https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html

<quotes>

Boris Johnson's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has a grim precedent - with a similar initiative by Israel ending up in nearly all the refugees fleeing within weeks and risking death to travel back to Europe.

Rwanda is an interesting choice, because this is a country from which people flee,' Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at the Migration Observatory, told MailOnline.

Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 Africans to Rwanda and Uganda as part of a secret deal between 2014 to 2017 - only for nearly every single one of them to escape.

Only nine of the original refugees from Israel remained in Rwanda as of 2018, the UN found.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz managed to track down six of them, and described them all as living a 'meagre existence, struggling to survive'.

'The authorities in Rwanda do not recognize their right to be there and refuse to grant them residency permits,' the newspaper wrote.

'Lacking official documents, they have frequently been arrested and jailed. They are not fluent in the local language, the culture is foreign to them and finding work is nearly impossible.'

</quotes>

But what do we care; so long as they are someone else's problem we don't care if they live or die.

They are black, not white Ukrainians or one of the 3 million Hong Kongers we have invited in, so "Fuck 'em. Serves them right for wanting to come to a country which has a racist government".

As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".

On 15/04/2022 14:59, The Happy Hippy wrote:
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
>
> <quotes>
>
> Boris Johnson's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has a grim precedent - with a similar initiative by Israel ending up in nearly all the refugees fleeing within weeks and risking death to travel back to Europe.
>
> Rwanda is an interesting choice, because this is a country from which people flee,' Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at the Migration Observatory, told MailOnline.
>
> Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 Africans to Rwanda and Uganda as part of a secret deal between 2014 to 2017 - only for nearly every single one of them to escape.
>
> Only nine of the original refugees from Israel remained in Rwanda as of 2018, the UN found.
>
> Israeli newspaper Haaretz managed to track down six of them, and described them all as living a 'meagre existence, struggling to survive'.
>
> 'The authorities in Rwanda do not recognize their right to be there and refuse to grant them residency permits,' the newspaper wrote.
>
> 'Lacking official documents, they have frequently been arrested and jailed. They are not fluent in the local language, the culture is foreign to them and finding work is nearly impossible.'
>
> </quotes>
>
> But what do we care; so long as they are someone else's problem we don't care if they live or die.
>
> They are black, not white Ukrainians or one of the 3 million Hong Kongers we have invited in, so "Fuck 'em. Serves them right for wanting to come to a country which has a racist government".
>
> As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".
>

It's a little disingenuous - the objection isn't really that they're
being sent to Rwanda it's that they're not being allowed to come
straight to the UK. They're pretty strange asylum seekers
if they do escape and 'risk their lives to get back to Europe', more
like economic migrants. How many of those are we taking on then? Most
of the human population lives below Western standards.

TWP wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 14:59, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
>>
>>
>> <quotes>
>>
>> Boris Johnson's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has a grim
>> precedent - with a similar initiative by Israel ending up in nearly
>> all the refugees fleeing within weeks and risking death to travel back
>> to Europe.
>>
>> Rwanda is an interesting choice, because this is a country from which
>> people flee,' Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at the
>> Migration Observatory, told MailOnline.
>>
>> Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 Africans to Rwanda
>> and Uganda as part of a secret deal between 2014 to 2017 - only for
>> nearly every single one of them to escape.
>>
>> Only nine of the original refugees from Israel remained in Rwanda as
>> of 2018, the UN found.
>>
>> Israeli newspaper Haaretz managed to track down six of them, and
>> described them all as living a 'meagre existence, struggling to survive'.
>>
>> 'The authorities in Rwanda do not recognize their right to be there
>> and refuse to grant them residency permits,' the newspaper wrote.
>>
>> 'Lacking official documents, they have frequently been arrested and
>> jailed. They are not fluent in the local language, the culture is
>> foreign to them and finding work is nearly impossible.'
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
>> But what do we care; so long as they are someone else's problem we
>> don't care if they live or die.
>>
>> They are black, not white Ukrainians or one of the 3 million Hong
>> Kongers we have invited in, so "Fuck 'em. Serves them right for
>> wanting to come to a country which has a racist government".
>>
>> As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".
>>
>
> It's a little disingenuous - the objection isn't really that they're
> being sent to Rwanda it's that they're not being allowed to come
> straight to the UK.  They're pretty strange asylum seekers
> if they do escape and 'risk their lives to get back to Europe', more
> like economic migrants.  How many of those are we taking on then?  Most
> of the human population lives below Western standards.
>
>
>
I think its safe to say that literally none in the flood of 3rd world
trash trampling to western nations are asylum seekers - "Asylum", like
"racism", has been overused to the point of insolvency, has nothing to
do with safety and everything to do with handouts and a much easier life
subsidized by native taxpayers.
In your case, this invading rabble has to trample through multiple
European nations to even get to your shores so, by default, they have no
case at all to claim "asylum" in the UK after trampling through multiple
safe countries.
They know this, you know this, but they trample over anyway to get their
feet on shore and to make their cases heard, whereupon they disappear
never to be heard from again, unless they stab a group of tourists on a
bridge or lorry or rape a schoolgirl, then they'll claim they can't be
sent back to their country because the government there is mean.

I think hippy is envious of the US Bolshevik model where invaders are
immediately plied with free smart phones after bashing the border and
farmed out all over the country to hotels until proper housing and food
source can be arranged for their growing families [and relatives]

Ex-Taliban torturer can’t be booted out of Britain as it may breach his
human rights

A FORMER Taliban torturer cannot be booted out of Britain as returning
him to Afghanistan might breach his human rights.

The Home Office accepted that he “would face a real risk” of being
tortured himself and allowed him to stay in the UK.

The ex-intelligence commander ordered waterboarding, sleep deprivation
and whipping to get information out of prisoners while in charge of 300 men.

The militant group recruited him as a child soldier in the 1990s.

In 1995, he volunteered to fight on the front line in the bloody Battle
of Kabul during the Civil War.

The man, who says he is 42, first reached the UK in 2006.

He was returned months later before having another asylum claim refused
in 2010.

But during his latest appeal, the man claimed he had been captured and
tortured himself by Taliban rivals the Northern Alliance which has
caused him “complex mental health problems”.

The Home Office said there is currently “no question” of him returning
to his home country and granted him limited leave to remain under the
European Convention on Human Rights.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18148416/taliban-torturer-stays-britain-human-rights/

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

On 15/04/2022 18:57, JeSSe wrote:
> TWP wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 14:59, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
>>>
>>>
>>> <quotes>
>>>
>>> Boris Johnson's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has a grim
>>> precedent - with a similar initiative by Israel ending up in nearly
>>> all the refugees fleeing within weeks and risking death to travel
>>> back to Europe.
>>>
>>> Rwanda is an interesting choice, because this is a country from which
>>> people flee,' Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at the
>>> Migration Observatory, told MailOnline.
>>>
>>> Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 Africans to Rwanda
>>> and Uganda as part of a secret deal between 2014 to 2017 - only for
>>> nearly every single one of them to escape.
>>>
>>> Only nine of the original refugees from Israel remained in Rwanda as
>>> of 2018, the UN found.
>>>
>>> Israeli newspaper Haaretz managed to track down six of them, and
>>> described them all as living a 'meagre existence, struggling to
>>> survive'.
>>>
>>> 'The authorities in Rwanda do not recognize their right to be there
>>> and refuse to grant them residency permits,' the newspaper wrote.
>>>
>>> 'Lacking official documents, they have frequently been arrested and
>>> jailed. They are not fluent in the local language, the culture is
>>> foreign to them and finding work is nearly impossible.'
>>>
>>> </quotes>
>>>
>>> But what do we care; so long as they are someone else's problem we
>>> don't care if they live or die.
>>>
>>> They are black, not white Ukrainians or one of the 3 million Hong
>>> Kongers we have invited in, so "Fuck 'em. Serves them right for
>>> wanting to come to a country which has a racist government".
>>>
>>> As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".
>>>
>>
>> It's a little disingenuous - the objection isn't really that they're
>> being sent to Rwanda it's that they're not being allowed to come
>> straight to the UK.  They're pretty strange asylum seekers
>> if they do escape and 'risk their lives to get back to Europe', more
>> like economic migrants.  How many of those are we taking on then?
>> Most of the human population lives below Western standards.
>>
>>
>>
> I think its safe to say that literally none in the flood of 3rd world
> trash trampling to western nations are asylum seekers - "Asylum", like
> "racism", has been overused to the point of insolvency, has nothing to
> do with safety and everything to do with handouts and a much easier life
> subsidized by native taxpayers.
> In your case, this invading rabble has to trample through multiple
> European nations to even get to your shores so, by default, they have no
> case at all to claim "asylum" in the UK after trampling through multiple
> safe countries.
> They know this, you know this, but they trample over anyway to get their
> feet on shore and to make their cases heard, whereupon they disappear
> never to be heard from again, unless they stab a group of tourists on a
> bridge or lorry or rape a schoolgirl, then they'll claim they can't be
> sent back to their country because the government there is mean.
>
> I think hippy is envious of the US Bolshevik model where invaders are
> immediately plied with free smart phones after bashing the border and
> farmed out all over the country to hotels until proper housing and food
> source can be arranged for their growing families [and relatives]
>
>
>
> Ex-Taliban torturer can’t be booted out of Britain as it may breach his
> human rights
>
>
> A FORMER Taliban torturer cannot be booted out of Britain as returning
> him to Afghanistan might breach his human rights.
>
> The Home Office accepted that he “would face a real risk” of being
> tortured himself and allowed him to stay in the UK.
>
> The ex-intelligence commander ordered waterboarding, sleep deprivation
> and whipping to get information out of prisoners while in charge of 300
> men.
>
> The militant group recruited him as a child soldier in the 1990s.
>
> In 1995, he volunteered to fight on the front line in the bloody Battle
> of Kabul during the Civil War.
>
> The man, who says he is 42, first reached the UK in 2006.
>
>
> He was returned months later before having another asylum claim refused
> in 2010.
>
> But during his latest appeal, the man claimed he had been captured and
> tortured himself by Taliban rivals the Northern Alliance which has
> caused him “complex mental health problems”.
>
> The Home Office said there is currently “no question” of him returning
> to his home country and granted him limited leave to remain under the
> European Convention on Human Rights.
>
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18148416/taliban-torturer-stays-britain-human-rights/
>
>

Since it's the Titanic's anniversary I'll use a lifeboat comparison -
you can understand how upsetting it was for people in those lifeboats to
hear people calling for help and how tempting it was to just let 'a few'
on board, maybe the weakest, maybe the closest or those who were
swimming towards them but how long could you do that before you were in
the water with them?

I don't think it's a crime to just be grateful that you're in one of the
lifeboats yourself and throw what you can to help the people in the
water to keep warm or stay afloat. Maybe those who have can help those
that don't but I have a feeling it's a much more complicated process
than just telling them to 'come on in guys'. Let's help by all means,
but let's help in a smart way not a self-destructive way. Let's help in
a way that gives to them without taking away from us.

TWP wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 18:57, JeSSe wrote:
>> TWP wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2022 14:59, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <quotes>
>>>>
>>>> Boris Johnson's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has a grim
>>>> precedent - with a similar initiative by Israel ending up in nearly
>>>> all the refugees fleeing within weeks and risking death to travel
>>>> back to Europe.
>>>>
>>>> Rwanda is an interesting choice, because this is a country from
>>>> which people flee,' Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at the
>>>> Migration Observatory, told MailOnline.
>>>>
>>>> Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 Africans to Rwanda
>>>> and Uganda as part of a secret deal between 2014 to 2017 - only for
>>>> nearly every single one of them to escape.
>>>>
>>>> Only nine of the original refugees from Israel remained in Rwanda as
>>>> of 2018, the UN found.
>>>>
>>>> Israeli newspaper Haaretz managed to track down six of them, and
>>>> described them all as living a 'meagre existence, struggling to
>>>> survive'.
>>>>
>>>> 'The authorities in Rwanda do not recognize their right to be there
>>>> and refuse to grant them residency permits,' the newspaper wrote.
>>>>
>>>> 'Lacking official documents, they have frequently been arrested and
>>>> jailed. They are not fluent in the local language, the culture is
>>>> foreign to them and finding work is nearly impossible.'
>>>>
>>>> </quotes>
>>>>
>>>> But what do we care; so long as they are someone else's problem we
>>>> don't care if they live or die.
>>>>
>>>> They are black, not white Ukrainians or one of the 3 million Hong
>>>> Kongers we have invited in, so "Fuck 'em. Serves them right for
>>>> wanting to come to a country which has a racist government".
>>>>
>>>> As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a little disingenuous - the objection isn't really that they're
>>> being sent to Rwanda it's that they're not being allowed to come
>>> straight to the UK.  They're pretty strange asylum seekers
>>> if they do escape and 'risk their lives to get back to Europe', more
>>> like economic migrants.  How many of those are we taking on then?
>>> Most of the human population lives below Western standards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I think its safe to say that literally none in the flood of 3rd world
>> trash trampling to western nations are asylum seekers - "Asylum", like
>> "racism", has been overused to the point of insolvency, has nothing to
>> do with safety and everything to do with handouts and a much easier
>> life subsidized by native taxpayers.
>> In your case, this invading rabble has to trample through multiple
>> European nations to even get to your shores so, by default, they have
>> no case at all to claim "asylum" in the UK after trampling through
>> multiple safe countries.
>> They know this, you know this, but they trample over anyway to get
>> their feet on shore and to make their cases heard, whereupon they
>> disappear never to be heard from again, unless they stab a group of
>> tourists on a bridge or lorry or rape a schoolgirl, then they'll claim
>> they can't be sent back to their country because the government there
>> is mean.
>>
>> I think hippy is envious of the US Bolshevik model where invaders are
>> immediately plied with free smart phones after bashing the border and
>> farmed out all over the country to hotels until proper housing and
>> food source can be arranged for their growing families [and relatives]
>>
>>
>>
>> Ex-Taliban torturer can’t be booted out of Britain as it may breach
>> his human rights
>>
>>
>> A FORMER Taliban torturer cannot be booted out of Britain as returning
>> him to Afghanistan might breach his human rights.
>>
>> The Home Office accepted that he “would face a real risk” of being
>> tortured himself and allowed him to stay in the UK.
>>
>> The ex-intelligence commander ordered waterboarding, sleep deprivation
>> and whipping to get information out of prisoners while in charge of
>> 300 men.
>>
>> The militant group recruited him as a child soldier in the 1990s.
>>
>> In 1995, he volunteered to fight on the front line in the bloody
>> Battle of Kabul during the Civil War.
>>
>> The man, who says he is 42, first reached the UK in 2006.
>>
>>
>> He was returned months later before having another asylum claim
>> refused in 2010.
>>
>> But during his latest appeal, the man claimed he had been captured and
>> tortured himself by Taliban rivals the Northern Alliance which has
>> caused him “complex mental health problems”.
>>
>> The Home Office said there is currently “no question” of him returning
>> to his home country and granted him limited leave to remain under the
>> European Convention on Human Rights.
>>
>> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18148416/taliban-torturer-stays-britain-human-rights/
>>
>>
>
>
> Since it's the Titanic's anniversary I'll use a lifeboat comparison -
> you can understand how upsetting it was for people in those lifeboats to
> hear people calling for help and how tempting it was to just let 'a few'
> on board, maybe the weakest, maybe the closest or those who were
> swimming towards them but how long could you do that before you were in
> the water with them?
>
> I don't think it's a crime to just be grateful that you're in one of the
> lifeboats yourself and throw what you can to help the people in the
> water to keep warm or stay afloat.  Maybe those who have can help those
> that don't but I have a feeling it's a much more complicated process
> than just telling them to 'come on in guys'.  Let's help by all means,
> but let's help in a smart way not a self-destructive way.  Let's help in
> a way that gives to them without taking away from us.
>

We've been that route, "Lets examine the root causes of migration" ect
that the left always trot out to make it appear they want to do
something useful, and as if its some big mystery to be solved why they
trample our borders.
It always involves sending millions to corrupt 3rd world "governments"
and, you guessed it, the alleged hunger and poverty are never lessened,
and the greasy depots have nice new cars and houses.
[I say "alleged" because with these aztec invaders at least, don't see
any who have missed many meals, all with smart phones in hand after
paying the cartel $5k to escort them to the border]

I guess the definition of poverty has changed to those who can't afford
the latest iphone or is forced to wear Converse instead of Nike.
I have always been for helping those who wants to help themselves but as
far as "help themselves", all I see is swarms of aztecs wanting to help
themselves to a slice of America at my expense ,, With the connivance of
a criminal, corrupt, nation wrecking government.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

