Rwanda ruling

YANBU, the whole idea seems like criminal lunacy

I don’t mind answering this later as a slightly different tack but I am really interested in what people think will happen with numbers if barriers are much lower

Right now they are very high and people take the risk, without that what are people expecting?

What is your acceptable number of asylum seekers Sunnyegg?

Can you explain to me like I’m stupid what the legal channels are that these people can be using?

no explanation is too basic. Spell it out for me please…

Ok with no cap on numbers and safe passage, given that the highest barrier would be removed, how many do you envisage applying?

Taking into account climate crisis and mass migration increasing too.

ie people currently risk their lives which is an incredibly high barrier, when it’s easy and safe to do so how many are people thinking will want to do it?

@SunnyEgg a cap on genuine refugees? Nope. Just allow them to work. We have labour shortages. Also stop counting international students as immigrants, that policy is scaremongering. The vast majority of refugees stay in nearby countries. The UK really isn't generous in how many it takes (and nor is the EU, the West as a whole needs to do better).

Yes, I know we are talking about the U.K.
Based on you extremely broad criteria we would also owe unconditional sanctuary, reparations and residence to the Germans, French and Americans.

Especially the Germans, they were Nazis when we “laid waste through military intervention” but we bombed the fuck out of them and then rolled tanks to and fro blowing things up.

Or does the reason for military intervention matter?

Happy to tell them the same, plus the Belgians. But this is the UK we're talking about.

Don’t tell the Americans, French and Germans.

The UK owes unconditional sanctuary, reparations and residence to any person from any country or territory that it has ever colonised, exploited, or laid waste through military intervention.

The government have spent what, £170 million quid on this so far, and not one person has been sent to Rwanda.
And they are still considering taking it to the Supreme Court at yet more expense. Why are people not more outraged? We keep hearing that we have no money. This waste of resources and time should be a huge national scandal.

All For a disgraceful poorly thought out plan that does nothing to tackle the issues in the first place. So they can keep up their awful racist rhetoric about small boats and try to distract everyone from cost of living, nhs, mortgages, and all the other debacles they have caused or worsened during their time in office.

I hate them. I don't say that lightly about anyone or anything, but I can't understand how they can even stay in office-not one of them has a conscience it seems, and few of them seem even marginally intelligent. All I keep hearing is 'MP's are worried as this will affect their chance of re election'. No shame!

I don't like it as an idea but I don't like thinking about people drowning in the channel trying to get here either. We need a solution that is enough of a deterrent it stops people getting into the boats but we also need to make the right channels to get here more efficient and easier to access so that they don't need to get into the boats.

The safe passage posters do you see a cap on numbers

I ask as that’s where I see issues arising. How do you deal with people arriving outside those limits?

@Quveas I don't want the policy at all, sorry if I gave that impression. I want swift decisions, and I am sure that with international co-operation a lot could be done to break up those who offer such passage. The government could also do a lot to minimise the under the radar ways people can earn incomes in this country and really tackle money laundering.

But it's been said now. So that makes it true, doesn't it? The government seem to think that's how it works.

hattie43 · Yesterday 19:09

I'm not surprised it failed . Why choose Rwanda no wonder people are filled with horror .

They chose Rwanda because it's not a well developed country, which is run by a brutal dictator. Of course people wouldn't want to go there, that's the whole idea. They have lied, by saying that it's a lovely, safe place.

I’m neither happy nor disappointed because the Rwanda idea was a dead cat from the start. It wasn’t going to ever get off the ground and I agree it was probably a bit of performative “let’s pretend we will do the most outrageous thing ever to fix a problem and then when we are blocked, sit on our hands and blame others for the problem persisting.”

I don't necessarily agree with shipping people off to Rwanda, but I DO think something needs to change to discourage people from making illegal crossings, and instead coming through the proper channels.

And what proper channels are those? Nobody is going to risk their life crossing the sea in a dinghy for shits and giggles, they do it out of desperation because the Government has chosen to close down safe routes. If the threat of drowning in the freezing sea isn't enough to "discourage" them then surely that tells you something!

Suella Braverman is pure evil.

It’s not even true though

"But again how do you deal with the people who are turned down - they aren't going to go home and settle - why would they?"

We deport people all the time. We've been sending people 'back' to Jamaica who have a legal right to be here (Windrush).

It's literally all the Tories have left. The country is going to shit. They have no interest in improving the lives of us proles. It's to give the right wing press something to shout about until the election.

I'd prefer it if they were more concerned about Johnson putting Lebedev in the HOL against the advice of the security services...not to mention the 29 year-old also given a life peerage.

I wonder how many of this audience would give a different view in private..but it's a good start twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1674524653539282945?t=xsQQwb470OdZPq9o_AeCTA&s=09

Braverman had clearly used the comments section of the Daily Mail as the source of data for that statement.

Caradonna · Today 08:31

where people can apply remotely and travel as safely as possible without needing to resort to smugglers and organised criminals.

But again how do you deal with the people who are turned down - they aren't going to go home and settle - why would they?”

As I understand it, 80% of applications are approved.

Having a robust safe route means there will be a proper and efficient process for removing people who don't qualify for asylum.

Meanwhile you should look at the % of people arriving in small boats whose claims are granted. Including appeals it sits at over 80%. Assuming that the vast majority are economic migrants is incorrect.

where people can apply remotely and travel as safely as possible without needing to resort to smugglers and organised criminals.

But again how do you deal with the people who are turned down - they aren't going to go home and settle - why would they?