Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes they did. They still went or presented though. Not sure if any donated their earnings to charities." That’s my point, they all still went for a big fat wedge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes they did. They still went or presented though. Not sure if any donated their earnings to charities." Feels like the best protest would have been zero involvement from Lineker & every1 else. Including football fans who would normally watch the event. But at least Lineker addressed the issue. And the BBC were happy for him to do so, which makes the way they recently forced him out more than a little unjustifiable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes they did. They still went or presented though. Not sure if any donated their earnings to charities. Feels like the best protest would have been zero involvement from Lineker & every1 else. Including football fans who would normally watch the event. But at least Lineker addressed the issue. And the BBC were happy for him to do so, which makes the way they recently forced him out more than a little unjustifiable." May be Gary went a step to far and is a loose cannon. He could probably fly with them lugs anyway  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues." He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues. He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time." Did he really though? We don't think so, not to the same extent. He picks and chooses. He's a man in a position of privilege, both in his salary and his outreach/influence. That doesn't mean he's right on issues, nor his reasons for justifying his opinion to be correct. The man knows NOTHING about what 1930's were like. He didn't live through it ands has spent the best part of the last 30 years insulated from the impact mass immigration has had on working class communities. Sorry, we like to step back and apply logic and reason and se none in his comments, except for appealing to suckers 'fee-wings'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues. He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time. Did he really though? We don't think so, not to the same extent. He picks and chooses. He's a man in a position of privilege, both in his salary and his outreach/influence. That doesn't mean he's right on issues, nor his reasons for justifying his opinion to be correct. The man knows NOTHING about what 1930's were like. He didn't live through it ands has spent the best part of the last 30 years insulated from the impact mass immigration has had on working class communities. Sorry, we like to step back and apply logic and reason and se none in his comments, except for appealing to suckers 'fee-wings'." I for 1 blame Lineker for not having the foresight to live in Germany in the 1930s. The plonker shoulda invented a time machine if he really wanted to test his convictions to the limit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues. He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time. Did he really though? We don't think so, not to the same extent. He picks and chooses. He's a man in a position of privilege, both in his salary and his outreach/influence. That doesn't mean he's right on issues, nor his reasons for justifying his opinion to be correct. The man knows NOTHING about what 1930's were like. He didn't live through it ands has spent the best part of the last 30 years insulated from the impact mass immigration has had on working class communities. Sorry, we like to step back and apply logic and reason and se none in his comments, except for appealing to suckers 'fee-wings'." lol you have missed off the GB News argument as to why he got it wrong… ie it’s nothing like the language used in 1930s Germany because they were speaking German……! (and yes that was genuinely said on Tuesday night) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues. He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time. Did he really though? We don't think so, not to the same extent. He picks and chooses. He's a man in a position of privilege, both in his salary and his outreach/influence. That doesn't mean he's right on issues, nor his reasons for justifying his opinion to be correct. The man knows NOTHING about what 1930's were like. He didn't live through it ands has spent the best part of the last 30 years insulated from the impact mass immigration has had on working class communities. Sorry, we like to step back and apply logic and reason and se none in his comments, except for appealing to suckers 'fee-wings'. lol you have missed off the GB News argument as to why he got it wrong… ie it’s nothing like the language used in 1930s Germany because they were speaking German……! (and yes that was genuinely said on Tuesday night) " I mean... it's correct in a way lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He did mention it irrc. The hypocrisy is more from the his detractors who are picking and choosing when he should have political views and when he should keep quiet. At the heart of this isn't his views on immigration policy. But that he expressed the wrong political view. " I’m sure Lineker isn’t a puppet, sure he knows what he’s saying. And he chooses when to say it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues. He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time. Did he really though? We don't think so, not to the same extent. He picks and chooses. He's a man in a position of privilege, both in his salary and his outreach/influence. That doesn't mean he's right on issues, nor his reasons for justifying his opinion to be correct. The man knows NOTHING about what 1930's were like. He didn't live through it ands has spent the best part of the last 30 years insulated from the impact mass immigration has had on working class communities. Sorry, we like to step back and apply logic and reason and se none in his comments, except for appealing to suckers 'fee-wings'. lol you have missed off the GB News argument as to why he got it wrong… ie it’s nothing like the language used in 1930s Germany because they were speaking German……! (and yes that was genuinely said on Tuesday night) " GB News thick as mince broadcaster for the hard of thinking | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After all they didn’t take a stand against human rights in Qatar in 2022. " They did make a stand over the Qatar World Cup. That is also a different issue to UK immigration policy. It would be hypocritical if they protested against the proposed Government policy and then donated to the Conservative Party or anti-immigration groups. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues. He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time. Did he really though? We don't think so, not to the same extent. He picks and chooses. He's a man in a position of privilege, both in his salary and his outreach/influence. That doesn't mean he's right on issues, nor his reasons for justifying his opinion to be correct. The man knows NOTHING about what 1930's were like. He didn't live through it ands has spent the best part of the last 30 years insulated from the impact mass immigration has had on working class communities. Sorry, we like to step back and apply logic and reason and se none in his comments, except for appealing to suckers 'fee-wings'." Are you saying that you can only learn from history if you were alive at the time? Is immigration the biggest or even one of the biggest negative impacts on working class communities over the last 30 years? Nothing else significant has happened since the 1990s? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler" The far right are a sensitive bunch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues. He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time. Did he really though? We don't think so, not to the same extent. He picks and chooses. He's a man in a position of privilege, both in his salary and his outreach/influence. That doesn't mean he's right on issues, nor his reasons for justifying his opinion to be correct. The man knows NOTHING about what 1930's were like. He didn't live through it ands has spent the best part of the last 30 years insulated from the impact mass immigration has had on working class communities. Sorry, we like to step back and apply logic and reason and se none in his comments, except for appealing to suckers 'fee-wings'." And yet Holocaust survivors have been equally critical of the language used by Braverman! She refused to apologise even when she was confronted by a survivor attacking her disgusting words. Those survivors know everything first hand and we’re there. Do you think they were privileged too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is both an example of hypocrisy and lack of self-awarewness: "Rt Hon Nadine Dorries MP @NadineDorries .@GaryLineker does need to decide though, is he a footie presenter or a candidate for the Labour Party? We discuss on my show tonight on @TalkTV 8pm !" MP or TV presenter for a right wing news channel outraged about a football presenter not being impartial?" This Nadine ? "The BBC has apologised for the failure to properly scrutinise claims made by Nadine Dorries on a radio show, capping a day of controversies for the corporation. The broadcaster said in a statement on Friday that “there should have been more challenge” when the former culture secretary and Boris Johnson loyalist made allegations about Sue Gray on Radio 4’s World at One." Good to see the BBC managed balance here !! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is both an example of hypocrisy and lack of self-awarewness: "Rt Hon Nadine Dorries MP @NadineDorries .@GaryLineker does need to decide though, is he a footie presenter or a candidate for the Labour Party? We discuss on my show tonight on @TalkTV 8pm !" MP or TV presenter for a right wing news channel outraged about a football presenter not being impartial? This Nadine ? "The BBC has apologised for the failure to properly scrutinise claims made by Nadine Dorries on a radio show, capping a day of controversies for the corporation. The broadcaster said in a statement on Friday that “there should have been more challenge” when the former culture secretary and Boris Johnson loyalist made allegations about Sue Gray on Radio 4’s World at One." Good to see the BBC managed balance here !! " Yup, that's the lady. The BBC haven't exactly been playing a blinder lately, have they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is both an example of hypocrisy and lack of self-awarewness: "Rt Hon Nadine Dorries MP @NadineDorries .@GaryLineker does need to decide though, is he a footie presenter or a candidate for the Labour Party? We discuss on my show tonight on @TalkTV 8pm !" MP or TV presenter for a right wing news channel outraged about a football presenter not being impartial? This Nadine ? "The BBC has apologised for the failure to properly scrutinise claims made by Nadine Dorries on a radio show, capping a day of controversies for the corporation. The broadcaster said in a statement on Friday that “there should have been more challenge” when the former culture secretary and Boris Johnson loyalist made allegations about Sue Gray on Radio 4’s World at One." Good to see the BBC managed balance here !! Yup, that's the lady. The BBC haven't exactly been playing a blinder lately, have they?" These are very senior management decisions though. Who is leading the BBC now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Most celebrity virtue-signally is mired in hypocrisy if you dig deep enough. But yes, Lineker is a prime example. " Why? He would be a hypocrite if he spoke about the Tories, then voted for them. Are you saying he's done that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is both an example of hypocrisy and lack of self-awarewness: "Rt Hon Nadine Dorries MP @NadineDorries .@GaryLineker does need to decide though, is he a footie presenter or a candidate for the Labour Party? We discuss on my show tonight on @TalkTV 8pm !" MP or TV presenter for a right wing news channel outraged about a football presenter not being impartial? This Nadine ? "The BBC has apologised for the failure to properly scrutinise claims made by Nadine Dorries on a radio show, capping a day of controversies for the corporation. The broadcaster said in a statement on Friday that “there should have been more challenge” when the former culture secretary and Boris Johnson loyalist made allegations about Sue Gray on Radio 4’s World at One." Good to see the BBC managed balance here !! Yup, that's the lady. The BBC haven't exactly been playing a blinder lately, have they? These are very senior management decisions though. Who is leading the BBC now?" someone impartial I'm sure 
Although I'd bet good money* on whoever it may be becoming a lord as part of sunaks honours come losing the GE
