|
Post by davycrockett on Jun 14, 2022 9:32:49 GMT 1
(can’t find a thread?) Today our first deportation flight to Rwanda is due to leave at a cost of £500,000… Originally around 100 deportees we’re due to fly but now down to 7 all pending appeals….. Meanwhile ….”Judges will consider whether the policy is lawful next month - this could see some people returned to the UK from Rwanda if it is ruled unlawful” One question. Are Liz Truss and Preti Patel pud evil? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61791994
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 14, 2022 9:52:10 GMT 1
Can't help but think that much of the outcry from people is based on an archaic perception of modern Africa and accompanying undertones of racism.
If you're an asylum seeker and you don't fancy Rwanda, you've got a couple of options available to you;
1. Apply through legal grounds for asylum in your chosen country (i.e UK) 2. Stay in the first safe haven country you reach and claim for asylum there
The heinous and immoral people-smuggling trade has to be taken out at the head. Will the policy be effective and reduce the number of attempted crossings in the Channel? Who knows. But a government has been elected to deliver on it's promises, one of which was to tackle illegal immigration.
Rwanda has a higher left expectancy than parts of Scotland. You know what, they might even be grateful.
|
|
|
Post by Dancin on Jun 14, 2022 10:05:00 GMT 1
The heinous and immoral people-smuggling trade has to be taken out at the head. Will the policy be effective and reduce the number of attempted crossings in the Channel? Who knows. But a government has been elected to deliver on it's promises, one of which was to tackle illegal immigration. Totally agree with your comments. Will it work who knows but something has to be done to stop the continuing crossings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2022 10:07:09 GMT 1
I tend to agree how do you stop illegal immigration who are being paid thousands of pounds to smugglers? We have got here because France don't give a dam about it, we even offered our border control to France who turned it down.
Are these people in danger in France or wanting to come to Britain as an opportunity? What i don't agree with is sending people to Rwanda who are wanted by Iranian government, was reading an article yesterday that they were going to sent an ex police governor who had whistle blown, now he will get no protection in Africa and will be dead in a few months.
Each case needs evaluating and looking at very carefully.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Jun 14, 2022 10:37:56 GMT 1
(can’t find a thread?) Today our first deportation flight to Rwanda is due to leave at a cost of £500,000… Originally around 100 deportees we’re due to fly but now down to 7 all pending appeals….. Meanwhile ….”Judges will consider whether the policy is lawful next month - this could see some people returned to the UK from Rwanda if it is ruled unlawful” One question. Are Liz Truss and Preti Patel pud evil? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61791994It could be down to four people being deported on one flight by the time the day is out. An appalling waste of money and horribly unethical. Kagame is effectively a dictator who thinks nothing of imprisoning, torturing and even murdering his opponents. Just when you thinks Johnson and Co can't sink any lower.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2022 10:37:59 GMT 1
I'm against it but probably for different reasons than others. My main issue with this it is another gimmick to grab headlines to appear tough on immigration/refugees/asylum seekers but in reality it will cost UK taxpayers a lot of money to send very few people over there. Plus as part of the agreement we have to take in some refugees from Rwanda so the net effect is minimal in terms of people in the country, however there will have been lots of money spent in getting people over there (and also the legal fees in trying to stop them).
As for having an impact, do you really think that people living in camps in Northern France and who are willing to risk their life crossing the Channel are going to be put off because of a handful of people are being sent to Rwanda, no of course they aren't. People will debate whether we should do more and similarly whether France should be providing more support, the question for me is how all these people from all parts of the globe are ending up in a small part of Northern France. Once they are there then anything we or France try is simply delaying the inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Jun 14, 2022 10:41:07 GMT 1
Can't help but think that much of the outcry from people is based on an archaic perception of modern Africa and accompanying undertones of racism. If you're an asylum seeker and you don't fancy Rwanda, you've got a couple of options available to you; 1. Apply through legal grounds for asylum in your chosen country (i.e UK) 2. Stay in the first safe haven country you reach and claim for asylum there The heinous and immoral people-smuggling trade has to be taken out at the head. Will the policy be effective and reduce the number of attempted crossings in the Channel? Who knows. But a government has been elected to deliver on it's promises, one of which was to tackle illegal immigration. Rwanda has a higher left expectancy than Scotland. You know what, they might even be grateful. From Amnesty International: "There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another. There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive."
The fact is that many people who seek asylum come to Britain not because of it's supposedly lavish benefits system but because they can speak English or already have family members here.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 14, 2022 10:45:23 GMT 1
I'm not sure how in 2022 that some see the trading of human beings as acceptable. We're shipping a few people off to Rwanda at great expense, then they're sending some people here. Why are humans suddenly political footballs getting volleyed around the globe?
