One-way ticket to Rwanda for some UK asylum seekers

[Rodcx500z]

The people who caused this got away scot free, B and B there is your clue like it or not these two caused this

 

[Brewnaldo]

But this is about whether or not its the right way to treat people, and whether or not we are doing enough/the right things to prevent displaced people coming to harm.

It's also about Britain's place and responsibility in the world.

If you can't see this Rwanda bollocks as a populist dead cat I don't know what to tell you.

I just hope the courts throw it out. I also hope the backers of this policy do not then throw their lot in with the ***** Boris as he attacks the justice system via the media in the aftermath, because if the pillar of impartial justice is lost in this country, a lot of people who voted for the leopards who eat peoples faces party are going to get a fright, when a leopard eats their face.

 

[starseeker]

Tens of millions? That’s a phenomenal figure, what’s your source.

Quite easy ,since the labour government removed the barriers to immigration ,there are now approx 1 million extra people who are living in this country ,some basic maths quite easily takes you to the figure of tens of millions if things carry on as they are ,

 

[Chippy_Tea]

You appear to haver missed my earlier question -

Brewnaldo said:
No. For now the third or fourth time, no one is saying we accept every claim for asylum.

Chippy tea said -
Where do they draw the line?
Where do they put the people who's claims fail?

.

 

[Brewnaldo]

You appear to haver missed my earlier question -






.

Where do they put them now? Is there no room to improve that here? Is Rwanda somehow the only answer?

Please remember that me not being an expert and not having an oven ready (lol see wot I did there) solution to offer you on a beer forum does not mean I can't or shouldn't call out an utterly ridiculous policy or a government fast breaking their own records in terms of callous treatment and punching down.

 

[Brewnaldo]

Quite easy ,since the labour government removed the barriers to immigration ,there are now approx 1 million extra people who are living in this country ,some basic maths quite easily takes you to the figure of tens of millions if things carry on as they are ,

Absolutely ludicrous.

"Some basic maths".

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Where do they put them now? Is there no room to improve that here? Is Rwanda somehow the only answer?

I haven't a clue where they put them now maybe in hotels that cost £5 million a week (mentioned earlier in the thread)

I don't know if Rwanda is the only answer but we cannot indefinitely take the number that are determined to come here illegally.

I also would like to know what reason they chose Rwanda.

 

[TonyT]

Quite easy ,since the labour government removed the barriers to immigration ,there are now approx 1 million extra people who are living in this country ,some basic maths quite easily takes you to the figure of tens of millions if things carry on as they are ,

But there are still barriers to immigration. Which ones did Labour remove that resulted in 1m more people living here? What’s the connection? Who are they and where did they come from and when? Again, what’s your source? If they’ve come as a result of reduced barriers then they’re not illegal. If they’re not illegal, then what’s the problem?Because so far it just seems as if you’re spouting Faragesque rhetoric without any substance. Let’s face it, as I said before 10s of millions of people coming across the channel in dodgy RIBs is a phenomenal number.

 

[Brewnaldo]

But there are still barriers to immigration. Which ones did Labour remove that resulted in 1m more people living here? What’s the connection? Who are they and where did they come from and when? Again, what’s your source? If they’ve come as a result of reduced barriers then they’re not illegal. If they’re not illegal, then what’s the problem?Because so far it just seems as if you’re spouting Faragesque rhetoric without any substance. Let’s face it, as I said before 10s of millions of people coming across the channel in dodgy RIBs is a phenomenal number.

Its either a lie said knowingly in bad faith, or its a breathtaking display of ignorance on the subject seasoned with an obvious unwillingness to go and learn.

Something that sadly punctuated this sort of debate any time it comes up.

 

[trueblue]

MP defends government's Rwanda plan and it immediately backfires (msn.com)

 

[Crappyfish]

I do wish people would do a little research before posting this simply is not the case.
People coming here illegally on boats and in the back of lorries will be sent to Rwanda for processing genuine asylum seekers have nothing to worry about.

I refer you to my earlier quote from BBC News -
Some asylum seekers who cross the Channel to the UK will be given a one-way ticket to Rwanda under new government plans.
The pilot scheme will focus on single men arriving on boats or lorries.

You can bet the "pilot " scheme will work if Tory popularity goes up.

 

[Bolsover Brewer]

Seems to work in Australia. New Guinea and Noumea are the processing countries for Australia. Seems to have stopped the illegal immigrants there, I doubt anyone would like to end up in Port Morseby. Ranked one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Open up your hearts and homes and give these refugees a chance, remove the Rawanda alternative. Lets offer a solution instead of an opinion.

 

[Eskdale]

Here in Australia we do have room for asylum seekers, problem is they arrive here with no papers! Hence the Port Moresby solution. Boat people aren't illiterate, once they know they will be shipped to Port Moresby they don't want to come here. So I would say that what your government is doing is doing is really just a bluff. Illegal immigrants know well and truly what social services they will receive, don't think for one minute they don't just come on a whim. Each case has to be taken on its merit, having no papers isn't one.

Emma

 

[AlBrew]

I don't know what the answer is but this has been going on far too long and it needs to stop.
As discussed earlier in the thread I (and others) don't see why genuine asylum seekers who have no family ties to the U.K cannot stay at the first safe country they get to.

View attachment 66736


View attachment 66738

For no other reason than transparency, both of these images are of migrants crossing the Med and not the Channel, they may well be on their way to the UK but they also may not be.

Cannada took the ones shown in the first picture, ....the ones that survived anyway.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Internat...nts-suffocated-packed-boat-off-libya-81222676
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/migrant-crisis-1400-rescued-mediterranean-4372361/lite/

 

[AlBrew]

If you enter the UK with a false (or no) passport that makes you an illegal immigrant, however, we have provision in law to help people who have a genuine reason for not using official documentation.

"Article 31 of the Refugee Convention recognises the possible danger of using a real passport in your own name. The Refugee Convention says that asylum seekers should not be punished if they have a good reason for using false documents/passport.

The “Article 31” principle is part of UK law as Section 31 of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act."

(from Chippy's previously posted link) Entering the UK to claim asylum

I guess it comes down to your interpretation of the word "punished", if being sent to Rwanda is not a punishment then that's fine, but it is being used as a deterrent.

Are we saying we fly everyone to Rwanda, process them and then fly the ones back who meet this criteria?

I don't know the proportions but let's keep in mind that not all illegal immigrants are "bad" illegal immigrants or, it seems, even illegal.

 

[moto748]

How and when did a Labour government 'remove the barriers to immigration'?

I must have missed that. Anyway, it must have been a long time ago! I await the details with interest.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Here in Australia we do have room for asylum seekers, problem is they arrive here with no papers! Hence the Port Moresby solution. Boat people aren't illiterate, once they know they will be shipped to Port Moresby they don't want to come here. So I would say that what your government is doing is doing is really just a bluff. Illegal immigrants know well and truly what social services they will receive, don't think for one minute they don't just come on a whim. Each case has to be taken on its merit, having no papers isn't one.

Emma

As a percentage, migrants that come to the UK are far less likely to access welfare services than people lucky enough to be born here.

Squeeze on public services is a big issue, but that's what happens when funding doesn't match population increases and demographic pressures.

The elephant in the room is that we need more people of working age to come to the UK or it will not be long until there is no public pension.

 

[Brew_DD2]

How and when did a Labour government 'remove the barriers to immigration'?

I must have missed that. Anyway, it must have been a long time ago! I await the details with interest.

They are conflating free movement within the EU with asylum seekers. A common mistake among the anti-migrant set.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

For no other reason than transparency, both of these images are of migrants crossing the Med and not the Channel,

The picture was to demonstrate what they get for their tens of thousands of pounds the location is irrelevant.

 

[War Grade Vaux Stout]

We let asylum seekers seek asylum in the UK and for each one that arrives we deport a Tory to Rwanda.

As a landlord you've taken in several refugees doubtless. How many to date old bean?