FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > One In - One out
One In - One out
Jump to: Newest in thread
Today SKS and Macron announced a one in one out scheme to deter people using boat crossings. It has a deterrent factor in that if you come via small boat you could be sent back and someone who did not decide to use the small boats and qualifies will be given safe passage. It is due to start very small with around 50 people. Is this the silver bullet moment?
So far some of the problems mentioned would be legal challenges as you are still deporting a person who wants to claim asylum in the UK. Some other EU countries are also not keen as France could send those returned by the UK back to the fist country they entered. Did not know that was the case but that's how I understand the BBC report. Also just read that the mayor's of coastal french towns were not consulted and not happy as it affects them too. If it works though and deters People then happy days. Apart from the legal stuff a possible problem I see is those that wait patiently for safe passage rely on those crossing illegally and being returned. If no one crosses then no one gets the safe passage route. Unlikely though that crossings will stop altogether though I guess |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 7 days ago
Terra Firma |
I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Hmm. It's dubious, it's trading human life! As if one person I'd worth more than another. So it sits unwell with me.
However, I accept if it works and keeps Reform at bay it may be worth it.
At least we're not exchanging life for sl@very this time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hmm. It's dubious, it's trading human life! As if one person I'd worth more than another. So it sits unwell with me.
However, I accept if it works and keeps Reform at bay it may be worth it.
At least we're not exchanging life for sl@very this time "
Seems a low bar, and cruel to please the snarling nationalists.
Instead of taking them head on and explaining just why we should help the most desperate people in the world and why we need more immigrants not less.
Even if we got to 2:1 tomorrow that's 20 years of immigrants we need. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR. "
Wait, are they sending back only failed asylum seekers? I thought it's even before someone applies for asylum. If they are sending back only failed asylum seekers, it gives more incentive for them to take the boat because even if they fail, they know that they will be sent only to France and not their home country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
Wait, are they sending back only failed asylum seekers? I thought it's even before someone applies for asylum. If they are sending back only failed asylum seekers, it gives more incentive for them to take the boat because even if they fail, they know that they will be sent only to France and not their home country."
People who have no claim to Britain.
So, a big thing that we don't understand but has become obvious in recent years is that once people start moving they keep moving until they reach the farthest destination.
I understand all this is alien to the cruel and hard of thinking but it's true.
The thinking is if those people who move for moving sakes stop we will take a relative or whatever for a person who actually has a claim |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
People who have no claim to Britain.
"
So not failed asylum seekers.
"
So, a big thing that we don't understand but has become obvious in recent years is that once people start moving they keep moving until they reach the farthest destination.
"
So why do the stop in the UK? Why not Ireland? Maybe Iceland and Faroe Islands? Or how about Greenland? Maybe they would want to go to the US? And then go to Japan!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
People who have no claim to Britain.
So not failed asylum seekers.
So, a big thing that we don't understand but has become obvious in recent years is that once people start moving they keep moving until they reach the farthest destination.
So why do the stop in the UK? Why not Ireland? Maybe Iceland and Faroe Islands? Or how about Greenland? Maybe they would want to go to the US? And then go to Japan!
"
Some do go to Ireland, especially during Rwanda scheme, again we don't fully understand this trend.
Your showing the exceptionalism that actually wrote the refugee convention we never thought that eastern Europe or the middle east would be troubled by refugees reaching our shores.
So one day with technology and intuition they might. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
People who have no claim to Britain.
So not failed asylum seekers.
So, a big thing that we don't understand but has become obvious in recent years is that once people start moving they keep moving until they reach the farthest destination.
So why do the stop in the UK? Why not Ireland? Maybe Iceland and Faroe Islands? Or how about Greenland? Maybe they would want to go to the US? And then go to Japan!
Some do go to Ireland, especially during Rwanda scheme, again we don't fully understand this trend.
Your showing the exceptionalism that actually wrote the refugee convention we never thought that eastern Europe or the middle east would be troubled by refugees reaching our shores.
So one day with technology and intuition they might."
You said that people keep moving until they reach the farthest destination. But that's not true if most of them stop in UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
People who have no claim to Britain.
So not failed asylum seekers.
So, a big thing that we don't understand but has become obvious in recent years is that once people start moving they keep moving until they reach the farthest destination.
So why do the stop in the UK? Why not Ireland? Maybe Iceland and Faroe Islands? Or how about Greenland? Maybe they would want to go to the US? And then go to Japan!
Some do go to Ireland, especially during Rwanda scheme, again we don't fully understand this trend.
Your showing the exceptionalism that actually wrote the refugee convention we never thought that eastern Europe or the middle east would be troubled by refugees reaching our shores.
So one day with technology and intuition they might.
You said that people keep moving until they reach the farthest destination. But that's not true if most of them stop in UK."
Most people stay in neighboring countries.
Individual countries in Europe take multiple more than UK.
We actually take in relatively little. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
People who have no claim to Britain.
So not failed asylum seekers.
So, a big thing that we don't understand but has become obvious in recent years is that once people start moving they keep moving until they reach the farthest destination.
So why do the stop in the UK? Why not Ireland? Maybe Iceland and Faroe Islands? Or how about Greenland? Maybe they would want to go to the US? And then go to Japan!
"
Failed asylum seekers either get deported or have a right to appeal and I'm afraid to tell you most appeals get granted |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers. "
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........"
Building on this would you speak in the same terms if it was the Jewish community? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
People who have no claim to Britain.
So not failed asylum seekers.
So, a big thing that we don't understand but has become obvious in recent years is that once people start moving they keep moving until they reach the farthest destination.
So why do the stop in the UK? Why not Ireland? Maybe Iceland and Faroe Islands? Or how about Greenland? Maybe they would want to go to the US? And then go to Japan!
Failed asylum seekers either get deported or have a right to appeal and I'm afraid to tell you most appeals get granted "
What does that have to do with going to the farthest place? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........"
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
People who have no claim to Britain.
So not failed asylum seekers.
So, a big thing that we don't understand but has become obvious in recent years is that once people start moving they keep moving until they reach the farthest destination.
So why do the stop in the UK? Why not Ireland? Maybe Iceland and Faroe Islands? Or how about Greenland? Maybe they would want to go to the US? And then go to Japan!
Failed asylum seekers either get deported or have a right to appeal and I'm afraid to tell you most appeals get granted
What does that have to do with going to the farthest place?"
Just correcting a point.
I want to study why it angers you so much? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking? "
What did you read it as? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking?
What did you read it as?"
Where does the other poster say anything about people speaking English only are intelligent? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking?
What did you read it as?
Where does the other poster say anything about people speaking English only are intelligent?"
So what do you think he means by swapping small boats for genuine doctors?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking?
What did you read it as?
Where does the other poster say anything about people speaking English only are intelligent?
So what do you think he means by swapping small boats for genuine doctors?
"
Calling the small boat arrivals doctors has become a meme at this point because it's been shown that it's rarely the case. Where does language or skin colour come from? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking?
What did you read it as?
Where does the other poster say anything about people speaking English only are intelligent?
So what do you think he means by swapping small boats for genuine doctors?
Calling the small boat arrivals doctors has become a meme at this point because it's been shown that it's rarely the case. Where does language or skin colour come from?"
.
Sorry it's been shown? That small boats arrivals are or are not doctors???? Point me to this interesting evidence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking?
What did you read it as?
Where does the other poster say anything about people speaking English only are intelligent?
So what do you think he means by swapping small boats for genuine doctors?
Calling the small boat arrivals doctors has become a meme at this point because it's been shown that it's rarely the case. Where does language or skin colour come from?
.
Sorry it's been shown? That small boats arrivals are or are not doctors???? Point me to this interesting evidence "
The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status is about 53% and most of them work much less hours for much lower wages compared to the national average. You can find the migration observatory report on this. Do on average, there aren't many doctors coming in.
But either way, your argument doesn't make sense. Because small boat arrivals only form a negligible fraction of non-english speaking people and doctors aren't the only intelligent people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking?
What did you read it as?
Where does the other poster say anything about people speaking English only are intelligent?
So what do you think he means by swapping small boats for genuine doctors?
Calling the small boat arrivals doctors has become a meme at this point because it's been shown that it's rarely the case. Where does language or skin colour come from?
.
Sorry it's been shown? That small boats arrivals are or are not doctors???? Point me to this interesting evidence
The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status is about 53% and most of them work much less hours for much lower wages compared to the national average. You can find the migration observatory report on this. Do on average, there aren't many doctors coming in.
But either way, your argument doesn't make sense. Because small boat arrivals only form a negligible fraction of non-english speaking people and doctors aren't the only intelligent people."
Read up mate. Who mentioned doctors??
You can't have Schroedinger's immigrant either they are a problem or their a negligible fraction " |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Today SKS and Macron announced a one in one out scheme to deter people using boat crossings. It has a deterrent factor in that if you come via small boat you could be sent back and someone who did not decide to use the small boats and qualifies will be given safe passage. It is due to start very small with around 50 people. Is this the silver bullet moment?
So far some of the problems mentioned would be legal challenges as you are still deporting a person who wants to claim asylum in the UK. Some other EU countries are also not keen as France could send those returned by the UK back to the fist country they entered. Did not know that was the case but that's how I understand the BBC report. Also just read that the mayor's of coastal french towns were not consulted and not happy as it affects them too. If it works though and deters People then happy days. Apart from the legal stuff a possible problem I see is those that wait patiently for safe passage rely on those crossing illegally and being returned. If no one crosses then no one gets the safe passage route. Unlikely though that crossings will stop altogether though I guess"
I’m confused…..
How does France know the first country they entered and we don’t?
How can France return people to first country entered and we can’t?
And more to the point, what is the first country entered going to do with them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Good move by starmer swapping small boat arrivals for genuine doctors and engineers.
Jesus, that's a polite way of saying only people who can speak English are intelligent despite skin colour.
Your particularly........
How exactly did you arrive at that weird conclusion? Going by your other replies which don't make any sense, have you been drinking?
What did you read it as?
Where does the other poster say anything about people speaking English only are intelligent?
So what do you think he means by swapping small boats for genuine doctors?
Calling the small boat arrivals doctors has become a meme at this point because it's been shown that it's rarely the case. Where does language or skin colour come from?
.
Sorry it's been shown? That small boats arrivals are or are not doctors???? Point me to this interesting evidence
The employment rate of asylum seekers who have been given refugee status is about 53% and most of them work much less hours for much lower wages compared to the national average. You can find the migration observatory report on this. Do on average, there aren't many doctors coming in.
But either way, your argument doesn't make sense. Because small boat arrivals only form a negligible fraction of non-english speaking people and doctors aren't the only intelligent people.
Read up mate. Who mentioned doctors??
You can't have Schroedinger's immigrant either they are a problem or their a negligible fraction ""
The original post you replied to has doctors. You have clearly been drinking |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
Wait, are they sending back only failed asylum seekers? I thought it's even before someone applies for asylum. If they are sending back only failed asylum seekers, it gives more incentive for them to take the boat because even if they fail, they know that they will be sent only to France and not their home country."
Which is generally safer that their 'home' country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
Wait, are they sending back only failed asylum seekers? I thought it's even before someone applies for asylum. If they are sending back only failed asylum seekers, it gives more incentive for them to take the boat because even if they fail, they know that they will be sent only to France and not their home country.
Which is generally safer that their 'home' country. "
If their asylum claim failed, it means their home country is safer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 6 days ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
For the first half of 2025 the EU isn’t doing quite so badly at keeping MAMs (Military Aged Males) out. Two of our local French coppers are working with other forces along the 400 mile border between Romania and the Ukraine keeping out or sending back their deserters, gun-runners and bad guys.
