Even Iain Dale was flabbergasted when he found out that even if their asylum claims are approved, those young men transported to Rwanda will not be allowed back to the UK, but will be expected to make a new life in Africa.
Anyone who thinks that's the way things should be is essentially saying that the UK should never take asylum seekers, because there's virtually no way anyone is going to get to us first. We're an island. It just doesn't make sense to operate under those terms.
The UK should be concentrating its efforts on real refugees These economic migrants cause great damage to that, they take up bandwidth, they blow through budgets, and they create negativity and noise Frankly I think they should be sent back to country of origin, but if Greece Italy etc want to take them that is their concern
Who are you to say who is an economic refugee? The nastiest Home Office in history says they are asylum seekers, your response is "how can they be sure?". You just don't want forinners here. Dress it up however you like.
I agree, we should do our share. I do not agree that encouraging illegal and dangerous movement across the border is desirable or for that matter humanitarian. The system you are describing is the legal system, and it has no bearing on my comments. The Rwanda arrangement is our legal method of processing people who have arrived here through illegal means. Please do not say their passage without papers from one safe country to another is legal. If they wish to apply for assylum before getting here, so be it, and we shall, should, take our fair share. If they come here illegally from countries where they have already sought or gained assylum, then that is wrong; let them continue to observe the legal system. If they choose otherwise, then they must be subject the lawful processes we have in place to deal with them. What is wrong about sending them to Rwanda if that is the choice they make in their best interest. I imagine that is the question everyone on here will be ignoring for the next few days.
But what if some of them are East African Asians though? Remember what your uncle told you about them, mate I'm happy for any foreigners to come here. When you suggest others are racist, it just reminds me of some old fashioned views you have expressed in the past. Makes me think there is some hypocrissy floating around.
Someone who chooses to flee a perfectly safe country in order to claim asylum in another country is an economic refugee Perhaps you think the EU isn't safe?
Fixed for you. Occam's razor seldom fails to deliver... Why would you want to leave one safe country for another? 1. Because there are more opportunities to enrich myself in the UK. 2. Because it is dangerous in the EU and I do not feel safe.
Have to say, I do agree with Johnson and the Mail on this. They won’t let lefties wreck this. They’ll mess it up soon enough on their own.
Has anyone noticed how the refugees from Ukraine are predominantly women and children escaping from war, whereas the illegal immigrants crossing the channel in dinghies are predominantly young men, escaping from something. Just a thought. #VirtueSignallingForTheCauseNotThePeople
Probably the truest thing you have said. As much as I think it is a fair plan, to present people in France with a choice of a holding pen in Rwanda or stay in France (as difficult a decision as that must be for them), I do think it is going to be a dificult one for the Government to implement. I wouldn't be at all surprised if no-one ever actually arrives in Rwanda. But then, if there is a significant reduction in the number of people crossing the channel because of the threat of it? Then job done, really. Let's face it, when the slow 'plane to Kigali is offered, with the optional return to France, it may turn out that the threat is more effective than its execution. It would be ironic if the dinghies started going back the other way. We shall see.
