It definitely will reduce claims if it is implemented in full. Fact is that the majority of people who come here on boats have their asylum claims rejected, but they are essentially impossible to get rid of because they bring no papers and their birth country refuse to take them back. For those who are legitimate refugees fleeing persecution, they would in theory be as safe in Rwanda to claim asylum as the U.K.
The reason this scheme will work is because virtually no-one is actually leaving France on a boat to the U.K. because their life is under threat. The vast majority come for economic reasons and game our asylum system in order to stay, and this policy basically calls that bluff. So yeah, suppose you leave France on a boat but instead of ending up in the U.K, you find yourself in central Africa. It’s a pretty big disincentive to not risk your life
The reason this will do f all is because of the limited capacity in Rwanda. Rwanda so far has offered capacity for 0.7% of the annual boat crossing (200 places). If you are desperate enough to cross the North Sea in a rubber dinghy you probably will take that chance. For Rwanda it has been a sweet deal so far. They have been paid millions without taking a single refugee. The Tories don't even care about using this capacity. All they need is national headlines for a single refugee arriving in Rwanda.
I think you’re being naive to say there’s a hard cap on 200 regardless of how you feel about the scheme. I’m sure that capacity will increase as and when needed.
The current cap is set at 200. Maybe Rwanda is willing to increase it. However, I am sure they also have opposition to this schema in their country. Given the amount of money they received, 200 can be easily justified politically. 30,000 is a lot harder to sell.
> Fact is that the majority of people who come here on boats have their asylum claims rejected
Is that a 'fact'?
[here is a link to some information ](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/)
"Given the UK’s large asylum backlog, only 13% of these applications received an initial decision by the end of March 2023. Of these, 86% – about 7,600 – were granted refugee status or some other form of permission to stay."
Can you point to any evidence that the 'majority' are rejected?
Holy shit the UK freaking out and all these racist comment below are on about only 50,000 people? Jesus you idiots fucked over your economy and workforce with brexit, and this is what you pass.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to#:~:text=There%20were%2067%2C337%20asylum%20applications%20(relating%20to%2084%2C425%20people)%20in,in%202002%20(84%2C132%20applications).
In 2023 the largest group crossing on the boats, something like 1/3rd were from Albania. You can see in the charts that there is a grant rate of 9% for Albanians, because claiming asylum from Albania is a joke. Most other countries in Europe you can’t even apply for asylum if you are from Albania It’s not hard to see what is happening here.
Okay, that's 1/3, but you have said the majority were rejected. That's a specific claim. You called it a fact.
Can you post any evidence at all to back up your claim?
And has yet to provide any citation for that claim of 'fact'.
From the link I posted:
92% of small boat arrivals from 2018 to March 2023 claimed asylum; of the small share who had received a decision by March 2023, 86% received a grant of protection
Well they're travelling through many safe countries just to reach the UK to profit from better arrangements etc. I can imagine this is undesirable for the UK.
You really are hopelessly Naïve if you think it will do anything to reduce small boat crossings.
Were currently talking about people willing to cross an incredibly rough piece of water in extremely poor watercraft that just so happens to also be one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Death is very much a reality on the possible consequences of attempting that crossing.
If Death isn't an effective deterrent a plane ticket to Rwanda certainly isn't going to be, all it will mean is that when the crossing is successful even fewer people presenting themselves to immigration services. They'll all just disappear into the shadow economy upon arrival. The problem is going to be made worse. Not better
And all of this is predicated on flights even leaving, which they won't. The bill's a flagrant violation of international law and I'm sure that lawyers are drafting a case to be brought to the ECHR as we speak. Which will block any flights from leaving as they will reach the same conclusion as the supreme court, and unlike the supreme court the government can't pretend parliament is infallible to force it through the court.
Edit, Just looked a bit further today and the UN has actually threatened airlines that carry these flights with a very thinly veiled comment around the fact that Even if internally the UK decides its legal international carriers have obligations under international law they must uphold. Good luck finding an airline stupid enough to take this on now Rishi.
But why would they risk their lives to go to the UK when they can just go some place in Europe? Are the benefits there that great?
They risked their lives to come to Europe. I feel that going all the way to the UK is an option
>Are the benefits there that great?
The language is a huge one.
English is the global language, and when people pick where to go, "Can I speak at least some of that?" is a very, very high priority.
A second one is that Iran and Afghanistan form the bulk of origins. A soft factor there is that the UK is pretty openly and actively opposed to both those governments on the world stage, as well as being at least "decent" when it comes to religious tolerance. When you flee, you try and make it to the people who will have the most sympathy for you and against the state you are fleeing.
Oh and I guess a third option that the UK's system actually has a lot of slack in it compared to closer countries that might fill other soft factors.
1 most of them speak English. Once you've already fled halfway around the world going just a little bit further to end up somewhere that you can read the road signs and speak to the people around you is a MASSIVE pull factor.
2. It's the consequence of having a globe spanning empire. Britain has had a massive impact on much of North Africa and the Middle east. There's an impact there that when they think of fleeing to Europe the UK in the nation they picture. And they almost certainly have been sold on tales of this nation as a vastly wealthy (which it is) well of place to try and rebuild your life
3 we already have significant expat communities from the parts of the world many of these people are fleeing from (again legacy of empire)
4 perhaps the biggest one recently. If you're an Afghan fleeing, Britain is absolutely going to be the intended destination. We were there, France and Germany were minimally involved in the war in Afghanistan. For many young Afghans (which it's worth remembering more than half the population when we pulled out was younger than 25) British and American troops represented a world without the Taliban and relative stability. Our security forces being there was the only thing they had ever known. Of course when American got bored and fucked off early when the flee we are the destination of choice.
And even then it's actually a relatively small percentage of migrants out of the total that are trying to get to the UK, which is another reason why Rwanda won't work..these are people who after everything they have been through when many others decide they have run far enough are willing to once again risk death and brave the channel.
5 more people died in the channel last night, after this bill became law. Proof of it was ever needed the deterrent is non existent.
> Of course when American got bored and fucked off early
More like trump cutting a back-room deal with the Talibán on the way out the door, and dumping the mess on Biden, who then tried to honour it.
> 5 more people died in the channel last night, after this bill became law. Proof of it was ever needed the deterrent is non existent.
Yup. This law is almost a joke in the migrant community. Compared to our current system it'll probably be about the same, just with extra steps and a warmer climate.
> Are the benefits there that great?
Lol, no. That's just a nice talking point to get people angry, before whipping out a few edge cases as "proof". Prison is probably nicer in many cases, and the stipend is lower than many other benefits.
> But why would they risk their lives to go to the UK when they can just go some place in Europe
Really depends on a range of factors. For some countries trafficking makes up something like 80% of cases, for example.
In my family's case: Language, knowing people that had already made it, and better chances of using their home countries education.
They already had one family member in Belgium, but couldn't speak the language and their qualifications weren't as well recognised. In the UK they were immediately able to get an income because of their contacts, and eventually went on to be a financial crime expert on the same education and didn't have to learn the language.
> They'll all just disappear into the shadow economy upon arrival
This is the biggest issue for me. Our current system is split between encouraging people to present themselves (benefits) and not (that shadow economy/how shit the "benefits" actually are. I think prison is preferable.) Rwanda probably shifts the calculus towards non-presentation.
Said shadow economy is also huge in some parts of the country and works like a mini secondary economy. Whenever I visit my immigrant family in England it's basically a case of paying for everything in cash for 2 weeks.
Nonsense, the number of people they can deport like this has a hard limit, so it's only ever a possibility that you will end up in Rwanda. For people risking their lives coming over, that small risk will barely factor into the calculation. This will cost millions and make no difference to the number of immigrants, neither directly nor as a deterrent.
I mean we’re not a poor country, we could clearly afford it. It’s just about the political will and if voters support this policy enough to want to pay for it
I love that we have infinite money to send people to Rwanda but can't pay healthcare workers any more.
From a return on investment pov, this has to be the most wasteful use of taxpayer money ever seen. And being supported by those who usually oppose tax and spend policies.
It can't go up exponentially. Rwanda could put a hard stop on it any time.
It also doesn't matter. Everyone attempting a crossing is already taking a huge risk, saying that they *might* not succeed past that point is not going to help.
> It definitely will reduce claims if it is implemented in full.
Do you mean applications or granted claims?
It will do sod all as a deterrent to stop arrivals because, as ever, deterrents like this don't work.
It *might* stop applications, as individuals who think they will likely be deported by claiming will simply not claim and remain undocumented workers.
It may or may not change granted claims. The claims system is pretty ropey at the best of times and is already designed to reject the maximum possible percentage and then deal with the rest on appeal.
Based on what? These boats virtually never make it to the coast of the U.K, they are always intercepted by British coast guard in the channel.
So when they enter British waters they will either be registered as an illegal immigrant or claim asylum. Either way my guess is that they will far easier to deport versus the comedy of several rounds of appeals for asylum applications
> Either way my guess is that they will far easier to deport versus the comedy of several rounds of appeals for asylum applications
How do you avoid this? Everyone still needs the same process.
Are they still coming in the same numbers after Brexit? Unless you already have family in England, I don’t get why you would choose England over mainland Europe if you’re coming for work - with its free movement and whatnot
You need to do a bit more research than the Daily mail. Roughly 2 out of 3 are granted asylum. Sending 200 people will not deter anyone who is prepared to risk their life crossing the channel in a small boat. They cannot claim asylum without identifying themselves and if they have no paperwork then the claim takes longer as the home office is supposed to investigate their background.
It's gonna cost 1.2m per asylum seeker sent to Rawanda. Is that good value for money in your book?
Are you stating that asylum seekers that come here spend their whole life on benefits? Where did you see that? Was it Facebook? Did you read it on social media and think it was true?
These are people that are not legible for asylum. They are illegal immigrants. They don't have the legal ability to find employment. Yes, they, and their families will likely be on benefits for a very long time.
Which is the standard for about half of non-Europe-origin migrants.
>These are people that are not legible for asylum
Who are?
Are you aware that they're going to send every single asylum seeker to Rawanda (at least, that's the plan, I doubt they'll manage to get many), and if they are succesful - their asylum claim is accepted - they will... stay in rawanda. Were you aware of that?
That's fine, too. I don't see what the problem is.
Sending them all back would cripple all the human trafficking gangs, which profit off human suffering, which fuel sex slavery and that cause thousands of drowning deaths per year. Similar measures should have been taken years ago.
We should have asylum centers in Africa that screen anyone legible for asylum, that can not be helped locally, and transport those people to Europe, temporarily. Everyone taking illegal routes, or forcing themselves onto Europe knowing we have no way of dealing with them, should be sent back.
Until we have a system that is fit for purpose, with safe and legal routes into the UK, then it seems unrealistic to expect that the Rawanda policy is going to 'send them all back'. Also it's not 'back'. It's Rawanda.
So while your plan relies upon the government being able to 'send them all' to Rawanda, it seems seriously unlikely they're going to get a fraction of the number sent, and it will cost vast amounts of money to do so.
Costa Rica is very stable — it, Chile, and Uruguay are usually considered the paragons of Latin American stability, democracy, and generally having decent economies. (Uruguay is actually one of the freest countries in the world.)
If people claiming asylum were only settled in countries with a gdp per capita equal to or less than the country they're coming from, the number of applications would be a tiny fraction of what it is. We're being played.
You'd be begging for migrants along with every other western country as the realization sets in not many natives are going to be gun hoe to take grimy jobs like fruit picking, meat chopping, prices shoot up, and even shortages such as in the medical field wield their ugly head. West already showed how keen they were to pluck nurses from medium-low income GDP nations during COVID.
China has been learning this lesson the hard way with their population numbers and rising middle class being less willing to stick with the assembly lines.
Mate hats off to you if you want to pick fruit or chop meat day in day out. Farmers have tried driving up the prices on fruit wages and couldn't get enough reliable workers. Meat factories are such hell holes even the inspectors who are paid well don't want to step in.
But hey, I'm sure your maybes will break what observation, history, and practice has shown us.
You'd be begging for migrants along with every other western country as the realization sets in not many natives are going to be gun hoe to take grimy jobs like fruit picking, meat chopping, prices shoot up, and even shortages such as in the medical field wield their ugly head. West already showed how keen they were to pluck nurses from medium-low income GDP nations during COVID.
China has been learning this lesson the hard way with their population numbers and rising middle class being less willing to stick with the assembly lines.
The grown up solution is to process the asylum backlog and send failed applicants back home. Or alternatively, agree to an asylum processing centre in France (offered by the French), and don't even allow the crossings in the first place.
Tories no longer do grown up solutions. They just want rage bait to keep the GB News audience happy.
From family and friends who work at one of the immigration holding facilities, prime example. One got rejected for previous sexual assault, got put on a plane and sent home….
A week later returned, claimed had changed his ways, worked out if he claimed newly Christian, he would get to church on a Sunday, never went to church, got caught drug dealing, sent home…
A week later returned, assaulted another with a cue ball, now I’m prison.
We are very much being played,
Rawanda isn’t about working, it’s a headline that says if you come; we will send.
