Forum Topic

Ms Carter'It is not insignificant that the people here most anti immigration are also those who strongly support Israel and, quite rightly, deplore anti semitism. However most Jewish people in this country came here as refugees or migrants since the early 20th century and particularly escaping Hitler in Europe'.And the vast, vast majority of these people settled down to adopt the British multi faith way of life and made major contributions to enhancing it.They differ from many Islamic immigrants who seem to varying degrees to want to live according to the different set of social standards and mores their faith demands and more to the point perhaps wish the rest of us to adopt them.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-keir-starmer-muslim-gaza-israel-palestine-b2540759.htmlThe '18 DEMANDS' Muslim Vote group issued to Keir Starmer after dozens of pro-Gaza activists were elected to councils across UK - from cutting military ties with Israel to 'ensuring insurance quotes don't cost more for someone called Muhammad'And surely you read what the GREEN (sic) Party Councillor  Mothin Ali in Leeds said ? 'In his speech on being elected, recorded on his TikTok channel, Ali stood in front of a Palestinian flag and said “Allahu Akbar” and “this is a win for the people of Gaza”.On the day of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, Ali said in remarks on social media that Palestinians had the right to “fight back”.In a separate video published on social media, he criticised a rabbi who went into hiding after receiving online threats because he had served with the Israel Defence Forces. Ali called Rabbi Zecharia Deutsch a “creep”.To equate these Islamic immigrants fleeing from what one might ask, with Jewish immigrants fleeing from the European pogroms leading up to Hitler's 'Final Solution' is in my view naïve and laughable.  

John Hawkes ● 407d

Steven, because of other things going on in my life, I haven't got time to unpack and respond to this, what I consider, an insulting post. But, briefly:1. I do not believe in a God. I respect others who do, you have to respect my right not to; there is no god, ok? If you can't just say so and there's no point in further discussions on that point. Personally, I'd rather associate with other atheist such as Jim Al-Khalili, Tim Berners-Lee, Richard Dawkins, Carlos Frenk, Martin Rees, Adam Rutherford, Linus Torvalds et al. Interesting you chose G K Chesterton as Mr Google tells me he was an anti-semite, no idea if that's true, but perhaps he isn't a good choice?2. I do not believe in original sin. Some people are "good", or try to be, others are bad, some are psychopaths. That's life.3. Secularism isn't bad. I'm not, but many are humanists; I just try to be fair and help others when I reasonably can. I won't care whether they're athiests, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.4. Colonialism was bad but, from a European perspective, it's stopped but we have to recognise the damage it's done and the benefits to the colonial powers. Over time it's effect should diminish but that may mean we in the West don't always like changes dictated by a majority elsewhere in the world. 5. That doesn't mean we need to accept unlimited immigration. We just need to look at ways that makes it more desirable to stay in the countries where they were born and their families are. Doesn't that make sense? And those that do come to the UK who seem willing to work then, given some industries and services are short of staff, doesn't that fill a need and help our economy?6. On a similar point; yes, I may be going back one or two, perhaps three or four, decades talking about the damage of colonisation; some on this forum seem to be going back to biblical references BCE to justify Israeli and it's actions in the middle east. If my references are invalid then those must ge evenmore so. 7. Slight aside, don't you think it's appalling that Windrush compensation end the Stephen Lawrence investigation reviews keep getting delayed? That might just be government incompetence as so have the blood and post office compensation scandals. But it all suggests a bad government culture - perhaps wven cocer ups?Just an overview. I need a few days to unpack your arguments when I've sorted other things out.E&OE

Michael Ixer ● 408d

Steven,The Memorandum of Understanding between UNHCR/Rwanda/African Union establishes an Emergency Transit Mechanism from the State of Lybia to Rwanda. "... Under this agreement, the Government of Rwanda will continue to receive and provide protection to refugees and asylum-seekers, as well as others identified as particularly vulnerable and at-risk, who are currently being held in detention centres in Libya. They will be transferred to safety in Rwanda on a voluntary basis. After their arrival, UNHCR will continue to pursue durable solutions for the evacuees. While some may benefit from resettlement to third countries, others will be helped to return to countries where asylum had previously been granted, or to return to their home countries if it is safe to do so. Some may be given permission to remain in Rwanda subject to agreement by the competent authorities."https://au.int/fr/node/41088#:~:text=The%20Government%20of%20Rwanda%2C%20the%20African%20Union%20and%20UNHCR%2C%20the,High%20Commissioner%20for%20Refugees%20establishingWhat the UN is saying regarding the Treaty between the UK and Rwanda, is that:".....This arrangement seeks to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermining international cooperation.......Protecting refugees requires all countries, not just those neighbouring crisis zones, to uphold their obligations......The asylum and immigration legislation, known commonly as the Safety of Rwanda bill, was tabled before Parliament alongside the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Treaty after the UK’s Supreme Court found last year that the proposed transfer of asylum seekers to the African country would breach international and UK law.The court’s decision had noted weaknesses in Rwanda’s system for determining individual asylum claims.But, the bill and the treaty do not in practice overcome the protection gaps identified by the Supreme Court, the UN officials stated, adding that once enacted, the measures will restrict the UK courts from properly scrutinising removal decisions, leaving asylum seekers with limited room to appeal even if they face significant risks......"The asylum and immigration legislation, known commonly as the Safety of Rwanda bill, was tabled before Parliament alongside the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Treaty after the UK’s Supreme Court found last year that the proposed transfer of asylum seekers to the African country would breach international and UK law......the bill and the treaty do not in practice overcome the protection gaps identified by the Supreme Court, the UN officials stated, adding that once enacted, the measures will restrict the UK courts from properly scrutinising removal decisions, leaving asylum seekers with limited room to appeal even if they face significant risks."https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148901If you had not noticed, the MoU between UNHCR/Rwanda/AU refers to Libya only.As far as the UK/Rwanda treaty, the UN says that the treaty is unsafe, not that Rwanda is unsafe.  I am sure you will recall that the Supreme Court rules that the treaty was unsafe.  I wonder why?

Ivonne Holliday ● 408d

'Mr Rose'Michael, what has slavery got to do with the problem of illegal migration?'Nothing of course just as it has nothing to do with so-called 'institutional racism' which apparently every white ethnic Briton is a perpetrator of.Britain made slave trading illegal in 1807 and spent billions in today's money trying to stop others such as the Portuguese, the Arabs and black African tribes from continuing the practice.It is all gas lighting and passing the blame from current problems of immigration away from the crooks that carry it out and their sympathisers who effect sympathy for the immigrants, back on to the rest of us who have received no benefit from the trade then and none from illegal immigration now.In terms of practical policy, I assume we have some sort of Embassy/Consulate in Albania and as far as I can see there is no major problem of political oppression there.So why can we not state our policy to be that would be emigrants to the UK have to seek asylum there ?If this process is not followed or the claim is not deemed valid, then we should just arrest those that come illegally by boat and buy them a ticket home on Albanian Airlines.Apart from the issue of not being persecuted, it seems many Albanians here are responsible for the majority of people smuggling or drug trafficking and dealing.And though I might sound somewhat prejudiced those arriving from Syria, Eritrea or Sudan are also not likely to add to the general well-being of British society.Surely persecuted Arabs from Syria could move to Palestine and different political factions of Eritreans could stop fighting each other.And surely Sudan does not want privileged white Britons to tell it how to run its affairs ?

John Hawkes ● 408d