(* But only if someone can arrange for someone to guarantee me a loan so I can bet this good money. I can make it worth their while...) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government are using Huw Edwards news video in their presentations over the governments new bill on immigration. Am I missing something here? They scream at a football pundit mentioning the language of the government and it’s ok for them to use a main news anchor in their own presentations? FFS that’s hypocrisy for you in spades. " Ironically the BBC had to ask them to take it down... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government are using Huw Edwards news video in their presentations over the governments new bill on immigration. Am I missing something here? They scream at a football pundit mentioning the language of the government and it’s ok for them to use a main news anchor in their own presentations? FFS that’s hypocrisy for you in spades. Ironically the BBC had to ask them to take it down..." They haven’t They have removed it from the opening sequence but kept it in the film | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government are using Huw Edwards news video in their presentations over the governments new bill on immigration. Am I missing something here? They scream at a football pundit mentioning the language of the government and it’s ok for them to use a main news anchor in their own presentations? FFS that’s hypocrisy for you in spades. Ironically the BBC had to ask them to take it down... They haven’t They have removed it from the opening sequence but kept it in the film " it appears bbc asked ... But Tory party have only removed the image from the twitter feed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After all they didn’t take a stand against human rights in Qatar in 2022. " I truly believe if Blair with the help of his spin doctor Campbell hadn't entered us in to an illegal war which resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives and kicked a hornets nest in the middle east. Lineker would of been hosting MOTD last weekend. But then i see a picture this weekend with Lineker with his arms around Campbell with a beaming smile on his face.??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After all they didn’t take a stand against human rights in Qatar in 2022. I truly believe if Blair with the help of his spin doctor Campbell hadn't entered us in to an illegal war which resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives and kicked a hornets nest in the middle east. Lineker would of been hosting MOTD last weekend. But then i see a picture this weekend with Lineker with his arms around Campbell with a beaming smile on his face.??? " They are friends | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After all they didn’t take a stand against human rights in Qatar in 2022. I truly believe if Blair with the help of his spin doctor Campbell hadn't entered us in to an illegal war which resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives and kicked a hornets nest in the middle east. Lineker would of been hosting MOTD last weekend. But then i see a picture this weekend with Lineker with his arms around Campbell with a beaming smile on his face.??? " Campbell a shxthouse, like the one above us | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, he presented the Qatar World Cup didn't he? He certainly picks and chooses when to chime in on social political issues. He did criticise Qatar, though. On air. On the BBC. You can certainly criticise him for going, but you can't criticise him for not speaking up at the time. Did he really though? We don't think so, not to the same extent. He picks and chooses. He's a man in a position of privilege, both in his salary and his outreach/influence. That doesn't mean he's right on issues, nor his reasons for justifying his opinion to be correct. The man knows NOTHING about what 1930's were like. He didn't live through it ands has spent the best part of the last 30 years insulated from the impact mass immigration has had on working class communities. Sorry, we like to step back and apply logic and reason and se none in his comments, except for appealing to suckers 'fee-wings'." Of course he didn’t ‘live through it’ ! But one of the things we should all learn and listen to are the behaviours and actions which led to such appalling crimes against humanity; that’s what GL is raising. And the words he used are not substantially different to the words of the Auschwitz Memorial. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After all they didn’t take a stand against human rights in Qatar in 2022. I truly believe if Blair with the help of his spin doctor Campbell hadn't entered us in to an illegal war which resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives and kicked a hornets nest in the middle east. Lineker would of been hosting MOTD last weekend. But then i see a picture this weekend with Lineker with his arms around Campbell with a beaming smile on his face.??? Campbell a shxthouse, like the one above us "Who is the ‘one above us’ ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After all they didn’t take a stand against human rights in Qatar in 2022. I truly believe if Blair with the help of his spin doctor Campbell hadn't entered us in to an illegal war which resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives and kicked a hornets nest in the middle east. Lineker would of been hosting MOTD last weekend. But then i see a picture this weekend with Lineker with his arms around Campbell with a beaming smile on his face.??? " The invasion would still have happened and the Middle East still politically upended. Campbell has a podcast created by Lineker's production company. How is there a connection between the invasion of Iraq and current UK Government immigration policy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After all they didn’t take a stand against human rights in Qatar in 2022. I truly believe if Blair with the help of his spin doctor Campbell hadn't entered us in to an illegal war which resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives and kicked a hornets nest in the middle east. Lineker would of been hosting MOTD last weekend. But then i see a picture this weekend with Lineker with his arms around Campbell with a beaming smile on his face.??? " What has war in Iraq got to do with Qatari human rights violations? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are paid very well to keep us distracted and to parrot the state narrative." Gary Lineker was questioning the state narrative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They are paid very well to keep us distracted and to parrot the state narrative. Gary Lineker was questioning the state narrative. " it's inception. Linekar is peddling the state's narrative to question the state's narrative so we don't notice all the other shit storms. Look ppl, we are staying 300 people entering ... Also Waves in a million people and makes it easier for a fair number more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. " He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. " you win,you have the moral highground | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. you win,you have the moral highground" What do I win? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. you win,you have the moral highground What do I win?" perhaps a knighthood,or even be made a saint, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. you win,you have the moral highground What do I win?perhaps a knighthood,or even be made a saint," Nah, neither would suit me. Still, good to know someone on fab has the power to grant such things to people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. you win,you have the moral highground What do I win?perhaps a knighthood,or even be made a saint, Nah, neither would suit me. Still, good to know someone on fab has the power to grant such things to people. " really,who's that ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. you win,you have the moral highground What do I win?perhaps a knighthood,or even be made a saint, Nah, neither would suit me. Still, good to know someone on fab has the power to grant such things to people. really,who's that ?" I feel like we've strayed from the theme of the thread too much. Back to Lineker? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. " Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. " What is the connection between criticising the dehumanising language used to describe a particular group of people and paying or not paying tax? How has someone not paying their tax affected the rate of immigration via small boats rising consistently under a party who has been in control of immigration policy for over a decade? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this "not exactly what you are after plus likely to have an element on board bit an interesting read. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/real-economic-cost-accepting-refugees I guess to flip the question, why wouldn't they ? What would stop them more than the average Brit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this not exactly what you are after plus likely to have an element on board bit an interesting read.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/real-economic-cost-accepting-refugees
I guess to flip the question, why wouldn't they ? What would stop them more than the average Brit? "Thanks for the link, which highlights what I was thinking although a US insight. The cost of housing temporarily, then more permanently, clothing and feeding for long periods of time will add up, I have no idea how much but the last news item on this I read, it was around 4.5k a month per person. If there are long periods of turn around that 6 months, 12 month well you can do the math. It would take a long time for them to balance that figure out and become positive. If they could generate a positive return quickly I would have thought the government would want them to stay, welcome them with open arms! Hence the original question | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this not exactly what you are after plus likely to have an element on board bit an interesting read.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/real-economic-cost-accepting-refugees
I guess to flip the question, why wouldn't they ? What would stop them more than the average Brit?
Thanks for the link, which highlights what I was thinking although a US insight.
The cost of housing temporarily, then more permanently, clothing and feeding for long periods of time will add up, I have no idea how much but the last news item on this I read, it was around 4.5k a month per person.
If there are long periods of turn around that 6 months, 12 month well you can do the math. It would take a long time for them to balance that figure out and become positive.
If they could generate a positive return quickly I would have thought the government would want them to stay, welcome them with open arms!
Hence the original question "The main cost of asylum seekers is from the delay in processing them as they are not allowed to work and must be in specific accommodation. After that there is no particular reason to believe that they would be any more costly than other immigrants who start in relatively low wage jobs. It is hard to find specific data though, which makes the general outrage about their "cost" all the more difficult to comprehend... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this "This is something I have asked in previous threads. I was looking for figures about those that arrive by small boat/dingy as opposed to being included with general immigration which may or may not sway the figures. So far no luck | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. " Only going to comment on your tax point. Rubbish! There is/was no shady tax arrangement. You clearly have zero understanding of IR35. Lineker is freelance. The last couple of weeks have made that abundantly clear. He is NOT an employee of the BBC. If HMRC have decided he is inside IR35 then it is the BBC that is at fault because the rules are that it is the responsibility of the hiring company to determine IR35 status. Therefore any tax liabilities should be paid by the BBC not Lineker. That is the dispute...who pays. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this meant to be satire? Look up Lineker's opening speech at the Qatar World Cup." Then reluctantly pocketed 1.6 million in protest. Money made from the exploited | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this
This is something I have asked in previous threads. I was looking for figures about those that arrive by small boat/dingy as opposed to being included with general immigration which may or may not sway the figures. So far no luck"Probably because it has been such a statistically tiny problem for so long that it just wasn't worthwhile. It's only in the last couple of years, under this Government, that it's become a matter worth spending any effort on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this meant to be satire? Look up Lineker's opening speech at the Qatar World Cup. Then reluctantly pocketed 1.6 million in protest. Money made from the exploited" Qatar paid Lineker? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this
This is something I have asked in previous threads. I was looking for figures about those that arrive by small boat/dingy as opposed to being included with general immigration which may or may not sway the figures. So far no luck"Why would it statistically be any different? Surely on average the exact same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this
This is something I have asked in previous threads. I was looking for figures about those that arrive by small boat/dingy as opposed to being included with general immigration which may or may not sway the figures. So far no luck
Probably because it has been such a statistically tiny problem for so long that it just wasn't worthwhile.
It's only in the last couple of years, under this Government, that it's become a matter worth spending any effort on."How long ago was it that the big issue was stow aways in lorries? Those entries were unknowns at the beginning, what happened to those that made crossings in the back of lorries in the early days, and what was the impact once it became a legal requirement to prove you could work in the uk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this
This is something I have asked in previous threads. I was looking for figures about those that arrive by small boat/dingy as opposed to being included with general immigration which may or may not sway the figures. So far no luck
Why would it statistically be any different?