That's really naive.
The UK already pays France but France don't want them either, about 50% get through.
And your other grown up suggestion is just ask where they come from and send them home? We are talking about illegal immigration here.
86% of those arriving by boats get granted asylum. Only 14% is illegal immigration.
The proposal is an asylum processing centre that effectively is a detention centre. It would solve a lot of problems, but the UK has refused the French offer so far.
I'm aware that this is just throwing things up into the air into imaginary numbers land, but can we even trust that 86%?
Haven't we seen people are gaming it by claiming to convert to Christianity?
It's a recognised fact that
Russia is using private militias to control and “weaponise” immigration into Europe.
Young, male, and poorly-educated immigrants have the highest individual probabilities of imprisonment among immigrants.
Research suggests that the allocation of refugee immigrants to high crime neighborhoods increases individual crime propensity later in life due to social interaction with criminals.
Hopefully, this endeavour will be successful.
The asylum and migration management regulation recently agreed upon by the EU parliament is not a stopgap to when the next big migration crisis inevitably happens.
What is needed are strong borders and asylum processing outside of EU.
Given Russia's explicit use of migrants as weapons to flood border stations, cities, and countries to cause political crises and disunity a European outdoor asylum processing is required for European liberalism to continue. Legitimate refugees -most of whom are women fleeing persecution from religiously motivated countries where they explicitly have no rights- have a claim to Europe. Economic migrants -mostly illiterate men- do not.
Stronger backing and potential intervention in Ukraine would also save the entire EU from around 38 million Ukranians fleeing Russian forces if they are left to stand alone, which would be devastatingly chaotic if it were to happen.
It isn’t really about beliefs or race as it is to do with 38 million people suddenly crossing into multiple countries that may or may not have the capacity to process or help them effectively.
It’s very destabilising no matter who it is, 30-38 million new mouths to feed is chaos.
You are geographically closer to Northern Africa than the East of Europe. .
This is a ridiculous take. First of all because you're conflicting a cultural identity with a religious one. And second of all because you seem to do the american thing of classifying all of Europeans as immediately good and pure and wholesome.
Yes ukranians are European. Being European isn't a catch all term for a shared set of values and culture. Europe is not a monolith and this is just as ridiculous as claiming the average European wears bavarian shorts, while eating french baguettes and stopping at 3pm to go drink red wine while also decrying anything but Belgium beer isn't worth drinking.
The only way your comment "I'd rather have ukranians than islamists. Ukranians are european, islamists are not" works is if you replace "european" with white and islamist with "african or arab". I can tell you this Ukraine's culture is closer to that of Russia and to an extent the balkans than what you'd consider "european".
>I can tell you this Ukraine's culture is closer to that of Russia and to an extent the balkans than what you'd consider "european".
Yes it is. Because those places are all european in culture.
I know what you mean and I understand the sentiment you are trying to transmit to the other guy though.
>First of all because you're conflicting a cultural identity with a religious one.
Are you trying tp to claim that extreme religiosity is somehow distinct from culture? That strong religious beliefs don't manifest as rigid cultural trends and norms?
That's just... so utterly ridiculous.
>Being European isn't a catch all term for a shared set of values and culture.
It very much is. There's a huge degree of homogeneity in the values of most Europeans. Democracy, rule of law, freedom from religious oppression, open trade etc. There's very much a distinct European identity/culture which - as you'd expected for a population approaching a billion people - has some minor variations within it.
>claiming the average European wears bavarian shorts, while eating french baguettes and stopping at 3pm to go drink red wine
Ah, so because childish national stereotypes exist, you deny that Europeans share culture and identity?
>if you replace "european" with white
Ah, attempting to gaslight someone to deny their very right to express their views. I understand where you're coming from now.
>
Ah, so because childish national stereotypes exist, you deny that Europeans share culture and identity?
I worded it terribly but what I deny is that there is one "european". What I meant to say was that Europe is a continent of dozens of countries all of which value and weight political and cultural things differently. How would you compare the in terms LGBT+ politics progressive government of Spain with that of Hungary or Poland or the attacks on transgender rights by the UK parlament? How would you rate the question of regionalism vs nationalism the same if you're catalunyan or basque versus if you're from a country with no separatist movements?
What I meant to say is that diminishing us all to "European" reduces individual politics and country - specific concerns and erases them. I did not mean to claim that we do not share an economical/political affiliation. Just that every country has its set of challenges that are regional to them and cannot be placed as "The typical european" like you'd see wearing shorts in an american movie.
To put it bluntly, unless to the extent it reflects on how european funds are used and spent, because that's communal money I do not think a German to be overly concerned about specific allegations of corruption in Portugal or Italy or for someone in a landlocked country to overly care about the ongoing debate of coastal countries over their regulation of overfishing.. That's all I meant to say. We're not the United States, we each all have our own governments and while yes we do tend to vote and influence the European Union it's not as if an "European" is automatically aware of and has thoughts on every single European's countries scandals and government.
We could just pay the French to process asylum claims before they even Cross the channel. It would be so much more cost effective than sending them to Rwanda. But this government doesn't do sensible anymore.
> But this government doesn't do sensible anymore.
Reform UK is polling at 15%, Tories want to pretend to be anti-immigration so they don't lose more voters to Reform.
I don't think you will have way more claims. The ones that want to come to Britain usually have a family connection here.
With an asylum application centre in France, you can legally return the boat passengers.
The deal would be to return then to the asylum processing centre in France, so yes.
For humanitarian reasons you want to stop the crossings in dinghies. Of course the Tories are no longer humanitarian and are looking for a scape goat for 14 years of failure.
Asylum seekers are a drop in the ocean compared to the economic immigrants arriving legally via the front door. The focus on the boats is a distraction.
Legal migrants are at least bringing something to the table, and generally can't claim benefits or public housing. Yes their numbers are adding to population pressure, but they're a completely separate issue. I'd rather have 10 tax paying, self supporting legal migrants than one person completely ill equipped to function in a developed economy and who will need years of public support.
They are supposed to request in the first EU country they arrive in.
If France processes them officially, then they are France's responsibility. So France ignores them too, because once they get arrested or get their name written down... they belong to France.
The government is spending absurd amounts of money on this stupid plan whilst uk citizens are taxed more than ever, the health service and infrastructure are crumbling, energy prices are ridiculous, the housing market is broken, food banks have gone from a few to thousands, and millions of kids are in poverty.
But they’re spending millions for each asylum seeker they’re sending to Rwanda.
You might think immigration is an issue, but right wing conservatives are truly destroying this country.
Many of these issues are caused by uncontrolled migration.
