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?

No it’s not irony at all. It’s completely obvious that if people get a no they’ll still pay

Or if you say yes to all who apply you might find it too high

I know you’re struggling but it’s really not that hard

"Ok so you’re saying yes to everyone?"

And where did I say that?

And you call other people aggressive! Bollocks! Ha!

You sound like you’re nearly on the ceiling you’re spiralling so much

If you say no to people then what?

Paying traffickers?

That’s the issue you won’t stop the trafficking

Oh dear back to insults again

Why is it so hard?

It’s pretty simple. And no you won’t stop traffickers you’ll have both. You won’t stop 90% because demand is so high and you won’t get close to meeting it

Ah I see it’s deleted. Maybe try without the insults

Oh? You've got something deleted?

Colour me shocked!

It doesn't affect the fact that you're still spewing nonsense to an agenda, however many posts you get deleted...

I think you should debate without insulting in the way you do to get deleted

Not my issue 🤷‍♀️

Ah, yes, "debate".

That must mean repeating repeatedly disproved nonsense over and over again...

When posters get this aggressive I’d say they’ve run out of road on the ability to put forward an argument

You won’t stop 90% of trafficking that’s the problem

Yes, it would. And you repeatedly saying it wouldn't isn't a fact.

This is getting like the Monty Python argument sketch. And equally as nonsensical.

Funny how the one you wanted deleted is the one where you get called out...

How can you meet the demand for applications?

You can’t even answer simple questions on how many to know that 90% of trafficking will end

And why do you go all aggro? It’s full on

I think you post as you do as it’s a replacement for just answering calmly which might help

Ok just for arguments sake lets say safe routes were opened up ie processing centre in France, this would immediately take the business away from the traffickers as the end result is the same, they get processed quickly and are given a yes or no answer, no gets deported, yes gets to get on with their life in the UK, considering that the outcome is the same the vast majority will choose the safer way, we are an island it's very difficult to rock up on a beach and no one notice so those that do this and get caught can be deported as they haven't taken the safe route available to them, it's a no brainer to me

Yep. The accountant just can't work out the numbers.

As 90+% are already being granted asylum, sending fewer than 1% of those that fail to Rwanda, while also taking an equal number back from there, is somehow going to solve the problem completely.

It's obvious...

I don’t think that’s an accurate correlation though. Even with these tough approaches, most of the claimants are given asylum status. Even seen in Aus, as you keep referring to. The point is this policy doesn’t actually deal with the issue. It just pushes to someone else. The only way to deal with is a good robust immigration policy overall.

Which includes safe routes!

Blimey at all this, insults included it’s nuts but anyway

I don’t think safe routes will stop 90% of trafficking. We can’t get close to what that would require to do it.

Nowhere is taking this approach because they know how high the demand is

Someone sees insults when people disagree with them.

Hmm...

This country is attractive, that's why asylum seekers come here. And most are not asylum seekers, they're economic migrants who don't want to pay/cannot afford to pay/cannot meet the legal visa rules to enter the UK (such as student, marriage, etc). The idea of asylum is to seek it in the first safe country. France is safe, yet the jungle is full of hopefuls wanting to come here. And why? Well, if their claim is granted, they can bring their family over for free. After five years of having protection status, they can apply to be 'settled', which costs zero BTW, as opposed on the visa route, which is £1500 ish. Settled status is indefinite leave to stay, no restrictions. Once they've done 5 years of settled status, they can then purchase their citizenship. This is why the UK is so attractive. If their claim is refused? They ain't going nowhere as the 'returns' process is shite. And Removal is not the same as Deportation, that's a different process. Deportation is relatively rare, has to be agreed at Home Sec level and is for persistent criminals. Anyway, Most claimants are granted, as long as they can persuade the caseworker that they'll be persecuted owing to their political opinion, race, nationality, a particular social group, or their religion (which is why the 'Christian claims' have been so popular). And the test when considering the claim is really low, like "benefit of the doubt if in doubt". Honestly, the WHOLE system needs an overhaul and throwing money at Rwanda is not the way to go. Stop making this country so attractive that you'd leave a safe country (France) to get to, no matter what.

Well not really as mnhq deleted it

You can disagree but it’s hard when you keep reacting to basic questions such as how many do you envisage

It’s not a provocation or ‘agenda’ just an attempt to understand how it would work in reality

It's clearly not though, because you don't respond to other people's points, merely restate your own or tell them, without the slightest iota of evidence, that they're wrong. Whilst still not posting so much as a whiff of evidence supporting your point. And doing it over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And yet it's "other people" who are being aggressive.

Yeah...

hannibal I really would not waste time if I was you. Lots of people are on the same side as you and some you can't convince

Just because nowhere else does it doesn't mean it wouldn't work for us, there aren't that many countries like us that doesn't have a land border with another country, no one can get here on foot, it should be much simpler for us than it is for other countries but I suspect the government like giving us the impression that there are hordes of people rampaging across our unmanned borders

What's basic is there have been multiple threads on this subject and not a shred of evidence that this wildly expensive policy will work at all.