toontra wrote: ↑5 Mar 2024, 2:17pm
If the Rwanda scheme had been announced 5 or more years ago it would have seemed so laughable ...
Look at the expected costs and it's laughable (or would be if so many in the UK were not struggling dependent on food banks, unable to heat & eat, etc.
From the Guardian "...which works out as £1.8m per asylum seeker."
toontra wrote: ↑5 Mar 2024, 2:17pm
If the Rwanda scheme had been announced 5 or more years ago it would have seemed so laughable so ago you would have suspected it had been a spoof lifted from a satirical outlet - e.g. Private Eye. To me it still seems that way - I can't actually believe the Tories are persisting with this nonsense.
None of the practicalities, legalities, moralities or expense make any sense, so one can only assume it's being done purely for party political reasons.
A scheme that brings no benefit to anyone, is divisive in the country, designed to exploit and sow hatred of foreigners? Being done purely for party advantage?
Surely the Great British Public would instantly see through such a knavish plot!
toontra wrote: ↑5 Mar 2024, 2:17pm
If the Rwanda scheme had been announced 5 or more years ago it would have seemed so laughable so ago you would have suspected it had been a spoof lifted from a satirical outlet - e.g. Private Eye. To me it still seems that way - I can't actually believe the Tories are persisting with this nonsense.
None of the practicalities, legalities, moralities or expense make any sense, so one can only assume it's being done purely for party political reasons.
A scheme that brings no benefit to anyone, is divisive in the country, designed to exploit and sow hatred of foreigners? Being done purely for party advantage?
Surely the Great British Public would instantly see through such a knavish plot!
Any degree of popularity for the scheme (which I agree is misconceived) comes from the lack of a proper disincentive for people trying to use the small boats route, other than the danger. Once on UK shores, removal is very unlikely. The sensible solution would be an agreement with the French for anyone picked up from such a crossing to be taken straight back to France, but with an appointment with UK migration officials on French soil, so that they can put in a request for asylum. With the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. That would make the small boat route a lot less attractive.
toontra wrote: ↑5 Mar 2024, 2:17pm
If the Rwanda scheme had been announced 5 or more years ago it would have seemed so laughable so ago you would have suspected it had been a spoof lifted from a satirical outlet - e.g. Private Eye. To me it still seems that way - I can't actually believe the Tories are persisting with this nonsense.
None of the practicalities, legalities, moralities or expense make any sense, so one can only assume it's being done purely for party political reasons.
A scheme that brings no benefit to anyone, is divisive in the country, designed to exploit and sow hatred of foreigners? Being done purely for party advantage?
Surely the Great British Public would instantly see through such a knavish plot!
toontra wrote: ↑5 Mar 2024, 2:17pm
If the Rwanda scheme had been announced 5 or more years ago it would have seemed so laughable so ago you would have suspected it had been a spoof lifted from a satirical outlet - e.g. Private Eye. To me it still seems that way - I can't actually believe the Tories are persisting with this nonsense.
None of the practicalities, legalities, moralities or expense make any sense, so one can only assume it's being done purely for party political reasons.
A scheme that brings no benefit to anyone, is divisive in the country, designed to exploit and sow hatred of foreigners? Being done purely for party advantage?
Surely the Great British Public would instantly see through such a knavish plot!
Any degree of popularity for the scheme (which I agree is misconceived) comes from the lack of a proper disincentive for people trying to use the small boats route, other than the danger. Once on UK shores, removal is very unlikely. The sensible solution would be an agreement with the French for anyone picked up from such a crossing to be taken straight back to France, but with an appointment with UK migration officials on French soil, so that they can put in a request for asylum. With the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. That would make the small boat route a lot less attractive.
I think there's a couple of fatal flaws here.
First, "the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. " is absolutely not on offer from the UK govt. Quite the opposite - there is currently almost no way for anyone to come to the UK to claim asylum.
Second, these people are prepared to risk death to get here. It seems vanishingly unlikely that a tiny chance of going to Rwanda will dissuade anyone (because very few ever will go to Rwanda, even if the scheme happens)
A scheme that brings no benefit to anyone, is divisive in the country, designed to exploit and sow hatred of foreigners? Being done purely for party advantage?
Surely the Great British Public would instantly see through such a knavish plot!
