How have the court of appeal allowed the Rwanda thing to go ahead?

[rwandanothanks]

This seems extremely costly, very bad for the climate change challenge in terms of flights and staggeringly lacking in humanity.

How have the court of appeal allowed these flights to go ahead?

I guess if we rewind from the the real question is how and why on earth are our government pushing this awful idea?

Just like Terezin...

Why is it immoral? Genuine asylum seekers should seek asylum in the first safe country, which is not the UK. Most of the ones who cross the channel are young men of fighting age.
The majority of the people who think this is immoral are those who are less likely to be affected by an influx of illegal immigrants .
And people wonder why schools, GPs and hospitals and social housing are in a mess.
We just can't afford to let in anyone who wishes to live here.( excluding those genuinely fleeing war)

@lollipoprainbow we’ve been through this before on a different thread. Did you forget?

And how are you sure they are not?

@lollipoprainbow sorry if I've misunderstood you point in your last post, but there is the voluntary return scheme for migrants. The government often give up to a couple of thousand pounds to help get re-settled back home.

www.gov.uk/return-home-voluntarily

Perhaps not enter into a reciprocal agreement to trade 11(? I think it was 11 on the flight) of our refugees for tens of their refugees.

No-one wittering on about numbers and "we just can't take anymore" seems to have cottoned on to the fact that this is a reciprocal arrangement. And one I argue is morally wrong and legally questionable.

Yeah, given that quite a few said they’d rather commit suicide than be taken to Rwanda, I’m guessing they’re not fans.

Last year the UK approved 100% of asylum claims from Rwandan asylum seekers in the grounds that sending them back there would be a risk to their life due to Rwanda's appalling record on human rights abuses.

I'm sure they'll treat these vulnerable asylum seekers well though 🙄

I really hope not, it is absolutely ridiculous

Yes, France is a safe country. I have a home there, spend a lot of time there, and it is no more dangerous than the UK.

If you are listing France as dangerous then everywhere is, the UK included.

Millions was the response to a pp who thought a change of government would allow unrestricted access to UK. I'm all for people legally entering. We need skilled workers without a doubt and they should be able to get visas. I currently have one family member trying to get a visa for UK and one trying to get a visa for Europe. They are going through official channels. It's not easy for migrants but letting everyone in with no restrictions is not feasible. No other country does this, I don't see why pp thinks the UK should.

@BewareTheLibrarians no I haven't forgotten and I disagreed with you then as well remember ??

Thing is, it would appear that many who would have been sent to Rwanda quickly moved to Ireland to claim asylum under their system, and it would appear that they are being swamped now. Not that they are not made welcome, but accommodation for them is becoming impossible what with the thousands of Ukrainians already there.

Sooner or later, once refugee/resident status is granted by Ireland, they will no doubt move back to UK, which is where they really want to be.

@LadyApplejack Ive seen plenty of sensible solutions. The Ukrainian visa scheme for one, safe routes from countries where war and persecution are commonplace, resettlement schemes (one was set up for Afghanistan but only a thousand-ish visas were issued. Some interpreters for the British army are still left behind.)

Conservative ministers say exactly what you’ve just said, but those who oppose it have given plenty of alternatives - just those alternatives don’t get into the media so people don’t know they exist.

Some numbers from the Home Office

Important new data from the Home Office shows

-The biggest group of people crossing the Channel in the early part of 2022 were Afghans: one in four of all crossings.
-Over 90% of Afghans last year were given asylum.
-75% of asylum seekers were given asylum, highest since 1990.

UK gave asylum to 98% of Syrians, 97% of Eritreans, 95% of Sudanese, 91% of Afghans and 88% of Iranians. 76% of claims from young men aged 18-29 were granted.

All of these figures cast further debt on the Home Sec's assertion that 70% of channel crossings are economic migrants.

twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1529876967742373895?t=M4MJGcyhYzfS74MaLHi7Vw&s=19

You can't claim asylum in the UK until you're actually in the UK. Allowed people to begin the asylum process before entering the UK would reduce the number arriving by illegal crossing.

So by your rationale does that mean that only countries that boarder the Mediterranean or parts of Eastern Europe should take in refugees as that's where most migrants would have to have crossed?

Why shouldn't refugees go to countries where they already have relatives that are willing to house? Is it one rule for taking in refugees for the richest countries in the world and another for poor ones who already have to house millions of them?

You have a house there which would indicate you're not a refugee claiming asylum in France therefore have no direct experience of what its like to be a regime claiming asylum in France...

France is safe for you, a holidaymaker and homeowner, with a passport.

France is not safe for asylum seekers, who may have nowhere to live, no money and face violence from the police.

Sending them to Rwanda does make me uneasy, it just feels wrong and I say that as a Kent coast resident and we see first hand the huge pressure that 10K arrivals have on our area (finance wise).

@BewareTheLibrarians yes not familiar with below, would these measures be expected to reduce incoming UK numbers?

safe routes from countries where war and persecution are commonplace, resettlement schemes (one was set up for Afghanistan but only a thousand-ish visas were issued. Some interpreters for the British army are still left behind.)

That's exactly what these people think - or they just don't care, as long as it means the UK has no asylum seekers. It would be a ridiculously unfair system that the only determinant of whether you have a moral duty to help the world's most vulnerable would be geography, and absolutely none of them would support it if it didn't leave the UK taking none. They'd be equally in favour of refugees having to go to the first country alphabetically, which is about as just a system

What are we going to do though to stop this continuing?

@Georgeskitchen The “young men of fighting age” trope again!

1. women and children do come. Will the media show you? No. Why? Take a guess.

2. fewer women and children and elderly men come than young men. Why? The journey from Syria/Iran/Afghanistan/Eritrea is incredibly physically tough. There are also risks along the way of trafficking and sexual abuse, rape and torture. It’s not safe for women or children, who usually stay in refugee camps closer to their home country.

Why don’t the men stay there to? Some do, but it is incredibly hard to find work, meaning you can’t feed your family or have a chance of leaving the camp on the future. For any chance of a future, young men have to make the journey to a country where they can work so they can send money to their family or bring them to safety.

France is a safe country so why not stay there. The emotion needs to be removed, we cannot sustain an influx of mainly young males at this rate of numbers. Rwanda government seems to be offering them a good deal in resettlement options