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

[don'tbesilly]

YouGov Poll from the 14th November

[rodericb]

To add some nuance for the frothers from either side:



Missed it... by that much.....

[C70R]

don'tbesilly said:

YouGov Poll from the 14th November

It's nothing more than a continuation of the dog-whistle plays to their right-wing base.

C.f. "war on the motorist" and other things that scare boomers.

[Skeptisk]

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.

[chemistry]

C70R said:

If it were ever in doubt as to how right-wing skewed the NP&E cesspit was, the actually public opinion (when polled more representatively) was a minority of 42% in favour of sending immigrants to Rwanda.

https://twitter.com/GyllKing/status/17248944221757...

Excluding don’t knows, more people support (42%) than oppose (39% sending people to Rwanda but there’s not an overall majority, so I’m not sure that poll really tells us anything concrete.

That said, it certainly doesn’t confirm a majority are opposed to sending people to Rwanda, as your post was seeking to imply.

[blueg33]

Vanden Saab said:

StevieBee said:

Skeptisk said:

Last year there were over a million applications in the EU and U.K. That is a huge number of people.

Where did you get that figure from?

According to the House of Commons Library, in 2022, the total number of asylum applications was 81,130 (In 2002 it was 84,132). 23,841 people were granted protection of which 5,792 were permanently resettled in the UK.

The clue is UK and EU. The EU had 881,220... Not quite a million but pretty close.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...

So the UK is getting a small proportion only 9%. Sort of defeats the argument that everyone wants to come here because we are some sort of soft touch or paradise where you get stuff for free.

Back to the question in the topic - we have to factor in that for every immigrant sent to Rwanda the deal is they send one back to us. net effect = zero

[119]

Is one thread not enough?

[sugerbear]

chemistry said:

C70R said:

If it were ever in doubt as to how right-wing skewed the NP&E cesspit was, the actually public opinion (when polled more representatively) was a minority of 42% in favour of sending immigrants to Rwanda.

https://twitter.com/GyllKing/status/17248944221757...

Excluding don’t knows, more people support (42%) than oppose (39% sending people to Rwanda but there’s not an overall majority, so I’m not sure that poll really tells us anything concrete.

That said, it certainly doesn’t confirm a majority are opposed to sending people to Rwanda, as your post was seeking to imply.

The point is that the arguement is presented in the polls as a simple yes/no.

Maybe if it was framed correctly it might say something different. i.e. would you like to give up all your personal human rights (no state torture, unlawful imprisonmentt, no slavery, right to a fair trial, right to marry, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly) so that a few thousand people. can be sent to Rwanda - you may end up with a totally different opinion.

Edited by sugerbear on Friday 17th November 11:20

[Vanden Saab]

chemistry said:

C70R said:

If it were ever in doubt as to how right-wing skewed the NP&E cesspit was, the actually public opinion (when polled more representatively) was a minority of 42% in favour of sending immigrants to Rwanda.

https://twitter.com/GyllKing/status/17248944221757...

Excluding don’t knows, more people support (42%) than oppose (39% sending people to Rwanda but there’s not an overall majority, so I’m not sure that poll really tells us anything concrete.

That said, it certainly doesn’t confirm a majority are opposed to sending people to Rwanda, as your post was seeking to imply.

If you take out the don't knows it is well over 50% in favour.

[bennno]

sugerbear said:

The point is that the arguement is presented in the polls as a simple yes/no.

Maybe if it was framed correctly it might say something different. i.e. would you like to give up all your personal human rights (no state torture, unlawful imprisonmentt, no slavery, right to a fair trial, right to marry, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly) so that a few thousand people. can be sent to Rwanda - you may end up with a totally different opinion.

Or if it was framed as, would you prefer that as a sovereign nation we have the ability to define our own human rights leglisation to better specifically support the needs of the UK, as opposed to it being dictated by a non elected European body - you might again get a totally different opinion.

[blueg33]

bennno said:

sugerbear said:

The point is that the arguement is presented in the polls as a simple yes/no.

Maybe if it was framed correctly it might say something different. i.e. would you like to give up all your personal human rights (no state torture, unlawful imprisonmentt, no slavery, right to a fair trial, right to marry, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly) so that a few thousand people. can be sent to Rwanda - you may end up with a totally different opinion.

Or if it was framed as, would you prefer that as a sovereign nation we have the ability to define our own human rights leglisation to better specifically support the needs of the UK, as opposed to it being dictated by a non elected European body whilst ignoring international laws we have signed up to, as well as ones we have made domestically at the behest of Winston Churchill following the horrors of WW2 and the holocaust. With the result of significantly compromising the human rights of vulnerable people around the world - you might again get a totally different opinion.

