The People demand that the Boats are Stopped.

[noblegiraffe]

I keep reading about the Tory government working hard to deliver the people's priorities:

"Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Government are focused on five immediate priorities. We will halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce debt, cut NHS waiting lists and stop the boats."

Halve inflation (will happen anyway), grow the economy (vague), reduce debt (vague), cut NHS waiting lists (maybe by paying nurses and doctors more?), stop the boats (what?).

Maybe it's just where I live, but I'm not seeing this immediate urgent need to "stop the boats". It's certainly nowhere near my top 5 priorities for the government to be immediately tackling. If it was, I'd probably look at creating legal routes for genuine asylum seekers as a first step rather than shipping them to Rwanda.

Is it in your top 5 urgent government priorities? Are they speaking to the people and I've just completely missed it?

YABU: Stopping the boats is in my top 5 government priorities.
YANBU: I'm more concerned about something else and would bump Stop the Boats down the list.

One guy faced with the "reality" at that moment, how does he feel now he's been unloaded and not deported? Any follow up?

I just said invite highly skilled only you left that part out but yes . They have a culture that promotes success. My DH is from a not rich family his mother is a nurse. He studied a masters degree in Mathematics , played multiple instruments he earns good money. If his mother didn't come the UK would be missing out on 70k of tax per year plus her nursing skills. His childhood friend also child of immigrants runs a multimillion pound business.

It's the culture that comes with it , the mindset, the parents want their kids to do well.

It’s terrifying. My in laws live by the beach and hundreds of men run up the beach regularly. There’s gangs and thefts have skyrocketed. the people on boats aren’t usually vulnerable, they are often criminals in their own country looking for a new start (can’t blame them).

i live in the sw and can happily ignore the reality but when we visited pil we saw the impact and I understand the worry.

@OneTC huh? Am I his spokesperson? Contact BBC Radio 4 for a follow up. The interview was done once he'd got off.

I just think that with numbers like 7 people not even getting sent anywhere that people desperate enough to risk their lives, the majority of whom get their application accepted, whilst making their decision in whatever fucked up place are probably not gonna look at those 7 that didn't even go anywhere as much of a deterrent. I accept a few people might feel like that once they've been caught and are sitting on a plane.

And why did no one ask, why the U.K. for the man 'KN' in that bbc article.

He didn't speak English, already got to a safe country (France) why continue to support the people traffickers thereafter as well as literally risking his life crossing the channel.
These are questions that never seem to get asked, it's important we know the reasons because that will help stop them risking their lives and also aid stopping the criminals they pay to get them here.
.
There must be a reason. Crossing the channel should most definitely be deterred. The press deliberately portray these situations in the light they want to.

I wouldn't trust anything in the press personally.

In a way I hope? What makes you think this is MY hope?

Sincere apologies @Dodgeitornot . I somehow read more into your post than was there.
Given my work over the last few years, I've got so used to having to defend myself against those who disagree with what I do, i must have started reading things through that lens. I need to work on that.

@saraclara Do you think opening a processing centre may lead to a rapid influx of people, faster than we have now? Do you think it may increase the numbers? Obviously the current situation, where there's no provision at all is immoral. But I would be concerned that just setting up a processing system, without considering the effects, would cause other problems. I am not sure the country has any firm and clear boundaries on how many we can help, what pressure may come from other countries and whether they have done long term analysis on the impacts.

It's not a bin full of passports though is it.

But your neice chose to bring a child into the world that she couldn't afford to house. She has access to free contraception, free health care, benefits to ensure she doesn't starve or have to sleep rough and free education so that she can better herself and get a job earning enough money to rent privately or buy. She has citizenship in a country where she will never face persecution, torture or death due to her sex, religion or skin tone.

My sympathies are entirely with asylum seekers who have none of these things and are only crossing in small boats because of Tory govt policies.

A processing centre abroad would screen applicants, so those who arrived would be here because they fulfilled all the requirements to be granted asylum. Consequently they would be able to get here safely without needing to pay traffickers to do so, or to risk their lives.

If the government is being honest and that they really are aiming their actions to protect people and make the traffickers redundant, this is what they should be doing.

Would it increase the numbers? I don't know, but at least the most vulnerable would get here, and those who were refused might go somewhere else rather than risk the journey for nothing, knowing that they'd be detained on arrival.

If the same person had been asked before getting on the boat, what would their answer have been? Asking someone that's already on the plane is a very selective and biased sample of negligible value to understanding the broader picture. The risk of being sent to Rwanda is vanishingly small, therefore it has no real deterrence value.

The only 'logic' behind this policy is that of dog whistle politics.

@hotdiggetydog yes it was. And it was reported to the police. They don't care! But there's no getting through to some people when they haven't seen it themselves. They believe what they want to believe. Which is understandable because it truly seems unbelievable what actually goes on,

So you think the needs of people from other countries, entering the UK illegally, should take priority over the needs existing population?

@saraclara I am told most applications are accepted, as it stands. So, if claims are processed more quickly, are free and safe passage provided, it seems likely to me that a) the influx would be faster, b) more people would come, c) other countries may funnel people towards this system. I think a processing centre is a good idea, but I think it would be better to engage with the continent of Europe. A lot of countries are struggling. I would rather aim to have processing centres at the main ingress points of Europe, and establish quotas for each European country, if that were possible.

Exactly what point are you trying to make? I'm confused.

I would rather aim to have processing centres at the main ingress points of Europe, and establish quotas for each European country, if that were possible.

The UK burnt that boat in 2016.

The first-safe-country agreement was an EU arrangement and it is no longer in the interests of any other European country to work with the UK on this. Plus, the UK has always refused quota systems - mostly because the UK takes fewer asylum seekers than many other European countries and would be expected to take a fair share.

My point is that you point about Rwanda as a deterrent based on one interview with someone already on a plane awaiting take-off was without value.

@DogInATent I don't think first safe country was ever fair, as countries bordering conflict zones would end up with more claims. The UK needs to shift on quotas, and what is fair would be an issue to be hammered out. It is possible that Europe as a whole needs to rethink the issue of asylum and how it's granted. I don't think the UK can solve the issue alone, at least not in any humane way.

OneTC
Survey is Hong Kong plane people
That 16 per cent of those surveyed say they cannot afford the cost of living for the first 6 months after arriving in the UK.

It's a survey of prospective Hong Kong plane people though - adequate funds and accommodation for 6 months are a requirement for the visa (in addition to the health surcharge);

Eligibility requirements
The applicant:
· is a BN(O) status holder or the eligible family member of a BN(O) status holder
· is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong (overseas applications)
· is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, UK or Crown Dependencies (in country applications)
· has adequate maintenance and accommodation for 6 months

Labour want to lower the entry requirements to make the route more accessible to low income families from Hong Kong.

And their average age is nearly 40. This is not the economic boom you are selling it to be/being sold it as

• That the mean age of [prospective] applicants is 37 and that 71 per cent of applicants hold a university degree ...

• The Home Office estimates suggest a net benefit to government finances of between £2.4 and £2.9 billion over five years as a result of the arrival of highly skilled migrants from Hong Kong.

I didn't say Rwanda was a deterrent. I said Suela and everyone else who thought of it and promoted it did. That was literally their catchphrase in almost all the interviews. They want it to be a deterrent. My post was merely factual. It was not my opinion. How many people agree to interview, or how they interview is not in my control. Anyway, that link was in reply to someone else who said there was no plane. I didn't post it to prove this interview was the evidence we all need. I posted it to prove there was in fact a plane, and people on it, who were deplaned when the court of human rights intervened at the last minute. Please, read the context of my posts before writing stupid replies.

It wasn't what most people understood it to be.

It was a purely EU agreement. You would claim asylum in the first safe country you arrived that participated in the agreement. Your claim would be processed at that point, and if you claim was valid you would be granted asylum in one of the participating nations, but not necessarily the one you were processed in. It relied on the nations beyond the FSC agreeing to accept valid asylum seekers whose claims had been processed and validated at the earliest possible point in their journey.

It was an inherently fair system. Of course, no sane country would assume the UK would ever honour obligations to accept processed asylum seekers under such an agreement. Too many arseholes.

it is no longer in the interests of any other European country to work with the UK on this. Plus, the UK has always refused quota systems - mostly because the UK takes fewer asylum seekers than many other European countries and would be expected to take a fair share.

Exactly that. The UK's geographical position spares it the number of refugees that many other countries have to manage. The number who brave the channel is proportionately very small.

Let's see a photo of the bin that was full of passports then please.

It's unlikely that passports end up in the bins in the UK. The majority dispose of them before arriving on UK soil.