They’ve halved the arrivals through the Western Balkans and Eastern Borders, and by putting pressure on Mali, Senegal and Guinea even the Western African route has decreased by 41%.
Greece made a good job of blocking the Eastern Mediterranean migratory route, crossings dropped by nearly a quarter to 19,600. Short-lived, though, they’re now using the Libya-Crete corridor, which accounts for the largest number of crossings in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Land borders are becoming more difficult, but the influx is increasingly by sea, to generalise in the Eastern Med they’re coming from Afghanistan, Egypt and Sudan; there were 12% more irregular crossings in the Central Med than in the same period in 2024, mostly through traffickers picking them up from Libya and dumping them in Italy. In the Western Med we get mostly Algerians and Moroccans. I don’t know how many people have lost their lives in Channel crossings this year, but the estimate for the Mediterranean is nearly 800.
The EU’s official take on “Exits towards the UK” is as follows: “Migrant attempts to cross into the United Kingdom rose by 23%, reaching 33 200 attempts between January and June. The rise has been driven by a variety of factors, including a much higher number of days with good weather conditions this year, the rising use of “taxi boats” that evade detection and more people crammed on individual boats. Despite enforcement efforts the route is still seen as viable by smuggling groups that remain active and adapt quickly, without much care about the safety of the migrants” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
Wait, are they sending back only failed asylum seekers? I thought it's even before someone applies for asylum. If they are sending back only failed asylum seekers, it gives more incentive for them to take the boat because even if they fail, they know that they will be sent only to France and not their home country.
Which is generally safer that their 'home' country.
If their asylum claim failed, it means their home country is safer."
No, it means they didn't meet the criteria for the country in which they claimed asylum. There's a difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
Wait, are they sending back only failed asylum seekers? I thought it's even before someone applies for asylum. If they are sending back only failed asylum seekers, it gives more incentive for them to take the boat because even if they fail, they know that they will be sent only to France and not their home country.
Which is generally safer that their 'home' country.
If their asylum claim failed, it means their home country is safer.
No, it means they didn't meet the criteria for the country in which they claimed asylum. There's a difference. "
And the criteria usually covers their safety in their home country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR. "
I have not read that it is restricted to only to those that have failed in their asylum claim. The BBC did say something like the criteria was yet to be worked out. If it is only those that have failed then I don't see the deterrent factor. Surely the idea is to make those thinking of crossing that they will pay thousands to get across, only to be sent straight back. Seems legal eagles could get involved either way and countries like Spain and Greece are not happy at all with the plan |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
None of this will ever happen.
It will get bogged down in years of EU negotiations and human rights claims in the courts.
I guess Starmer is just hoping that a few people notice him and think he really is a “tough bastard” and his ratings get off the floor.
Plus he got to hug Macron a lot which they both probably enjoyed.
Doubtful anyone believes anything he says.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No maths professor, but one in, one out sounds like a zero sum game with no reduction in immigration."
but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
I have not read that it is restricted to only to those that have failed in their asylum claim. The BBC did say something like the criteria was yet to be worked out. If it is only those that have failed then I don't see the deterrent factor. Surely the idea is to make those thinking of crossing that they will pay thousands to get across, only to be sent straight back. Seems legal eagles could get involved either way and countries like Spain and Greece are not happy at all with the plan "
I am making an educated guess that the returning person must have failed their asylum, if they didn't we couldn't send them back to France. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No maths professor, but one in, one out sounds like a zero sum game with no reduction in immigration.
but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings"
Exactly. And differentiates between immigrants and asylum seekers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No maths professor, but one in, one out sounds like a zero sum game with no reduction in immigration.
but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings"
"hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings" ha! you missed the opportunity to slip 'gammon' and 'fascist in there! Look, the polls supporting Reform speak for themselves - ordinary people are opposed to ongoing illegal channel crossings. It's in the mainstream. God forbid Fargae as PM imo but that's precisely what will happen if the government don't grasp this issue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
I have not read that it is restricted to only to those that have failed in their asylum claim. The BBC did say something like the criteria was yet to be worked out. If it is only those that have failed then I don't see the deterrent factor. Surely the idea is to make those thinking of crossing that they will pay thousands to get across, only to be sent straight back. Seems legal eagles could get involved either way and countries like Spain and Greece are not happy at all with the plan
I am making an educated guess that the returning person must have failed their asylum, if they didn't we couldn't send them back to France."
I think you’re spot on, or it would violate international law.
So basically we’re getting rid of one we would already be getting rid of anyway, in exchange for guaranteeing an extra one by another route.
And France get to get rid of two for the price of one. Macron must have had a good ole laugh about this when he got back to base. I hope Starmer has given them more money to implement this wonderful plan. The village idiot strikes again.
This won’t decrease net migration, it will increase it. Which of course is exactly what Starmer and Rayner want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No maths professor, but one in, one out sounds like a zero sum game with no reduction in immigration.
but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings
"hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings" ha! you missed the opportunity to slip 'gammon' and 'fascist in there! Look, the polls supporting Reform speak for themselves - ordinary people are opposed to ongoing illegal channel crossings. It's in the mainstream. God forbid Fargae as PM imo but that's precisely what will happen if the government don't grasp this issue."
Just look at the hardliners on here. They oscillate between calling for these people to be drowned/shot/blown up, and then suddenly showing concern for their wellbeing.
Let's hope that the media stop pushing the electorate to vote for the far right populists by pushing the anti-immigrant propaganda so hard. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings"
I don't think I've seen any of the right wingers worrying about the dangers of the channel. They all say "stop the boats", but their concern is about the people arriving, not for those that don't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings
I don't think I've seen any of the right wingers worrying about the dangers of the channel. They all say "stop the boats", but their concern is about the people arriving, not for those that don't."
i don't think that you telling bare faced lies helps you in any way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Unfortunately the right wing press will continue with their narrative,then Svengali Farage will ride the crest of a wave ..excuse the pun,and get the keys to number 10....it'll be that simple ...
