comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then don't come to the UK, stay in one of the many countries you pass through who will hear your case?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just blockade the coastline, draw up the drawbridge and deny all in sundry safe passage to the UK. And while we're at it shut down asylum irrespective of circumstance?
Whether you like it or not, there is no obligation for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country. And its perfectly legal to try to claim asylum wherever you want. For whatever reason. Possibly language, religious beliefs, economic prospects, family or cultural connections. The UK takes in considerably less asylum seekers than elsewhere in Europe.
For info, re first safe country:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9281/
Even if we wanted them where do they stay? We have severe housing shortage. Need c. 350k/yr to be added for 10 years but in the last 10 we’ve only managed 150-200kpa. We are a small island with no economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing so exacerbated by every cant wanting to stay in the SE.
For everyone saying ‘aw the shame’ can they tell us how many such migrants they want to bring in and how they are going to address the housing and trades shortage?
As a reference point the boat people are already 30kpa. The prison population in the U.K. is 90k and it costs c. £45-50k per head. I’m assuming the asylum seekers would be kept in prison like accommodation else they will do a runner. The processing time we keep hearing is1.5-2 years in all countries, in many cases exacerbated by migrants destroying all documentation so they can use the made up story they’ve read up on to say to meet the criteria. So say 50k migrants at any time that is gonna cost £2bn a year to process. Every year. And probably growing once word gets round that U.K. will welcome you at the border and put you up.
Now I know many of you will say £2bn is fine. What if the number doubles? Is that fine? And doubles again? That’s +1% on your tax or vat with no economic benefit to gdp. Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
What gives?
The post was there to answer why they come here. Not why it would be lovely to get what we all want. I believe the other reason is the language. Quite a few speak English as a a second language.
-------------------------------------------------
Why isn't Ireland a preferred destination then.
ROI, seems to be less hostile too.
The priority for a genuine asylum seeker is safety. This scheme offer safety.
I doubt very much the genuine asylum seekers are as angry / offended about this as the softies on here are.
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
To clarify this is not about processing asylum claims so successful seekers can then return to the UK having been granted refugee status.
But deporting people to Rwanda where, if successful, they'll be expected to start/build a new future there whether they want to or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is possibly the outright stupidest question I have ever read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine the wisdom of a person that has to ask that question. How clueless can you be? I blame the internet for giving anyone and everyone a voice so that the clueless can confidently advertise the cluelessness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does only take a few seconds of "If I was the asylum seeker.." then boom, it hits you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, most people would only have a handful of countries they'd want to go to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like everything in life, in every situation, I'd have an opinion/preference.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
Even if we wanted them where do they stay? We have severe housing shortage. Need c. 350k/yr to be added for 10 years but in the last 10 we’ve only managed 150-200kpa. We are a small island with no economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing so exacerbated by every cant wanting to stay in the SE.
For everyone saying ‘aw the shame’ can they tell us how many such migrants they want to bring in and how they are going to address the housing and trades shortage?
As a reference point the boat people are already 30kpa. The prison population in the U.K. is 90k and it costs c. £45-50k per head. I’m assuming the asylum seekers would be kept in prison like accommodation else they will do a runner. The processing time we keep hearing is1.5-2 years in all countries, in many cases exacerbated by migrants destroying all documentation so they can use the made up story they’ve read up on to say to meet the criteria. So say 50k migrants at any time that is gonna cost £2bn a year to process. Every year. And probably growing once word gets round that U.K. will welcome you at the border and put you up.
Now I know many of you will say £2bn is fine. What if the number doubles? Is that fine? And doubles again? That’s +1% on your tax or vat with no economic benefit to gdp. Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
What gives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But, but, but, they speak some English and have a cousin brother in Birmingham.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 0 seconds ago
Even if we wanted them where do they stay? We have severe housing shortage. Need c. 350k/yr to be added for 10 years but in the last 10 we’ve only managed 150-200kpa. We are a small island with no economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing so exacerbated by every cant wanting to stay in the SE.
=========
Does Rwanda have the housing and economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing? You talk about severe housing shortage, what's the situation in Rwanda?
or everyone saying ‘aw the shame’ can they tell us how many such migrants they want to bring in and how they are going to address the housing and trades shortage?
=====
Then its a brilliant idea to export the problem to a country much worse off than us.
As a reference point the boat people are already 30kpa. The prison population in the U.K. is 90k and it costs c. £45-50k per head. I’m assuming the asylum seekers would be kept in prison like accommodation else they will do a runner. The processing time we keep hearing is1.5-2 years in all countries, in many cases exacerbated by migrants destroying all documentation so they can use the made up story they’ve read up on to say to meet the criteria. So say 50k migrants at any time that is gonna cost £2bn a year to process. Every year. And probably growing once word gets round that U.K. will welcome you at the border and put you up.
Now I know many of you will say £2bn is fine. What if the number doubles? Is that fine? And doubles again? That’s +1% on your tax or vat with no economic benefit to gdp. Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
What gives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s +1% on your tax or vat with no economic benefit to gdp.
=======
Wrong.
Do some research on that mate.
Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
====
So how does the Rwanda thing fix all these problems? They won't have anywhere to stay in Rwanda either.
Don't we owe asylum seekers a reasonable standard of the duty of care?
Lets face it, Tories don't care about housing and blah blah blah. Its the other thing they care about.
If they cared about housing of asylum seekers and all that other stuff they wouldn't ship them off to countries in much worse positions.
We had a couple of quite famous refugees in Canada in 2020. They stayed in an $18 million mansion on Vancouver Island owned by a Russian billionaire. Some on here may know these 2 refugees by their first names.
Harry and Meghan.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then don't come to the UK, stay in one of the many countries you pass through who will hear your case?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just blockade the coastline, draw up the drawbridge and deny all in sundry safe passage to the UK. And while we're at it shut down asylum irrespective of circumstance?
Whether you like it or not, there is no obligation for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country. And its perfectly legal to try to claim asylum wherever you want. For whatever reason. Possibly language, religious beliefs, economic prospects, family or cultural connections. The UK takes in considerably less asylum seekers than elsewhere in Europe.
For info, re first safe country:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9281/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said they HAVE to claim asylum elsewhere. My point is that people pass through plenty of nations on the way to the UK and have to cross a channel to get here.
None of these countries they pass are at war, all offer a process of claiming asylum.
If people coming here face the prospect of being sent to Zambya, perhaps they'll stay in France.
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
====
So how does the Rwanda thing fix all these problems? They won't have anywhere to stay in Rwanda either.
Don't we owe asylum seekers a reasonable standard of the duty of care?
Lets face it, Tories don't care about housing and blah blah blah. Its the other thing they care about.
If they cared about housing of asylum seekers and all that other stuff they wouldn't ship them off to countries in much worse positions.
-----
They are building accommodation for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can, the Tories choose not to.
I do find the leftie liberal meltdown over this amusing
However it’s a crazy idea and will cost a fortune.
Also we have about a million job vacancies in this country at all different levels as well as a massive technical skills shortage.
We should be encouraging migration because a lot of people in this country are too lazy to get a fackin job.
We’re paying tens of thousands a month at work on visa and relocation cost currently because of fackin Brexit.
Anyways we’re shortly be getting a U turn on this and maybe it’s just wum to wind you lefties up
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can but we have chosen not to.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world, and has very, very, very comfortably enough wealth to feed and heat its own citizens.
comment by Gaffer Pranks- Aka Stiffler (U22336)
posted 12 seconds ago
I do find the leftie liberal meltdown over this amusing
However it’s a crazy idea and will cost a fortune.
Also we have about a million job vacancies in this country at all different levels as well as a massive technical skills shortage.
We should be encouraging migration because a lot of people in this country are too lazy to get a fackin job.
We’re paying tens of thousands a month at work on visa and relocation cost currently because of fackin Brexit.
Anyways we’re shortly be getting a U turn on this and maybe it’s just wum to wind you lefties up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. We should be making work, pay, for those currently living a benefits lifestyle.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then don't come to the UK, stay in one of the many countries you pass through who will hear your case?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just blockade the coastline, draw up the drawbridge and deny all in sundry safe passage to the UK. And while we're at it shut down asylum irrespective of circumstance?
