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?

so those that do this and get caught can be deported as they haven't taken the safe route available to them

So you mean deport people that don’t use safe routes?

Ok that’s still problematic and you’d need to use legal solutions because you won’t be able to send people back to where they arrived from even with safe routes in place

I know, but sometimes, you have to keep calling these people out, because otherwise they will dominate the thread. It's not about convincing them, it's about making sure that the lurkers realise that their points are stupid, nonsense, and not "the norm", however much they are desperate to portray them as.

I don't often have time to deal with them, but I had a bit today.

It’s difficult to converse normally with someone who flies off the handle at ‘how many do you envisage’?

It’s relevant to policy and it’s not an extreme question

I’m amazed at the reaction tbh

Ok…

I can see you feel justified in your reactions but asking for how many people really shouldn’t prompt it

Quite

Those nice shiny posh new apartments with a pool that were being slathered over by a previous home secretary have been sold.

Surely you didn't think that people who are being flown across the world against their will, that a vast amount of money is being exchanged between the agents of landowners to make happen, were genuinely going to be given top quality housing?

These poor people are a commodity, firstly for the traffickers, now for the Rwandan government, and our government is facilitating the deal.

It's utterly shameful and this will be remembered as one of the worst chapters in British history.

You've had your replies. Nobody cares about specific numbers.

And yet your keep "aggressively" asking the same ridiculous question.

Yeah, it's not an agenda at all...

I think that too but unfortunately it can get pretty heated and stressful. for you.

I’m more amazed at the reaction and non answer

It’s relevant to whether something will work

How is that problematic? It's quite simple, the problem at the moment is that because safe routes have been removed for the majority of the people on this planet there is currently no way to claim asylum without setting foot on these shores, open up safe routes then those that choose not to use them can be deported as they have entered illegally, with the safe route option there is no need to come on a dinghy, how on earth would that increase trafficking?

Not really, no.

You're just trying to get people to overreact so that you can get them banned. We've all seen this before. You really aren't amazed, any more than you're amazing.

It's not relevant because you haven't suggested what figures you think might be acceptable. You just shout from the sidelines at anyone else "What numbers! What numbers!"

You live in cloud cuckoo land with this eastern

Asylum seekers make up less than 10% of immigration. Even if we stopped 100% of them we still have hundreds of thousands of migrants coming every year.

Australia is a completely different context - far harder to get to and land on undetected near civilization, far easier to turn boats back at sea.

And the Rwanda scheme is costing a fortune and has been deemed illegal by the supreme Court.

All your constant demands for exact numbers don't change those facts and it's pretty tedious to read.

I guess the only positive is I feel the general public have lost patience with this hogwash now so it will never actually happen. Shame the Conservatives have spaffed hundreds of millions in the meantime.

It’s problematic due to the current law. You cannot turn away people if they arrive in any way

The only legal method is alternative location as per Aus

You can do it but you’d need to get round the legal issue first

Ah, so you don't like the law.

And you say you haven't got an agenda...

@EasternStandard I don't know what will prevent the mass migration of humanity, but I do know that to prevent people dying in small boats in the channel, you need bigger boats, or controlled entry. Safe and legal routes are a good place to start.

Trafficking 200 people a year to Rwanda, and taking 200 people back from there, will do nothing to reduce the numbers.

Have a processing centre in France, take biometrics, do the pre processing checks, then bring those that pass on a bloody ferry. Those that are refused entry may try on small boats, but at that point they know that when they are picked up, they will be returned to France (there is a record of them being there) by ferry.
We do this every single time. Rwanda is a distraction.

On numbers I had no idea it would cause such a reaction

It seems pretty obvious that to work out how much trafficking you could end you’d need to think about what proportion of applicants you can say yes to

If it’s a low proportion relative to demand people will still pay and that would still be a high amount

Australia reduced people arriving by boat when they introduced the pushbacks.

Not by sending asylum seekers offshore.

Yes that sounds sensible

What's the point of Rwanda if we have to take others instead

To repeat you can’t do as pp suggested due to current law

That’s why it’s problematic

It's only caused a reaction because you keep going on and on and on and on about it, without enlightening us all about what you would deem to be acceptable numbers.

It's not a mystery as to why people get a little pissed off when someone keep demanding the same thing, even though people repeatedly say it's not something they care about...

People could just answer or they might see there’s an issue with the suggestion that you can end trafficking by meeting demand

If they actually think about how many people that would take as a yes then they could get closer to seeing why it’s not really resolving the problem, nor getting close to ending 90% of trafficking

The whole I can’t answer is odd but maybe because it exposes the problem

People have answered. It just hasn't stopped you from banging your favourite drum again and again.

And people have pointed out that legal migration is over ten (a number) times more, but you keep ignoring that fact to bang your drum again.

It's completely disingenuous, but we can all see it.

I don’t recall actual numbers - isn’t that what you react to? Numbers!

But no I don’t think number of countries and how many people envisage to end 90% of trafficking has been suggested

Again odd how attacking it causes people to be. It’s not going to make migration pressures end just by getting angry at a basic question on how to do safe routes in a way that stops those with a no paying traffickers

That's just word soup! Do you have a point to make?

You won’t meet demand, people will still pay traffickers

Your claim that you can meet enough demand to stop 90% of trafficking isn’t likely.

Meeting 90% of possible migration for any country is pretty high considering the climate pressures and general volatility globally