This flight to Rwanda

[Eric Cartman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Eric Cartman]

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

Might be crossed wires but when I said:

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.

You said:

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.

That reads to me as though this is more about preventing 'high numbers' than reducing illegal methods, dangerous entry or increasing fairness. Which I will say again, is fine. But let's stop beating around the bush.

[Eric Cartman]

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.

Offshore detention and processing is not what is being proposed here.

The only part of these two policies that you could draw some sort of comparison between is the cost of housing a person in secure temporary accommodation in somebody else's country. In 2021 it was reported that the Australian taxpayer was forecast to pay an effective rate of $9305 AUD per person per day to house the 239 people in offshore detention/processing camps.

I'll let you decide if you think that is a really good result or not.

[Eric Cartman]

I don't consider it inhumane, and I think it's worth trying.

You genuinely don't think there is something slightly iffy with taking somebody:

- who has a valid asylum claim
- is fleeing persecution and likely death
- felt his best chance was to come to the UK because he speaks English and has friends/family here
- travelled across Europe and enters the UK illegally because the process to apply for asylum is inaccessible

and ignoring the strength of their claim and deporting them to Rwanda

Just to be clear here, nobody else is doing this. We are the outlier.

[JamesWales]

You genuinely don't think there is something slightly iffy with taking somebody:

- who has a valid asylum claim
- is fleeing persecution and likely death
- felt his best chance was to come to the UK because he speaks English and has friends/family here
- travelled across Europe and enters the UK illegally because the process to apply for asylum is inaccessible

and ignoring the strength of their claim and deporting them to Rwanda

Just to be clear here, nobody else is doing this. We are the outlier.

You don't think there is something iffy about wealthier migrants jumping the queue at the expense of those more in need and doing so via criminal gangs and the UK being absolutely unable to do anything about it and having to accept anyone who wants to come here, all at the time the country is experience very real economic problems?

Very few arrive with passports of means of identification. The UK can't take anyone who might prefer to be here because they speak English. The system is broke and we should try something if it helps fix it. Rwanda is not a warzone (nor is France by the way) and if it helps break the system that isn't working then it's worth trying.

You guys try and claim the moral highground when you are seemingly more than happy with the status quo which absolutely does not work for those most in need and fkn well enriches those who most exploit those people.

Again and again...not a solution between you.

[Eric Cartman]

You don't think there is something iffy about wealthier migrants jumping the queue at the expense of those more in need and doing so via criminal gangs and the UK being absolutely unable to do anything about it and having to accept anyone who wants to come here, all at the time the country is experience very real economic problems?

Very few arrive with passports of means of identification. The UK can't take anyone who might prefer to be here because they speak English. The system is broke and we should try something if it helps fix it. Rwanda is not a warzone (nor is France by the way) and if it helps break the system that isn't working then it's worth trying.

You guys try and claim the moral highground when you are seemingly more than happy with the status quo which absolutely does not work for those most in need and fkn well enriches those who most exploit those people.

Again and again...not a solution between you.

I am not trying to trap you or claim the moral high ground, just a genuine question to clarify what you think as to me, that scenario is inhumane.

Of course I don't think it's good that people are forced to take illegal routes, it's dangerous for them to do so. Illegal migration is a fact of life all over the world, if there was a simple answer, someone else would have done it by now.

You have claimed since the start that this policy is a deterrent, without evidence.

You have claimed since the start that your motivation to support the policy stems from fairness and consideration for the lives of those making the journey, well that doesn't seem to be the case anymore

You have claimed it's good value, without knowing the projected cost.

You still seem to think this is offshore processing, hence the comparison with Australia. Unfortunately no, it's worse. This is a uniquely extreme policy when viewed in the context of international law as it enshrines the idea that the migrants method of entry trump's their strength of claim for asylum.

Finally. You do realise that this often repeated claim that migrants should 'seek asylum in the first safe country they reach' forms no part of international or UK law and is essentially right wing propaganda?

Stop lying James, you have been given a few solutions that would stop people utilising illegal routes. You don't like them because it will likely increase successful asylum claims. The mask has slipped, this isn't about the dangers of illegal crossings or criminal gangs or fairness. It's about numbers.

[JamesWales]

I am not trying to trap you or claim the moral high ground, just a genuine question to clarify what you think as to me, that scenario is inhumane.

Of course I don't think it's good that people are forced to take illegal routes, it's dangerous for them to do so. Illegal migration is a fact of life all over the world, if there was a simple answer, someone else would have done it by now.

You have claimed since the start that this policy is a deterrent, without evidence.

You have claimed since the start that your motivation to support the policy stems from fairness and consideration for the lives of those making the journey, well that doesn't seem to be the case anymore

You have claimed it's good value, without knowing the projected cost.

You still seem to think this is offshore processing, hence the comparison with Australia. Unfortunately no, it's worse. This is a uniquely extreme policy when viewed in the context of international law as it enshrines the idea that the migrants method of entry trump's their strength of claim for asylum.

Finally. You do realise that this often repeated claim that migrants should 'seek asylum in the first safe country they reach' forms no part of international or UK law and is essentially right wing propaganda?

