Rwanda ruling

Even though the Gov has failed at this Labour don’t seem to have a magic answer and if they don’t sound a bit more committed or tougher they’ll lose votes at the next election.

Braverman said “a lot of people will be disappointed”, yet later that evening not a single member of the hand-selected majority-Tory-voting BBC Questiontime audience raised their hand when asked if they supported the Rwanda policy.

Yay for Exeter!

I mean, this is an answerable question, whether people think that or not. Some good research would give the answer I'd think, if anyone cared to do it.

My guess - I think many people see a need to deal with all kinds of immigration issues, and I think are maybe willing to see a different approach then has been used in he UK, and Europe generally, in recent memory. Or maybe better to say, think something new is needed, even if it requires rethinking our assumptions about the ethical implications.

But I think a lot were somewhat skeptical of the Rwanda plan specifically.

Do you really think stopping this is easy?

If it is why did it take so much by Aus to get numbers down, and why do we see numbers drown in the Med

It really is unrealistic imo to think this is not a major issue, and one that will continue to grow as mass migration increases.

Currently things feel tragic enough that Obama makes statements on the Greek situation, when the number of boat tragedies increase to a higher amount the political landscape is changeable.

If people look forward and envisage what the changes will be over the next five to ten years then they’re getting closer to how messy it will be.

I’m less concerned about any politician’s promise on this - which incidentally could cost votes / GE if it continues so yeh I reckon if it could be fixed they would - and more what happens when we really see border pressure. What citizens do, what governments do.

If we lived in a world where countries were stable, then fine, but we don’t as climate and increasing volatility is fairly assured.

So I’d just say on these threads think about what is likely to change with migration over next five to ten years as places become more inhabitable.

What's the difference between a Ukrainian asylum seeker and a Syrian asylum seeker? Why does one deserve a safe route but not the other?

Either way the point still stands, illegal migration makes up a small fraction of total migration and could be dealt with by creating safe routes without much or any impact on overall numbers.

As to the second point I think we'll probably never agree on this. But to me the reason we see similar problems is the same as the reason here, it's simply not a priority of governments to stop it happening from happening as it is one of the most useful diversion topics around.

How is it that the government can track and intercept terror cells or drug smugglers moving individual people or packages across the globe via air, road and sea or even lone individuals attempting to buy banned products on the dark web (a guy in my town was caught and jailed for trying to buy a gun)? But they can't even break one smuggling gang (who operate primarily out of the UK and have been interviewed by news outlets) moving groups of people from the same places in northern France to southern England, by boat, across one of the busiest and most widely monitored stretches of water in the world? Seems a bit odd.

You'd think given this is one of the governments top 5 priorities they'd be putting some effort into actually catching the gangs responsible no?

Better off to look at figures whilst considering labour shortages, plus a fair amount was Ukraine and HK schemes

The government could quite easily smash these criminal gangs apart if they wanted too

I doubt this is the case otherwise we’d not see similar issues in the Mediterranean. No country has an easy solution.

Some, as in pp have used tough solutions but without that you’ll get smugglers and worse - see Greece incident.

So @chupachucks , do you approve of the Rwanda policy even though it has thus far been found to be unlawful, and even the government cannot confirm that it is legal under international law?

(That was a question, by the way).

Yep keep believing that 🥱

@chupachucks more like questions you don't have an answer to... 😂

Strawman word salad 😴

No sorry! It was aimed @lollipoprainbow

Re point 1 - so are you of the opinion that the UK should never take any refugees at all because we're an island and never going to be a first safe country? Because that is where that argument goes.

Re point 2 - if you are being persecuted or fleeing war, safe and legal routes absolutely are relevant. These are people who have no options, because this government gives them none. So I can only assume that as above, you think the UK should take no refugees at all, ever.

Don't be too proud of being a legal citizen of a country that treats vulnerable people like this.

Point 1 irrelevant to any thing I said, I never said they legally have to I said they refuse to.

