Solving the Immigration Problem

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, egg said:

Reduce to what?

Which countries would allow us to process there? Wouldn't that just invite more applications? 

It’s in the brackets - providing only temporary asylum in many instances and prioritising the relocation of people to safe parts of their own country rather than coming here.
 

Rwanda is a good example. It’s possible if the incentives for those countries is in place and the legislation reducers the risk of challenge.
 

No - they want to come here no be shipped out to another less preferrable location for processing.

Im glad Italy has put the cat amongst the pigeons as it might start forcing the eu to take this even more seriously. Needs some good conservative governance from the relevant eu countries to force their hand harder

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why - how's that helping? Also, are you going to answer my question from yesterday? I answered yours.

@JohnnyShearer2.0 head above the parapet. Do you have the answer to my question you promised last week you were struggling with? 

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

It’s in the brackets. What like Rwanda? No - they want to come here no be shipped out to another third world location for processing.

Im glad Italy has put the cat amongst the pigeons as it might start forcing the eu to take this even more seriously. Needs some good conservative governance from the relevant eu countries to force their hand harder

 

 

Oh that's it! Making it temporary doesn't alter the scope. What's the reduced scope you suggest?

Let's assume there's no safe areas - ie Gaza, or nowhere safe for certain people, ie disabled or an oppressed group?

Your explanation re overseas processing isn't clear. Someone in France, wanting to come here, where do they get processed?

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, egg said:

Oh that's it! Making it temporary doesn't alter the scope. What's the reduced scope you suggest?

Let's assume there's no safe areas - ie Gaza, or nowhere safe for certain people, ie disabled or an oppressed group?

Your explanation re overseas processing isn't clear. Someone in France, wanting to come here, where do they get processed?

Each country has its own issue. I didn’t say get rid altogether. It’s about reducing the scope of who qualifies. Gaza maybe one example but there are either countries where there are alternative safe locations - do you agree?

In terms of offshore processing this is about upon arrival in Europe - not moving between European countries as they should have already been moved offshore for processing. Why wouldn’t that work? To me that’s the biggest disincentive which the conservatives did put forward.

An observation- there is a specific group of people on here who allege they a want to reduce illegal migration. Any suggestion of a change is met with “that’s a terrible ideas” or “it won’t work” rather than engaging with the issue. Not surprising but rather strange bearing in mind their alleged views on this matter

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, iansums said:

“I think taxes should be lowered for low and medium earners you gimp”

A little bit personal I reckon.

Different post he was responding to. Either way didn't realise you right wingers were such snowflakes.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

40 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

How about for starters reducing the scope of what is considered a refugee (including refugeee status being temporary and identitying safe areas in their own countries which means they should seek asylum in other countries) and allowing processing in offshore locations. 

So you want the definition of what is considered a refugee to be changed to what?

Why is what Italy have done a good thing, and what do they hope to achieve from it?

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Each country has its own issue. I didn’t say get rid altogether. It’s about reducing the scope of who qualifies. Gaza maybe one example but there are either countries where there are alternative safe locations - do you agree?

In terms of offshore processing this is about upon arrival in Europe - not moving between European countries as they should have already been moved offshore for processing. Why wouldn’t that work? To me that’s the biggest disincentive which the conservatives did put forward.

An observation- there is a specific group of people on here who allege they a want to reduce illegal migration. Any suggestion of a change is met with “that’s a terrible ideas” or “it won’t work” rather than engaging with the issue. Not surprising but rather strange bearing in mind their alleged views on this matter

So Rwanda was for 300 people - what would you do with the other 40k?

We had something that worked. We decided to get rid of it. That's what we need back.

Just out of interest, why is being processed in Rwanda different to being processed in an army barracks in Crowborough that they aren't allowed to leave?

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

34 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

@JohnnyShearer2.0 head above the parapet. Do you have the answer to my question you promised last week you were struggling with? 

On its way buddy.

After you answer my question on Charlie Kirk thread.

[Sir Ralph]

The issue is the number of “centrists” that jump on a single post made by someone they don’t agree with. It’s the Spanish Inquisition by multiple centrists that makes responding to queries nearly impossible. It’s death by a thousand cuts. Attack en masse to quieten dissent - I’ve read about that type of strategy before in various countries! No wonder people with alternative views stop posting and it becomes an echo chamber of the “centrists” left.