JeSSe wrote:
> TWP wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 18:57, JeSSe wrote:
>>> TWP wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2022 14:59, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <quotes>
>>>>>
>>>>> Boris Johnson's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has a grim
>>>>> precedent - with a similar initiative by Israel ending up in nearly
>>>>> all the refugees fleeing within weeks and risking death to travel
>>>>> back to Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rwanda is an interesting choice, because this is a country from
>>>>> which people flee,' Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at
>>>>> the Migration Observatory, told MailOnline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 Africans to
>>>>> Rwanda and Uganda as part of a secret deal between 2014 to 2017 -
>>>>> only for nearly every single one of them to escape.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only nine of the original refugees from Israel remained in Rwanda
>>>>> as of 2018, the UN found.
>>>>>
>>>>> Israeli newspaper Haaretz managed to track down six of them, and
>>>>> described them all as living a 'meagre existence, struggling to
>>>>> survive'.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'The authorities in Rwanda do not recognize their right to be there
>>>>> and refuse to grant them residency permits,' the newspaper wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Lacking official documents, they have frequently been arrested and
>>>>> jailed. They are not fluent in the local language, the culture is
>>>>> foreign to them and finding work is nearly impossible.'
>>>>>
>>>>> </quotes>
>>>>>
>>>>> But what do we care; so long as they are someone else's problem we
>>>>> don't care if they live or die.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are black, not white Ukrainians or one of the 3 million Hong
>>>>> Kongers we have invited in, so "Fuck 'em. Serves them right for
>>>>> wanting to come to a country which has a racist government".
>>>>>
>>>>> As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a little disingenuous - the objection isn't really that they're
>>>> being sent to Rwanda it's that they're not being allowed to come
>>>> straight to the UK.  They're pretty strange asylum seekers
>>>> if they do escape and 'risk their lives to get back to Europe', more
>>>> like economic migrants.  How many of those are we taking on then?
>>>> Most of the human population lives below Western standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think its safe to say that literally none in the flood of 3rd world
>>> trash trampling to western nations are asylum seekers - "Asylum",
>>> like "racism", has been overused to the point of insolvency, has
>>> nothing to do with safety and everything to do with handouts and a
>>> much easier life subsidized by native taxpayers.
>>> In your case, this invading rabble has to trample through multiple
>>> European nations to even get to your shores so, by default, they have
>>> no case at all to claim "asylum" in the UK after trampling through
>>> multiple safe countries.
>>> They know this, you know this, but they trample over anyway to get
>>> their feet on shore and to make their cases heard, whereupon they
>>> disappear never to be heard from again, unless they stab a group of
>>> tourists on a bridge or lorry or rape a schoolgirl, then they'll
>>> claim they can't be sent back to their country because the government
>>> there is mean.
>>>
>>> I think hippy is envious of the US Bolshevik model where invaders are
>>> immediately plied with free smart phones after bashing the border and
>>> farmed out all over the country to hotels until proper housing and
>>> food source can be arranged for their growing families [and relatives]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ex-Taliban torturer can’t be booted out of Britain as it may breach
>>> his human rights
>>>
>>>
>>> A FORMER Taliban torturer cannot be booted out of Britain as
>>> returning him to Afghanistan might breach his human rights.
>>>
>>> The Home Office accepted that he “would face a real risk” of being
>>> tortured himself and allowed him to stay in the UK.
>>>
>>> The ex-intelligence commander ordered waterboarding, sleep
>>> deprivation and whipping to get information out of prisoners while in
>>> charge of 300 men.
>>>
>>> The militant group recruited him as a child soldier in the 1990s.
>>>
>>> In 1995, he volunteered to fight on the front line in the bloody
>>> Battle of Kabul during the Civil War.
>>>
>>> The man, who says he is 42, first reached the UK in 2006.
>>>
>>>
>>> He was returned months later before having another asylum claim
>>> refused in 2010.
>>>
>>> But during his latest appeal, the man claimed he had been captured
>>> and tortured himself by Taliban rivals the Northern Alliance which
>>> has caused him “complex mental health problems”.
>>>
>>> The Home Office said there is currently “no question” of him
>>> returning to his home country and granted him limited leave to remain
>>> under the European Convention on Human Rights.
>>>
>>> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18148416/taliban-torturer-stays-britain-human-rights/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Since it's the Titanic's anniversary I'll use a lifeboat comparison -
>> you can understand how upsetting it was for people in those lifeboats
>> to hear people calling for help and how tempting it was to just let 'a
>> few' on board, maybe the weakest, maybe the closest or those who were
>> swimming towards them but how long could you do that before you were
>> in the water with them?
>>
>> I don't think it's a crime to just be grateful that you're in one of
>> the lifeboats yourself and throw what you can to help the people in
>> the water to keep warm or stay afloat.  Maybe those who have can help
>> those that don't but I have a feeling it's a much more complicated
>> process than just telling them to 'come on in guys'.  Let's help by
>> all means, but let's help in a smart way not a self-destructive way.
>> Let's help in a way that gives to them without taking away from us.
>>
>
> We've been that route, "Lets examine the root causes of migration" ect
> that the left always trot out to make it appear they want to do
> something useful, and as if its some big mystery to be solved why they
> trample our borders.
> It always involves sending millions to corrupt 3rd world "governments"
> and, you guessed it, the alleged hunger and poverty are never lessened,
> and the greasy depots have nice new cars and houses.
> [I say "alleged" because with these aztec invaders at least, don't see
> any who have missed many meals, all with smart phones in hand after
> paying the cartel $5k to escort them to the border]
>
> I guess the definition of poverty has changed to those who can't afford
> the latest iphone or is forced to wear Converse instead of Nike.
> I have always been for helping those who wants to help themselves but as
> far as "help themselves", all I see is swarms of aztecs wanting to help
> themselves to a slice of America at my expense ,, With the connivance of
> a criminal, corrupt, nation wrecking government.
>
>

