There is a simple, free method of finding out if you are on the right side of an argument or the wrong one. Check out the Guardian. Given that the Guardian is always wrong about everything all of the time, all you need to do is go for the opposite and you will be fine. Here’s an example today.
Government plans to prevent people from arriving in the UK on small boats that include a permanent ban on them ever settling in the UK are unworkable, the immigration workers’ union and Labour have said.
This is risible bollocks. It’s a tried and trusted method of dealing with the situation. The Australians stopped the Vietnamese boat people using this method. It worked. The Guardian, once again is claiming that black is white. Bear in mind this execrable rag was – and still is – in favour of all the authoritarian anti science insanity that we endured during the covid outbreak.
One part of the proposals, details of which are expected to be unveiled on Tuesday, would set out that anyone who had travelled by such a route would not just be removed to a third country but barred permanently from re-entry or ever applying for British citizenship.
Absolutely right. If you are prepared to enter illegally, there is a penalty to pay. You don’t get to stay.
The proposals have been widely condemned by refugee groups and others as impossible to enforce and likely to lead to tens of thousands of people fleeing war and persecution being locked up.
Firstly, most of these people are not refugees. I wasn’t aware that there was a war in Albania, for example. Nor sub Saharan Africa. These people choose to disobey our laws, in which case off you go and don’t come back, ever, is a rational response.
Once again, the usual suspects are engaging in sophistry to justify the unjustifiable. The Aussies dealt with this and so should we. The majority in this country want the invasion to stop. This legislation is long overdue.
“Even if it does [work], that traffic will simply jump back on lorries, which is what was being used before,” Moreton added, saying that security measures at Calais were not matched at other ports: “There’s an awful lot of ports along the French coast that we would have, I presume, to pay to fortify.”
This is not a reason not to do it. The paucity of intellect on display is, again, what we can expect from these people.
I was going to argue that the Grauniad has some use… wrapping fish and chips, stuffing a Guy. Then I realised we don’t do those things any more.
Isn’t it strange.
Bum-wiping will always be popular.
My arse deserves better!
More shit will come off the paper than off your arse with that rag.
If you have a legitimate claim to asylum, you don’t need to sneak across the channel in a boat and destroy your identity documents.
Quite so. You come in through one of the ports of entry and make your claim.
I made this point in an email to my MP. Your comment here is the first time I have seen it in public. A true refugee would be willing, eager, to identify themselves and the place they are seeking ‘refuge’ from.
BBC Radio 4 Today, first news story refers to ‘asylum seekers’. We should always refer to them as illegal immigrants.
@Alexander the mediocre
I wouldn’t insult my shit!
Besides, the turd, which your asshole has lovingly sculpted, is infinitely better looking and has more common sense.
It would bring tears to your eyes.
Brought tears to mine!
Why do they get to apply for citizenship anyway? We must be the only European country to offer citizenship to people with no ancestry here
Some kind of settled status would be enough, for the few genuine ones
As I saw someone write about the southern US border a few years back, if the very first thing someone does upon entering our country is hold our law in contempt, then he surrenders any right to a welcome.
“There’s an awful lot of ports along the French coast that we would have, I presume, to pay to fortify.”
Fair enough. Securing the borders is one of the primary functions of any government. “Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport” aren’t. Shut that waste-of-space Ministry down, and start doing what a government is supposed to instead of pissing our money up the wall.
There are not that many ports actually – not ones that can embark an HGV anyway. Commercially viable routes for ferry companies require a distance advantage and also significant infrastructure at both ends. Dunkirk, Calais, Dieppe, Le Havre and Cherbourg – that’s about the limit of how long you can hide people in the back of a truck without some of them keeling over, which is bad for business. The volume of course is via Dunkirk and Calais which already have juxtaposed controls in place to stop the buggers getting on the ferries in the first place.
The trouble is we all know the proposal is all bollocks anyway, just another lie from the tories that they’re going to do something about immigration…well they do do something, they increase it legally and otherwise year on year.
Can the govt or the opposition just for once in their rotten lives tell the truth.
Um. I was under the impression that the legislation addressed all who come here illegally, regardless of the transport method. So, if you come by boat or by lorry then you have still entered illegally and will be swiftly deported.*
DK
* One can dream.