To think people who want "safe routes to migration" into the UK are hopelessly naive

[ForestGoblin]

We could spend every penny of public money on bringing refugees to the UK in comfy and safe boats and planes. We could make it mandatory for every home to provide accommodation and food. We could ban healthcare for anyone except refugees.

And there would still be thousands and thousands of boat crossings every year and millions more people languishing in bad situations and trying to figure out how to get here or elsewhere in northern Europe.

It's a crap situation. Life is bad. I feel dreadful for them.

But "safe routes" is a load of glib nonsense that can't work.

What the heck. Who are "they"? The lizard people?

And your last para makes no sense at all. Apart from being very disrespectful/ upsetting to the Manchester victims.

Weird weird post.

To think people who want "safe routes to migration" into the UK are hopelessly naive

I don't think it's naive towant safe routes. Of course we want people to be safe. Whether it's realistic is a different matter.

I think we should take in as many as we can, provided the immigrant hotels start getting built in the areas where the politicians and the rest of the elite live. They won't mind if it's no big deal for the poorer towns who get landed, right?

@AdamRyan It was linked in the document she did provide. You should have found it yourself.

'So that backs my second point. Afghans who support sharia, may in fact be demonstrating they are law abiding citizens.'

No, it doesn't. As I explained to a poster upthread, there are governments who try to keep their citizens roughly happy. It's also the case that governments are generally made up of the people of that country, and generally share their belief systems. Again, you misunderstand entirely what being a 'law abiding citizen' means for Muslims who wish to live under sharia. To spell it out a bit, the concept of the separation of church and state is a western one, as is the concept that it's the state rather than God who make laws. The closest post-Christian concept is that of natural law, but it's not the same concept. You're interpreting their beliefs through a western-centric framework which means you completely misunderstand their worldview.

I think we should start processing asylum seekers effectively and returning people whose asylum is refused promptly.

£5k down the drain for them, I'm sure flights to their home countries will be cheaper than Rwanda/barges/hotels

That’s way too sensible. Why do something as straightforward and pragmatic as that when you can waste billions demonising them to score political points?

@AdamRyan

'There are a lot of things that need to happen to make Britain safer for women. Asylum seekers are not the problem here, just like they aren't the cause of the crumbling NHS, our lack of social housing, the coat of living crisis etc.

When we have a justice system where rape isn't effectively decriminalised, when misogyny is treated as a hate crime like racism or homophobia, then I'll be more concerned about the putative attitudes of asylum seekers.'

Oh, ok, so Adam is going to continue to advocate for policies that make Britain more dangerous and less free for us women because it's not currently utopia. Perfectly logical. With allies like you who needs enemies.

Now find me where I said that 'asylum seekers are the problem here'. Find me where I said they're the cause of your crumbling NHS, lack of social housing, cost of living crisis, and whatever other petty little party political talking points you have ready. You won't, and you know you won't.

'Rape is effectively decriminalized' - I sincerely hope that in your next life you come back as an Afghan woman.

Because it won’t stop boats arriving and you’ll have fast applications and processing under international law at the border.

I don't have to do other peoples googling, especially when they misspell the names making it impossible to find.

You are not as clever as you try to sound. All your waffle about separation of church and state is irrelevant. The law of Afghanistan is Sharia. Therefore any Afghan who says they "believe in Sharia" is essentially saying they "believe in the Law of the Land" which is not a bad thing.

I think its more akin to asking a westerner if they "believe in" democracy or the power of the courts.

Anyway, you are very clearly not unbiased here, with your conspiracy theory chat about "them" and their "propaganda" so I'll not be talking to you any more. Enjoy your day.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Afghanistan#:~:text=The%20legal%20system%20of%20Afghanistan,the%20land%20is%20the%20Sharia.

That re was the inevitable ‘be sensible’ post

'Rape is effectively decriminalized' - I sincerely hope that in your next life you come back as an Afghan woman.

Posters are uncomfortably ignoring their own privilege and the hardship other women face daily.

The backlog is huge and the government have no plan to speed up processing/applications. They aren't planning to send anyone to Rwanda until they've already presented here.
So not sure how that plan is more likely to "stop the boats" than mine.

They could swap places if so convinced. That’d be quicker than reincarnation.

It's about more than having a safe route - that's just the start. It's about working with Interpol and other international associations to smash people smuggling and organised crime. And having grown up conversations about how many people we want/need in the country from a refugee and economic migrant perspective and what this means in terms of resources, housing, sustainability etc.

It's not about being incompetent, isolationist and breaking international laws and dog whistling to the press which is all this Government do.

You have no idea about my life or anyone else who posts on here.
Women are already treated abysmally in this country, refugees attitudes to women is a drop in the ocean. Plenty of British men have their own appalling attitudes.

And whether or not we allow asylum seekers has no bearing on the situation for Afghan women.

Anyway, I think the last few posts show you all up for who you are. Wishing rape on people is extremely unpleasant.

@CloudyMcCloud Yes I think a life swap for the likes of Adam is desperately overdue. Fortunately, every day more and more people are seeing through his propaganda.

I'm a woman polly, just use a character from one of my favourite books as a handle.

Certainly they’re seeing through the propaganda pumped out by the current government, ably aided and abetted by its apologists.

smash people smuggling and organised crime

I’d say you are highly unrealistic on this. Very easy to type strong phrases, if it were that easy illegal movement of people wouldn’t be such an issue for many countries.

Australia has done it but they sure won’t be following your advice and removing policies to work with Interpol to ‘smash gangs’

Not even the party that inherited the policies and likely opposed them at the time. They know it would be crazy to let thousands cross again so people can talk about taking down gangs.

I have no doubt you are already aware that the current government has provided safe routes for 5million HKers and their dependents.

@AdamRyan Oh you've lowered yourself to speak to me again? I'm still voting for your upcoming life swap regardless of gender. But it's actually hilarious that you interpret it as wishing for you to be raped. Are you suggesting that Afghan women are more at risk of rape by Afghan men than English residents are? How horrifying racist and islamophobic of you.

I’m sure they wouldn’t mind. And the 22% poster sounds keen too.

It is unpleasant isn’t it?

More than that it’s horrific. Equating life here to women there is incredibly low. At least acknowledge the privilege you have.

It may feel good to type but it’s empty words.

Oh I'm a Tory now am I? That's just cute. Now, what was it I said again about the people who insist on reducing this issue to Tory vs Labour...

The government might as well employ people to stand on the White Cliffs of Dover saying "don't come here" for the effect any of their current policies will have on the number of people crossing the Channel, except one of them.

The policy the government has recently introduced to reduce the backlog of cases to simply take people of the list will of course encourge fewer people to apply.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1687901561282772992.html

Genius!

228,000 is a huge amount in terms of individual tragedy but a tiny fraction of our population. I think we'd need to reduce our population to about 20-25 million to see a significant improvement, so about 2/3 of the current population need to go.

It's the same thing on a bigger scale with the global population and climate change. We need to get the global population down to about 3 billion. Basically we need to eradicate the population of Asia if we are serious about climate change. I think that'd be more sensible than trying to reduce it pro rata on a country by country basis. Once the population is eradicated we can then redistribute the surplus population from the rest of the world to the newly liberated territory. Land and housing will be cheap, as a species we will be living within our means again.

I'm not sure the best way to go about this though, the obvious tools like nuclear weapons are a no-go because we want the land to be usuable once we've reclaimed it. And it's unlikely places like China will see the necessity for their own eradication.