The War on Immigration

[sphexx]

Not atall. My wife suggested 'partygate'. No,I said..they want to appeal to those who voted for Brexit..the read wall voters re the immigration issue..'control our own borders' They can whistle in the wind because they're going to take a battering on May 25th.

Anyway...lol..this will surprise a lot of people I appreciate it's about 'failed asylum seekers not ones to be processed but nevertheless...

Guardian article dated February 26th 2004:

South Africa last night emerged as the second country with which the Home Office has started talks to take failed asylum seekers from Britain as part of a concerted drive to step up immigration removals and deportations.

Tony Blair confirmed in the Commons yesterday the Guardian's disclosure that negotiations with Tanzania are already under way for a £4m British-funded pilot scheme under which rejected asylum seekers would be sent to the African country as part of an overseas aid deal.

South African help sought on refugees

South Africa emerges as the second country in talks to take failed asylum seekers from Britain as part of a concerted drive to step up immigration removals and deportations.

www.theguardian.com

The Labour government did at least have an identity card scheme in the pipeline which was abandoned by the Cameron government.

 

[Dave *]

It doesn’t matter what words they use, we are still subjects since Parliament is Sovereign not the People .

British nationality: subject or citizen? | The National Archives

This talk covers alienage, denization, naturalisation and registration of citizenship and the records of these statuses that survive

media.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Now things change with the British Nationality Act of 1981 which came into effect from 1 January 1983. It introduced five different types of citizenship. British citizens, people living in the UK or having a connection to the UK and the British Isles, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, so they became British citizens with an automatic right of abode.

We actually ceased to be British subjects from 1 January 1983. That status still survives as a legal status and people still use it colloquially as British subjects. But in fact legally we just became British citizens from 1 January 1983 in the UK.

 

[sphexx]

British nationality: subject or citizen? | The National Archives

This talk covers alienage, denization, naturalisation and registration of citizenship and the records of these statuses that survive

media.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Now things change with the British Nationality Act of 1981 which came into effect from 1 January 1983. It introduced five different types of citizenship. British citizens, people living in the UK or having a connection to the UK and the British Isles, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, so they became British citizens with an automatic right of abode.

We actually ceased to be British subjects from 1 January 1983. That status still survives as a legal status and people still use it colloquially as British subjects. But in fact legally we just became British citizens from 1 January 1983 in the UK.

You don’t even have a right to keep this fake citizenship because HMG can take it away, as we have seen recently, on entirely spurious grounds .

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

3795 since 1970, that compares with 1752 road deaths in 2019, that plummeted to 582 during lockdown. My conclusion do not issue ID cards, keep everyone in lockdown!

There you go again, Roger, spoiling a good rant by quoting the correct numbers!

 

[Pound Coin]

"Shipping people to Rwanda won’t work"

In one respect it will work. In fact it has already started to work. Keir Starmer wasted no time in getting up on his hind legs and condemning it. That is him and his party again tarred with their old reputation of being soft on immigration. That is a vote loser.

My prediction:

We will find out that it:

• is too expensive
• won't work
• doesn't work
• is illegal
• is legal, but only in a specific and limited way
• there's a better way of dealing with this

- or whatever

some time after the May Local Elections.

In the meantime, the nodding dog, slavering, Diehard Tory voters will vote Tory.
Surely there cannot be a better reason for this Rwanda nonsense?

 

[Plain Nev]

And it is nonsense. It's ridiculous and impractical, and just one of those schemes designed to provoke a knee jerk reaction. It will die the death and they will move on to the next one. The fact is they have no real will to tackle the subject at all. They just like tub thumping and know it's always a good vote winner.

