Donate SIGN UP

Answers

61 to 80 of 87rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Geoffrey13. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Precisely.

The original idea of asylum for refugees was that they fled where they were in peril and sought haven in the first safe country in which they arrived. //

That may have been the original idea, but situations where, say, millions flee Ukraine show its obvious and inherent flaw. Neighbouring counties can't handle every asylum seeker when the numbers stretch so high, so naturally some have to "flow" further away in order to ensure that the countries nearest to a given disaster aren't overwhelmed.

It's perhaps also relevant that refugee policies were crafted when the global population was much smaller than it is today.
Your last paragraph didn’t make sense. If we sent a couple of boatloads to Africa, the rest would stop coming. You can be sure they’d know about it.
// I doubt Syrians, Afghans, etc,. etc., would want to end up in Africa either. //

Probably not. Still, as I say, there's no way around the issue that we can only send people to Rwanda, or to any other African country, with the explicit agreement of that country. That puts a clear limit on the numbers we can send elsewhere, and consequently a clear limit on the deterrent effect you're hoping for.
You’ve had a whoosh moment so I’ll repeat and expand. If we sent a couple of boatloads to Africa, the rest, knowing that Africa would be their ultimate destination, would not come here. Traffickers out of business and problem solved for us. A double whammy!
hard not to pick up on the fourth comment but okay fair enough if it was tongue in cheek
// If we sent a couple of boatloads to Africa, the rest, knowing that Africa would be their ultimate destination, would not come here. //

How does this make sense? We can send, currently, at most 200 or so people to Rwanda. 50,000 arrived last year. Once we've reached capacity, we can send no more people to Rwanda. Where, then, is the deterrent? Almost everybody who comes to the UK won't be sent to Africa.
The deterrent is in knowing it can - and will - be done.
// The deterrent is in knowing it can - and will - be done. //

Fair enough. But it can only be done at a rate of a couple of hundred a year. So once that's run out, it can't be done. So the deterrent ends at that point, assuming it ever existed.

And, still, this relies on people knowing about all this, or on correctly evaluating the risk that they personally will fall under it.
It could be expanded if necessary - that would serve to strengthen the message - and I don’t doubt for a moment that the people across the channel would know about it.
Clare.... Naomi has her point of view and her beliefs and will not allow herself to be persuaded any differently by any argument. It really isn't worth talking to people like that who know what they know and know what they hate. I admire your perseverance, but not your perseverance. (Work that one out!)
Don’t we all know what we know and know what we hate, atheist? You certainly appear to.
Irony ain’t a strong point with Atheist - his views are just as entrenched as most people’s views, it’s just that he disagrees with you Naomi that he’s calling you out.
But that’s where it stops with him, DD. He’s quick to punch in the back - and quicker still to immediately hop it!
Unfortunately, not many respond to my posts with argument; they seem to insult me instead. Perhaps if I say that I dislike cruelty or unkindness there is not much to say, but I do value kindness, empathy and understanding.
Do any of you here value kindness, empathy and understanding?
6.48pm - that’s a “when did you stop beating your wife” question.
DD; No it isn't! Get a grip!
I have all three, atheist. I’m just not stupid.
If I ask a question and you can't think of an honest answer which doesn't show you in a good light, then you should think about yourself.
Naomi; I didn't ask if you were stupid or not. There are other values in life.

61 to 80 of 87rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Another Tory Lawbreaker

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.