UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
Ian Geary said:
If asylum numbers increase, then it stands to reason costs of housing them will increase.
While that is true most of the increase is directly due to government policy to, 1. Not process applications for anyone arriving by boat for 3 months 2. allowing the numbers who receive an initial decision within 6 months to fall significantly. b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Moving human beings half way around the world and leaving them there is emotive too.
Is that on the list of things people shouldn't talk about because it's "emotive" to some people?
Taking that at face value, people suffering persecution move half way around the world to find a safe country for asylum purposes, in danger and therefore with some suffering on the way.Is that on the list of things people shouldn't talk about because it's "emotive" to some people?
Is moving to another safe country involving a similar length of journey, in safety, better or worse? Or in terms of safety and related suffering, not significantly different?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with human emotion as it's part of the human condition. The point at which it clouds otherwise rational judgement is also something to talk about.
turbobloke said:
Taking that at face value, people suffering persecution move half way around the world to find a safe country for asylum purposes, in danger and therefore with some suffering on the way.
Is moving to another safe country involving a similar length of journey, in safety, better or worse? Or in terms of safety and related suffering, not significantly different?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with human emotion as it's part of the human condition. The point at which it clouds otherwise rational judgement is also something to talk about.
Potentially, if someone has to move to a safe country and build a new life, there are benefits in them going t places where they have language commonality and maybe family and friends already there. Thats why the "first safe country" is not necessarily appropriateIs moving to another safe country involving a similar length of journey, in safety, better or worse? Or in terms of safety and related suffering, not significantly different?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with human emotion as it's part of the human condition. The point at which it clouds otherwise rational judgement is also something to talk about.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Moving human beings half way around the world and leaving them there is emotive too.
Is that on the list of things people shouldn't talk about because it's "emotive" to some people?
Personally, I view the facts differently. No doubt we could debate it for ages but I'll leave you to it, I've made my point.Is that on the list of things people shouldn't talk about because it's "emotive" to some people?
blueg33 said:
turbobloke said:
Taking that at face value, people suffering persecution move half way around the world to find a safe country for asylum purposes, in danger and therefore with some suffering on the way.
Is moving to another safe country involving a similar length of journey, in safety, better or worse? Or in terms of safety and related suffering, not significantly different?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with human emotion as it's part of the human condition. The point at which it clouds otherwise rational judgement is also something to talk about.
Potentially, if someone has to move to a safe country and build a new life, there are benefits in them going t places where they have language commonality and maybe family and friends already there. Thats why the "first safe country" is not necessarily appropriateIs moving to another safe country involving a similar length of journey, in safety, better or worse? Or in terms of safety and related suffering, not significantly different?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with human emotion as it's part of the human condition. The point at which it clouds otherwise rational judgement is also something to talk about.
Like I said earlier with regards to the Syrian issues. The biggest recipients of refugees is Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey which are next door and most will want to go back once the great unpleasantness has passed as Syria is home.
Same with most other conflicts which force a sizeable percentage of the population to flee.
crankedup5 said:
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
U.K. are accepting people from all parts of the Globe, working visa scheme.(sorry, I assumed it was 'post an irrelevant fact' time)
robinessex said:
Private firms profiting from UK asylum hotels
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64991234
Private firms are making increased profits as the government pays millions of pounds a day to put up asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learned.
BBC News has been told 395 hotels are being used to house asylum seekers, as arrivals to the UK rose last year.
Documents show one booking agency used by the Home Office trebled its pre-tax profits from £2.1m to £6.3m in the 12 months up to February 2022.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/50...
Tens of thousands of asylum claimants are staying in approximately 200 hotels, alongside an unknown number in hostels. With asylum-related hotel provision rising amidst a mounting case backlog and record dinghy crossings, the cost of such hotel accommodation to taxpayers is nearly £1.3 billion per year – over a billion more than the forecast of up to £70 million that was issued by the government in March 2021. The result is that private sector providers are now being handed ever-ballooning amounts of taxpayer money - over and above even their substantial 2019 contracted amounts - to place asylum seekers into hotels, at an estimated cost of nearly £4,300 per asylum seeker per month. That is 1.5 times the average monthly pay for an NHS nurse (£2,782).
The Home office stated back in November (10th) that the number of hotels being used to house asylum seekers was 419, under a FOI recently (December 31st) the number was increased to 452 hotels (Home Office number).https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64991234
Private firms are making increased profits as the government pays millions of pounds a day to put up asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learned.