 

[Retune]

I suspect the Tories see this as a win/win. It doesn't have to be a particularly serious proposal, so long as it deflects attention away from the criminal offences committed by BJ and his lies to Parliament about them. And it's not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn to the spiteful xenophobic wing of the party that BJ courted to elevate him to the leadership. When the inevitable legal challenges come, that will be a good opportunity to fire some more salvoes in the manufactured culture war against all those 'woke liberals' who want to thwart the Will of the People, and may be a useful pretext to begin the process of neutering the judiciary they've wanted revenge on since that time they reversed the unlawful suspension of Parliament. And perhaps somewhere in the huge amount of public money being funneled into the shoddy deal with Rwanda, there'll be a nice little earner for one of their mates. But above all, of course, there's the orgiastic satifisfaction the smirking Ms Patel will derive from the thought of sending all those refugees, if not back where they came from, then at least somewhere suitably far away from Essex.

 

[4tea2]

I suspect the Tories see this as a win/win. It doesn't have to be a particularly serious proposal, so long as it deflects attention away from the criminal offences committed by BJ and his lies to Parliament about them. And it's not so much a dog whistle as a foghorn to the spiteful xenophobic wing of the party that BJ courted to elevate him to the leadership. When the inevitable legal challenges come, that will be a good opportunity to fire some more salvoes in the manufactured culture war against all those 'woke liberals' who want to thwart the Will of the People, and may be a useful pretext to begin the process of neutering the judiciary they've wanted revenge on since that time they reversed the unlawful suspension of Parliament. And perhaps somewhere in the huge amount of public money being funneled into the shoddy deal with Rwanda, there'll be a nice little earner for one of their mates. But above all, of course, there's the orgiastic satifisfaction the smirking Ms Patel will derive from the thought of sending all those refugees, if not back where they came from, then at least somewhere suitably far away from Essex.

Well put @Retune. You have totally captured my thoughts. I totally agree. Nothing works better as a distraction from the real issues than an unworkable proposal that appears to be a strong policy on a core issue of the man in the street. It does not need to work just generate some oposition that can be derided. Ultimately money will be wasted, but the "publicity" will have been worth the cost.

We can already see how effective this plan has been by looking at this thread. A total distraction from calling BJ to account for breaking the law and lying to Parliament.

 

[woof woof]

Graham W.

Remainers hate the fact that they keep losing.

Check out the EC's record on outsourcings immigration control.

There's nothing like remainer and EC hypocrisy.

 

[woof woof]

Ricardo, you do know about current and future out sourcing by the EC?

If you do you're a bigger hypocrite that I'd ever think you could be and if you don't you're too ill informed for me to waste another second replying to y

See what I did there? I banked on you just not knowing enough about the EC's dealings.

Reamainers and hypocrisy (or just being wrong again) They go together like peas and carrots

 

[woof woof]

Another laugh but no reasoned argument

What do I expect from the Full Blown Psychotic Episode brigade?

 

[simon ess]

You banging on about brexit again!

Good grief.

 

[woof woof]

For those who think the UK gov is a bunch of fascists for off shoring immigration please google what the Eu are up to.

I'm not going to say that I support these measures but only ask people to drop the hypocrisy. If you're going to condemn the UK you must condemn any other country doing the same thing.

Don't be like the FBPE brigade. Be consistent in your condemnation and if possible lets all back a workable and sustainable solution.

 

[woof woof]

You banging on about brexit again!

Good grief.

In the words of Basil Fawlty... They started it. Read the thread and see who brought it up. If that's not too much trouble.

Good Grief indeed.

The hypocrisy and blinkered biased thinking is ingrained with some.

 

[simon ess]

I know exactly when it was brought up and by whom. I also know you keep complaining about people bringing it up.

And yet you keep it going.

Yes it is rather Basilish.

 

[lindsay]

I keep wanting to respond to this and then delete the response and stop myself. Some holes are never deep enough, it seems.

 

[Retune]

Graham W.

Remainers hate the fact that they keep losing.

Check out the EC's record on outsourcings immigration control.

There's nothing like remainer and EC hypocrisy.

Do you honestly think that the people who find BJ's nasty little distraction cynical and cruel would support (say) Denmark's similarly sordid deal with Rwanda? It's not like a football team you have to give your unconditional support to, whatever your brain says, though I'm not sure those on the other side see it that way.

 

[Baloo]

I just with the hyperbole, insinuation and insults could stop as it stifles debates which should take place.

You beggar belief.

rather you can and you obviously do but to do so is naive, or stupid or perhaps just dishonest.

