UK deporting non-whites to Rwanda, keeping Ukrainians
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 14
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2022 9:53 pm
I agree with quite a lot of with this penis guy ,but the way he gets them across is so toxic makes me start doubting them.
He should chill out, maybe rearing chickens or ducks would help.
He should chill out, maybe rearing chickens or ducks would help.
Quod scripsi, scripsi
- Lucky Lucan
- K440 Knight Captain
- Reactions: 761
- Posts: 22525
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:24 pm
- Location: The Pearl of the Orient
It's a bit more complex than that. For a start it was hundreds of thousands of Tutsis who were massacred by Hutu Interahamwe forces. This didn't seem to work too well in their favor as Tutsi dissidents ( Rwandan Patriotic Front that had been taking refuge in Uganda and border areas for years) quickly invaded and the Interahamwe were forced to move into Eastern Congo. I remember how much sympathy they got at the time as their rapid withdrawal led to some sorry looking refugees turning in Goma , then it just went wild. The new Rwandan government went after the Interahamwe and then got involved in the war that turned Zaire into DRC and involved dozens of protagonists. Rwanda has been very successful in the past few decades, which for example cannot be said for it's southern neighbor Burundi, which also experienced some extreme inter-tribal violence around the same time. Then again I don't see much evidence that Burundi is backing militias all over eastern/ southern DRC so they can exploit all the resources.Guest wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:18 pmThe Rwanda policy is grotesque, and one loathed by decent-minded people, including moderate conservatives. We are literally shipping people to a country where tens of thousands were macheted to death for being the wrong tribe not so long ago.
Romantic Cambodia is dead and gone. It's with McKinley in the grave.
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 31
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:22 am
A common misconception from Brittons, the benefits in several other western European countries are higher/covering more of your total needs. Why is it so hard to understand that most people speak some English, but very few speak German or Danish, thus it is easier to get going in an English-speaking country. Especially if you actually are a refugee, planning to go back once it is safe, there is little purpose to learning an odd minor language. Getting by on English for a couple of years just makes sense. If you intended to settle down in the new place, an odd language wouldn't be much of an issue.Anthony's Wiener wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:29 amAsylum seeker or economic migrant? Asylum shoopers choose the country that offers the best benefits not the first safe place. The gentleman obviously did not arrive in the UK directly from the Balkan countries and passed through democracies that while safe did not meet his liking.
He is not seeking safety, he is seeking benefits far above that. A man suffering from famine refusing a meal because he wants dessert and wine with it.
UK pensioners received a $20 increase per fortnight in these inflationary times and the UK's obligation is to them first.
1
1
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 14
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2022 9:53 pm
This Irish guy seems to think that Ireland's hospitality is being abused.
Quod scripsi, scripsi
Guru Meditation wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:56 pmA common misconception from Brittons, the benefits in several other western European countries are higher/covering more of your total needs. Why is it so hard to understand that most people speak some English, but very few speak German or Danish, thus it is easier to get going in an English-speaking country. Especially if you actually are a refugee, planning to go back once it is safe, there is little purpose to learning an odd minor language. Getting by on English for a couple of years just makes sense. If you intended to settle down in the new place, an odd language wouldn't be much of an issue.Anthony's Wiener wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:29 amAsylum seeker or economic migrant? Asylum shoopers choose the country that offers the best benefits not the first safe place. The gentleman obviously did not arrive in the UK directly from the Balkan countries and passed through democracies that while safe did not meet his liking.
He is not seeking safety, he is seeking benefits far above that. A man suffering from famine refusing a meal because he wants dessert and wine with it.
UK pensioners received a $20 increase per fortnight in these inflationary times and the UK's obligation is to them first.
This is of course true. Benefits are much more generous in most other western union countries and it’s just been announced our growth rate is the lowest of all major nations except sanction hit Russia. It’s hard to make a case that asylum seekers are coming to the U.K. for economic reasons.
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 31
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:22 am
The point I was trying to make was regarding Anthony's surprise why some people pass several Western European countries trying to end up in the UK and thinking it must be due to some kind of exceptional immigration benefits only offered in the UK. That is just not the case. I didn't mean it as the UK benefits are terrible, they just don't stand out in comparison.Guest wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:23 amGuru Meditation wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 10:56 pmA common misconception from Brittons, the benefits in several other western European countries are higher/covering more of your total needs. Why is it so hard to understand that most people speak some English, but very few speak German or Danish, thus it is easier to get going in an English-speaking country. Especially if you actually are a refugee, planning to go back once it is safe, there is little purpose to learning an odd minor language. Getting by on English for a couple of years just makes sense. If you intended to settle down in the new place, an odd language wouldn't be much of an issue.Anthony's Wiener wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 6:29 amAsylum seeker or economic migrant? Asylum shoopers choose the country that offers the best benefits not the first safe place. The gentleman obviously did not arrive in the UK directly from the Balkan countries and passed through democracies that while safe did not meet his liking.
He is not seeking safety, he is seeking benefits far above that. A man suffering from famine refusing a meal because he wants dessert and wine with it.
UK pensioners received a $20 increase per fortnight in these inflationary times and the UK's obligation is to them first.
This is of course true. Benefits are much more generous in most other western union countries and it’s just been announced our growth rate is the lowest of all major nations except sanction hit Russia. It’s hard to make a case that asylum seekers are coming to the U.K. for economic reasons.
The two standout things with the UK is that it uses the universal default language that a lot of people already have picked up, this makes things so much more convenient. The second thing is that most people are aware of UK culture and opportunities through movies and TV, making it easier to relate to the place.
How much do most non-europeans know about the lifestyle, opportunities, and how to get around in Norway?
-
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 38
- Posts: 242
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2022 7:05 pm
Firstly the title of the thread is a blatant lie intended to inject race into a legal matter. The policy is not only for non-whites and Ukrainians will be subject to it as well.
One other poster almost immediately exposed the lie and I provided a source showing UK government' officials refuting the lie.
Secondly those deported to Rwanda will still be able to file asylum claims or appeal their deportations. Currently they are held in detention centres. The photos of the hotel the initial deportees will be housed has both a pool and a gym and the Rwandan govt has made assurances that their movements will be free. The hotel is charging $45USD a night. During my past ten years in Asia, a $45 a night hotel with pool and gym would be in the top 50% of my nightly hotel expenses and amenities and I suspect the same is true for the vast majority of forum members.
Thirdly the First Safe Country Principle refers to refugees that pass through an alternative country that could have offered them asylum. It is the basis of most nations refugee policy. If you do not apply for asylum from the first safe country your chances of obtaining asylum are severely diminished.
2.6 million people are currently in UN recognized refugee camps, many have applied for asylum in third nations and wait in que. Channel crossers choose not to await their turn to apply for asylum.
Thirdly it is disingenuous to suggest these are not "Asylum Shoppers". Posters have claimed otherwise and then gone on to list the benefits these migrants obtain by settling in the UK. The ability to speak some of the language, the ability to practice their religion in an established setting and the ability to be with family, the ability to congregate with your same nationality or language group are all benefits. Ask any expat! None of these benefits are a requirement of safety. Benefits are not solely financial.
The top ten countries accepting asylum seekers
Switzerland, Canada, Germany, UK, Japan, Sweden, Australia and the US. All countries in the top 10% of standard of living worldwide.
Resources spent on illegal migrants are resources unavailable to refugees that follow the rules.
The vast majority of refugees worldwide are women and children with over 50% being women and girls, 75% of migrants are males between 18 and 39. Those that avoid the que and illegally entered the UK are the least at risk refugees, why would preferential treatment be afforded them?