Whether you like it or not, there is no obligation for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country. And its perfectly legal to try to claim asylum wherever you want. For whatever reason. Possibly language, religious beliefs, economic prospects, family or cultural connections. The UK takes in considerably less asylum seekers than elsewhere in Europe.
For info, re first safe country:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9281/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said they HAVE to claim asylum elsewhere. My point is that people pass through plenty of nations on the way to the UK and have to cross a channel to get here.
None of these countries they pass are at war, all offer a process of claiming asylum.
If people coming here face the prospect of being sent to Zambya, perhaps they'll stay in France.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should they? If they've family here in the UK, or other cultural ties, why should they be forced to stay in France. Who accepts x3 more asylum seekers than the UK does.
In any event, as the government has pretty much conceded, their plans will be litigated as from what I can gather they're unlawful.
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can, the Tories choose not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess Corbyn and Abbott would have dealt with Covid and the Ukrainian situation swimmingly.
Also, saying people "don't like" asylum seekers is an assumption. Nobody has said they dislike them in this whole thread.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world, and has very, very, very comfortably enough wealth to feed and heat its own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the wealth go then?
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Gaffer Pranks- Aka Stiffler (U22336)
posted 12 seconds ago
I do find the leftie liberal meltdown over this amusing
However it’s a crazy idea and will cost a fortune.
Also we have about a million job vacancies in this country at all different levels as well as a massive technical skills shortage.
We should be encouraging migration because a lot of people in this country are too lazy to get a fackin job.
We’re paying tens of thousands a month at work on visa and relocation cost currently because of fackin Brexit.
Anyways we’re shortly be getting a U turn on this and maybe it’s just wum to wind you lefties up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. We should be making work, pay, for those currently living a benefits lifestyle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world, and has very, very, very comfortably enough wealth to feed and heat its own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the wealth go then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well almost half of it goes to the top 10% of households.
Sign in if you want to comment
Rwanda
Page 13 of 20
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then don't come to the UK, stay in one of the many countries you pass through who will hear your case?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just blockade the coastline, draw up the drawbridge and deny all in sundry safe passage to the UK. And while we're at it shut down asylum irrespective of circumstance?
Whether you like it or not, there is no obligation for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country. And its perfectly legal to try to claim asylum wherever you want. For whatever reason. Possibly language, religious beliefs, economic prospects, family or cultural connections. The UK takes in considerably less asylum seekers than elsewhere in Europe.
For info, re first safe country:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9281/
posted on 14/4/22
Even if we wanted them where do they stay? We have severe housing shortage. Need c. 350k/yr to be added for 10 years but in the last 10 we’ve only managed 150-200kpa. We are a small island with no economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing so exacerbated by every cant wanting to stay in the SE.
For everyone saying ‘aw the shame’ can they tell us how many such migrants they want to bring in and how they are going to address the housing and trades shortage?
As a reference point the boat people are already 30kpa. The prison population in the U.K. is 90k and it costs c. £45-50k per head. I’m assuming the asylum seekers would be kept in prison like accommodation else they will do a runner. The processing time we keep hearing is1.5-2 years in all countries, in many cases exacerbated by migrants destroying all documentation so they can use the made up story they’ve read up on to say to meet the criteria. So say 50k migrants at any time that is gonna cost £2bn a year to process. Every year. And probably growing once word gets round that U.K. will welcome you at the border and put you up.
Now I know many of you will say £2bn is fine. What if the number doubles? Is that fine? And doubles again? That’s +1% on your tax or vat with no economic benefit to gdp. Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
What gives?
posted on 14/4/22
The post was there to answer why they come here. Not why it would be lovely to get what we all want. I believe the other reason is the language. Quite a few speak English as a a second language.
-------------------------------------------------
Why isn't Ireland a preferred destination then.
ROI, seems to be less hostile too.
posted on 14/4/22
The priority for a genuine asylum seeker is safety. This scheme offer safety.
I doubt very much the genuine asylum seekers are as angry / offended about this as the softies on here are.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
To clarify this is not about processing asylum claims so successful seekers can then return to the UK having been granted refugee status.