Surely on average the exact same. "That is probably why the question is asked. If a person arrives here to work as a professional and through legal channels they will skew the figures if you put all arrivals into the same basket. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is this meant to be satire? Look up Lineker's opening speech at the Qatar World Cup. Then reluctantly pocketed 1.6 million in protest. Money made from the exploited Qatar paid Lineker?" no that was G Nevile | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. Only going to comment on your tax point. Rubbish! There is/was no shady tax arrangement. You clearly have zero understanding of IR35. Lineker is freelance. The last couple of weeks have made that abundantly clear. He is NOT an employee of the BBC. If HMRC have decided he is inside IR35 then it is the BBC that is at fault because the rules are that it is the responsibility of the hiring company to determine IR35 status. Therefore any tax liabilities should be paid by the BBC not Lineker. That is the dispute...who pays." Linekers Lawyers are actually arguing he was an employee and not freelance. 10 years ago he had to pay £5m because he used a tax avoidance scheme. The guy is not whiter than white. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. Only going to comment on your tax point. Rubbish! There is/was no shady tax arrangement. You clearly have zero understanding of IR35. Lineker is freelance. The last couple of weeks have made that abundantly clear. He is NOT an employee of the BBC. If HMRC have decided he is inside IR35 then it is the BBC that is at fault because the rules are that it is the responsibility of the hiring company to determine IR35 status. Therefore any tax liabilities should be paid by the BBC not Lineker. That is the dispute...who pays. Linekers Lawyers are actually arguing he was an employee and not freelance. 10 years ago he had to pay £5m because he used a tax avoidance scheme. The guy is not whiter than white." I'm sure they are arguing he's a contractor type. Anyway... Interesting a big deal about his tweets is happening now... The prelim started just a few weeks before this all kicked off. Handy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. Only going to comment on your tax point. Rubbish! There is/was no shady tax arrangement. You clearly have zero understanding of IR35. Lineker is freelance. The last couple of weeks have made that abundantly clear. He is NOT an employee of the BBC. If HMRC have decided he is inside IR35 then it is the BBC that is at fault because the rules are that it is the responsibility of the hiring company to determine IR35 status. Therefore any tax liabilities should be paid by the BBC not Lineker. That is the dispute...who pays. Linekers Lawyers are actually arguing he was an employee and not freelance. 10 years ago he had to pay £5m because he used a tax avoidance scheme. The guy is not whiter than white.I'm sure they are arguing he's a contractor type. Anyway... Interesting a big deal about his tweets is happening now... The prelim started just a few weeks before this all kicked off. Handy. " I think I'm mistaken. I read something and took it as gospel. Having done some further exploration it looks like what I've said is nonsense  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this "And me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this
And me."Have a look then. Is there a reason that there may be little to no data on theat specific topic? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. Only going to comment on your tax point. Rubbish! There is/was no shady tax arrangement. You clearly have zero understanding of IR35. Lineker is freelance. The last couple of weeks have made that abundantly clear. He is NOT an employee of the BBC. If HMRC have decided he is inside IR35 then it is the BBC that is at fault because the rules are that it is the responsibility of the hiring company to determine IR35 status. Therefore any tax liabilities should be paid by the BBC not Lineker. That is the dispute...who pays. Linekers Lawyers are actually arguing he was an employee and not freelance. 10 years ago he had to pay £5m because he used a tax avoidance scheme. The guy is not whiter than white.I'm sure they are arguing he's a contractor type. Anyway... Interesting a big deal about his tweets is happening now... The prelim started just a few weeks before this all kicked off. Handy. I think I'm mistaken. I read something and took it as gospel. Having done some further exploration it looks like what I've said is nonsense "Glad you said it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've always been a staunch defender of free speech so while I do not agree with Lineker, far far from it, he does have a right to say what he wants. Although he should think a bit first. Where I take do issue with him is the sheer hypocrisy of someone who is quick to virtue signal on a subject that is costing taxpayers many millions (if not billions) while he himself is in dispute with HMRC over more than 4 million in unpaid tax. The result of a rather shady tax avoidance scheme. Now just imagine what the usual suspects on here would be screaming if that was a Tory MP. He paid that off didn't he? Also, immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and tax collection. So overall isn't costing anything. And while avoiding tax is immoral in my opinion, it's unrelated to commenting on the rhetoric used by the government in relation to immigration. Although the government should look at processing time for asylum cases. It's increased horribly under their watch. Someone is making a fair wedge at our expense. Is that legal immigration has a net positive impact on the economy? Or are you including those that seek asylum too as you mention? I would be interested in the breakdown of this
This is something I have asked in previous threads. I was looking for figures about those that arrive by small boat/dingy as opposed to being included with general immigration which may or may not sway the figures. So far no luck
Why would it statistically be any different?
Surely on average the exact same.
That is probably why the question is asked. If a person arrives here to work as a professional and through legal channels they will skew the figures if you put all arrivals into the same basket."It is indeed why it's asked (from me anyway). They could be useful figures if they show that these people contribute as much as those arriving to specifically work, often in a certain sector. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler" Albania is war torn country then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then" Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran?" Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other." I know and certainly not denying that. But my point still stands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other." the Rwanda scheme applies to all tho doesn't it ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. the Rwanda scheme applies to all tho doesn't it ? " I believe so. The weird thing about that scheme is, the EU actually support its own Rwanda scheme and not a word is said about it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. the Rwanda scheme applies to all tho doesn't it ? I believe so. The weird thing about that scheme is, the EU actually support its own Rwanda scheme and not a word is said about it "is that the turkey one ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. the Rwanda scheme applies to all tho doesn't it ? I believe so. The weird thing about that scheme is, the EU actually support its own Rwanda scheme and not a word is said about it is that the turkey one ? "Libya, Turkey is a separate scheme where the EU pays them to hold onto refugees. 'Rwanda and the UN set up Gashora four years ago with the support of the EU to house refugees who had got stuck in Libya's civil war trying to make it across the Mediterranean.' It's not the same as the UK proposals but the UN take refugees from Libya and put them into Rwanda to process I believe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. the Rwanda scheme applies to all tho doesn't it ? I believe so. The weird thing about that scheme is, the EU actually support its own Rwanda scheme and not a word is said about it is that the turkey one ?
Libya, Turkey is a separate scheme where the EU pays them to hold onto refugees.
'Rwanda and the UN set up Gashora four years ago with the support of the EU to house refugees who had got stuck in Libya's civil war trying to make it across the Mediterranean.'
It's not the same as the UK proposals but the UN take refugees from Libya and put them into Rwanda to process I believe "it's a fair old trek, but yes, I agree that is what it looks like. And it looks like it's not one the EU set up to get rid of it's own problems*, but has helped support to help Africa tackle Libya issue specifically. (* The telegraph suggests it's to help with Mediterranean crossers, but the link to UNHCR does not come close to backing this up. Indeed it suggests the EU may be helping with take in ppl via resettlement.) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some forget that Denmark and Rwanda are looking for ways to establish a programme that would allow asylum seekers arriving in Denmark to be transferred to Rwanda for consideration of their asylum application. It is thought around 1,000 asylum seekers may be sent to Rwanda each year." here the thing, very few people think everything the EU (well its member states) do is always perfect. If the denamek scheme looks like the UK one, it's not a good scheme. The biggest question is whether it's a processing centre (with successdul applicants coming back to Denmark) or an end destination. The former I can partly buy. The latter (UK approach) is hard to swallow. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other." 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some forget that Denmark and Rwanda are looking for ways to establish a programme that would allow asylum seekers arriving in Denmark to be transferred to Rwanda for consideration of their asylum application. It is thought around 1,000 asylum seekers may be sent to Rwanda each year." Denmark suspended its negotiations with Rwanda, hasn't it? Looking to organise an EU wide system. They were going to be sent for processing anyway, not permanent deportation no matter what. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant." Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do." The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country?" What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? " If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? " A deterrent for those who are not legitimately seeking asylum maybe? Do you know anything about Rwanda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? " I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again "You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? A deterrent for those who are not legitimately seeking asylum maybe? Do you know anything about Rwanda? " Not much, so why is being sent to Rwanda a ‘deterrent’? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent "You replied, so the question: What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? A deterrent for those who are not legitimately seeking asylum maybe? Do you know anything about Rwanda? Not much, so why is being sent to Rwanda a ‘deterrent’? " How can you have an opinion if you don't know much? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
"Can you define a ‘new start’ ? Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? A deterrent for those who are not legitimately seeking asylum maybe? Do you know anything about Rwanda? Not much, so why is being sent to Rwanda a ‘deterrent’? How can you have an opinion if you don't know much?" How can sending people to Rwanda be a deterrent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36 "For balance, UK 8.75 out of 10 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country?" Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36 "You better go tell the UN and EU how appalling Rwanda's human rights score is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
You better go tell the UN and EU how appalling Rwanda's human rights score is."120th out of 165 countries, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
You better go tell the UN and EU how appalling Rwanda's human rights score is.
120th out of 165 countries, "To clarify that is human ‘freedoms ‘ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36 "How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?"Syria is the worst The uk is 8.75 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75 "And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK"That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania "In case you haven't read above - In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania "Do you think Rwanda would deter those people the Albanian ambassador claims are economic migrants and lying about modern day Slv to remain in the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other."Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
Do you think Rwanda would deter those people the Albanian ambassador claims are economic migrants and lying about modern day Slv to remain in the UK?
