They are being sent to Rwanda for an all expenses paid holiday in the sun while sumptuous accommodation is arranged for their return along with a full suite of welfare benefits.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
They are being sent to Rwanda for an all expenses paid holiday in the sun while sumptuous accommodation is arranged for their return along with a full suite of welfare benefits.
Come on lads, FFS! Don't wonder why the government can't stop illegal immigration, ask why they are facilitating it.
The cute reasoning is May signed up to the UN's Global Compact for Migration. But that doesn't fly because it is non-binding.
The Fifth Columnists inside the UK, those MPs who wear different colour rosettes but play for the same side, have been implementing the Kalergi Plan for decades.
English Channel during 2020 - Nigel Farage witnesses illegal migrants entering British waters - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEW-nd2OsAo
Same location in 2021, nowt's changed - Nigel Farage spots migrant boat crossing English Channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70yLMRUvX3I
Ask yourself why Nigel Farage has the energy to expose this caper when news crews from ITV, BBC, Channel 4 and 5 along with the aforementioned Fifth Columnists refuse to. It's the same reason why all those very carefully and deliberately omitted telling their constituents and viewers that the manufacturers of the clot shots enjoyed absolute financial indemnity for their 'safe' products... and that's because they didn't and still don't want people to know.
Well depends how you define success. This pivots our immigration system to one whereby your method of entry is the key part of your claim, if you arrive illegally then your claim will not be assessed, despite the fact that the majority who arrive illegally and present themselves to the authorities are currently approved for asylum. This would be okay if the official channels weren't deliberately slow (and a cynic might say about to get a whole lot slower). We want to use the asylum process as a tool for virtue signalling British generosity rather than as a way to genuinely help those in need.Originally Posted by JamesWales
The other side of this is a barbarism of the proposed process. Under the agreement we shall present a list of names/details of illegal immigrants to the UK (the document doesn't mention a cut off so this could include people who entered the UK at any point) to Rwanda and they will pick who they will take. The person will then be given a short period of time to successfully appeal before being shipped off to Rwanda. At no point do they get asked if they want to go or whether they want to return to their country of origin. At no point does the person's claim to asylum get assessed.
It isn't clear if this will reduce channel crossings but I think you could be pretty sure it will reduce the likelihood of anybody who is here illegally willingly interacting with an institution of the state (i.e. reporting a crime, attending a hospital for urgent medical care).
I think you need to be very clear about what you are supporting here:
- It ensures that the UK will help less genuine asylum seekers than before.
- It allows for people who arrive (or have previously arrived) illegally to be forcibly deported without their claim to asylum being assessed.
- There is no evidence it will reduce human trafficking.
- It incentivises illegal entrants to not interact with society, increasing the likelihood of them being taken advantage of.
I've tried reading through some of the replies , apologies if I missed the straight answer to the OP as there are so many moving goalposts, is the question too tough ??
Again would Labour Risk Reversing The Rwanda Solution????
Simple yes or no will do instead of the usual personal attacks .
Were the replies too difficult to understand?
Yes although there isn't really anything to reverse yet.
Todays quiz: Who said this, this morning?
“Our dialogue with the Rwandan government includes a mechanism for the transfer of asylum seekers… [the deal will] ensure a more dignified approach than the criminal network of human traffickers that characterises migration across the Mediterranean today.”
I will take a guess at that bastion of right wing politics...........
Denmark!!
Ooh, this is a good game.
Which bastion of wishy-washy liberalism and architect of Go Home Vans and Billboards said this......
"From what I have heard and seen so far of this policy, I do not support the removal to Rwanda policy on the grounds of legality, practicality and efficacy.
"If it is the case that families will not be broken up, does she not believe and where is her evidence that this will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children?"
It's not a game but it was Theresa May
Sorry when James Wales said it was today's quiz I obviously misunderstood the seriousness of his question.
Spot on.
Quote released today from that notoriously racist Tory, the Danish immigration minister, Mattius Tesfaye, son of an Ethiopian refugee, former vice Chairman of the Socialist Peoples Party and current MP for the centre-left governing Social Democrats.
Perhaps Europe is finally going to start dismantling people smuggling gangs seriously?
https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/20/...asylum-seekers
https://order-order.com/2022/04/20/d...ers-to-rwanda/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattias_Tesfaye
Did he provide that much needed evidence to suggest why the approach the British government is taking will reduce human trafficking? You seem so certain it will but then you dodge every question about it. Maybe Priti will find it down the back of her sofa.
I am of the opinion that when the government spends hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money it shouldn't be on a whim and should be supported with an assessment of the value it returns. Happy to hear from you why you don't think that is an appropriate approach.
It is important to do a cost/benefit analysis but the reality is there are no facts and no evidence about something that hasn't happened yet, and the costs/benefits of the existing system are also impossible to measure.
I think it's worth trying to do this if it reduces the demand to come to the UK illegally. I dont have an issue with that and see no better solutions coming forward apart from a general shrugging of shoulders.
What is frustrating is that people resort to tropes without actually considering it. So anything to try and reduce illegal immigration is just branded 'racist'. TBH, I think people are seeing through that argument now and realising it's bullshit. At the very least at least a Danish-Ethiopian from a centre left party endorsing the same policy should make it's detractors come up with better reasons to oppose it.
Not sure anybody cares
Well I for one am "slightly taken aback" by the amount of energy JamesWales is expending defending the Rwandan policy. He would be far better served focusing his energy on criticising Russia and Vladimir Putin in my opinion.
Presumably we are paying Rwanda handsomly for taking these "undesirable" people off our hands.
This whole thing stinks, it is utterly shameful.
We are paying money to an authoritarian regime here, to absolve ourselves of the moral responsibility of looking after the vulnerable and needy.
I for one have completely changed my mind and agree with the policy now that I have found out that someone from denmark think it is a goodun and Theresa May thinks it's bad. Oh wait actually I couldn't care less what other people think of it.
A glimpse into how some people formulate their opinions though maybe..?
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?
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?
Both in my view, 90 % are male, of the 90%, 70% are single males .
David Blunkett said In 2002 the then Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett was saying that he had “no sympathy” with young asylum seekers from Kosovo or Afghanistan who come to Britain looking for work. He told members of Parliament, “If these people are dynamic and well-qualified, and I don’t dispute that they are, they should get back home and recreate their countries that we freed from tyranny, whether it be Kosovo or now Afghanistan.” In response to this type of rhetoric by 2004 the Refugee Council was saying that ministers were treating asylum seekers like criminals “contributing to public misunderstanding of refugees”.
Why do you have a problem with single males? Are only women and children allowed to suffer atrocities in their countries and find asylum elsewhere?
I wonder if the high percentage (you might want to share your source on that too) of single males that come here is due to them being best equipped to get out of their country, rather than being tied to a bunch of kids.
It's just a thought but on the other hand they're probably all just black rapists in your mind.
I simply don't believe they are all true refugees and it's disproportionate between the sexes .
We need a process that let's in real refugees not strong man who have other agendas and thousands of pounds to pay trafficking gangs.
Families are the real victims and true displaced refugees, and we should care for them as a priority , with women and children given a fairer and easier route , with single healthy males should be processed off shore to determine the true nature of their refugee status .
What percentage of the men do you think are "true refugees"?
What authority do you have to back up your bold opinion?
Send the home office your address and test it out offer up a room .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote