Do you think it is acceptable to send immigrants to Rwanda?

[LF5335]

CallThatMusic said:

LF5335 said:

CallThatMusic said:

LF5335 said:

CallThatMusic said:

I’ve noticed that many arriving by boat are healthy looking adult males.
Would it not be possible to put them to work while we deal with their claim for asylum?
Maybe we could engage them to build infrastructure on some of the more remote islands off the Scottish coast - places like Taransay - currently uninhabited.
They could build a camp, this could then be used for other purposes, for example “ outward bound “ type activities. They could move on and repeat on other uninhibited islands.
It’s a waste having all these potentially useful resources locked up in camps ; all cost very little payback one way or the other…
Probably cheaper than flights to Rawanda and useful multipurpose facilities created in remote areas. A tough gig but so is crossing the channel on a rib.

Maybe a mission statement over the entry gates to their worksite. Something along the lines of work making them free.

Someone else suggested something very similar a few weeks back, big coincidence that it’s the sort of thing you hear spouted by the more extreme right wing types.

I’ve not seen this idea promoted elsewhere but pleased others can see the logic.
I don’t have a right wing bone in my body.
Sorry to disappoint…

Why have you picked the remote uninhabited Scottish islands? You must have thought specifically about why you’ve chosen them over anywhere else.

Abandoned airbases etc haven’t worked because NIMBY.
So avoid this issue.
Simple.

So your solution is to spend government money (I assume) building something in a remote, fairly inaccessible location that probably won’t get used much. After all, there is a reason these islands are uninhabited. However, it will be some sort of monument to effectively dealing with immigration.

Who is funding this work and the wages and monitoring the work, and providing the raw materials and I’d assume building some accommodation first for the new workers? And food, water heating and healthcare and other basic necessities that any civilised society would provide. Not sure we’d see a decent return on the investment either.

No problem letting them work in my view, just that there are a lot of unfilled vacancies where they could be better utilised, rather than getting them to dig holes and then fill them in like some warped job creation scheme.

[Percy Cushion]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Percy Cushion said:

Very much this. How about a UK Asylum Seeker Processing Center in Rwanda??

Well we already have one. It isn't something I have any real experience but as I understand it if a Rwandan wants to travel to Britain he gets his documents together and takes them to the consulate (or agent) and gets a visa back a while late if it all checks out. Relatively simple for a holiday or business trip, a bit more involved for work or study. I know asylum claims can be complicated but I don't see why the same basic process couldn't be applied, especially when the asylum seeker is in a safe country like France. Or for that matter Turkey, Morocco or UAE.

That’s a UK Embassy or Consulate. I could be wrong but I don’t think a foreign national can turn up at an overseas UK Embassy or Consulate and claim asylum in the UK, perhaps some who knows more that me can clarify.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Percy Cushion said:

That’s a UK Embassy or Consulate. I could be wrong but I don’t think a foreign national can turn up at an overseas UK Embassy or Consulate and claim asylum in the UK, perhaps some who knows more that me can clarify.

They can't at the moment. Enabling people to do so would seem like a logical first step for stopping people getting here by any means and then claiming asylum. If a government was the least bit interested is stopping it.

[Kermit power]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

blueg33 said:

The French channel coastline is long and some of it quite remote. I'm not sure its that easy to stop them. Also if you start to play this game, shouldn't the Italians, Spanish or Greeks have stopped them from going to France, and shouldn't the Libyans have stopped them from getting to Greece etc

The fact is that the burden has to be spread and we only have a small proportion come here.

Hungary does try to stop them and is derided as a far right dictatorship for it.


The fact is some people for various reasons want mass immigration and for all the noise this government is allowing it.

Of course the government is allowing it. What else do you think they're going to do, given that the alternatives are putting state pension age up to something like 75 and/or forcing people to start having more children?

[Kermit power]

Percy Cushion said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

blueg33 said:

The French channel coastline is long and some of it quite remote. I'm not sure its that easy to stop them. Also if you start to play this game, shouldn't the Italians, Spanish or Greeks have stopped them from going to France, and shouldn't the Libyans have stopped them from getting to Greece etc

The fact is that the burden has to be spread and we only have a small proportion come here.

Hungary does try to stop them and is derided as a far right dictatorship for it.


The fact is some people for various reasons want mass immigration and for all the noise this government is allowing it.

Yes, because every government regardless of which party it is, wants to keep UK property prices as high as possible. MP’s all have more than one property, one in their home constituent and one in London, it’s in their interest to keep demand for property as high as possible.

What on earth have property prices got to do with anything???

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Kermit power said:

Of course the government is allowing it. What else do you think they're going to do, given that the alternatives are putting state pension age up to something like 75 and/or forcing people to start having more children?