Fixed that for you

[chrispmartha]

bennno said:

sugerbear said:

The point is that the arguement is presented in the polls as a simple yes/no.

Maybe if it was framed correctly it might say something different. i.e. would you like to give up all your personal human rights (no state torture, unlawful imprisonmentt, no slavery, right to a fair trial, right to marry, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly) so that a few thousand people. can be sent to Rwanda - you may end up with a totally different opinion.

Or if it was framed as, would you prefer that as a sovereign nation we have the ability to define our own human rights leglisation to better specifically support the needs of the UK, as opposed to it being dictated by a non elected European body - you might again get a totally different opinion.

The idea that any current government can change things like human rights legislation without any outside balance and checks is pretty scary if you ask me.

Unelected what like the house of lords?

There is a reason most countries sign up to these things.

[Stuart70]

To step away from the ECHR unilaterally as a development is deeply suspect.

If we don’t like how it is applied, lobby for its amendment and development.
To feel the need to unilaterally abdicate from it says much more about us than it does about the convention, I fear.

[chrispmartha]

Stuart70 said:

To step away from the ECHR unilaterally as a development is deeply suspect.

If we don’t like how it is applied, lobby for its amendment and development.
To feel the need to unilaterally abdicate from it says much more about us than it does about the convention, I fear.

Especially as it’s actually the UK Supreme Court that has ruled it illegal

[Previous]

I've no issue with helping those fleeing persecution to find saftey, plus support and a place to rebuild their lives.

I belive the current system is abused, and therefore I'm not opposed to helping refugees settle anywhere where they will be safe and without fear - here or another safe country, where that option is available, based upon the good relationships we have with other countries.

As long as Rwanda doesn't pose additional risk to the refugees, then I'm as happy they are supported there as I would be then settling in Rotherham.

Rwanda may offer better employment opportunities too.

[DaveTheRave87]

I think the purpose of the Rwanda plan isn't to send anyone there, it's to make those who wish to arrive illegal think that they might end up in Rwanda.

It's more of a deterrent than an actual immigration solution.

[C70R]

chemistry said:

C70R said:

If it were ever in doubt as to how right-wing skewed the NP&E cesspit was, the actually public opinion (when polled more representatively) was a minority of 42% in favour of sending immigrants to Rwanda.

https://twitter.com/GyllKing/status/17248944221757...

Excluding don’t knows, more people support (42%) than oppose (39% sending people to Rwanda but there’s not an overall majority, so I’m not sure that poll really tells us anything concrete.

That said, it certainly doesn’t confirm a majority are opposed to sending people to Rwanda, as your post was seeking to imply.

I made no suggestion...

The PH poll was showing 67% in favour, when compared with much lower support in the general public. A demonstration of how politically skewed this place is.

[C70R]

Vanden Saab said:

chemistry said:

C70R said:

If it were ever in doubt as to how right-wing skewed the NP&E cesspit was, the actually public opinion (when polled more representatively) was a minority of 42% in favour of sending immigrants to Rwanda.

https://twitter.com/GyllKing/status/17248944221757...

Excluding don’t knows, more people support (42%) than oppose (39% sending people to Rwanda but there’s not an overall majority, so I’m not sure that poll really tells us anything concrete.

That said, it certainly doesn’t confirm a majority are opposed to sending people to Rwanda, as your post was seeking to imply.

If you take out the don't knows it is well over 50% in favour.

You can't just "take out the don't knows". That's not how life works.

[Slowboathome]

C70R said:

If it were ever in doubt as to how right-wing skewed the NP&E cesspit was, the actually public opinion (when polled more representatively) was a minority of 42% in favour of sending immigrants to Rwanda.

https://twitter.com/GyllKing/status/17248944221757...

and yet here you are. Again.

[Rivenink]

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?

Honestly, I don't know.

But if it's not over 90%, you can add it to the list of Government failures.


Edit: Well you answered the question for yourself. Utter failure.

I wonder how much of that is because people who arrive, claim asylum and then disappear in the months/years it takes to process their case.


It should not be difficult to treat asylum seekers like human beings, keep them comfortably and securely while they're in the care of the UK Government, process their cases quickly and fairly, and deport them if they don't have a valid claim.

The UK Government is responsible for that whole process. It's a mess, and it's entirely on the Tories. They've had nearly 14 years in power. Sending people to Rwanda is the Tories magical escape route from that utter failure.

Edited by Rivenink on Friday 17th November 14:36