Slither off, you evil woman. BTW – what are the Cuntservatives planning to do about *the traffickers*? Note: there’s been hee-haw from them about breaking the traffickers.
>Rwanda asylum critics have no solutions, says Patel
Yes they do, get somone in the home office who at least has a passing understanding of humanity.
Why does she expect the Church of England to have a plan to deal with immigration and people smuggling?
Maybe not, but arguably the status quo isn’t as bad as Patel’s solution.
But in reality, the best solution would be to set up processing centres in the UK and actually adequately fund them, so they can treat people like human beings.
How’s about no supporting the brutal dictators,? How’s about not enabling tax evasion that leads to collapsing economies?
Basically, how’s about not causing the problem in the first damned place? And whilst waiting for that, how’s about meeting our legal obligations?
Processing their asylum requests inside the country rather than deporting them to the other side of the world? I.e. what almost every other country does.
Why exactly do they want to send them to far away? It can’t be for efficiency or cost saving reasons. The only reasons I can think of are that it will be much more difficult for said asylum claimants to receive the protection and due process that is their right, or because the bad treatment they’ll receive there will somehow deter others (but not really, as they seem determined enough to risk death by drowning). Neither are “solutions” to the problem, just institutionalized abuse and infringement of the rights of vulnerable people. As such, it is not so much a solution but simply an immoral policy that is likely going to rebound on the UK government in various ways.
No solutions?
Errr…how about we grant asylum to those genuinely seeking asylum?
Seems like a decent solution to me.
Grant asylum, then offer training and integration into society.
**EDIT:** Some have pointed out that this costs money. Well, yes. I imagine far less than the million quid per person to send them to Rwanda, and far, far less than the billions in “covid loans” and fraud written off just weeks ago.
**EDIT2: **
There seems to be a lot of ignorance surrounding this issue.
No asylum seeker is required to seek asylum in the “next safe country” (I find it difficult to believe that there are still people that believe this).
France has been declared “inhumane and degrading” by the ECHR in its treatment of refugees.
The correct and proper way to claim asylum in any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, is to turn up and hand yourself in to the authorities. It’s not “illegal”, and those that do this are not “illegals”, they have followed the law to the letter.
Go and spend a week volunteering at an asylum centre (if they still allow it).
It will change your outlook on not just the plight of many, but maybe even on life in general.
We’re not “full”. We had 44k asylum applications last year. We had 300k+ emigrate out of the UK (so called “ex-pats”, not to be confused with “migrants”)
Many in here would do well to remember the words of John Bradford, “There, but for the grace of God, go I”.
**EDIT3: I can no longer respond as sarcasm is no longer recognised in this sub, and have been banned. It looks like sarcasm has to carry the /s, even here, these days, or the mods will ban you.
In a UK centric sub, no less.**
Why does every single picture of her look like she’s proudly just taken a shit on someone’s bed. Fuck this monster.
This is Patel’s strategy of trying to push through her measure, claiming that it’s the only viable option.
While there are dozens of other sollutions proposed on UN level. But those all require ro accept “some” irregular migration.
Translation: There is no solution that racists will accept
Easy. As Hans Rosling proposed, send a ferry to pick them up and process them here with a fast decision process. Fixed the problem at source.
>Rwanda asylum critics have no solutions, says Patel
That’s okay I’m sure she has a Final Solution all worked out and ready to go.
I don’t understand how anyone benefits from this except for a couple of Tory donors who are about to get lucrative contracts to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda and back and other Tory donors who will get contracts to build and run concentration camps/“processing centres” in Rwanda.
Literally everyone else loses, especially the taxpayer.
She has been REPEATEDLY told that she must remove carrier liability, do a deal with France, issue asylum visas at consulates, and provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers. She won’t. She is an evil heartless racist b***h who was totally captured by the hardest of hard right Israeli groups years ago. Oh, Israel? Yeah, they tried Rwanda as a dump for refugees first. And remember that she was caught having frankly treasonous meetings with Israeli right wing politicians.
No solutions that turn you on as much as your own personal crusade of misery maybe?
I’m kinda happy welcoming them in and getting them jobs so they pay tax and become productive members of our country myself.
I’m old fashioned and see immigration as a proven net gain to the UK, but that’s just me I guess and I really have no reason to see issues with our infrastructure hidden behind misleading and sensational headlines.
I have an alternative. Provide a legal route for asylum application that doesn’t require an illegal border crossing. If there was a legal crossing people could use and then have their applications processed then they would use that instead of risking their lives. Or we could do what we used to do and have home office staff based in Calais who could process applications there
Solution is simple STOP BLOWING UP THEIR FUCKING COUNTRIES! Or stealing their resources, ousting democratically elected leaders that don’t want to govern under the yolk of US imperialism, be held to ransom through “aid” and don’t want foreign corporations owning their utilities and resources.
3 countries have absolutely fucked this world to the point of collapse and then piss and moan when they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
This sub is just literally proving what she says… The left wonder why they can’t get a sniff of Downing Street lol.