"It could deter some, I guess it depends how many are sent to Rwanda, up to now they haven’t sent anyone | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ? "I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Scenario = You are gay. It is declared illegal on pain of death to be homosexual (law been passed in Uganda, death sentence if you are gay). Could extend that to swinging and extra-marital sex. Where would you want to go for asylum? I suspect your choice would be influenced by language, previous national/colonial ties, family ties, perception of the country you want to go to. I reckon most of us would want to go to an English speaking country but what if Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ had no legal safe routes. Where would we go? How would we get there? Airlines are forbidden (and fined and then made at own expense to repatriate the passenger) for carrying passengers for anything other than their stated reason for travel. They will want proof of a visa for business or holiday purposes. So that rules out planes. Looks like a boat across to Ireland might be only option! But what if when you arrive and claim asylum the Irish authorities stick you on a plane to a country in another continent that doesn’t tick any of the reasons given above? What will you do then?" For me the argument doesn't really hold up. I escape the UK and get to a place of safety (illegally), said place decides I may have entered illegally so send me to another 'place of safety'. I'm still safe, if that's the reason I escaped then mission accomplished | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though"True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania ""The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK." You should read publications. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications."I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million "You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though "Ah ok, what is the correct number ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million "Of course some is vague. ALL is a lie. Especially if, as you say, they can only accommodate 1000. Maybe stop spouting lies and we could have better debates? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
Of course some is vague. ALL is a lie. Especially if, as you say, they can only accommodate 1000.
Maybe stop spouting lies and we could have better debates?"Lies? So how many can they send? I was under the impression that anyone arriving here illegally (by boat) would automatically be denied asylum and sent to Rwanda ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
Of course some is vague. ALL is a lie. Especially if, as you say, they can only accommodate 1000.
Maybe stop spouting lies and we could have better debates?
Lies? So how many can they send? I was under the impression that anyone arriving here illegally (by boat) would automatically be denied asylum and sent to Rwanda ? "You were under the impression. All. Can only accommodate 1000. All statements by yourself. Which one is it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ? "A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum. "The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though"The obsession with Albanians (not you feisty, everyone) is starting to feel like deflection. Why can’t Albanians be treated differently? As people have said it is not a warzone although I have no idea about minority group persecution. Surely the country of origin should play a major factor with the legitimacy of the asylum claim? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
The obsession with Albanians (not you feisty, everyone) is starting to feel like deflection. Why can’t Albanians be treated differently? As people have said it is not a warzone although I have no idea about minority group persecution. Surely the country of origin should play a major factor with the legitimacy of the asylum claim? "Work between the UK and Albania is underway to tackle the problem of such large numbers of Albanians crossing the channel. It is a problem because they need to be processed and housed and that is a huge impact on resource and time, which I hear many times as an attack on how poorly we are at processing times. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
The obsession with Albanians (not you feisty, everyone) is starting to feel like deflection. Why can’t Albanians be treated differently? As people have said it is not a warzone although I have no idea about minority group persecution. Surely the country of origin should play a major factor with the legitimacy of the asylum claim? "The country of origin should most definitely play a major factor. I thunk that's why people are obsessed by Albanians. Their own Minister says that they're are Albanians who pretend they're 'sl@ves', that cannot be ignored. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
"200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda "Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped" "Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200 "Perfect, don't let facts get in the way | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200
Perfect, don't let facts get in the way "Facts? How many is ‘uncapped’ or some ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200
Perfect, don't let facts get in the way
Facts? How many is ‘uncapped’ or some ? "Let's recap because I feel we have made some progress on understanding the situation but it is getting lost. You agree with Braverman that Rwanda could be a deterrent to those attempting the small boat crossings that are playing the system as per the Ambassadors comments.
You said you don't know much about Rwanda and the only reason you have provided to say Rwanda should not be a destination for those seeking asylum was poor human rights, but some countries people are leaving have a lower score than Rwanda.
The number of 1000 people Rwanda can take in was a mistake.
I'm not saying Rwanda is the best place in the world, however the UN is using Rwanda already to house and train migrants as been mentioned here by Feisty.
My question still stands:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200
Perfect, don't let facts get in the way
Facts? How many is ‘uncapped’ or some ?
Let's recap because I feel we have made some progress on understanding the situation but it is getting lost.
You agree with Braverman that Rwanda could be a deterrent to those attempting the small boat crossings that are playing the system as per the Ambassadors comments.
You said you don't know much about Rwanda and the only reason you have provided to say Rwanda should not be a destination for those seeking asylum was poor human rights, but some countries people are leaving have a lower score than Rwanda.
The number of 1000 people Rwanda can take in was a mistake.
I'm not saying Rwanda is the best place in the world, however the UN is using Rwanda already to house and train migrants as been mentioned here by Feisty.
My question still stands:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?"They have poor human rights To recap. The government created this ‘Rwanda scheme’ over a year ago Nobody has been sent to Rwanda Atm , they can only accommodate 200 people We don’t know how many can be sent in the future . And this is meant to be a deterrent? It isn’t young very well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200
Perfect, don't let facts get in the way
Facts? How many is ‘uncapped’ or some ?
Let's recap because I feel we have made some progress on understanding the situation but it is getting lost.
You agree with Braverman that Rwanda could be a deterrent to those attempting the small boat crossings that are playing the system as per the Ambassadors comments.
You said you don't know much about Rwanda and the only reason you have provided to say Rwanda should not be a destination for those seeking asylum was poor human rights, but some countries people are leaving have a lower score than Rwanda.
The number of 1000 people Rwanda can take in was a mistake.
I'm not saying Rwanda is the best place in the world, however the UN is using Rwanda already to house and train migrants as been mentioned here by Feisty.
My question still stands:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
They have poor human rights
To recap.
The government created this ‘Rwanda scheme’ over a year ago
Nobody has been sent to Rwanda
Atm , they can only accommodate 200 people
We don’t know how many can be sent in the future .
And this is meant to be a deterrent?
It isn’t young very well "Going  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200
Perfect, don't let facts get in the way
Facts? How many is ‘uncapped’ or some ?
Let's recap because I feel we have made some progress on understanding the situation but it is getting lost.
You agree with Braverman that Rwanda could be a deterrent to those attempting the small boat crossings that are playing the system as per the Ambassadors comments.
You said you don't know much about Rwanda and the only reason you have provided to say Rwanda should not be a destination for those seeking asylum was poor human rights, but some countries people are leaving have a lower score than Rwanda.
The number of 1000 people Rwanda can take in was a mistake.
I'm not saying Rwanda is the best place in the world, however the UN is using Rwanda already to house and train migrants as been mentioned here by Feisty.
My question still stands:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
They have poor human rights
To recap.
The government created this ‘Rwanda scheme’ over a year ago
Nobody has been sent to Rwanda
Atm , they can only accommodate 200 people
We don’t know how many can be sent in the future .
And this is meant to be a deterrent?
It isn’t young very well "Nothing to add then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200
Perfect, don't let facts get in the way
Facts? How many is ‘uncapped’ or some ?
Let's recap because I feel we have made some progress on understanding the situation but it is getting lost.
You agree with Braverman that Rwanda could be a deterrent to those attempting the small boat crossings that are playing the system as per the Ambassadors comments.
You said you don't know much about Rwanda and the only reason you have provided to say Rwanda should not be a destination for those seeking asylum was poor human rights, but some countries people are leaving have a lower score than Rwanda.
The number of 1000 people Rwanda can take in was a mistake.
I'm not saying Rwanda is the best place in the world, however the UN is using Rwanda already to house and train migrants as been mentioned here by Feisty.
My question still stands:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
They have poor human rights
To recap.
The government created this ‘Rwanda scheme’ over a year ago
Nobody has been sent to Rwanda
Atm , they can only accommodate 200 people
We don’t know how many can be sent in the future .
And this is meant to be a deterrent?
It isn’t young very well
Nothing to add then "Tbh, we can only continue this discussion when the first people are sent to Rwanda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200
Perfect, don't let facts get in the way
Facts? How many is ‘uncapped’ or some ?
Let's recap because I feel we have made some progress on understanding the situation but it is getting lost.
You agree with Braverman that Rwanda could be a deterrent to those attempting the small boat crossings that are playing the system as per the Ambassadors comments.
You said you don't know much about Rwanda and the only reason you have provided to say Rwanda should not be a destination for those seeking asylum was poor human rights, but some countries people are leaving have a lower score than Rwanda.
The number of 1000 people Rwanda can take in was a mistake.
I'm not saying Rwanda is the best place in the world, however the UN is using Rwanda already to house and train migrants as been mentioned here by Feisty.
My question still stands:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
They have poor human rights
To recap.
The government created this ‘Rwanda scheme’ over a year ago
Nobody has been sent to Rwanda
Atm , they can only accommodate 200 people
We don’t know how many can be sent in the future .
And this is meant to be a deterrent?
It isn’t young very well
Nothing to add then
Tbh, we can only continue this discussion when the first people are sent to Rwanda "This has had some purpose, in terms of the language being used by Braverman. If the emotion is taken out of the situation and the facts looked at for what they are, this scheme could work on many levels, there again it might not. The stumbling block is the language, if it is toned down the arguments against such measures would need to be focused on the facts and not the distraction of triggering language. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? I know I have double posted... You didn't answer the question again
You didn’t ask ‘me’ a question, Tbh I shouldn’t have interfered with the post and made a separate one but I am curious why they are using the threat (because let’s be honest they won’t be sending anyone) of deportation to Rwanda as a deterrent
You replied, so the question:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
Can you define a ‘new start’ ?
Rwanda has poor human rights, scoring 6.36
How does that score stack up against the countries people are fleeing from?
Syria is the worst
The uk is 8.75
And Albania are much much higher, not far away from the UK
That is correct, unfortunately not all those arriving by boat are from Albania
In case you haven't read above -
In 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other.
Yes, unfortunately not ‘all’ asylum seekers come from Albania, do you think Rwanda can house 15-20,000 Albanians ?
I haven't at any point said 'all' come from Albania, a lot of 'small boat' crossings contains Albanians though
True, but the current scheme is trying to send ‘all’ asylum seekers to Rwanda, not just those from Albania
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
You should read publications.
