The Politics Thread | Page 446 | Vital Football

The Politics Thread

Fulford said:
Looks like the £500k Rwanda flight contains 5 refugees.
Click to expand...

This won't go down well. The European Court of human rights have stopped it.

Mind you there is a train of thinking going around that the government knew this would happen.

That Boris can use this to deflect and blame ECHR for it not happening.

That E.U getting involved again blah blah blah. The ECHR incidently is nothing to do with the E.U b
BTW .

Boris is now threatening to change the laws of the ECHR which he can't do.

Poor Boris he is doing his best they will say 🙄🙄🙄

I can well believe it

https://news.sky.com/story/first-de...e-legal-appeals-home-office-confirms-12634130
 
Last edited:
It was never ever going to work. If human rights lawyers can stop foreign criminals with no visa being shipped out the country what chance does this Rwanda plan have. Absolute zero. I would bet alot of money not one illegal immigrant gets on a plane.
And even if a handful do get shipped over. What on earth is that going to do? 5 people? Talk about pissing into the Atlantic.
 
colavfc said:
It was never ever going to work. If human rights lawyers can stop foreign criminals with no visa being shipped out the country what chance does this Rwanda plan have. Absolute zero. I would bet alot of money not one illegal immigrant gets on a plane.
And even if a handful do get shipped over. What on earth is that going to do? 5 people? Talk about pissing into the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

Again though mate, instances like that - when all you saw was a headline in effect with no real thorough explanation of the true details of the conviction in the report, are an absolute miniscule account. Every immigrant is technically illegal until they apply to be a legal immigrant - what Priti and the Gov hide here and the likes of the Daily Mail and Farage constantly spin is every immigrant is entitled to the opportunity to become a legal immigrant - to the state where there is actually no such thing as an illegal immigrant (without application) in the eyes of the law in reality.

You are only illegal on two fronts in a basic sense:

A: you do not apply for asylum or citizenship upon entry and then try and live a life
B: your application fails/initial visa expires and is not renewed

All this talk of welcoming legal immigration is absolute horseshit because basically all immigration is legal until someone arrives and then does not apply. Rather than 'spunking' millions to Rwanda, maybe we fund Border Force properly, get through applications more speedily, set up application centres in Calais where they can apply and stay until a determination.

For all the spin, bollocks and bluster, there is basically no way for 'poor' people to enter the system until they are stood on our land. That also applies to rich people who have passports, means, maybe an existing work/student visa - they still can't apply for safety until their feet touch our soil.

And again, for all the 'it's only men we see' from Farage. The BBC were sat on the main docking yard today and unless anyone wants to bizarrely suggest they employed extras - 70+% were women and children heading for the shed to start the process.

Added to that, the vast majority of true crims get deported back, they always have done but that's not headline worthy - we only hear about deportation flights where clearly the Gov has not complied with our own laws. In this case we are planning to deport people without even finding out whether or not they are entitled to valid asylum - that is a breach of the law and international agreements in and of itself.

We absolutely aren't constrained from deporting them if their application fails, and Priti Patel basically lied in Parliament today (what a surprise) by conflating what the Supreme Court found with what the ECHR decided on a single case of an Iraqi.

The ECHR are basically right here and our Supreme Court took the safe and lazy option - they have stayed deportation until the Supreme Court actually decides on the legality of the Rwanda project. That is it - nothing more really and nothing less. The Gov can go to Strasbourg and fight this individual case if they want and they might win, or they can actually let the courts in this country do their job properly first instead of creaming for headlines that incite Brexit and EU bollocks and banging on like retards that we won't accept we can't control our borders.

Or maybe the Gov could actually try and comply with the law in the first place? Let's not forget, for a Tory Gov focused on borders, they didn't even negotiate a new Dublin replacement that dealt with Euro returns in our Divorce deal - so why are they making such an issue of it now?

Particularly as the UK Gov has called Rwanda out on human rights in the not so distant past, yet it's fine now? If they have genuinely changed their mind and the issues with Rwanda have been corrected, then I'm not against the policy for those who go through the system but fail. If we are sure they would be safe, I get effectively sponsoring a second chance for those deemed not to qualify here but could have a claim elsewhere.

Yes, they could be genuine criminals deserving a second chance (and not the DM or Farage narrative and certainly not those with trumped up charges by previous regimes) and we can continue to deport genuine chancers as well.

But taking that decision without actually following the law and based purely on colour and country of origin - Boris and Patel can fuck right off.
 