Worth noting that there are some legit asylum seekers/refugees these
days that Baby Bomber Putin created, Ukrainians with very obvious
hazards in their country and Russians who stand to be jailed, tortured
and worse for opposing his insane bloodlust.

Drives the 10,000,000's of non white invaders [and their sponsors] nuts
that were are letting a few 1,000 of them in.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:00:17 +0100
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 15/04/2022 14:59, The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
> >
> > <quotes>
> >
> > Boris Johnson's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has a grim
> > precedent - with a similar initiative by Israel ending up in nearly
> > all the refugees fleeing within weeks and risking death to travel
> > back to Europe.
> >
> > Rwanda is an interesting choice, because this is a country from
> > which people flee,' Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at
> > the Migration Observatory, told MailOnline.
> >
> > Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 Africans to
> > Rwanda and Uganda as part of a secret deal between 2014 to 2017 -
> > only for nearly every single one of them to escape.
> >
> > Only nine of the original refugees from Israel remained in Rwanda
> > as of 2018, the UN found.
> >
> > Israeli newspaper Haaretz managed to track down six of them, and
> > described them all as living a 'meagre existence, struggling to
> > survive'.
> >
> > 'The authorities in Rwanda do not recognize their right to be there
> > and refuse to grant them residency permits,' the newspaper wrote.
> >
> > 'Lacking official documents, they have frequently been arrested and
> > jailed. They are not fluent in the local language, the culture is
> > foreign to them and finding work is nearly impossible.'
> >
> > </quotes>
> >
> > But what do we care; so long as they are someone else's problem we
> > don't care if they live or die.
> >
> > They are black, not white Ukrainians or one of the 3 million Hong
> > Kongers we have invited in, so "Fuck 'em. Serves them right for
> > wanting to come to a country which has a racist government".
> >
> > As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".
> >
>
> It's a little disingenuous - the objection isn't really that they're
> being sent to Rwanda it's that they're not being allowed to come
> straight to the UK. They're pretty strange asylum seekers
> if they do escape and 'risk their lives to get back to Europe', more
> like economic migrants. How many of those are we taking on then?
> Most of the human population lives below Western standards.

The objections is that we are sending black people on a one way trip to Rwanda like we used to send criminals to Australia. Are casting them out and not caring about what happens to them.

There are other objections as well.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:27:31 +0100
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Since it's the Titanic's anniversary I'll use a lifeboat comparison -
> you can understand how upsetting it was for people in those lifeboats
> to hear people calling for help and how tempting it was to just let
> 'a few' on board, maybe the weakest, maybe the closest or those who
> were swimming towards them but how long could you do that before you
> were in the water with them?

Imagine you had a lifeboat which you say can take in 3 million Hong Kongers but say cannot carry a single black man.

Since it's the anniversary of Christ's death it is a perfect time to reflect upon what He said and imagine how upsetting it is for Christians and others to see and live amongst people who indulge in persecution, who refuse to show compassion towards others, refuse to hold their hands out to help others in their times of need, simply because they are black, how upsetting it is for them to live in a country which has adopted racism as a national policy.

Imagine how upsetting it is for those who are Christians see such people proclaim themselves Christians while rejecting God's Word and rejecting the Teachings of Christ.

Imagine how upsetting it is for anyone who wants to be good when they find they are in a country which is determined to be evil.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:57:34 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> I think its safe to say that literally none in the flood of 3rd world
> trash trampling to western nations are asylum seekers

Given that we actually take in most who make it here and claim asylum that is patently a lie.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:57:34 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> In your case, this invading rabble has to trample through multiple
> European nations to even get to your shores so, by default, they have
> no case at all to claim "asylum" in the UK after trampling through
> multiple safe countries.

Except that is not true. It's a myth, a lie created by racists.

> They know this, you know this

Indeed.

"Under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which the UK played a crucial role in drafting, refugees are not required to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, nor does the Convention make it illegal to seek asylum if they pass through another safe country first.

"This 'first safe country' is not a principle of international refugee law"

Which is why our racist government is having to enact a Bill to manufacture law which would allow them to do that despite it being against the Convention and International Law.

Even then, countries won't be obliged under International Law to take back those we don't like. Which is why we are bribing Rwanda to build 'penal colonies' and 'detention camps' for blacks we don't want here.

Ironically, shipping blacks out to Rwanda is a blatant betrayal of the 'first safe country' principle, but we can set that beside because we hate black people and they are the only ones we will be putting on our modern day 'slave ships'.

But it's just as well Rwanda is willing to take our 30 pieces of silver and do evil on our behalf as we are getting perilously close to instituting our Final Solution ourselves.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:57:34 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> I think hippy is envious of the US Bolshevik model where invaders are
> immediately plied with free smart phones after bashing the border and
> farmed out all over the country to hotels until proper housing and
> food source can be arranged for their growing families [and relatives]

You say that as if it were some kind of bad thing but it isn't.

I guess you could call it "envy" - All true Christians and good people everywhere would envy those who do good when they are denied the right to do good, when only evil is done in their name.

But you aren't a good person, you have sided with evil.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 20:20:52 -0400
JeSSe <zo@so.org> wrote:

> Drives the 10,000,000's of non white invaders [and their sponsors]
> nuts that were are letting a few 1,000 of them in.

It should drive any good or decent person nuts that white western nations allow unlimited numbers of non-black refugees in while striving to deny blacks entry.

It's blatant state-sponsored racism enacted in their name.

You and your tribe may be in favour of racism but good and decent people aren't.

On 15/04/2022 18:00, TWP wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 14:59, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".
>>
>
> It's a little disingenuous - the objection isn't really that they're
> being sent to Rwanda it's that they're not being allowed to come
> straight to the UK.  They're pretty strange asylum seekers
> if they do escape and 'risk their lives to get back to Europe', more
> like economic migrants.  How many of those are we taking on then?  Most
> of the human population lives below Western standards.
>
>

1) this policy isn't aimed at white migrant, e.g. like the "white blue
eyed, blonde" Ukrainians. So, it is in full apeasment and pander to the
racist flock which is over-taking western institutions; or as some
think, just bring out the real face of the controlling hand of the west.

2) it is primarily aimed at coloured migrants from places like the ME
and the Africa. You know, some of the places we meddled and bombed
directly, influenced war efforts within etc to destabilise the regions.

3) Rwanda has a horrific record humanitarian record, it is on the
look-out essentially for refugees from on the basis it can gain from
funds from the scheme, has been for a while.

4) Rwanda not long ago was accused of trying to bring in 'fighting age
male' migrant in order to build-up their army, in order to continue
aggression within the state and with its neighbours.

5) Many people from Rwanda themselves are seeking asylum in other
nations, yet, we think it is safe to deal with them. No doubt as long as
we don't have to deal mess that is (a mass of coloured people) turning
up at our borders as a result of the bombing and regime change campaigns
we've support and partook in.

-----

"below western standards" is a loaded term, it is true, however, you'll
find in some poor places, a one bed house, single floor, can be bought
for about £500*. The reality many nations around the world, and in great
part due to the stranglehold of western institutions on world finances,
countries other than those deemed as western or their allies, have a
very low economic system. In order to achieve progress, their interests
need to align with western interests (in simple terms), then good
governance etc comes into play.

The west has a history of removing leaders covertly and overtly, that
don't align themselves to western interests, that in part is the
problem. For a foreign country, a shyte leader, a murderous dictator,
that aligns themselves with western interests is better than one that'll
work for the interest of his/her own nations that'll align themselves
against western interests.

*what you can get for your money is one of the reason why some western
people choose to live abroad after retirement

In article <20220416095115.00001cf6@ntlworld.invalid>,
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> I guess you could call it "envy" - All true Christians and good people
> everywhere would envy those who do good when they are denied the right
> to do good, when only evil is done in their name.

