|
|
Post by om15 on Dec 10, 2023 11:04:43 GMT
It is bewildering, the only explanation is that the Government want a million impoverished foreigners to come here to do crap jobs for 20% below list price, and the impending new Government wants them to come here and vote for them, so it looks like we are stuck with it.
If anyone really did want to do anything about it we should withdraw from the ECHR, ignore the howls of protest from our friends and neighbours in Europe and simply stop them landing here by interception by the Royal Navy and returning them to international waters to fend for themselves.
The Rwanda scheme epitomises the sheer uselessness, incompetence and inability to achieve anything practical by a impotent Government.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 11:11:25 GMT
I wonder whether we should look at Rwanda version 2. Asylum seekers arriving in the UK are moved to camps (Nothing inhumane, but nothing fancy) They are then offered a choice. 1, Clearly prove your right to asylum and get the right to stay. Proof of persecution, torture, death. 2, Stay in the camp until its safe for you to return home. (Basically forever) 3, Accept refugee status and resettlement in Rwanda and travel willingly. When all this COVID hype was going on they set up a Nightingale hospitals, I don't recall at the time anyone kicking up a fuss saying they were inhumane or illegal, this is what should be set up to house illegals, just the basics, shelter, bed, food and drink, if it's good enough for COVID patients it's good enough for illegal migrants, I have no idea why we are spending these insane amounts of money keeping illegal migrants in lucrative accommodation. What a bizarre comparison. The Covid hospitals were a short term emergency measure dealing with a specific disease. No one was expected to be spending their lives in one. Do you think someone might have kick up a fuss if they were told anyone going to a nightingale hospital would not be allowed to leave ever? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 11:13:13 GMT
You'd have thought that an international effort to actively target trafficking gangs, possibly with sanctions on states that harbour them, would be a better use of funding than the pointless Rwanda plan. Yes agreed. That and some sort of international plan to stop people thinking its a meal ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 10, 2023 11:15:20 GMT
When all this COVID hype was going on they set up a Nightingale hospitals, I don't recall at the time anyone kicking up a fuss saying they were inhumane or illegal, this is what should be set up to house illegals, just the basics, shelter, bed, food and drink, if it's good enough for COVID patients it's good enough for illegal migrants, I have no idea why we are spending these insane amounts of money keeping illegal migrants in lucrative accommodation. What a bizarre comparison. The Covid hospitals were a short term emergency measure dealing with a specific disease. No one was expected to be spending their lives in one.Do you think someone might have kick up a fuss if they were told anyone going to a nightingale hospital would not be allowed to leave ever? And who said these illegal migrants would be 'spending their lives in one'?
Anywhere these illegals are put is suppose to be short term, once they are processed they either stay or kicked out, so what are you on about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 10, 2023 11:33:44 GMT
If the scheme gets o0ff the ground (and I dont think it will) then it will certainly stop the boats - nobody is going to pay a people smuggler £3000 to go to Rwanda.
The problem with claiming asylum by boat is that you have a pretty much 100% chance of being intercepted by the authorities who will then be free to determine whether you go to Kigali or not. What you would see in that case is an increase in people avoiding the smuggling gangs and trying to stow away on trucks and trains where, if successful, they can slip away and disappear into the black economy once in the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 13:30:12 GMT
What a bizarre comparison. The Covid hospitals were a short term emergency measure dealing with a specific disease. No one was expected to be spending their lives in one.Do you think someone might have kick up a fuss if they were told anyone going to a nightingale hospital would not be allowed to leave ever? And who said these illegal migrants would be 'spending their lives in one'?
Anywhere these illegals are put is suppose to be short term, once they are processed they either stay or kicked out, so what are you on about?
I'm on about reality processing time for asylum claims is 2 years for the straight forward ones, challenged decisions can delay for years. Further if opinion on here is considered those asylum seekers would be kept in camps until they returned home. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 13:34:00 GMT
If the scheme gets o0ff the ground (and I dont think it will) then it will certainly stop the boats - nobody is going to pay a people smuggler £3000 to go to Rwanda. The problem with claiming asylum by boat is that you have a pretty much 100% chance of being intercepted by the authorities who will then be free to determine whether you go to Kigali or not. What you would see in that case is an increase in people avoiding the smuggling gangs and trying to stow away on trucks and trains where, if successful, they can slip away and disappear into the black economy once in the country. I don't believe more than a few dozen will fly to Rwanda each week. So the boats will keep coming betting on the odds. Further those picked up in boats are not incarcerated they are free to come and go, so if a decision looks like its going to be Rwanda they would then disappear. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 10, 2023 13:44:22 GMT
And who said these illegal migrants would be 'spending their lives in one'?
Anywhere these illegals are put is suppose to be short term, once they are processed they either stay or kicked out, so what are you on about?
