Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

[Eric Cartman]

It's a good question. Both, but victims more. The main problem is that people have infiltrated this system to exploit it.

But if I just go to America and stay there and don't get my flight home, I wouldn't view myself as a criminal per se..but it doesn't mean I can just do it.

There are tough moral calls to be made here, no one denies that. But the country cannot take anyone who wants to come here and we cant have a system effectively run by people traffickers especially when it is a safe country they are coming from.

But by that reckoning you wouldnt take anybody, we are an island with 30+ safe countries one side of us and 2000 miles of sea the other. We processed far less applications than there were illegal crossings last year. Are you seriously suggesting a core principle of this new policy will be to take more refugees 'from source', will we heck.

If they are victims of trafficking and, in the majority of cases, a genuine claimant then why would you punish them twice by not properly judging their case and then flying them to rwanda against their will. This isn't 'going after people traffickers' this is going after victims. Easy option /= best option.

Why are so many people with such strong cases crossing illegally? Often because the legal process is shite and slow.

[jon1959]

But by that reckoning you wouldnt take anybody, we are an island with 30+ safe countries one side of us and 2000 miles of sea the other. We processed far less applications than there were illegal crossings last year. Are you seriously suggesting a core principle of this new policy will be to take more refugees 'from source', will we heck.

If they are victims of trafficking and, in the majority of cases, a genuine claimant then why would you punish them twice by not properly judging their case and then flying them to rwanda against their will. This isn't 'going after people traffickers' this is going after victims. Easy option /= best option.

Why are so many people with such strong cases crossing illegally? Often because the legal process is shite and slow.

I agree with you completely on this.

However, I'm not sure I share your confidence that Labour would reverse the Rwandan Scheme if it was adopted - and supported by the right wing press. It may be illegal, immoral, impractical and ridiculously expensive, but Starmer & Co have an image to create and maintain. Has Tony Blair pronounced on it yet?

[JamesWales]

But by that reckoning you wouldnt take anybody, we are an island with 30+ safe countries one side of us and 2000 miles of sea the other. We processed far less applications than there were illegal crossings last year. Are you seriously suggesting a core principle of this new policy will be to take more refugees 'from source', will we heck.

If they are victims of trafficking and, in the majority of cases, a genuine claimant then why would you punish them twice by not properly judging their case and then flying them to rwanda against their will. This isn't 'going after people traffickers' this is going after victims. Easy option /= best option.

Why are so many people with such strong cases crossing illegally? Often because the legal process is shite and slow.

Of course we would still take refugees. Britain, like every western country, has a long history of it. It doesn't normally happen via inflated boats, even greater inflated prices all into the pockets of people smugglers. Thats the point. The UK has recently taken refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and Hong Kong in significant (maybe it should have been greater numbers) I dont believe our official policy was to subcontract it out to global gangs?