Flight to Rwanda

[lbab1702]

I’d love to get a flight to Rwanda. Beautiful country and people ( I’ve been there before) but I don’t understand why refugees to the U.K. should go there.

The rest of the lame suggestions are just tinkering around the edges and you know it, and not dealing with the root issue.

How is it tinkering around the edges to offer a safe passage system combined with an efficient system for processing asylum claims? You keep ignoring that one.

@Freerangechildren OK. Then why doesn’t the government use the resources it has to support he most vulnerable in society?

As you quite rightly pointed out in your post at 09:43, we are in a crisis.

Why, rather than support the vulnerable, is the government wasting money on flights and court cases it knows won’t fly? Don’t people deserve better?

Whilst the majority of us are feeling squeezed

well that isn't going to get any better if we just allow endless migrants to arrive here unchecked.

The joke is that the most vulnerable, those that are in most need are still stranded in their war torn countries.

It is only the young, fit and wealthy that can make it here.

The system of trafficking is corrupt and dangerous and run by gangs, and yet the do gooders on here would let them carry on unabated, rather than challenge the notion that we should be doing everything we can to stop this evil trade.

The people paying for the lawyers are us. The taxpayers.
yet numerous people needing legal advice for family, property, debt issues cannot get it. You want to take your employer to tribunal, you’re on your own.
i just don’t think this position, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, has widespread public support. It’s breeding massive resentment which is socially destructive.

How on earth did you get that from my post? How is me saying that the burden falls disproportionately on one area and that is government failure even remotely the same as me saying “fuck them they’re already poor”? I’m saying the exact opposite.

You seem to think we have this endless budget to build new schools, new houses, new hospitals, new health centres, not to mention the enormous social care system....where is all of this money going to come from??

And yet we seem to have a bloody large budget for the consequences of not bothering to insure against interest rises, putting in place stupid the stupid Rwanda scheme, not bothering to recover furlough moneys paid out to fraudsters, buying PPE that goes into landfill, the nonsense that was Track and Trace, putting incredibly expensive contracts into the hands of the Tory party's mates, paying for unlawful Downing Street socialising ...

And we could save a hell of a lot of money just by operating the immigration and asylum system efficiently. It is ludicrous that we have people in the country for months and years on end, not allowed to work, whilst their applications get lost in Immigration Department bureaucracy.

The naive ones are those who think the government didn't gleefully anticipate this legal hulaballoo in the first place. Now they get to blame lawyers when the boats keep coming.

But again, I'm not saying anything you don't know. The chaos is always the point.

How is it tinkering around the edges to offer a safe passage system combined with an efficient system for processing asylum claims?

We already have systems to process asylum all over the world.

beware The government are trying very hard to stem the tide of illegal migrants dying in the channel whilst also trying to address the issues here. It is not either/or. We have to address both issues. I would say people actually drowning and dying should be a priority.

Someone has to get a grip on this, most reasonable people recognise something meaningful has to be done.

We simply can not have families here living in one room, with five children and no cooking facilities whilst still accepting millions more. When we have managed to reach the point of ensuring everyone has an adequate quality of life here, and we have sorted out the actual refugees here from Afghan and Ukraine, and processed everyone THEN we can talk about it taking more.

But until we have reached the point of having an organised and orderly system in place that is fair and just, and the desperate families already here are settled, then I fail to see how can morally take even more?

We have finite resources.
We have finite space
We have finite goodwill

Parties of all colours recognise the need for solutions.

The naive ones are those who think the government didn't gleefully anticipate this legal hulaballoo in the first place. Now they get to blame lawyers when the boats keep coming

That is extremely cynical.
This has been a massive problem for decades!

I apologise if I misinterpreted.

No one has any need to fear being adjudicated on by the EHCR if they are complying with the Treaty obligations to which they signed up.

It's clearly not a coincidence that you and the likes of Patel and Johnson persist in referring to it as a foreign court. It's no more foreign to us than it is to any other country signed up to it, not least because we consistently have a British judge on it.

t’s breeding massive resentment which is socially destructive

That is absolutely spot on.

@Freerangechildren Yet absolutely no-one here has said they think trafficking (and I think you mean people smuggling too) should continue. Absolutely no-one. Safe routes and resettlement schemes would take the power out of the hands of the people smugglers. I don’t know why you keep ignoring that.

