Suella Braverman’s ‘nasty and cruel’ migrant crisis speech sparks furious backlash

[pellinore]

LGBT+ and human rights campaigners dubbed Ms Braverman a “dangerous fool”, while opposition parties accused Ms Braverman of pushing her leadership credentials with “dog whistle” to the Tory right.

Ms Braverman will use an address to a right-wing think tank in the US to call on world leaders to make major changes to the UN Refugee Convention, suggesting it is too generous to migrants.

She will add: “But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin is sufficient to qualify for protection.”

Suella Braverman’s ‘nasty and cruel’ migrant crisis speech sparks furious backlash | The Independent

Edited September 26 by pellinore

[pellinore]

Potentially, 780 million immigrants are on their way, Home Sec says in her speech. I have a feeling the hotel bill is going to rise a tad over £8 million a day.

Suella Braverman warns 780MILLION people are eligible to claim asylum in UK under 'absurd' refugee rules: Home Secretary to make major speech TODAY calling for overhaul of UN Refugee Convention | Daily Mail Online

[L.A.T.1961]

Nasty and cruel is the default accusation made by those who do not wish to face realty. They claim there is always a better way to do things until the boot is on the other foot and have to address the issue themselves. 

I look forward to see how Labour deal with migration, should they be elected, and I doubt being even closer buddies with the French will have an effect.

Apparently the UK is already spending equivalent to 20% of the defense budget on this. 

 

[itsnotoutthere]

"Millions of asylum seekers are being incentivised to “try their luck” in a system that poses an existential threat to the West if it is not reformed, the Home Secretary has said.

Suella Braverman, giving a speech on migration in the United States, said it was time for the “definition of who qualifies for protection” to be “tightened” as she advocated for changes to international treaties governing refugee rules."

Sounds completely truthful & logical to me.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/west-faces-existential-threat-if-global-asylum-rules-not-tightened-braverman/ar-AA1hiaEB?ocid=BingHp01&cvid=1f497d0776864bf99d2ba60fa9fae9ed&ei=15#image=1

[pellinore]

30 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Nasty and cruel is the default accusation made by those who do not wish to face realty. They claim there is always a better way to do things until the boot is on the other foot and have to address the issue themselves. 

I look forward to see how Labour deal with migration, should they be elected, and I doubt being even closer buddies with the French will have an effect.

Apparently the UK is already spending equivalent to 20% of the defense budget on this. 

I don't think we can keep absorbing the numbers we are getting. I think there was 50 landing at Dover today, there'll be a few days break due to Storm Agnes, but they'll start up at a few hundred a week after that. 

[+and-then]

At this point the only way to stop them will be to cut off all support and even THAT might be insufficient.  Thousands a day are coming across our southern border.  They will come until the situation here is as miserable as the one they are leaving.  

[itsnotoutthere]

I don't believe any of the main political parties really want to stop it, but I can't quite understand why.

Edited September 26 by itsnotoutthere

[+and-then]

12 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

I don't believe any of the main political parties really want to stop it, but I can't quite understand why.

I think they're all being paid off or threatened.  It sounds conspiratorial but it makes no sense any other way.  In the US I think it's being driven by cheap labor and the votes it generates for the Left.  If those waves of incoming migrants began to vote for the conservative side, a wall would be built so fast it would amaze the country.

[joseraul]

Laws don't always consider humane practices.

And the people who sort and work these problems often never think their own country could come under disaster (natural or manmade) and they find themselves in the same predicament. 

A world that is consistently coming under crisis where natural disasters will continue, wars and famine and plague will continue need to get their **** together.

If not, you're practicing eugenics. 

Edited September 26 by joseraul

[pellinore]

3 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

I don't believe any of the main political parties really want to stop it, but I can't quite understand why.

I think they can't. Can you think of a way to stop it/them? 

[itsnotoutthere]

17 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I think they can't. Can you think of a way to stop it/them? 

Same way the Australians do it, tow the boats back where they came from then scuttle the boats. 

[pellinore]

6 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Same way the Australians do it, tow the boats back where they came from then scuttle the boats. 

Back to where? France? Do you seriously think we can do this? I can understand someone saying this in frustration, anger, etc- but in actuality?

Describe how it would be done, in simple steps, starting with a dinghy with say 20 people in it heading towards Dover, let's say 5 miles off the coast. Go!

Edited September 27 by pellinore

[pellinore]

8 hours ago, joseraul said:

Laws don't always consider humane practices.

And the people who sort and work these problems often never think their own country could come under disaster (natural or manmade) and they find themselves in the same predicament. 

A world that is consistently coming under crisis where natural disasters will continue, wars and famine and plague will continue need to get their **** together.

If not, you're practicing eugenics. 

Not even practising eugenics. I've thrown down the gauntlet to @itsnotoutthere to describe how we could put a stop to asylum seekers crossing the Channel to England. Several hundred cross from France to England each month, in fine weather it's several hundred each day. The finest minds in the UK government have been wrestling with this problem since Brexit and failed to find a solution. Their slogan was 'Take Back Control of our Borders'! and the PM has made it one of his 5 main pledges. So far, the numbers increase each year. It's easy to say we need to stop them; I'm looking forward to hearing how we will do it.

[itsnotoutthere]

10 hours ago, pellinore said:

Not even practising eugenics. I've thrown down the gauntlet to @itsnotoutthere to describe how we could put a stop to asylum seekers crossing the Channel to England. Several hundred cross from France to England each month, in fine weather it's several hundred each day. The finest minds in the UK government have been wrestling with this problem since Brexit and failed to find a solution. Their slogan was 'Take Back Control of our Borders'! and the PM has made it one of his 5 main pledges. So far, the numbers increase each year. It's easy to say we need to stop them; I'm looking forward to hearing how we will do it.

As I say, none of the main political parties want to stop it for some unknown reason.

"I'm looking forward to hearing how we will do it."

Put a stop to the RNLI picking them up in French waters.

Stop housing them in hotels.

Imprison them for breaking the law. (on floating prison ships if necessary until processed & returned).

Navy patrols in the the small stretch of coastline that they launch from. (if found, picked up & returned immediately).

If found, detain then return.

Stop all 'benefits' payments and accommodation to anybody entering illegally & without paperwork.

Stop paying the French for doing nothing & offer that money as a reward to anybody reporting boats arriving on beaches in the UK.

Allow all women & children asylum.

And finally. All those police officers assigned to the Madeline McCann investigation, reassigned to tracking down the people smugglers that the French authorities ignore & once found, prosecute with extreme prejudice.

Edited September 27 by itsnotoutthere

[pellinore]

23 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

As I say, none of the main political parties want to stop it for some unknown reason.

"I'm looking forward to hearing how we will do it."

Put a stop to the RNLI picking them up in French waters.

Stop housing them in hotels.

Imprison them for breaking the law. (on floating prison ships if necessary until processed & returned).

Navy patrols in the the small stretch of coastline that they launch from. (if found, picked up & returned immediately).

If found, detain then return.

Stop all 'benefits' payments and accommodation to anybody entering illegally & without paperwork.

Stop paying the French for doing nothing & offer that money as a reward to anybody reporting boats arriving on beaches in the UK.

Allow all women & children asylum.

And finally. All those police officers assigned to the Madeline McCann investigation, reassigned to tracking down the people smugglers that the French authorities ignore & once found, prosecute with extreme prejudice.

Yes, yes, these are mostly just slogans like "Take Back Control", "Send them Back"! "Leave the ECHR". No one, not even the government which is desperate, has got beyond these slogans. We need practicalities (I'm on your side in this, I'll be pleased to find a solution).

Imagine you are the Beachmaster at Dover tasked with stopping asylum seekers landing in Britain and claiming asylum. We have left the ECHR so you can't be prosecuted there, but you are subject to Maritime Law and UN refugee agreements. You have the Border Force, the RNLI, and the RN at your disposal.

An inflatable dinghy is 5 miles out, heading towards Dover. On board are reported to be 10 adult males, 5 adult males claiming to be minors, 3 children and 2 women reported to be pregnant. A French launch who has been accompanying them for safety turns back after the crew shout "Good luck, roast bif!!" at you. The whole nation, including the Home Sec, turns to you for guidance. What do you actually do? Shout through a loudhailer "We have left the ECHR so go home! We don't want you!"? They probably know that and don't care anyway. So what is your next step?

[itsnotoutthere]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/left-wing-attacks-on-suella-braverman-backfire-because-labour-made-exactly-the-same-points/ar-AA1hl58z?ocid=BingHp01&cvid=a0e2260cafca46ddd5da46cb8946c3ab&ei=14

Left-wing critics of Suella Braverman's have spent the last day or so hammering the Home Secretary for her hardline speech in Washington DC, in which she blasted "absurd" asylum treaties, including the UN 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, for creating "huge incentives for illegal migration", and demanded reforms.

 

The easily outraged brigade has also been quick to slam Ms Braverman for her comments that national migration systems will be overwhelmed if "being gay or a woman and fearful of discrimination" is "sufficient to qualify for protection".

With their vitriol, they appear to have fallen into the trap of believing that the Home Secretary's speech is part of a new Tory push to divide the country and pursue a so-called "culture war" agenda - and failed to spot she has, in fact, merely revived the same talking points raised by previously lauded "progressive" centrist governments, including Sir Tony Blair's and David Cameron's.

[itsnotoutthere]

1 minute ago, pellinore said:

Yes, yes, these are mostly just slogans like "Take Back Control", "Send them Back"! "Leave the ECHR". No one, not even the government which is desperate, has got beyond these slogans. We need practicalities (I'm on your side in this, I'll be pleased to find a solution).

Imagine you are the Beachmaster at Dover tasked with stopping asylum seekers landing in Britain and claiming asylum. We have left the ECHR so you can't be prosecuted there, but you are subject to Maritime Law and UN refugee agreements. You have the Border Force, the RNLI, and the RN at your disposal.

An inflatable dinghy is 5 miles out, heading towards Dover. On board are reported to be 10 adult males, 5 adult males claiming to be minors, 3 children and 2 women reported to be pregnant. A French launch who has been accompanying them for safety turns back after the crew shout "Good luck, roast bif!!" at you. The whole nation, including the Home Sec, turns to you for guidance. What do you actually do? Shout through a loudhailer "We have left the ECHR so go home! We don't want you!"? They probably know that and don't care anyway. So what is your next step?

[pellinore]

Just now, itsnotoutthere said:

Not so easy to do something as to say something needs to be done, is it?

[itsnotoutthere]

"What do you actually do? Shout through a loudhailer "We have left the ECHR so go home! We don't want you!"? They probably know that and don't care anyway. So what is your next step?"

"Allow all women & children asylum."

"If found, detain then return."

 

Edited September 27 by itsnotoutthere

[odas]

On 9/26/2023 at 10:50 AM, pellinore said:

LGBT+ and human rights campaigners dubbed Ms Braverman a “dangerous fool”, while opposition parties accused Ms Braverman of pushing her leadership credentials with “dog whistle” to the Tory right.

Ms Braverman will use an address to a right-wing think tank in the US to call on world leaders to make major changes to the UN Refugee Convention, suggesting it is too generous to migrants.

She will add: “But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin is sufficient to qualify for protection.”

Suella Braverman’s ‘nasty and cruel’ migrant crisis speech sparks furious backlash | The Independent

I could agree with her if a new immigration law is passed retroactive to before her Indian and Kenyan parents came to UK.

She is one of the new immigrant generation selling out to apease one side for her own benefits. Insecure, while still looking very very very very different from your average Brit, she dreams to fit in at all costs by putting down every other immigrant that looks just like her.

[itsnotoutthere]

49 minutes ago, odas said:

I could agree with her if a new immigration law is passed retroactive to before her Indian and Kenyan parents came to UK.

She is one of the new immigrant generation selling out to apease one side for her own benefits. Insecure, while still looking very very very very different from your average Brit, she dreams to fit in at all costs by putting down every other immigrant that looks just like her.

Ah, so what you're saying is, even though she was born in this country & is officially British & her parents emigrated here (legally) over 40 years ago, she should still think of herself as an immigrant....hmm, interesting.

So really then, literally anybody that came here since the 1950s isn't really British but just an immigrant.

[odas]

30 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Ah, so what you're saying is, even though she was born in this country & is officially British & her parents emigrated here (legally) over 40 years ago, she should still think of herself as an immigrant....hmm, interesting.

So really then, literally anybody that came here since the 1950s isn't really British but just an immigrant.

No. I am saying that there is movement among immigrants or the descendets of immigrants, usully 1st, second or third generation, that is in an identity crisis and looks still to fit in. One side might fight to preserve the old home culture and the other side, like Braverman, tries to fit in by rejecting any other culture and thus advance in political aspiration by apeasing anti immigrants. However, the rejecting of immigrants by people like her is only towards immigrants from other countries, not from a country or region her ancesters came from.

We see it in the US with DeSantis, Rubio...who do support immigration, even illegal, from Cuba only. Or here in Canada, with the wife or the future PM Poliviere, who believes immigrants from asia, India, middle east, China..are not as good as the ones from south america, where she comes from.

 

[itsnotoutthere]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/27/the-racism-of-multiculturalism/

[+and-then]

19 hours ago, pellinore said:

Back to where? France? Do you seriously think we can do this? I can understand someone saying this in frustration, anger, etc- but in actuality?

Describe how it would be done, in simple steps, starting with a dinghy with say 20 people in it heading towards Dover, let's say 5 miles off the coast. Go!

If a nation cannot or WILL NOT stop such an invasion that is obviously weakening the country and for which there is no end in sight, then that nation is dying.  Period.  The question I'd demand an answer to is who does that benefit and why are the elected leaders favoring non-citizens over their own?  The US has at least 7-10 million extra human beings to settle, care for, and find housing and employment for in just the last 3 years.  We also have a $33 T debt to service.  It doesn't take a demographic or economic scholar to see where this is headed.  I doubt that New Yorkers, for example, are going to be taking many more thousands of these people and treating them peacefully.  The tipping point will eventually come.  Then what?

[pellinore]

13 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

"What do you actually do? Shout through a loudhailer "We have left the ECHR so go home! We don't want you!"? They probably know that and don't care anyway. So what is your next step?"

"Allow all women & children asylum."

"If found, detain then return."

 

So, you would allow them to land and then take them into custody somewhere. Which is exactly what we do now. Then they are interviewed to check if their asylum claims are genuine, and those whose claims are not genuine are returned. Exactly as we do now, though very slowly because like every other public service, our immigration is underfunded.

It sounds like you find our present system satisfactory. No need to leave the ECHR then, is there?