BBC News has been told 395 hotels are being used to house asylum seekers, as arrivals to the UK rose last year.
Documents show one booking agency used by the Home Office trebled its pre-tax profits from £2.1m to £6.3m in the 12 months up to February 2022.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/50...
Tens of thousands of asylum claimants are staying in approximately 200 hotels, alongside an unknown number in hostels. With asylum-related hotel provision rising amidst a mounting case backlog and record dinghy crossings, the cost of such hotel accommodation to taxpayers is nearly £1.3 billion per year – over a billion more than the forecast of up to £70 million that was issued by the government in March 2021. The result is that private sector providers are now being handed ever-ballooning amounts of taxpayer money - over and above even their substantial 2019 contracted amounts - to place asylum seekers into hotels, at an estimated cost of nearly £4,300 per asylum seeker per month. That is 1.5 times the average monthly pay for an NHS nurse (£2,782).
Since the beginning of the year, 3,680 migrants have crossed the channel. Hence, the reported number of hotels (independent sources) of 480+ hotels being used to house asylum seekers is probably the more likely number.
rscott said:
crankedup5 said:
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
U.K. are accepting people from all parts of the Globe, working visa scheme.(sorry, I assumed it was 'post an irrelevant fact' time)
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
Correct, to put it another way imagine an investment scheme where 5 out of 100 people lost their £5,000 investment with the money going to the other 95. If you could afford the £5,000 you might invest whereas if the money was all you had not so much. Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
Vanden Saab said:
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
Correct, to put it another way imagine an investment scheme where 5 out of 100 people lost their £5,000 investment with the money going to the other 95. If you could afford the £5,000 you might invest whereas if the money was all you had not so much. Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
I know, crazy talk.
Vanden Saab said:
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
Correct, to put it another way imagine an investment scheme where 5 out of 100 people lost their £5,000 investment with the money going to the other 95. If you could afford the £5,000 you might invest whereas if the money was all you had not so much. Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
Vanden Saab said:
Correct, to put it another way imagine an investment scheme where 5 out of 100 people lost their £5,000 investment with the money going to the other 95. If you could afford the £5,000 you might invest whereas if the money was all you had not so much.
Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
sugerbear said:
Vanden Saab said:
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
Correct, to put it another way imagine an investment scheme where 5 out of 100 people lost their £5,000 investment with the money going to the other 95. If you could afford the £5,000 you might invest whereas if the money was all you had not so much. Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
I know, crazy talk.
Vanden Saab said:
sugerbear said:
Vanden Saab said:
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
Correct, to put it another way imagine an investment scheme where 5 out of 100 people lost their £5,000 investment with the money going to the other 95. If you could afford the £5,000 you might invest whereas if the money was all you had not so much. Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
I know, crazy talk.
sugerbear said:
Vanden Saab said:
sugerbear said:
Vanden Saab said:
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
Correct, to put it another way imagine an investment scheme where 5 out of 100 people lost their £5,000 investment with the money going to the other 95. If you could afford the £5,000 you might invest whereas if the money was all you had not so much. Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
I know, crazy talk.
sugerbear said:
Vanden Saab said:
sugerbear said:
Vanden Saab said:
Squadrone Rosso said:
As I understand it, if Rwanda take our Asylum seekers, we will accept the same number of Rwandans over here?
Correct, to put it another way imagine an investment scheme where 5 out of 100 people lost their £5,000 investment with the money going to the other 95. If you could afford the £5,000 you might invest whereas if the money was all you had not so much. Rwanda is not about stopping people coming here it is about stopping those who are bypassing the system or are jumping the queue.
I know, crazy talk.
The latest stats from the ONS, suggest we need immigrants.
Nearly half (47.5%) of specialist doctors, such as oncologists and cardiologists, were born outside the UK.
About how many British born vs immigrants are in work, putting paid to that claim they just come here for benefits
Of people aged 16+ in England and Wales, 55.9% of those born in the UK were in employment. This compares with
▪️ 70.8% of those born in the EU
▪️ 58.0% among those born in non-EU countries
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/p...
Nearly half (47.5%) of specialist doctors, such as oncologists and cardiologists, were born outside the UK.
About how many British born vs immigrants are in work, putting paid to that claim they just come here for benefits
Of people aged 16+ in England and Wales, 55.9% of those born in the UK were in employment. This compares with
▪️ 70.8% of those born in the EU
▪️ 58.0% among those born in non-EU countries
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/p...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff