Why do Labour not get it?

Which charities are encouraging them?

I was against it because I heard for every one we sent to rawanda we were going to have to have one of theirs. So what was it solving if we'd end up with the same number of people coming in?
I don't trust a lot of places, too many wars and brutal government regimes. I heard there was some kind of iffy government doing unreasonable things in rawanda so I didn't trust that they'd be sending us a refugee granted asylum in exchange for one of ours the same, I suspected they'd send us one they'd like to deport because they failed the asylum checks such as a convicted criminal for example.

...............................................

I agree with the asylum process existing but I disagree with it's current format for two main reasons.
First as a pp mentioned there's no real point processing them if they're going to be allowed to stay whether their claim is accepted or not. Having nowhere to deport failed asylum seekers to because we don't know who they are or where they've come from, makes the process of claiming asylum a pointless waste of money if we're keeping them all anyway. So too the thing where they get rights to bring family over. No, if it's that bad in your home country come with your family so they all can be processed and assessed properly as individuals.
Second when British citizens can't get housing, timely medical care and are often struggling to survive the cost of living on a low income, then I say we don't have anything spare as a country to be generous with.

It's not as if we don't help at all. Our government pays foreign aid and our armed forces always seem to be in other countries trying to sort out their messes and brutal governments, for the better welfare of those country's people.

Once the average British citizen doesn't have to wait years (yes, really, it happened) for an accurate diagnosis and basic antibiotics for an infection that took all of 5mins to diagnose in the end; once we all have affordable housing (for those who want it) in homes actually fit for human habitation and not forced with no options other than sky high private rentals - then and only then will I be happy to share some more of our country's wealth with others. It's ridiculous trying to fix the world's problems while our own country goes down the toilet.

There also should be a law passed that it's not racist to expect someone to publicly integrate into British society. No "can't comply with xyz for religious reasons" etc. Christians or atheist don't get away with that so neither should anyone else. I know of two people one here 5yrs, one here 15yrs, neither can speak English despite being mentally sound and having family members who can and who could teach them. That should be illegal, learn our language or get your right to stay revoked. Comply with our laws, ignorance of law is no excuse for British so no excuse for non-British either. We have freedom of speech and thought (just about!) so people can have their private thoughts and opinions, but live publicly as a British citizen would, if you want to live here. Britain is a tolerant country, there's no banned religion or language to speak to your friends and the acceptable ways to dress are many, plenty of types of hobbies allowed etc. Plenty of freedoms to be yourself, it's not only one rigid way. But that tolerance shouldn't extend to British being expected to lay down in the mud so others can stamp all over us, which is the current state of affairs.

I just googled that.

She is disgusting.

This. @BeachLife2that is not correct.

they have to stay in the first EU country they reach

How did they reach France and Germany?

In 2015, over 850,000 refugees/asylum seekers entered the EU via Greece - they clearly didn't stay in Greece.

You don't want them in hotels, you dont want them in barracks. Where are they supposed to go. Having them homeless in the street isn't going to work.

Concentration camps maybe?

Starmer won’t, and scrapped a step towards it. But it’s the only method that gets what people are describing.

Rwanda. But it won't be many people because when they know they are going to Rwanda they won't choose to come in the first place.

For anyone who is still in doubt, Keir Starmer is on the record saying that all immigration laws are racist.

And this is the guy who is going to stop illegal immigration.

Go figure.

Remember when Jess Phillips likened this to a night out in Birmingham.

Disgusting individual.

I believe the Australian system has been criticised by the left so they won’t want to take that route.

But where are we sending them off to? It’s like the hole in the bucket song, you circle back to the same problem again. We don’t know where these people are from!

I am referring to the current peak and what's been driving it. It's been quite well documented that the 'second shot' thing has been a clear driver.

What pp are describing is the Aus system. Stops coastal entry but allows humanitarian claims.

Yes.

A lot of stuff was brushed under the carpet there too, for a long time.

Same for Sweden which was such a lovely country with such an educated socially minded population. Very sad.

If people are not allowed to stay they will not come.

If anyone coming knew they will be in Rwanda within a week they will not come.

Agreed.

I get so upset about it all.

This still doesn’t solve how you stop the boats coming.

The RNLI will keep supporting the small vessels as that’s literally their job. The Navy will not sink boats. We don’t have jurisdiction to stop them launching as that’s French soil. There is no way to stop it without diplomacy.

Of course that’s why they won’t collect accurate data. Much like male crimes having been recorded as female crimes for years now. Let’s keep no data or lots of inaccurate data so we don’t have to be held accountable for making some fucking indefensible decisions.

Thanks for explaining. I don't think we are a million miles apart in our views.

My view is that we should have a legal route for a limited number of those who are genuinely the most vulnerable.

Those who come illegally, having passed through lots of safe countries, should be removed to either their home countries or a safe third country.

That way we could support the most vulnerable, while stopping the small boats issue which funds criminal gangs, puts people at risk and erodes support for immigration as a whole.

I'm trying to understand your argument, is it that the most vulnerable are too weak to make the journey to the UK, and so those that arrive here don't deserve to be granted asylum?
I am in favour of allowing asylum claims from abroad, though as another poster has pointed out, this is not without issue. Would mean that those too weak to make to journey can still have a claim.
Is that what you are getting at?

I’ve seen very little resistance to supporting people from Ukraine

but from Hong Kong and Afghanistan

seriously ? There is plenty of people not wanting non white and especially Muslim refugees here regardless of they helped our military or not

What point are you trying to make?

It doesn’t matter you think, house prices show whether people want to live in diverse areas or not.