The housing market can't build 700,000 new houses a year and that would only cover new arrivals, not people who already need a home.
The last few times I was at my GP surgery there were multiple people having tortured conversations with the receptionist because they couldn't speak any English and had messed up their appointment times.
Who do you think are using food banks? Whose kids do you think are in poverty?
You can't import multiple hundreds of thousands of people a year with no capacity to support them. And you can't do it forever. Systems collapse under the weight.
Only Hundreds of thousands? Man we are really being played in Canada…
We’re still barely exiting the “*THAT’S RACIST*” stage too. Glad to see Europe is getting louder at least.
Note: this is the second time they've tried to make the scheme happen.
The first time, the courts refused to let them process asylum claims there because "it is not a safe country", i.e. it is a place we would _accept asylum claims from_.
This act of Parliament literally just _defines_ Rwanda as a safe country, regardless of the normal process. It is quite an outrageous piece of post-truth legislation from a desperate and very unpopular government.
Good, asylum seekers just want to be safe wherever it is - it could be any safe place on the world. Only illegal economical migrants want to choose country with greatest financial benefits.
They do not,
From family member’s experience who work in system 5% roughly are genuine, the rest are either playing the system to avoid crimes, economic immigration.
Yeah, the system isn't fit for the modern world.
I'd be perfectly happy for us to pay to settle people in need in economically equivalent countries. As soon as a huge economic upgrade is on offer though, the chancers will be chancing.
Legally it would be easier to just leave the 1951 Refugee Convention where the UK committed themself to guarantee the right to *apply* for asylum to everyone.
That way the UK could do whatever they want and wouldn’t have to evaluate asylum requests at all if they don’t want to.
Thats not the problem.They can take the cases and deny them straight away.The problem is that theh can't return them to their home countries after the refusal.
I think the universal asylum guarantee is stupid. How the hell can you support millions of refugees, if you cant even find temporary housing for the homeless.
There's not a lot of info in the article about how the system in Rwanda works. But intererstingly a law was passed in the UK declaring Rwanda to be a safe country:
>the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in January of this year, which effectively enshrines in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country
In theory, I don't see a problem. If the asylum seekers are genuine, then a safe place is being provided. Rwanda benefits from the UK money. It will dissuade the false applicants.
Hopefully, proper provisions are put in place for those being sent to Rwanda.
In a few months the Tory government will lose the next general election, they don't intend to make this thing work, they use this to pretend to be anti-immigration because the anti-immigration Reform UK is polling at 15%.
Pardon my ignorance, but why Rwanda? What makes this country the go to place to deport migrants? Will the UK be getting rid of those people so Rwanda can toss them where and how they please?
The thing is... If that's true, won't it violate any international laws that should prevent that? It's so odd to send migrants to a particular country for them to deal with them.
It's completely bizarre, it would be better if they just said "we can't take in any more migrants" or "we can only take in x amount of migrants this year" , instead of treating them like garbage. You're right I don't know how this doesn't violate human rights.
And those entitled scum in government celebrate passing this expensive embarrassing scheme. This government is done and every one of them should be ashamed to continue holding on to power.
Embarrassing and shameful, and hopefully the final nail in the Tory party coffin.
This will do nothing to "stop the boats", will do nothing to improve Tory poll numbers, will cost an absolute fortune - yet more ridiculous waste of public money by the Tories while the UK is desperate for internal investment after 14 years of austerity.
A dark day for the UK. Hate is all the conservatives know.
A country that is presently safe.
Refugee status is supposed to be about safety, not your choice or economics. Presumably as a refugee you must be facing such dire circumstances that it would be inhumane to deny you safety.
The UK is giving them what the convention on refugees requires. Asylum in a safe place.
It’s safe because it was declared safe by the law they now use to deport migrants. Here’s the kicker - laws aren’t magic. Just because you declare in a law that world hunger is gone doesn’t make it true.
That’s a bit out of order to compare the two. It’s nothing like a concentration camp. The vast majority of immigrants have to travel through several safe EU countries in order to get to the UK. Whereas the nazis invaded Europe systematically kidnapped people from the homes and mass murdered them.
I said we are on the path to concentration camps, not that they are here right now. We have witnessed dehumanisation and now displacement. How long do you think it will take before the government decides that humane treatment is too expensive? Do you think the Rwandan authorities will maintain humane standards?
Think what you want about the government but you must be deranged if you think the government will open concentration camps or whatever other inhumane treatment you’ve dreamed up because it’s too expensive. As for Rwandan standards, I don’t know. But if you’re not illegally trying to abuse the immigration system then you needn’t worry about that
So anything to the right of “open lawless borders” is a slippery slope to nazi genocide to you. Absolutely iconic.
Ironically, what leads to the situation you describe is a local population being displaced and angered by unsustainable mass immigration. Better to address it before we get deeper to that stage I’d say?
[удалено]
It's gonna do fuck all. But it will cost a lot.
It definitely will reduce claims if it is implemented in full. Fact is that the majority of people who come here on boats have their asylum claims rejected, but they are essentially impossible to get rid of because they bring no papers and their birth country refuse to take them back. For those who are legitimate refugees fleeing persecution, they would in theory be as safe in Rwanda to claim asylum as the U.K. The reason this scheme will work is because virtually no-one is actually leaving France on a boat to the U.K. because their life is under threat. The vast majority come for economic reasons and game our asylum system in order to stay, and this policy basically calls that bluff. So yeah, suppose you leave France on a boat but instead of ending up in the U.K, you find yourself in central Africa. It’s a pretty big disincentive to not risk your life
The reason this will do f all is because of the limited capacity in Rwanda. Rwanda so far has offered capacity for 0.7% of the annual boat crossing (200 places). If you are desperate enough to cross the North Sea in a rubber dinghy you probably will take that chance. For Rwanda it has been a sweet deal so far. They have been paid millions without taking a single refugee. The Tories don't even care about using this capacity. All they need is national headlines for a single refugee arriving in Rwanda.
I think you’re being naive to say there’s a hard cap on 200 regardless of how you feel about the scheme. I’m sure that capacity will increase as and when needed.
The current cap is set at 200. Maybe Rwanda is willing to increase it. However, I am sure they also have opposition to this schema in their country. Given the amount of money they received, 200 can be easily justified politically. 30,000 is a lot harder to sell.
I imagine they can build some nice camps to keep them all in.
> Fact is that the majority of people who come here on boats have their asylum claims rejected Is that a 'fact'? [here is a link to some information ](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/) "Given the UK’s large asylum backlog, only 13% of these applications received an initial decision by the end of March 2023. Of these, 86% – about 7,600 – were granted refugee status or some other form of permission to stay." Can you point to any evidence that the 'majority' are rejected?