Ah of course. That's our economic future washing up on the beach. Problem solved.

[Kermit power]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Kermit power said:

Of course the government is allowing it. What else do you think they're going to do, given that the alternatives are putting state pension age up to something like 75 and/or forcing people to start having more children?

Ah of course. That's our economic future washing up on the beach. Problem solved.

It's not "problem solved", but it's a start! The sooner we can get them into productive work, the better, I suppose, since I notice you haven't suggested any better alternative for addressing the problems of our ageing population?

[F1GTRUeno]

Skeptisk said:

Skeptisk said:

Rivenink said:

bennno said:

We are a soft touch nation, with over generous benefit and healthcare systems for non indigenous people who have never contributed.

Who’d stay in a tented camp in France if they can get a hotel here and 3 hot meals a day.

Why we are taking in Albanian asylum seekers at the same time as BA is pushing Albania as a holiday destination is beyond me, let’s align asylum with fco advice on where is safe to travel.

The status of "asylum seeker" should be temporary as possible.

Albanians, generally, have few valid reasons to claim aslyum here (or anywhere). They *should* have their applications processed fairly and quickly, and when they're application is mostly likely denied, they should be deported back to Albania with haste.

If we're flooded with aslyum seekers who come from Albania right now, and you're angry about it, blame the Tories. They're deliberatly slowing processing of asylum applications that's causing the huge backlog of people existing in stty hotels around the country.

All so the Tories can look like they're trying to do sometthing, but are being frustrated by "enemies of the people".

Edited by Rivenink on Friday 17th November 08:57

What percentage of people denied asylum actually get deported?

Ok. Looked it up. Around 90% refused asylum still end up in the U.K. So what is the point of the asylum system? All those risking the trip to the U.K. know that once they set foot on land it is very unlikely they will have to leave. That is a massive incentive for people to make the dangerous journey.

Surely then this is the crux of the problem.

Instead of spending £140m on Rwanda, put it into the processing of asylum and deportation of those that don't meet the criteria. We should give the borders and customs forces enough funding and manpower to do their jobs at maximum efficiency.

No loopholes or anything like that, proper monitoring and holding facilities and enough vehicles and again manpower to make sure x denied asylum gets to y airport to be sent home on z date.

Instead the Tories continue to waste money and blow hard to appease their base and wage culture wars.

Asylum cases that are successful are also then processed in due haste and those people can be set to work as soon as possible and the whole thing should work much smoother.

Money, time and effort.- three things the current incumbents are not willing to give. And before anyone says 'wElL lAbOuR' - they're not in power and haven't been for 13 years. I'm in no way suggesting they might do it better, just that they aren't the ones liable for the current mess.

And no, Rwanda is not an acceptable option to people trying to get into this country and to think so is deplorable. Doubly so when those that do are usually the 'patriotic' sort who fail to acknowledge how much fking up of the world Great Britain did by having an Empire drawing arbitrary lines in the sand for the people they subjugated.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 19th November 01:05

[Ivan stewart]

Kermit power said:

Of course the government is allowing it. What else do you think they're going to do, given that the alternatives are putting state pension age up to something like 75 and/or forcing people to start having more children?

So you believe in the immigration Ponzi scheme!
They don’t consume services and will contribute more than they take and never get old or sick ..
Time we just educated our own to be useful not wasting our reasonably intelligent minds on pointless degrees instead they could have vocational training and do the jobs the country needs..

Edited by Ivan stewart on Sunday 19th November 05:28

[rodericb]

Ivan stewart said:

Kermit power said:

Of course the government is allowing it. What else do you think they're going to do, given that the alternatives are putting state pension age up to something like 75 and/or forcing people to start having more children?

So you believe in the immigration Ponzi scheme!
They don’t consume services and will contribute more than they take and never get old or sick ..
Time we just educated our own to be useful not wasting our reasonably intelligent minds on pointless degrees instead they could have vocational training and do the jobs the country needs..

Edited by Ivan stewart on Sunday 19th November 05:28

They do. I another thread they said something along the lines that people who don't embrace inwards migration should be made to work until they do embrace it.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Kermit power said:

It's not "problem solved", but it's a start! The sooner we can get them into productive work, the better, I suppose, since I notice you haven't suggested any better alternative for addressing the problems of our ageing population?

I have actually. Not in this thread maybe.

No one catch all answer, but the best bet would be having more kids. Better saving and investing habits would help improve pension provision. Less hobbling our economy with net zero and concocted pandemics, and a general reorientation of our economy and society in recognition of the fact that it is no longer 1960.

Controlled immigration of the right people is necessary and desirable. Encouraging a rabble of chancers to wash up on the beach and hoping they have a legitimate asylum claim and turn out to be doctors and engineers, while telling the frustrated voters that you'll send them all to Rwanada doesn't sound like a great plan to me.

[Electro1980]

F1GTRUeno said:

Surely then this is the crux of the problem.

Instead of spending £140m on Rwanda, put it into the processing of asylum and deportation of those that don't meet the criteria. We should give the borders and customs forces enough funding and manpower to do their jobs at maximum efficiency.

No loopholes or anything like that, proper monitoring and holding facilities and enough vehicles and again manpower to make sure x denied asylum gets to y airport to be sent home on z date.

Instead the Tories continue to waste money and blow hard to appease their base and wage culture wars.

Asylum cases that are successful are also then processed in due haste and those people can be set to work as soon as possible and the whole thing should work much smoother.

Money, time and effort.- three things the current incumbents are not willing to give. And before anyone says 'wElL lAbOuR' - they're not in power and haven't been for 13 years. I'm in no way suggesting they might do it better, just that they aren't the ones liable for the current mess.

And no, Rwanda is not an acceptable option to people trying to get into this country and to think so is deplorable. Doubly so when those that do are usually the 'patriotic' sort who fail to acknowledge how much fking up of the world Great Britain did by having an Empire drawing arbitrary lines in the sand for the people they subjugated.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 19th November 01:05

And are happy to get the benefits of our past power, with people having connections to the UK and speaking English, but not the cost. There’s a reason why France has lots of asylum seekers from its ex colonies, and we are the same.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Electro1980 said:

And are happy to get the benefits of our past power, with people having connections to the UK and speaking English, but not the cost. There’s a reason why France has lots of asylum seekers from its ex colonies, and we are the same.

Was it my grandad getting shot at in Belgium or the shepherds on my mother's side living 9 up in a cottage who were enjoying the imperial high life and incurring this debt for me?

[CallThatMusic]

LF5335 said:

CallThatMusic said:

LF5335 said:

CallThatMusic said:

LF5335 said:

CallThatMusic said:

I’ve noticed that many arriving by boat are healthy looking adult males.
Would it not be possible to put them to work while we deal with their claim for asylum?
Maybe we could engage them to build infrastructure on some of the more remote islands off the Scottish coast - places like Taransay - currently uninhabited.
They could build a camp, this could then be used for other purposes, for example “ outward bound “ type activities. They could move on and repeat on other uninhibited islands.
It’s a waste having all these potentially useful resources locked up in camps ; all cost very little payback one way or the other…
Probably cheaper than flights to Rawanda and useful multipurpose facilities created in remote areas. A tough gig but so is crossing the channel on a rib.

Maybe a mission statement over the entry gates to their worksite. Something along the lines of work making them free.

Someone else suggested something very similar a few weeks back, big coincidence that it’s the sort of thing you hear spouted by the more extreme right wing types.

I’ve not seen this idea promoted elsewhere but pleased others can see the logic.
I don’t have a right wing bone in my body.
Sorry to disappoint…

Why have you picked the remote uninhabited Scottish islands? You must have thought specifically about why you’ve chosen them over anywhere else.

Abandoned airbases etc haven’t worked because NIMBY.
So avoid this issue.
Simple.

So your solution is to spend government money (I assume) building something in a remote, fairly inaccessible location that probably won’t get used much. After all, there is a reason these islands are uninhabited. However, it will be some sort of monument to effectively dealing with immigration.

Who is funding this work and the wages and monitoring the work, and providing the raw materials and I’d assume building some accommodation first for the new workers? And food, water heating and healthcare and other basic necessities that any civilised society would provide. Not sure we’d see a decent return on the investment either.

No problem letting them work in my view, just that there are a lot of unfilled vacancies where they could be better utilised, rather than getting them to dig holes and then fill them in like some warped job creation scheme.

Yes, I think you’ve got the jist of it.
It will be funded from the same pot that sent £140Million to Rwanda already.

[F1GTRUeno]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Electro1980 said:

And are happy to get the benefits of our past power, with people having connections to the UK and speaking English, but not the cost. There’s a reason why France has lots of asylum seekers from its ex colonies, and we are the same.

Was it my grandad getting shot at in Belgium or the shepherds on my mother's side living 9 up in a cottage who were enjoying the imperial high life and incurring this debt for me?

You can apply individual things to a greater issue if you like to try and hide from it but if you can't accept that we've fked up quite a bit of the world and we should be responsibie in helping put it right then that's on you and not the rest of us. Incredibly myopic and selfish.

[swisstoni]

F1GTRUeno said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Electro1980 said:

And are happy to get the benefits of our past power, with people having connections to the UK and speaking English, but not the cost. There’s a reason why France has lots of asylum seekers from its ex colonies, and we are the same.

Was it my grandad getting shot at in Belgium or the shepherds on my mother's side living 9 up in a cottage who were enjoying the imperial high life and incurring this debt for me?

You can apply individual things to a greater issue if you like to try and hide from it but if you can't accept that we've fked up quite a bit of the world and we should be responsibie in helping put it right then that's on you and not the rest of us. Incredibly myopic and selfish.

Europe don't seem so keen on doing the UK any favours after bankrupting herself helping deliver them from tyranny.

[F1GTRUeno]

swisstoni said:

F1GTRUeno said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Electro1980 said:

And are happy to get the benefits of our past power, with people having connections to the UK and speaking English, but not the cost. There’s a reason why France has lots of asylum seekers from its ex colonies, and we are the same.

Was it my grandad getting shot at in Belgium or the shepherds on my mother's side living 9 up in a cottage who were enjoying the imperial high life and incurring this debt for me?

You can apply individual things to a greater issue if you like to try and hide from it but if you can't accept that we've fked up quite a bit of the world and we should be responsibie in helping put it right then that's on you and not the rest of us. Incredibly myopic and selfish.

Europe don't seem so keen on doing the UK any favours after bankrupting herself helping deliver them from tyranny.

Perhaps because it wasn't just the UK that helped.

Perhaps because of British attitudes like the above, refusing to take any responsibility.

Perhaps also because we've thrown all sorts of bile at Europe in the recent past and again refuse to acknowledge the impact.

[Skeptisk]

E63eeeeee... said:

popeyewhite said:

chrispmartha said:

Which is a pointless ‘point’ in context. I don’t know what Rwanda is like ive never been.

The current UK government, whom I support (though it's getting a bit hard going at the moment), believes Rwanda is safe to take illegal immigrants. That's good enough for me.

I don't think it does believe that. Part of the problem behind all of this is the logical incoherence. The destination country has to be somewhere reasonably safe for us to legally send asylum seekers to, but it also has to be somewhere nasty enough to supposedly act as a deterrent (even though everyone knows that it won't).

The court didn't even look at the broader safety questions because the Rwanda scheme failed under the terms of the same Act that created the powers to do it, the risk of refoulement was sufficient to mean that Rwanda didn't meet the non-refoulement test set out in the Act.

The whole thing was so obviously designed to fail to distract the discussion from the government's failure to actually solve any of the problems in the immigration system.

That there are people on here who seem to seriously think that even a workable Rwanda model would actually be a solution is baffling.

It would be a deterrent. Some months back the Danish TV news were interviewing immigrants in camps in France who are trying to get to the U.K. They talked about the Rwandan plan and were told that everyone planning to get across (illegally) to the U.K. were aware of an concerned about the plan.

[TTwiggy]

Skeptisk said:

It would be a deterrent. Some months back the Danish TV news were interviewing immigrants in camps in France who are trying to get to the U.K. They talked about the Rwandan plan and were told that everyone planning to get across (illegally) to the U.K. were aware of an concerned about the plan.

I’m confused as to how it can be both a deterrent and also the safest, bestist, most amazinest place ever to start a new life?

[E63eeeeee...]

Skeptisk said:

E63eeeeee... said:

popeyewhite said:

chrispmartha said:

Which is a pointless ‘point’ in context. I don’t know what Rwanda is like ive never been.

The current UK government, whom I support (though it's getting a bit hard going at the moment), believes Rwanda is safe to take illegal immigrants. That's good enough for me.

I don't think it does believe that. Part of the problem behind all of this is the logical incoherence. The destination country has to be somewhere reasonably safe for us to legally send asylum seekers to, but it also has to be somewhere nasty enough to supposedly act as a deterrent (even though everyone knows that it won't).

The court didn't even look at the broader safety questions because the Rwanda scheme failed under the terms of the same Act that created the powers to do it, the risk of refoulement was sufficient to mean that Rwanda didn't meet the non-refoulement test set out in the Act.

The whole thing was so obviously designed to fail to distract the discussion from the government's failure to actually solve any of the problems in the immigration system.

That there are people on here who seem to seriously think that even a workable Rwanda model would actually be a solution is baffling.

It would be a deterrent. Some months back the Danish TV news were interviewing immigrants in camps in France who are trying to get to the U.K. They talked about the Rwandan plan and were told that everyone planning to get across (illegally) to the U.K. were aware of an concerned about the plan.

That's really not the same as them turning back though. Bear in mind that plenty of people (including the OP in this thread) don't actually understand the detail of the proposed scheme, once it was actually up and running and fewer than 200 people were actually being sent there, given that dozens have died in the boats in the last few years, it's hardly likely to change behaviour. Maybe its best effect would be as Schrodinger's policy, where it's a better deterrent if it's not enacted.