And “wealthy” is not always the case. Look into the Libyan slavery gangs.
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/?amp=true

This is why some of us* have been campaigning for years to have safe routes and resettlement schemes, to stop deaths in the channels and slavery in Libya.

*Yes, even us working class people who live in rented houses in what some would call an “undesirable “ end of a very diverse city…

It is a supranational court applying its own jurisprudence. Some people think the question of who gets to immigrate here should ultimately be decided by a government we elect in line with the laws our elected Parliament makes. That does not seem to me to be an outrageously ridiculous view to hold.

It's no more foreign to us than it is to any other country signed up to it

It is based in Strasburg so technically it IS a foreign court.
I might add just because it has one mere British Judge does not count for much when we consider the idea that there is court based in Strasburg that can over rule decisions made here by our Supreme courts at will.

Law is always an interpretation.

No one law is the very definition of truth, and interpretation will vary from country to country, culture to culture. Each country should have the final say on their legal settled views, and it is a misuse, perhaps an abuse of power for the ECHR to involve themselves with our court rulings will be the final straw trust me.

Legal aid initially, and ultimately the Home Office when it is ordered to pay costs because it loses these challenges.

And before you bring out the "Legal Aid fat cats" whinge, bear in mind that Legal Aid lawyers are paid a small fraction of what private lawyers earn, and frequently end up doing a lot of work without any pay. Because they tend to be rather more concerned about the vulnerable that the likes of Patel and Johnson profess to be.

@GrinAndVomit <flowers> sorry if I was unclear and ranty 😳

Honestly, people can try and spin this as much as they like
And spam this thread all day
But the facts are this:

This scheme was not a serious immigration policy

It was a colossally expensive stunt.

And only a government devoid of serious policy
And radically disconnected from the reality of most households in the U.K.

Would have spaffed money on this.

I'm sick of Spaffer politics.

Ditto!

And spam this thread all day

Aren’t posters just posting their views same as everyone else?

It’s an emotive topic but there’s no reason people can’t post even if it’s not majority view

Do stop misrepresenting what other people are saying. Can you point to anyone on this thread who is saying that endless migrants should be allowed to arrive here unchecked? Indeed, most people would like a system where checks happen before they get here, but you can't apply for asylum from abroad.

And can you point to anyone who thinks gangs of traffickers should be allowed carry on unabated?

Is there any chance that you might address some of the points on here that don't support your agenda, rather than studiously ignoring them?

It is a supranational court applying its own jurisprudence. Some people think the question of who gets to immigrate here should ultimately be decided by a government we elect in line with the laws our elected Parliament makes. That does not seem to me to be an outrageously ridiculous view to hold

Totally agreed

To over ride a decision made by a democratic government, upheld by each and every court at every level in this country - only to be kicked into the long grass by a few old duffers in Strasburg that have NO idea of the challenges we face.

The optics could hardly be worse for those that voted and support remain. It is a dreadful turn of events, and will only add more petrol to the fire that the tentacles of supranational institutions of all kinds in Europe are strangling and choking off democracy, and one can hardly disagree.

Incidentally, in the last hour the EU has started legal action against the UK over its attempt to overturn the NI deal the UK happily signed, and claimed got brexit done.

So there'll be a lot of conflation of this and that, even though they're two separate entities. That sound you hear is Downing Street is popping the champagne. Bullshit has, once again, prevailed.

How is it tinkering around the edges to offer a safe passage system combined with an efficient system for processing asylum claims?

We already have systems to process asylum all over the world.

No, we don't. And even the one we have in this country isn't remotely efficient. More of those inconvenient facts you keep ignoring. Like the suggestion of combining an efficient system with the offer of safe passage, which would put most if not all people traffickers out of business overnight.

Yet absolutely no-one here has said they think trafficking (and I think you mean people smuggling too) should continue. Absolutely no-one. Safe routes and resettlement schemes would take the power out of the hands of the people smugglers. I don’t know why you keep ignoring that

And what you keep ignoring over and over again is the point that we already have many hundreds of schemes and resettlement programmes. We are literally processing tens of thousands of people every single year. Immigration, as in legal routes is now at an all time high incredibly!!!

So this idea that we don't have anything already in place is entirely incorrect.

And yet the people smuggling carries on, because usually those people do NOT have a good case for being here legally, so they pay the traffickers instead.

What is your suggestion to stop the gangs, the death and drownings?
I am yet to hear a new solution from any of you, except Emily who wants to eradicate worldwide poverty but can't produce the financial numbers to back up her tin pot plan.