Do you think it is acceptable to send immigrants to Rwanda?
Poll: Do you think it is acceptable to send immigrants to Rwanda?
Total Members Polled: 669
Discussion
Vanden Saab said:
E63eeeeee... said:
swisstoni said:
We could have no easier ‘sent them back’ before Brexit than we can today.
You should look up the Dublin agreement. An entire international agreement about "sending them back". Vanden Saab said:
E63eeeeee... said:
swisstoni said:
We could have no easier ‘sent them back’ before Brexit than we can today.
You should look up the Dublin agreement. An entire international agreement about "sending them back". 
k up to reduce immigration. You couldn't make this stuff up. E63eeeeee... said:
Vanden Saab said:
E63eeeeee... said:
swisstoni said:
We could have no easier ‘sent them back’ before Brexit than we can today.
You should look up the Dublin agreement. An entire international agreement about "sending them back". k up to reduce immigration. You couldn't make this stuff up. swisstoni said:
It works so well the EU are having to be replace it. Just as soon as members can agree to the replacement.
More people are planned to be sent to Rwanda a year than were ever returned a year under Dublin and that is without taking those we have received into account. Suggesting it made any difference to anything is risible.I don't have any particularly strong feelings either way. It's a complicated issue so I guess I would have to do some reading to understand the various factors more. What I will say is do we not need to differentiate between refuges, asylum seekers, and immigrants (thread title), and migrants. An immigrant is someone who makes a conscious decision to leave his or her home and move to a foreign country with the intention of settling there.
As it stands I see both sides of the argument. We should treat genuine asylum seekers humanely, interesting to read in other comments re: the slow assessment of cases, why is that? Lack of resources dedicated to do so quicker, sheer number of applications?
Anecdotally my home town has a hotel housing asylum seekers , it does propagate the stereotype that they're mostly young men in this small sample size. They will meet a couple of times a week and play football on one of our rugby pitches. It's not public land, but we're not fussed as they leave no rubbish etc. I often see small groups walking through the park while I'm out walking the dog. They were walking through 3" deep mud in sandals and flip flops, which got me thinking they'll have been through much worse to get here. They keep themselves to themselves and other than some reported violence which was between one resident and another they are causing no one any harm. I'd imagine the majority would happily work if allowed to.
The hotel is due to close, not sure where the current residents will be sent to. It's a shame that more efforts haven't been made to try and integrate these folk with the local community, it could break down a lot the barriers and misunderstandings. Unfortunately the area has never been very diverse.
On the other side of the coin there's the numbers, the expense, the illegal element (criminal gangs associated with getting groups across the channel. It feels like generally the welfare state and NHS are on their arse. Are people willing to pay more in taxes when a lot of the population are struggling to survive month to month-PH is not really representative of the UK on a whole on that front.
As it stands I see both sides of the argument. We should treat genuine asylum seekers humanely, interesting to read in other comments re: the slow assessment of cases, why is that? Lack of resources dedicated to do so quicker, sheer number of applications?
Anecdotally my home town has a hotel housing asylum seekers , it does propagate the stereotype that they're mostly young men in this small sample size. They will meet a couple of times a week and play football on one of our rugby pitches. It's not public land, but we're not fussed as they leave no rubbish etc. I often see small groups walking through the park while I'm out walking the dog. They were walking through 3" deep mud in sandals and flip flops, which got me thinking they'll have been through much worse to get here. They keep themselves to themselves and other than some reported violence which was between one resident and another they are causing no one any harm. I'd imagine the majority would happily work if allowed to.
The hotel is due to close, not sure where the current residents will be sent to. It's a shame that more efforts haven't been made to try and integrate these folk with the local community, it could break down a lot the barriers and misunderstandings. Unfortunately the area has never been very diverse.
On the other side of the coin there's the numbers, the expense, the illegal element (criminal gangs associated with getting groups across the channel. It feels like generally the welfare state and NHS are on their arse. Are people willing to pay more in taxes when a lot of the population are struggling to survive month to month-PH is not really representative of the UK on a whole on that front.
Vanden Saab said:
swisstoni said:
It works so well the EU are having to be replace it. Just as soon as members can agree to the replacement.
More people are planned to be sent to Rwanda a year than were ever returned a year under Dublin and that is without taking those we have received into account. Suggesting it made any difference to anything is risible.The first link suggests fewer than 500 a year to Rwanda. Most reporting I've seen has it more like 200. In 2008, there were about 1200 returns via Dublin. There were even over 200 in 2018 and 2019 after it had basically ground to a halt.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/co...
