UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
oyster said:
Two things:
1. Do you know for a fact that the UK has more such migrants/refugees than places like France?
2. Doesn't the fact they want to come here actually show Britain in a good light?
In answer to *2* I quite like what you've done with your house & intend to just wander in, settle myself on your sofa & expect you to keep me. Please be assured that it shows your house in a very good light. You see my point?1. Do you know for a fact that the UK has more such migrants/refugees than places like France?
2. Doesn't the fact they want to come here actually show Britain in a good light?
Rick1.8t said:
Bo_apex said:
Rick1.8t said:
Bo_apex said:
Murph7355 said:
Exactly. The problem being that we will seemingly never be ready, unless the shoutier ones (at both ends) are simply ignored.
He said in his speech that we have to try something, and nobody is coming up with better, sustainable ideas.
Red meat politics aside (I tend to agree... But am also one to think that govts should not go into morbid paralysis just because of other issuettes), he is right on the ideas front, and whether one believes his motives or not, the objectives will seem fair enough to most people IMO.
Whether it will work or not will depend on many things, and how good the govt is at manoeuvring (which means it will probably fail).
It's been an expensive shambles with lives being lost, an overhaul is long overdue.He said in his speech that we have to try something, and nobody is coming up with better, sustainable ideas.
Red meat politics aside (I tend to agree... But am also one to think that govts should not go into morbid paralysis just because of other issuettes), he is right on the ideas front, and whether one believes his motives or not, the objectives will seem fair enough to most people IMO.
Whether it will work or not will depend on many things, and how good the govt is at manoeuvring (which means it will probably fail).
They've finally started but it's work in progress.
A partnership with Australia might've made more sense.
Are you saying we should have had a partnership where we send our migrants to Australia? - Why?
Also culture and climate better, better for who exactly - you?
So you think Rwanda is better than Australia ?
Bo_apex said:
So you think Rwanda is better than Australia ?
Our government clearly does.And as I say, Australia paid around £2 million per person to ship people off their shores in the same manner that we are proposing, in what reality do you see them taking our migrants? - What would you pay them, £3 million a person?
Its almost like such a poilicy is ludicrous and its a situation that should be dealt with on your own shores.
Edited by Rick1.8t on Thursday 14th April 15:40
Biggy Stardust said:
oyster said:
Two things:
1. Do you know for a fact that the UK has more such migrants/refugees than places like France?
2. Doesn't the fact they want to come here actually show Britain in a good light?
In answer to *2* I quite like what you've done with your house & intend to just wander in, settle myself on your sofa & expect you to keep me. Please be assured that it shows your house in a very good light. You see my point?1. Do you know for a fact that the UK has more such migrants/refugees than places like France?
2. Doesn't the fact they want to come here actually show Britain in a good light?
Biggy Stardust said:
In answer to *2* I quite like what you've done with your house & intend to just wander in, settle myself on your sofa & expect you to keep me. Please be assured that it shows your house in a very good light. You see my point?
You've just bombed my house, and then gone away leaving the neighbourhood controlled by people who will kill me for my religion. Can't I stay at yours for a while, while earning money and having a job? The same voices that shout about obeying the rules and that getting done by a speed camera at 33 in a 30 is a fair cop are the same ones saying that this is a bad idea.
Its not, if you don't want to go to Rwanda don't try and sneak in via an illegal boat from France.
Its simple.
Besides, it's for single men, so actual refugees, women and children, will still be OK to come, not the ones who want to come for financial reasons or to run away from a conflict they should be sticking around to sort out.
Its not, if you don't want to go to Rwanda don't try and sneak in via an illegal boat from France.
Its simple.
Besides, it's for single men, so actual refugees, women and children, will still be OK to come, not the ones who want to come for financial reasons or to run away from a conflict they should be sticking around to sort out.
Rick1.8t said:
Bo_apex said:
So you think Rwanda is better than Australia ?
Our government clearly does.And as I say, Australia paid around £2 million per person to ship people off their shores in the same manner that we are proposing, in what reality do you see them taking our migrants? - What would you pay them, £3 million a person?
Its almost like such a poilicy is ludicrous and its a situation that should be dealt with on your own shores.
Edited by Rick1.8t on Thursday 14th April 15:40
Australia would agree a bulk price point deal with UK and the immigrants would benefit from a better culture and climate.
I really can’t see this Rwanda idea happening. With 64% of applications being approved it seems rather pointless burning so much jet fuel flying the guys back and forth.
Does anyone know on what happens to those approved regarding housing?
Are they kept in their hotel room until council accommodation is found? Fast tracked for benefits? Genuine questions because if they suddenly find themselves on their backsides on the streets with no food then isn’t crime going to be the only option? Finding employment is the next hurdle so I hope they can speak or learn English.
All in all it isn’t the easiest problem to overcome but I feel we have to try and take the positive from this unrequested surge of manpower.
Does anyone know on what happens to those approved regarding housing?
Are they kept in their hotel room until council accommodation is found? Fast tracked for benefits? Genuine questions because if they suddenly find themselves on their backsides on the streets with no food then isn’t crime going to be the only option? Finding employment is the next hurdle so I hope they can speak or learn English.
All in all it isn’t the easiest problem to overcome but I feel we have to try and take the positive from this unrequested surge of manpower.
Bo_apex said:
Rick1.8t said:
Bo_apex said:
So you think Rwanda is better than Australia ?
Our government clearly does.And as I say, Australia paid around £2 million per person to ship people off their shores in the same manner that we are proposing, in what reality do you see them taking our migrants? - What would you pay them, £3 million a person?
Its almost like such a poilicy is ludicrous and its a situation that should be dealt with on your own shores.
Edited by Rick1.8t on Thursday 14th April 15:40
Australia would agree a bulk price point deal with UK and the immigrants would benefit from a better culture and climate.
Australia wouldn’t agree to any such rubbish, you are taking absolute tripe.
How did boris and priti develope a like mind? bet he go a hard on about here delicious capacity for evil thoughts and the willingness to carry them though.
Only someone thats a bit of a sadist would suggest rwanda. Somewhere where they fell on fellow citizens and murdered them at the slightest provocation. Fellow africans at that.
The British see themselves as a nobel civilized people and so act like it so could not possibly be seen to do this. But get an enthusiastic asian and they can do anything to please the boss.
Lets hope it just acts as a deterrant and migrating people suddenly see europe as not so bad compared to the uk.
Not down on asians in any way but I dont want to live in a country moulded in their image of horrible behaviour to each other.
We british may be deluded about ourselves but at least we feel good about it.
Only someone thats a bit of a sadist would suggest rwanda. Somewhere where they fell on fellow citizens and murdered them at the slightest provocation. Fellow africans at that.
The British see themselves as a nobel civilized people and so act like it so could not possibly be seen to do this. But get an enthusiastic asian and they can do anything to please the boss.
Lets hope it just acts as a deterrant and migrating people suddenly see europe as not so bad compared to the uk.
Not down on asians in any way but I dont want to live in a country moulded in their image of horrible behaviour to each other.
We british may be deluded about ourselves but at least we feel good about it.
Rick1.8t said:
Bo_apex said:
Rick1.8t said:
Bo_apex said:
So you think Rwanda is better than Australia ?
Our government clearly does.And as I say, Australia paid around £2 million per person to ship people off their shores in the same manner that we are proposing, in what reality do you see them taking our migrants? - What would you pay them, £3 million a person?
Its almost like such a poilicy is ludicrous and its a situation that should be dealt with on your own shores.
Edited by Rick1.8t on Thursday 14th April 15:40
Australia would agree a bulk price point deal with UK and the immigrants would benefit from a better culture and climate.
Australia wouldn’t agree to any such rubbish, you are taking absolute tripe.
Something needs to be done.
Indeed.
Here is a graph showing population density in Europe (more spiky bits show more people)
and this shows numbers of migrants crossing the channel.
Does any one (not XLW) really think this is ongoing sustainable?
As for empirical proof, here's how Australia's migrants dropped after they adopted a similar policy.
Indeed.
Here is a graph showing population density in Europe (more spiky bits show more people)
and this shows numbers of migrants crossing the channel.
Does any one (not XLW) really think this is ongoing sustainable?
As for empirical proof, here's how Australia's migrants dropped after they adopted a similar policy.
SmoothCriminal said:
Good, I wonder if the bleeding hearts on here have actually experienced the "diversity" these boat arrivals bring to the area they're settled in, these are not women and children from a war torn area but male migrants looking for an easy ride.
What's so dangerous in France that they can't stay there? Oh yes I imagine the French don't put them up in hotels and pay for domino's pizza.
I just paid for domino's pizza. Waiting for it to arrive now. I'm glad I could be part of this debate.What's so dangerous in France that they can't stay there? Oh yes I imagine the French don't put them up in hotels and pay for domino's pizza.
Vasco said:
Someone needs to explain why they can't stay in France.
The Rwanda plan should at least deter some of those single males from attempting the Channel and their feedback to others might just reduce the number of attempts in future.
The current UNHCR rules allow 'asylum' to be claimed in any country. The current UNHCR rules were formulated long ago and need to be updated. The people smugglers are gaming the system, and have been for years. That's all you need to understand why the situation is, as it is, and a revolutionary scheme of deterrent and dealing with the numbers turning up on our borders requires a rethink. The Rwanda plan should at least deter some of those single males from attempting the Channel and their feedback to others might just reduce the number of attempts in future.
If the Rwanda plan, whatever it is, in conjunction with the Navy getting involved in the Channel to better identify and alert the French before these dinghies get into British waters, we just may reduce the numbers attempting a crossing, and landing, for us to deal with.
All the above is subject to levels of competence and resolve, so we will see...
techguyone said:
Something needs to be done.
As for empirical proof, here's how Australia's migrants dropped after they adopted a similar policy.
Migrants arriving by boat dropped, but total refugees resettled hasn’t changed much at all in that time frame, perhaps a slight increase. Worth bearing that in mind if anyone expects offshore processing to decrease the number of refugees - there no data to suggest it does that I’m aware of.As for empirical proof, here's how Australia's migrants dropped after they adopted a similar policy.
Is this bit legal?
"Under the new system all adults who arrive illegally in the UK will be assessed, and if they are deemed an economic migrant rather than a refugee fleeing a dangerous homeland, they will be taken to a detention centre in north Yorkshire. They will then be given five days notice that they are to be flown to Rwanda.
Once in Rwanda they will no longer be under the UK's jurisdiction and subject to that country's refugee rules, with no legal right to return to Britain."
You can't just send someone to a country in Africa and suddenly it becomes their problem.
The whole plan has more holes than a Swiss cheese, and I doubt will make it past the UK legal system, let alone make any difference to people arriving. This isn't "offshore processing" this is forced deportation to a 3rd country, with seemingly no right of appeal and no guarantee of human rights when they arrive there. If it ever happens, which I doubt, the first time someone is mugged, raped or murdered will be the last time anyone is sent there.
"Under the new system all adults who arrive illegally in the UK will be assessed, and if they are deemed an economic migrant rather than a refugee fleeing a dangerous homeland, they will be taken to a detention centre in north Yorkshire. They will then be given five days notice that they are to be flown to Rwanda.
Once in Rwanda they will no longer be under the UK's jurisdiction and subject to that country's refugee rules, with no legal right to return to Britain."
You can't just send someone to a country in Africa and suddenly it becomes their problem.
The whole plan has more holes than a Swiss cheese, and I doubt will make it past the UK legal system, let alone make any difference to people arriving. This isn't "offshore processing" this is forced deportation to a 3rd country, with seemingly no right of appeal and no guarantee of human rights when they arrive there. If it ever happens, which I doubt, the first time someone is mugged, raped or murdered will be the last time anyone is sent there.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff