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?

Japan signed up to the International refugee convention & protocols in 1981. What makes you think you wouldn't be treated with dignity there?

All "unvetted males" are a risk. I wasn't aware any males were routinely vetted.
How about we focus on actually dealing with cimes against women and children. That would include foreign offenders of course.

Show me the stats that show we're not suffering a brain drain. Unless that housing estate is populated by people regarded as world leading in the fields of bio-medicine & engineering, you've just supported my point.

https://www.thenationalnews.com/weekend/2023/01/06/the-uks-brain-drain-and-the-countries-trying-to-tempt-away-the-talent/

Please stop caring about the safety of a foreign male over a local woman

No one on this thread has demonstrated that they care more about the safety of "a foreign male" over "a local woman".

Japan takes an average of 200 people a year and they still held an anti-immigration rally a month or two ago because of the problems with the Kurdish refugees (sexual assault and generally just creepy behaviour). Make of it what you will

Most countries require criminal background checks as part of the application process. This is why irregular arrivals should be heavily discouraged.

And you’ve posited this as an either/or. Which is ridiculous. DO BOTH.

Someone upthread was whining about the human rights of sex offenders, no?

We do do both. Badly.

@Bridgetta is correct most countries get for criminal activity prior to issuing citizenship

So even if you are not aware it does happen

Threads like this really make me laugh. The UK is more than happy to take migrants when it benefits them. This country has been built on immigration for generations, let’s have a guess at what would happen if all of the immigrants in this country where never given a chance to stay? The NHS would have fallen apart a long time for starters!

No one is saying that there should be unvetted completely open, illegal immigration but this Rwanda policy is not the way to deal with that. There are much bigger issues to face in this country, which has very little to do with migrants! Someone said why don’t we train more British Drs and nurses, but the real question is why is there always a shortfall that you need immigrants to fill?

And then we have the immigrants are criminals rhetoric. The Uk has been full of peodophiles and sexual abusers long before immigrants came along! Go and ask the locals in Spanish towns how British men treat their young girls and women. Or Asia, Africa, Caribbean etc. Of course there are specific cultural issues but they exist in every part of the human race where woman are always seen as less than and those men inclined to abuse, have nothing to fear.

This is why we have an incompetent government who have remained in power for 14 years. Ring the bell, and you’ll drag them in, don’t worry if none of what you’re saying makes actual sense, they only need to see the headline.

No one is saying that there should be unvetted completely open, illegal immigration

So what do you want to happen?

You can have something that works, but it won’t be safe routes or whatever, so what are you thinking will work?

Yes I've just looked it up, they took 74 in 2021. And if I arrived by boat at another country after throwing my passport away I wouldnt expect to stay, that's why there is an immigration process.

It must be partly safe routes, that is the point of seeking asylum. Leaving your country and going to another country for safety can only be done legally if there are legal options.

Overhauling our immigration system, dealing with applicants quickly including, deporting if that is the outcome. Not allowing someone to just stay and lodge 50 appeals, at some point it has to end.

Developing our own infrastructure and public services. The truth is this country needs immigration, the problem is there is no care about how this affects services.

This is was government is for though. To devise effective and safe plans that actually tackle the issue

What’s your upper limit in numbers?

You won’t meet the demand and you’ll still have traffickers selling to the people you say no to

If you don’t say no to anyone how many will it be?

The demand is elastic and very high, it’s not fixed

Look at the new EU policy no country is going to do as you suggest. Countries would be overwhelmed and citizens would reject it

This country has been built on immigration for generations

Do you lift all your talking points from the Americans or what? This is so laughably false!

Tbh it is your own working classes that suffered and built your country up. Yet as a class they are still suffering from all sorts of social ills. You have a duty to them first of all.

Also, we are speaking of refugees, who are not selected on the basis of employment anyway.

the immigrants are criminals rhetoric. The Uk has been full of peodophiles and sexual abusers long before immigrants came along! Go and ask the locals in Spanish towns how British men treat their young girls and women. Or Asia, Africa, Caribbean etc

British men are your base, their violence is inescapable and is critical to address. So to further add rootless young men who come from even more misogynistic cultures? It makes zero sense.

Tbh I would be HAPPY and SUPPORTIVE if Southeast Asian countries required every single man to undergo a background check prior to entry. But they, alas, care more about money than the safety and dignity of local girls.

No.

Gordon Bennett! The number of straw men on this thread could replace the Chinese army!

I can only presume Eastern is an accountant, as they have no compassion for human beings, and everything is about numbers. And, frankly, the numbers are irrelevant because their ideas are unworkable (like the Rwanda scheme), and inhumane.

Safe routes and fast processing is the only way forward. Firstly, it would stop people dying at sea. And if you don't think that is a good idea you've failed at humanity 1.0.

Secondly, it would mean that people who aren't eligible to stay as refugees could be sent back quickly, and not be stored in expensive rented accommodation.

Thirdly, it would mean that those who do qualify, are able to find work and start contributing to society, so they don't have to be stored in expensive rented accommodation permanently.

Infrastructure issues are the fault of successive governments, not of refugees. If you keep voting for a Tory government that wants to privatise healthcare, then you'll find that the NHS gets run down. It's a well known process - defund and then claim that privatisation is the only solution. See how well that has worked for energy, water, etc...

I’m not an accountant but I do think people are misunderstanding and incorrect when they cite the approaches they think will work. There have been a few suggested and none stack up

It’s blithely said - eg safe routes, ID cards, faster processing none will do it

The EU is not pursuing those and no one will

That doesn’t mean people can’t decide on higher numbers, my posts are about showing that’s the choice - something that works or higher numbers

There’s no Oxfam friendly route available to lower numbers, that’s the reality.

The EU is criticised by human rights for new approach and they may well find the upcoming elections swing further right still

https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-braces-for-far-right-wave-as-eu-election-looms/

I don’t think people are looking forward or being realistic about the issues.

This trite response that safe routes and faster processing will mean higher numbers is simply arrant nonsense. It will actually mean lower numbers, as numbers are the only thing important to you, because it means that those found ineligible will be sent back quickly, rather than being left to linger here indefinitely.

It's not going to suddenly end all migration as you seem to think any solution should, that's just stupid.

Japan…. Hmmm. I have sat on a crowded train in Japan with three vacant seats around me because no-one wanted to sit next to a foreigner. Fortunately though I wasn’t coloured, or worse, Korean. Very polite people though.

Of course it won’t because no one can meet demand and traffickers will still exploit that excess demand

It’s why Oxfam and human rights agencies have reacted as below to EU policy and that’s before the elections and a possible swing further right

Well, the reasoning is that it (was meant to) save the tax payer a lot of money and act as a deterrent. Rwanda is a relatively safe country (compared to others in Africa), so it makes sense that there could be a half way house there to consider applications from those from African countries.The hotel accommodation looked fine to be fair and included swimming pools. It looked better than some of the accomodation on offer in this country in fairness. It's always easy to criticise a govt, but far harder to come up with solutions that are attainable within the limited/dwindling resources. For all the outrage of those against the Rwanda scheme, my guess is that there is a lack of sponsorship volunteers in this country who are happy to put up an asylum seeker for months or years on end. The cost of housing asylum seekers is enormous currently, although arguably, if they could be processed more quickly and if appeals didn't drag on for so long, then those who failed could be repatriated quicker (although, that said, many simply disappear and go underground). I just don't know if any government has the resources to be ploughed into making the current application system quicker.

The reality is that, if people want to protect their standard of living, want crime reduced, want better integration, want easier access to housing and healthcare, then immigration has to be done in a controlled and planned way. It's hard to control illegal immigration.

Here is the reaction to what is billed as a ‘moderate’ EU policy

For people escaping conflict, persecution or economic insecurity these reforms will mean less protection and a greater risk of facing human rights violations across Europe – including illegal and violent pushbacks, arbitrary detention and discriminatory policing.

If the elections deliver the shift to the right as predicted policy shift could follow and it won’t be the suggestions on these threads

So because the EU policy you say is not approved by Oxfam, you think we should do a far worse one?

Bizarre logic...

Koreans are actually very well liked by Japanese, in the main. It’s not Koreans they are marching against (the royal family has Korean blood after all)