Any degree of popularity for the scheme (which I agree is misconceived) comes from the lack of a proper disincentive for people trying to use the small boats route, other than the danger. Once on UK shores, removal is very unlikely. The sensible solution would be an agreement with the French for anyone picked up from such a crossing to be taken straight back to France, but with an appointment with UK migration officials on French soil, so that they can put in a request for asylum. With the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. That would make the small boat route a lot less attractive.
I think there's a couple of fatal flaws here.
First, "the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. " is absolutely not on offer from the UK govt. Quite the opposite - there is currently almost no way for anyone to come to the UK to claim asylum.
Second, these people are prepared to risk death to get here. It seems vanishingly unlikely that a tiny chance of going to Rwanda will dissuade anyone (because very few ever will go to Rwanda, even if the scheme happens)
But what I am suggesting is that the Government should be pursuing this sort of arrangement with the French, instead of pratting around with their ludicrous Rwanda scheme. The only obstacle is in persuading the French to play ball. If this did happen there would be an instant disincentive for people to risk the small boat route, because that route would end in failure every time. Picked up at sea: straight back to France to make a proper request for asylum. Picked up on an English beach: straight back to France to make a proper request for asylum. Every time. Why would anyone risk doing that dangerous crossing if it always ends with a return to France? The next question would be for the government of the day, and it would be regarding whose applications for asylum should be granted. And that is another topic....
pwa wrote: ↑5 Mar 2024, 3:11pm
Any degree of popularity for the scheme (which I agree is misconceived) comes from the lack of a proper disincentive for people trying to use the small boats route, other than the danger. Once on UK shores, removal is very unlikely. The sensible solution would be an agreement with the French for anyone picked up from such a crossing to be taken straight back to France, but with an appointment with UK migration officials on French soil, so that they can put in a request for asylum. With the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. That would make the small boat route a lot less attractive.
I think there's a couple of fatal flaws here.
First, "the alternative of seeking that same appointment on French soil without doing the small boat thing at all. " is absolutely not on offer from the UK govt. Quite the opposite - there is currently almost no way for anyone to come to the UK to claim asylum.
Second, these people are prepared to risk death to get here. It seems vanishingly unlikely that a tiny chance of going to Rwanda will dissuade anyone (because very few ever will go to Rwanda, even if the scheme happens)
But what I am suggesting is that the Government should be pursuing this sort of arrangement with the French, instead of pratting around with their ludicrous Rwanda scheme. The only obstacle is in persuading the French to play ball. If this did happen there would be an instant disincentive for people to risk the small boat route, because that route would end in failure every time. Picked up at sea: straight back to France to make a proper request for asylum. Picked up on an English beach: straight back to France to make a proper request for asylum. Every time. Why would anyone risk doing that dangerous crossing if it always ends with a return to France? The next question would be for the government of the day, and it would be regarding whose applications for asylum should be granted. And that is another topic....
Yes, I agree. But it requires a government to allow asylum applications from France *without* being picked up - and likely an increase in successful asylum applications. Which is the opposite of current policy.
roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑5 Mar 2024, 4:53pm
......Yes, I agree. But it requires a government to allow asylum applications from France *without* being picked up - and likely an increase in successful asylum applications. Which is the opposite of current policy.
Possibly. But I wonder how many, and how they could relate to our current need for people to do certain jobs, and young people to make up for the UK birth rate being below par. In short, could some of the extra legitimate asylum seekers replace purely economic migration that we currently experience? I don't know the answer to that. I expect the "fit" won't be completely right. But it might work in part. I don't think we will plug the nursing shortage that way, but the answer to that one is to make the profession a rewarding one that established citizens want to do.
Jdsk wrote: ↑30 Jan 2024, 11:46am
DAG: "How the government is seeking to change the law on Rwanda so as to disregard the facts": https://emptycity.substack.com/p/how-th ... seeking-to
following the start of the debate in the unelected House of Parliament.
And from Parliament: "Legislative scrutiny highlights human rights failings of Rwanda Bill": https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... anda-bill/
includes: :The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is fundamentally incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned."
The unelected House has decided that the Bill should be fully compliant with domestic and international law... by 274 to 172.
And seven amendments passed today. That's probably it until after the Easter break.
Jdsk wrote: ↑21 Oct 2022, 12:21pm
And now the airline has turned down the money:
"In a letter to the charity Freedom from Torture, which has led the campaign under the hashtag #StopTheFlights, Privilege Style said it “hereby wishes to communicate the following: that it will not operate flights to Rwanda in the future. That it has never flown to Rwanda since the one flight scheduled for June 2022 (which is the reason for this controversy) was suspended.”" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... lege-style