comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 43 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Once they have reached the EU, and start making choices, they should be considered economic migrants rather than asylum seekers.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 38 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You expect citizens to feed and heat others?
I meant the wealth the government chooses not to use.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your argument is void
Typical Tory response, Busby.
Plenty of people don’t like asylum seekers. It’s why they’re happy for them to be sent to Rwanda or drown in the sea, all with our government’s blessing.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 3 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe you don’t understand, they’re too fackin lazy to get a job.
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 7 seconds ago
Typical Tory response, Busby.
Plenty of people don’t like asylum seekers. It’s why they’re happy for them to be sent to Rwanda or drown in the sea, all with our government’s blessing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s wrong with being sent to Rwanda you racist?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 23 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption these people won't contribute to society, these aren't all bums who want to doss around watching TV all day. These include people from all walks of life, with skills and valuable professional abilities to offer.
Seriously, these arguments have been going on for years and no-one listening, ever since Farage stood in front of poster to scare people into voting for him to sit in front of a TV all day and contribute feck all. People have shared studies on here that clearly show immigrants, on average, put more into the economy than they take out.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your argument is void
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn’t making an argument, I was stating an indisputable fact:
The UK has very, very, very comfortably enough wealth to feed and heat its own citizens.
If there are hungry and cold UK residents (and there are both), that is the choice of the population as a body and the politicians they have elected.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't there a few billion went to Tory donors for imaginary stuff during the pandemic?
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 23 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption these people won't contribute to society, these aren't all bums who want to doss around watching TV all day. These include people from all walks of life, with skills and valuable professional abilities to offer.
Seriously, these arguments have been going on for years and no-one listening, ever since Farage stood in front of poster to scare people into voting for him to sit in front of a TV all day and contribute feck all. People have shared studies on here that clearly show immigrants, on average, put more into the economy than they take out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The data has shown for literally years and years that immigrants on average:
- Pay more in tax contributions than native citizens, and
- Take less in benefits from the state than native citizens
Making them better net-net contributors than natives.
The prospect of being sent to Rwanda will hopefully be a deterrent to coming here in the first place
I wish we could send Tory bootlickers to Rwanda instead.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 23 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption these people won't contribute to society, these aren't all bums who want to doss around watching TV all day. These include people from all walks of life, with skills and valuable professional abilities to offer.
Seriously, these arguments have been going on for years and no-one listening, ever since Farage stood in front of poster to scare people into voting for him to sit in front of a TV all day and contribute feck all. People have shared studies on here that clearly show immigrants, on average, put more into the economy than they take out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's like 2015/2016 again when folk thought leaving the EU would see the UK 'taking back control' of it's borders. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that EU immigration had nothing to do with asylum seekers. Despite Farage and Co's attempts to conflate the two.
And that borders have two sides. And require both sides to work together. To reach mutually agreeable solutions.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They could have done that here in the UK.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 23 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption these people won't contribute to society, these aren't all bums who want to doss around watching TV all day. These include people from all walks of life, with skills and valuable professional abilities to offer.
Seriously, these arguments have been going on for years and no-one listening, ever since Farage stood in front of poster to scare people into voting for him to sit in front of a TV all day and contribute feck all. People have shared studies on here that clearly show immigrants, on average, put more into the economy than they take out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The data has shown for literally years and years that immigrants on average:
- Pay more in tax contributions than native citizens, and
- Take less in benefits from the state than native citizens
Making them better net-net contributors than natives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about asylum seekers though?
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They could have done that here in the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To borrow you phrase, why should they?
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 33 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again on both counts. Priority is safety but its not the only priority, there's other priorities too, like having a life afterwards and being reunited with your kids/parents
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 33 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again on both counts. Priority is safety but its not the only priority, there's other priorities too, like having a life afterwards and being reunited with your kids/parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. And would there be anything stopping those friends and family joining them in Rwanda should they wish?
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They could have done that here in the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To borrow you phrase, why should they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because that's the law.
Its cheaper.
Its more humane.
We won't all look like racist caaaants.
etc etc.
Thank God for Brexit which means we can initiate such schemes without the being dictated to by the rest of Europe
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 33 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again on both counts. Priority is safety but its not the only priority, there's other priorities too, like having a life afterwards and being reunited with your kids/parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. And would there be anything stopping those friends and family joining them in Rwanda should they wish?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Rwanda does not have anywhere near the economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing that the UK has.
It’s not the law though.
And you haven’t shown how it’s cheaper.
And I’d argue it’s more humane than being put up in some horrible bedsit.
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 33 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again on both counts. Priority is safety but its not the only priority, there's other priorities too, like having a life afterwards and being reunited with your kids/parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. And would there be anything stopping those friends and family joining them in Rwanda should they wish?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Rwanda does not have anywhere near the economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing that the UK has.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These people would be contributing though.
comment by FOREST (U22817)
posted 24 seconds ago
Thank God for Brexit which means we can initiate such schemes without the being dictated to by the rest of Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then its a good thing the rest of the world is dicating to us instead.
This would have been contrary to European law but its also contrary to international law if we go through with it.
We've escaped nothing as we'll still be breaking the rules we agreed to.
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by FOREST (U22817)
posted 24 seconds ago
Thank God for Brexit which means we can initiate such schemes without the being dictated to by the rest of Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then its a good thing the rest of the world is dicating to us instead.
This would have been contrary to European law but its also contrary to international law if we go through with it.
We've escaped nothing as we'll still be breaking the rules we agreed to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, I don’t think so - the rules and the law are within the detail
Sign in if you want to comment
Rwanda
Page 14 of 20
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19
posted on 14/4/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 43 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Once they have reached the EU, and start making choices, they should be considered economic migrants rather than asylum seekers.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 38 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You expect citizens to feed and heat others?
