UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
President Merkin said:
Well yes actually. First you say they're shopping, & it's their own fault. Then when it's pointed out to you the UK has pulled up the drawbridge, you say they'd still come because nice here. To be fair you're slippery & that's ok but let's not pretend you're not slippery all the same 
Mr Penguin said:
The Rwanda policy is a complete waste of money but today brings another reminder of why there needs to be a deterrent on crossing the channel illegally https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/five-migrants-f...
Mr Penguin said:
I think the underlying problem here is that hundreds of thousands of people illegally enter Europe, mostly through Turkey-Greece, Libya-Italy, and Morocco-Spain. Dealing with people crossing the Channel by sending them to Rwanda or back to France is just fixing the problems that come with not dealing with that at a higher cost.
All major European countries need to pay for better defences of Europe's borders at these points, processing facilities to register claims elsewhere and negotiate a change in international law so these people can register outside Europe and have no excuse to enter illegally.
We can start by sending Albanians back, there is no reason for so many Albanians to be seeking asylum.
Also worth remembering that other countries like the Rwanda policy and are looking into it themselves, so the cost of this policy will be replicated across Europe. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/17/cdu-...
Here are the things I've said:All major European countries need to pay for better defences of Europe's borders at these points, processing facilities to register claims elsewhere and negotiate a change in international law so these people can register outside Europe and have no excuse to enter illegally.
We can start by sending Albanians back, there is no reason for so many Albanians to be seeking asylum.
Also worth remembering that other countries like the Rwanda policy and are looking into it themselves, so the cost of this policy will be replicated across Europe. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/17/cdu-...
There needs to be a deterrent to coming here illegally and we need to protect our borders (but primarily at the points of entry to Europe)
Most/many people are here for economic reasons, not for safety (if it was about safety then they wouldn't risk their lives to escape France)
The law needs reform (I didn't say this part, but it is because most of international law was created in the 40s and 50s to deal with the problems of the 40s and 50s and those aren't the problems we face now)
We need to put processing centres outside Europe to filter the genuine cases from the chancers
I think all of those need to happen and dealing with just one aspect won't stop the problem.
Oliver Hardy said:
Looking at the accommodation and Rwanda as a country I will volunteer to go there.
I was going to say the same. As a Brit and getting old I see my future here as cold, poor and miserable.If the migrants don't want to go, stick a few of us oldies on the plane. I'd love a free flight to somewhere warm and a place to live in courtesy of my government
crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
272BHP said:
Mrr T said:
FFS. Bystanders as the word suggests stand and do nothing. They where fighting with the smugglers who where stopping getting to the boats. As a result they did not get to the boat before it launched. What else where they supported to do swim the channel with the boat?
Are you telling me 15 trained police officers (at least) could not stop a boat being launched?Time for them to hand their badges in.
Demonstrates that they do have the powers, just choice when, where and to whom it’s administered perhaps.
the football stadium scenario was a situation caused by people who had paid for entry tickets to watch a football match. The second scenario was people who wanted to make a journey across the English channel for the purpose of making an illegal entry into the U.K. Something that the U.K. is paying the French to stop. Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
272BHP said:
Mrr T said:
FFS. Bystanders as the word suggests stand and do nothing. They where fighting with the smugglers who where stopping getting to the boats. As a result they did not get to the boat before it launched. What else where they supported to do swim the channel with the boat?
Are you telling me 15 trained police officers (at least) could not stop a boat being launched?Time for them to hand their badges in.
Demonstrates that they do have the powers, just choice when, where and to whom it’s administered perhaps.
the football stadium scenario was a situation caused by people who had paid for entry tickets to watch a football match. The second scenario was people who wanted to make a journey across the English channel for the purpose of making an illegal entry into the U.K. Something that the U.K. is paying the French to stop. crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
272BHP said:
Mrr T said:
FFS. Bystanders as the word suggests stand and do nothing. They where fighting with the smugglers who where stopping getting to the boats. As a result they did not get to the boat before it launched. What else where they supported to do swim the channel with the boat?
Are you telling me 15 trained police officers (at least) could not stop a boat being launched?Time for them to hand their badges in.
Demonstrates that they do have the powers, just choice when, where and to whom it’s administered perhaps.
the football stadium scenario was a situation caused by people who had paid for entry tickets to watch a football match. The second scenario was people who wanted to make a journey across the English channel for the purpose of making an illegal entry into the U.K. Something that the U.K. is paying the French to stop. Rivenink said:
"It would take more than three years to remove them all, even if the Home Office hits a high of 15,000 forced deportations a year, which was last seen in 2012.
That number collapsed after departmental cuts and Brexit - although it has now reached 5,000 a year again."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68841417
Tories caused the problem.
Why didn't they keep processing asylum claims from 2012 onwards, and deporting those who did not have a geniune claim?
How much money have they cost the British Taxpayer with their idealogical nonsense?
Don't come here with facts, Stop The Boats!That number collapsed after departmental cuts and Brexit - although it has now reached 5,000 a year again."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68841417
Tories caused the problem.
Why didn't they keep processing asylum claims from 2012 onwards, and deporting those who did not have a geniune claim?
How much money have they cost the British Taxpayer with their idealogical nonsense?
E63eeeeee... said:
crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
272BHP said:
Mrr T said:
FFS. Bystanders as the word suggests stand and do nothing. They where fighting with the smugglers who where stopping getting to the boats. As a result they did not get to the boat before it launched. What else where they supported to do swim the channel with the boat?
Are you telling me 15 trained police officers (at least) could not stop a boat being launched?Time for them to hand their badges in.
Demonstrates that they do have the powers, just choice when, where and to whom it’s administered perhaps.
the football stadium scenario was a situation caused by people who had paid for entry tickets to watch a football match. The second scenario was people who wanted to make a journey across the English channel for the purpose of making an illegal entry into the U.K. Something that the U.K. is paying the French to stop. Wings said:
If only.crankedup5 said:
E63eeeeee... said:
crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
Mrr T said:
crankedup5 said:
272BHP said:
Mrr T said:
FFS. Bystanders as the word suggests stand and do nothing. They where fighting with the smugglers who where stopping getting to the boats. As a result they did not get to the boat before it launched. What else where they supported to do swim the channel with the boat?
Are you telling me 15 trained police officers (at least) could not stop a boat being launched?Time for them to hand their badges in.
Demonstrates that they do have the powers, just choice when, where and to whom it’s administered perhaps.
the football stadium scenario was a situation caused by people who had paid for entry tickets to watch a football match. The second scenario was people who wanted to make a journey across the English channel for the purpose of making an illegal entry into the U.K. Something that the U.K. is paying the French to stop. Mr Penguin said:
Here are the things I've said:
There needs to be a deterrent to coming here illegally and we need to protect our borders (but primarily at the points of entry to Europe)
Most/many people are here for economic reasons, not for safety (if it was about safety then they wouldn't risk their lives to escape France)
The law needs reform (I didn't say this part, but it is because most of international law was created in the 40s and 50s to deal with the problems of the 40s and 50s and those aren't the problems we face now)
We need to put processing centres outside Europe to filter the genuine cases from the chancers
I think all of those need to happen and dealing with just one aspect won't stop the problem.
A most reasonable overview. There needs to be a deterrent to coming here illegally and we need to protect our borders (but primarily at the points of entry to Europe)
Most/many people are here for economic reasons, not for safety (if it was about safety then they wouldn't risk their lives to escape France)
The law needs reform (I didn't say this part, but it is because most of international law was created in the 40s and 50s to deal with the problems of the 40s and 50s and those aren't the problems we face now)
We need to put processing centres outside Europe to filter the genuine cases from the chancers
I think all of those need to happen and dealing with just one aspect won't stop the problem.
Have you considered standing for election ?
Mr Penguin said:
Here are the things I've said:
There needs to be a deterrent to coming here illegally and we need to protect our borders (but primarily at the points of entry to Europe)
Most/many people are here for economic reasons, not for safety (if it was about safety then they wouldn't risk their lives to escape France)
The law needs reform (I didn't say this part, but it is because most of international law was created in the 40s and 50s to deal with the problems of the 40s and 50s and those aren't the problems we face now)
We need to put processing centres outside Europe to filter the genuine cases from the chancers
I think all of those need to happen and dealing with just one aspect won't stop the problem.