I think we are just going around in circles here aren't we.
I don't view it as inhumane. You do.
I do have a problem with the current situation. You perhaps do, but less so.
I do think the situation is unfair and completely unsustainable. You perhaps do, but can't come up with an alternative.
I do understand that a country needs to have faith in it's asylum and immigration policies an without it, the system falls apart. You seemingly don't.

No one likes the situation, but there has been around a 10 fold increase in those crossing the channel in 3 years. All of whom have come from a safe country, all of whom have paid thousands to criminals. How do we know that in the next 3 years we don't see a similar rise? What safeguards do you propose? Can the country take everyone that wants to come here?

Again, we are just going around in circles, and I really think you need to rally around an alternative solution (or admit than anyone who wants to come here should be able to) so we can move on cos everyone is bored of it now.

[jon1959]

Again, we are just going around in circles, and I really think you need to rally around an alternative solution (or admit than anyone who wants to come here should be able to) so we can move on cos everyone is bored of it now.

If so your 51 posts in this thread have certainly contributed to that.

51 goes at repeating the same Priti Patel cheerleading song, whilst ignoring or misrepresenting most counter points.

At least you have been part of moving the focus away from Lither and his jack boot analysis. A small mercy!

[az city]

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 ;)

It is my understanding (and I stand to be corrected) that anyone sent to Rwanda for asylum processing would, if successful, be granted leave to remain in ... Rwanda. Effectively, this policy (you apparently cannot see beyond) is a form of deportation to a country a lot of us would see as a repressive regime. And you seriously think it's ok?

Are you that much of a craven Tory apologist?

(P.S. There is no apostrophe in "GCSEs".)

[the other bob wilson]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ing-mps-report

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ing-mps-report

It was obviously a ploy to show the goons the government were .....serious .....about the issue of migration

It's clearly very dodgy at best

[JamesWales]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ing-mps-report

How can you test something that is new?

It's good to see all the candidates in the leadership race support sticking with policy until it works.

[the other bob wilson]

Well, this looks good doesn’t it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62566194

[JamesWales]

1,300 arrived yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62644946

[JamesWales]

Border Force confirm most of them are Albanian. Not a country at war, coming from France, one of the wealthiest on earth. Complete and utter abuse of the system that is costing us millions , not helping those most in need and enriching criminals.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1562107747453353990

[Eric Cartman]

Border Force confirm most of them are Albanian. Not a country at war, coming from France, one of the wealthiest on earth. Complete and utter abuse of the system that is costing us millions , not helping those most in need and enriching criminals.

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1562107747453353990

Gammon porn while energy companies bleed people dry.

If they have no claim to asylum then surely it's easy peasy, just send them back to Albania, or fly them to Rwanda as was your method du jour a few weeks back. Out of interest, how is the deterrent going?

[JamesWales]

Gammon porn while energy companies bleed people dry.

If they have no claim to asylum then surely it's easy peasy, just send them back to Albania, or fly them to Rwanda as was your method du jour a few weeks back. Out of interest, how is the deterrent going?

The deterrent isn't going well, because left-wing lawyers have supported them in arguing against their removal.

Interesting to see you support the abuse of our system. Are you making money from it all?

Not that it has anything to do with the abuse of the asylum system but the price of energy is up because Europe is boycotting Russian gas, you plonker.

[Claude Blue]

The deterrent isn't going well, because left-wing lawyers have supported them in arguing against their removal.

Interesting to see you support the abuse of our system. Are you making money from it all?

Not that it has anything to do with the abuse of the asylum system but the price of energy is up because Europe is boycotting Russian gas, you plonker.

Why are they "left wing" lawyers James?

Aren't they just lawyers ensuring that the law of the land is adhered to by all, including our government?

Perhaps you prefer our government behaving as it wishes without checks and balances - as long as you agree with the policy obviously.

Not quite "Mr. Nuance" are you!!

[JamesWales]

Why are they "left wing" lawyers James?

Aren't they just lawyers ensuring that the law of the land is adhered to by all, including our government?

Perhaps you prefer our government behaving as it wishes without checks and balances - as long as you agree with the policy obviously.

Not quite "Mr. Nuance" are you!!

Because they are left-wing lawyers Claude.

The Rwanda flights were stopped by a law firm called Duncan Lewis Solicitors. This is them at a Labour event.

https://twitter.com/DuncanLewis/stat...87374042521600

I'm all for checks and balances, less so for the law being exploited by criminals and the country having to support anyone who wants to come, especially through a system designed to help the most needy, not those with the ability to afford to pay

Do you really think that 40% of the most needy in the world are Albanian people coming from France via criminal gangs? Or is there perhaps a better way? Naivity can only cover you so far here.

[Claude Blue]

Because they are left-wing lawyers Claude.

The Rwanda flights were stopped by a law firm called Duncan Lewis Solicitors. This is them at a Labour event.

I'm all for checks and balances, less so for the law being exploited by criminals and the country having to support anyone who wants to come, especially through a system designed to help the most needy, not those with the ability to afford to pay

https://twitter.com/DuncanLewis/stat...87374042521600

So they work within the parameters of the law.

Why do you find that objectionable?

[JamesWales]

So they work within the parameters of the law.

Why do you find that objectionable?

Because I think they are enabling and facilitating the abuse of the asylum and immigration system, enriching criminal gangs, allowing people to 'jump the queue' and creating costs to the country which has significant other priorities atm.