This flight to Rwanda

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Illegal immigration, exploitation of the asylum system, criminal gangs, dangerous crossings, cost of dealing with it all when the country has enormous domestic problems of its own, potential sowing of discord as a result of the above.

Illegal immigrants are obviously different to asylum seekers that require completely different solutions, yet you bundle them both together. There were 50k asylum seekers last year. That's about a third of the number of people who have come in from the Ukraine and Hong Kong without a whisper. When you started on this quest it was all about ridding the world of traffickers. Still true colours!

[Eric Cartman]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

I perfectly well understand that many people in many parts of the world have undergone a lot of suffering and have every empathy for them. That doesn't mean that anyone who wants to come to the UK is entitled to do that, less still that they do it via payments to criminal gangs that only the wealthiest of them can afford.

It is fantastic news that you are so keen to limit the inherent advantages that the wealthy have, have you thought about how we could extend that into domestic policy.

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Illegal immigrants are obviously different to asylum seekers that require completely different solutions, yet you bundle them both together. There were 50k asylum seekers last year. That's about a third of the number of people who have come in from the Ukraine and Hong Kong without a whisper. When you started on this quest it was all about ridding the world of traffickers. Still true colours!

I have mentioned criminal gangs, have I not?

[Eric Cartman]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Illegal immigration, exploitation of the asylum system, criminal gangs, dangerous crossings, cost of dealing with it all when the country has enormous domestic problems of its own, potential sowing of discord as a result of the above.

Oh good that one is a biggy, so what are the scores on the doors? Just fill in the blanks for me please:


Total Cost now : ___________

Estimated Cost of new policy: ____________


Don't worry, I will be able to work out the saving, A in maths at GCSE me.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

I have mentioned criminal gangs, have I not?

It was in there somewhere. Well done you!

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

It is fantastic news that you are so keen to limit the inherent advantages that the wealthy have, have you thought about how we could extend that into domestic policy.

Yes, through the wealthy paying more tax. The top rate of income tax now is higher than it was a few years ago. And the persona allowance is now around £12,500 - much higher.

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Oh good that one is a biggy, so what are the scores on the doors? Just fill in the blanks for me please:


Total Cost now : ___________

Estimated Cost of new policy: ____________


Don't worry, I will be able to work out the saving, A in maths at GCSE me.

How can we possibly know, because as things stand people support an infinite number of people arriving. Cost estimates we have heard are around £5m a day on hotels alone; let alone other issues.

Do you think the country is a bottomless pit?

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Isn't the obvious alternative just to make the legal route better? The fact that the vast majority of people entering illegally would obtain asylum status legally should tell you that the legal system is too slow or too hard to access. So speed it up or make it easier to access. Does this policy fix that? If not then all you are ensuring is to reduce the number of asylum seekers we take as a country.

The reason people use hyperbolic language to describe the policy is because unfortunately in relative terms, this is an extreme response and for a lot of people, crosses into uncomfortable territory. Which begs the question, how extreme would Patel's policy need to be for you to think it wasn't 'worth trying'? Presumably you have a line over which we shouldn't step. What if this deterrent doesn't work, how would you step it up a notch?

Not necessarily, because that could lead to very high numbers, as there are an awful lot of political opponents or people otherwise eligible for asylum in many countries who may wish to make Britain home.

Without some kind of rules and sensible management, the situation quickly becomes totally unsustainable and the public lose faith, especially when they are facing financial crisis of their own.

In answer to your question, I think this is a pretty unprecedented situation that requires a pretty unprecedented solution. I would support the UK taking more from warzones or proper channels. It's the means they arrive and our inability to do anything about it that is the issue

It amazes me how people see no issue at all. Naivity causes a lot of it I guess, and the fact a lot of people want the current govt to fail so are content for any crisis to help do that.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

How can we possibly know, because as things stand people support an infinite number of people arriving. Cost estimates we have heard are around £5m a day on hotels alone; let alone other issues.

Do you think the country is a bottomless pit?

We aren't talking about 'as things stand', we are talking about the effect this policy is going to have, isn't it supposed to be a deterrent and therefore reduce illegal crossings? Surely it is pretty simple to forecast a best/worst case scenario and project cost based on that? Do you wonder why they haven't produced and published that alongside the policy?

Surely you need to see this before you decide whether it is a good idea. Would you support this policy even if it ends up costing more?

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

We aren't talking about 'as things stand', we are talking about the effect this policy is going to have, isn't it supposed to be a deterrent and therefore reduce illegal crossings? Surely it is pretty simple to forecast a best/worst case scenario and project cost based on that? Do you wonder why they haven't produced and published that alongside the policy?

Surely you need to see this before you decide whether it is a good idea. Would you support this policy even if it ends up costing more?

If a policy doesn't work you cease doing it. What we know at the moment is that the current situation doesn't work.

If we are unable to do anything about anyone arriving here, then we theoretically are open to accepting anyone who wants to come here, which is completely unsustainable. You have to have rules and planning in place; whether it's to manage capacity on roads, or surgeries or schools or people. Those in the most need should receive it alongside other countries who offer the same, but that is not what is happening here. It is not the most in need; it the wealthiest and those in an already safe country.

Anyway, I'm tired, and it's time for me to join you guys in dreamland ;) x

[Eric Cartman]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Not necessarily, because that could lead to very high numbers, as there are an awful lot of political opponents or people otherwise eligible for asylum in many countries who may wish to make Britain home.

Without some kind of rules and sensible management, the situation quickly becomes totally unsustainable and the public lose faith, especially when they are facing financial crisis of their own.

In answer to your question, I think this is a pretty unprecedented situation that requires a pretty unprecedented solution. I would support the UK taking more from warzones or proper channels. It's the means they arrive and our inability to do anything about it that is the issue

It amazes me how people see no issue at all. Naivity causes a lot of it I guess, and the fact a lot of people want the current govt to fail so are content for any crisis to help do that.

You aren't allowed to build that strawman, it isn't that people see no problem at all, the solution is unpalatable to them and they feel like there must be something better.

So my solution is viable but it might let in too many people? Fair point, but you should add that to the list next time you explain why you support the policy - because it will reduce migration. It's okay to want that, you can admit it. We have been going around in circles in these threads precisely because you didn't want to admit that your primary concern is the number of asylum seekers and that their method of entry/fairness of the system is a secondary concern. I can see why this policy appeals now.

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

You aren't allowed to build that strawman, it isn't that people see no problem at all, the solution is unpalatable to them and they feel like there must be something better.

So my solution is viable but it might let in too many people? Fair point, but you should add that to the list next time you explain why you support the policy - because it will reduce migration. It's okay to want that, you can admit it. We have been going around in circles in these threads precisely because you didn't want to admit that your primary concern is the number of asylum seekers and that their method of entry/fairness of the system is a secondary concern. I can see why this policy appeals now.

But that is definitively not what I've said. Have you read any criticism of me on the support shown to people fleeing Afghanistan or Hong Kong? No you havent. Because it's managed and done to a system and process that is accountable and (hopefully) just.

My issue is with a theoretically limitless number of boats arriving, jumping the queue, enriching criminal gangs and our complete inability to do anything about it.

This isn't a hard stance to understand to be honest, you should have an issue with this too, as it undermines faith in the entire system.

Now honestly, I have to go to sleep, or else you'll have me up until 3am thinking of killer arguments!

Nos da

[az city]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

No it isn't. Calling a burglar a burglar is legitimate. Calling everyone a burglar isn't. It is perfectly legitimate to object to the current state of affairs, and think it's a policy worth trying. As usual, the language of those who oppose it is hyperbolic and defamatory to mask an absence of any viable alternative.

Why is it BS? This isn't kindergarten, or some lecture theatre where rich lecturers preach theories to rich students. This is real life. Adults should be able to discuss a policy and come up with solutions.

The current situation benefits rich migrants from safe countries over those perhaps more in need from warzones. It enriches criminal gangs who rarely use their proceeds for good causes and places a significant burden on the UK taxpayer to house, feed and process a presumably almost limitless number of people.

So yes, offer an alternative solution if you are so determined that this policy is wrong.

Jimbo, I've looked at your answer and given it an 'F'.

The question asks us to evaluate the Rwanda policy on its singular merits.

You keep invoking a response to an alternative question which might invite candidates to examine the comparative merits of the Rwanda policy. That is a different question.

(P.S. What's your problem with people in higher education? One begins to suspect you're one of those Tory anti-expert types.)

[JamesWales]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

Jimbo, I've looked at your answer and given it an 'F'.

The question asks us to evaluate the Rwanda policy on its singular merits.

You keep invoking a response to an alternative question which might invite candidates to examine the comparative merits of the Rwanda policy. That is a different question.

(P.S. What's your problem with people in higher education? One begins to suspect you're one of those Tory anti-expert types.)

AZ, as mentioned, I would suggest the merits in trying this are (in no particular order) to stop enriching criminal gangs and people traffickers, reduce illegal immigration, restore faith in the system, allow the most needy to be prioritised first, demonstrate that we have a system in place that can remove people who travel from safe countries (because otherwise we have to theoretically accept anyone who travels) and to reduce the long term costs of caring for and processing peoples applications. It's about building a system the British tax payer has faith in.

None of us know for sure how a policy will operate in practice, but I would suggest it is worth trying, because the current situation is failing - it allows wealthier migrants from a safe country to effectively jump the queue, and we have to have some kind of limit of numbers that the country can take - being able to reduce the flow is critical. Australia have tried a similar method, which I gather has largely worked, and we know other countries are looking at it. I don't consider it inhumane, and I think it's worth trying.

No issue with higher education (I have an MSc and my GCSE's). I was just stressing that this is real politik, not theory, which I know you favour, as it is happening as we type.

Thanks for the F, (to a question you seem to have asked subsequently) though I sense you base your marks on how much people agree with you, so I am happy to receive it and I'm glad I dont have to pay the university fees either ;)

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: This flight to Rwanda

But that is definitively not what I've said. Have you read any criticism of me on the support shown to people fleeing Afghanistan or Hong Kong? No you havent. Because it's managed and done to a system and process that is accountable and (hopefully) just.

My issue is with a theoretically limitless number of boats arriving, jumping the queue, enriching criminal gangs and our complete inability to do anything about it.

There are plenty of unscrupulous bosses who will happily take on illegal immigrants to save on wages, NI etc. There are opportunities, albeit not nice ones as a rule, for any illegal immigrants who can get into the country. Find a way to stop this illegal underground activity and you'll reduce the numbers coming in illegally.

What we seem to prefer is blaming the immigrants for wanting to come here, it's their fault. It's a bit like being burgled constantly because you've got no doors and piles of cash on display but you blame the burglar