I really don't believe that Rwanda will deter people who have already crossed Europe. It was after all a plan designed by Dominic Cummings as a distraction with no intent of it becoming law.There needs to be a deterrent to coming here illegally and we need to protect our borders (but primarily at the points of entry to Europe)
Most/many people are here for economic reasons, not for safety (if it was about safety then they wouldn't risk their lives to escape France)
The law needs reform (I didn't say this part, but it is because most of international law was created in the 40s and 50s to deal with the problems of the 40s and 50s and those aren't the problems we face now)
We need to put processing centres outside Europe to filter the genuine cases from the chancers
I think all of those need to happen and dealing with just one aspect won't stop the problem.
We need safe legal routes. (PS arriving by boat isn't illegal as you have to be in the country to claim asylum - explained a thousand times on this thread)
Totally agree, we should have processing centres but in Europe as well as elsewhere. We have to accept that if you are at risk of being tortured in Afghanistan, you are unlikely to be able to walk up to a UK processing centre in Afghanistan and get as far as the door.
Asylum seekers need to be a collective responsibility and thats what the current international laws seek to achieve.
We still have many fewer asylum seekers than most other countries in Europe, we have to take our share.
crankedup5 said:
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
If only.
Plenty of seats there for JRM, Cruella, Badenoch, Patel, Cleverley, Gove, Dorries, CorbynThey are already shown on the link - don't tell me you didn't actually look at it, but felt you should comment anyway?
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
If only.
Plenty of seats there for JRM, Cruella, Badenoch, Patel, Cleverley, Gove, Dorries, CorbynThey are already shown on the link - don't tell me you didn't actually look at it, but felt you should comment anyway?
crankedup5 said:
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
If only.
Plenty of seats there for JRM, Cruella, Badenoch, Patel, Cleverley, Gove, Dorries, CorbynThey are already shown on the link - don't tell me you didn't actually look at it, but felt you should comment anyway?
blueg33 said:
I really don't believe that Rwanda will deter people who have already crossed Europe. It was after all a plan designed by Dominic Cummings as a distraction with no intent of it becoming law.
We need safe legal routes. (PS arriving by boat isn't illegal as you have to be in the country to claim asylum - explained a thousand times on this thread)
Totally agree, we should have processing centres but in Europe as well as elsewhere. We have to accept that if you are at risk of being tortured in Afghanistan, you are unlikely to be able to walk up to a UK processing centre in Afghanistan and get as far as the door.
Asylum seekers need to be a collective responsibility and thats what the current international laws seek to achieve.
We still have many fewer asylum seekers than most other countries in Europe, we have to take our share.
Any centres need to be placed strategically - it isn't reasonable to put it in Afghanistan but there is no reason for them to come all the way to Europe to register. Pakistan, central Asia, maybe Turkey would be good locations for them. If those exist then there would be no justification for them to cross seas in rubber dinghies. Just go to your nearest UN refugee centre and submit your claim to be processed.We need safe legal routes. (PS arriving by boat isn't illegal as you have to be in the country to claim asylum - explained a thousand times on this thread)
Totally agree, we should have processing centres but in Europe as well as elsewhere. We have to accept that if you are at risk of being tortured in Afghanistan, you are unlikely to be able to walk up to a UK processing centre in Afghanistan and get as far as the door.
Asylum seekers need to be a collective responsibility and thats what the current international laws seek to achieve.
We still have many fewer asylum seekers than most other countries in Europe, we have to take our share.
Mr Penguin said:
Any centres need to be placed strategically - it isn't reasonable to put it in Afghanistan but there is no reason for them to come all the way to Europe to register. Pakistan, central Asia, maybe Turkey would be good locations for them. If those exist then there would be no justification for them to cross seas in rubber dinghies. Just go to your nearest UN refugee centre and submit your claim to be processed.
You could call them 'Embassies' where they could start their claim and then simply come into the UK via regular means to continue their application. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff