I know, why don't we send them all to Rwanda?

[Weighnow]

Does anyone else think this sounds like a suggestion someone made as a joke, to liven up a dull or fraught meeting and somehow, someone decided to run with it?

It’s various things causing strain but realistically it’s trafficking or deterrent

The list of other solutions from ID cards, to safe routes, to fixing other countries and processing elsewhere or stopping gangs - none of those will work

So in the end it’ll be a decision between the two

What happens a few more years out when numbers are very high due to climate I guess we’ll see. It could get even more volatile though

https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-scheme-how-many-asylum-seekers-does-the-uk-remove-and-how-much-of-an-impact-will-the-policy-have-13117908

Rwanda only has the capacity to take 0.7% of small boat asylum seekers

It’s safer than Sudan. It’s safer than the Middle East.

You might want to educate yourself about the evolution of the EHRC as determined by Strasberg judges. Living instrument doctrine is an abuse of power and we should have a domestic bill of rights instead.

I read an interesting fiction book once called, The Bee Keeper of Aleppo. I think some of you should read it to better understand the reasons why people are willing to take such dangerous travels to get to UK.
This policy will not solve any part of the actual problem, why so many are so quick to hang on to these stupid policies from our stupid government is beyond me! Even they accept that it will cost hundreds of millions and only 300 people will actually get to Rwanda at best.

The reason why the country is in such a state is because we have had a shit government who care more about appeasing an ignorant minority than actually funding and supporting systems for the benefit of the country. I hope that none of you ever have to face the reality of having to leave your country in fear of persecution, war or anything else. The way the world is currently, it’s probably not that wild of a concept.

So why come here?

Been covered in depth already. Or Google if you can't follow the thread.

Yes, why is this? Why are those who are being persecuted trying so hard to get here?

And starmers solution is?

<tumbleweed, as we spot the open door policy even as the NHS collapses under the sheer weight of numbers and housing stock runs out>

Or you could answer the question if you actually know it?

No, the facts are that Rwanda is safer than the Middle East and Sudan.

Because it's a waste of time. If you're actually interested you'd read back or Google. You're just attempting to stall actual debate with lazy faux ignorance.

One of those judges is from the UK

Which of the Human Rights would you like to give up?

Possible reasons have been given many times on this thread. Why do you think they want to come here?

Oh great, so domestic policy should be decided on the basis of a fictional book you once read. I suppose it made you cry and opened your eyes. Perhaps you might be better off learning about the realities of communities who are grappling with huge numbers of asylum seekers being plonked into their midst: one of my local towns is dealing with an uptick in sexual assaults because young male immigrants don't understand that girls who go out after dark, dressed immodestly aren't fair prey. Our press is suppressing this news (just as has happened in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc). The grim reality in the real world is that vast number of irregular immigrants have no interest in integrating, they arrive with completely different cultural and religious values, and those UK citizens who live around them are struggling. I note the PP who took the piss about the ice cream eater.

Christ, don't give them ideas.

As you say it’s a debate. I asked a question. You replied by telling me to google it. That’s not a debate is it.
I don’t think anyone genuine illegal immigrants will be refused asylum or sent to Rwanda. I think those who are less genuine will be sent and so they should.

Usually in a debate you don't answer the same innocuous question repeatedly. Bring something to the conversation or admit you've got to add and bow out.

I don't think they've ever thought about it. Clearly repeating that other countries are also safe should have been working for the last 30 years. They can't fathom that it might be more complex than that.

No not at all, I was giving some suggested reading on the topic. Some might find it insightful.

But I do think domestic policy should be based on facts and international law, not the idiotic bell ringing of the Tory party. Do you actually think this policy will have any impact on the problems in your town? Why? What evidence do you have?

I’m glad that you’re only experiencing of men who prey on “immodestly dressed” women only came alive when immigrants arrived. Unfortunately the rest of the world know that that is not an immigrant issue and is unlikely to change when they are no longer there.

Ah but it is. In case we want to do a truth stranger than fiction comparison

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b006qgrd/the-thick-of-it

Right so Rotherham, etc isn't to do with cultural differences, lack of integration, women and girls being third class citizens?

Absolutely. It’s not your low paid British ‘knuckle draggers’ that are the cause of antisemitism in this country. Most, including me would have a clue if you were Jewish.

Don't be ridiculous @mossylog I was replying to someone who seemed to think asylum seekers will all be net contributors - most of them will be a net cost. Most elderly people have already contributed throughout their life and of course they are valued.

The law that was passed yesterday states that Rwanda IS a safe country. The courts enforce the law and that is now the law so there’s not much that can be done about it. If Parliament passed a law saying the moon was made of cheese then that would be the legally correct position, no matter how much it conflicts with reality. It’s called a ‘legal fiction’. These are not uncommon: for example in some situations a company is legally a person, or a man can legally be a woman.