There's nothing like remainer and EC hypocrisy.

If you do you're a bigger hypocrite that I'd ever think you could be and if you don't you're too ill informed for me to waste another second replying to y

Reamainers and hypocrisy (or just being wrong again) They go together like peas and carrots

What do I expect from the Full Blown Psychotic Episode brigade?

Don't be like the FBPE brigade

The hypocrisy and blinkered biased thinking is ingrained with some.

 

[sphexx]

Actually, as the OP I’m agreeably surprised it got to page 3 before degenerating

 

[sphexx]

In the words of Basil Fawlty... They started it. Read the thread and see who brought it up. If that's not too much trouble.

Good Grief indeed.

The hypocrisy and blinkered biased thinking is ingrained with some.

Calm down! If, say, our government is doing a bad thing it is irrelevant (except possibly in a war) that other governments are doing bad things.. It’s the argument that Putin (and Trump) uses. Our government is doing things in our name so we should criticise them if they are bad.

Immigration/migration is a complicated problem at present and I don’t think there’s any one solution but I’m certain this Rwanda wheeze isn’t and that it’s not expected to be. It doesn’t even seem to have been seriously thought out by HMG. You probably read that the featured “asylum hotel” (which can take 100 people I think) hasn’t been completed and hasn’t yet been bought by the Rwandan government.

 

[lindsay]

Not only that but it seems the HO civil servants advised against it on cost grounds (the only way they can object to it) and PP overruled them for only the second time in 30 years that a SoS has overruled their CS advisers.

 

[sphexx]

Not only that but it seems the HO civil servants advised against it on cost grounds (the only way they can object to it) and PP overruled them for only the second time in 30 years that a SoS has overruled their CS advisers.

Are you sure about that? It seems unlike the CS can object on cost. I thought they could object on illegality grounds and force a Minister to take personal responsibility.

 

[lindsay]

I only know what was reported on the ITV news (tends to be less HMG spin than BBC). It said they (the PCS union) reported that civil servants had advised - they can't really object - that it broke the governments rules on value for money, that it would be more expensive than other options, but she overruled them using a directive, which is very rarely used.

 

[Baloo]

Just been up the shop for a packet of fags and I had a good look at the newspaper headlines, most lead on Justin Welbrys attack on this plan.

There was a time when the Anglican church was described as "the tory party at prayer". Not anymore it would appear, which begs the question has the Church moved to the left or has our government moved far to the right?

But think on this, in a week in which for the first time in history a sitting PM has been fined for breaking the law, the weekend headlines are all about this plan.

Anyway here is a report on other countries who have tried this.

Which other countries send asylum seekers overseas?

The UK is to give some asylum seekers a one-way ticket to Rwanda. What policies have other nations taken?

www.bbc.co.uk

I am sure I read an article saying that many of the 4000 refugees from Israel made their way to other countries and Denmark has yet to confirm it has sent any refugees to Rwanda, but I cannot find it again so I cannot back up my claims.

 

[lindsay]

Interesting though that the Australian and Israeli systems allow the processing of an asylum claim before deportation to a third country, whereas the UK (and Danish) schemes seem to depoty first; in the UK case at least, turning a deaf ear to any claim of asylum.

 

[Dave *]

Graham W.

Remainers hate the fact that they keep losing.

Check out the EC's record on outsourcings immigration control.

There's nothing like remainer and EC hypocrisy.

Ricardo, you do know about current and future out sourcing by the EC?

If you do you're a bigger hypocrite that I'd ever think you could be and if you don't you're too ill informed for me to waste another second replying to y

See what I did there? I banked on you just not knowing enough about the EC's dealings.

Reamainers and hypocrisy (or just being wrong again) They go together like peas and carrots

Another laugh but no reasoned argument

What do I expect from the Full Blown Psychotic Episode brigade?

For those who think the UK gov is a bunch of fascists for off shoring immigration please google what the Eu are up to.

I'm not going to say that I support these measures but only ask people to drop the hypocrisy. If you're going to condemn the UK you must condemn any other country doing the same thing.