He knows exactly how to manipulate his voter appeal...then again he'll fit in well in Westminster anyway given his wealth ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unfortunately the right wing press will continue with their narrative,then Svengali Farage will ride the crest of a wave ..excuse the pun,and get the keys to number 10....it'll be that simple ...
He knows exactly how to manipulate his voter appeal...then again he'll fit in well in Westminster anyway given his wealth ..."
I fear you are right, Farage will be the next incumbent of No. 10. But I disagree that it's the right wing press or their supposed hard right readership that is the problem. In fact the opposite is true. It's the army of hand-wringers making excuses for abuse of our borders by criminals that will ultimately usher Farage into No. 10. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained."
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained.
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days. "
That is where the majority are, and they will play to the crowd it sells advertising. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
I have not read that it is restricted to only to those that have failed in their asylum claim. The BBC did say something like the criteria was yet to be worked out. If it is only those that have failed then I don't see the deterrent factor. Surely the idea is to make those thinking of crossing that they will pay thousands to get across, only to be sent straight back. Seems legal eagles could get involved either way and countries like Spain and Greece are not happy at all with the plan
I am making an educated guess that the returning person must have failed their asylum, if they didn't we couldn't send them back to France."
You could well be right about the legalities of it but to me that reduces the deterrent factor to virtually zero. Below is a snippet from the BBC article which suggests they have not disclosed the criteria and either way legal challenges could happen:
Cooper said migrants who attempted to come back a second time, having already been sent back to France, would be "immediately returned again" and "banned from entering the UK asylum system".
"They will be paying thousands of pounds to people smugglers to no avail," Cooper said.
Lucy Moreton of the Immigration Services Union said it was "entirely possible" the plan could come into force next week but warned legal challenges linked to the scheme "could take a year".
She said individuals selected for return to France could mount a legal challenge over how they were chosen.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Moreton asked whether a criteria would be set or whether it would just be the first 50 people who arrive, and said there could be a "legal challenge that flows from that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained.
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days.
That is where the majority are, and they will play to the crowd it sells advertising."
It's a cycle.
Part 1. Media tells people that immigrants are the problem.
Part 2. Politicians agree that immigrants are the problem.
Part 3. People blame immigrants for the problems in the country. Completely ignoring everything else going on.
Part 4. Politicians use the anti immigrant sentiment to get elected.
The Tories over egged part 2. And the anti-immigrant brigade moved to the ultra-Tories allowing Labour to get elected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
I have not read that it is restricted to only to those that have failed in their asylum claim. The BBC did say something like the criteria was yet to be worked out. If it is only those that have failed then I don't see the deterrent factor. Surely the idea is to make those thinking of crossing that they will pay thousands to get across, only to be sent straight back. Seems legal eagles could get involved either way and countries like Spain and Greece are not happy at all with the plan
I am making an educated guess that the returning person must have failed their asylum, if they didn't we couldn't send them back to France.
You could well be right about the legalities of it but to me that reduces the deterrent factor to virtually zero. Below is a snippet from the BBC article which suggests they have not disclosed the criteria and either way legal challenges could happen:
Cooper said migrants who attempted to come back a second time, having already been sent back to France, would be "immediately returned again" and "banned from entering the UK asylum system".
"They will be paying thousands of pounds to people smugglers to no avail," Cooper said.
Lucy Moreton of the Immigration Services Union said it was "entirely possible" the plan could come into force next week but warned legal challenges linked to the scheme "could take a year".
She said individuals selected for return to France could mount a legal challenge over how they were chosen.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Moreton asked whether a criteria would be set or whether it would just be the first 50 people who arrive, and said there could be a "legal challenge that flows from that"
The deterrent doesn't exist as they would have failed the test for asylum, and they would not know that until they got here by small boat, meaning no change there and no deterrent.. If we try to apply any other criteria, it would be breaking the 1951 refugee convention, meaning there is no other deterrent.
If we assume the above is correct, the difference we now face under this scheme compared to what we have today is really simple. We give the problem back to the EU to repatriate the individual. However, I can see the push back on this from the rest of the bloc on France, they will rightly claim that the UK left the EU so why is France providing the UK a backdoor into the EU process.
France, in my opinion is providing the back door for 2 reasons.
Firstly, they will be removing 2 people from France every time we accept one in, one out.
Secondly it is highly unlikely that France was the country of entry, so France will not need to repatriate the individual.
Macron 1 Starmer 0. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained.
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days.
That is where the majority are, and they will play to the crowd it sells advertising.
It's a cycle.
Part 1. Media tells people that immigrants are the problem.
Part 2. Politicians agree that immigrants are the problem.
Part 3. People blame immigrants for the problems in the country. Completely ignoring everything else going on.
Part 4. Politicians use the anti immigrant sentiment to get elected.
The Tories over egged part 2. And the anti-immigrant brigade moved to the ultra-Tories allowing Labour to get elected."
Fair, but labour have let the country down leaving the door wide open for Farage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained.
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days.
That is where the majority are, and they will play to the crowd it sells advertising.
It's a cycle.
Part 1. Media tells people that immigrants are the problem.
Part 2. Politicians agree that immigrants are the problem.
Part 3. People blame immigrants for the problems in the country. Completely ignoring everything else going on.
Part 4. Politicians use the anti immigrant sentiment to get elected.
The Tories over egged part 2. And the anti-immigrant brigade moved to the ultra-Tories allowing Labour to get elected.
Fair, but labour have let the country down leaving the door wide open for Farage. "
Labour are the party with the most to gain by reducing the number of asylum seekers and the number of boat crossings. They've let themselves down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings"
"I don't think I've seen any of the right wingers worrying about the dangers of the channel. They all say "stop the boats", but their concern is about the people arriving, not for those that don't."
