Asylum seekers to the UK sent to Rwanda

[Dodie66]

What do you think about the governments plan to send all asylum seekers that come to the UK to Rwanda to be processed. I think this is inhumane. A lot of them have come from places like Syria, Iran etc and travelled across the channel with all the associated risks only to be sent 6000 mile to be processed. What about the cost to do this? I think it’s a big mistake

Israel tried this, it didn't work

Thread twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?s=21

Between 2014 and 2017, Israel is estimated to have deported around 4,000 asylum seekers to Rwanda and Uganda.

Nearly every single one of them left. Many were smuggled back towards Europe, facing capture by militias, Islamic State, and a perilous crossing of the Med.

But is is a good distraction from Partygate.

@Viviennemary

I think it will deter others from coming. We can't take everybody. If you rocked up on a boat into Australia or NZ you would be sent packing.

I fucking hate this about Australia - it’s barbaric. The suggestion that we might start doing the same is sickening

Vivienne has this swayed your vote back? (iirc you had a thread recently re voting, apols if I’ve got that wrong)

...and in other news...
This is the current state of my local hospital

Here:

[quote Ylvamoon]@carefullycourageous - how do you explain all the houses being built on flood plains or rich fertile farmland? Because of the land issues. Wake up, Britain is surrounded by water, its a relatively small island. We only have X amount of land to feed ourselves and to build houses on for the ever growing population....[/quote]
No, it is not because of land issues, it is because it is far cheaper to develop those sites than to redevelop brownfield sites. It is a political choice. Tories take a lot of donations from the big builders, then tell lies to the gullible.

You sound a bit confused with We only have X amount of land to feed ourselves - we do not feed ourselves, that is not even a remote possibility

Far right policies are VERY popular at times of economic mismanagement...
(See any history book ever...)

@tinytemper66

It will cost in excess of 4 billion pounds. Approximately 2 million per refugee. Someone in the Tory party or their circle of friends, donors, cronies or lovers will make it rich on the backs of others' suffering.

Sorry 1.4 billion

The polling on the policy is interesting - more people oppose it than support. The government must be very worried about the locals to be blowing the racist dog whistle so hard.

This policy only appeals to a certain type of voter, and importantly is also more relevant the closer you are to the channel - another indicator the government is shitting themselves about the South East.

Although it is a disgusting policy, watching the Tories back themselves into a corner politically is not unenjoyable.

why not just transport them to the Empire colonies like we used to BITGOD? I'm really surprised Priti didn't think of that.

@carefullycourageous

The polling on the policy is interesting - more people oppose it than support. The government must be very worried about the locals to be blowing the racist dog whistle so hard.

This policy only appeals to a certain type of voter, and importantly is also more relevant the closer you are to the channel - another indicator the government is shitting themselves about the South East.

Although it is a disgusting policy, watching the Tories back themselves into a corner politically is not unenjoyable.

I actually think it's a political calculation that they've made. They know that the policy will provoke outrage, but on the plus side, people are talking about it, which means that they are not talking about Boris having broken the law. It's probably worth any short term political damage, and once the initial furore has died down, the policy will quietly be shelved.

@2bazookas

why not just transport them to the Empire colonies like we used to BITGOD? I'm really surprised Priti didn't think of that.

Not sure what bitgod is, although Australia is even more protective generally so no dice

@AlexaShutUp yes it has served a purpose in tersm of dsitraction.

The policy would be utterly stupid financially, but Tories are only too happy to spunk taxpayers' money up the wall on stupid contracts these days, so they could be doing it to line someone's pockets of course.

[quote carefullycourageous]@AlexaShutUp yes it has served a purpose in tersm of dsitraction.

The policy would be utterly stupid financially, but Tories are only too happy to spunk taxpayers' money up the wall on stupid contracts these days, so they could be doing it to line someone's pockets of course.[/quote]
I agree that it wouldn't make any sense. I still don't think that they have any real intention of implementing it though. It's all just fluff to take our attention away from other issues.

To give credit where credit is due, it seems to be working for them rather well.

Tobias Ellwood has said exactly the same as you @AlexaShutUp

@carefullycourageous

Tobias Ellwood has said exactly the same as you *@AlexaShutUp*

Ha! Hadn't seen that.

It isn't often that my views are aligned with those of a Tory MP!

@AlexaShutUp

It isn't often that my views are aligned with those of a Tory MP!

It is scary when it happens... But Ellwood does seem to be at the saner end so you are OK for now. When you agree with Bridgen or Fabricant you might have to rethink

Ah, yes, now that really would be worrying.

It's also pretty inhumane to send them to North Yorkshire too!

Perhaps it is been used as a deterrent to stop young men crossing the channel. It isn’t been applied to families

@osprey24

most of the channel migrants are young healthy men who are economic migrants, not women and children.

Those "healthy young men" may also be gay....you might want to find out what happens to gay men in some African countries.

Conservative MP Scott Benton recently claimed during an appearance on the BBC’s Politics Live programme that the “vast majority of people coming across the Channel are economic migrants”.
A similar claim was previously made by Home Secretary Priti Patel in November.
Mr Benton added: “The vast majority are men between the ages of 18 and 40 coming from Iraq and Iran primarily.”
While it is true that people from Iran and Iraq, as well as young men, are most represented in the statistics on small boat crossings, there is no evidence most are economic migrants, Research shows that the majority of people, irrespective of arrival method, from the top 10 most-represented countries crossing the Channel are granted asylum—indicating that they are not economic migrants—although data on asylum decisions by nationality and method of arrival to the UK is not published by the Home Office.
fullfact.org/immigration/scott-benton-small-boats-economic-migrants/

Apologies for the random strike through there.