Would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwandan Solution

[Eric Cartman]

Ah, but this is where you are wrong, and it's a mistake many make. My view of a decent society will be almost identical to yours; good schools, good healthcare free at the point of use, a strong economy, low crime, a compassionate and caring welfare state for people to ensure they aren't destitute, a society where people work and play together, trust each other and do to others as they would have done to themselves etc etc etc. Barring a few tweaks (for example I value immaterial wealth more than many do) I suspect our outcomes are near identical, and they would be for 90% of people.

The difference is in how we think they are best achieved, and within that, the difference comes from the fact that I am not ideological. I will take what may be considered a 'left wing' solution where it works (for example in govt intervention on the economy) or what may be considered a 'right wing' solution where it works (for example in enforcing a fair immigration system).

I would suggest that you take more of an ideological as opposed to pragmatic position on things in an almost religious fashion - I briefly went to church as a kid, but for me the closest I got to a form of religion was in my younger days in various socialist movements where the adherence to doctrine was absolute - no variation was possible. When you are in that state of mind, the problems simply cannot operate outside of that doctrine.

So it becomes impossible to fathom a situation where asylum is taken advantage of for example. Or it becomes impossible to imagine that problems may exist within the NHS for example, even if in some cases understanding that is key to solving the problem.

I am sure we all agree that Britain should have a generous and fair immigration system but equally we understand we cant just house everyone that wants to come to the UK. Well the current system is broken. The most physically fit typically make it. It rewards those who throw away ID, it rewards criminal gangs, it punishes those who apply legally. We have people taking legal action to prevent the removal of hardened criminals who are foreign nationals. It's not working, for us or for anyone else and people should be open minded to recognising that and that what they perceive as their own decency may actually be exploited.

I think if you are going to accuse someone of being ideologically driven, you should at least give examples. Jon tends to give a pretty good account of how he reached a certain position in my opinion.

The outline of this policy on .gov looks eerily similar to the mandate of ice under trump (I say trump because I am not aware how they operate now, it might he exactly the same under biden). It gives the home office carte blanche to remove anybody who has entered illegally, it says it will take into account the quality of their claim, but considering they will want to get numbers down as far as possible and these cases will be low hanging fruit, I don't believe it.

I don't think it will discourage channel crossings unless the proper channel for claiming asylum is fair and transparent. The proper channel for an asylum claim states that your application may not be considered if you have travelled through a third country, which covers almost everybody.

This policy is a way to utilise the fact that we are an island and shield the UK from a migrant crisis that it has helped cause. If we are shielded from it, then it will not be a priority to work together internationally to fix the causes.

[JamesWales]

I think if you are going to accuse someone of being ideologically driven, you should at least give examples. Jon tends to give a pretty good account of how he reached a certain position in my opinion.

The outline of this policy on .gov looks eerily similar to the mandate of ice under trump (I say trump because I am not aware how they operate now, it might he exactly the same under biden). It gives the home office carte blanche to remove anybody who has entered illegally, it says it will take into account the quality of their claim, but considering they will want to get numbers down as far as possible and these cases will be low hanging fruit, I don't believe it.

I don't think it will discourage channel crossings unless the proper channel for claiming asylum is fair and transparent. The proper channel for an asylum claim states that your application may not be considered if you have travelled through a third country, which covers almost everybody.

This policy is a way to utilise the fact that we are an island and shield the UK from a migrant crisis that it has helped cause. If we are shielded from it, then it will not be a priority to work together internationally to fix the causes.

It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.

My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.

Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.

[cyril evans awaydays]

It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.

My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.

Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.

What a stretch of imagination it is to say that most people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum system. As someone else posted setting up a processing centre on French soil could be part of that and would take the traffickers out of the system or at least reduce down their activity to the small proportion of people who don't have their applications accepted. As this seems by far the biggest issue for you rather than the people arriving sounds like a winner for you.

Why a government pandering to people's wish for a good, decent, fair and compassionate asylum system would come up with gunboats in the Channel and forced expulsion to the middle of Africa when there are legal options being opened up rather than closed down is anyone's guess.

[JamesWales]

What a stretch of imagination it is to say that most people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum system. As someone else posted setting up a processing centre on French soil could be part of that and would take the traffickers out of the system or at least reduce down their activity to the small proportion of people who don't have their applications accepted. As this seems by far the biggest issue for you rather than the people arriving sounds like a winner for you.

Why a government pandering to people's wish for a good, decent, fair and compassionate asylum system would come up with gunboats in the Channel and forced expulsion to the middle of Africa when there are legal options being opened up rather than closed down is anyone's guess.

