I find it appalling that some on here advocate sending people to a country with an awful human rights record.
Yes the problem needs addressing but Rwanda is not the solution.
The Great Debate on Immigration
Please treat other members in a constructive manner and abide by our Forum Rules at all times.
-
-
I find it appalling that some on here advocate sending people to a country with an awful human rights record.
Yes the problem needs addressing but Rwanda is not the solution.
It’s more than that in my view , the policy was deliberately divisive & was clearly of questionable legality
It was drawn up to get a certain demographic on board & try & sway public opinion away from the EHCR & our obligations under treaties this country signed up to
-
It’s dreadful for a government to carry out a policy that is illegal
That's fine then, they are the government so they can change the law. problem sorted
-
I find it appalling that some on here advocate sending people to a country with an awful human rights record.
Yes the problem needs addressing but Rwanda is not the solution.
As it happens Rwanda's poor human rights record is in the distance past. We desperately need some sort of deterrent, if it were me I would be shooting holes in their inflatable boats, but don't you just know some wet liberal would kick up a stink about it?
-
It has been proposing something it has clearly been advised was unlawful
It has known this for sometime yet it has persisted.
The Conservative Party says it is the party of law & order , well no more
Maggie will be turning in her grave
What a tit,since when has abiding by the rule of law been against the rule of law.
It wasn't until the supreme Court said it would be illegal that it was, as that ruling didn't exist then.
It was advised? Maybe it was but that doesnt make it wrong, wasnt Blair advised that the Iraq war was illegal ?
The legal argument on that went back and forth faster than a shuggy boat at the fair.
-
That's fine then, they are the government so they can change the law. problem sorted
Why haven’t they already done that ?
-
Why haven’t they already done that ?
They have, just not far enough.
Have you been in suspended animation?
-
Why haven’t they already done that ?
Because they are weak, and to be fair it takes a while as well. The first thing we need to do is to get out of the ECHR, which I suspect they will do shortly before an election, because they know it's a big vote winner
-
Display More
What a tit,since when has abiding by the rule of law been against the rule of law.
It wasn't until the supreme Court said it would be illegal that it was, as that ruling didn't exist then.
It was advised? Maybe it was but that doesnt make it wrong, wasnt Blair advised that the Iraq war was illegal ?
The legal argument on that went back and forth faster than a shuggy boat at the fair.
I don’t know anything about human rights law but it was obvious the Rwanda policy was at the very least on dodgy legal ground from the beginning.
It was a very obvious political stunt
If it does become law there is not reason to think it will be effective & it will cost a fortune
-
I don’t know anything about human rights law but it was obvious the Rwanda policy was at the very least on dodgy legal ground from the beginning.
It was a very obvious political stunt
If it does become law there is not reason to think it will be effective & it will cost a fortune
It will only be effective as a deterrent. The only deterrent at the moment is having to use three star hotels because the four star ones are full up
-
That may well be so, but they are entitled to try. Every nation should be able to refuse entry to anyone and imo it is not for someone else to tell you your wrong.
People can bury their heads in the sand, but we take in more immigrants than we build houses, create school or hospital places, have doctors to look after them or jobs for them to fill. Does it stop morons thinking we should let them in NO, do they think its the government's fault YES. But when the government tries to stop it they're at fault again.
It is unsustainable, but sending them elsewhere is fine, but who'll take them, NOW THATS HARDER. Personally I don't care where they go, so long as it's mot here. If that is selfish, then get me a medal, big one.
-
That may well be so, but they are entitled to try. Every nation should be able to refuse entry to anyone and imo it is not for someone else to tell you your wrong.
People can bury their heads in the sand, but we take in more immigrants than we build houses, create school or hospital places, have doctors to look after them or jobs for them to fill. Does it stop morons thinking we should let them in NO, do they think its the government's fault YES. But when the government tries to stop it they're at fault again.
It is unsustainable, but sending them elsewhere is fine, but who'll take them, NOW THATS HARDER. Personally I don't care where they go, so long as it's mot here. If that is selfish, then get me a medal, big one.
I am not disagreeing that there is problem though I think it’s importance has be exaggerated at times but it needs to be dealt with in a lawful manner
Net migration in 2022 was 606,000 according to the ONS of those it’s estimated that around 46,000 cam across the channel.
-
It has been proposing something it has clearly been advised was unlawful
It has known this for sometime yet it has persisted.
The Conservative Party says it is the party of law & order , well no more
Maggie will be turning in her grave
You are being too simplistic. Legal advice comes in two forms - yes you can and no you can't.
An earlier court decision gave the government the green light but the appeal court judgements turned that around. No law has been broken because no-one has been sent to Rwanda.
And as for Maggie, no. The lady is not for turning.
-
that's more than attend most premier league football matches. Is the size of a town every year, they are NOT our responsibility.
When it says a person has the right to a family life, its doesn't have to mean his mom & dad, her mom & dad, brother sisters cousins aunts uncles and their dogs. Unless the siblings are dependants, but the fact they left them behind to come here says they aren't dependant upon them. That may sound hard but I.D.G.A.F this isn't butlins.
-
That may well be so, but they are entitled to try. Every nation should be able to refuse entry to anyone and imo it is not for someone else to tell you your wrong.
People can bury their heads in the sand, but we take in more immigrants than we build houses, create school or hospital places, have doctors to look after them or jobs for them to fill. Does it stop morons thinking we should let them in NO, do they think its the government's fault YES. But when the government tries to stop it they're at fault again.
It is unsustainable, but sending them elsewhere is fine, but who'll take them, NOW THATS HARDER. Personally I don't care where they go, so long as it's mot here. If that is selfish, then get me a medal, big one.
I'm with you. If it's an illegal entry then they should just be sent back to the last country they left (France). Unfortunately the illegal immigrants are a small problem compared to legal immigration. Like Truebrit pointed out net immigration was 606000 last year, that's the equivalent to over two Milton Keynes. Apart from the damage this immigration is doing to our culture, we simply don't have the infrastructure to support them, and their net financial contributions go a very small way to take the infrastructure to where it needs to be
-
It’s more than that in my view , the policy was deliberately divisive & was clearly of questionable legality
It was drawn up to get a certain demographic on board & try & sway public opinion away from the EHCR & our obligations under treaties this country signed up to
No, the policy was designed to take away the incentive to come here, thus breaking the criminal trafficking model. Have you not listened to the concerns of the red wall citizens of this country? Labour made that mistake.
-
that's more than attend most premier league football matches. Is the size of a town every year, they are NOT our responsibility.
When it says a person has the right to a family life, its doesn't have to mean his mom & dad, her mom & dad, brother sisters cousins aunts uncles and their dogs. Unless the siblings are dependants, but the fact they left them behind to come here says they aren't dependant upon them. That may sound hard but I.D.G.A.F this isn't butlins.
To be fair, I don't mind their dogs coming over
-
https://news.sky.com/story/tor…uman-rights-laws-13009765
The government have known from the beginning that the Rwanda plan as unlawful within current legislation
£140 million wasted on a political stunt
I agree that the money is wasted and the government probably knew the plan wouldn't work, but it was a gamble. One that didn't pay off.
If the plan had worked, then assuming a load of media was invited to watch the refugees be put on the first batch of planes and also film the refugees at the other end in Rwanda, it wouldn't have taken too many weeks/months of doing this, before the message reached the French shores and the deterrent effect would've worked.
It didn't work, though, and the government should now drop this plan.
-
We need a cunning plan , where's Baldrick when we need him
-
We need a cunning plan , where's Baldrick when we need him
I've got one, it involves this
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!