"i don't think that you telling bare faced lies helps you in any way"
Perhaps you could quote a right-winger showing concern for small boat occupants. Then we could all see what you're talking about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings
I don't think I've seen any of the right wingers worrying about the dangers of the channel. They all say "stop the boats", but their concern is about the people arriving, not for those that don't.
i don't think that you telling bare faced lies helps you in any way
Perhaps you could quote a right-winger showing concern for small boat occupants. Then we could all see what you're talking about."
now you want me to spoon feed you all day? ... well no, you're not that important .... use the archives or the search forum subject box in the top left of the page like normal people do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but it does wipe the crocodile tears from the eyes of the virtue signalling hardline rightwingers and their faux concern about the dangers to life of small boat crossings"
"I don't think I've seen any of the right wingers worrying about the dangers of the channel. They all say "stop the boats", but their concern is about the people arriving, not for those that don't."
"i don't think that you telling bare faced lies helps you in any way"
"Perhaps you could quote a right-winger showing concern for small boat occupants. Then we could all see what you're talking about."
"now you want me to spoon feed you all day? ... well no, you're not that important .... use the archives or the search forum subject box in the top left of the page like normal people do."
So you can't point to any examples then. Thought not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained.
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days.
That is where the majority are, and they will play to the crowd it sells advertising.
It's a cycle.
Part 1. Media tells people that immigrants are the problem.
Part 2. Politicians agree that immigrants are the problem.
Part 3. People blame immigrants for the problems in the country. Completely ignoring everything else going on.
Part 4. Politicians use the anti immigrant sentiment to get elected.
The Tories over egged part 2. And the anti-immigrant brigade moved to the ultra-Tories allowing Labour to get elected.
Fair, but labour have let the country down leaving the door wide open for Farage. "
What 1 year in?
The last lot had 14 years in power and 4 years to fix the Brexit immigration hole |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR.
I have not read that it is restricted to only to those that have failed in their asylum claim. The BBC did say something like the criteria was yet to be worked out. If it is only those that have failed then I don't see the deterrent factor. Surely the idea is to make those thinking of crossing that they will pay thousands to get across, only to be sent straight back. Seems legal eagles could get involved either way and countries like Spain and Greece are not happy at all with the plan
I am making an educated guess that the returning person must have failed their asylum, if they didn't we couldn't send them back to France.
You could well be right about the legalities of it but to me that reduces the deterrent factor to virtually zero. Below is a snippet from the BBC article which suggests they have not disclosed the criteria and either way legal challenges could happen:
Cooper said migrants who attempted to come back a second time, having already been sent back to France, would be "immediately returned again" and "banned from entering the UK asylum system".
"They will be paying thousands of pounds to people smugglers to no avail," Cooper said.
Lucy Moreton of the Immigration Services Union said it was "entirely possible" the plan could come into force next week but warned legal challenges linked to the scheme "could take a year".
She said individuals selected for return to France could mount a legal challenge over how they were chosen.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Moreton asked whether a criteria would be set or whether it would just be the first 50 people who arrive, and said there could be a "legal challenge that flows from that
The deterrent doesn't exist as they would have failed the test for asylum, and they would not know that until they got here by small boat, meaning no change there and no deterrent.. If we try to apply any other criteria, it would be breaking the 1951 refugee convention, meaning there is no other deterrent.
If we assume the above is correct, the difference we now face under this scheme compared to what we have today is really simple. We give the problem back to the EU to repatriate the individual. However, I can see the push back on this from the rest of the bloc on France, they will rightly claim that the UK left the EU so why is France providing the UK a backdoor into the EU process.
France, in my opinion is providing the back door for 2 reasons.
Firstly, they will be removing 2 people from France every time we accept one in, one out.
Secondly it is highly unlikely that France was the country of entry, so France will not need to repatriate the individual.
Macron 1 Starmer 0. "
It's looking less and less rosy as the day goes on. I read that even the criteria for choosing who is sent back could come under legal challenges. Some other EU countries have expressed their displeasure at this scheme, particularly Greece and Spain as many of the asylum seekers first entered via those countries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fair, but labour have let the country down leaving the door wide open for Farage."
"What 1 year in?
The last lot had 14 years in power and 4 years to fix the Brexit immigration hole"
Surely this lot are much better than the Tories aren't they? Why aren't they working faster?
And what has Brexit got to do with immigration? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fair, but labour have let the country down leaving the door wide open for Farage.
What 1 year in?
The last lot had 14 years in power and 4 years to fix the Brexit immigration hole
Surely this lot are much better than the Tories aren't they? Why aren't they working faster?
And what has Brexit got to do with immigration?"
Dublin agreement
Needing migrants from elsewhere instead of the free flow of Europeans |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And what has Brexit got to do with immigration?"
"Dublin agreement
Needing migrants from elsewhere instead of the free flow of Europeans"
The Dublin agreement applied to less than 3% of asylum seekers. It also allowed the EU to send asylum seekers back here, and every year it was in force we were required to take in more than we sent back to the EU. Brexit actually cut down the number of asylum seekers coming here (by a very small amount).
EU citizens can still come here. They just need to fill in an online form, it's not hard. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10."
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
"
Shouldn't immigration be lawful? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?"
It is, so there's that! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained.
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days. "
It’s the platforms users, not the platforms themselves. And most people aren't anti immigration, they just don’t see why we’re letting economic migrants in. People coming just for the freebies. Over a million foreign nationals on benefits plus thousands more arriving every month.
Why allow people who aren’t genuinely fleeing persecution and torture to come here when their only skill set is to ride a diliveroo bike?
That’s what a lot of people are angry about. The is not an asylum seeker, that’s an illegal Immigrant.
Someone who nobody knows just racks up at your 40th birthday party, drinks your beer, eats your food, pervs on the teenage girls, then wants to sleep in your house for 18 months and you give them £63 a week of your own money to buy booze and drugs. Then they’re given a free house and free money cos they’re out of work, despite the fact that they’ve been working for just eat for the past 18 months and not declared the income for tax because it’s illegal. Then bring the whole family over to enjoy our generosity.
