I would be weary of saying people moving to a country, means that country is totally fine. Back in the bad old days, a lot of Africans illegally immigrated into apartheid South Africa, so many that a heavily fortified border was constructed, including a powerful electric fence people died on. Even years after it ended people who quite liked apartheid would make arguments like "everything was fine under apartheid, because Africans were trying to get into SA illegally!". But who were these Africans? They were mostly Mozambicans fleeing civil war, or Zimbabweans fleeing civil war and then Mugabe's genocide in the early 1980s. So their argument was actually "SA was fine because apartheid was better than horrific civil wars and a literal genocide". It's not the greatest argument.ia801310 wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:41 amI guess only time will tell if you are right or not. I suspect that you are wrong. Even if you are right, it doesn't exactly square with the idea that Brexit Britain is a racist hell-hole. Free electoral tip to the Metropolitan Liberal Elite, constantly branding the electorate racist and thick is not a winning strategy._Os_ wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:31 pm If you're serious, and I'm having my doubts. Lets say hypothetically I'm right and you're wrong, and the Tories have conned you into supporting them because of the immigration issue surrounding Brexit, and you realise they don't give a fuck about any of this. What would you do then?
One of the beauties of Brexit is that if we think the govt are lying to us we can elect a new one with a new immigration policy. You don't end with a situation whereby a whole community uses another EU country to piggy back into the UK, google "Dutch Somali's in the UK"
2 articles to help you
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br ... 89841.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-citizens
I wonder you would be as opposed if to the Rwanda plan if the immigrants were being offshored to Canada, or Finland or Ireland?
So who is getting into small boats and trying to get into the UK? It seems to be mostly people fleeing horrific civil wars and circumstances where their lives are in danger. That's why most of their asylum cases are accepted and they're given refugee status and allowed to settle in the UK.
The UK never enforced the controls available to it under EU freedom of movement, and the reason they didn't was because the overwhelming majority of EU citizens who used free movement were working. They couldn't find anyone who was abusing freedom of movement to deport, it was costing more policing it than was being saved. There's an estimated 110k Somalia born people in the UK, are you really stating Brexit was worth it because of 10k-20k Somalians who are Dutch citizens moved to the UK? The UK has one of Europe's biggest (the biggest?) Somali community mostly because of that ever reliable indicator "which country/countries colonised it?".
You claim leaving the EU means the UK can change its immigration regime. Yes, in theory. In practice no, structurally it's all the same, so the same number of migrants are required. But the UK is now a less attractive prospect for Europeans, so they have to come from elsewhere which means overwhelmingly the Commonwealth. The period of highest immigration into the UK in its entire history is now, and especially since Tory majorities started in 2015-ish.
Canada/Finland/Ireland wouldn't be used as offshoring locations, because as your question implies, the point is to send people to somewhere awful and pretend it's actually brilliant. The point is to punish desperate vulnerable people. Even if everyone coming in a small boat to the UK were sent to Rwanda, it would make almost no difference to the UK's immigration numbers, as the chart I posted shows the UK's refugee intake is negligible. It's just cruelty so that the Tories can con people into believing they're tough on immigration.
An article to help you:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... aws-report