I meant the wealth the government chooses not to use.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your argument is void
posted on 14/4/22
Typical Tory response, Busby.
Plenty of people don’t like asylum seekers. It’s why they’re happy for them to be sent to Rwanda or drown in the sea, all with our government’s blessing.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 3 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe you don’t understand, they’re too fackin lazy to get a job.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 7 seconds ago
Typical Tory response, Busby.
Plenty of people don’t like asylum seekers. It’s why they’re happy for them to be sent to Rwanda or drown in the sea, all with our government’s blessing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s wrong with being sent to Rwanda you racist?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 23 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption these people won't contribute to society, these aren't all bums who want to doss around watching TV all day. These include people from all walks of life, with skills and valuable professional abilities to offer.
Seriously, these arguments have been going on for years and no-one listening, ever since Farage stood in front of poster to scare people into voting for him to sit in front of a TV all day and contribute feck all. People have shared studies on here that clearly show immigrants, on average, put more into the economy than they take out.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your argument is void
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn’t making an argument, I was stating an indisputable fact:
The UK has very, very, very comfortably enough wealth to feed and heat its own citizens.
If there are hungry and cold UK residents (and there are both), that is the choice of the population as a body and the politicians they have elected.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't there a few billion went to Tory donors for imaginary stuff during the pandemic?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 23 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption these people won't contribute to society, these aren't all bums who want to doss around watching TV all day. These include people from all walks of life, with skills and valuable professional abilities to offer.
Seriously, these arguments have been going on for years and no-one listening, ever since Farage stood in front of poster to scare people into voting for him to sit in front of a TV all day and contribute feck all. People have shared studies on here that clearly show immigrants, on average, put more into the economy than they take out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The data has shown for literally years and years that immigrants on average:
- Pay more in tax contributions than native citizens, and
- Take less in benefits from the state than native citizens
Making them better net-net contributors than natives.
posted on 14/4/22
The prospect of being sent to Rwanda will hopefully be a deterrent to coming here in the first place
posted on 14/4/22
I wish we could send Tory bootlickers to Rwanda instead.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 23 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption these people won't contribute to society, these aren't all bums who want to doss around watching TV all day. These include people from all walks of life, with skills and valuable professional abilities to offer.
Seriously, these arguments have been going on for years and no-one listening, ever since Farage stood in front of poster to scare people into voting for him to sit in front of a TV all day and contribute feck all. People have shared studies on here that clearly show immigrants, on average, put more into the economy than they take out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's like 2015/2016 again when folk thought leaving the EU would see the UK 'taking back control' of it's borders. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that EU immigration had nothing to do with asylum seekers. Despite Farage and Co's attempts to conflate the two.
And that borders have two sides. And require both sides to work together. To reach mutually agreeable solutions.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They could have done that here in the UK.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 23 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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comment seems predicated on the assumption these people won't contribute to society, these aren't all bums who want to doss around watching TV all day. These include people from all walks of life, with skills and valuable professional abilities to offer.
Seriously, these arguments have been going on for years and no-one listening, ever since Farage stood in front of poster to scare people into voting for him to sit in front of a TV all day and contribute feck all. People have shared studies on here that clearly show immigrants, on average, put more into the economy than they take out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The data has shown for literally years and years that immigrants on average:
- Pay more in tax contributions than native citizens, and
- Take less in benefits from the state than native citizens
Making them better net-net contributors than natives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about asylum seekers though?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They could have done that here in the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To borrow you phrase, why should they?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 33 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again on both counts. Priority is safety but its not the only priority, there's other priorities too, like having a life afterwards and being reunited with your kids/parents
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 33 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again on both counts. Priority is safety but its not the only priority, there's other priorities too, like having a life afterwards and being reunited with your kids/parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. And would there be anything stopping those friends and family joining them in Rwanda should they wish?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 11 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They could have done that here in the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To borrow you phrase, why should they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because that's the law.
Its cheaper.
Its more humane.
We won't all look like racist caaaants.
etc etc.
posted on 14/4/22
Thank God for Brexit which means we can initiate such schemes without the being dictated to by the rest of Europe
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 33 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again on both counts. Priority is safety but its not the only priority, there's other priorities too, like having a life afterwards and being reunited with your kids/parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. And would there be anything stopping those friends and family joining them in Rwanda should they wish?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Rwanda does not have anywhere near the economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing that the UK has.
posted on 14/4/22
It’s not the law though.
And you haven’t shown how it’s cheaper.
And I’d argue it’s more humane than being put up in some horrible bedsit.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 33 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again on both counts. Priority is safety but its not the only priority, there's other priorities too, like having a life afterwards and being reunited with your kids/parents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. And would there be anything stopping those friends and family joining them in Rwanda should they wish?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. Rwanda does not have anywhere near the economic strategy to spread wealth, jobs and housing that the UK has.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These people would be contributing though.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by FOREST (U22817)
posted 24 seconds ago
Thank God for Brexit which means we can initiate such schemes without the being dictated to by the rest of Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then its a good thing the rest of the world is dicating to us instead.
This would have been contrary to European law but its also contrary to international law if we go through with it.
We've escaped nothing as we'll still be breaking the rules we agreed to.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by FOREST (U22817)
posted 24 seconds ago
Thank God for Brexit which means we can initiate such schemes without the being dictated to by the rest of Europe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then its a good thing the rest of the world is dicating to us instead.
This would have been contrary to European law but its also contrary to international law if we go through with it.
We've escaped nothing as we'll still be breaking the rules we agreed to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, I don’t think so - the rules and the law are within the detail
Page 14 of 20
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19