This flight to Rwanda

[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 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.

[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".)