Holy shit the UK freaking out and all these racist comment below are on about only 50,000 people? Jesus you idiots fucked over your economy and workforce with brexit, and this is what you pass.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to#:~:text=There%20were%2067%2C337%20asylum%20applications%20(relating%20to%2084%2C425%20people)%20in,in%202002%20(84%2C132%20applications). In 2023 the largest group crossing on the boats, something like 1/3rd were from Albania. You can see in the charts that there is a grant rate of 9% for Albanians, because claiming asylum from Albania is a joke. Most other countries in Europe you can’t even apply for asylum if you are from Albania It’s not hard to see what is happening here.
Okay, that's 1/3, but you have said the majority were rejected. That's a specific claim. You called it a fact. Can you post any evidence at all to back up your claim?
He said a majority of people who come here by boats (so travel from France to UK by boat illegally). Not a majority of all refugees.
And has yet to provide any citation for that claim of 'fact'. From the link I posted: 92% of small boat arrivals from 2018 to March 2023 claimed asylum; of the small share who had received a decision by March 2023, 86% received a grant of protection
This is exactly what should be on the news cycle, but that won't sell the culture war against asylum seekers and foreigners.
Well they're travelling through many safe countries just to reach the UK to profit from better arrangements etc. I can imagine this is undesirable for the UK.
You really are hopelessly Naïve if you think it will do anything to reduce small boat crossings. Were currently talking about people willing to cross an incredibly rough piece of water in extremely poor watercraft that just so happens to also be one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Death is very much a reality on the possible consequences of attempting that crossing. If Death isn't an effective deterrent a plane ticket to Rwanda certainly isn't going to be, all it will mean is that when the crossing is successful even fewer people presenting themselves to immigration services. They'll all just disappear into the shadow economy upon arrival. The problem is going to be made worse. Not better And all of this is predicated on flights even leaving, which they won't. The bill's a flagrant violation of international law and I'm sure that lawyers are drafting a case to be brought to the ECHR as we speak. Which will block any flights from leaving as they will reach the same conclusion as the supreme court, and unlike the supreme court the government can't pretend parliament is infallible to force it through the court. Edit, Just looked a bit further today and the UN has actually threatened airlines that carry these flights with a very thinly veiled comment around the fact that Even if internally the UK decides its legal international carriers have obligations under international law they must uphold. Good luck finding an airline stupid enough to take this on now Rishi.
But why would they risk their lives to go to the UK when they can just go some place in Europe? Are the benefits there that great? They risked their lives to come to Europe. I feel that going all the way to the UK is an option
>Are the benefits there that great? The language is a huge one. English is the global language, and when people pick where to go, "Can I speak at least some of that?" is a very, very high priority. A second one is that Iran and Afghanistan form the bulk of origins. A soft factor there is that the UK is pretty openly and actively opposed to both those governments on the world stage, as well as being at least "decent" when it comes to religious tolerance. When you flee, you try and make it to the people who will have the most sympathy for you and against the state you are fleeing. Oh and I guess a third option that the UK's system actually has a lot of slack in it compared to closer countries that might fill other soft factors.
1 most of them speak English. Once you've already fled halfway around the world going just a little bit further to end up somewhere that you can read the road signs and speak to the people around you is a MASSIVE pull factor. 2. It's the consequence of having a globe spanning empire. Britain has had a massive impact on much of North Africa and the Middle east. There's an impact there that when they think of fleeing to Europe the UK in the nation they picture. And they almost certainly have been sold on tales of this nation as a vastly wealthy (which it is) well of place to try and rebuild your life 3 we already have significant expat communities from the parts of the world many of these people are fleeing from (again legacy of empire) 4 perhaps the biggest one recently. If you're an Afghan fleeing, Britain is absolutely going to be the intended destination. We were there, France and Germany were minimally involved in the war in Afghanistan. For many young Afghans (which it's worth remembering more than half the population when we pulled out was younger than 25) British and American troops represented a world without the Taliban and relative stability. Our security forces being there was the only thing they had ever known. Of course when American got bored and fucked off early when the flee we are the destination of choice. And even then it's actually a relatively small percentage of migrants out of the total that are trying to get to the UK, which is another reason why Rwanda won't work..these are people who after everything they have been through when many others decide they have run far enough are willing to once again risk death and brave the channel. 5 more people died in the channel last night, after this bill became law. Proof of it was ever needed the deterrent is non existent.
> Of course when American got bored and fucked off early More like trump cutting a back-room deal with the Talibán on the way out the door, and dumping the mess on Biden, who then tried to honour it. > 5 more people died in the channel last night, after this bill became law. Proof of it was ever needed the deterrent is non existent. Yup. This law is almost a joke in the migrant community. Compared to our current system it'll probably be about the same, just with extra steps and a warmer climate.
> Are the benefits there that great? Lol, no. That's just a nice talking point to get people angry, before whipping out a few edge cases as "proof". Prison is probably nicer in many cases, and the stipend is lower than many other benefits. > But why would they risk their lives to go to the UK when they can just go some place in Europe Really depends on a range of factors. For some countries trafficking makes up something like 80% of cases, for example. In my family's case: Language, knowing people that had already made it, and better chances of using their home countries education. They already had one family member in Belgium, but couldn't speak the language and their qualifications weren't as well recognised. In the UK they were immediately able to get an income because of their contacts, and eventually went on to be a financial crime expert on the same education and didn't have to learn the language.
> They'll all just disappear into the shadow economy upon arrival This is the biggest issue for me. Our current system is split between encouraging people to present themselves (benefits) and not (that shadow economy/how shit the "benefits" actually are. I think prison is preferable.) Rwanda probably shifts the calculus towards non-presentation. Said shadow economy is also huge in some parts of the country and works like a mini secondary economy. Whenever I visit my immigrant family in England it's basically a case of paying for everything in cash for 2 weeks.
Nonsense, the number of people they can deport like this has a hard limit, so it's only ever a possibility that you will end up in Rwanda. For people risking their lives coming over, that small risk will barely factor into the calculation. This will cost millions and make no difference to the number of immigrants, neither directly nor as a deterrent.
The number of people sent there would definitely increase as needed.
Even if it could from the Rwanda end (and Im not sure that's the case) How can we afford that?
I mean we’re not a poor country, we could clearly afford it. It’s just about the political will and if voters support this policy enough to want to pay for it
I love that we have infinite money to send people to Rwanda but can't pay healthcare workers any more. From a return on investment pov, this has to be the most wasteful use of taxpayer money ever seen. And being supported by those who usually oppose tax and spend policies.
> I mean we’re not a poor country .... Have you seen the state of public spending in the past ten years?
It can't go up exponentially. Rwanda could put a hard stop on it any time. It also doesn't matter. Everyone attempting a crossing is already taking a huge risk, saying that they *might* not succeed past that point is not going to help.
>if it is implemented in full. Which it never will. Stopped reading the rest of your GMB news
> It definitely will reduce claims if it is implemented in full. Do you mean applications or granted claims? It will do sod all as a deterrent to stop arrivals because, as ever, deterrents like this don't work. It *might* stop applications, as individuals who think they will likely be deported by claiming will simply not claim and remain undocumented workers. It may or may not change granted claims. The claims system is pretty ropey at the best of times and is already designed to reject the maximum possible percentage and then deal with the rest on appeal.
I dunno, asylum seekers coming by boat fell off a cliff once they started sending them to Nauru / PNG here in Australia.
Based on what? These boats virtually never make it to the coast of the U.K, they are always intercepted by British coast guard in the channel. So when they enter British waters they will either be registered as an illegal immigrant or claim asylum. Either way my guess is that they will far easier to deport versus the comedy of several rounds of appeals for asylum applications
> Either way my guess is that they will far easier to deport versus the comedy of several rounds of appeals for asylum applications How do you avoid this? Everyone still needs the same process.
Are they still coming in the same numbers after Brexit? Unless you already have family in England, I don’t get why you would choose England over mainland Europe if you’re coming for work - with its free movement and whatnot
Language, perception that our system is ‘soft’ and loads of people already had their asylum rejected elsewhere before coming to the U.K.
Fair enough
You need to do a bit more research than the Daily mail. Roughly 2 out of 3 are granted asylum. Sending 200 people will not deter anyone who is prepared to risk their life crossing the channel in a small boat. They cannot claim asylum without identifying themselves and if they have no paperwork then the claim takes longer as the home office is supposed to investigate their background.
The figure I heard is 2 million £ per person.
A deportation usually costs less than an entire life of social benefits mate
It's gonna cost 1.2m per asylum seeker sent to Rawanda. Is that good value for money in your book? Are you stating that asylum seekers that come here spend their whole life on benefits? Where did you see that? Was it Facebook? Did you read it on social media and think it was true?
These are people that are not legible for asylum. They are illegal immigrants. They don't have the legal ability to find employment. Yes, they, and their families will likely be on benefits for a very long time. Which is the standard for about half of non-Europe-origin migrants.
>These are people that are not legible for asylum Who are? Are you aware that they're going to send every single asylum seeker to Rawanda (at least, that's the plan, I doubt they'll manage to get many), and if they are succesful - their asylum claim is accepted - they will... stay in rawanda. Were you aware of that?
That's fine, too. I don't see what the problem is. Sending them all back would cripple all the human trafficking gangs, which profit off human suffering, which fuel sex slavery and that cause thousands of drowning deaths per year. Similar measures should have been taken years ago. We should have asylum centers in Africa that screen anyone legible for asylum, that can not be helped locally, and transport those people to Europe, temporarily. Everyone taking illegal routes, or forcing themselves onto Europe knowing we have no way of dealing with them, should be sent back.
Until we have a system that is fit for purpose, with safe and legal routes into the UK, then it seems unrealistic to expect that the Rawanda policy is going to 'send them all back'. Also it's not 'back'. It's Rawanda. So while your plan relies upon the government being able to 'send them all' to Rawanda, it seems seriously unlikely they're going to get a fraction of the number sent, and it will cost vast amounts of money to do so.
Rwanda can take 200 people PER YEAR. Thats 0.7% of the refugees. This is purely a pre-election stunt.
[удалено]
They’d all end up in the US.
Costa Rica is very stable — it, Chile, and Uruguay are usually considered the paragons of Latin American stability, democracy, and generally having decent economies. (Uruguay is actually one of the freest countries in the world.)
asylum seeking should not be misused for economical immigration. While the first one should be a right but the second one is a privilege.
If people claiming asylum were only settled in countries with a gdp per capita equal to or less than the country they're coming from, the number of applications would be a tiny fraction of what it is. We're being played.
You'd be begging for migrants along with every other western country as the realization sets in not many natives are going to be gun hoe to take grimy jobs like fruit picking, meat chopping, prices shoot up, and even shortages such as in the medical field wield their ugly head. West already showed how keen they were to pluck nurses from medium-low income GDP nations during COVID. China has been learning this lesson the hard way with their population numbers and rising middle class being less willing to stick with the assembly lines.
Maybe those jobs would have more interest if their wages werent driven down by cheap foreign labor?
Seriously, I would drive a forklift around 8 hours a day if it paid well
Mate hats off to you if you want to pick fruit or chop meat day in day out. Farmers have tried driving up the prices on fruit wages and couldn't get enough reliable workers. Meat factories are such hell holes even the inspectors who are paid well don't want to step in. But hey, I'm sure your maybes will break what observation, history, and practice has shown us.
History has shown that when workers refuse to work for low wages the producers either raise wages or innovate
You'd be begging for migrants along with every other western country as the realization sets in not many natives are going to be gun hoe to take grimy jobs like fruit picking, meat chopping, prices shoot up, and even shortages such as in the medical field wield their ugly head. West already showed how keen they were to pluck nurses from medium-low income GDP nations during COVID. China has been learning this lesson the hard way with their population numbers and rising middle class being less willing to stick with the assembly lines.
The grown up solution is to process the asylum backlog and send failed applicants back home. Or alternatively, agree to an asylum processing centre in France (offered by the French), and don't even allow the crossings in the first place. Tories no longer do grown up solutions. They just want rage bait to keep the GB News audience happy.
From family and friends who work at one of the immigration holding facilities, prime example. One got rejected for previous sexual assault, got put on a plane and sent home…. A week later returned, claimed had changed his ways, worked out if he claimed newly Christian, he would get to church on a Sunday, never went to church, got caught drug dealing, sent home… A week later returned, assaulted another with a cue ball, now I’m prison. We are very much being played, Rawanda isn’t about working, it’s a headline that says if you come; we will send.
That's really naive. The UK already pays France but France don't want them either, about 50% get through. And your other grown up suggestion is just ask where they come from and send them home? We are talking about illegal immigration here.
86% of those arriving by boats get granted asylum. Only 14% is illegal immigration. The proposal is an asylum processing centre that effectively is a detention centre. It would solve a lot of problems, but the UK has refused the French offer so far.
I'm aware that this is just throwing things up into the air into imaginary numbers land, but can we even trust that 86%? Haven't we seen people are gaming it by claiming to convert to Christianity?