Hey Tory redditors still supporting the Johnson government- this is your morning reminder that you are in a cult
ETA – Lol, cult members down voting this. Can’t think of anything more tragic than defending this government and believing they actually give a shit about making your life better. Out of interest, will you be heating or eating this winter? Personally I’m going with eating, but then I am a gluttonous bastard
Not a particularly relevant criticism but my god she looks so fucking smug in that picture I hate this woman.
‘you can’t criticise if you don’t also have the solution’ is a terrible argument.
‘You can’t say world hunger is a problem unless you can solve it!’
After reading the comments in this sub the headline looks to be 100% correct.
I don’t necessarily like it but there’s no better alternates. As much as I don’t like torys or pritti she’s right. But I’d say I’d most people on the left and right complaint about things and never come up with solutions.
We can’t simply let everyone in due to the size of the country, look at the cost of houses and working people using food banks, we might be a rich country due to the mega rich being so rich but there’s lots of people struggling to get buy.
We are helping people start a new life and get the support they need.
I think before it’s criticised with and realistic alternatives haven’t been suggested.
Obviously there’s geopolitical stuff that needs sorting in the long run but this is a great short term solution.
If it works. A lot of countries are going to follow.
What is the point of this subreddit? People just virtue signal and have zero useful discussion. I’m not too sure of the point of any of the people here either, you all seem so painfully surface level.
Virtuous leftists: Did we suggest letting everyone in and screeching “RACIST!” at anyone who disagrees with us yet?
The majority of people in the UK do NOT WANT these illegal immigrants. They are NOT refugees (they stop being refugees when they get to safe countries – France is SAFE the last time I looked). It costs the country BILLIONS (tax payers’ money) to keep the illegals in hotels (well documented), and of course the legal ‘aid’ that they seem to get (Lawyers just LOVE sucking up that legal aid money).
There is a LEGAL process for immigration into the UK, so coming over in a boat kind of spits in the face of anyone trying to do it the proper way. Most of the illegals are single men, not fleeing conflict or any other life threatening situation – and a lot of them can’t even speak English (considering they want to live here, that’s a bit weird), and also don’t want to integrate into British society.
Actual refugees (for example, from Ukraine) we would welcome with open arms, of course, but at some point you have to stop the illegals and the traffickers.
People don’t seem to comprehend that this is a deterrence tactic to decrease illegal migration from the Middle-east and Africa.
Genuine question re the migrants willing to risk so much to cross the channel – what is so wrong with mainland Europe?
28 comments
Slither off, you evil woman. BTW – what are the Cuntservatives planning to do about *the traffickers*? Note: there’s been hee-haw from them about breaking the traffickers.
>Rwanda asylum critics have no solutions, says Patel
Yes they do, get somone in the home office who at least has a passing understanding of humanity.
Why does she expect the Church of England to have a plan to deal with immigration and people smuggling?
Maybe not, but arguably the status quo isn’t as bad as Patel’s solution.
But in reality, the best solution would be to set up processing centres in the UK and actually adequately fund them, so they can treat people like human beings.
How’s about no supporting the brutal dictators,? How’s about not enabling tax evasion that leads to collapsing economies?
Basically, how’s about not causing the problem in the first damned place? And whilst waiting for that, how’s about meeting our legal obligations?
Processing their asylum requests inside the country rather than deporting them to the other side of the world? I.e. what almost every other country does.
Why exactly do they want to send them to far away? It can’t be for efficiency or cost saving reasons. The only reasons I can think of are that it will be much more difficult for said asylum claimants to receive the protection and due process that is their right, or because the bad treatment they’ll receive there will somehow deter others (but not really, as they seem determined enough to risk death by drowning). Neither are “solutions” to the problem, just institutionalized abuse and infringement of the rights of vulnerable people. As such, it is not so much a solution but simply an immoral policy that is likely going to rebound on the UK government in various ways.
No solutions?
Errr…how about we grant asylum to those genuinely seeking asylum?
Seems like a decent solution to me.
Grant asylum, then offer training and integration into society.
**EDIT:** Some have pointed out that this costs money. Well, yes. I imagine far less than the million quid per person to send them to Rwanda, and far, far less than the billions in “covid loans” and fraud written off just weeks ago.
**EDIT2: **
There seems to be a lot of ignorance surrounding this issue.
No asylum seeker is required to seek asylum in the “next safe country” (I find it difficult to believe that there are still people that believe this).
France has been declared “inhumane and degrading” by the ECHR in its treatment of refugees.
The correct and proper way to claim asylum in any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, is to turn up and hand yourself in to the authorities. It’s not “illegal”, and those that do this are not “illegals”, they have followed the law to the letter.
Go and spend a week volunteering at an asylum centre (if they still allow it).
It will change your outlook on not just the plight of many, but maybe even on life in general.
We’re not “full”. We had 44k asylum applications last year. We had 300k+ emigrate out of the UK (so called “ex-pats”, not to be confused with “migrants”)
Many in here would do well to remember the words of John Bradford, “There, but for the grace of God, go I”.
