Your shower are in government Pete. Another supposed "solution" was to send refugees to the Falklands. It seems like for any idea to pass muster it has to pass the "how can I be the worst human being imaginable?" test.
Current Affairs The Conservative Party
- Thread starter Ashtonian
- Start date
- Status
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
So you have no answer either then…..
If you want to stop illegal trafficking then you have to provide legal ways of claiming asylum. Right now we provide few routes to do so overseas and people can't board a plane without a visa, which we won't provide for asylum purposes, so people have little alternative. Change that and you change the business model of traffickers, but we won't do that because Tory voters are scared of brown people.
As you have asked, the problem seems to boil down to this from the IOM
Loading…
publications.iom.int
Western governments seem terrified of doing the former because people seem terrified of anyone foreign, so they have to do the inhumane stuff instead. Well done humanity.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
I have been saying similar all along. Find a way to do it from whatever country they are in and then help them if granted. And btw non-eu people (mostly white) are currently being replaced/outnumbered by legal immigrants from around the world (including brown people)……anyone arriving by dingy goes to Rwanda……
Doing it in place isn't any use Pete. Imagine saying to a Ukrainian that they have to wait in Kiev or Afghanistan for 6 months while their claim is processed. People don't get into the back of a wagon for the fun of it. It shouldn't be our aim to "stop smuggling" by also preventing people from successfully claiming asylum in the UK, which is all this Rwandan farse does.
Last edited:
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
This doesnt. (Rwanda). That is a fig leaf to justify an inhumane policy.
A: I’d propose going back to the drawing board and coming up with a better solution.
In this scenario, it is the job of the government to solve problems, not the job of the opposition.
The counter point is how does sending people to Rwanda stop illegal trafficking?
That's just it. It doesn't help people to get out of the fire, it just provides less of an incentive to use criminals to escape. That's the nuts and bolts of it, and Tory voters like Pete are quite happy with turning our back on those in need.
Lewis has been the MP of my old home town for 12 years. A thoroughly disliked odious little turd if there ever was one, got re-elected purely on the Brexit vote
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
It also drills the illegal trafficking issue down to just asylum/refugees. (usually brown).
Nail bars, brothels, escort agencies, cockle pickers in Morcombe, a dozen dead in the back of an Irish lorry, drug mules, car washing. The list of cover stories goes on.
No no...he's happy to accept 'real' refugees like those Ukrainians. Just not these economic migrants from others countries.
I feel like I have quite extensive experience of both Trafficking, Refugees having worked for many years in charities supporting those people.
The lack of knowledge about the issues is astounding.
Not always who people think would be trafficked and the consistent thing is that there's always money to be made by despicable people where there are desperate people.
The 'what would you do instead?' line is a complete red herring because nobody has calculated the cost of doing absolutely nothing vs the cost of this Rwanda policy.
It may be more cost effective to do absolutely nothing.
Now aside from the cost to the UK, you might say "well it stops the traffickers trafficking" - how? All it does it open new routes.
The implication of sending single men to Rwanda will now just mean women and children will get on those boats instead - you'll have to shift your arguments to 'what mother would do this to her child?' instead.
Edit: I've just seen Patel is saying 'everyone will be considered for deportation' so children included.
It may be more cost effective to do absolutely nothing.
Now aside from the cost to the UK, you might say "well it stops the traffickers trafficking" - how? All it does it open new routes.
The implication of sending single men to Rwanda will now just mean women and children will get on those boats instead - you'll have to shift your arguments to 'what mother would do this to her child?' instead.
Edit: I've just seen Patel is saying 'everyone will be considered for deportation' so children included.
- Status