Rwanda plan

Will you answer my question. 

So the 'law' that Rwanda is a safe country has passed through Parliament, which now sets up a contradiction in law.

The supreme court of this land declared that Rwanda is not safe for asylum seekers but now have to consider the law that says it is, this is going to cost us millions.

Just a quick question before we go any further.

In the matching ‘welsh dresser’ bookshelf and bureau my grandmother had in her front parlour, a wedding gift from a great great uncle a master carpenter whose work included many of the front doors of Cardiff public buildings like the public library and the Andrew Carnegie library on Fairoak Road, she put her best china, a set of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and a royal blue covered hardback book ‘George VI: King and Emperor’ (copies of which seem to be flogged on ebay from time to time)

It was in that book that i read of a royal edict issues by him or his predecessor i forget which as it was almost 60 years ago i read it that commanded patriotic subjects of the empire employed in His Majesty’s Service in the Foreign and Colonial Service to depart India and take up positions in the service of His Majesty administering Imperial Interests In The Dark Continent.

I’m pretty sure that was the exact phrase used

The point to make is that as every one of the Indians (and to be clear they were all Indians stop confusing the issue by chucking Cambodian's Thai’s and Vietnamese into the mix) were in fact sons and daughters of men who held a British passport every bit as valid as that held by a chap i think named Harry Webb. Those documents were an exact match for the one with my name on it, dated 1961, obtained by my father so i could travel with him OR my mother should the need arise while he was busy weaponising our cold war nuclear deterrent.

That passport declares me a British Subject: Citizen Of The United Kingdom And Colonies and as it was issued prior to Ted Heath’s 1971 Immigration Act the rules were that regardless of her own nationality, if your mother had just one foot on British or Imperial Soil when her waters broke, then you were, assuming you made it to the outside world, entitled to claim a British Passport bearing those very words with your name and picture on it

Only after 1971 was the entitlement of your mother or father, or grandmother or grandfather, to such a document a condition of your own entitlement.

So, this feeble attempt to throw the case of our treatment of the Indians thrown out of Uganda by Idi Amin into this argument trips over its own bootlaces at the starting line because EVERY ONE of those people was actually a British Subject entitled to call on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second for aid and protection.

Now, tell me why some bloke born in a former French or Belgian colony on said dark continent should be entitled to invade England by paddling a bloody rubber boat from a beach in the countries that once held their place of birth in THEIR bloody empire

I have answered implicitly, but i can be more direct. I wasn't avoiding the issue i was providing part of an explanation for my position. My whole position and rationale would easily be several paragraphs or even a whole book on political theory - ie why we see the patterns we see and how to avoid the really, really, really bad ones.

The notion that there is some moral duty to give up your secure position and situation to others because they do not have it, is an anti-pattern (a method that will cause failure if applied). If the formula is applied, nobody will have a position or situation from which they are able offer any help at all. What you are demanding is that the destruction of civilisation be the moral price for its existence. Your notion is an unsustainable contradiction and should be dismissed as idiotic or possibly even deliberate sabotage - in the same way someone telling your family that they had a moral duty to let any homeless people in to your home as part of the price for 'having a home'.

So, in short, Yes. We are not guilty of crimes because we have a situation in which we are not victims ourselves and we should not give up our secure position as a way to prevent those crimes. Such a notion is idiotic and doomed to failure (for everyone).

They are not  tortured or killed in France . Therefore any migrant attempting to enter the UK  via France is not  an asylum seeker ..by your definition 

Of course . But afaik Ukrainians are not trying to enter the UK illegally .

In the case of Ukranian refugees, they did so by arrangement with the various governments - and they pretty well stuck to those arrangements

I have to say, the mealy mouthed dishonesty you are prepared to engage in to get to your political ends, is quite staggering.