Don't be like the FBPE brigade. Be consistent in your condemnation and if possible lets all back a workable and sustainable solution.

In the words of Basil Fawlty... They started it. Read the thread and see who brought it up. If that's not too much trouble.

Good Grief indeed.

The hypocrisy and blinkered biased thinking is ingrained with some.

Sad to see this forum is still plagued by posters who make childish rants like this...

 

[sphexx]

Sad to see this forum is still plagued by posters who make childish rants like this...

But you are in danger of setting it off again by quoting it!

It’s an emotive subject but a serious one both in its own right and because it generates strong reactions .

 

[Dave *]

But you are in danger of setting it off again by quoting it!

It’s an emotive subject but a serious one both in its own right and because it generates strong reactions .

No, I'll just remove myself again for a while.

Debate is one thing but childish nonsense is another.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It’s an emotive subject but a serious one both in its own right and because it generates strong reactions .

I once met a woman who was involved in hostage negotiations (nothing exciting in my case - just part of a requirements excercise for a system).

She told me that the most important thing to remember in all negotiations is that most people simply cannot afford to see the other person's point of view. This is because admitting that another person's opinion has any validity, if it is opposed to your own, requires you to accept that your own opinion must contain flaws.

It's taken me thirty years to understand just how important that insight is.

 

[sphexx]

I once met a woman who was involved in hostage negotiations (nothing exciting in my case - just part of a requirements excercise for a system).

She told me that the most important thing to remember in all negotiations is that most people simply cannot afford to see the other person's point of view. This is because admitting that another person' opinion has any validity, if it is opposed to your own, requires you to accept that your own opinion must contain flaws.

It's taken me thirty years to understand just how important that insight is.

Sadly this government can’t see that one of the factors is to improve the lot of people elsewhere.

 

[Ricardodaforce]

Interesting read:

Letter from Matthew Rycroft to Rt Hon Priti Patel (accessible)

www.gov.uk

 

[ancient_mariner]

I once met a woman who was involved in hostage negotiations (nothing exciting in my case - just part of a requirements excercise for a system).

She told me that the most important thing to remember in all negotiations is that most people simply cannot afford to see the other person's point of view. This is because admitting that another person's opinion has any validity, if it is opposed to your own, requires you to accept that your own opinion must contain flaws.

It's taken me thirty years to understand just how important that insight is.

This may be the most pertinent and insightful thing in this entire sorry thread.

 

[sphexx]

This may be the most pertinent and insightful thing in this entire sorry thread.

So … do you have a solution to the migration problem Toni? NB I do not say that “incomers” (all varieties) are necessarily a problem, the problem may be with the “natives” .

 

[ancient_mariner]

So … do you have a solution to the migration problem Toni? NB I do not say that “incomers” (all varieties) are necessarily a problem, the problem may be with the “natives” .

If I did I wouldn't discuss it here - to many people only interested in point scoring an tearing others down. I have come to realise that there's no value in this kind of debate because key individuals only wish to reinforce that their opinion is the only correct one, all the while taking opprtunity to bait others.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

because key individuals only wish to reinforce that their opinion is the only correct one, all the while taking opprtunity to bait others.

Sadly, this is all too true. :banghead:

 

[bass_junkie83]

The new immigration guidelines have been leaked.

 

[woof woof]

The list of countries either already doing so or looking to outsource to Rwanda and others just keeps growing.

I do with that people could drop the hypocrisy and if they disagree with this policy equally and clearly condemn all governments who are doing this or seeking to do this. That would be an admirable thing to do even if they can't come up with an alternative to either outsourcing or the systems in place at the moment.

That can't and shouldn't be too much to hope for.

 

[simon ess]

I don't pay taxes to, or have a vote for, all those other governments, so...

 

[Ricardodaforce]

 

[Plain Nev]

I have heard it suggested that, like a lot of their stuff, the Rwanda thing was designed purely to antagonise the legal profession, and was never a serious proposition. I can well believe it. All the Bories ever do is stoke division so that they can fight their culture wars. It's the one thing they can do. And it seems to have worked as well.