UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
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?
What is your idea of success.
sunbeam alpine said:
....
No surprise to see the usual Brexit-supporting racists cheering this on...
You think that sort of comment is the way to improve things in the country?No surprise to see the usual Brexit-supporting racists cheering this on...
What about proEU racists? Or do they not exist in your world because anyone supporting the EU cannot be a racist?
2xChevrons said:
I still manage to be surprised by how venal and purposefully, callously cruel this government can be. Sadly.
Leaving our own personal politics out of it: it's clear the corrupt, callous and cruel people in this situation are the people traffickers They are exploiting individuals who either unknowingly (or more likely knowingly) are being "sold" (extorted for) a lie that puts them in danger.
It's been pointed out numerous times there's no easy solution, and the government are having to pick an option somewhere between the extremes of:
- absorbing and endless stream of the world's poor into the UK, thus watering down the living standard of our country's citizens/voters
- machine gunning dingies from the cliffs of Dover
This trial is obviously between those two extremes.
I suspect those outraged by it either don't have to secure political support for their job, or are well insulated from the impacts.
Just crying "the nasty Tories" does nothing to take the issue forward, and is just ignoring it (which: I think we all know is not the best thing to do with a problem)
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?
Rick1.8t said:
Australia sent its migrants elsewhere and that failed,
Not sure why you think it failed?Australia was seeing illegal migration by boat of around 20K people. they brought in "operation sovereign borders" and almost intermediately saw a claimed 90% drop in people trying to cross by boat.
Ian Geary said:
Leaving our own personal politics out of it: it's clear the corrupt, callous and cruel people in this situation are the people traffickers
They are exploiting individuals who either unknowingly (or more likely knowingly) are being "sold" (extorted for) a lie that puts them in danger.
It's been pointed out numerous times there's no easy solution, and the government are having to pick an option somewhere between the extremes of:
- absorbing and endless stream of the world's poor into the UK, thus watering down the living standard of our country's citizens/voters
- machine gunning dingies from the cliffs of Dover
This trial is obviously between those two extremes.
I suspect those outraged by it either don't have to secure political support for their job, or are well insulated from the impacts.
Just crying "the nasty Tories" does nothing to take the issue forward, and is just ignoring it (which: I think we all know is not the best thing to do with a problem)
There are plenty of less despicable solutions in between "let them all in" and "machine gun them all" - sending them to Rwanda is not the only one. Multiple alternatives have been suggested, both here in NP&E, in the wider world, in the political sphere and in Whitehall. But, addressing your bolded bit, you're right than none of them are politically or electorally acceptable to those charged with actually implementing any sort of solution. They are exploiting individuals who either unknowingly (or more likely knowingly) are being "sold" (extorted for) a lie that puts them in danger.
It's been pointed out numerous times there's no easy solution, and the government are having to pick an option somewhere between the extremes of:
- absorbing and endless stream of the world's poor into the UK, thus watering down the living standard of our country's citizens/voters
- machine gunning dingies from the cliffs of Dover
This trial is obviously between those two extremes.
I suspect those outraged by it either don't have to secure political support for their job, or are well insulated from the impacts.
Just crying "the nasty Tories" does nothing to take the issue forward, and is just ignoring it (which: I think we all know is not the best thing to do with a problem)
To me that doesn't absolve them of criticism for choosing an unworkable and inhumane solution to a differently inhumane issue. "We had to do it because otherwise our voter base wouldn't like us!" isn't a very good excuse.
Google [bot] said:
Rick1.8t said:
Australia sent its migrants elsewhere and that failed
Did it?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Proce...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution
s1962a said:
£120m downpayment for 500 people, with no upper limit as long as we pay sounds like a terrible waste of money to me. Who's paying for this?
A £120m downpayment followed by billions of pounds, all paid to a Government that doesn't currently have free and fair elections. I hope this policy doesn't create more refugees in the long run.
JagLover said:
Which just shows its suddenly been put through to escape the heat from party gate, will never actually happen and Boris can say it would've been great if it weren't for those pesky lefties.GranpaB said:
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.
It is very sad that the UK is seen as an easy target.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.
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?
TJSFWG said:
Which just shows its suddenly been put through to escape the heat from party gate, will never actually happen and Boris can say it would've been great if it weren't for those pesky lefties.
I can see this playing out straight from the Conservative Party Strategy Guide (Post-2015 Edition):
1) Announce a 'red meat' policy that large parts of the voter base really like the idea of, even though it's practically, financially, logistically and legally difficult to the point of impossibility (vis: Shipping Asylum Claimants To Another Country For Processing).
2) Bask in the adulation of the friendly press. Say that criticism from the non-friendly press is just a sign that you're doing the right thing because the Metropolitan Woke Elites are Out of Touch With What Ordinary People Want.
3) Wait. Do nothing, or do bare minimum towards achieving stated policy. Realise that it's, like, really difficult and expensive. Anyway, the heat's off now.
4) When questioned as to why only five people have been sent to Rwanda in the past three years, and why there's now a £400 million, nine-year backlog of legal cases against the UK Government for its actions, say that the idea was thwarted by Activist Lawyers, Woke Civil Servants, the Marxist Channel 4 and Jack Monroe.
5) Say that only the Conservatives can deliver what the British people want and defeat all these hostile forces within.
6) Win majority in 2024.
7) Repeat.
pquinn said:
menousername said:
Wonder if this be acceptable for Ukrainian refugees also
I am in no way championing the current situation but it is entirely possible / probable that a significant portion of those arriving are fleeing some kind of war, instability or persecution
You might have noticed the Ukrainians are getting paperwork and approval first, not turning up in dingies? I am in no way championing the current situation but it is entirely possible / probable that a significant portion of those arriving are fleeing some kind of war, instability or persecution
2xChevrons said:
I can see this playing out straight from the Conservative Party Strategy Guide (Post-2015 Edition):
1) Announce a 'red meat' policy that large parts of the voter base really like the idea of, even though it's practically, financially, logistically and legally difficult to the point of impossibility (vis: Shipping Asylum Claimants To Another Country For Processing).
2) Bask in the adulation of the friendly press. Say that criticism from the non-friendly press is just a sign that you're doing the right thing because the Metropolitan Woke Elites are Out of Touch With What Ordinary People Want.
3) Wait. Do nothing, or do bare minimum towards achieving stated policy. Realise that it's, like, really difficult and expensive. Anyway, the heat's off now.
4) When questioned as to why only five people have been sent to Rwanda in the past three years, and why there's now a £400 million, nine-year backlog of legal cases against the UK Government for its actions, say that the idea was thwarted by Activist Lawyers, Woke Civil Servants, the Marxist Channel 4 and Jack Monroe.
5) Say that only the Conservatives can deliver what the British people want and defeat all these hostile forces within.
6) Win majority in 2024.
7) Repeat.
gotoPzero said:
I am pleased something is being done, I just hope they follow through with it.
I am also pleased to see the military will be protecting the area around Dover - that should have happened years ago.
The fact someone can "rubber dinghy rapids" it over from France to the UK is frankly mental.
The Royal Navy won't break international lawI am also pleased to see the military will be protecting the area around Dover - that should have happened years ago.
The fact someone can "rubber dinghy rapids" it over from France to the UK is frankly mental.
So nothing will change.
cirian75 said:
gotoPzero said:
I am pleased something is being done, I just hope they follow through with it.
I am also pleased to see the military will be protecting the area around Dover - that should have happened years ago.
The fact someone can "rubber dinghy rapids" it over from France to the UK is frankly mental.
The Royal Navy won't break international lawI am also pleased to see the military will be protecting the area around Dover - that should have happened years ago.
The fact someone can "rubber dinghy rapids" it over from France to the UK is frankly mental.
So nothing will change.
Just gives the frothers erections thinking the armed forces will sort it all out when they’ll be doing nothing different than Border Force staff did.
Ludicrous idea regardless of what it costs at the moment (which is probably mis-managed and used to line their mates and donors pockets anyway).
Sort of the official routes for migration. Make the next steps more efficient.
Not sure it's rocket science - but I am probably giving too much credit there to Priti and team.
Sort of the official routes for migration. Make the next steps more efficient.
Not sure it's rocket science - but I am probably giving too much credit there to Priti and team.
600 people crossed the channel the other day according to the BBC.
The accommodation the asylum seekers will be housed in is thought to have enough space for around 100 people at a time and to process up to 500 a year.
Last year there were 28,000 people arrive by boat in the UK.
Any idea's how long it will take for the Home Office to deal with asylum claims? Lets be generous and say 4 months (although in reality it will be longer). 300 people per year will pass through the accommodation hotel. I'm not sure its a big deterrent if you have a 99% chance of NOT being sent to Rwanda.
The accommodation the asylum seekers will be housed in is thought to have enough space for around 100 people at a time and to process up to 500 a year.
Last year there were 28,000 people arrive by boat in the UK.
Any idea's how long it will take for the Home Office to deal with asylum claims? Lets be generous and say 4 months (although in reality it will be longer). 300 people per year will pass through the accommodation hotel. I'm not sure its a big deterrent if you have a 99% chance of NOT being sent to Rwanda.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff