|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 16, 2022 7:37:31 GMT
It strikes me that we have plenty of off-shore islands in the UK which could house detention centres. No need for Rwanda. And no valid legal challenges because they'd still be in the UK.
Get it built, get them sent there. We wouldn't need to send many before it would become far less attractive to come here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 16, 2022 7:43:05 GMT
Correct - a single government office where anyone claiming asylum must present themselves for their claim to be processed, this office must be on British territory.
I suggest Ascension Island.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 16, 2022 7:55:44 GMT
Correct - a single government office where anyone claiming asylum must present themselves for their claim to be processed, this office must be on British territory. I suggest Ascension Island. Or Scilly Isles. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 16, 2022 8:06:10 GMT
It strikes me that we have plenty of off-shore islands in the UK which could house detention centres. No need for Rwanda. And no valid legal challenges because they'd still be in the UK. Get it built, get them sent there. We wouldn't need to send many before it would become far less attractive to come here. Asylum seekers are not supposed to be in detention. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 16, 2022 8:07:18 GMT
If people were escaping the UK to get to France, would you be desperate to keep them here? If the French wanted you to spend money patrolling the south coast, what would you do differently? Well if France actually stopped the migrants coming here it would mean that these illegals wouldn't be camping all over their coast. They only do that because they know the Frogs won't do anything to stop them coming to the UK. None of them want to live in France. There's more in France than in the UK. Stop making things up. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 16, 2022 8:07:39 GMT
It strikes me that we have plenty of off-shore islands in the UK which could house detention centres. No need for Rwanda. And no valid legal challenges because they'd still be in the UK. Get it built, get them sent there. We wouldn't need to send many before it would become far less attractive to come here. Asylum seekers are not supposed to be in detention. They could be allowed to roam an uninhabited island, good for the soul. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Nov 16, 2022 9:44:11 GMT
Nearer home, we are incessantly told by the SNP that they are inclusive, diverse, tolerant, welcoming and so much better than the English in so many more ways, just send all the incoming terrorists, gang members and invaders up there.
They will get on like a house on fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgan on Nov 16, 2022 10:17:24 GMT
I suggest lodging asylum seekers on any uninhabited British owned island wherever in the world it may, in a POW camp similar to those used during the war. Tents and equipment to build the huts they will live in and food parcels provided while their asylum applications are heard. Anyone still waiting for their asylum applications to be settled after 12 months will have the automatic right to be returned to the last safe country they left.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 16, 2022 10:53:51 GMT
It strikes me that we have plenty of off-shore islands in the UK which could house detention centres. No need for Rwanda. And no valid legal challenges because they'd still be in the UK. Get it built, get them sent there. We wouldn't need to send many before it would become far less attractive to come here. Asylum seekers are not supposed to be in detention. Isolation is not detention. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 16, 2022 11:04:12 GMT
It strikes me that we have plenty of off-shore islands in the UK which could house detention centres. No need for Rwanda. And no valid legal challenges because they'd still be in the UK. Get it built, get them sent there. We wouldn't need to send many before it would become far less attractive to come here. Asylum seekers are not supposed to be in detention. They aren't the definition of Asylum seekers, they are illegal migrants.
"In order to be granted asylum, an individual is required to provide evidence demonstrating either that they have suffered persecution on account of a protected ground in the past, and/or that they have a “well-founded fear” of future persecution in their home country".
Most of these illegals are young Albanian men with no Identification, so they aren't asylum seekers they are illegal migrants, and should be kicked out, end of.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 16, 2022 11:04:26 GMT
The Squeezed Middle specifically referred to detention centres. I was simply pointing out his ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 16, 2022 11:26:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 16, 2022 11:52:31 GMT
So what can be done? We’ve had suggestions like mining the Channel, sinking the RIBs, rounding up those landing on the Kent coast and shipping them back to France, or flying them out to Rwanda. But, in all reality what actually can be done…? Do what Australia did with Vietnamese Boat People. Ship them off to some godforsaken hellhole, leave them there and put two fingers up to the lawyers protesting about it. I’ve said before ‘political asylum’ can only be claimed by those who have a well founded fear of persecution, imprisonment or death from the state, or its agents, for who they are, what they say, what they believe and what they do. And these days that last one seems ever more to include where they choose to stick their genitals. The fact is not one of them is going to be murdered for their political views, words, deeds, sexual orientation or whatever else they claim to be fleeing from IBY THE FRENCH STATE so they cannot in any way be viewed as asylum seekers on arrival in Britain from France. This is the fact no one in Corbyn’s “let them in, we should not have borders” camp can be forced to admit. We can’t dump them back in France because they won’t take them. We can’t dump them where we think they came from even if they have EU issued documentation SAYING that because THEY won’t take them. So our only option really is somewhere like Rwanda We could put them on stripped out cruise ships and ferry them there in those while their asylum claims are being rejected. But the fact is we currently give the loud mouthed and very well paid lawyers too much power to disrupt our ability to efficiently remove them. Do something about the lawyers first, then do what Australia did. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 16, 2022 13:11:17 GMT
Well if France actually stopped the migrants coming here it would mean that these illegals wouldn't be camping all over their coast. They only do that because they know the Frogs won't do anything to stop them coming to the UK. None of them want to live in France. There's more in France than in the UK. Stop making things up. I'm not making anything up. Most of the people who take the boat to the UK want to go to England. Duh! Why the fuck do you think they're on a dinghy to England, dozy. And the reason why they want to go by dinghy - and pay about £4,000 for the privilege - is because they can't get a visa to come here legally, either because they're criminals or because they've already been deported. That's why they chuck away their ID. And as the French point out they can very easily work in the black economy here, which is much harder in France. They also don't get put up in hotels, get 3 meals a day and £40 a week. It's not rocket science. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 16, 2022 13:34:21 GMT
The Squeezed Middle specifically referred to detention centres. I was simply pointing out his ignorance.
Good point, Andy. Let's call them "Asylum Processing Centres".
And stick them on an island. |
|
