Small Boats etc solution

[Trickytreesreds]

‘Snotty answer’...‘low even for you’...now, coming from you of all people, that’s funny!

‘Untermensch’, defined in ‘30’s Germany as ‘inferior people’ or ‘the masses from the East’, i.e. the Jews, the Slavs, the Roma. A term further applied to those of mixed race, those who were black and those who were mentally and/or physically disabled. Basically all those who those in power in Germany at the time we have been speaking of regarded as sub human.

Ring any bells compared with the rhetoric of today? It’s what the newly reinstated Mr. Lineker was talking about and in answer to your particularly daft question...of course, ‘calling for proper border controls’ has nothing to do with it. They are quite separate.

I’m sorry if you feel the need to add it to you list of forbidden words when describing current government attitudes. Incidentally...you might like to look up the meaning of ‘surpassed’.

No it doesn't eing any bells.
Show me your evidence where ANYONE has described the migrants as UNTERMENSCH, in German or its English equivalent.
Considering the term was derived in Germany who wanted every non Aryan out. To suggest it in the UK WHERE 18% of the population is ethnic, makes you look like a rabid dog.

Mr Lineker is supposed to be back on the pretext he shuts his mouth and abides by BBC rules, whilst a review is carried out on BBC guidelines. He was not aquitted and many full time workers within the BBC are not happy, he has not been sacked. So stop portraying him as a hero.
You fit the bill perfectly with your wording of the left, using Nazi's as a defence in an argument, in an effort to subdue the opposition.
We see it on every protest line in the country, where Nazi is thrown at anyone not agreeing with them. Pathetic.

Congratulations, you've joined the worlds current Psycho level in Putin/
He uses Nazi's as his excuse for butchering Ukranians

[Andy_Faber]

No idea what you are alluding to, please explain?

I’m alluding to the fact that we/I’m trying things a different way, and working through the many differences we have bit by bit. It’s just an idea I had to try to reduce a return to the mudslinging of the past, including between you and I, and based on dispute resolution techniques I used to use and have used on me in industry. Looking at the three respondents above, rA was getting it and confirmed that there are limits even for a liberal like himself. Trickys found it more difficult to actually answer the exam question but he’s getting there. Then in you steam with yet another manifesto. So I’ll assume you have come to this late and I’ll ask you what I asked the other two:

‘do you think U.K. should just open the borders to all comers?’

To save you looking back, rA said no, Tricky said no amongst other things and for the record I say no.

To be fair we could have come at it from totally the other direction but we didn’t, we may do later

What’s your answer?

[swaledale]

I’m alluding to the fact that we/I’m trying things a different way, and working through the many differences we have bit by bit. It’s just an idea I had to try to reduce a return to the mudslinging of the past, including between you and I, and based on dispute resolution techniques I used to use and have used on me in industry. Looking at the three respondents above, rA was getting it and confirmed that there are limits even for a liberal like himself. Trickys found it more difficult to actually answer the exam question but he’s getting there. Then in you steam with yet another manifesto. So I’ll assume you have come to this late and I’ll ask you what I asked the other two:

‘do you think U.K. should just open the borders to all comers?’

To save you looking back, rA said no, Tricky said no amongst other things and for the record I say no.

To be fair we could have come at it from totally the other direction but we didn’t, we may do later

What’s your answer?

I was puzzled by your reference to rant, when I posted what I thought was a reasonable answer, but hey ho, still no clearer.

The open borders bit I actually thought I'd answered that by my answer, otherwise why would I suggest controls? I mean I thought we had the right solution under the EU, we weren't part of Schengen but there was free movement, with caveats.

I mean its a moot point, we don't have open borders.

[Trickytreesreds]

I like this guy, he's one of my favourite bloggers.

He sums up the stance perfectly and the dumb left not understanding the issues at hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZSz0N8Nkm8

[Andy_Faber]

So everyone who's expressed an interest says no to open borders. Ignoring the how, what's the who? start ith who should NOT be allowed to stay? To help you Tricky, assume there's a 'holding pen' in France if you want, although I'd rather have a 'we are where we are' answer

[Trickytreesreds]

So everyone who's expressed an interest says no to open borders. Ignoring the how, what's the who? start ith who should NOT be allowed to stay? To help you Tricky, assume there's a 'holding pen' in France if you want, although I'd rather have a 'we are where we are' answer

Who doesn't qualify?

Firstly, I have a problem with anyone who has already travelled thousands of miles, usually spending a lot of money to criminals, to get this far.
They undermine their case of persecution and need safety. By not asking for help in many countries they have passed through, its cherry picking.
However, lets try an over look that.