But deporting people to Rwanda where, if successful, they'll be expected to start/build a new future there whether they want to or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is possibly the outright stupidest question I have ever read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine the wisdom of a person that has to ask that question. How clueless can you be? I blame the internet for giving anyone and everyone a voice so that the clueless can confidently advertise the cluelessness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does only take a few seconds of "If I was the asylum seeker.." then boom, it hits you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, most people would only have a handful of countries they'd want to go to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like everything in life, in every situation, I'd have an opinion/preference.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
Even if we wanted them where do they stay? We have severe housing shortage. Need c. 350k/yr to be added for 10 years but in the last 10 we’ve only managed 150-200kpa. We are a small island with no economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing so exacerbated by every cant wanting to stay in the SE.
For everyone saying ‘aw the shame’ can they tell us how many such migrants they want to bring in and how they are going to address the housing and trades shortage?
As a reference point the boat people are already 30kpa. The prison population in the U.K. is 90k and it costs c. £45-50k per head. I’m assuming the asylum seekers would be kept in prison like accommodation else they will do a runner. The processing time we keep hearing is1.5-2 years in all countries, in many cases exacerbated by migrants destroying all documentation so they can use the made up story they’ve read up on to say to meet the criteria. So say 50k migrants at any time that is gonna cost £2bn a year to process. Every year. And probably growing once word gets round that U.K. will welcome you at the border and put you up.
Now I know many of you will say £2bn is fine. What if the number doubles? Is that fine? And doubles again? That’s +1% on your tax or vat with no economic benefit to gdp. Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
What gives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But, but, but, they speak some English and have a cousin brother in Birmingham.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 0 seconds ago
Even if we wanted them where do they stay? We have severe housing shortage. Need c. 350k/yr to be added for 10 years but in the last 10 we’ve only managed 150-200kpa. We are a small island with no economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing so exacerbated by every cant wanting to stay in the SE.
=========
Does Rwanda have the housing and economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing? You talk about severe housing shortage, what's the situation in Rwanda?
posted on 14/4/22
or everyone saying ‘aw the shame’ can they tell us how many such migrants they want to bring in and how they are going to address the housing and trades shortage?
=====
Then its a brilliant idea to export the problem to a country much worse off than us.
As a reference point the boat people are already 30kpa. The prison population in the U.K. is 90k and it costs c. £45-50k per head. I’m assuming the asylum seekers would be kept in prison like accommodation else they will do a runner. The processing time we keep hearing is1.5-2 years in all countries, in many cases exacerbated by migrants destroying all documentation so they can use the made up story they’ve read up on to say to meet the criteria. So say 50k migrants at any time that is gonna cost £2bn a year to process. Every year. And probably growing once word gets round that U.K. will welcome you at the border and put you up.
Now I know many of you will say £2bn is fine. What if the number doubles? Is that fine? And doubles again? That’s +1% on your tax or vat with no economic benefit to gdp. Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
What gives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/4/22
That’s +1% on your tax or vat with no economic benefit to gdp.
=======
Wrong.
Do some research on that mate.
posted on 14/4/22
Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
====
So how does the Rwanda thing fix all these problems? They won't have anywhere to stay in Rwanda either.
Don't we owe asylum seekers a reasonable standard of the duty of care?
Lets face it, Tories don't care about housing and blah blah blah. Its the other thing they care about.
If they cared about housing of asylum seekers and all that other stuff they wouldn't ship them off to countries in much worse positions.
posted on 14/4/22
We had a couple of quite famous refugees in Canada in 2020. They stayed in an $18 million mansion on Vancouver Island owned by a Russian billionaire. Some on here may know these 2 refugees by their first names.
Harry and Meghan.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then don't come to the UK, stay in one of the many countries you pass through who will hear your case?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just blockade the coastline, draw up the drawbridge and deny all in sundry safe passage to the UK. And while we're at it shut down asylum irrespective of circumstance?
Whether you like it or not, there is no obligation for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country. And its perfectly legal to try to claim asylum wherever you want. For whatever reason. Possibly language, religious beliefs, economic prospects, family or cultural connections. The UK takes in considerably less asylum seekers than elsewhere in Europe.
For info, re first safe country:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9281/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said they HAVE to claim asylum elsewhere. My point is that people pass through plenty of nations on the way to the UK and have to cross a channel to get here.
