UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[crankedup5]

blueg33 said:

crankedup5 said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup5 said:

blueg33 said:

crankedup5 said:

If only.

Plenty of seats there for JRM, Cruella, Badenoch, Patel, Cleverley, Gove, Dorries, Corbyn

Oh look you forgot SKS, Rayner, Reeves, Dodds all waiting their chance to become infamous.

Eh?

They are already shown on the link - don't tell me you didn't actually look at it, but felt you should comment anyway?

I just enjoyed writing it, nothing like a bit of poking extra fun.

Hardly worth the effort IMO

But you felt the need to comment, hardly worth the effort IMO.

[don'tbesilly]

I see Michael O’Leary (Ryanair) has stated he’d “happily” offer Rwandan deportation flights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24...

[chrispmartha]

don'tbesilly said:

I see Michael O’Leary (Ryanair) has stated he’d “happily” offer Rwandan deportation flights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24...

I bet he would, he's not daft, he'd be able to charge silly money.

[James6112]

It should be an easy fix..
Get agreement with France, every arrival for a month will be returned.
The gangs organise trips the day after…
The day beford expiry, extend it by a couple of weeks.
Pay France a £billion. Cheaper than the Tory posturing.
Do that for a few months, their business is destroyed, for everybodies benefit.
Easy peasy.

[fly by wire]

James6112 said:

It should be an easy fix..
Get agreement with France, every arrival for a month will be returned.
The gangs organise trips the day after…
The day beford expiry, extend it by a couple of weeks.
Pay France a £billion. Cheaper than the Tory posturing.
Do that for a few months, their business is destroyed, for everybodies benefit.
Easy peasy.

I can see just one slight problem here...

[Catweazle]

don'tbesilly said:

I see Michael O’Leary (Ryanair) has stated he’d “happily” offer Rwandan deportation flights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24...

There's the solution, after being charged £000s for a channel crossing in/on a small boat then being charged £000s for a sandwich and a drink on a flight to Rwanda they won't have any money left for a second attempt.

[blueg33]

Five people died yesterday attempting a small boat crossing. When they do it, they know there is a reasonable change they will die on the trip. It’s not a deterrent to them.

How is the slim chance they will be sent to Rwanda more of a deterrent?

[crankedup5]

blueg33 said:

Five people died yesterday attempting a small boat crossing. When they do it, they know there is a reasonable change they will die on the trip. It’s not a deterrent to them.

How is the slim chance they will be sent to Rwanda more of a deterrent?

Isn’t this part of a suite of actions aimed at ‘stopping the boats’.
U.K. working with French to police the beaches.
U.K. working with Interpol identifying and actioning against trafficking gangs.
Now the Rwanda policy to be actioned.

[CoolHands]

blueg33 said:

Five people died yesterday attempting a small boat crossing. When they do it, they know there is a reasonable change they will die on the trip. It’s not a deterrent to them.

How is the slim chance they will be sent to Rwanda more of a deterrent?

I’m no genius but I suppose having paid £10k to the shippers, when they get launched to Rwanda they won’t be able to afford to go round again

[Mr Penguin]

CoolHands said:

I’m no genius but I suppose having paid £10k to the shippers, when they get launched to Rwanda they won’t be able to afford to go round again

And the vast majority are from countries closer to Britain than Rwanda is so it would cost even more the second time round.

[Ridgemont]

Mr Penguin said:

CoolHands said:

I’m no genius but I suppose having paid £10k to the shippers, when they get launched to Rwanda they won’t be able to afford to go round again

And the vast majority are from countries closer to Britain than Rwanda is so it would cost even more the second time round.

Well the current flavour of the month re the smuggling gangs are Vietnamese so I suspect it’s all relative.


That said, the crux of the Rwanda proposal is it is absolutely one way. Once out there you can apply for long term asylum in Rwanda or you get re-exported back home. There is no right of return to the UK. Though I’m sure the forthcoming law fare will fight that tooth and nail, but they will have to be present in Rwandan/Uk courts in Kigali.

So there is no way back bar taking long term asylum in Rwanda and then heading back across the Sahara: which in most cases have not been crossed originally. (Cf Albanians and Vietnamese).

I suspect if this gets up and running it will kill the channel surfing process stone dead.

[Mr Penguin]

I think most are still from other countries and no single country amounts to more than half of the total.
With Vietnam it seems they are going to Hungary legally then entering France legally and only being smuggled across the channel which will be a lot cheaper and easier than doing the full trip illegally.

[Ridgemont]

Mr Penguin said:

I think most are still from other countries and no single country amounts to more than half of the total.
With Vietnam it seems they are going to Hungary legally then entering France legally and only being smuggled across the channel which will be a lot cheaper and easier than doing the full trip illegally.

Indeed. However it suddenly becomes a lot more expensive if you inadvertently end up in Kigali with the only resource being:
1) become a happy citizen of Rwanda
2) shipped home to Vietnam
3) make a break across the expanse of North Africa hoping you don’t end up dehydrated remains in the Sahara

[LF5335]

Ridgemont said:

Well the current flavour of the month re the smuggling gangs are Vietnamese so I suspect it’s all relative.


That said, the crux of the Rwanda proposal is it is absolutely one way. Once out there you can apply for long term asylum in Rwanda or you get re-exported back home. There is no right of return to the UK. Though I’m sure the forthcoming law fare will fight that tooth and nail, but they will have to be present in Rwandan/Uk courts in Kigali.

So there is no way back bar taking long term asylum in Rwanda and then heading back across the Sahara: which in most cases have not been crossed originally. (Cf Albanians and Vietnamese).

I suspect if this gets up and running it will kill the channel surfing process stone dead.

You come across as someone who thinks every Channel crosser is going to Rwanda. Here’s a hint, they aren’t.

Compare the chances of dying crossing the Channel with the chances of being sent to Rwanda and then work out whether it will “kill the channel (sic) surfing process stone dead”

[Ridgemont]

LF5335 said:

Ridgemont said:

Well the current flavour of the month re the smuggling gangs are Vietnamese so I suspect it’s all relative.


That said, the crux of the Rwanda proposal is it is absolutely one way. Once out there you can apply for long term asylum in Rwanda or you get re-exported back home. There is no right of return to the UK. Though I’m sure the forthcoming law fare will fight that tooth and nail, but they will have to be present in Rwandan/Uk courts in Kigali.

So there is no way back bar taking long term asylum in Rwanda and then heading back across the Sahara: which in most cases have not been crossed originally. (Cf Albanians and Vietnamese).

I suspect if this gets up and running it will kill the channel surfing process stone dead.

You come across as someone who thinks every Channel crosser is going to Rwanda. Here’s a hint, they aren’t.

Compare the chances of dying crossing the Channel with the chances of being sent to Rwanda and then work out whether it will “kill the channel (sic) surfing process stone dead”

Since I didn’t state that, I guess that’s in your head not mine.

[blueg33]

Ridgemont said:

I suspect if this gets up and running it will kill the channel surfing process stone dead.

Timeframe for this?

I'm prepared to bet that it makes zero material difference between now and when the law is repealed.

[Vipers]

crankedup5 said:

blueg33 said:

Five people died yesterday attempting a small boat crossing. When they do it, they know there is a reasonable change they will die on the trip. It’s not a deterrent to them.

How is the slim chance they will be sent to Rwanda more of a deterrent?

Isn’t this part of a suite of actions aimed at ‘stopping the boats’.
U.K. working with French to police the beaches.
U.K. working with Interpol identifying and actioning against trafficking gangs.
Now the Rwanda policy to be actioned.

Not so much why do they do it, why dont the French stop them, didnt they see the boats being carried down to the beach, didnt they know it would happen, all they had to do was stick a knife in the boat before it launched, or better still, had more police and stopped it. We should be asking for a refund. And my view on Rwanda, never happen.

[crankedup5]

chrispmartha said:

don'tbesilly said:

I see Michael O’Leary (Ryanair) has stated he’d “happily” offer Rwandan deportation flights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24...

I bet he would, he's not daft, he'd be able to charge silly money.

That’s right, well done, it’s called business. Or are you against business as well?

[blueg33]

crankedup5 said:

chrispmartha said:

don'tbesilly said:

I see Michael O’Leary (Ryanair) has stated he’d “happily” offer Rwandan deportation flights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24...

I bet he would, he's not daft, he'd be able to charge silly money.

That’s right, well done, it’s called business. Or are you against business as well?

The people traffickers run a business too. It's debateable how much difference there is between them and Ryan Air.................

[philv]

According to Irish authorities, asylum seekers are being put of by threat of being sent to rwanda are heading to Ireland instead.

Not great for Ireland, but.....