The Guardian thinks of itself as a liberal outlet; yet by publishing this story, it is doing exactly what the government wants them to do. The value of the fear of being deported to like, Sierra Leone, is worth more to the gov’t than the actual deportations themselves. They are publicizing just that.
And of course the only thing London cooperates with Brussels on is reporting unwanted blacks and browns to faraway countries.
Down with the inhumane passport system. https://youtu.be/f-yJMwl2J8s
Just highlights the absurdity of leaving the EU if the UK do exactly what the EU wants anyway because the UK is incapable of being independent.
They just hate migrants; they’d do anything to get rid of them. Enemy of my enemy is my friend type of logic.
That’s a good move. It will stem the rising popularity of far-right parties. Europeans do not want their countries to be flooded with migrants.
This is not how fascism works. If tomorrow there were no immigrants to hate, fascists will just point their hatred to another group: black people, gay people, women… anyone they can falsely blame for their grievances
Possibly, but presently, the rise in popularity of far-right groups in Europe is their anti-migrant stance. Centrist groups can undermine this support by adopting policies which control immigration but are not as harsh. For example, admitting only migrants with needed skills.
Appeasing fascists will always lead to more fascism, not less
No, centrist parties would be preventing far-right parties from getting into power by adopting those views which are popular with people.
Prevent far-right parties getting into power by adopting far-right policies!
Let’s assume that that’s actually a moral thing to do - ask Kier Starmer what adopting exactly that strategy has done for the popularity of his party and the far-right party Reform
The reason is that immigration may not be the only issue.
Immigration is Reform’s one issue, and also what I’ve unfailingly see Reform voters cite as their only reason for voting
Starmer has been pushing immigration as an issue and modelled the party’s policy after Reform. He even gave a speech in which he invoked the most famous anti-immigration speech in British political history. Insiders have said explicitly that the strategy was to court right-wing voters in exactly the manner that you’re suggesting
2 years ago Labour won the general election with 33.7% of the vote. 2 weeks ago they got 20% of the vote in the local elections
2 years ago Reform got 14.5% of the vote. 2 weeks ago they got 31%
This is a party who have explicitly tried the approach that you’re suggesting and it hasn’t had the effect that you think it should. Instead it has lost Labour the support of core voters and given support to Reform by legitimising and reinforcing their platform
This real-world example is the opposite of what you’re claiming would happen
And it should be obvious - “the far-right are right about immigration, therefore you should vote for us instead” is never going to be a sensible message
Giving the far-right this as a way to appease them, just validates their world view. Its not as if it is going to end with drastically reducing immigrants.
No, their rising popularity validates their view. By adopting their view but not to their extreme undermines their appeal. How can sending rejected asylum seekers to third-country hubs not reduce the number of migrants?
It will stem the rising popularity of far-right parties.
Continues with a sentence straight out of the far-right fascism playbook
To the contrary, it will undermine the appeal of far-right parties. At the same time the centrist version will be milder.
Europeans do not want their countries to be flooded with migrants.
Far right parties love to say that even when there are no migrants flooding them.
speak for yourself
