Comments by "duncan smith" (@duncansmith7562) on "How the PM’s immigration bill went from humanitarian to political crisis" video.

"we will take all the steps necessary to halt the boats" except stopping the boats and towing them back to France.
31
@nigelsynnott7344 it hasn't already been done because the government has no spine. if UK had admitted hordes of illegal immigrants who then invaded France in small boats, I would fully support the French in their efforts to tow all such boats back to the UK. In the situation you describe, the UK would be responsible, and should be responsible, for every illegal immigrant it admitted onto its soil, not France.
4
@nigelsynnott7344 correct, I know little of the law, but speak about what is just and what justice looks like. The UK has indeed admitted hordes of illegal immigrants. if they were legal, they wouldn't be accommodated in hundreds of hotels up and down the country. they entered the country illegally. all those that arrived from France face no persecution in France and thus do not qualify as asylum seekers. they are all safe in Calais. if laws need to be changed then change the laws, but as i said, i care about justice, not laws.
3
@nigelsynnott7344 then let's break the law. what's France going to do? go to the ICC to get an arrest warrant for Sunak? Take a look at what is happening in France these days over pension reforms...does it look like the French are hard and fast law respecters to you?
3
@nigelsynnott7344 if France took the UK to court, would that worry you? would that give you sleepless nights?
3
@socillizt4life i am not talking about legality. the laws on immigration are nonsense. I am talking about what is true and what is just. I said any illegal immigrant arriving from France cannot possibly be a refugee or an asylum seeker, given that such a person faces no political persecution in France and needs no refuge from any laws in France. Any "asylum" claim from such an illegal immigrant is null and void. it has as much merit as claiming to be an alien from Mars. it's nonsense. Fact, so deal with it.
3
@TwitchingBomb the "criminals" who traffic them are people too, and the "criminals" are just providing a service for those whose dream is to come to the UK. they, the traffickers, deserve no punishment at all. they wouldn't exist if nations took border control seriously.
2
@nigelsynnott7344 something difficult or dangerous is no reason to refuse to do it. employ all resources to stop all boats in the Channel, seize the possessions of all illegal immigrants (only fair they should pay for the expense of the operation), tow them back to the French coast and drop them off. this nonsense would stop within a week.
2
@nigelsynnott7344 yes we can. we can leave anything we want to. consequences would have to be met, but "we" are sovereign. we can leave whatever we want.
2
@Tom-ct6rp my black Bahamian wife advocates for any boat full of illegal Haitian immigrants entering Bahamian waters be towed back immediately to Haiti. Does that make her "scared of black people, bless her"?
2
@TwitchingBomb no need to process anyone, because none of them is a refugee nor is there anything happening in France from which they need to seek shelter or asylum. tow them all back to France and tell Macron "France admitted them, France takes care of them". Eventually France might see the light and withdraw from Schengen.
1
@nigelsynnott7344 let France take us to court. yes, of course sanctions would follow, as sanctions is the only reply the West has to any problems these days. to be expected. and said sanctions would prove as ineffective as they have on Russia. Sanctions don't work now that globalism is here. as regards my "whataboutery", just letting you know that when a country has a president that refuses the National Assembly to vote on pension reforms but enacts it by executive order, we can be sure the rule of law and democratic ideals are dead in France. no reason for the UK to wring its hands about breaking a law with the French. so let's examine your hypothesis. you tell me, the UK leaves the ECHR.....how does that decision then translate to changing anything regarding the existence of the GFA? you think rioting resumes on the streets of Belfast the second the UK is out of the ECHR? laughable.
1
@nigelsynnott7344 oh dear! "the law is justice"....poor child, how naive you are. so laws that allow child brides in Islamic countries are just, are they? claims for LEGAL immigration are processed BEFORE entry to the country. By definition, those accommodated in hotels entered the country illegally. As I said, claiming asylum for those arriving from France is a contradiction of the word "asylum". There is nothing happening in France that compels anyone to seek asylum, so all those arriving from France should be taken back to France immediately. If the UK applied the law according to the definition of "asylum" we would not have this problem. Any law can be ignored and altered unilaterally. it then falls on the body that administers the law to decide how to pursue the law-breaking. Laws are broken every day. if laws can't be enforced they are worthless. wise up.
1
@nigelsynnott7344 spineless government is the answer. the government introduced new laws during covid no problem, they could do the same regarding immigration, but have no guts to do so. RNLI and Royal Navy towing boats back to France would not be putting anyone in danger. the only change would be the coast at which the illegal immigrants would be taken to.
1
@socillizt4life read what I said carefully. you need some reading comprehension practice. i make no comment on what the law says or does not say. i speak of what is just and what is true. so i don't care what the law says on an issue, only what is right. i will repeat the truth. given that there is no political persecution of migrants in France, and given that there is no situation in France from which anyone needs to seek refuge, any illegal immigrant arriving in the UK from France is neither a refugee nor in need of any asylum. those are the facts, whatever the screwed up law says. deal with it. if some catastrophe hit the UK I have no idea where UK citizens would be allowed to go. All I know is that if, after said catastrophe, thousands upon thousands of UK citizens traversed a dozen countries and all decided to enter Afghanistan illegally, Afghanistan would be totally justified in saying "NO!. You were perfectly safe when you were in Uzbekistan, so, no, you are not allowed in Afghanistan". That would be the correct and just response.
1
@Tom-ct6rp would the brown people who scare me include my black wife?
1
@nigelsynnott7344 you're either pregnant or you're not. none of this "on one level" stuff. I am right. as a sovereign nation we can ignore any law and suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. No evidence at all that any trade deals would be in jeopardy if an international law were re-assessed. People with common sense know that treaties on immigration and refugee status should be updated to reflect the world of today, so it's just wishful thinking on your part that withdrawing from a failed agreement on immigration would have any repercussions on the trade front. Fortune favors the brave. announcing to the world that the ECHR is causing horrendous anguish and injustice within the UK and it would be best for us to abandon it may well earn, finally, the respect of other peoples similarly in dismay at the mess the West's immigration system finds itself. I can see benefits to a complete and definitive withdrawal, but understand you would be fearful of such action, not that you have much concerns about mass immigration in the first place, it would seem.
1
@nigelsynnott7344 i doubt it. very little gives me sleepless nights, but we'll see.
1