I'm on about reality processing time for asylum claims is 2 years for the straight forward ones, challenged decisions can delay for years. Further if opinion on here is considered those asylum seekers would be kept in camps until they returned home. So what?
If they arrive here illegally by boat then they should be grateful we are prepared to put them up anywhere, if they arrived by the legal routes and legal processes they wouldn't have to burden the tax payers, if they don't like what's on offer, well fuck off back to France.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Dec 10, 2023 14:37:17 GMT
The entire Rwanda plan is for show only. Last year, net migration into the UK was 675,000, of which under 40,000 were cross-channel illegals. That's around 6%. If the Govt achieved their target of sending 200 to Rwanda, that's 0.5% of those arriving and 0.03% of total net migration. Yet, for some reason, it seems to be the prime totem of right-wing politics in this country. Bewildering. Give Rishi some credit here, while you correctly say the plan is for show only, getting this through, only for the voting public to then witness we could only very expensively rid ourselves of a couple of hundred illegals, is the very last thing Rishi would want heading into a General Election. He needs it to be blocked so that he can fight the forthcoming General Election on a 'take back control' message ..... vote me in and I'll dismantle all those Left Wing Courts and put a stop to the Lefty Lawyers who have yet again prevented me from sending the foreign muggers and rapists away from our shores. It's the totem of his election campaign policy .... a vote winner so he hopes, rather than a serious attempt to make any genuine inroads into controlling illegal immigration. Rwanda isn't supposed to get the green light, as that would throw Rishi's Election strategy out of the window. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 10, 2023 14:53:53 GMT
If the scheme gets o0ff the ground (and I dont think it will) then it will certainly stop the boats - nobody is going to pay a people smuggler £3000 to go to Rwanda. The problem with claiming asylum by boat is that you have a pretty much 100% chance of being intercepted by the authorities who will then be free to determine whether you go to Kigali or not. What you would see in that case is an increase in people avoiding the smuggling gangs and trying to stow away on trucks and trains where, if successful, they can slip away and disappear into the black economy once in the country. I don't believe more than a few dozen will fly to Rwanda each week. So the boats will keep coming betting on the odds. Further those picked up in boats are not incarcerated they are free to come and go, so if a decision looks like its going to be Rwanda they would then disappear. Well that depends on how you implement the scheme. If it is deemed legal and the process is in place then there is no restriction on the numbers you can send and thus any new arrivals can be held in secure accommodation until a decision is made. All it takes is will to make it work. But it seems to be easier for some to try not to make it work. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 14:57:31 GMT
I'm on about reality processing time for asylum claims is 2 years for the straight forward ones, challenged decisions can delay for years. Further if opinion on here is considered those asylum seekers would be kept in camps until they returned home. So what?
If they arrive here illegally by boat then they should be grateful we are prepared to put them up anywhere, if they arrived by the legal routes and legal processes they wouldn't have to burden the tax payers, if they don't like what's on offer, well fuck off back to France.
Yes, what I took issue with is your comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 15:08:22 GMT
I don't believe more than a few dozen will fly to Rwanda each week. So the boats will keep coming betting on the odds. Further those picked up in boats are not incarcerated they are free to come and go, so if a decision looks like its going to be Rwanda they would then disappear. Well that depends on how you implement the scheme. If it is deemed legal and the process is in place then there is no restriction on the numbers you can send and thus any new arrivals can be held in secure accommodation until a decision is made. All it takes is will to make it work. But it seems to be easier for some to try not to make it work. Yet strangely we hear none of these details from the government and those supposedly being sent were not incarcerated. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 10, 2023 16:21:12 GMT
Well that depends on how you implement the scheme. If it is deemed legal and the process is in place then there is no restriction on the numbers you can send and thus any new arrivals can be held in secure accommodation until a decision is made. All it takes is will to make it work. But it seems to be easier for some to try not to make it work. Yet strangely we hear none of these details from the government and those supposedly being sent were not incarcerated. Well as Jenrick pointed out today - the Government are not serious about the policy. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 16:28:52 GMT
Yet strangely we hear none of these details from the government and those supposedly being sent were not incarcerated. Well as Jenrick pointed out today - the Government are not serious about the policy. Well as they aren't up for it, what do you think of my idea? I wonder whether we should look at Rwanda version 2. Asylum seekers arriving in the UK are moved to camps (Nothing inhumane, but nothing fancy) They are then offered a choice. 1, Clearly prove your right to asylum and get the right to stay. Proof of persecution, torture, death. 2, Stay in the camp until its safe for you to return home. (Basically forever) 3, Accept refugee status and resettlement in Rwanda and travel willingly. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Dec 10, 2023 17:07:45 GMT
there's plenty of uninhabited Scottish islands. I'd guess that these "uninhabited Scottish islands" are uninhabited for a reason. And just how much would you envisage spending on installing the infrastructure required to make such places habitable? |
|