As I've said before - Are France happy with your solution? Would it work? Do France want that on their soil? What happens to those who fail the process and travel on boats anyway. It's an idea, but Im not sure you're proposal works.

You do a disservice to the Navy when you speak of gunboats. Thats the kind of emotive language that removes this debate from reality into sensation.

No forced expulsions either, other than a consequence for doing something illegal and if you are in France you are in a safe country, so it's a decision people will have to make.

The long term solution of course is to make the world a more egalitarian place, I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Again, this needs sorting, especially with anticipated future global migration trends

[cyril evans awaydays]

As I've said before - Are France happy with your solution? Would it work? Do France want that on their soil? What happens to those who fail the process and travel on boats anyway. It's an idea, but Im not sure you're proposal works.

You do a disservice to the Navy when you speak of gunboats. Thats the kind of emotive language that removes this debate from reality into sensation.

No forced expulsions either, other than a consequence for doing something illegal and if you are in France you are in a safe country, so it's a decision people will have to make.

The long term solution of course is to make the world a more egalitarian place, I am sure we are all in agreement on that. Again, this needs sorting, especially with anticipated future global migration trends

Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work

Well that took all of 10 minutes with a calm head!

[JamesWales]

Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work

Well that took all of 10 minutes with a calm head!

It's only a few paragraphs old bean - and I didnt want to leave it more than ten minutes as I'm sure you want to read what I have to say before getting on and enjoying your easter sunday. And you claim i lack compassion!

[cyril evans awaydays]

It's only a few paragraphs old bean - and I didnt want to leave it more than ten minutes as I'm sure you want to read what I have to say before getting on and enjoying your easter sunday. And you claim i lack compassion!

Thought the point was to look at things rationally with that famed open mind of yours. My mistake. Enjoy the egg hunt!

[Eric Cartman]

It's a conclusion based on reading his posts. Equally he could explain how my definition of a decent society differs to his. I would suggest that is a more outlandish claim and one I take some offence to, although thats fine.

My argument is that because the overwhelming majority of people want a good, decent fair and compassionate asylum and immigration system, they fail to recognise that the current system is broken and needs fixing because ideologically it is awkward for them to do so, so they have to present an alternative as being evil, vile and all the rest of it. Being wedded to that line of thinking can prevent the proper identification of the problem and thus the proper solutions. In this instance, removing criminal gangs from the process is absolutely critical and some kind of stronger disincentive is probably necessary.

Our and France's inability to stop this is shameful in my opinion and you need to be able to look at all practical solutions with a calm head and consider what may and may not work and not be afraid of a different approach.

It isn't just about it 'working', taking a rocket launcher to the dinghy's half way across the channel would 'work' as a deterrent. It needs to also be a solution that we believe matches the ethos of the country we live in. I don't think the policy meets that requirement. Add that to the high financial cost, and the strong possibility that it won't reduce attempts and it is a no go for me.

The more I read the official agreement, the more it looks like the prime intention is to give the government political cover to start removing illegals without assessing their case fairly, i.e. their method of entry trumps their actual claim to asylum.

[JamesWales]

It isn't just about it 'working', taking a rocket launcher to the dinghy's half way across the channel would 'work' as a deterrent. It needs to also be a solution that we believe matches the ethos of the country we live in. I don't think the policy meets that requirement. Add that to the high financial cost, and the strong possibility that it won't reduce attempts and it is a no go for me.

The more I read the official agreement, the more it looks like the prime intention is to give the government political cover to start removing illegals without assessing their case fairly, i.e. their method of entry trumps their actual claim to asylum.

Completely agree with your first point. It has to fit our ethos. The current set up (which a disturbing number of people seem okay with in my opinion) isn't. It's unfair, favours the fitter or wealthier, is dangerous and enriches criminal gangs whilst creating unknown levels of migrants whom we then have to check, care for and ingratiate into society at not inconsiderable cost.

Doing the right thing DOES cost money, I dont mind that. Im proud we are one of the worlds biggest foreign aid donors even after the recent cut. But the point is we are NOT doing the right thing at the moment.

I think this is worth trying. No one forces anyone to come here, by definition they are in a safe country at the moment and there are legal means to coming to the country they can (and should) try.

None of us know if this policy will work, but I suspect it is worth trying and I wonder whether it is something other countries will do - we know already Denmark (centre left govt btw) is at least talking about this - does anyone know if their scheme is in operation and working?