Last edited:
mike_field said:
And again, for all the 'it's only men we see' from Farage. The BBC were sat on the main docking yard today and unless anyone wants to bizarrely suggest they employed extras - 70+% were women and children heading for the shed to start the process.
Click to expand...

"Overall, males represented approximately 90% of small boat arrivals in 2021 (excluding arrivals where information on sex was not yet available in the dataset). Three-quarters (75%) of all arrivals were adult males aged 18 to 39, 7% were adult females, and 5% were males aged 40 and over. Children (under 18) represented around 12% of small boat arrivals, of which three quarter (76%) were male."

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-december-2021
 
Yes, and that account for economic immigration and I have no reason to distrust the Gov figures but you listen to the press and it's 100% young male and that's just never the case. They are also the group most likely to be re-deported after failing and the figures bear that out the last time I checked at least, but that's not reportable - so my point still stands and you are using figures which you acknowledge from 2021.

When it's already known the increase (small) in Farage's dinghies spiked owing to the lack of otherwise available travel which gives a far different perspective in previous years on the total immigration travel and applications to the country - those capable of applying for small time visas were held back, a % (no idea the size) may well have crossed to get a foothold to then bring the family when normally they'd have applied short stay/or student/work first and then followed.

It's not as black and white as the clown and ice queen pretend, but glad you agreed with the rest of it.
 
The whole immigration/asylum issue is worrying to me. The reasons given for leaving their home countries and seeking asylum somewhere else is due to being in danger or subject to persecution. The Oxford English dictionary provides the definition as "the protection granted by a state to someone who has left their home country as a political refugee."
So why do significant numbers having found sanctuary and safety in EU countries such as Spain, France, Italy, Greece etc. then put themselves at risk in crossing the continent and even greater risk in crossing the Channel in dinghies to get to the UK. Surely, their human rights issues are addressed when they arrive on European soil? But perhaps the EU countries mentioned are not as 'benevolent' as the UK and that might be an issue that the ECHR should look into? After all Human Rights should have a consistent meaning for all people in all countries? Make living in other EU states as good as the UK and the problem will diminish and people will not be exploited by traffickers and their lives put at risk.
 
Claret & Blue Blood said:
The whole immigration/asylum issue is worrying to me. The reasons given for leaving their home countries and seeking asylum somewhere else is due to being in danger or subject to persecution. The Oxford English dictionary provides the definition as "the protection granted by a state to someone who has left their home country as a political refugee."
So why do significant numbers having found sanctuary and safety in EU countries such as Spain, France, Italy, Greece etc. then put themselves at risk in crossing the continent and even greater risk in crossing the Channel in dinghies to get to the UK. Surely, their human rights issues are addressed when they arrive on European soil? But perhaps the EU countries mentioned are not as 'benevolent' as the UK and that might be an issue that the ECHR should look into? After all Human Rights should have a consistent meaning for all people in all countries? Make living in other EU states as good as the UK and the problem will diminish and people will not be exploited by traffickers and their lives put at risk.
Click to expand...

If you go to Paris or Madrid, you will see a lot of Africans. Every country in Europe thinks it is the only country migrants/refugees go to.

IMO, the problem is that people who genuinely want to work are not able to get migrant visas.

Europe has a rapidly aging population and needs migrant labour to pick potatoes and paint houses. There are thousands of people who want those shitty jobs and we build fences to keep them out. They risk their lives and pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds to smuggle them into Europe.

If they could get migrant visas, they could come to Europe, work for a while and then go home and live like kings on the money. They could go and come back if they wanted and would be paying tax and NI contributions.

We could make this easier, safer and much more humane but it's political convenient not to for disgusting politicians like Bozo.
 
Claret & Blue Blood said:
The whole immigration/asylum issue is worrying to me. The reasons given for leaving their home countries and seeking asylum somewhere else is due to being in danger or subject to persecution. The Oxford English dictionary provides the definition as "the protection granted by a state to someone who has left their home country as a political refugee."
So why do significant numbers having found sanctuary and safety in EU countries such as Spain, France, Italy, Greece etc. then put themselves at risk in crossing the continent and even greater risk in crossing the Channel in dinghies to get to the UK. Surely, their human rights issues are addressed when they arrive on European soil? But perhaps the EU countries mentioned are not as 'benevolent' as the UK and that might be an issue that the ECHR should look into? After all Human Rights should have a consistent meaning for all people in all countries? Make living in other EU states as good as the UK and the problem will diminish and people will not be exploited by traffickers and their lives put at risk.
Click to expand...
I think it's probably the hand outs they will receive.
Can't be for the jobs can it? Are any of them legally getting jobs?
They are welcome to the shit show of a country anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.