If you are happy to do that then pay for it. I’m not happy with people taking the piss and there’s millions who fell the same and they don’t want to pay for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often."
Love the sarcasm 🤣
We just need to remove the incentive for economic migrants.
Some people think if we helped the countries they are coming from more, they wouldn’t come. But what I don’t get is these are usually the same people who think we’ve interfered in other countries too much over the years. 🤷 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often.
Love the sarcasm 🤣
We just need to remove the incentive for economic migrants.
Some people think if we helped the countries they are coming from more, they wouldn’t come. But what I don’t get is these are usually the same people who think we’ve interfered in other countries too much over the years. 🤷"
Interfering & helping aren’t always mutually exclusive though are they, things aren’t necessarily always done in the right order or executed in the right way.
The Western desire for regime change for example can create a movement of people, then if the regime gets toppled, help may then arrive but even then, if there is political fragmentation in the aftermath, that negates from the western aid. I’m thinking of Libya here as just one example.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?
It is, so there's that!"
Great, so we can stop criminal gangs smuggling bogus asylum seekers then? Where's the problem eh? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often."
I don't know when opening the borders to strangers became "human rights". The term "human rights" has been bastardised by the politicians so much that it has lost all its respect nowadays. None of the "human rights" protections seem to help when politicians keep passing authoritarian laws against free speech. But protecting rapists and murderers from being deported? Boy these human right courts seem to do a terrific job at it.
We can solve the problem by either changing the refugee conventions or exiting them if it's too hard to change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often.
I don't know when opening the borders to strangers became "human rights". The term "human rights" has been bastardised by the politicians so much that it has lost all its respect nowadays. None of the "human rights" protections seem to help when politicians keep passing authoritarian laws against free speech. But protecting rapists and murderers from being deported? Boy these human right courts seem to do a terrific job at it.
We can solve the problem by either changing the refugee conventions or exiting them if it's too hard to change."
Another solution would be to remove the tyrannical politicians and judges who frustate the public with their anarcho style of humanity and lawlessness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often.
I don't know when opening the borders to strangers became "human rights". The term "human rights" has been bastardised by the politicians so much that it has lost all its respect nowadays. None of the "human rights" protections seem to help when politicians keep passing authoritarian laws against free speech. But protecting rapists and murderers from being deported? Boy these human right courts seem to do a terrific job at it.
We can solve the problem by either changing the refugee conventions or exiting them if it's too hard to change.
Another solution would be to remove the tyrannical politicians and judges who frustate the public with their anarcho style of humanity and lawlessness."
Yes that's quite a concept - politicians and judges who heeded the majority of the people. You could give it a name.....'democracy' maybe? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often.
I don't know when opening the borders to strangers became "human rights". The term "human rights" has been bastardised by the politicians so much that it has lost all its respect nowadays. None of the "human rights" protections seem to help when politicians keep passing authoritarian laws against free speech. But protecting rapists and murderers from being deported? Boy these human right courts seem to do a terrific job at it.
We can solve the problem by either changing the refugee conventions or exiting them if it's too hard to change.
Another solution would be to remove the tyrannical politicians and judges who frustate the public with their anarcho style of humanity and lawlessness.
Yes that's quite a concept - politicians and judges who heeded the majority of the people. You could give it a name.....'democracy' maybe?"
Hey man in a "" democracy both our possible solutions are possible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often."
Are you human? Doesn't human rights benefit you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often.
Love the sarcasm 🤣
We just need to remove the incentive for economic migrants.
Some people think if we helped the countries they are coming from more, they wouldn’t come. But what I don’t get is these are usually the same people who think we’ve interfered in other countries too much over the years. 🤷"
Helping build houses and support the local economy is not the same as dripping bombs and demolishing lives but hey. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?"
How is this relevant to your implication that the government shouldn't act within the law? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?
How is this relevant to your implication that the government shouldn't act within the law?"
The law is not absolute. There are good laws and bad laws - all manmade. If a law works against the interests of a country, the government of the day have a duty to change the law or opt out of international agreements. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?
How is this relevant to your implication that the government shouldn't act within the law?
The law is not absolute. There are good laws and bad laws - all manmade. If a law works against the interests of a country, the government of the day have a duty to change the law or opt out of international agreements."
Which laws are you saying in this example are working against the interests of the country? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 5 days ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
"EU citizens can still come here. They just need to fill in an online form, it's not hard"
But they can't work here, stay here, or come and go as they please as they can throughout the EU.
My German wife was finally granted settled status only after every obstacle was put in her way: for example despite her living permanently and working in the UK since 2005, even contributing enough to the Pension Scheme to receive a (very small!) pension when she's 65, no proof of residence 'cos the house was in my name, and because her teaching contracts were term by term they weren't counted as continuous employment.
So much bullshit we joked even that long ago that it would have been simpler for her to turn up on a beach near Dover in a rubber dinghy.
Sorry, it IS hard, no wonder European professionals who were once here have returned home (or, like us, have simply quit the UK for somewhere else) and are not being replaced. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often.
Love the sarcasm 🤣
We just need to remove the incentive for economic migrants.
Some people think if we helped the countries they are coming from more, they wouldn’t come. But what I don’t get is these are usually the same people who think we’ve interfered in other countries too much over the years. 🤷
Helping build houses and support the local economy is not the same as dripping bombs and demolishing lives but hey."
We can’t build enough homes here, how can we build them overseas?
And most ain’t leaving their country because they don’t have a home, but there are genuine case of that of course, but those are probably the genuine asylum seekers. The economic migrants are coming here to get a better life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This may be beneficial in terms of selection but probably not numbers.
For me, the only way you can stop the boats is
A) End human rights
& if that doesn’t work then
B) Invade France. This might be fun, we used to do it quite often.
Love the sarcasm 🤣
We just need to remove the incentive for economic migrants.