**EDIT3: I can no longer respond as sarcasm is no longer recognised in this sub, and have been banned. It looks like sarcasm has to carry the /s, even here, these days, or the mods will ban you.
In a UK centric sub, no less.**
Why does every single picture of her look like she’s proudly just taken a shit on someone’s bed. Fuck this monster.
This is Patel’s strategy of trying to push through her measure, claiming that it’s the only viable option.
While there are dozens of other sollutions proposed on UN level. But those all require ro accept “some” irregular migration.
Translation: There is no solution that racists will accept
Easy. As Hans Rosling proposed, send a ferry to pick them up and process them here with a fast decision process. Fixed the problem at source.
>Rwanda asylum critics have no solutions, says Patel
That’s okay I’m sure she has a Final Solution all worked out and ready to go.
I don’t understand how anyone benefits from this except for a couple of Tory donors who are about to get lucrative contracts to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda and back and other Tory donors who will get contracts to build and run concentration camps/“processing centres” in Rwanda.
Literally everyone else loses, especially the taxpayer.
She has been REPEATEDLY told that she must remove carrier liability, do a deal with France, issue asylum visas at consulates, and provide safe routes for refugees and asylum seekers. She won’t. She is an evil heartless racist b***h who was totally captured by the hardest of hard right Israeli groups years ago. Oh, Israel? Yeah, they tried Rwanda as a dump for refugees first. And remember that she was caught having frankly treasonous meetings with Israeli right wing politicians.
No solutions that turn you on as much as your own personal crusade of misery maybe?
I’m kinda happy welcoming them in and getting them jobs so they pay tax and become productive members of our country myself.
I’m old fashioned and see immigration as a proven net gain to the UK, but that’s just me I guess and I really have no reason to see issues with our infrastructure hidden behind misleading and sensational headlines.
I have an alternative. Provide a legal route for asylum application that doesn’t require an illegal border crossing. If there was a legal crossing people could use and then have their applications processed then they would use that instead of risking their lives. Or we could do what we used to do and have home office staff based in Calais who could process applications there
Solution is simple STOP BLOWING UP THEIR FUCKING COUNTRIES! Or stealing their resources, ousting democratically elected leaders that don’t want to govern under the yolk of US imperialism, be held to ransom through “aid” and don’t want foreign corporations owning their utilities and resources.
3 countries have absolutely fucked this world to the point of collapse and then piss and moan when they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
This sub is just literally proving what she says… The left wonder why they can’t get a sniff of Downing Street lol.
Hey Tory redditors still supporting the Johnson government- this is your morning reminder that you are in a cult
ETA – Lol, cult members down voting this. Can’t think of anything more tragic than defending this government and believing they actually give a shit about making your life better. Out of interest, will you be heating or eating this winter? Personally I’m going with eating, but then I am a gluttonous bastard
Not a particularly relevant criticism but my god she looks so fucking smug in that picture I hate this woman.
‘you can’t criticise if you don’t also have the solution’ is a terrible argument.
‘You can’t say world hunger is a problem unless you can solve it!’
After reading the comments in this sub the headline looks to be 100% correct.
I don’t necessarily like it but there’s no better alternates. As much as I don’t like torys or pritti she’s right. But I’d say I’d most people on the left and right complaint about things and never come up with solutions.
We can’t simply let everyone in due to the size of the country, look at the cost of houses and working people using food banks, we might be a rich country due to the mega rich being so rich but there’s lots of people struggling to get buy.
We are helping people start a new life and get the support they need.
I think before it’s criticised with and realistic alternatives haven’t been suggested.
Obviously there’s geopolitical stuff that needs sorting in the long run but this is a great short term solution.
If it works. A lot of countries are going to follow.
What is the point of this subreddit? People just virtue signal and have zero useful discussion. I’m not too sure of the point of any of the people here either, you all seem so painfully surface level.
Virtuous leftists: Did we suggest letting everyone in and screeching “RACIST!” at anyone who disagrees with us yet?
The majority of people in the UK do NOT WANT these illegal immigrants. They are NOT refugees (they stop being refugees when they get to safe countries – France is SAFE the last time I looked). It costs the country BILLIONS (tax payers’ money) to keep the illegals in hotels (well documented), and of course the legal ‘aid’ that they seem to get (Lawyers just LOVE sucking up that legal aid money).
There is a LEGAL process for immigration into the UK, so coming over in a boat kind of spits in the face of anyone trying to do it the proper way. Most of the illegals are single men, not fleeing conflict or any other life threatening situation – and a lot of them can’t even speak English (considering they want to live here, that’s a bit weird), and also don’t want to integrate into British society.
Actual refugees (for example, from Ukraine) we would welcome with open arms, of course, but at some point you have to stop the illegals and the traffickers.
People don’t seem to comprehend that this is a deterrence tactic to decrease illegal migration from the Middle-east and Africa.
Genuine question re the migrants willing to risk so much to cross the channel – what is so wrong with mainland Europe?