Finally Rwanda has provided this service to Israel and will soon provide it to Denmark. The Rwandan genocide is long past and over 550 NGOs are currently incountry. 800,000 were killed compared to the 2.4 million alleged in Cambodia. The "genocide argument" on a Cambodian based forum is laughable and any person who has voluntarily lived in Cambodia knows it.
I am surprised that stating these facts is considered bigotry or that I must be loathed by the decent- minded. To suggest that my fantasy is about putting refugees on a stake as Jollybee suggested is ludicrous but consistent with his contribution to the forum.
No person should suffer because of their gender, sexual identity, political stance, ethnicity, religion or eye colour. A Utopian society does not exist.
Why not help those most at risk first instead of those who have the ability or inclination to pay criminal gangs or que jump? Those that break the rules are currently rewarded and have the support of some posters. Where is that support for women and children?
One other poster almost immediately exposed the lie and I provided a source showing UK government' officials refuting the lie.
Secondly those deported to Rwanda will still be able to file asylum claims or appeal their deportations. Currently they are held in detention centres. The photos of the hotel the initial deportees will be housed has both a pool and a gym and the Rwandan govt has made assurances that their movements will be free. The hotel is charging $45USD a night. During my past ten years in Asia, a $45 a night hotel with pool and gym would be in the top 50% of my nightly hotel expenses and amenities and I suspect the same is true for the vast majority of forum members.
Thirdly the First Safe Country Principle refers to refugees that pass through an alternative country that could have offered them asylum. It is the basis of most nations refugee policy. If you do not apply for asylum from the first safe country your chances of obtaining asylum are severely diminished.
2.6 million people are currently in UN recognized refugee camps, many have applied for asylum in third nations and wait in que. Channel crossers choose not to await their turn to apply for asylum.
Thirdly it is disingenuous to suggest these are not "Asylum Shoppers". Posters have claimed otherwise and then gone on to list the benefits these migrants obtain by settling in the UK. The ability to speak some of the language, the ability to practice their religion in an established setting and the ability to be with family, the ability to congregate with your same nationality or language group are all benefits. Ask any expat! None of these benefits are a requirement of safety. Benefits are not solely financial.
The top ten countries accepting asylum seekers
Switzerland, Canada, Germany, UK, Japan, Sweden, Australia and the US. All countries in the top 10% of standard of living worldwide.
Resources spent on illegal migrants are resources unavailable to refugees that follow the rules.
The vast majority of refugees worldwide are women and children with over 50% being women and girls, 75% of migrants are males between 18 and 39. Those that avoid the que and illegally entered the UK are the least at risk refugees, why would preferential treatment be afforded them?
Finally Rwanda has provided this service to Israel and will soon provide it to Denmark. The Rwandan genocide is long past and over 550 NGOs are currently incountry. 800,000 were killed compared to the 2.4 million alleged in Cambodia. The "genocide argument" on a Cambodian based forum is laughable and any person who has voluntarily lived in Cambodia knows it.
I am surprised that stating these facts is considered bigotry or that I must be loathed by the decent- minded. To suggest that my fantasy is about putting refugees on a stake as Jollybee suggested is ludicrous but consistent with his contribution to the forum.
No person should suffer because of their gender, sexual identity, political stance, ethnicity, religion or eye colour. A Utopian society does not exist.
Why not help those most at risk first instead of those who have the ability or inclination to pay criminal gangs or que jump? Those that break the rules are currently rewarded and have the support of some posters. Where is that support for women and children?
1
1
it's amusing to see people whining about refugees who come to the UK due to wars started by NATO and its members.
I wonder where their desire for law-abiding citizens was when the countries in question were colonised or bombed?
I wonder where their desire for law-abiding citizens was when the countries in question were colonised or bombed?
Russian troll alertladygirl wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:43 amit's amusing to see people whining about refugees who come to the UK due to wars started by NATO and its members.
I wonder where their desire for law-abiding citizens was when the countries in question were colonised or bombed?