1. Anyone who has failed in an application in Europe, or been ejected for criminal activity
2. Anyone without papers of some sort, gets treated as non urgent or turned away completely.
3. Non combatant countries ( Vietnams/India/Pakistan/Tunisia/Egypt/Nigeria) you get the drift. The Albanians make a good example of this, as does boat loads of Sikh men recently filmed, from India
4. Proven criminals / wanted criminals/ members of terror groups ( see point 2)
5. Economic migrants

To counter, what do I want to see.
1. During the Syria flare up, Cameron came up with a great idea for me. We would select from the Camps in Turkey, those vetted and most vulnerable. The women/children/ infirm that can't hop on off lorries and have a jolly across the channel
2. Assuming you have an agreed quota.
Seperate the 2 classes- refugees and asylum seekers.
Both have to be treated differently. For example, Ukranians are refugees and want to/ will be sent home asap. A Afghan Interpreter is obviously going to need full asylum, as I doubt he is going home in his/her lifetime
3. your off shore application centre can then help fill in the gaps missing in your quota with more less vulnerable, as long as they qualify as true refugees from identified countries.

I know it still has gaps, but at the moment, the piss is ripped out the system and it has crashed into the mess we are in now.
We need to filter out the real con artists first and deal with the miniscule details later.
The longer this goes, the harder it is to help the real needy in all of this farce.

[MadAmster]

Answering questions is never easy. My answer is yes and no.

No? The borders shouldn't be open to all and sundry. There has to be a process in place. Unfortunately, HMG has orchestrated a system whereby it's damned nigh impossible for these people to apply for asylum in the UK. Some of them still believe the streets are paved with gold. Others don't speak any of the EU languages but speak English and/or have friends/relatives in the UK. They really should be applying for asylum at their local UK Embassy/Consulate, if possible. Very often it's not. Failing that, HMG should have systems in place inside the EU where people can apply for asylum. They pass we bring them over. They fail, they go elsewhere. Unfortunately, all the failures will then try the small boat route.

Yes, there will, more than likely, always be people trying the small boat route. Those people, if one is humane, can't be left floating (or sinking) on the high seas. Those you need to bring in, if you are a civilised society. Those who manage to reach the shore, take them in. They should be put up in very basic accommodation like old, disused army barracks etc. Asylum requests should be, as TTR says, be dealt with inside 2 weeks. I realise that such a term would mean employing many more Border Force staff. Those that get accepted stay. Those that don't get deported. The trouble there is that HMG has repatriation "contracts" with Albania, Albania and Albania along with Rwanda. Give failed asylum seekers a choice of where they wish to go. Their home country, Rwanda or a safe country in their home region. All of course dependent on their chosen country being prepared to take them in.

Our, natural, civilised and humane way of thinking makes us vulnerable to folk who refuse to make that choice, in which case it might be decided for them.

Personally, if I was in their position and wanted to come to the UK, I'd probably go the boat route and destroy my passport. The current rules and processes, or, to be more exact, the lack thereof, would dictate that to be my best option. Basically, I understand it. That does not say I condone it.

TTR, Poland? Really? They may be somewhat reticent to take in people from Africa/Asia, however, they are currently housing in excess of 5 million Ukrainians. They are doing their bit, IMO.

Apparently, Rwanda isn't scaring people from taking to the boats. They know it's a possibility but they are prepared to take the risk. Will that remain the case once half a dozen flights of deportees have taken place? Depends on how desperate they are...

[ramAnag]

Answering questions is never easy. My answer is yes and no.

No? The borders shouldn't be open to all and sundry. There has to be a process in place. Unfortunately, HMG has orchestrated a system whereby it's damned nigh impossible for these people to apply for asylum in the UK. Some of them still believe the streets are paved with gold. Others don't speak any of the EU languages but speak English and/or have friends/relatives in the UK. They really should be applying for asylum at their local UK Embassy/Consulate, if possible. Very often it's not. Failing that, HMG should have systems in place inside the EU where people can apply for asylum. They pass we bring them over. They fail, they go elsewhere. Unfortunately, all the failures will then try the small boat route.

Yes, there will, more than likely, always be people trying the small boat route. Those people, if one is humane, can't be left floating (or sinking) on the high seas.

Well put, MA. Of course it might be beneficial if we had a more united Europe...you know if we, one of the wealthiest three countries in the continent, were part of some sort of political and economic European union. Oh hang on!

[Trickytreesreds]

Answering questions is never easy. My answer is yes and no.

No? The borders shouldn't be open to all and sundry. There has to be a process in place. Unfortunately, HMG has orchestrated a system whereby it's damned nigh impossible for these people to apply for asylum in the UK. Some of them still believe the streets are paved with gold. Others don't speak any of the EU languages but speak English and/or have friends/relatives in the UK. They really should be applying for asylum at their local UK Embassy/Consulate, if possible. Very often it's not. Failing that, HMG should have systems in place inside the EU where people can apply for asylum. They pass we bring them over. They fail, they go elsewhere. Unfortunately, all the failures will then try the small boat route.

