Yarrgh
Player Valuation: £80m
Maybe the British public has woken up to their bs finally. All it took was tanking the economy and destroying are internal and external infrastructure.
SS style commitment to the cause.The language that gargoyle uses aswell, I personally think to support the Rwanda relocation scheme you need to be a special kind of evil, but lets pretend it is a necessary evil to solve a genuine. Even then to take joy at the image of ferrying vulnerable people elsewhere is such an example of cruelty it can only be pure hatred and racism. Shame on the conservatives and their slavish right wing followers
Braverman is horrendous, but I can't for the life of me understand why Reeves went along the same lines. She should be saying that offering asylum is good, not only for the poor sods involved but for the country as well.
It's like the EU debate all over again. No party seems able to have an honest conversation that uses actual evidence. Instead, they engage in soundbite one-upmanship that panders to base fears.Labour’s stance on immigration has been pathetic for a long time. They’re scared to talk about it
Tories can take a hard line and keep their base and gain some whilst Labour want to keep their liberal support but not scare away their voters who are anti migration.It's like the EU debate all over again. No party seems able to have an honest conversation that uses actual evidence. Instead, they engage in soundbite one-upmanship that panders to base fears.
Braverman is horrendous, but I can't for the life of me understand why Reeves went along the same lines. She should be saying that offering asylum is good, not only for the poor sods involved but for the country as well.
As a shred of defence, she does talk about illegal immigration there. The problem is, the distinction is so often not made that it reduces anyone claiming asylum to "illegal immigrant".
Labour’s stance on immigration has been pathetic for a long time. They’re scared to talk about it
It's like the EU debate all over again. No party seems able to have an honest conversation that uses actual evidence. Instead, they engage in soundbite one-upmanship that panders to base fears.
Get in the bin you disgusting fascist.
The language around the discussion is deliberately unhelpful.Yeah, not sure that ‘optically’ it’s a good move, as it’s a nuanced topic, but she’s talking about illegal immigration, and deportations (removals - I.e those who have been through the asylum system, then the appeals system, and have come to the end of the road, and are then subject to removal).
It’s a tricky part of the migration system, to remove people who have been refused refugee status and then exhausted all their legal options of appeal and dispute. The process takes so long, that people often then have families here, which complicates the situation, and their country of origin could be somewhere so politically unsettled that it’s not feasible to deport them there.
I've only ever seen the phrase "illegal immigrant" used in relation to those crossing the channel in boats, when my understanding is that all of those people are claiming asylum. In most countries, by far the biggest element of "illegal immigration" is people overstaying their visa. Do we really think it's "those" people that the politicians are talking about?As a shred of defence, she does talk about illegal immigration there. The problem is, the distinction is so often not made that it reduces anyone claiming asylum to "illegal immigrant".
Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.