|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 11, 2023 16:22:39 GMT
There is much debate about the legals around the Rwanda plan. I have a different question. Will it actually stop the boats. What I think will actually happen is. It will get passed and we will loose more credibility around the world, there will be a cheer from the right wing and then reality will hit. A few dozen people will fly out to Rwanda each week and the people traffickers will tell their victims that the odds of being sent to Rwanda are zero. You'll be back to square one and another billion pounds worse off. It’s all about credibility isn’t it The boats come because the people paying the people smugglers think they will get into this country. If we could do what Australia did, then the boats would stop. The people who came to the calais beach would go instead to the calais authorities and register, or would register as an economic migrant or an asylum seeker seeking protection at any of the many countries they have travelled through to get to that beach Maybe those countries have more generous admission policies than I want to see this country have. That does nit bother me as we are no longer forced to tolerate their lower standards. In time maybe those persons seeking refuge or work as migrant labour in those countries may earn residency there and then they could apply to come here if they wished under our skilled migrant immigration scheme. The issue is whether Sunak can find the credibility to castrate the lawyers, after which we can proactively deter the boats that persist. Alternatively All we need do is start taxing the RNLI and sink a few boats … they’ll get the hint then |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Dec 11, 2023 16:25:22 GMT
The boats wont stop until Macron does something about it, any other decent leader of a country would have stopped this in its tracks.
Macron is allowing thousands of migrants to pass through France to get to the UK, and no government is holding him to account, until we shame Macron in to doing the right thing, securing French borders and banning dinghies this lunacy will not stop.
MACRON IS TO BLAME.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 11, 2023 16:27:49 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? Vango Force 10 Mk 5 3 man tent. £484 Capable of withstanding a force 10 gale. Sleeping bag £50 per person. Warm clothing. Food packs. Wells are not expensive to dig.
Chemical toilets are not expensive to provide.
Camping stoves are not expensive.
Supplies of provisions every few days.
And, completely compliant with human rights legislation.
Wouldn't cost that much. And once word got through that it's offskis to a cold wet island and life in a tent, the number of illegal immigrants would drop off completely. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 11, 2023 16:37:14 GMT
Taransay would be a perfect island to trial the programme.
Uninhabited since 1974.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2023 16:41:22 GMT
Taransay would be a perfect island to trial the programme. Uninhabited since 1974. Did they not have a group on there in the early 00s with Ben Fogle and some others for a TV programme? Lasting a year I think. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 11, 2023 17:39:55 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. That would be my preference, but it is a preference. The vast majority of irregular entries are people who are not asylum seekers and (of course) can not make a proper case that they are. All the same you get to stay in the UK whether you are or not and changing that prospect to barracks on a windy island will mean only the genuine will bother. The numbers will fall off a cliff once the incentives are changed. Bear in mind that even people with a sturdy case aren't 100% genuinely travelling across Europe to the UK to escape danger. Even those people are partially engaging in a fraud by the time they reach the UK .This was my suggestion when the unpleasant barracks with no WIFI was first muted. That I had no objection to it if the processing took place at reasonable speed so the very few genuine cases were quickly released. I disagree that refugees should have to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter, as I think this is unfair on countries that border certain areas. However, I would prefer that the asylum seekers are assessed on arrival at the first given safe place and that they are then shared fairly between participated countries (Baring in mind how few are likely to be genuine) |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2023 18:04:26 GMT
Is the Rwanda plan really a plan though, changing the safety status of a country does not actually change the safety status of the country, does it? Official status of Rwanda: 'Rwanda is generally safe and crime levels are relatively low, but street crime does occur.' |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 11, 2023 18:08:00 GMT
The Supreme Court laid out in some detail precisely why Rwanda wasn't a safe country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 18:08:51 GMT
That would be my preference, but it is a preference. The vast majority of irregular entries are people who are not asylum seekers and (of course) can not make a proper case that they are. All the same you get to stay in the UK whether you are or not and changing that prospect to barracks on a windy island will mean only the genuine will bother. The numbers will fall off a cliff once the incentives are changed. Bear in mind that even people with a sturdy case aren't 100% genuinely travelling across Europe to the UK to escape danger. Even those people are partially engaging in a fraud by the time they reach the UK .This was my suggestion when the unpleasant barracks with no WIFI was first muted. That I had no objection to it if the processing took place at reasonable speed so the very few genuine cases were quickly released. I disagree that refugees should have to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter, as I think this is unfair on countries that border certain areas. However, I would prefer that the asylum seekers are assessed on arrival at the first given safe place and that they are then shared fairly between participated countries (Baring in mind how few are likely to be genuine) You use the words 'genuine cases, but then proceed to claim frauds should be counted as genuine. When i use the word fraud i'm using a meaning of the word that goes beyond legality. A fraud is still a fraud even if the fraud is allowed legally. I never said they were compelled to do anything btw. However, a person passing through a safe country to appear in another as a 'refugee needing safety' is committing a kind of fraud on the third country. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 11, 2023 18:10:50 GMT
No they are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 11, 2023 18:11:17 GMT
Taransay would be a perfect island to trial the programme. Uninhabited since 1974. I think this is more what Orac has in mind   |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 11, 2023 18:12:01 GMT
This was my suggestion when the unpleasant barracks with no WIFI was first muted. That I had no objection to it if the processing took place at reasonable speed so the very few genuine cases were quickly released. I disagree that refugees should have to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter, as I think this is unfair on countries that border certain areas. However, I would prefer that the asylum seekers are assessed on arrival at the first given safe place and that they are then shared fairly between participated countries (Baring in mind how few are likely to be genuine) When i use the word fraud i'm using a meaning of the word that goes beyond legality. A fraud is still a fraud even if the fraud is allowed legally. I never said they were compelled to do anything btw. However, a person passing through a safe country to appear in another as a 'refugee needing safety' is committing a kind of fraud on the third country. Explain? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 11, 2023 18:12:10 GMT
The Supreme Court laid out in some detail precisely why Rwanda wasn't a safe country. Not it had concerns about refoulement - it didn't disagree with the Appeal Courts decision that Rwanda in itself was a safe country. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 19:23:12 GMT
You use the words 'genuine cases, but then proceed to claim frauds should be counted as genuine. When i use the word fraud i'm using a meaning of the word that goes beyond legality. A fraud is still a fraud even if the fraud is allowed legally. I never said they were compelled to do anything btw. However, a person passing through a safe country to appear in another as a 'refugee needing safety' is committing a kind of fraud on the third country. Explain? It's embedded in the meaning of the word asylum. If you ask for asylum, you are implicitly stating that are doing so to avoid some kind of danger. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 11, 2023 19:32:10 GMT
It's embedded in the meaning of the word asylum. If you ask for asylum, you are implicitly stating that are doing so to avoid some kind of danger. Bollox. That's like saying a plea of not guilty is implicitly stating someone is not guilty. They can claim asylum, that doesn't mean they are telling the truth. That is what needs to be proven. |
|