Point 2 of in interest to me, if your paying illegal gangs of criminals large sums of money, I have no interest in what you do.

Lastly don't fool yourself there inconvenient truths to me, they as re not my concern as I'm a legal member of the country and don't fund criminal gangs.

So keep your inconvenient truths I don't really care. What I do care about is largs groups of unknown men coming into this country through criminal gangs and disposing of Thier identities and papers, so we have zero knowledge of who they are and what they may have done and will do. 🙄

The government were happy for around 1,200,000 people to migrate here legally last year

Yup,they are relying on immigration from further and further afield to fill the employment gaps. Schools are actively recruiting more and more often from overseas. Unfortunately, as I have seen from my own DC's school they often arrive, see how rubbish the job is compared to how expensive housing is and leave again fairly soon after. Then more overseas staff are recruited and the same thing happens. I'm sure it's similar with the NHS.

Personally I have no issue with immigration. However, instead of banging on and on about immigrants the government could easily get the numbers down by improving pay and working conditions in public sector jobs that are hard to fill.

The government were happy for around 1,200,000 people to migrate here legally last year and roughly 45,000 people came across in small boats.

So they could just reduce the number of economic applications they accept and divert them to asylum applications instead (while also setting up safe routes to make a claim). I'd say setting the limit to maybe 3:1 (economic : asylum) would provide a good balance without impacting overall numbers.

Hell, they could even reduce the total number of migrants to match the number of people leaving the UK (c560,000), use the 3:1 rationand have enough asylum places for all those who tried to cross by small boat 3.8 times over AND achieve zero net migration all in a oner.

I should also add that the people smugglers have been using the same routes for decades now, we know where they are and how they operate, some have even given interviews stating the majority are based in the UK and explaining the process. The government could quite easily smash these criminal gangs apart if they wanted too. The reason they don't do this is because they want the distraction of pretending illegal migration is an issue.

If your coming to this country through an illegal route but paying huge sums of money to criminal gangs and throwing your I'd away before you arrive and refuse to stay in other safe counties you have already passed through where you could have stayed then put a legal application in no I have no time for you, off to Rwanda with you and never come back.

But you can't apply for asylum in the UK from another country.

Two inconvenient facts for you:

1. Under the UN Convention on Refugees, asylum seekers do not have to apply in the first safe country they come to however much you might want them to.

2. There are currently no legal routes for asylum in the UK.

If only Braverman's Home Office wasn't in such a mess, foreign criminals could be deported

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4ce7d0de-16c0-11ee-b768-bb6d328f2d92?shareToken=6f55294367b2aa23853fbb7f5f8ae71f

So what? Should I care what some anonymous keyboard warrior like you think 🥱

If your coming to this country through an illegal route but paying huge sums of money to criminal gangs and throwing your I'd away before you arrive and refuse to stay in other safe counties you have already passed through where you could have stayed then put a legal application in no I have no time for you, off to Rwanda with you and never come back.

Some on the planes were already found to be criminals but yet people like you still think we should house them bugger off.

I thought International Aid was al being spent on housing immigrants awaiting their claim outcome in this country.

Housing them where ?? The housing wait is years and years. The naivety on this post is breathtaking.

Human rights.
You can't bundle a stranger onto a plane to anywhere because they've lost their papers.

Lost or deliberately thrown away ??

Ridiculous

No ability to have a normal discussion.

Always with the insults and petty swipes

I get it’s a difficult argument but really not great.

I have looked at the Australian processes and most articles indicate success was linked to the turn backs rather than simply the off shore processing.

www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-64898507.amp

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-australian-offshore-asylum-system-reduce-boat-crossings

But I suppose some people will dream of the Rwanda policy regardless of costs and lack of evidence of success.

Im off to do something more useful.

I thought International Aid was al being spent on housing immigrants awaiting their claim outcome in this country.

Human rights.
You can't bundle a stranger onto a plane to anywhere because they've lost their papers.