I totally agree with this sentiment, at which my nation (dearly
beloved, even with all its problems) is rooted.

But do you accept that there's a golden path between

1) Do not allow even a small number of people, fleeing certain
death, to enter (as leading nations have shamefully done during
WW2)

and

2) Just allow in everyone (i.e. hundreds of millions) seeking a
better life?

On 15/04/2022 14:59, The Happy Hippy wrote:
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html
>
> <quotes>
>
> Boris Johnson's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has a grim precedent - with a similar initiative by Israel ending up in nearly all the refugees fleeing within weeks and risking death to travel back to Europe.
>
> Rwanda is an interesting choice, because this is a country from which people flee,' Dr Peter William Walsh, Senior Researcher at the Migration Observatory, told MailOnline.
>
> Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 Africans to Rwanda and Uganda as part of a secret deal between 2014 to 2017 - only for nearly every single one of them to escape.
>
> Only nine of the original refugees from Israel remained in Rwanda as of 2018, the UN found.
>
> Israeli newspaper Haaretz managed to track down six of them, and described them all as living a 'meagre existence, struggling to survive'.
>
> 'The authorities in Rwanda do not recognize their right to be there and refuse to grant them residency permits,' the newspaper wrote.
>
> 'Lacking official documents, they have frequently been arrested and jailed. They are not fluent in the local language, the culture is foreign to them and finding work is nearly impossible.'
>
> </quotes>
>
> But what do we care; so long as they are someone else's problem we don't care if they live or die.
>
> They are black, not white Ukrainians or one of the 3 million Hong Kongers we have invited in, so "Fuck 'em. Serves them right for wanting to come to a country which has a racist government".
>
> As Johnson said "all thanks to brexit".

They'll soon be coming for the migrants living in the UK and the
children of those migrants that were born in the UK. And, if need be,
these people can be labelled as another 'boogy-man', which could end
with taking their assets and kicking them out, to go 'where they came
from' relatively easy.

The later is what Spain (inc. Portugal) did, after over 700 years of
Muslim rule, the majority Muslim population wasn't imported, but it was
from within. Jews and Muslim were forced to convert to Christianity,
those that didn't were killed/removed and their assets taken. Similar
occurred in the first stages of occupying Palestine, first Jews
purchased land, then when a state was being made, Palestinians were
removed from their homes/ essentially chased out, in favour of giving
those homes to the master race.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 10:41:26 +0000 (UTC)
Loose Cannon <efbreg73@gmx-x.comm> wrote:

> In article <20220416095115.00001cf6@ntlworld.invalid>,
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I guess you could call it "envy" - All true Christians and good
> > people everywhere would envy those who do good when they are denied
> > the right to do good, when only evil is done in their name.
>
> I totally agree with this sentiment, at which my nation (dearly
> beloved, even with all its problems) is rooted.
>
> But do you accept that there's a golden path between
>
> 1) Do not allow even a small number of people, fleeing certain
> death, to enter (as leading nations have shamefully done during
> WW2)
>
> and
>
> 2) Just allow in everyone (i.e. hundreds of millions) seeking a
> better life?

That's such a huge hypothetical that it's impossible to answer - What if every American decided they wanted to live in Palm Springs ?

Obviously, when it becomes impossible to sustain such a scenario, something has to be done. If people are in danger of suffocating because there are simply too many people per square foot, one would accept a need to limit numbers, and it would be prudent to act before it got to that stage.

But that doesn't help determine what policy there should be between the two extremes.

The usual argument to support restrictive immigration policies in the UK is that "we are full", "don't have the resources or infrastructure to support an influx of immigrants, refugees or asylum seekers".

The anti-immigrant brigade assert we have reached capacity but that is not so.

It cannot be true when the government has invited 3 million Hong Kongers to come here, has held out a welcome to 200,000 and more Ukrainian refugees.

And, while they say we are are full, at capacity, they insist other countries, with far fewer resources and less infrastructure than us, must take in many millions of those we won't.

But back to that 'flood of invaders' - The way I see it is we can take in as many as want to come for whatever reason because it will never be everyone and it won't exceed our capacity to support them being here for a government prepared to support them being here.

There are a whole range of things we can do to ensure our capacity is never exceeded without closing the door on anyone.

A good start would be to not bomb people out of their homes, destroy their lands and livelihoods, not turn them into asylum seekers, refugees, or migrants looking for a better life elsewhere.