Some people think if we helped the countries they are coming from more, they wouldn’t come. But what I don’t get is these are usually the same people who think we’ve interfered in other countries too much over the years. 🤷
Helping build houses and support the local economy is not the same as dripping bombs and demolishing lives but hey.
We can’t build enough homes here, how can we build them overseas?
And most ain’t leaving their country because they don’t have a home, but there are genuine case of that of course, but those are probably the genuine asylum seekers. The economic migrants are coming here to get a better life. "
You chip in you don't build everyone's homes abroad.
And most are granted asylum so your assumption is wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?
How is this relevant to your implication that the government shouldn't act within the law?
The law is not absolute. There are good laws and bad laws - all manmade. If a law works against the interests of a country, the government of the day have a duty to change the law or opt out of international agreements.
Which laws are you saying in this example are working against the interests of the country?"
The Refugee Convention and Immigration and Asylum Act to name two for starters. Whilst the principles are laudable, in practice these laws are being abused by criminals and self-enriching lawyers to protect bogus asylum seekers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained.
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days. "
Can't anyone be anti Farage as well as anti immigrant? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage really doesn't need to do a lot.. People crossing the channel in their hundreds every day on small boats, along with the people that welcome them with open arms, do the work for him.
It reminds me of Trump, the more he was attacked the more support he gained.
I agree with you for once.
The media is doing the job for him as it did for Trump. Social media plays a part too. Pretty much all the platforms are hardcore anti-immigrant these days.
Can't anyone be anti Farage as well as anti immigrant?"
No, you have to fit into a convenient pigeon hole on here, either 1) Daily Mail reading rampant extreme right racist/fascist.... or 2) Bed-wetting, hand-wringing socialist do-gooder. Take your pick. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No, you have to fit into a convenient pigeon hole on here, either 1) Daily Mail reading rampant extreme right racist/fascist.... or 2) Bed-wetting, hand-wringing socialist do-gooder. Take your pick."
Pretty much... 🙄 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
...
You said that people keep moving until they reach the farthest destination. But that's not true if most of them stop in UK.
That's because the UK is the farthest place worth going to!"
Indeed they could stop in France and join the foreign legion, €1500 a month starting pay, career, see the world, food, accommodation and a pension. The recruitment centres are open 24 hours a day every day. Beats living in a tent?
But the legion isn’t offering a life on benefits, free housing and free state pension, that’s the attraction of the uk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
...
You said that people keep moving until they reach the farthest destination. But that's not true if most of them stop in UK.
That's because the UK is the farthest place worth going to!
Indeed they could stop in France and join the foreign legion, €1500 a month starting pay, career, see the world, food, accommodation and a pension. The recruitment centres are open 24 hours a day every day. Beats living in a tent?
But the legion isn’t offering a life on benefits, free housing and free state pension, that’s the attraction of the uk. "
Germany, France, Italy and Spain all take in more than Britain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
...
You said that people keep moving until they reach the farthest destination. But that's not true if most of them stop in UK.
That's because the UK is the farthest place worth going to!
Indeed they could stop in France and join the foreign legion, €1500 a month starting pay, career, see the world, food, accommodation and a pension. The recruitment centres are open 24 hours a day every day. Beats living in a tent?
But the legion isn’t offering a life on benefits, free housing and free state pension, that’s the attraction of the uk.
Germany, France, Italy and Spain all take in more than Britain. "
Yup, and it shows too. Been to Berlin recently? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
...
You said that people keep moving until they reach the farthest destination. But that's not true if most of them stop in UK.
That's because the UK is the farthest place worth going to!
Indeed they could stop in France and join the foreign legion, €1500 a month starting pay, career, see the world, food, accommodation and a pension. The recruitment centres are open 24 hours a day every day. Beats living in a tent?
But the legion isn’t offering a life on benefits, free housing and free state pension, that’s the attraction of the uk. "
My uncle did just that. But you're only going to annoy people with logic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 4 days ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
Can't anyone be anti Farage as well as anti immigrant?
Define immigrant: if we're talking about the trash that's arriving on our shores in rubber dinghies - o.k. a generalisation, there are one or two genuine refugees amongst them - then I'm definitely both anti Farage and anti immigrant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read it like this:
Failed asylum test on small boat crossing, send back to France and take one that has passed asylum French side. In short we would have sent the failed person somewhere any way, but we will take one that does pass because we have had a result in finding a bogus claimant.
With such low numbers failing asylum, I'm not sure this is a deterrent.
However, I think it is worth watching the outcome as it will give an indication of whether there is anything that can be done to remedy this other than leaving the ECHR. "
Leaving EHCR won't make any difference, there are loads of other laws, loopholes etc. That are waiting to be exploited if we leave EHCR.... Just more of Farages nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can't anyone be anti Farage as well as anti immigrant?
Define immigrant: if we're talking about the trash that's arriving on our shores in rubber dinghies - o.k. a generalisation, there are one or two genuine refugees amongst them - then I'm definitely both anti Farage and anti immigrant."
Only the unloved hate
The unloved and unnatural
Charlie Chaplin |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?
How is this relevant to your implication that the government shouldn't act within the law?
The law is not absolute. There are good laws and bad laws - all manmade. If a law works against the interests of a country, the government of the day have a duty to change the law or opt out of international agreements.
Which laws are you saying in this example are working against the interests of the country?
The Refugee Convention and Immigration and Asylum Act to name two for starters. Whilst the principles are laudable, in practice these laws are being abused by criminals and self-enriching lawyers to protect bogus asylum seekers."
These things are absolutely vital for people escaping war zones. And are humane.
Just because some people don't want foreigners or brown people being in Leicester, doesn't mean we shouldn't fulfill our obligations to help these people that are in need.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can't anyone be anti Farage as well as anti immigrant?