Such cold, two-dimensional anti-immigrant sentiment as this makes me feel very sad for whatever it is at the heart of your soul, Henry. You may well look at humanity like chess pieces all moving about and you want to restrict the lowliest and weakest (the pawns) to moving one square at a time in only one direction while you enjoy the benefits of having been born (I assume) and brought up and live in a country that is akin to winning the lottery of life before you've even finished your first new-born scream. It was only a couple of paragraphs but that was just about the gloomiest world view I've had the misfortune to read for a while. Perhaps it's just puffed up posturing, the sort of tough idiotic nonsense politicians revel. They think being tough rather than smart makes the problems of the world magically disappear so everyone can concentrate on whether the price of their house has gone up. It's rhetoric based on a curious sort of detached-yet-deep engagement with politics. There's a simple two-line solution to every problem, no matter how complex, for so many people but it just makes my jaw drop when I see people thinking this way. I wonder if, in some theoretical future, climate change or war or whatever unforeseen catastrophe were to force mass immigration north whether you'd be in your car on your last drops of fuel wondering if someone in Elgin or Inverness would take you in and show you some kindness, give you something to eat, offer compassion. Or whether they'd be at their doors shouting: "No, it was safe in Nuneaton. Go back there." I expect you'll have a simplistic one-line answer to this one too, or consider it too fanciful a scenario to be relevant to the debate, but it's actually the only thing relevant to the debate. What would you want if you found yourself in the situation of people who have nothing and have to flee their home. Don't answer that, I expect the answer will be facile. "I'd have had the good sense to make sure I wasn't born in Syria in the first place." So I'm going to pop you on ignore – although not for some snowflakey leftie reason. It's not that I don't want to see or engage with views that are radically different to my own, I actually do, I enjoy engaging with and learning from people who see the world in very different ways to me. It's why I like being exposed to different people and cultures rather than pulling up the drawbridge and saying 'No, keep out, this is mine, you stay over there on your bit." So I have no problem with differences at all – I just don't particularly want to see such blunt, stark analysis of complex geo-political issues framed through a world-view about as wide as a pinhead. It's bad for the soul.
Unfortunately such simplistic and selfish views are all too common as shown by Twitter, Facebook etc. It's after decades of demonising migrants and refugees, especially by parts of the MSM. It's lost on them that this nation was built on migrants and is all the richer for it. Ironically we need migrants more than ever right now. We already have huge shortages of workers in certain sectors while our population continues to age. These people are desperate for a safe haven and I have no doubt they would pay back any generosity tenfold through their hard work and determination to make their lives work here, to the benefit of the whole nation. Instead we are determined to send them on a one way trip to a country they don't want to go to, at great expense (in Australia it is costing a fortune per refugee) and with no evidence that it will stop the dangerous boat crossings (it didn't in Australia). It makes no sense on any level but especially not on a humanitarian or economic basis.
Its only complicated because you are choosing to make it so If the EU can't manage its borders better and allows vast numbers of migrants in, it's not the responsibility of the UK to help them fix the consequences The UK must do more yes finding and helping real people in need, not bunging up the system with 18-45 year old Iranian males (the biggest group of small boat asylum seekers) There are thousands of completely helpless people in care stuck in bombed out homes in Ukraine, that's one area the UK should be concentrating on helping, not fit young men in trackies bouncing ashore
The Tories will be happy for this to fail or succeed. If it fails, it sets an election battle line to rally nationalists. Those bleeding heart liberals stopped you again! We must protect Brexit! And worse, as they and their press ramp up fear, disdain or mistrust of non-white males, as we have seen on this thread. Labour will have a hard job convincing some that simply doing it properly by safe routes and fast decisions, will be enough to stop the small boats.
Ha ha. So why are we so slow in assisting those from Ukraine? Why put so many obstacles in their way? And if a ‘bombed out home’ is your criteria, then are plenty in Yemen. We can have affinity with them, after all it’s often been our ordnance that destroyed their homes. But hope you are keeping track of the entry rules to the UK. No stepping on dry land and no tracksuits so far.
Imagine what's going to happen if they ever wheel out Priti "Vacant" to 'answer' for this omnishambles.
Except you can't claim asylum before arriving here (https://theferret.scot/asylum-uk-process-refugees/) https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum#:~:text=You must apply for asylum,study or remain with family). So what choice do they have?