To answer one of the queries I agree that if we could be part of the Dublin agreeemnt that would help as a factor in reducing immigration 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The issue is the number of “centrists” that jump on a single post made by someone they don’t agree with. It’s the Spanish Inquisition by multiple centrists that makes responding to queries nearly impossible. It’s death by a thousand cuts. Attack en masse to quieten dissent - I’ve read about that type of strategy before in various countries! No wonder people with alternative views stop posting and it becomes an echo chamber of the “centrists” left

The issue is not the political leanings of who is posting, the issue is who is posting.

For instance, not sure outside of Soggy anyone that has had too much of an issue with @iansums. I think what you'll find is that a number of posters on here do not suffer fools gladly, and unfortunately too many of those posters fall under that banner.

Not sure us centrists asking you to answer questions or justify your posts is really quietening dissent, do you? Quite the opposite in fact, we're giving you the chance to state your point. The issue is you fuck it up every time.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

To answer one of the queries I agree that if we could be part of the Dublin agreeemnt that would help as a factor in reducing immigration 

Why is being processed in Rwanda or a 3rd country different to being processed in an army barracks in Crowborough that they aren't allowed to leave?

Why is what Italy have done a good thing, and what do they hope to achieve from it?

You've mentioned both multiple times so you must have some compelling reasons.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

Why is being processed in Rwanda or a 3rd country different to being processed in an army barracks in Crowborough that they aren't allowed to leave?

Why is what Italy have done a good thing, and what do they hope to achieve from it?

You've mentioned both multiple times so you must have some compelling reasons.

Last questions I’ll respond to on this:

1. This was one of two initial suggestions I made - so not a solution in isolation. Technically there is no difference. However knowing you are going to be transferred out of Europe when you arrive to Rwanda is a physiological disincentive. For those with uncertain cases / lack of evidence I would ensure processing times are sufficiently enlongated to try to weed out the fakes.

2. By Italy taking this robust stance, as a key member it starts to put pressure on the eu or other eu countries to take the wider matter more seriously if it wants to maintain its core value of free movement. Hopefully other countries threaten this to put the pressure on even more.

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Last questions I’ll respond to on this:

1. This was one of two initial suggestions I made - so not a solution in isolation. Technically there is no difference. However knowing you are going to be transferred out of Europe when you arrive to Rwanda is a physiological disincentive. I would ensure processing times are sufficiently enlongated to try to weed out the fakes.

2. By Italy taking this robust stance, as a key member it starts to put pressure on the eu or other eu countries to take the wider matter more seriously if it wants to maintain its core value of free movement. Hopefully other countries threaten this to put the pressure on even more.

1. But are you sending 40k people out there a year, and where are they going to be housed? For instance Rwanda had one hotel, and for 300 people was going to cost £600m without having to build more areas to house people. And if you're elongating the amount of time that number is going to grow, and it won't make a difference to the number of people accepted. How much are you willing to spend on this? Are you willing to spend the £2m per person for 40k per year (£80bn per year)? Wouldn't a small amount of this money invested in better technology and quicker handling of processing be a better deterrent?

2. But what was the actual reason they shut the border? Considering they had just agreed in June 2026 to a raft of new laws, are they already rowing back on those as not strong enough? Why shut the border just to Spain and not to all countries? What is the reason for shutting that border?

I know you've said it's the last questions you'll respond to on this, probably because the above aren't proper answers and you know I'll be trying to get some actual details put of you.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

1. But are you sending 40k people out there a year, and where are they going to be housed? For instance Rwanda had one hotel, and for 300 people was going to cost £600m without having to build more areas to house people. And if you're elongating the amount of time that number is going to grow, and it won't make a difference to the number of people accepted. How much are you willing to spend on this? Are you willing to spend the £2m per person for 40k per year (£80bn per year)? Wouldn't a small amount of this money invested in better technology and quicker handling of processing be a better deterrent?

2. But what was the actual reason they shut the border? Considering they had just agreed in June 2026 to a raft of new laws, are they already rowing back on those as not strong enough?

I know you've said it's the last questions you'll respond to on this, probably because the above aren't proper answers and you know I'll be trying to get some actual details put of you.

I’m not responding as I have other things to do in my day. I’m off to make a Lego deportation camp 😂

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m not responding as I have other things to do in my day. I’m off to make a Lego deportation camp 😂

And you wonder why people get annoyed at you!