Define immigrant: if we're talking about the trash that's arriving on our shores in rubber dinghies - o.k. a generalisation, there are one or two genuine refugees amongst them - then I'm definitely both anti Farage and anti immigrant."
Refering to human beings as "trash" tells us everything we need to know about a person.
Being anti-Farage doesn't matter if you have such abhorrent views. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"These things are absolutely vital for people escaping war zones.
The Refugee Convention doesn't apply to people escaping war zones. It only applies to people that are being persecuted."
Solid work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The reason for growing instability is the the growing inequality of wealth.
You're ire is better off going towards the billionaires extracting the wealth than the actual poorest people on the globe.
Tax the rich!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK"
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?
How is this relevant to your implication that the government shouldn't act within the law?
The law is not absolute. There are good laws and bad laws - all manmade. If a law works against the interests of a country, the government of the day have a duty to change the law or opt out of international agreements.
Which laws are you saying in this example are working against the interests of the country?
The Refugee Convention and Immigration and Asylum Act to name two for starters. Whilst the principles are laudable, in practice these laws are being abused by criminals and self-enriching lawyers to protect bogus asylum seekers.
These things are absolutely vital for people escaping war zones. And are humane.
Just because some people don't want foreigners or brown people being in Leicester, doesn't mean we shouldn't fulfill our obligations to help these people that are in need.
"
I agree there should be safe asylum routes for bone fide escapees. But here's the irony. Decades of abuse of our borders and asylum system mean safe routes are suspended. So genuine applicants miss out. Apologists of the current mess are culpable too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them "
It's easy to find the information if you are curious. From credible sources. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fear not, our army of HR lawyers are already on the case opining that the plan doesn't comply with law blah blah blah. Rwanda all over again, nothing will happen, nothing will change, Mr Farage will be in No. 10.
Should the plan not be lawful?
How is it related to the Rwanda scheme? The Tories knew that wouldn't work, it was just a PR stunt to try to attract the anti-immigrant brigade to vote for them.
Shouldn't immigration be lawful?
How is this relevant to your implication that the government shouldn't act within the law?
The law is not absolute. There are good laws and bad laws - all manmade. If a law works against the interests of a country, the government of the day have a duty to change the law or opt out of international agreements.
Which laws are you saying in this example are working against the interests of the country?
The Refugee Convention and Immigration and Asylum Act to name two for starters. Whilst the principles are laudable, in practice these laws are being abused by criminals and self-enriching lawyers to protect bogus asylum seekers.
These things are absolutely vital for people escaping war zones. And are humane.
Just because some people don't want foreigners or brown people being in Leicester, doesn't mean we shouldn't fulfill our obligations to help these people that are in need.
I agree there should be safe asylum routes for bone fide escapees. But here's the irony. Decades of abuse of our borders and asylum system mean safe routes are suspended. So genuine applicants miss out. Apologists of the current mess are culpable too."
Interesting perspective. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them "
Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan 3.6 million and Turkey homes 3.4 million.
Germany 3.5 million in Germany including Ukrainians
France has 700,000
Spain has 385,000
UK has 386,000
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them
Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan 3.6 million and Turkey homes 3.4 million.
Germany 3.5 million in Germany including Ukrainians
France has 700,000
Spain has 385,000
UK has 386,000
"
Correction 365,000 in UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them
Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan 3.6 million and Turkey homes 3.4 million.
Germany 3.5 million in Germany including Ukrainians
France has 700,000
Spain has 385,000
UK has 386,000
Correction 365,000 in UK "
1 million Bangladesh
1 million Australia
1.5 million Lebanon
902,700 in Egypt
It's a global phenomenon due to wars, persecution, global warming.
The UK is not disproportionately affected and actually does very little |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them
Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan 3.6 million and Turkey homes 3.4 million.
Germany 3.5 million in Germany including Ukrainians
France has 700,000
Spain has 385,000
UK has 386,000
Correction 365,000 in UK "
Does the 365,000 in UK include Ukrainians? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them
Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan 3.6 million and Turkey homes 3.4 million.
Germany 3.5 million in Germany including Ukrainians
France has 700,000
Spain has 385,000
UK has 386,000
Correction 365,000 in UK
Does the 365,000 in UK include Ukrainians?"
Apparently so |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them
Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan 3.6 million and Turkey homes 3.4 million.
Germany 3.5 million in Germany including Ukrainians
France has 700,000
Spain has 385,000
UK has 386,000
Correction 365,000 in UK
Does the 365,000 in UK include Ukrainians?
Apparently so "
Breaking barriers website says that UK had 448,600 refugees in 2023 itself, if we included Ukrainians |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them
Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan 3.6 million and Turkey homes 3.4 million.
Germany 3.5 million in Germany including Ukrainians
France has 700,000
Spain has 385,000
UK has 386,000
Correction 365,000 in UK
Does the 365,000 in UK include Ukrainians?
Apparently so
Breaking barriers website says that UK had 448,600 refugees in 2023 itself, if we included Ukrainians"
Yeah you are right my numbers were mid 2023 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most DON'T Stop in the UK
Is that a proven fact or just a tiktok statement which gains credibility through repetition?
If it is true, then where DO they end up?
Facts and figures, please, if anyone can supply them
Most go to neighbouring countries. Jordan 3.6 million and Turkey homes 3.4 million.
Germany 3.5 million in Germany including Ukrainians
France has 700,000
Spain has 385,000
UK has 386,000
Correction 365,000 in UK
Does the 365,000 in UK include Ukrainians?
Apparently so
Breaking barriers website says that UK had 448,600 refugees in 2023 itself, if we included Ukrainians
Yeah you are right my numbers were mid 2023"
Are we talking asylum seekers or refugees? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Those that are sent back will just return on the next dinghy. Also I doubt France will send anyone of worth. Daft idea."
I seem to recall reading that if a person is sent back to France in this swap scheme and they try to re enter, then they automatically fail and are banned from the UK for good. Not sure if that will be the final details or not or even if it will get that far as the lawyers will be involved most probably |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