1
1
Why Russian troll? Russia also effectively colonised some countries and went to war in Afghanistan, etc. They're not innocent, either. Look how many refugees fled Ukraine.logos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 1:13 pmRussian troll alertladygirl wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:43 amit's amusing to see people whining about refugees who come to the UK due to wars started by NATO and its members.
I wonder where their desire for law-abiding citizens was when the countries in question were colonised or bombed?
However, the post is about the UK, which is a member of NATO, and which had the largest empire in history. Were you aware of that? Most, (all?) of its colonies were taken by force, do you deny that?
If you colonise a country through war/ violence, why would you be surprised that people become refugees?
You don't understand the connection between war/violence and refugees?
Belgium was the worst coloniser of the lot, they killed up to 15 million (estimates vary between 12 and 15m) in the Belgian Congo alone!
Without the Congo, Belgium would be nothing today, its wealth was founded on the rubber and minerals, diamonds etc. from the Congo.
I guess your amusing reaction and desire not to see the connection between violence and refugees stems from not wanting to admit that which is obvious to most?
I might be tempted to argue if I gave a shit. Which I don't.
In vlad’s weird world, as a Belgian you are of course personally responsible for the actions of your country centuries ago. Similar Brits today are responsible for all historical crimes. This is how he thinks.
He of course is a white colonial who benefited from growing up in Rhodesia, where he naturally was educated in a boarding school.
But let’s gloss over that.
Show us the tour logos gave you of his basement. Don't forget to mention how much he food cost.Guest wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 11:28 am
In vlad’s weird world, as a Belgian you are of course personally responsible for the actions of your country centuries ago. Similar Brits today are responsible for all historical crimes. This is how he thinks.
He of course is a white colonial who benefited from growing up in Rhodesia, where he naturally was educated in a boarding school.
But let’s gloss over that.
I know it's a difficult concept for you to understand, but one can be in a system and disagree with it.
People today are NOT responsible for what their forebears did, but that doesn't mean that should should pretend it didn't happen, and not see the irony. A Belgian or any EU/US citizen whining about refugees. Especially the US, it was founded by refugees, yes?
Sorry to cite facts and logic, I knw the third man hates them. I personally avoid authors accused of paedophilia, but hey, it's a free basement, I mean world.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/naughty ... e-1.244619
;Shelden portrayed Greene as a phoney Catholic, a treacherous husband, a homosexual paedophile, an anti-Semite, a sadist and - in what John Updike termed "some sort of sensationalist low point in literary biography"
spasmeroid wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:54 pmShow us the tour logos gave you of his basement. Don't forget to mention how much he food cost.Guest wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 11:28 am
In vlad’s weird world, as a Belgian you are of course personally responsible for the actions of your country centuries ago. Similar Brits today are responsible for all historical crimes. This is how he thinks.
He of course is a white colonial who benefited from growing up in Rhodesia, where he naturally was educated in a boarding school.
But let’s gloss over that.
I know it's a difficult concept for you to understand, but one can be in a system and disagree with it.
People today are NOT responsible for what their forebears did, but that doesn't mean that should should pretend it didn't happen, and not see the irony. A Belgian or any EU/US citizen whining about refugees. Especially the US, it was founded by refugees, yes?
Sorry to cite facts and logic, I knw the third man hates them. I personally avoid authors accused of paedophilia, but hey, it's a free basement, I mean world.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/naughty ... e-1.244619
;Shelden portrayed Greene as a phoney Catholic, a treacherous husband, a homosexual paedophile, an anti-Semite, a sadist and - in what John Updike termed "some sort of sensationalist low point in literary biography"
Ha. Dear old vlad is getting weirder and weirder.
You never disappoint.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 4 Replies
- 1524 Views
-
Last post by batshitcrazyweirdo
Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:16 pm
-
-
A Chinese guy was keeping a lion in Boeng Keng Kang
by gavinmac » Sun Jun 27, 2021 8:06 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 61 Replies
- 9191 Views
-
Last post by Bong Burgundy
Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:58 pm
-