None of these countries they pass are at war, all offer a process of claiming asylum.
If people coming here face the prospect of being sent to Zambya, perhaps they'll stay in France.
posted on 14/4/22
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
Unless we accept all the applications, somehow find them work but still, they have nowhere to stay and no likely realistic means of paying in any case.
====
So how does the Rwanda thing fix all these problems? They won't have anywhere to stay in Rwanda either.
Don't we owe asylum seekers a reasonable standard of the duty of care?
Lets face it, Tories don't care about housing and blah blah blah. Its the other thing they care about.
If they cared about housing of asylum seekers and all that other stuff they wouldn't ship them off to countries in much worse positions.
-----
They are building accommodation for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can, the Tories choose not to.
posted on 14/4/22
I do find the leftie liberal meltdown over this amusing
However it’s a crazy idea and will cost a fortune.
Also we have about a million job vacancies in this country at all different levels as well as a massive technical skills shortage.
We should be encouraging migration because a lot of people in this country are too lazy to get a fackin job.
We’re paying tens of thousands a month at work on visa and relocation cost currently because of fackin Brexit.
Anyways we’re shortly be getting a U turn on this and maybe it’s just wum to wind you lefties up
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can but we have chosen not to.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world, and has very, very, very comfortably enough wealth to feed and heat its own citizens.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Gaffer Pranks- Aka Stiffler (U22336)
posted 12 seconds ago
I do find the leftie liberal meltdown over this amusing
However it’s a crazy idea and will cost a fortune.
Also we have about a million job vacancies in this country at all different levels as well as a massive technical skills shortage.
We should be encouraging migration because a lot of people in this country are too lazy to get a fackin job.
We’re paying tens of thousands a month at work on visa and relocation cost currently because of fackin Brexit.
Anyways we’re shortly be getting a U turn on this and maybe it’s just wum to wind you lefties up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. We should be making work, pay, for those currently living a benefits lifestyle.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then don't come to the UK, stay in one of the many countries you pass through who will hear your case?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just blockade the coastline, draw up the drawbridge and deny all in sundry safe passage to the UK. And while we're at it shut down asylum irrespective of circumstance?
Whether you like it or not, there is no obligation for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country. And its perfectly legal to try to claim asylum wherever you want. For whatever reason. Possibly language, religious beliefs, economic prospects, family or cultural connections. The UK takes in considerably less asylum seekers than elsewhere in Europe.
For info, re first safe country:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9281/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said they HAVE to claim asylum elsewhere. My point is that people pass through plenty of nations on the way to the UK and have to cross a channel to get here.
None of these countries they pass are at war, all offer a process of claiming asylum.
If people coming here face the prospect of being sent to Zambya, perhaps they'll stay in France.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should they? If they've family here in the UK, or other cultural ties, why should they be forced to stay in France. Who accepts x3 more asylum seekers than the UK does.
In any event, as the government has pretty much conceded, their plans will be litigated as from what I can gather they're unlawful.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can, the Tories choose not to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess Corbyn and Abbott would have dealt with Covid and the Ukrainian situation swimmingly.
Also, saying people "don't like" asylum seekers is an assumption. Nobody has said they dislike them in this whole thread.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world, and has very, very, very comfortably enough wealth to feed and heat its own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the wealth go then?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Gaffer Pranks- Aka Stiffler (U22336)
posted 12 seconds ago
I do find the leftie liberal meltdown over this amusing
However it’s a crazy idea and will cost a fortune.
Also we have about a million job vacancies in this country at all different levels as well as a massive technical skills shortage.
We should be encouraging migration because a lot of people in this country are too lazy to get a fackin job.
We’re paying tens of thousands a month at work on visa and relocation cost currently because of fackin Brexit.
Anyways we’re shortly be getting a U turn on this and maybe it’s just wum to wind you lefties up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. We should be making work, pay, for those currently living a benefits lifestyle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 46 seconds ago
It’s not a surprise that people that don’t like asylum seekers agree with the Tories, they’re making Britain an undesirable place to come. For shame.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't feed and heat our own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world, and has very, very, very comfortably enough wealth to feed and heat its own citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the wealth go then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well almost half of it goes to the top 10% of households.
Page 13 of 20
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18