity.  😠

[Bill]

Quote

In many of the Countries women don't have the same rights, it's a long and perilous trip, not really safe for males let alone women and children.

If they were coming through Afghanistan and Iran I might agree but from Greece there’s little in the way of risk as they’d only be traveling through civilized countries, most of which are in in the EU.

 

Bill 😊

[Lt Kije]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:02 AM, Observer II said:

Where do you get these ideas from ?   "France offer more to refugees than we do" -  like living in slum camps around Calais, and sleeping rough.  While in the UK they get hotel accomodation.    

https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/aid-to-refugees-how-do-european-countries-compare/

[Lt Kije]

On 12/16/2023 at 2:01 PM, Bill said:

If they were coming through Afghanistan and Iran I might agree but from Greece there’s little in the way of risk as they’d only be traveling through civilized countries, most of which are in in the EU.

 

Bill 😊

They have to get to Greece or Italy, and Women are trafficked both in Europe and the UK

[Observer II]

32 minutes ago, Lt Kije said:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/aid-to-refugees-how-do-european-countries-compare/

Just one basic flaw with this, in order to get any benefits, the asylum seekers need to apply for asylum, if they don't they get nothing.  Those in France, having travelled throughout the EU, are seeking asylum in the UK, which they seem to think offers them more.