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?

Oh yeh I think the EU has that agreement and there’s no Med / migration issues at all

Do people not pick up on politics outside the U.K.?

Do you pick up on anything beyond western right wing politics?

Nice try but no dice

Why go to insults? It’s pointless

I’ve linked to the political shift in the EU. You can attack the messenger but it’s still the reality.

Why is it an insult when I say it, but fine for you? Take it the answer is no...Political shift is not evidence that a yet to be implemented migration policy will "work". What exactly do you think you're the messenger of? Really stupid to limit your awareness to the EU - like not thinking about where water comes from before your tap.

I linked an article I didn’t write it

If it’s making you react that’s a you problem 🤷‍♀️

I’m interested in what’s going on globally as we see higher climate pressure and the EU shift is part of that

I don’t think the suggestions on these threads are anywhere near what we’ll see

Ah, immigrants. Then explain why, in London, the most ethnically diverse city in the UK you are less likely to be a victim of crime than on average, are much less likely to suffer from anti-social behaviour, where gun crime is lower than Gloucestershire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Northamptonshire, West Yorkshire, the West Midlands, South Yorkshire and Cleveland?

Stop blaming our shit public services, healthcare, housing, crime, education etc on immigration. It's entirely down to neoliberal economics and a gullible electorate continuing to vote for it.

And no it’s not just the EU see Aus also in posts, not yet mentioned but US migration pressures are along the same lines

Again, EU political shift IS NOT EVIDENCE that these policies will work. Pressures and finger pointing is not the same as actual measurable results. You keep bringing up AUS and now the US, but the migrants are different groups. It's apples and oranges. The "success" is also debatable.
You're also missing a major point some of us are making - we don't all think it needs to "work" to that extent. I don't agree that small boats arrivals are a major issue in our country, and unlike some, I don't see "compassion" as a bad quality.

You can have higher numbers by boat as your choice. Some will be ok with that. Some won’t, but I’d say the destabilising elements will increase as we see the climate / migration pressure go up

Others have said of course they want reduction in trafficking - that’s not going to happen using the suggestions on these threads

If people want this then there’s no ‘safe route’ type policy that does it

Higher numbers by boat is the UK government's choice

So are you asking for tougher measures? Lower or higher numbers?

I think you’ll find it’s happening across the Med too and into US across land

Migration generally is reflecting the changing global situation

@DuncinToffee

Numbers again.

Not human beings...

It’s just language it helps for communication but if you need it

Do you want more people or fewer?

Those who say it’s being allowed what do you actually want? Tougher measures?

I am asking for safe routes so people who are granted asylum can come here by ferry rather than dinghies

Yes and you won’t see any country use this as it won’t resolve the trafficking problem as demand will be too high

We’ll see a move in the opposite direction though if citizens keep asking for a limit

You can see this already when looking at political shift

Since this safe route option is not possible other decisions will crop up

France have offered to build a processing centre at the channel.

That will stop the boats.

They don't want the boats stopped because they are relying on getting the anti-immigrant vote at the next election.

The nerve of David Cameron. One of the reasons we are getting alot more illegal immigrants is because he bombed Libya and now alot of African migrants set off from the Libyan coast as there is effectively no govt. Gaddafi warned the West this would happen. He was a disaster as Prime Minister and a joke he is now foreign secretary.

You do realise this is not a thread calling for lower numbers? If you want that, go start your own thread.

No thanks I’ll post where I wish.

And some have said they want trafficking to stop, scroll back if you missed it

So it is part of the thread even if it’s making you react.

Video in tweet

https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1783037978094293219

Victoria Derbyshire speaks with an asylum seeker from Iran, Nima Moradi

"When I left my country, I wasn't thinking about the destination, I was thinking about being safe"

"When I was in Greece I was thinking to go to Germany, but when I was granted asylum I thought, because I can speak English, I will go to England"

"The Rwanda bill will not stop asylum seekers coming to the UK.. See how many people are trying to cross the channel last night.. People have access to information.. They know the bill has passed.. But still they will try to cross the channel.. Because they will think that they won't be amongst the 1% selected to go to Rwanda"

"If there was a safe route for me to claim asylum.. For example if the UK had a center I could claim asylum.. I would do that instead of paying people smugglers £3,000 but I crossed because there was no safe route to apply for asylum"

You can't come onto a thread about one topic then get pissy when people don't agree with your biew of a different topic. Run for prime Minister if you want to tell people what to think.

Nail on the head.

I’m fine with my posts you sound like you’re er reacting

My point is looking at what will happen realistically it’s not going to be safe routes for any country as demand is too high

At some point those who get a no will use traffickers

It’s just reason.

I know people are set on safe routes but it’s highly unlikely they’ll see it anywhere as the solution to increasing migration pressures

This is still just arrant nonsense! Safe routes and faster processing absolutely will eliminate the need for smugglers. At least on the Channel route.

To suggest otherwise is, frankly, stupid!

The US is similarly seeing Republicans block solutions at the border for red meat for their racist base.

This thread is about our government wasting money on a scheme that won't achieve any of the claimed results. It's simply to galvanise their base.

Anything else is just deflection from what is an indefensible scheme.