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.

Thank you for that informative post discoverread

You don't get to pick your favourite place to go if you're seeking asylum. It's supposed to be somewhere safe from persecution.

And France and Germany, whatever your views, do I believe offer water, health and dignity.

In labelled designer sports wear donated to charities ?

Fed in the immigrant camps ?

#You flee your home because your family are starving. It's hard.You are scared

Funny you should say that, I see plenty of well fed young men in labelled and designer sportswear using apple phones and watches to track their arrival as the land on the shores of Great Britain.... I don't really see starving families as they would be too weak to make the trip, and too poor to pay the traffickers, but don't let the truth stand in the way of your flowery narrative.#

Spot on!

@Freerangechildren

1. the statistics that you quoted showed that 83% of asylum claims are successful. No-one is talking about automatic approval, just normal asylum process, which the Rwanda scheme bypasses, by sending them for processing in Rwanda. I’m afraid if you don’t understand this, you’ve misunderstood the scheme.

2. the point about moving through multiple safe countries has been debunked already on this thread. Thank you for your hard work in making sure this debunking has had to be repeated, thereby reaching a wider audience.

3. you’ve previously said said we have a moral and legal duty to support all 14,000 whose asylum claims were rightly granted. Yet they also passed through “multiple safe countries” (in your opinion, if not in fact). Now you criticise a group that have done exactly the same thing.

Thankfully I have to go to work now so I can no longer enjoy the whiplash.

@Discovereads ? My post wasn’t to compare legal immigrants (married to one, well aware!) and refugees but to counteract the false narrative that asylum seekers and refugees are given houses ahead of British people. I don’t see why there’s any need to obfuscate that with a “yes but legal immigrants…” but apologies if I’ve misread you.

The last time I checked they definitely had water in Germany!

Fgs I have heard it all now!

I remembered being quite offended when my friends from Aus said we are known to be 'soft touch Britain' and a laughing stock because our borders are non existent, and now you can see why with all the bleeding hearts who claim everyone in the world can choose the water they drink, and the air they breathe (not to mention the free housing and healthcare for nowt! But we won't mention that)

Meanwhile other independent countries all have efficient visa programmes that are enforceable and run a tight ship - with full support from a reasonable and informed electorate. Where else would we find people that are calling for MORE immigration, despite the housing stock being in minus figures in some areas of the country and hospitals at capacity. Schools at capacity and total grid lock on the roads. It is truly frightening because they do not seem to realise the economics of our country, or what is going to happen in the autumn months.

@Freerangechildren I do find it slightly amusing the compartmentalization they must do to be so in favour of open borders and accepting what are, mostly, an endless supply of economic burdens. But will also whine that the NHS is underfunded, and schools are underfunded and overcrowded, and housing is overpriced, and roads are too congested.

Their claim would be more likely than not to be accepted as you yourself have already stated 83% (I thought it was 75% but whatever) of asylum claims are approved. Therefore, just statistically, they are likely to be accepted.

And you know perfectly well that no-one advocates children drowning at sea. But I guess you're just following your heroes' lead in terms of your attitude to the truth.

Ten years of the country declining for the vast majority on almost every conceivable metric. Can the Tories actually implement any policy at all that isn’t targeted at the Immigrants Bad mob? The Tories are basically the Brexit Party at this stage. Nothing else.

"The controversial policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will not save taxpayers money and will cost about £12,000 for each person who is put on a one-way flight there, a Home Office minister has admitted.
Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, told the home affairs select committee that the cost would be “akin” to the amount of public money it costs the Home Office to process and accommodate each asylum seeker in the UK." the Times. 12/5/22
So it won't save money.

And no modelling has been carried out so they don't know whether it will work.

I suspect more women & children will come over as a result as they are not covered by these arrangements.

How much will it cost to house the Rwandan migrants flown here under reciprocal arrangements? How many are coming?

Well yes. We signed up to a process that allows for a final appeal to the ECHR after exhausting domestic routes to redress. It hasn't overstepped anything, it has done precisely what we agreed it had absolute power to do. And it hasn't decided to ignore the view of our courts, it has decided that that view was mistaken - which is 100% within the remit we agreed to.

If, say, the Supreme Court had overruled the lower courts, we would have a situation where two courts had "settled on one legal view" and the Supreme Court had decided to ignore that view (or rather, find that it was wrong). Would you be saying that that was undemocratic, corrupted the point of the Supreme Court, and that it had severely overstepped?

And lo, to enable this they will withdraw us from the ECHR so leaving us all vulnerable to whatever whim they have next

It's an excuse to make life worse for all , and facilitate privilege, by tapping into racism ( in many cases fuelled by people leading already challenged or close to challenged lives who suspect they suffer when we take in immigrant)

The trouble is that the most recent research shows that this is untrue.

The point was to protect people not states

A number of sensible solutions have been suggested on this thread. The fact that you have chosen to ignore them (because you have no answer?) doesn't make them wink out of existence.

Opinon polls demonstrate that a hell of a lot of people care. Especially those dreadful partypoopers who aren't impressed by the fact that Boris and his mates were ignoring the law whilst they were unable to be with their dying relatives.

And surely if you don't care about partygate you don't care about beergate? Otherwise you might appear the teensiest bit hypocritical. But then if Starmer were to resign if would show up Boris's total lack of any sort of principles even more.

I do find it slightly amusing the compartmentalization they must do to be so in favour of open borders and accepting what are, mostly, an endless supply of economic burdens. But will also whine that the NHS is underfunded, and schools are underfunded and overcrowded, and housing is overpriced, and roads are too congested

Yes apparently we should be able to magic all of these new houses, schools and hospitals out of thin air 802 It is literally the same people moaning about underfunding and yet fail to see any link at all to the population explosion.

When I was born our population was at 55 million and now we are almost at 70 million registered I might add, so the figure is likely to be higher, and the birth rate has been dropping for years. So somehow we have absorbed almost 15 million people. And people wonder why our quality of life is dropping. We have to care, find jobs, educate and look after an extra 15 million people.

And yet on here we are being told we need more, we should have no border or controls....jesus wept.

The controversial policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will not save taxpayers money and will cost about £12,000 for each person who is put on a one-way flight there, a Home Office minister has admitted.
Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, told the home affairs select committee that the cost would be “akin” to the amount of public money it costs the Home Office to process and accommodate each asylum seeker in the UK." the Times. 12/5/22

I have read through the agreement and I can't see anywhere that we are doing an exchange with Rwanda. All I can see is the UK will be giving Rwanda a development fund - which to me looks like a very good use of our aid budget.

So please can you link with a reliable source where it says there is an exchange? As I see that nowhere in the information I have been reading through.

The controversial policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will not save taxpayers money and will cost about £12,000 for each person who is put on a one-way flight there, a Home Office minister has admitted

I am happy to pay the flight and relocation costs, which when we work out and compare the one off payment to the cost of a life time here in the UK of supporting migrants with housing, benefits, healthcare and social care, education etc etc looks like a good deal comparatively speaking. This has all been worked out, and understood, measured and it is a good deal.

16.1 The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r

Even the cost of simply housing migrants for even a short time would dwarf the 12,000 costs of relocation to Rwanda in no time at all.