I have , the word ‘some ‘ is extremely vague . Anyway, they haven’t sent any , they can accommodate less than 1000, it has already cost £120 million
You have not read a lot of that is your summary... The number you have got was from a spokes person in Rwanda, who got it wrong, it hasn't stopped it becoming folk law though
Ah ok, what is the correct number ?
A direct quote from the home office questions on Rwanda asylum.
"The number of individuals who can be relocated to Rwanda under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership is uncapped. Rwanda has made initial provision to receive 200 people and has plans to scale up capacity once flights begin."
200? Wow , 46,000 arrived by boat last year, so if the scheme has been working they have a 1 in 230 chance of being sent to Rwanda
Oh dear, you seem to overlooked the word "uncapped"
Another ‘vague ‘ word, I am using the official figure of 200
Perfect, don't let facts get in the way
Facts? How many is ‘uncapped’ or some ?
Let's recap because I feel we have made some progress on understanding the situation but it is getting lost.
You agree with Braverman that Rwanda could be a deterrent to those attempting the small boat crossings that are playing the system as per the Ambassadors comments.
You said you don't know much about Rwanda and the only reason you have provided to say Rwanda should not be a destination for those seeking asylum was poor human rights, but some countries people are leaving have a lower score than Rwanda.
The number of 1000 people Rwanda can take in was a mistake.
I'm not saying Rwanda is the best place in the world, however the UN is using Rwanda already to house and train migrants as been mentioned here by Feisty.
My question still stands:
What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else?
They have poor human rights
To recap.
The government created this ‘Rwanda scheme’ over a year ago
Nobody has been sent to Rwanda
Atm , they can only accommodate 200 people
We don’t know how many can be sent in the future .
And this is meant to be a deterrent?
It isn’t young very well
Nothing to add then
Tbh, we can only continue this discussion when the first people are sent to Rwanda
This has had some purpose, in terms of the language being used by Braverman.
If the emotion is taken out of the situation and the facts looked at for what they are, this scheme could work on many levels, there again it might not.
The stumbling block is the language, if it is toned down the arguments against such measures would need to be focused on the facts and not the distraction of triggering language."True, but the language is deliberate and will be used as a defence if and when the scheme fails | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister?" I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate?" That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? What is the problem with sending a person who wants a new start to Rwanda? Is it because they might not want to go there? Is it something else? If Rwanda is a good place why are they using the threat of being sent there as a deterrent? " There are a range of reasons why people choose a given destination for seeking asylum. This has been covered any number of times on many threads and again on this one, by someone else. I won't reiterate them. One reason not often given is that countries may be picked because they want some level of certainty that having taken whatever risks they have that they will end up somewhere stable and not experience this again. With the best will in the world, a country which has experienced genocide thirty years ago and is not considered politically free is unlikely to provide that sense of security. If they wanted to go to Africa to claim asylum, I imagine they would have gone to Africa. The other irony is that as there are no safe and "legal" routes to apply for asylum the most lucrative criminal routes send people here, not to Rwanda. It is fair to ask why Rwanda should be considered a "deterrent" to those seeking asylum. Why do we want to "deter" people under threat? Do you have an answer? Is the actual message that we do not want anyone seeking asylum to come to the UK despite claiming to welcome them? There is no reason to not process those seeking asylum abroad. This would automatically exclude anyone not taking this route to the UK. Automatic return to the location where they can make their application nearest to their point of origin. We could even pay for accommodation and subsistence there until processing. If successful application can have language and orientation abroad and if integrated into the jobs and immigration system fill skilled and unskilled vacancies on arrival in the UK so immediately paying their way. People smuggling model broken. Why spend huge amounts of money exporting people to Rwanda and trashing our international reputation in the process? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought." What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought." All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate." He is correct the UK are not doing very well at identifying and understanding modern slvry. Here are a few things being setup to resolve this: Setting up a new unit staffed by 400 specialists to process Albanian cases Raising the threshold someone has to meet to be considered a victim of "modern slvery New guidance for case workers that Albania is a "safe country" Sending UK border officials to the airport in Tirana, the capital of Albania It is a lot of expense and effort don't you think? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. " So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted thr "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate. He is correct the UK are not doing very well at identifying and understanding modern slvry. Here are a few things being setup to resolve this: Setting up a new unit staffed by 400 specialists to process Albanian cases Raising the threshold someone has to meet to be considered a victim of "modern slvery New guidance for case workers that Albania is a "safe country" Sending UK border officials to the airport in Tirana, the capital of Albania It is a lot of expense and effort don't you think? " I'd that more or less than accommodating them here and then transporting and accommodating them in Rwanda? This wasn't even a problem until very recently, was it? We have been threatening hostile environments for years and deportations and using negative language for years. Has it helped? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted thr "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants..." You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate." You do not know what I wish to communicate because you choose to be deliberately obtuse rather than read what is being discussed. However, let's try address your points: You're first 4 paragraphs, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't you agree it's made much more difficult for the agencies when claimants don't have paperwork? I haven't said Rwanda will be able to do better. So Italy and Ireland accept a higher percentage, Ireland being very high. We're 3rd, only just behind Italy. That's only asylum claimants, what about the ones who disappear to work with friends? BTW, I personally know a fair few of them. They definitely exist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted thr "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. " He gets told that quite often. Won't listen though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted the "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. " If you make multiple statements without substance then how do they get tested without asking a question? I do attempt to answer any questions as directly as possible. You don't have to, not do you. The vibe I get is that it is awkward for you to answer as it does not help whatever argument you are trying to make when you have to respond to direct questions rather than just making a sweeping statement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted the "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. If you make multiple statements without substance then how do they get tested without asking a question? I do attempt to answer any questions as directly as possible. You don't have to, not do you. The vibe I get is that it is awkward for you to answer as it does not help whatever argument you are trying to make when you have to respond to direct questions rather than just making a sweeping statement." This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have asked the question of Rwanda in this part of the thread, what is wrong with it being used as a country that can house and look after those people who want / need to leave their homeland. I'm asking why people `re so dead against it, I still haven't heard a compelling reason either. The second element I have questioned is the facts and figures that are being used as the truth, such as Rwanda can only take 1000 people, that 50% of applicants are successful so there is a real modern day slvry issue, when our government and the ambassador are very clear people are playing the system. If simple questions such as the above are asked, the same people jump up with the same responses, implying the same underlying messages such as "if you don't want any asylum" it starts to border on finger pointing and feels that there is some hope you are pulling the covers off a racist.. Simple questions, but rarely a simple answer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate. You do not know what I wish to communicate because you choose to be deliberately obtuse rather than read what is being discussed. However, let's try address your points: You're first 4 paragraphs, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't you agree it's made much more difficult for the agencies when claimants don't have paperwork? I haven't said Rwanda will be able to do better. So Italy and Ireland accept a higher percentage, Ireland being very high. We're 3rd, only just behind Italy. That's only asylum claimants, what about the ones who disappear to work with friends? BTW, I personally know a fair few of them. They definitely exist." You may imagine that you communicate clearly. You really do not. You argue. The point that I originally made was that a small majority of Albanians who come here are granted asylum. The rest should be and are sent home. I have no reason to believe that these applications or those of any other nationality are incorrectly made. As far as I can tell you believe, that the UK is incapable of running a functioning immigration system with the implication that the grants of asylum are incorrectly made as are referrals to the modern sl@very unit. You have no evidence of this. Other countries seem to manage. Some people abscond and a large number are economic migrants, about which nobody has argued otherwise. You do not know how Rwanda solves any problems. You have no useful suggestions for improvements to anything. Gary Lineker does not really have anything to do with any of this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate. You do not know what I wish to communicate because you choose to be deliberately obtuse rather than read what is being discussed. However, let's try address your points: You're first 4 paragraphs, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't you agree it's made much more difficult for the agencies when claimants don't have paperwork? I haven't said Rwanda will be able to do better. So Italy and Ireland accept a higher percentage, Ireland being very high. We're 3rd, only just behind Italy. That's only asylum claimants, what about the ones who disappear to work with friends? BTW, I personally know a fair few of them. They definitely exist. You may imagine that you communicate clearly. You really do not. You argue. The point that I originally made was that a small majority of Albanians who come here are granted asylum. The rest should be and are sent home. I have no reason to believe that these applications or those of any other nationality are incorrectly made. As far as I can tell you believe, that the UK is incapable of running a functioning immigration system with the implication that the grants of asylum are incorrectly made as are referrals to the modern sl@very unit. You have no evidence of this. Other countries seem to manage. Some people abscond and a large number are economic migrants, about which nobody has argued otherwise. You do not know how Rwanda solves any problems. You have no useful suggestions for improvements to anything. Gary Lineker does not really have anything to do with any of this." You are just about the only person who can't understand what I'm saying. Is that me not communicating clearly or is that you not being able to comprehend other peoples views? I'm not the only person to tell you this, sometimes one should look in the mirror. Do you think there may be evidence in that ourselves, along with Italy and Ireland admit a far far higher percentage than any other country? You can claim this thread has been derailed, it has butbdont be pointing fingers when you're part of the problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted the "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. If you make multiple statements without substance then how do they get tested without asking a question? I do attempt to answer any questions as directly as possible. You don't have to, not do you. The vibe I get is that it is awkward for you to answer as it does not help whatever argument you are trying to make when you have to respond to direct questions rather than just making a sweeping statement. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have asked the question of Rwanda in this part of the thread, what is wrong with it being used as a country that can house and look after those people who want / need to leave their homeland. I'm asking why people `re so dead against it, I still haven't heard a compelling reason either. The second element I have questioned is the facts and figures that are being used as the truth, such as Rwanda can only take 1000 people, that 50% of applicants are successful so there is a real modern day slvry issue, when our government and the ambassador are very clear people are playing the system. If simple questions such as the above are asked, the same people jump up with the same responses, implying the same underlying messages such as "if you don't want any asylum" it starts to border on finger pointing and feels that there is some hope you are pulling the covers off a racist.. Simple questions, but rarely a simple answer " I answered you directly about Rwanda. Here it is again: "There are a range of reasons why people choose a given destination for seeking asylum. This has been covered any number of times on many threads and again on this one, by someone else. I won't reiterate them. One reason not often given is that countries may be picked because they want some level of certainty that having taken whatever risks they have that they will end up somewhere stable and not experience this again. With the best will in the world, a country which has experienced genocide thirty years ago and is not considered politically free is unlikely to provide that sense of security. If they wanted to go to Africa to claim asylum, I imagine they would have gone to Africa. The other irony is that as there are no safe and "legal" routes to apply for asylum the most lucrative criminal routes send people here, not to Rwanda. It is fair to ask why Rwanda should be considered a "deterrent" to those seeking asylum. Why do we want to "deter" people under threat? Do you have an answer? Is the actual message that we do not want anyone seeking asylum to come to the UK despite claiming to welcome them? There is no reason to not process those seeking asylum abroad. This would automatically exclude anyone not taking this route to the UK. Automatic return to the location where they can make their application nearest to their point of origin. We could even pay for accommodation and subsistence there until processing. If successful application can have language and orientation abroad and if integrated into the jobs and immigration system fill skilled and unskilled vacancies on arrival in the UK so immediately paying their way. People smuggling model broken. Why spend huge amounts of money exporting people to Rwanda and trashing our international reputation in the process?" I also answered the question about modern day sl@very. If you don't like the level of referrals (about 13%) then you can question the efficacy of the process used. The staff must be stupid, incompetent or corrupt to be getting it so wrong compared to what our Government and Albanian politicians and diplomats say. If you have some other data that confirms your beliefs then please feel free to share. Why are you talking about racism now? Get a grip! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate. You do not know what I wish to communicate because you choose to be deliberately obtuse rather than read what is being discussed. However, let's try address your points: You're first 4 paragraphs, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't you agree it's made much more difficult for the agencies when claimants don't have paperwork? I haven't said Rwanda will be able to do better. So Italy and Ireland accept a higher percentage, Ireland being very high. We're 3rd, only just behind Italy. That's only asylum claimants, what about the ones who disappear to work with friends? BTW, I personally know a fair few of them. They definitely exist. You may imagine that you communicate clearly. You really do not. You argue. The point that I originally made was that a small majority of Albanians who come here are granted asylum. The rest should be and are sent home. I have no reason to believe that these applications or those of any other nationality are incorrectly made. As far as I can tell you believe, that the UK is incapable of running a functioning immigration system with the implication that the grants of asylum are incorrectly made as are referrals to the modern sl@very unit. You have no evidence of this. Other countries seem to manage. Some people abscond and a large number are economic migrants, about which nobody has argued otherwise. You do not know how Rwanda solves any problems. You have no useful suggestions for improvements to anything. Gary Lineker does not really have anything to do with any of this. You are just about the only person who can't understand what I'm saying. Is that me not communicating clearly or is that you not being able to comprehend other peoples views? I'm not the only person to tell you this, sometimes one should look in the mirror. Do you think there may be evidence in that ourselves, along with Italy and Ireland admit a far far higher percentage than any other country? You can claim this thread has been derailed, it has butbdont be pointing fingers when you're part of the problem "So I have summarised what you have been communicating correctly with the addition that you also believe that Italy and Ireland have dysfunctional asylum assessment processes. If not just write what you mean in plain English rather than having me guess as I am so dim. Alternatively don't and just keep arguing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate. You do not know what I wish to communicate because you choose to be deliberately obtuse rather than read what is being discussed. However, let's try address your points: You're first 4 paragraphs, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't you agree it's made much more difficult for the agencies when claimants don't have paperwork? I haven't said Rwanda will be able to do better. So Italy and Ireland accept a higher percentage, Ireland being very high. We're 3rd, only just behind Italy. That's only asylum claimants, what about the ones who disappear to work with friends? BTW, I personally know a fair few of them. They definitely exist. You may imagine that you communicate clearly. You really do not. You argue. The point that I originally made was that a small majority of Albanians who come here are granted asylum. The rest should be and are sent home. I have no reason to believe that these applications or those of any other nationality are incorrectly made. As far as I can tell you believe, that the UK is incapable of running a functioning immigration system with the implication that the grants of asylum are incorrectly made as are referrals to the modern sl@very unit. You have no evidence of this. Other countries seem to manage. Some people abscond and a large number are economic migrants, about which nobody has argued otherwise. You do not know how Rwanda solves any problems. You have no useful suggestions for improvements to anything. Gary Lineker does not really have anything to do with any of this. You are just about the only person who can't understand what I'm saying. Is that me not communicating clearly or is that you not being able to comprehend other peoples views? I'm not the only person to tell you this, sometimes one should look in the mirror. Do you think there may be evidence in that ourselves, along with Italy and Ireland admit a far far higher percentage than any other country? You can claim this thread has been derailed, it has butbdont be pointing fingers when you're part of the problem
So I have summarised what you have been communicating correctly with the addition that you also believe that Italy and Ireland have dysfunctional asylum assessment processes.
If not just write what you mean in plain English rather than having me guess as I am so dim.
Alternatively don't and just keep arguing." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate. You do not know what I wish to communicate because you choose to be deliberately obtuse rather than read what is being discussed. However, let's try address your points: You're first 4 paragraphs, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't you agree it's made much more difficult for the agencies when claimants don't have paperwork? I haven't said Rwanda will be able to do better. So Italy and Ireland accept a higher percentage, Ireland being very high. We're 3rd, only just behind Italy. That's only asylum claimants, what about the ones who disappear to work with friends? BTW, I personally know a fair few of them. They definitely exist. You may imagine that you communicate clearly. You really do not. You argue. The point that I originally made was that a small majority of Albanians who come here are granted asylum. The rest should be and are sent home. I have no reason to believe that these applications or those of any other nationality are incorrectly made. As far as I can tell you believe, that the UK is incapable of running a functioning immigration system with the implication that the grants of asylum are incorrectly made as are referrals to the modern sl@very unit. You have no evidence of this. Other countries seem to manage. Some people abscond and a large number are economic migrants, about which nobody has argued otherwise. You do not know how Rwanda solves any problems. You have no useful suggestions for improvements to anything. Gary Lineker does not really have anything to do with any of this. You are just about the only person who can't understand what I'm saying. Is that me not communicating clearly or is that you not being able to comprehend other peoples views? I'm not the only person to tell you this, sometimes one should look in the mirror. Do you think there may be evidence in that ourselves, along with Italy and Ireland admit a far far higher percentage than any other country? You can claim this thread has been derailed, it has butbdont be pointing fingers when you're part of the problem
So I have summarised what you have been communicating correctly with the addition that you also believe that Italy and Ireland have dysfunctional asylum assessment processes.
If not just write what you mean in plain English rather than having me guess as I am so dim.
Alternatively don't and just keep arguing.
"Talk about the pot calling the kettle | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted the "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. If you make multiple statements without substance then how do they get tested without asking a question? I do attempt to answer any questions as directly as possible. You don't have to, not do you. The vibe I get is that it is awkward for you to answer as it does not help whatever argument you are trying to make when you have to respond to direct questions rather than just making a sweeping statement. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have asked the question of Rwanda in this part of the thread, what is wrong with it being used as a country that can house and look after those people who want / need to leave their homeland. I'm asking why people `re so dead against it, I still haven't heard a compelling reason either. The second element I have questioned is the facts and figures that are being used as the truth, such as Rwanda can only take 1000 people, that 50% of applicants are successful so there is a real modern day slvry issue, when our government and the ambassador are very clear people are playing the system. If simple questions such as the above are asked, the same people jump up with the same responses, implying the same underlying messages such as "if you don't want any asylum" it starts to border on finger pointing and feels that there is some hope you are pulling the covers off a racist.. Simple questions, but rarely a simple answer I answered you directly about Rwanda. Here it is again: "There are a range of reasons why people choose a given destination for seeking asylum. This has been covered any number of times on many threads and again on this one, by someone else. I won't reiterate them. One reason not often given is that countries may be picked because they want some level of certainty that having taken whatever risks they have that they will end up somewhere stable and not experience this again. With the best will in the world, a country which has experienced genocide thirty years ago and is not considered politically free is unlikely to provide that sense of security. If they wanted to go to Africa to claim asylum, I imagine they would have gone to Africa. The other irony is that as there are no safe and "legal" routes to apply for asylum the most lucrative criminal routes send people here, not to Rwanda. It is fair to ask why Rwanda should be considered a "deterrent" to those seeking asylum. Why do we want to "deter" people under threat? Do you have an answer? Is the actual message that we do not want anyone seeking asylum to come to the UK despite claiming to welcome them? There is no reason to not process those seeking asylum abroad. This would automatically exclude anyone not taking this route to the UK. Automatic return to the location where they can make their application nearest to their point of origin. We could even pay for accommodation and subsistence there until processing. If successful application can have language and orientation abroad and if integrated into the jobs and immigration system fill skilled and unskilled vacancies on arrival in the UK so immediately paying their way. People smuggling model broken. Why spend huge amounts of money exporting people to Rwanda and trashing our international reputation in the process?" I also answered the question about modern day sl@very. If you don't like the level of referrals (about 13%) then you can question the efficacy of the process used. The staff must be stupid, incompetent or corrupt to be getting it so wrong compared to what our Government and Albanian politicians and diplomats say. If you have some other data that confirms your beliefs then please feel free to share. Why are you talking about racism now? Get a grip!" I read it the last time and you have provided nothing to say why Rwanda is not a suitable place for people to be given a fresh start. You mention the genocide 30 years ago, what is Rwanda like today, if it is not a good fit why are the UN using them to rehouse, train and ready refugees? Going onto the the numbers of people being granted entry to the UK. The government, border control are not managing the numbers, far too many people arriving with no documentation and making the process drag on, and then people complain processing is taking to long... The numbers are skewed by incompetence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. All you have stated is that, without any direct knowledge, you believe that our process of assessing asylum does not function. The UK cannot tell who is and who is not most likely to be under threat in their own country. For some reason you are also implying that the UK is even worse in being able to do this with respect to Albanians. You also continue to talk about modern sl@very and seem to think that the UK is also incapable of making an assessment about this. Effectively you appear to be saying that the UK is just incapable of making any vaguely sensible decisions about immigration status. Is that correct? Why will Rwanda be able to do what you think that we cannot? Italy and Ireland admit a higher proportion than we do and most EU countries seem to be able to make decisions far faster than the UK. I still do not know what you wish to communicate. You do not know what I wish to communicate because you choose to be deliberately obtuse rather than read what is being discussed. However, let's try address your points: You're first 4 paragraphs, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Wouldn't you agree it's made much more difficult for the agencies when claimants don't have paperwork? I haven't said Rwanda will be able to do better. So Italy and Ireland accept a higher percentage, Ireland being very high. We're 3rd, only just behind Italy. That's only asylum claimants, what about the ones who disappear to work with friends? BTW, I personally know a fair few of them. They definitely exist. You may imagine that you communicate clearly. You really do not. You argue. The point that I originally made was that a small majority of Albanians who come here are granted asylum. The rest should be and are sent home. I have no reason to believe that these applications or those of any other nationality are incorrectly made. As far as I can tell you believe, that the UK is incapable of running a functioning immigration system with the implication that the grants of asylum are incorrectly made as are referrals to the modern sl@very unit. You have no evidence of this. Other countries seem to manage. Some people abscond and a large number are economic migrants, about which nobody has argued otherwise. You do not know how Rwanda solves any problems. You have no useful suggestions for improvements to anything. Gary Lineker does not really have anything to do with any of this. You are just about the only person who can't understand what I'm saying. Is that me not communicating clearly or is that you not being able to comprehend other peoples views? I'm not the only person to tell you this, sometimes one should look in the mirror. Do you think there may be evidence in that ourselves, along with Italy and Ireland admit a far far higher percentage than any other country? You can claim this thread has been derailed, it has butbdont be pointing fingers when you're part of the problem
So I have summarised what you have been communicating correctly with the addition that you also believe that Italy and Ireland have dysfunctional asylum assessment processes.
If not just write what you mean in plain English rather than having me guess as I am so dim.
Alternatively don't and just keep arguing.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle "That's you told! Now stop arguing and go and sit on the naughty step | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted the "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. If you make multiple statements without substance then how do they get tested without asking a question? I do attempt to answer any questions as directly as possible. You don't have to, not do you. The vibe I get is that it is awkward for you to answer as it does not help whatever argument you are trying to make when you have to respond to direct questions rather than just making a sweeping statement. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have asked the question of Rwanda in this part of the thread, what is wrong with it being used as a country that can house and look after those people who want / need to leave their homeland. I'm asking why people `re so dead against it, I still haven't heard a compelling reason either. The second element I have questioned is the facts and figures that are being used as the truth, such as Rwanda can only take 1000 people, that 50% of applicants are successful so there is a real modern day slvry issue, when our government and the ambassador are very clear people are playing the system. If simple questions such as the above are asked, the same people jump up with the same responses, implying the same underlying messages such as "if you don't want any asylum" it starts to border on finger pointing and feels that there is some hope you are pulling the covers off a racist.. Simple questions, but rarely a simple answer I answered you directly about Rwanda. Here it is again: "There are a range of reasons why people choose a given destination for seeking asylum. This has been covered any number of times on many threads and again on this one, by someone else. I won't reiterate them. One reason not often given is that countries may be picked because they want some level of certainty that having taken whatever risks they have that they will end up somewhere stable and not experience this again. With the best will in the world, a country which has experienced genocide thirty years ago and is not considered politically free is unlikely to provide that sense of security. If they wanted to go to Africa to claim asylum, I imagine they would have gone to Africa. The other irony is that as there are no safe and "legal" routes to apply for asylum the most lucrative criminal routes send people here, not to Rwanda. It is fair to ask why Rwanda should be considered a "deterrent" to those seeking asylum. Why do we want to "deter" people under threat? Do you have an answer? Is the actual message that we do not want anyone seeking asylum to come to the UK despite claiming to welcome them? There is no reason to not process those seeking asylum abroad. This would automatically exclude anyone not taking this route to the UK. Automatic return to the location where they can make their application nearest to their point of origin. We could even pay for accommodation and subsistence there until processing. If successful application can have language and orientation abroad and if integrated into the jobs and immigration system fill skilled and unskilled vacancies on arrival in the UK so immediately paying their way. People smuggling model broken. Why spend huge amounts of money exporting people to Rwanda and trashing our international reputation in the process?" I also answered the question about modern day sl@very. If you don't like the level of referrals (about 13%) then you can question the efficacy of the process used. The staff must be stupid, incompetent or corrupt to be getting it so wrong compared to what our Government and Albanian politicians and diplomats say. If you have some other data that confirms your beliefs then please feel free to share. Why are you talking about racism now? Get a grip! I read it the last time and you have provided nothing to say why Rwanda is not a suitable place for people to be given a fresh start. You mention the genocide 30 years ago, what is Rwanda like today, if it is not a good fit why are the UN using them to rehouse, train and ready refugees? Going onto the the numbers of people being granted entry to the UK. The government, border control are not managing the numbers, far too many people arriving with no documentation and making the process drag on, and then people complain processing is taking to long... The numbers are skewed by incompetence. " I hear about those without any documents too but no idea what percentage turn up without documents. I can understand some may not have them but if it's a high percentage then possibly its by design. Of course deliberately discarding them just before getting to the UK would only make their application unnecessary long when it need not be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted the "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. If you make multiple statements without substance then how do they get tested without asking a question? I do attempt to answer any questions as directly as possible. You don't have to, not do you. The vibe I get is that it is awkward for you to answer as it does not help whatever argument you are trying to make when you have to respond to direct questions rather than just making a sweeping statement. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have asked the question of Rwanda in this part of the thread, what is wrong with it being used as a country that can house and look after those people who want / need to leave their homeland. I'm asking why people `re so dead against it, I still haven't heard a compelling reason either. The second element I have questioned is the facts and figures that are being used as the truth, such as Rwanda can only take 1000 people, that 50% of applicants are successful so there is a real modern day slvry issue, when our government and the ambassador are very clear people are playing the system. If simple questions such as the above are asked, the same people jump up with the same responses, implying the same underlying messages such as "if you don't want any asylum" it starts to border on finger pointing and feels that there is some hope you are pulling the covers off a racist.. Simple questions, but rarely a simple answer I answered you directly about Rwanda. Here it is again: "There are a range of reasons why people choose a given destination for seeking asylum. This has been covered any number of times on many threads and again on this one, by someone else. I won't reiterate them. One reason not often given is that countries may be picked because they want some level of certainty that having taken whatever risks they have that they will end up somewhere stable and not experience this again. With the best will in the world, a country which has experienced genocide thirty years ago and is not considered politically free is unlikely to provide that sense of security. If they wanted to go to Africa to claim asylum, I imagine they would have gone to Africa. The other irony is that as there are no safe and "legal" routes to apply for asylum the most lucrative criminal routes send people here, not to Rwanda. It is fair to ask why Rwanda should be considered a "deterrent" to those seeking asylum. Why do we want to "deter" people under threat? Do you have an answer? Is the actual message that we do not want anyone seeking asylum to come to the UK despite claiming to welcome them? There is no reason to not process those seeking asylum abroad. This would automatically exclude anyone not taking this route to the UK. Automatic return to the location where they can make their application nearest to their point of origin. We could even pay for accommodation and subsistence there until processing. If successful application can have