I agree something needs to be done about trafficking, but this won't make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 14, 2022 10:47:12 GMT 1
Another question: Can we put Liz Truss and Preti Patel on the plane?
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Jun 14, 2022 10:47:55 GMT 1
The heinous and immoral people-smuggling trade has to be taken out at the head. Will the policy be effective and reduce the number of attempted crossings in the Channel? Who knows. But a government has been elected to deliver on it's promises, one of which was to tackle illegal immigration. Totally agree with your comments. Will it work who knows but something has to be done to stop the continuing crossings. What I don't understand is if Rwanda is the glorious land of opportunity that Patel, Truss and Johnson claim it is, then why would the threat of being deported there deter asylum seekers?
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 14, 2022 10:56:15 GMT 1
Can't help but think that much of the outcry from people is based on an archaic perception of modern Africa and accompanying undertones of racism. If you're an asylum seeker and you don't fancy Rwanda, you've got a couple of options available to you; 1. Apply through legal grounds for asylum in your chosen country (i.e UK) 2. Stay in the first safe haven country you reach and claim for asylum there The heinous and immoral people-smuggling trade has to be taken out at the head. Will the policy be effective and reduce the number of attempted crossings in the Channel? Who knows. But a government has been elected to deliver on it's promises, one of which was to tackle illegal immigration. Rwanda has a higher left expectancy than Scotland. You know what, they might even be grateful. From Amnesty International: "There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another. There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive."
The fact is that many people who seek asylum come to Britain not because of it's supposedly lavish benefits system but because they can speak English or already have family members here.
This may be true and I understand the burden on countries bordering or within close proximity of North Africa will be greater than us but it weakens the claim for asylum when people are illegally transiting through safe countries to find the one that best suits them. It has been conveniently forgotten that there is already a legal asylum system in the UK. Also conveniently forgotten by the EU nats that their beloved bloc has had a Rwandan asylum system in place for some time. Every government is instructed to govern by consent of the people. Whether this turns out to be a 'dead cat' strategy or a massive waste of money as Proud Salopian suggests may well be the case but they certainly have my support on this one for now.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jun 14, 2022 11:35:00 GMT 1
we did brexit for a reason , it's working
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jun 14, 2022 11:38:51 GMT 1
I'm not sure how in 2022 that some see the trading of human beings as acceptable. We're shipping a few people off to Rwanda at great expense, then they're sending some people here. Why are humans suddenly political footballs getting volleyed around the globe? I agree something needs to be done about trafficking, but this won't make a difference. Not really they apply for asylum in Rwandan if successful - ‘They will get accommodation and support while the Rwandan government considers their application, and if they are successful they can stay in the country with up to five years' access to education and support’. If unsuccessful based on Rwandas decision alone “If their asylum claim is unsuccessful, they will be offered the chance to apply for other immigration routes, but could face deportation from Rwanda.” Who are they sending here?
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jun 14, 2022 11:40:04 GMT 1
we did brexit for a reason , it's working We’ll see after Boris rips up the Irish Protocol he agreed to a couple of years ago (against the majority in NI’s wishes) Or is this the too many bloody foreigners bit that’s working?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 14, 2022 11:44:23 GMT 1
I'm not sure how in 2022 that some see the trading of human beings as acceptable. We're shipping a few people off to Rwanda at great expense, then they're sending some people here. Why are humans suddenly political footballs getting volleyed around the globe? I agree something needs to be done about trafficking, but this won't make a difference. Not really they apply for asylum in Rwandan if successful - ‘They will get accommodation and support while the Rwandan government considers their application, and if they are successful they can stay in the country with up to five years' access to education and support’. If unsuccessful based on Rwandas decision alone “If their asylum claim is unsuccessful, they will be offered the chance to apply for other immigration routes, but could face deportation from Rwanda.” Who are they sending here? You release we're taking refugees from Rwanda as part of this, right?
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jun 14, 2022 11:53:07 GMT 1
Totally agree with your comments. Will it work who knows but something has to be done to stop the continuing crossings. What I don't understand is if Rwanda is the glorious land of opportunity that Patel, Truss and Johnson claim it is, then why would the threat of being deported there deter asylum seekers? Exactly. The fact that it is being described as a deterrent is worrying in itself. Does this mean that they think it’s the end of the world to be sent there or is it genuinely an opportunity to start a new life away from here? I also find the idea of a Home Secretary who herself is the child of people who found sanctuary here introducing this is somewhat hypocritical and nauseating (but not surprising) in itself.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jun 14, 2022 11:54:36 GMT 1
Not really they apply for asylum in Rwandan if successful - ‘They will get accommodation and support while the Rwandan government considers their application, and if they are successful they can stay in the country with up to five years' access to education and support’. If unsuccessful based on Rwandas decision alone “If their asylum claim is unsuccessful, they will be offered the chance to apply for other immigration routes, but could face deportation from Rwanda.” Who are they sending here? You release we're taking refugees from Rwanda as part of this, right? You think? www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/rwanda-asylum-plan-uk-take-24210821Note the ‘no further details at this stage’ and Boris’s comment ‘one way ticket to Rwandan’ ‘Migrants are subject to Rwandan immigration rules as soon as they land. The Rwandan government say they will be encouraged to apply for refugee status, and will have no immediate right to return to the UK.’ ‘But once placed on a plane, they would be the responsibility of the Rwandan government.’ ‘ Boris Johnson has said the agreement is “uncapped” and that Rwanda will have the “capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead”.
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 14, 2022 12:02:06 GMT 1
What I don't understand is if Rwanda is the glorious land of opportunity that Patel, Truss and Johnson claim it is, then why would the threat of being deported there deter asylum seekers? I also find the idea of a Home Secretary who herself is the child of people who found sanctuary here introducing this is somewhat hypocritical and nauseating (but not surprising) in itself. Believe it or not it is possible to criticise Patel without the dog whistle racism that often accompanies it claiming she is somehow wronging 'her people' or pulling up the drawbridge behind her. In the same way you wouldn't want someone sitting in your seat at the Meadow who hadn't bought a ticket, as a child of legal asylum seekers I'm not sure she owes anything to illegal migrants.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jun 14, 2022 12:27:43 GMT 1
I also find the idea of a Home Secretary who herself is the child of people who found sanctuary here introducing this is somewhat hypocritical and nauseating (but not surprising) in itself. Believe it or not it is possible to criticise Patel without the dog whistle racism that often accompanies it claiming she is somehow wronging 'her people' or pulling up the drawbridge behind her. In the same way you wouldn't want someone sitting in your seat at the Meadow who hadn't bought a ticket, as a child of legal asylum seekers I'm not sure she owes anything to illegal migrants. You need to explain how it's in any way racist to accuse Patel of hypocrisy, as a child of refugees now engaged in expelling refugees. You're also wrong in your earlier assertion that Rwanda has higher life expectancy than Scotland. It doesn't, as a simple check will tell you. Don't believe everything you read on Twitter. Too little attention has been paid to the claimed deterrent intention behind these removals. If Rwanda is as marvellous as is being claimed by the government and its supporters, why would that make removal there a deterrent to people seeking to cross the Channel? It wouldn't, of course, but that's glossed over, because this policy is primarily about a desperate government seeking to shore up its support. When the Church of England and the Crown, both pillars of the UK establishment, condemn the policy as 'immoral' and 'appalling', it's clear how much of an outlier this government has become. This is a policy that the National Front would have been proud of in the 1970s. That's how low we've sunk.
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Jun 14, 2022 12:36:39 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 14, 2022 12:46:37 GMT 1
You release we're taking refugees from Rwanda as part of this, right? You think? www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/rwanda-asylum-plan-uk-take-24210821Note the ‘no further details at this stage’ and Boris’s comment ‘one way ticket to Rwandan’ ‘Migrants are subject to Rwandan immigration rules as soon as they land. The Rwandan government say they will be encouraged to apply for refugee status, and will have no immediate right to return to the UK.’ ‘But once placed on a plane, they would be the responsibility of the Rwandan government.’ ‘ Boris Johnson has said the agreement is “uncapped” and that Rwanda will have the “capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead”. This is hard work. I'm not claiming those sent there are coming back. The scheme enables Rwanda to send refugees with complex needs to the United Kingdom. It's ridiculous either way, we're practically trafficking human beings ourselves at this point, it's 2022.
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 14, 2022 12:47:59 GMT 1
Believe it or not it is possible to criticise Patel without the dog whistle racism that often accompanies it claiming she is somehow wronging 'her people' or pulling up the drawbridge behind her. In the same way you wouldn't want someone sitting in your seat at the Meadow who hadn't bought a ticket, as a child of legal asylum seekers I'm not sure she owes anything to illegal migrants. You need to explain how it's in any way racist to accuse Patel of hypocrisy, as a child of refugees now engaged in expelling refugees. You're also wrong in your earlier assertion that Rwanda has higher life expectancy than Scotland. It doesn't, as a simple check will tell you. Don't believe everything you read on Twitter. Too little attention has been paid to the claimed deterrent intention behind these removals. If Rwanda is as marvellous as is being claimed by the government and its supporters, why would that make removal there a deterrent to people seeking to cross the Channel? It wouldn't, of course, but that's glossed over, because this policy is primarily about a desperate government seeking to shore up its support. When the Church of England and the Crown, both pillars of the UK establishment, condemn the policy as 'immoral' and 'appalling', it's clear how much of an outlier this government has become. This is a policy that the National Front would have been proud of in the 1970s. That's how low we've sunk. 1. Look up the difference between legal and illegal 2. I've amended it to reflect 'parts of Scotland'. Life expectancy in Rwanda is roughly around the life expectancy in parts of Renfrewshire - notably Paisley 3. Well the government wouldn't be sending immigrants to Mauritius would they? Any temporary relocation has to surely satisfy the dual purpose of being enough of a disincentive to stop the constant flow of migrants into the UK at the mercy of people smugglers but also a reasonably safe place for the migrants to temporarily live free of prejudice. Offshore processing of migrant applications has been carried out previously by several governments, as mentioned the EU has a similar policy, as has Australia in the past. Migrants currently awaiting a decision on their application will be housed in decent lodgings. They are free to leave at any time. This is not imprisonment, they have not been 'banished'. 4. The Church of England has long ceased to have any considerable influence in this country. It seems to exist nowadays purely as a woke mouthpiece on the path to self-destruction. 5. Hyperbolic drool
|
|
|
Post by returnofthehype on Jun 14, 2022 12:58:43 GMT 1
Agree whole heartily it’s is a flight of shame….should have filled it to reduce cost
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jun 14, 2022 13:11:26 GMT 1
I also find the idea of a Home Secretary who herself is the child of people who found sanctuary here introducing this is somewhat hypocritical and nauseating (but not surprising) in itself. Believe it or not it is possible to criticise Patel without the dog whistle racism that often accompanies it claiming she is somehow wronging 'her people' or pulling up the drawbridge behind her. In the same way you wouldn't want someone sitting in your seat at the Meadow who hadn't bought a ticket, as a child of legal asylum seekers I'm not sure she owes anything to illegal migrants. I don’t think I am being racist all. I am simply pointing out that she is introducing a policy that could have affected her own family in the past had it been in force. Like everything else she does, I don’t think she thinks things through as to how it will look. I also don’t think this policy will stop or reduce illegal immigration. Traffickers will still offer it and those unfortunate enough to need it and can afford to do so will still use it. An optimism that we all have built in us ‘it won’t happen to me’ will prevail and they will think they will be the ones to buck the current system. It’s a dreadful policy to have introduced and it’s shameful on us as a country.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jun 14, 2022 13:15:04 GMT 1
Did Priti Patel/her family arrive in the United Kingdom in a blow up boat via the channel or is that another not-so-subtle racist jibe at her?
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 14, 2022 13:18:34 GMT 1
Did Priti Patel/her family arrive in the United Kingdom in a blow up boat via the channel or is that another not-so-subtle racist jibe at her? In some minds its ok to say this but not to point out that Dianne Abbott is mathematically challenged.
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on Jun 14, 2022 13:21:51 GMT 1
Believe it or not it is possible to criticise Patel without the dog whistle racism that often accompanies it claiming she is somehow wronging 'her people' or pulling up the drawbridge behind her. In the same way you wouldn't want someone sitting in your seat at the Meadow who hadn't bought a ticket, as a child of legal asylum seekers I'm not sure she owes anything to illegal migrants. I don’t think I am being racist all. I am simply pointing out that she is introducing a policy that could have affected her own family in the past had it been in force. Like everything else she does, I don’t think she thinks things through as to how it will look. I also don’t think this policy will stop or reduce illegal immigration. Traffickers will still offer it and those unfortunate enough to need it and can afford to do so will still use it. An optimism that we all have built in us ‘it won’t happen to me’ will prevail and they will think they will be the ones to buck the current system. It’s a dreadful policy to have introduced and it’s shameful on us as a country. What would be the correct asylum system in your opinion? Clearly, the lottery of enticing desperate people to invest their life savings in a criminal with a flimsy boat on the off-chance they might make it to the other side isn't sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jun 14, 2022 13:25:10 GMT 1
I truly don’t know but I do know that I feel very uneasy about just shipping people out to a random country who are probably themselves only in it for the money.
For me, it’s the thin edge of a very worrying wedges d, as I say, I don’t think it will solve the problem at all.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jun 14, 2022 13:28:03 GMT 1
Did Priti Patel/her family arrive in the United Kingdom in a blow up boat via the channel or is that another not-so-subtle racist jibe at her? No it isn’t a jibe as far as I am concerned. She is on record though of saying that she wasn’t sure her family would have qualified now. I always hold the view that it does no harm to take into consideration someone’s personal experience and that of their family before making life changing decisions for others no matter who you are.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jun 14, 2022 13:43:39 GMT 1
Creative thinking required: Process asylum seekers in France.
Offer one way plane rides and a grant to set up somewhere warm and welcoming to all the whingers in this country who say they wish to leave. You get rid of the whingers and get people who actually want to be here and are generally young, fit and willing to work to establish themselves.
|
|