This flight to Rwanda

[Claude Blue]

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.

Then it's down to the government to develop policies that adhere to the laws of the land.

It's sweet FA to do with "left wing" lawyers.

If you disagree then you believe that our government should be able to act with impunity.

That's a dangerous path to go down and I suspect you know that.

[JamesWales]

Then it's down to the government to develop policies that adhere to the laws of the land.

It's sweet FA to do with "left wing" lawyers.

If you disagree then you believe that our government should be able to act with impunity.

That's a dangerous path to go down and I suspect you know that.

I don't think the government should be able to act without impunity. I just think the law is being abused and is being used against the spirit of what asylum and immigration laws are there to do.

It's fine to question the law and legal system without wanting to undermine the whole process of checks and balances. People can criticise the famous recent decision by the supreme court in the US for example, without acknowledging that it is still a part of the process of government.

[JamesWales]

Albanian Police to be stationed at Dover. Now I agree, this is hopefully a better deterrent than threats of flights to Rwanda.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...ts/ar-AA114Fij

It's almost as if our processes have been exploited for some time.

[Swiss Peter]

Then it's down to the government to develop policies that adhere to the laws of the land.

It's sweet FA to do with "left wing" lawyers.

If you disagree then you believe that our government should be able to act with impunity.

That's a dangerous path to go down and I suspect you know that.

Does the government have legal advisors that stress-test this kind of policy to assess its robustness within the parameters of law against legal scrutiny and challenge? Of course.

What would have been those advisor’s conclusions with respect to this policy? Who knows (…although we’ve seen those reports of their own advisers warnings over the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination).

Assuming the Government took advice, did it then act upon that advice and adapt its approach to better withstand this challenge? It appears not, based upon the success of those challenges.

So maybe they knew it probably wouldn’t work, and maybe that never actually mattered very much. What mattered was the signal – the meat (lets say gammon, for arguments sake) being thrown out to the hungry pack baying for more stringent immigration controls. A cynical ploy to buy political credit/time, to be seen to be doing something, that they themselves knew probably wouldn’t work.

And they probably knew that their easily-manipulated footsoldiers, who willingly rush to defend this kind of stuff, would end up looking a bit stupid, but were more likely to blame the lawyers or the lefties rather than the ones who instigated a flawed policy in the first place.

[Swiss Peter]

Albanian Police to be stationed at Dover. Now I agree, this is hopefully a better deterrent than threats of flights to Rwanda.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...ts/ar-AA114Fij

It's almost as if our processes have been exploited for some time.

Yes - hopefully. Need to cooperate better with the relevant agencies across Europe to sort this. It’s a really serious problem needing serious answers - not crackpot ideas that look great in the daily express.

[Eric Cartman]

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.

Really? Get help.

I told you the deterrent wouldn't work and I told you the deterrent was against international law. This shouldn't be a surprise.

[Eric Cartman]

I don't think the government should be able to act without impunity. I just think the law is being abused and is being used against the spirit of what asylum and immigration laws are there to do.

One of the core tenets of international law around asylum is that your method of entry shouldn't affect your claim. The UK govs policy of flying illegal migrants to Rwanda directly and deliberately does this.

[Eric Cartman]

Does the government have legal advisors that stress-test this kind of policy to assess its robustness within the parameters of law against legal scrutiny and challenge? Of course.

What would have been those advisor’s conclusions with respect to this policy? Who knows (…although we’ve seen those reports of their own advisers warnings over the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination).

Assuming the Government took advice, did it then act upon that advice and adapt its approach to better withstand this challenge? It appears not, based upon the success of those challenges.

So maybe they knew it probably wouldn’t work, and maybe that never actually mattered very much. What mattered was the signal – the meat (lets say gammon, for arguments sake) being thrown out to the hungry pack baying for more stringent immigration controls. A cynical ploy to buy political credit/time, to be seen to be doing something, that they themselves knew probably wouldn’t work.

And they probably knew that their easily-manipulated footsoldiers, who willingly rush to defend this kind of stuff, would end up looking a bit stupid, but were more likely to blame the lawyers or the lefties rather than the ones who instigated a flawed policy in the first place.

You won't get a reply. That is why I resort to goading him, he claims to want an adult debate but the moment you eloquently trash his position he avoids responding.

[Claude Blue]

Does the government have legal advisors that stress-test this kind of policy to assess its robustness within the parameters of law against legal scrutiny and challenge? Of course.

What would have been those advisor’s conclusions with respect to this policy? Who knows (…although we’ve seen those reports of their own advisers warnings over the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination).

Assuming the Government took advice, did it then act upon that advice and adapt its approach to better withstand this challenge? It appears not, based upon the success of those challenges.

So maybe they knew it probably wouldn’t work, and maybe that never actually mattered very much. What mattered was the signal – the meat (lets say gammon, for arguments sake) being thrown out to the hungry pack baying for more stringent immigration controls. A cynical ploy to buy political credit/time, to be seen to be doing something, that they themselves knew probably wouldn’t work.

And they probably knew that their easily-manipulated footsoldiers, who willingly rush to defend this kind of stuff, would end up looking a bit stupid, but were more likely to blame the lawyers or the lefties rather than the ones who instigated a flawed policy in the first place.

Every word

[Dorcus]

Every word

And it sounds a bit like their Brexit policy to me. What do we know? this Government has no substance and barely any ethics.

[JamesWales]

Does the government have legal advisors that stress-test this kind of policy to assess its robustness within the parameters of law against legal scrutiny and challenge? Of course.

What would have been those advisor’s conclusions with respect to this policy? Who knows (…although we’ve seen those reports of their own advisers warnings over the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination).

Assuming the Government took advice, did it then act upon that advice and adapt its approach to better withstand this challenge? It appears not, based upon the success of those challenges.

So maybe they knew it probably wouldn’t work, and maybe that never actually mattered very much. What mattered was the signal – the meat (lets say gammon, for arguments sake) being thrown out to the hungry pack baying for more stringent immigration controls. A cynical ploy to buy political credit/time, to be seen to be doing something, that they themselves knew probably wouldn’t work.

And they probably knew that their easily-manipulated footsoldiers, who willingly rush to defend this kind of stuff, would end up looking a bit stupid, but were more likely to blame the lawyers or the lefties rather than the ones who instigated a flawed policy in the first place.

No, what matters is to try and prevent the abuse of the asylum system to slow numbers so these things can be managed and processed properly.

Can you not see how broken the system is? Or don't you care? It has to be one or the other really.

[JamesWales]

And it sounds a bit like their Brexit policy to me. What do we know? this Government has no substance and barely any ethics.

What is ethical about allowing a system designed to help the most needy be exploited by criminal gangs and be used by people who want a better life but are far from the most needy?

There are no ethics in doing nothing.

[Rjk]

What is ethical about allowing a system designed to help the most needy be exploited by criminal gangs and be used by people who want a better life but are far from the most needy?

There are no ethics in doing nothing.

Do you think that any of these actions do anything to prevent criminal gangs from exploiting the needy?
desperate people fleeing whatever they are fleeing aren't going to know what the latest awful policy our tory government has cooked up, they won't have the faintest idea about flights to Rwanda or Albanian police.
I'm sure the criminal gangs aren't handing out a pamphlet stating how many people die at sea and how many get deported to Rwanda.

All these things do is try to please the people who have been convinced that immigrants are the cause of all of their problems.

[JamesWales]

Do you think that any of these actions do anything to prevent criminal gangs from exploiting the needy?
desperate people fleeing whatever they are fleeing aren't going to know what the latest awful policy our tory government has cooked up, they won't have the faintest idea about flights to Rwanda or Albanian police.
I'm sure the criminal gangs aren't handing out a pamphlet stating how many people die at sea and how many get deported to Rwanda.

All these things do is try to please the people who have been convinced that immigrants are the cause of all of their problems.

The point is, these aren't desperate people. That is exactly the point. 40-60% are estimated to be from Albania. I'm not saying they don't want a better life, but the reality is not how you see it and that is what is so frustrating.

People are playing a moral card but you are supporting a completely immoral situation. If someone who doesn't need unemployment benefit claims it and you defend it, that isn't you being moral

[Rjk]

The point is, these aren't desperate people. That is exactly the point. 40-60% are estimated to be from Albania. I'm not saying they don't want a better life, but the reality is not how you see it and that is what is so frustrating.

People are playing a moral card but you are supporting a completely immoral situation. If someone who doesn't need unemployment benefit claims it and you defend it, that isn't you being moral

what percentage of the albanians paying criminal gangs to come here do you think have an in-depth understanding of the latest tory policies on immigration?

[Swiss Peter]

No, what matters is to try and prevent the abuse of the asylum system to slow numbers so these things can be managed and processed properly.

Can you not see how broken the system is? Or don't you care? It has to be one or the other really.

Sorry, but that really is a pathetic (and quite insulting) response.

Just because someone thinks a particular policy is not only undeliverable but also ridiculous, doesn't mean that they don't acknowledge and care about the problem it is designed to address.

You've spent 20 pages in this thread defending an undeliverable and ridiculous policy. Just own it.

[JamesWales]

what percentage of the albanians paying criminal gangs to come here do you think have an in-depth understanding of the latest tory policies on immigration?

Well the Irish govt said it had an impact
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...rwanda-policy/

Seems they know about it, but are being lied to
https://inews.co.uk/news/traffickers...fficer-1810356

[JamesWales]

Sorry, but that really is a pathetic (and quite insulting) response.

Just because someone thinks a particular policy is not only undeliverable but also ridiculous, doesn't mean that they don't acknowledge and care about the problem it is designed to address.

You've spent 20 pages in this thread defending an undeliverable and ridiculous policy. Just own it.

I don't mean to insult you, I am just trying to establish. If you recognise the system is being abused then we can have a conversation about how to try and solve it - which may or may not include policies such as discussed here.

If you don't think it's being abused then thats a different conversation.

If you don't care, then that's fine too..but again, a different conversation.

The issue with the Rwanda policy is to try and actually create a serious push factor to prevent so many people coming in the first place.

[JamesWales]

960 on saturday!
https://news.sky.com/video/migrant-c...-2021-12689892