In the latest attempt to thoroughly trash the UK’s international reputation, the Pritster has come up with a scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for ‘processing’. What we know about ‘processing’ is it that it usually takes years and there is no reason to suspect it will be quicker with asylum seekers put out of sight and out of mind. So this is to be a holding pen for people, in effect, a prison. Boris Johnson is all for it. He said yesterday, Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not. So what do you think? Terrible plan doomed to fail, what Brexiteers voted for or dead cat? https://news.sky.com/story/asylum-s...ment-plans-to-halt-channel-crossings-12589616 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114
I suspect it is massive dead cat, with a little bit of playing to the racist wing of the country ahead of the local elections. Australia have tried it more than once. Not only is it financially costly, it doesn't work and is a humanitarian nightmare; https://amp.theguardian.com/austral...why-australias-system-was-a-dangerous-failure
It’s meat for the base ahead of local elections, as @sydney_horn says. Undoubtedly some party donors will receive the lucrative contract to build whatever holding facilities they have in mind too.
Shall we just fast forward to the inquiry in about 2030, when, somewhat belatedly, a distinguished judge looks into the appalling treatment, the processing delays, the suicides, the international condemnation and hears evidence from former Government ministers who say that they were not aware of any law-breaking and were shocked to find out things had gone wrong?
Is it possible to identify the person that voted good idea and out them as a despicable **** and shun them henceforth? Thank you.
It’s a bad idea Put them on a plane back to country of origin, or best guess if they are not being cooperative
Which pretty much sums up Brexiteer politics in the absence of its advocates having any actual good ideas.
I've got plenty of good ideas I've even had 3 patents to my name in the past, one of which I sold for lots of cash
This. If they can make arrangements for Ukranians to apply for asylum while still overseas, I don't understand why the same doesn't apply to other refugees. If a such a route were available then there would be no demand for the people smugglers to exploit. It really is that simple.
It will be a holding pen for people who have chosen a holding pen in Rwanda over legal residence in the EU, on the grounds that they are unsafe there. Their choice to be held in a holding pen will be freely made, against the advice of the UK Government and the EU, and the holding pen they voluntarily walk into, in the knowledge that this is how we process illegal immigrants coming on their own volition from EU countries, must be considered a matter of their own preference. If it was the process for legal immigrants, I would be as upset about the matter as you wish to appear about this very different matter. I'd vote for it. Provided we ensure they are kept safe in Rwanda. If safety is the concern of these 'illegal' immigrants, what more can they ask for? Or is there some suggestion that Rwanda is a country that people should not be sent to for processing? In which case, what do you have against Rwanda? As for being a dead cat to cover up partygate, this subject has been raised a number of times on the forum, so it is not new and it is not a surprise. It would seem it is more of a dead cat to distract from partygate appearing to be something of a damp squib.
Rwanda has made considerable progress since its worst days. However, the US State Department’s assessment of Rwanda’s human rights record in 2020 is as follows, Significant human rights issues included: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture by the government; harsh and life-threatening conditions in some detention facilities; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees. So it would seem quite reasonable to ask if asylum seekers will be safe there. https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/rwanda/
Anyone volunteering to enter a holding pen in Rwanda should make absolutely sure, then, that they will be better off doing so than staying in France. Seems strange that they would choose Rwanda over the EU, when so many Britons would, apparently, rather be over there. I wonder if the majority will choose to return to the country from which they came, rather than go to Rwanda? I imagine we'll give them that option. I think the saving grace for this is that it will be their choice; EU or Rwanda.
Ah, the "lefty remoaner tears' school of economics. Except I believe that you believe you are a lefty. You've been radicalised.
I (try to) stand up for the rights of animals and normal working people ignored by the political class We just differ on the ‘how’ On this particular topic, the UK spends £5m a day looking after economic migrants We know they are economic migrants because they have travelled through multiple safe EU countries to get here I’d rather that £5m was spent on animals and normal working people However, I’m not a totally mean and nasty piece of work because I do think the UK needs to be more accessible to real refugees, and to do that I’d open refugee stations in suitable locations around the world to better and faster process those in real need I’d like to see the UK then cover transport costs (flights) for real refugees Lastly the UK needs to go to war on people trafficers, I don't just mean usual wet blanket UK policing I mean military intelligence and hunt them down wherever they are
The difference, I always get the idea reading this forum, is that certain people mean it, whilst others are merely using strife and apparent injustice to make a political point. Sorry for tainting yoj with a like.
And they are not assylum seekers or refugees. They have already arrived in an allegedly safe country where they are safe. They are immigrants with no pressure to leave the country they are in other than their own desire; and like immigration in all European countries, there are rules to follow, lest you become an illegal immigrant.
Over half of asylum claims are granted at the first attempt. Over half the rest on appeal. By this nastiest of governments. So much for 'economic migrants'. Or is it that you want every other country to take them, just not us? Global Britain.
Goebbels sized lie when Johnson repeatedly claims this is driven by our ‘humanitarian impulse’. Also lies that it’s down to ‘Brexit freedoms’ as Denmark has also offshored asylum seekers.
Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach — an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it. There is no legitimate route but they are illegal only up to the point they legally claim asylum. And the evidence is that they are, in the main, genuine refugees that are not economic migrants (they can get more benefits in other countries). The UK should do their share and quite frankly, compared to other countries around the world, we are not: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
What can UK say to someone who says 'I come from Syria and I can't go back because I fought for SRF and will be killed if I return' No way to prove it / disprove it, can't send them back to Syria because of the risk, can't send them back to France, so they get benefit of the doubt They have travelled through multiple safe countries therefore finding a safe location cannot be their priority, they are selectively choosing to travel specifically to the UK, they are making economic choices therefore are economic migrants
...so you want other countries to take them. What if they want to come here because they speak English or if they have relatives(the most common reasons the Home Office established). Presumably you would think that all the other safe countries they have travelled through should refuse them too. So the only countries who would take refugees would be the first countries they come to, so: Greece, Italy and Bulgaria should take them all?
Yes. Asylum in the UK should only be for those experienced sailors with their own yachts, who make it through the Med and the Bay of Biscay without touching dry land in-between. Alternatively, they can route around Cape Horn.
Are you saying it is unsafe in the EU? What is the point you are making? If you are saying we should do more, that is a very different, and much more reasonable argument, than the suggestion that we take people who, by their own choice, illegally travel here from 'safe' European homes (great song). Let them apply according to law, and let them be judged on their merits, before they cross the channel. UK residents getting upset because the EU wants us to do more, whilst being prepared to facilitate unlawful and dangerous travel to this country (putting lives at risk), seems peculiar to me. It is safer for people to remain in a safe country and apply for legal immigration. That is a fact. Why people want to encourage illegal and dangerous channel crossings in rubber dinghies is perplexing, unless it is considered that the only thing to gain from it is virtue signalling political leverage; but unfortunately that relies for impact on the fact that people will die, provided they are prepared to travel from one safe country to another in an illegal manner. This is a humanitarian proposal, because it is likely to reduce the number of people choosing to illegally come to this country in the most dangerous of circumstances.
