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.

atomsgirl which rights would you like to get rid off?

the right to life (Article 2)
freedom from torture (Article 3)
freedom from slavery (Article 4)
the right to liberty (Article 5)
the right to a fair trial (Article 6)
the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t against the law at the time (Article 7)
the right to respect for family and private life (Article 8)
freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)
freedom of expression (Article 10)
freedom of assembly (Article 11)
the right to marry and start a family (Article 12)
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights (Article 14)
the right to protection of property (Protocol 1, Article 1)
the right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2)
the right to participate in free elections (Protocol 1, Article 3)
the abolition of the death penalty (Protocol 13)

One mention of 'migrants' and Farage's mates all crawl out of the woodwork. They walk amongst us. Unfortunately.

I think the ECHR does some wonderful stuff. But it is a political organisation. And as such it is flawed.

Nevertheless, the case that ended up blocking the last flight to Rwanda involved someone who will be safe in Rwanda. Other legal parties overthrew any appeals to prevent the flight from occurring apart from the ECHR.

If this ends up being a case where the person involved does not go to Rwanda, it will open the floodgates for more people to die in the channel.

See what I mean? Bloody hell.

atomsgirl so which rights would you like to get rid of then?

I agree that I get NHS treatment but I pay towards that so not totally free .

It's hardly the fault of asylum seekers that they haven't paid into the NHS, @LetitiaLeghorn . If granted asylum they can go into work and start paying into it. Most would love to be able to access the health facilities they have paid towards in their own country, but they can't, because they've been driven out.

As an adult I have never received free accommodation.

Sure, but are you really jealous of people who have been forced into leaving their homes with little or nothing and who have to live in some fairly shitty shared hostel room?

We're talking about adults coming here who already received education in their own country. They're then entitled to free FE courses and HE (after refugee status granted.) I received free tertiary education because it was a long time ago. But I can't get free voc or non voc curses at all now.

Asylum seekers don't get free FE and HE.

I don't get free legal services and I have next to no money.

That's because our Legal Aid system is terrible. Nevertheless, if you don't qualify for legal aid you have some money or capital, which is more than these people have, and they're being forced to negotiate some pretty complex legal stuff.

And I wouldn't moan over a £10 phone and sim which you seem to think is a bit below you. I should think there are quite a lot of people who'd be grateful to have a free phone, especially in the present climate.

I neither moaned over it nor thought it was below me, I just pointed out that it's hardly the height of luxury. Though I've yet to see where you get this entitlement from.

@DuncinToffee How many people is it acceptable to die in the channel?

The people are safe in France - there is no war or torture there.

None is acceptable, Rwanda isn't going to deter people crossing, UK providing safe routes will deter smugglers though.

Which rights don't you like?

Do you want to read the thread, or do you want me to (again) post all the reasons why it’s not a simplistic as that?

Sorry if you feel you’re getting a hostile response but this question has been asked and answered 20 times on this thread.

atomsgirl, if you don't have twitter, I am happy to post some of the reasons people have from the Lewis Goodall thread.

@atomsgirl The ECHR intervened in 1 of the cases on the flight.The other 129 people’s cases were decided by the UK system without the intervention of the ECHR.

This clip of Priti Patel being challenged over this tells you all you need to know about the Rwanda policy. It is absolutely nothing to do with people dying in the Channel and nothing will change if flights were to go ahead.

I urge you to watch it all the way through. It might answer some of your questions.

Let me try again

Oh FFS. No idea why it won't link.

It's halfway down this article. Well worth watching

news.sky.com/story/rwanda-deportation-grounding-of-the-first-flight-to-rwanda-was-absolutely-scandalous-patel-says-12636036

House of Commons. Priti Patel. Yvette Cooper who was on fire.

How many people is it acceptable to die in the channel?

If you think the Rwanda plan will have any effect on the traffickers you are incredibly deluded. It would take tens of thousands of deportations to act as any kind of deterrent. That is simply not possible and any reasonable person knows this.

The only purpose of the plan is to whip up division and anger, it’s targeted at people not bright enough to see this. Thankfully most people get it and are disgusted by the whole idea.

It’ll have no effect on Channel crossings. The govt themselves know this.

Latest idea

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61849433
Migrants: Some due for removal from the UK could be electronically tagged

Well I never got a free tag, and I’ve been paying taxes all my life <sulks>

It's also explained in this article

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
Why do migrants leave France and try to cross the English Channel?

I agree that they are seizing on the ‘but people are drowning/dying’ and the line about ones getting rich off the backs of people desperate to get here.

They really do not care, these are excuses. I’m not saying that these concerns aren’t valid but they’re totally a smoke screen for this government.

If they cared at all about these people willing to risk their lives to her here, they’d make it viable to apply from France or other places.

Yes, people could stay in France but not all, the UK has a responsibility to take a share.

I just watched the video clip, and I think some good points were raised.

However, I also noted that no alternative solutions were being offered either.

Genuine asylum seekers should be seeking refuge in the first safe country they get to As the UK is a small island off the coast of France, that's not the UK.

Economic migrants should be using legal channels to get to the UK.

We need to stop the criminal gangs selling the dream of the UK being the land of milk and honey, and we need to prevent people drowning in the sea.

I know, a free flat screen designer tag

@atomsgirl No, there is no requirement for asylum seekers to stop in the first safe country they reach. Although the vast majority of asylum seekers do in fact stay in neighbouring countries to their home country, and many also stay in mainland EU countries.

That’s all been discussed upthread as well, but I’ll repost an article here from an immigration expert.

fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

Incidentally, do you say the same about Ukrainian refugees who’ve travelled through Poland, Germany, France to get to the UK, escaping the same Russian bombs and horror that Syria faced?

Spot on and they don't read the full thread either.

My understanding is Ukrainians are arriving in the UK through schemes.

However, I also understand that this isn't a simple process for us or the Ukrainians either:

"But the experience of settling into life in the UK has differed wildly for many Ukrainians.
While there are many positive stories, charities have also warned of overcrowding, a lack of financial support and the risk of homelessness - particularly for people arriving on the family visa scheme that enables Ukrainians to join relatives who were already in the UK."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61548979

@newnamethanks one word of migrants and all the hand wringing, virtual signallers crawl out of the woodwork. How's your view up there in your ivory tower ?????