Rwanda deal deemed 'unlawful'.

[Workingman]

It is not really a surprise, given how Rwanda operated a similar deal with Israel, but in itself the principle is not illegal. The judgment does not stop the UK sending migrants to a third country, but it is not clear which other places, if any, are prepared to do a similar deal.

[medsec222]

I can't be bothered listening to Rishi Sunak anymore. The majority of sensible people in this country want illegal immigration stopped, and even legal immigration controlled to an acceptable level. If and when the Labour government take office I cannot see there will be any change. I am still working and paying taxes and I want my contribution to go towards the NHS, education, policing etc. and not to funding illegal immigrants in hotels or other accommodation which is considered suitable for them.

[Workingman]

Meds. I agree with you that many of us do want immigration, in all it forms, controlled or reduced.

However, I did not agree with the Rwanda deal as I think that it is a UK problem and also one for those safe countries the illegals have passed through to get here, and there are treaties to deal with them. We have just not used them. No need to get third countries involved.

I might also add that I can be very right-wing on this. Anyone turning up via illegal means who has no papers - off you go. Any migrant breaking the law (within say, five years) to the extent that a custodial sentence is the result - off you go, and take your family as well. Any migrant who does not want to live in a camp (former military, which were good enough for volunteer service people) whilst they are being processed - don't bother coming.

[TheOstrich]

To my mind, the first step should be to dismantle the human rights lawyer industry. Remove the right for any non-UK citizen to challenge deportation.

The second step should be remove the taxi service from the Channel. Anyone aiding and abetting boats to land illegally on these shores should be prosecuted for human trafficking. Yes, RNLI, I mean you and the Border Force.
The third step should be that any illegal peop;e who make it onshore should be immediately handcuffed, bussed to Dover, and put on the first ferry out.

And we should stop paying the flippin' French because thay are only taking the vernacular.

(And if they insist on a "safe third country", I'd send 'em to Scotland. )

[Kaz]

So the RNLI should let people drown? Surely not, Ossie

[miasmum]

I agree Kaz. Our monthly quiz did a raffle and the charity this month was the RNLI. One of our team refused to participate as she said 'to support the illegal's taxi service'

That is what they sign up for and risk their lives for, to save those in trouble at sea. There isnt a tick list of who

[Suff]

So the RNLI should let people drown? Surely not, Ossie

So here is the dilemma. If a there is a their who is determined to break into your home and might cut their throat on the window when they break the glass, do you unlock the door??

If someone smashes into your home and is lying there on the floor bleeding and you know that if you call the ambulance the authorities won't charge them and will give them home, shelter and money for the rest of their life, plus their whole family, do you call the ambulance? Especially if that person is going to encourage others to pillage your home too and, once settled, may even try to kill you if you disagree with them?

These are not easy choices. But to do nothing helps nobody.

Have you looked into the flood of people entering the US by their southern border? It is reaching levels towards 2m per year. Every step of the way fraught with danger and people traffickers before they reach the US border..

Is this a kindness?

There has to come a time when we take stock and see whether our "kindness" is doing more harm than good.

[Kaz]

Suff during both world wars the medics treated everyone regardless. It’s what decent humans do. Demonising whole groups of people is a right-wing move that hasn’t ended too well in the past.

Shell, 100%!

[Suff]

During WW2 there was no question that millions of people were going to economically migrate for no reason other than their own ease of wealth.

Treating battle casualties is, as you say, only humane. Encouraging millions of people into danger because we refuse to make it unprofitable to enter the UK illegally is somewhat less humane.

Although all the people arguing for uncontrolled illegal immigration ignore the danger they are drawing people into. People who could have made a perfectly satisfactory life at home but chose danger and opportunity over drugery.

Their own countries will never advance if we keep stripping them of those most likely to effect change.

[Workingman]

Suff, how lucky you are to be able to say the things you say without fear of a knock on the door in the small hours and a one-way trip to a room with no windows, no bed, no sink, no bucket. To be able to walk down the street wearing, within reason, any clothing you like, to be able to follow any religion or non at all, and to be able to criticise your own government and all without fear of being, bombed shot at or executed.

Many of those coming here, even illegally, from Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. are not so fortunate. They are the majority and should be dealt with humanely. That's not to say we should not put restrictions on them nor do thorough checks.

They are not the same as the economic migrants who deserve harsher but still humane treatment.