Such naive virtue signalling makes me very sad for the future of society. You have a child's unpractical view of reality and would watch as the world you know falls apart from your good intentions, wondering why you didn't understand until too late, and blame the adults for not showing you the right way to do things. I am not insensitive to those who genuinely need asylum, and believe they must be catered for. So I can sleep easily. You are clearly not listening to a word that is being said by anyone you disagree with. What would you do if you had nothing and arrived in a safe country that would provide for you? Would you say, "this country (name any EU state which they will have passed through) is not good enough for me, I will go to another"? If we are the only country that is providing migrants with what they truly need (the only reason they would leave safe countries to get here), then it is the rest of the world that needs to sort itself out, not the UK. Naive, false, discourteous and un-worldly is a fair description of your argument whilst you persist with the points you make above, which ignore what I have said, refuse to answer the most pertinent questions raised, and treat every illegal immigrant as an innocent angel. What is wrong or improper about processing illegal immigrants off shore?
That one is very easy, and it does you no credit that you did not see it. Stay in the EU where they are already safe and able to claim the assylum they require. Do you agree that this is a reasonable and indeed obvious choice for them to make? If they have good reason to come to the UK, they can then do so legally.
We provide less in benefits than other countries such as France, but there's plenty of reasons why they would want to come to England instead of staying in France - they could speak English but not French, they could already have family members over here (which was the reason for coming to England for 52% of refugees questioned in a survey a few years ago) This also answers your above question.
In reality, the only argument that the remainers/lefties appear to be making on here is... "Why should the EU take all the illegal immigrants?" It is no surprise that they are making the EU's arguments against their home country, it is just a little vile that they would encourage dangerous channel crossings (Rwanda is intended to discourage this, humanitarianly) and attempt lame and impotent virtue signalling to facilitate political point scoring.
This comes back to my previous point though - they cannot claim asylum without being in the UK, so there will still be dangerous crossings across the channel then once here they'll be sent to Rwanda. If there was a true humanitarian way of dealing with this it would be to have an office or something in Calais in which people can claim asylum in the UK. I bet that would cut down on the number of crossings.
No it doesn't. They are safe, which, if they are refugees in need of a safe haven, then they have that on arrival in the EU. They can then apply to join their families, or their families can apply for them to join them here. I have been involved in many such requests and advised friends on how to do it. It may surprise you, but I have been involved in the naturalisation of more people than I can remember, coming from all over the world. They do not have to cross the channel illegally to get here.
They do not need to cross the channel illegally. Full stop. That is their choice to leave a safe country, and they should be discouraged from doing so, not least because of the danger. The Rwanda thing is merely part of our process, and if coming here is their goal, then it too is a choice they are free to make, knowing it is our policy. You are naive if you believe an office in Calais would have any effect. The young men who cross the channel are, like it or not, predominantly economic migrants, and applying in France will not achieve much for them. I seem to remember that something like what you suggest was tried 10 or 15 years back anyway. Most coming over here wish top disappear and becpome part of the dark economy, possibly ending up in Leiester sweat shops, or the like. Some will make something of themselves, but those people will be the ones most likely to approach their arrival here practically and legally. Those that do so should be welcomed, and more power to their elbow. I will help them fill in the forms to get their families here to join them.
Just listened to a phone in call from a Somalian who came here in the early 90s. His mother sent him and his two brothers away because the only prospects for him were to be conscripted by a warlord's militia and kill or to be conscripted by a different warlord's militia and kill, or to die. He was 17. He may have had a tracksuit. He probably didn't have an IPhone. Don't be so ******* obtuse.
Glad it was so easy to find an example. You say he came here? Can we assume he was given asylum? What is your issue? Why so ****ably obtuse?
As you've said - it's their choice, and they're not crossing the channel illegally if they're coming to claim asylum. But it's also the choice of our governments in not offering a way to claim asylum whilst abroad. Whilst dangerous a majority make it over with no issues so they obviously deem it worth the risk and with France etc paying more in benefits then it's certainly not for that reason. Have you got a source on that?
Because we don't have a border with Ukraine. If we had, we would be taking in refugees in exactly the same manner as the EU. As usual, there appears to be a lack of reality present in some people's understanding of the situation. If we were first port of call, we would take them. If they are coming from a safe haven, then there are processes to be observed. If they were coming from Iceland, say, we would be obliged to take them, and I am sure we would.