E63eeeeee... said:
Vanden Saab said:
swisstoni said:
It works so well the EU are having to be replace it. Just as soon as members can agree to the replacement.
More people are planned to be sent to Rwanda a year than were ever returned a year under Dublin and that is without taking those we have received into account. Suggesting it made any difference to anything is risible.The first link suggests fewer than 500 a year to Rwanda. Most reporting I've seen has it more like 200. In 2008, there were about 1200 returns via Dublin. There were even over 200 in 2018 and 2019 after it had basically ground to a halt.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/co...
swisstoni said:
Groundhog day …
It's always groundhog day in threads about immigration. I genuinely don't understand what it is about the subject that makes people who know fk all about it make this kind of definitive-sounding statements. There are loads of topics I know basically nothing about. I wouldn't dream of going on the internet and making a confident sounding claim like that on a thread about one of them. I know quite a lot about immigration, but I still wouldn't say something like that without checking if it was actually true. A couple of minutes on Google is all it takes.
It's just f
king weird. If you want to debate immigration policy, that's great. But start with making some kind of effort to know what you're taking about. Or you just end up debating nonsense. Edited by E63eeeeee... on Tuesday 21st November 23:03
swisstoni said:
It works so well the EU are having to be replace it. Just as soon as members can agree to the replacement.
Yeah, the fundamental problem with Dublin was/is that it's not a Europe-wide Asylum system. It does make sense that only one country should process an asylum claim, and you need a mechanism to decide who that should be, Dublin was a valiant attempt to set out some rules for that. Dublin did put pressure on countries that were already handling lots of migrants- basically if you were the first point of arrival, obviously you got lots of people back, but also if you were a country that was already taking lots of migrants you got lots more through the family reunion route (that's what most of the UK's inbound Dublin cases were, rather than people who'd been in the UK first.) It's certainly true that for most of the time we were in it, the UK had net outflow, and that the period when we had Dublin coincided pretty neatly with the 15-year trough between the two recent peaks in UK asylum intake. Is there a realistic chance of us going back into something like Dublin? Who knows. What do we have that the EU wants that we can offer in return? It would be easier to negotiate joining a Europe-wide asylum system, but I suspect we might not like the idea of taking our fair share of Europe's immigrants in practice.
andym1603 said:
Why not just send any migrant back to their own country of origin. If this puts them in danger then so be it, not our problem. This country has enough problems keeping the wheels turning without spending millions keeping asylum seekers in hotels, barges or historic airfields.
Send any migrant back. Blimey that’s a bit harsh even for this place ;-)andym1603 said:
Why not just send any migrant back to their own country of origin. If this puts them in danger then so be it, not our problem. This country has enough problems keeping the wheels turning without spending millions keeping asylum seekers in hotels, barges or historic airfields.
Wow. What a comment. Zero empathy. Zero actual thought. Zero recognition that one day uou might need an immigrant doctor in the nhs to save your life or an immigration care worker yo wipe your arse. Conflating migrants with asylum seekers?
The economy needs migration.
blueg33 said:
Wow. What a comment. Zero empathy. Zero actual thought. Zero recognition that one day uou might need an immigrant doctor in the nhs to save your life or an immigration care worker yo wipe your arse.
Conflating migrants with asylum seekers?
The economy needs migration.
Agree with what you say 100%.Conflating migrants with asylum seekers?
The economy needs migration.
What the economy does not need is a very significant and constant flow of people arriving illegally. Granted, as a genuine assylum seeker, you 'can' arrive that way, but in practice this is sub optimal, as we clearly see the UK has no control over criiminals and terrorists arriving similarly.
I think there needs to be a re-think on the way the illegal routes are deal t with, in order to ensure but genuine assylum and also genuine economic migration can better be processed.
"The economy" doesn't need mass illegal immigration. The ludicrous model of a social welfare state that was concocted in the mid 20th century requires a constantly growing population to support what amounts to a giant ponzi scheme, and the political parties need to be able to continue to promise the most decisive electoral demographic increased pensions, while keeping wages down.
The best way to make this appear to work in theory is to open the floodgates to millions of people coming here on false hopes all round. We think they're all doctors and engineers, they think they're going to be millionaires next week.
There is no way to make it work in the long run for anyone except the cynical crooks who are profiting from it now.
The best way to make this appear to work in theory is to open the floodgates to millions of people coming here on false hopes all round. We think they're all doctors and engineers, they think they're going to be millionaires next week.
There is no way to make it work in the long run for anyone except the cynical crooks who are profiting from it now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff