Rwanda ruling

[OwlBabiesAreCute]

Suella Braverman says today's Supreme Court ruling against the UK government's plan to send immigrants to Rwanda is a disappointment for most people.

Not for me it isn't.

AIBU? Am I in the minority?

I don't think anyone has denied there is a crisis. Just that without having sight of the impact assessment of the Rwanda policy we struggle to see that that is the answer. We aren't even informed as to the total cost.

I'd rather not believe that the Government has committed to it blindly so they must have the information, they just don't want to share it.

That safe routes will fix it is what is unrealistic

If people accepted there still would be a crisis that means people leave through smugglers then it’s a start

Nobody has said safe routes will fix it. Safe routes will improve it as one measure alongside a raft of other ones, the main one of which is dealing with the causes. That means efforts to end wars and it also means efforts to improve the standard of living in countries whose people migrate for economic reasons. Massive cuts to international development in the UK take us in the exact opposite direction, that should be plain to see.

While we're here, what are your suggestions, and do you think the Rwanda policy is 1) a good idea and 2) legal?

I’m afraid this is miss world territory although I’d love the end of wars as much as the next woman (or man).

My take on anything that will deter boats will be extreme. Look at Australia and the methods used there. Which both political sides have adopted and have not in the end put Aus at any disadvantage.

I don’t mind if people say I don’t want to do what Aus does it’s too harsh, but then there will be smugglers and boats.

There’s no nice way to tackle it. People accept mass migration hits their shores or not, but that we can just do safe routes and put in processes, no I don’t find that convincing.

The question imo is do you want to deter or not, if you don’t then expect rising numbers if you do it won’t be anything you’d feel good about although citizens in Aus mostly are ok with it.

What I think I’m not sure yet I would like some honesty first on numbers and more info

The same woman that doesn't believe in human rights?

Of course not.

I'd like to see some honesty in regards to the total costs involved in the Rwanda project and some evidence that it works.

If people engaged in debate beyond safe routes will fix it, no wars and endless aid then these threads might have more to them

Even if people divert from questions each time it’s not going to stop the issue getting bigger

We’re already seeing the impact in the EU with a shift politically to the right. They won’t likely break apart but it will get messy - in terms of backlash from citizens

The OP asked a Question I initially answered it, it was nothing to do with you or anyone else, so kindly pass me by your are not worthy of any more of my time like these illegal immigrants.

Quite the humanitarian 🙄

You are not exactly adverse to diverting the topic and posting information light posts yourself.

The Australian methods a decade ago cost an estimated £552 million (although that doesn't include the cost of the compensation claims for poor treatment in processing centres).
So how much do we think the Rwanda plan might cost? We've already spent a non refundable £140 million for 200. We need to build detention centres and staff them. We will still need to house the backlog for X years. We need to pay for carriers. What else?

You’ll have to look up cost but on whether it would work deterrence does work, looking at Aus. Numbers have fallen drastically.

If it did work would you want it anyway?

Human rights.
You can't bundle a stranger onto a plane to anywhere because they've lost their papers.

I thought International Aid was al being spent on housing immigrants awaiting their claim outcome in this country.

I have looked at the Australian processes and most articles indicate success was linked to the turn backs rather than simply the off shore processing.

www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-64898507.amp

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-australian-offshore-asylum-system-reduce-boat-crossings

But I suppose some people will dream of the Rwanda policy regardless of costs and lack of evidence of success.

Im off to do something more useful.

Ridiculous

No ability to have a normal discussion.

Always with the insults and petty swipes

I get it’s a difficult argument but really not great.

Human rights.
You can't bundle a stranger onto a plane to anywhere because they've lost their papers.

Lost or deliberately thrown away ??

I thought International Aid was al being spent on housing immigrants awaiting their claim outcome in this country.

Housing them where ?? The housing wait is years and years. The naivety on this post is breathtaking.

So what? Should I care what some anonymous keyboard warrior like you think 🥱

If your coming to this country through an illegal route but paying huge sums of money to criminal gangs and throwing your I'd away before you arrive and refuse to stay in other safe counties you have already passed through where you could have stayed then put a legal application in no I have no time for you, off to Rwanda with you and never come back.

Some on the planes were already found to be criminals but yet people like you still think we should house them bugger off.

If only Braverman's Home Office wasn't in such a mess, foreign criminals could be deported

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4ce7d0de-16c0-11ee-b768-bb6d328f2d92?shareToken=6f55294367b2aa23853fbb7f5f8ae71f

If your coming to this country through an illegal route but paying huge sums of money to criminal gangs and throwing your I'd away before you arrive and refuse to stay in other safe counties you have already passed through where you could have stayed then put a legal application in no I have no time for you, off to Rwanda with you and never come back.

But you can't apply for asylum in the UK from another country.

Two inconvenient facts for you:

1. Under the UN Convention on Refugees, asylum seekers do not have to apply in the first safe country they come to however much you might want them to.

2. There are currently no legal routes for asylum in the UK.

The government were happy for around 1,200,000 people to migrate here legally last year and roughly 45,000 people came across in small boats.

So they could just reduce the number of economic applications they accept and divert them to asylum applications instead (while also setting up safe routes to make a claim). I'd say setting the limit to maybe 3:1 (economic : asylum) would provide a good balance without impacting overall numbers.

Hell, they could even reduce the total number of migrants to match the number of people leaving the UK (c560,000), use the 3:1 rationand have enough asylum places for all those who tried to cross by small boat 3.8 times over AND achieve zero net migration all in a oner.

I should also add that the people smugglers have been using the same routes for decades now, we know where they are and how they operate, some have even given interviews stating the majority are based in the UK and explaining the process. The government could quite easily smash these criminal gangs apart if they wanted too. The reason they don't do this is because they want the distraction of pretending illegal migration is an issue.

The government were happy for around 1,200,000 people to migrate here legally last year

Yup,they are relying on immigration from further and further afield to fill the employment gaps. Schools are actively recruiting more and more often from overseas. Unfortunately, as I have seen from my own DC's school they often arrive, see how rubbish the job is compared to how expensive housing is and leave again fairly soon after. Then more overseas staff are recruited and the same thing happens. I'm sure it's similar with the NHS.

Personally I have no issue with immigration. However, instead of banging on and on about immigrants the government could easily get the numbers down by improving pay and working conditions in public sector jobs that are hard to fill.

Point 1 irrelevant to any thing I said, I never said they legally have to I said they refuse to.

Point 2 of in interest to me, if your paying illegal gangs of criminals large sums of money, I have no interest in what you do.

Lastly don't fool yourself there inconvenient truths to me, they as re not my concern as I'm a legal member of the country and don't fund criminal gangs.

So keep your inconvenient truths I don't really care. What I do care about is largs groups of unknown men coming into this country through criminal gangs and disposing of Thier identities and papers, so we have zero knowledge of who they are and what they may have done and will do. 🙄

Re point 1 - so are you of the opinion that the UK should never take any refugees at all because we're an island and never going to be a first safe country? Because that is where that argument goes.

Re point 2 - if you are being persecuted or fleeing war, safe and legal routes absolutely are relevant. These are people who have no options, because this government gives them none. So I can only assume that as above, you think the UK should take no refugees at all, ever.

Don't be too proud of being a legal citizen of a country that treats vulnerable people like this.

No sorry! It was aimed @lollipoprainbow

Strawman word salad 😴