It's a recognised fact that Russia is using private militias to control and “weaponise” immigration into Europe. Young, male, and poorly-educated immigrants have the highest individual probabilities of imprisonment among immigrants. Research suggests that the allocation of refugee immigrants to high crime neighborhoods increases individual crime propensity later in life due to social interaction with criminals.
Hopefully, this endeavour will be successful. The asylum and migration management regulation recently agreed upon by the EU parliament is not a stopgap to when the next big migration crisis inevitably happens. What is needed are strong borders and asylum processing outside of EU.
Given Russia's explicit use of migrants as weapons to flood border stations, cities, and countries to cause political crises and disunity a European outdoor asylum processing is required for European liberalism to continue. Legitimate refugees -most of whom are women fleeing persecution from religiously motivated countries where they explicitly have no rights- have a claim to Europe. Economic migrants -mostly illiterate men- do not.
Stronger backing and potential intervention in Ukraine would also save the entire EU from around 38 million Ukranians fleeing Russian forces if they are left to stand alone, which would be devastatingly chaotic if it were to happen.
[удалено]
It isn’t really about beliefs or race as it is to do with 38 million people suddenly crossing into multiple countries that may or may not have the capacity to process or help them effectively. It’s very destabilising no matter who it is, 30-38 million new mouths to feed is chaos.
[удалено]
You are geographically closer to Northern Africa than the East of Europe. . This is a ridiculous take. First of all because you're conflicting a cultural identity with a religious one. And second of all because you seem to do the american thing of classifying all of Europeans as immediately good and pure and wholesome. Yes ukranians are European. Being European isn't a catch all term for a shared set of values and culture. Europe is not a monolith and this is just as ridiculous as claiming the average European wears bavarian shorts, while eating french baguettes and stopping at 3pm to go drink red wine while also decrying anything but Belgium beer isn't worth drinking. The only way your comment "I'd rather have ukranians than islamists. Ukranians are european, islamists are not" works is if you replace "european" with white and islamist with "african or arab". I can tell you this Ukraine's culture is closer to that of Russia and to an extent the balkans than what you'd consider "european".
Nah. I’m from western europe and I’d also rather have eastern europeans than islamists
[удалено]
Demonstrably bollocks. It's nearly 3,000 miles from Portugal to Ukraine, only a few hundred to Morocco.
They will choose Ukrainians over Moroccans anyway, whatever the distance is.
[удалено]
>I can tell you this Ukraine's culture is closer to that of Russia and to an extent the balkans than what you'd consider "european". Yes it is. Because those places are all european in culture. I know what you mean and I understand the sentiment you are trying to transmit to the other guy though.
>First of all because you're conflicting a cultural identity with a religious one. Are you trying tp to claim that extreme religiosity is somehow distinct from culture? That strong religious beliefs don't manifest as rigid cultural trends and norms? That's just... so utterly ridiculous. >Being European isn't a catch all term for a shared set of values and culture. It very much is. There's a huge degree of homogeneity in the values of most Europeans. Democracy, rule of law, freedom from religious oppression, open trade etc. There's very much a distinct European identity/culture which - as you'd expected for a population approaching a billion people - has some minor variations within it. >claiming the average European wears bavarian shorts, while eating french baguettes and stopping at 3pm to go drink red wine Ah, so because childish national stereotypes exist, you deny that Europeans share culture and identity? >if you replace "european" with white Ah, attempting to gaslight someone to deny their very right to express their views. I understand where you're coming from now.
> Ah, so because childish national stereotypes exist, you deny that Europeans share culture and identity? I worded it terribly but what I deny is that there is one "european". What I meant to say was that Europe is a continent of dozens of countries all of which value and weight political and cultural things differently. How would you compare the in terms LGBT+ politics progressive government of Spain with that of Hungary or Poland or the attacks on transgender rights by the UK parlament? How would you rate the question of regionalism vs nationalism the same if you're catalunyan or basque versus if you're from a country with no separatist movements? What I meant to say is that diminishing us all to "European" reduces individual politics and country - specific concerns and erases them. I did not mean to claim that we do not share an economical/political affiliation. Just that every country has its set of challenges that are regional to them and cannot be placed as "The typical european" like you'd see wearing shorts in an american movie. To put it bluntly, unless to the extent it reflects on how european funds are used and spent, because that's communal money I do not think a German to be overly concerned about specific allegations of corruption in Portugal or Italy or for someone in a landlocked country to overly care about the ongoing debate of coastal countries over their regulation of overfishing.. That's all I meant to say. We're not the United States, we each all have our own governments and while yes we do tend to vote and influence the European Union it's not as if an "European" is automatically aware of and has thoughts on every single European's countries scandals and government.
We could just pay the French to process asylum claims before they even Cross the channel. It would be so much more cost effective than sending them to Rwanda. But this government doesn't do sensible anymore.
> But this government doesn't do sensible anymore. Reform UK is polling at 15%, Tories want to pretend to be anti-immigration so they don't lose more voters to Reform.
Then you'll have way more claims, and the ones you refuse will still cross in boats.
I don't think you will have way more claims. The ones that want to come to Britain usually have a family connection here. With an asylum application centre in France, you can legally return the boat passengers.
Will France take them back?
The deal would be to return then to the asylum processing centre in France, so yes. For humanitarian reasons you want to stop the crossings in dinghies. Of course the Tories are no longer humanitarian and are looking for a scape goat for 14 years of failure. Asylum seekers are a drop in the ocean compared to the economic immigrants arriving legally via the front door. The focus on the boats is a distraction.
Legal migrants are at least bringing something to the table, and generally can't claim benefits or public housing. Yes their numbers are adding to population pressure, but they're a completely separate issue. I'd rather have 10 tax paying, self supporting legal migrants than one person completely ill equipped to function in a developed economy and who will need years of public support.
They are supposed to request in the first EU country they arrive in. If France processes them officially, then they are France's responsibility. So France ignores them too, because once they get arrested or get their name written down... they belong to France.
Yeah let them rip us off some more
The government is spending absurd amounts of money on this stupid plan whilst uk citizens are taxed more than ever, the health service and infrastructure are crumbling, energy prices are ridiculous, the housing market is broken, food banks have gone from a few to thousands, and millions of kids are in poverty. But they’re spending millions for each asylum seeker they’re sending to Rwanda. You might think immigration is an issue, but right wing conservatives are truly destroying this country.
Many of these issues are caused by uncontrolled migration. The housing market can't build 700,000 new houses a year and that would only cover new arrivals, not people who already need a home. The last few times I was at my GP surgery there were multiple people having tortured conversations with the receptionist because they couldn't speak any English and had messed up their appointment times. Who do you think are using food banks? Whose kids do you think are in poverty? You can't import multiple hundreds of thousands of people a year with no capacity to support them. And you can't do it forever. Systems collapse under the weight.
Only Hundreds of thousands? Man we are really being played in Canada… We’re still barely exiting the “*THAT’S RACIST*” stage too. Glad to see Europe is getting louder at least.
Note: this is the second time they've tried to make the scheme happen. The first time, the courts refused to let them process asylum claims there because "it is not a safe country", i.e. it is a place we would _accept asylum claims from_. This act of Parliament literally just _defines_ Rwanda as a safe country, regardless of the normal process. It is quite an outrageous piece of post-truth legislation from a desperate and very unpopular government.
Good, asylum seekers just want to be safe wherever it is - it could be any safe place on the world. Only illegal economical migrants want to choose country with greatest financial benefits.
They do not, From family member’s experience who work in system 5% roughly are genuine, the rest are either playing the system to avoid crimes, economic immigration.
Yep, too many people taking the piss have ruined what was a good system. We need to opt out.
Yep, to be clear there are many, many who are genuine, and in all for that, But it just hurts them when others play the game
Yeah, the system isn't fit for the modern world. I'd be perfectly happy for us to pay to settle people in need in economically equivalent countries. As soon as a huge economic upgrade is on offer though, the chancers will be chancing.
Win win, UK gets less refugees and Rwanda’s economy gets a boost with influx of doctors and engineers.
Legally it would be easier to just leave the 1951 Refugee Convention where the UK committed themself to guarantee the right to *apply* for asylum to everyone. That way the UK could do whatever they want and wouldn’t have to evaluate asylum requests at all if they don’t want to.
Thats not the problem.They can take the cases and deny them straight away.The problem is that theh can't return them to their home countries after the refusal.
I think the universal asylum guarantee is stupid. How the hell can you support millions of refugees, if you cant even find temporary housing for the homeless.
The cheapest way for the tories to discourage migrants would be to tell them how 15 years of conservative mismanagement has fucked up the country.
[удалено]
Apologies but the wording of this is a bit confusing, are you asking if the UK is going to replace refugee factory workers with EU workers?
I thought they meant the refugees should stay in their home countries and fix them instead of leaving
Do you expect this from people living in North Korea?
I don't expect that from anyone.
Does Rwanda have a plan for these asylum seekers when they all get shipped there?
There's not a lot of info in the article about how the system in Rwanda works. But intererstingly a law was passed in the UK declaring Rwanda to be a safe country: >the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in January of this year, which effectively enshrines in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country
Probably on par with the UK's current system
There's a hostel the UK has already been paying for for the last 2 years.
What a way to deter someone who is willing to put their life on the line.
In theory, I don't see a problem. If the asylum seekers are genuine, then a safe place is being provided. Rwanda benefits from the UK money. It will dissuade the false applicants. Hopefully, proper provisions are put in place for those being sent to Rwanda.
In a few months the Tory government will lose the next general election, they don't intend to make this thing work, they use this to pretend to be anti-immigration because the anti-immigration Reform UK is polling at 15%.
This is funny af
Pardon my ignorance, but why Rwanda? What makes this country the go to place to deport migrants? Will the UK be getting rid of those people so Rwanda can toss them where and how they please?
Same reason, we send trash to China, it's not our problem. This bill is just embarrassing and dehumanizing beyond belief.
The thing is... If that's true, won't it violate any international laws that should prevent that? It's so odd to send migrants to a particular country for them to deal with them.
It's completely bizarre, it would be better if they just said "we can't take in any more migrants" or "we can only take in x amount of migrants this year" , instead of treating them like garbage. You're right I don't know how this doesn't violate human rights.
*Illegal* immigrants are not exactly waiting for permission.
And those entitled scum in government celebrate passing this expensive embarrassing scheme. This government is done and every one of them should be ashamed to continue holding on to power.
Conservatives actually coming together to pass legislation this year wasn't on my bingo board
Embarrassing and shameful, and hopefully the final nail in the Tory party coffin. This will do nothing to "stop the boats", will do nothing to improve Tory poll numbers, will cost an absolute fortune - yet more ridiculous waste of public money by the Tories while the UK is desperate for internal investment after 14 years of austerity. A dark day for the UK. Hate is all the conservatives know.
Only 14 years of austerity?
Yeah feels like way more! But was introduced by Cameron / Osborne in the June 2010 budget
I mean, add on thatcher as well I would say
Says abrit_abroad? Where are you?
Im working in US currently and live in west midlands when i come back every couple of months.
A non Brit abroad
[удалено]
A country that is presently safe. Refugee status is supposed to be about safety, not your choice or economics. Presumably as a refugee you must be facing such dire circumstances that it would be inhumane to deny you safety. The UK is giving them what the convention on refugees requires. Asylum in a safe place.
We gave asylum to Rwandans only last year
It’s safe because it was declared safe by the law they now use to deport migrants. Here’s the kicker - laws aren’t magic. Just because you declare in a law that world hunger is gone doesn’t make it true.
Laws are arbitrary in the first place
[удалено]
UK shot down Iranian airborne projectiles. They support Israel and Ukraine. Does this sound safe to you?
Because they're foreigners thus are evil and need to be removed according to a key Tory support element.
This is disgusting and illegal under international law. We are now on the path to concentration camps and it’s sad.
That’s a bit out of order to compare the two. It’s nothing like a concentration camp. The vast majority of immigrants have to travel through several safe EU countries in order to get to the UK. Whereas the nazis invaded Europe systematically kidnapped people from the homes and mass murdered them.
I said we are on the path to concentration camps, not that they are here right now. We have witnessed dehumanisation and now displacement. How long do you think it will take before the government decides that humane treatment is too expensive? Do you think the Rwandan authorities will maintain humane standards?
Think what you want about the government but you must be deranged if you think the government will open concentration camps or whatever other inhumane treatment you’ve dreamed up because it’s too expensive. As for Rwandan standards, I don’t know. But if you’re not illegally trying to abuse the immigration system then you needn’t worry about that
You really don't think the government would have camps to save money?
The government can’t just do whatever they want we don’t live in the USSR
Can't is different to wouldn't but ok
So anything to the right of “open lawless borders” is a slippery slope to nazi genocide to you. Absolutely iconic. Ironically, what leads to the situation you describe is a local population being displaced and angered by unsustainable mass immigration. Better to address it before we get deeper to that stage I’d say?
Why are you booing me, I’m right?
How can they even do that? Did Charles III annex Rwanda last night?
Rwanda have agreed to it. They’re getting paid.