|
|
Post by birdseye on Apr 14, 2022 9:47:05 GMT
The Patel woman seems to me to have made a new mark in political ineptitude with her plan to ship illegal migrants to Ruanda, a name associated with genocide, rather than back to France or letting them stay here. Its easy to imagine what now will happen with the media, particularly the BBC, crawling allover the facilities in Ruanda for immigrants, the way they are treated, looking for any story with an edge. Then there will be the cost. What do we do with those who arent allowed back from Ruanda to the UK - leave them there? What about non Africans - we do get illegals / asylum seekers from all over the world? At least here in the UK they can disappear which means that the political consequences are much less news worthy.
And what about Macron - he must be laughing and telling his police to run an even wider blind eye to the traffickers though no doubt we will still pay him for this.
But most of all, the British people might not want loads of illegals but they still are basically decent people who want to treat the illegals decently.
Our own British Guantanamo! To me this plan illustrates the dying days of an inept government. Do you agree?
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,600
|
Post by pjw1961 on Apr 14, 2022 21:46:35 GMT
With the general sentiments expressed, yes, but the country is called Rwanda and the people are not "illegals" - there are no illegal people as such, only illegal means of entering the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Apr 15, 2022 7:19:49 GMT
You are right - Ruanda became Rwanda in 1962. But I always wonder about such name changes. Why bother with this one yet not bother using the local name for the Netherlands or Germany/ Should Zimbabwe still be Southern Rhodesia even though Rhodes is non PC these days. Bit of a philosophical argument.
As indeed is the "illegals". Does a murderer become a murderer when he murders or when he is convicted? Does an illegal become an illegal when he enters the UK illegally or when he goes to court? And if he never goes to court, and they usually dont, then presumably the entry to the UK is legal despite breaking the law.
Anyway all that is pedantry. The point of my post, which I see has also come up in the polls area, is the stupidity, impracticality and political desperation of Patels creation of a british Guantanamo. Most would support action to return the illegals safely to France but this! Never.
Interesting how the daughter of immigrants takes a hard line on other immigrants. Pulling up the drawbridge after herself?
|
|