Yes, there will, more than likely, always be people trying the small boat route. Those people, if one is humane, can't be left floating (or sinking) on the high seas. Those you need to bring in, if you are a civilised society. Those who manage to reach the shore, take them in. They should be put up in very basic accommodation like old, disused army barracks etc. Asylum requests should be, as TTR says, be dealt with inside 2 weeks. I realise that such a term would mean employing many more Border Force staff. Those that get accepted stay. Those that don't get deported. The trouble there is that HMG has repatriation "contracts" with Albania, Albania and Albania along with Rwanda. Give failed asylum seekers a choice of where they wish to go. Their home country, Rwanda or a safe country in their home region. All of course dependent on their chosen country being prepared to take them in.

Our, natural, civilised and humane way of thinking makes us vulnerable to folk who refuse to make that choice, in which case it might be decided for them.

Personally, if I was in their position and wanted to come to the UK, I'd probably go the boat route and destroy my passport. The current rules and processes, or, to be more exact, the lack thereof, would dictate that to be my best option. Basically, I understand it. That does not say I condone it.

TTR, Poland? Really? They may be somewhat reticent to take in people from Africa/Asia, however, they are currently housing in excess of 5 million Ukrainians. They are doing their bit, IMO.

Apparently, Rwanda isn't scaring people from taking to the boats. They know it's a possibility but they are prepared to take the risk. Will that remain the case once half a dozen flights of deportees have taken place? Depends on how desperate they are...

Some very good point MA, I agree with most of them but need to pull you up on a couple

1. Any that make it by boat we should take in? Doesn't work, they will still be using that means and even sinking their own boat to force the issue. Safe in the knowlege that they get here, they're in. That is excatly what is going on now.
2. Poland, yes Poland. It point blank will not take blacks/Muslims in. It is very firm in its stance of we are a Christian country and have our own culture which we are protecting. PERHAPS THIS IS UNTERMENSCH?
Ukraines and Poland are like brothers. Ask any Pole or Ukranian that. I have one next door if you need to ask.
Also, those Ukranians do not intend to stay there. They want to go home.
A policy we should also be using more here. Not every refugee should be permanent.
Denmark, made that clear and even made them pay for their own keep on entry if they had money. You do realise that?
Poland defended its borders when Belarus tried to flood Europe, The army was deployed and even those who got through, were caught and thrown back.
They don't have a problem anymore.

[MadAmster]

Some very good point MA, I agree with most of them but need to pull you up on a couple

1. Any that make it by boat we should take in? Doesn't work, they will still be using that means and even sinking their own boat to force the issue. Safe in the knowlege that they get here, they're in. That is excatly what is going on now.

2. Poland, yes Poland. It point blank will not take blacks/Muslims in. It is very firm in its stance of we are a Christian country and have our own culture which we are protecting. PERHAPS THIS IS UNTERMENSCH?
Ukraines and Poland are like brothers. Ask any Pole or Ukranian that. I have one next door if you need to ask.
Also, those Ukranians do not intend to stay there. They want to go home.
A policy we should also be using more here. Not every refugee should be permanent.
Denmark, made that clear and even made them pay for their own keep on entry if they had money. You do realise that?
Poland defended its borders when Belarus tried to flood Europe, The army was deployed and even those who got through, were caught and thrown back.
They don't have a problem anymore.

1. If you're going to quote me don't take it out of context. I said take them in but keep them in old disused army barracks and the like. Get any asylum sorted double time. Those that qualify we let in. The rest we deport. All explained in the post to which you replied but chose to ignore the bits that get in the way of your own narrative. Letting them in is humane. It is civilised. 2 traits I would like to think the UK still has. Get them processed quickly and then take the appropriate action, equally quickly. I'm OK with you not answering but I do object to your constant "muddying of the waters" when skirting questions. If you're not going to answer the question asked, just don't reply and we can draw our own conclusions.

2. Not arguing with you. All I did was point out they have 5M refugees already.

Neighbours? My next door neighbours on one side, the house is jointly owned by 2 businessmen. One Dutch, one Irish. They rent the house out to a Polish employment agency. At any one time there's between 4 and 8 Poles living there. There has been the odd Romanian and even a Russian woman at one point. My contact with the agency stamps hard on them if they step out of line. Before that they were unruly and noisy. However, they were a lot cleaner than the Portuguese family they put in at one time and far less noisy than the Irish kids in there. We've had this since the mid 90s. We don't qualify for a rate rebate...