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.

Amaryllis it was said yesterday that refugees could be returned to the UK if the Rwanda process is deemed illegal, challenge in court next month.
That was why the judge didn't halt the plane.

I must have missed the christian version of 911 silly me.

I used to teach asylum seekers And over the years have taught hundreds. The vast majority were not fleeing persecution but wanted to improve their lives. In my experience most were motivated to work hard to achieve and would make a better contribution to the country than a number of British citizens.

But they were not legitimate asylum seekers (they become refugees after their claim has been upheld). Many, if not most, would go back to their own countries to visit family. Their travel documents would not allow them to travel directly to their own country so they'd fly to a neighbouring country and cross the border. Would they do that if they were in fear of their lives? And anyway, they'd often debate over whether they shoukd stay here or return home.

I had other students who followed the rules of being an economic migrant. It wasn't easy but they obeyed the law. They had to pay to access the health service and education. Asylum seekers do not. Its very unfair that those that break the rules seem to be rewarded. It definitely caused friction in the class. There's nothing to stop economic migrants applying for visas to work in areas of greatest demand. You don't have to be in a well paid job for that, but your employer does have to sponsor you. We had quite a few Bengladeshi and Pakistani restaurant owners that sponsored chefs from their home countries - mainly so they could pay them less! We even had the case that 15yos were brought over to work, obviously off the books because they should have been in school.

It's clear that with our labour shortage, the govt is going to have to come up with schemes for lower paid workers to get entry in the future. But doing it through illegal claims of being asylum seekers is neither a fair nor efficient way of filling vacancies.

Free-range I work in the public sector. I do not have a cleaner. You are repeating yourself.

I will certainly go and look up the changes. I'm pretty confident they won't include school support staff for example, which we desperately need and is a highly valuable job.

But I'll return to the original point which is that many of these people are asylum seekers. They may not have bank accounts, paperwork which are required.

NTFT because it’s a never ending tide of poorly evidenced Daily Mail nonsense, but to respond to a few of @Freerangechildren’s points:

• people travel to the uk because they want to apply for asylum here and there is no other way to do except stand on British soil. Again, we’re not talking resettlement or job-based migration, we’re talking about asylum seekers. The only way to claim asylum in the UK currently is from within its borders.
• solution: set up claim centres around the world, ideally in the nearest safe country to the current areas of danger
• this would also instantly remove the majority of people traffickers because instead of having to stand on British soil, asylum seekers can make their claim as soon as they get somewhere safe, instead of making perilous journeys across the world
• for the people who are trying to enter illegally, the underground routes will remain, and some will still die. Others will make it and live a pretty shitty existence under the radar, with no access to funds or housing.
• the ‘migrants’ who do get access to housing and funds are either genuine asylum seekers, whose claims have been heard, or genuine migrants who have come in under the resettlement schemes / spouse visas and so on - if you don’t agree with foreign born people being able to access public funds, then you ought to petition the government to change the law. But as your party has had 12 years to do something, I guess even they think it’s ok to help the less fortunate
• the vast majority of asylum claims are upheld, so the narrative of most people in the boats being an economic migrant is false.
• we need more people to do jobs here - both skilled and unskilled - so the narrative of being full is also false
• the reasons more men and boys come than women and kids are multiple but include: the journey being extremely long and dangerous - the hope for some is that the men will make it, be granted asylum and be able to apply for their family to join them from whatever shitty camp they are waiting in. In many war torn countries, the men and boys are at most risk because they are conscripted into the various armies / death squads / police squads. Although it’s not a pleasurable life for the women and girls, they are not necessarily in immediate danger.
• the Australian boat migration numbers dropped because of military action, not the Nauru scheme - which, incidentally, was fiendishly expensive - about $1million per person. Imagine that money going into the NHS, schools, housing etc. it definitely doesn’t cost $1million to give people a home and some start up capital.

You are extremely poorly informed and I suggest you spend less time on poor quality websites and start looking at proper data and decent source material. Remember your GCSE history and start considering the veracity of your sources.

People think that Germany taking in 1 million Syrian refugees was some kind of humanitarian madness, they don't understand there was a very cynical aspect of it as well

Germany looked at the Syrians fleeing the war and saw that this was generally a highly skilled and literate population. At the same time, Germany (like the UK) has a declining birth rate, an aging population, and less Eastern Europeans willing to go work there for nothing. So they ignored the neo-Nazis and let them in.

I lived in Berlin at the time and met quite a lot of Syrians (through my son's schools). The ones I met were: doctors, nurses, childcare workers, chefs and tradesmen. i.e. valuable members of society. Who needed very little assistance after their first 6-12 months.

I remember this every time people talk about the severe shortages here in the NHS, the trades, the food sector.

It's just as well I didn't say that, then, isn't it?

It's extraordinary that supporters of this policy struggle to put an argument together without misrepresenting what other people are saying.

I need to make some supper. I am utterly tired of this rolling on. We can't agree on the way forward, but I think everyone agrees we hope people will stop coming through illegal channels at least and the drownings need to end, quite how we get there remains up for debate.

but I think everyone agrees we hope people will stop coming through illegal channels at least and the drownings need to end, quite how we get there remains up for debate

Yes. I think we agree that if there were legal channnels (which there aren't) we wouldn't be disagreeing would we?
Talk to the current Government who are determined to shut out everyone.

I’m not a supporter of this policy.
I’m not impressed by either side of the argument to be honest.
Both sides have elements of racism and elitism.

Law enforcement/CT in both the UK and US consider right-wing extremism to be as serious a threat, if not more serious, than Islamist terrorism.

That's in official statements you can find in 30 seconds of googling.

What you having for dinner, free range?

gammon?

Out of curiosity @MNHQ do you think it's appropriate for posters to ask 'Are you a migrant?' when other posters disagree with them?

It doesn't strike me as particularly 'in the spirit of MN' but that's me.

Not many though, you must be disappointed

erm no….why on earth would i be disappointed?

Past atrocities don't back that up.

Just pointing out that what you said can be used exactly the other way around…

Tarasharp you are kidding me aren't you?

Ok well tell that to MI5 and the FBI

9/11 was more than 20 years ago. They are looking at what's happening right now and they think far-right extremism is an equally serious threat.

OK.

Name me some examples in recent years where western Christian terrorists have bombed concerts/schools/office buildings/public transport etc.

Also, Islam is not a race.

Just working through it in my mind as it helps me to understand what people mean in reality

The Afghanistan resettlement programme - it’s not high numbers considering the terrible things going on there, is it by invitation, or to a select group of individuals who meet criteria. Otherwise I think we’d see many more wanting to escape an awful situation

If we did open up resettlement programmes how do they work in reality, do we place people there to process claims or is it more through other parties - the latter I guess is an option

I do wonder if you make it available to anyone needing it how many would apply, is it in person? What numbers are people thinking for a country with high levels of very difficult situations

Also if it is mostly women and children, what will persecuted men do?

Beware thanks for post - appreciate answers I know it’s a complex issue

Um, nazi Germany killing 6 million people says you're wrong. Your level of ignorance is amazing.

And Franco was also responsible for 100,000 to 200,000 deaths more recently.