language and orientation abroad and if integrated into the jobs and immigration system fill skilled and unskilled vacancies on arrival in the UK so immediately paying their way. People smuggling model broken. Why spend huge amounts of money exporting people to Rwanda and trashing our international reputation in the process?" I also answered the question about modern day sl@very. If you don't like the level of referrals (about 13%) then you can question the efficacy of the process used. The staff must be stupid, incompetent or corrupt to be getting it so wrong compared to what our Government and Albanian politicians and diplomats say. If you have some other data that confirms your beliefs then please feel free to share. Why are you talking about racism now? Get a grip! I read it the last time and you have provided nothing to say why Rwanda is not a suitable place for people to be given a fresh start. You mention the genocide 30 years ago, what is Rwanda like today, if it is not a good fit why are the UN using them to rehouse, train and ready refugees? Going onto the the numbers of people being granted entry to the UK. The government, border control are not managing the numbers, far too many people arriving with no documentation and making the process drag on, and then people complain processing is taking to long... The numbers are skewed by incompetence. " Someone fleeing a country and wanting to make a secure future for themselves and their family might feel safer in a country that has not suffered from genocide in recent memory, don't you think? Also being forcibly deported from a country that you came to for safety is not exactly welcoming. Possibly even traumatising. Are you saying that nobody should be be able to seek asylum in the UK any more? If so, just say so. Otherwise, what's the reason? We will still be paying to deport them and to maintain them, won't we? Are the UN doing what you say? I was under the impression that Rwanda bordered unstable countries and that's where refugees found themselves. The UNHCR are therefore offering help and support there. I do not believe that they are shipping people in especially. Do you have information to the contrary? I have not argued that the immigration process is not under-resourced. Do you have any information at all to indicate that they are making incorrect asylum decisions as a consequence? If anything it seems that more are granted under appeal. Are people seeking asylum and economic migrants the same in your mind? To be treated in the same way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we are being honest here what he said wasn’t overstepping the mark. Sullas comments I felt were worse than his. He was defending the right of migrants to escape war torn countries, she was actually starting to sound like hitler Albania is war torn country then Are all asylum seekers from Albania then? None from Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran? Tbf in 2022 the UK had more Asylum Seekers of Albanian nationality than any other. 53% of Albanians are granted asylum of which the majority are women and children with the highest number referred for modern sl@very. Asylum is not granted only to refugees. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-63473022 Tightening the rules on asylum not making a blind bit of difference to irregular immigration except for punishing those who actually need it. All after many years of rhetoric whilst having exactly the opposite outcome to that promised whilst spending more and more money and sounding more and more unpleasant. Did you read that article?? Just 13% were referred. 53% were accepted meaning 47% were not. The UK also accepted a significantly higher % of Albanian claimants than all other countries with the exception of Ireland. On 7 December 2022, Qirjako Qirko - the Albanian ambassador to the UK - told MPs that some Albanian migrants come to the UK to seek out business opportunities. He also claimed that some "pretended" to be victims of modern slav ery. Speaking before the same committee, Balkans expert Andi Hoxhaj estimated that around 40% of people leave Albania for "economic opportunities". This is an Albanian Minister, he probably knows better than we do. The UK is assessing if there are modern slvery victims or not. I assume our system is robust enough to distinguish them, right? That's why only 13% were referred. That is the highest proportion of any nationality referred. I did read the article and that's what I stated. I didn't say that 47% should not have been deported, did I? I haven't said that economic migrants should be accepted, have I? So, the question is, should those granted asylum have been sent to Rwanda or sent back in your opinion? Only Albanians or from any country? Do you know whow many they've assessed already? Is it 13% are sl@ves and the other 87% to be assessed? You're making a big deal about sl@ves but don't actually have the data to back it. Are we just ignoring the Albanian Minister? I haven't made a "big deal" out of anything. I just stated some of the available information in response to the implication that asylum is only sought by refugees from war and the implication that large numbers of Albanians implied that they were automatically false applicants. Slightly more than half of the Albanians travelling here irregularly are granted asylum and more than any other nationality are thought to be victims of modern sl@very and are referred accordingly regardless of what the Albanian Minister has said. Chinese Ministers say that Uighurs and Tibetans are not mistreated in any way. So? Albanians who do not qualify are sent back or do not apply for asylum at all. They should not have come. What that tells me is that by the UKs own assessment a surprisingly large number of Albanians (predominantly women and children) have a valid reason to flee their country (for a reason other than war) and are more likely than others to be victims of modern sl@very. I made that point and stated as much. What do you wish to communicate? That tells you what you want it to tell you. Is just over half really a surprisingly 'large' number? I could easily say that the UK are 'surprisingly soft' on Albanians in particular seeing as we accept a fair higher percentage than any other country. The minister says they falsely claim they are 'sl@ves', you really don't think that some of these people know how to game the system? If so, you really are more naive than even I thought. What I'm starting to see as a common theme is people holding onto the tiniest thread of information to make out that that everything is being proven to be legitimate with those making illegal boat crossings. No effort at all to discuss a more realistic picture of the situation, and you are right it does feel that some are either naive or deliberately burying the truth for their own narrative. So, again how is over 50% of (just) Albanian asylum applications being granted the "tiniest thread"? Do you think that the UK is unable to make an assessment on the legitimacy of an asylum application and therefore no asylum application is acceptable? How does someone make an application for asylum from outside the UK? Do you not want anyone to apply for asylum at all? If so, just say and do not conflate it with economic migrants who nobody is supporting the admittance of. What "truth" is being buried? Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda. Why apply this to those who are genuinely seeking asylum? Why not provide a safe route so that they do not have to travel at all until processed? Why demonise those on need to deter the chancers? I guess we do it with our own welfare claimants... You ask so many questions in such a way that I read you as ranting. You probably aren't but it is a vibe I'm getting... I feel you have lost the thread in terms of understanding what is being said by who and what is meant by whom. I'm not going to answer your questions because they are the same questions you always ask and to be honest if you took 5 minutes to consider what I have written it would answer most of what you ask. If you make multiple statements without substance then how do they get tested without asking a question? I do attempt to answer any questions as directly as possible. You don't have to, not do you. The vibe I get is that it is awkward for you to answer as it does not help whatever argument you are trying to make when you have to respond to direct questions rather than just making a sweeping statement. This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have asked the question of Rwanda in this part of the thread, what is wrong with it being used as a country that can house and look after those people who want / need to leave their homeland. I'm asking why people `re so dead against it, I still haven't heard a compelling reason either. The second element I have questioned is the facts and figures that are being used as the truth, such as Rwanda can only take 1000 people, that 50% of applicants are successful so there is a real modern day slvry issue, when our government and the ambassador are very clear people are playing the system. If simple questions such as the above are asked, the same people jump up with the same responses, implying the same underlying messages such as "if you don't want any asylum" it starts to border on finger pointing and feels that there is some hope you are pulling the covers off a racist.. Simple questions, but rarely a simple answer I answered you directly about Rwanda. Here it is again: "There are a range of reasons why people choose a given destination for seeking asylum. This has been covered any number of times on many threads and again on this one, by someone else. I won't reiterate them. One reason not often given is that countries may be picked because they want some level of certainty that having taken whatever risks they have that they will end up somewhere stable and not experience this again. With the best will in the world, a country which has experienced genocide thirty years ago and is not considered politically free is unlikely to provide that sense of security. If they wanted to go to Africa to claim asylum, I imagine they would have gone to Africa. The other irony is that as there are no safe and "legal" routes to apply for asylum the most lucrative criminal routes send people here, not to Rwanda. It is fair to ask why Rwanda should be considered a "deterrent" to those seeking asylum. Why do we want to "deter" people under threat? Do you have an answer? Is the actual message that we do not want anyone seeking asylum to come to the UK despite claiming to welcome them? There is no reason to not process those seeking asylum abroad. This would automatically exclude anyone not taking this route to the UK. Automatic return to the location where they can make their application nearest to their point of origin. We could even pay for accommodation and subsistence there until processing. If successful application can have language and orientation abroad and if integrated into the jobs and immigration system fill skilled and unskilled vacancies on arrival in the UK so immediately paying their way. People smuggling model broken. Why spend huge amounts of money exporting people to Rwanda and trashing our international reputation in the process?" I also answered the question about modern day sl@very. If you don't like the level of referrals (about 13%) then you can question the efficacy of the process used. The staff must be stupid, incompetent or corrupt to be getting it so wrong compared to what our Government and Albanian politicians and diplomats say. If you have some other data that confirms your beliefs then please feel free to share. Why are you talking about racism now? Get a grip! I read it the last time and you have provided nothing to say why Rwanda is not a suitable place for people to be given a fresh start. You mention the genocide 30 years ago, what is Rwanda like today, if it is not a good fit why are the UN using them to rehouse, train and ready refugees? Going onto the the numbers of people being granted entry to the UK. The government, border control are not managing the numbers, far too many people arriving with no documentation and making the process drag on, and then people complain processing is taking to long... The numbers are skewed by incompetence. Someone fleeing a country and wanting to make a secure future for themselves and their family might feel safer in a country that has not suffered from genocide in recent memory, don't you think? Also being forcibly deported from a country that you came to for safety is not exactly welcoming. Possibly even traumatising. Are you saying that nobody should be be able to seek asylum in the UK any more? If so, just say so. Otherwise, what's the reason? We will still be paying to deport them and to maintain them, won't we? Are the UN doing what you say? I was under the impression that Rwanda bordered unstable countries and that's where refugees found themselves. The UNHCR are therefore offering help and support there. I do not believe that they are shipping people in especially. Do you have information to the contrary? I have not argued that the immigration process is not under-resourced. Do you have any information at all to indicate that they are making incorrect asylum decisions as a consequence? If anything it seems that more are granted under appeal. Are people seeking asylum and economic migrants the same in your mind? To be treated in the same way?" You are again making up scenarios to suit your argument, or simply rambling. Pointless having a discussion if you can't recognise that you are formulating your responses based on the answers you expect. I'm rather disappointed you are unwilling to consider anything other than your own position. I'm also not sure if you can't accept alternative points of view or if you simply don't understand them, which would make a lot of sense. Your words "Some people are falsely claiming asylum. Send them home. I don't necessarily mind sending them to Rwanda" My words, "what is wrong with Rwanda as a place for people wanting a fresh start" You arguing with yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would suggest not deliberately discarding them just before getting to the UK would only make their application fail ". spot on that man! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would suggest not deliberately discarding them just before getting to the UK would only make their application fail
. spot on that man! "Deliberately discarding or taken from them? Both situations more than likely aren't they? Will you celebrate that too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would suggest not deliberately discarding them just before getting to the UK would only make their application fail "Do we know how many of them do this ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would suggest not deliberately discarding them just before getting to the UK would only make their application fail
Do we know how many of them do this ? "Around 98% A freedom of information request that shows the number of people crossing month on month since Jan 2018 to June 2021 with no documentation was 98%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would suggest not deliberately discarding them just before getting to the UK would only make their application fail
Do we know how many of them do this ?
Around 98%
A freedom of information request that shows the number of people crossing month on month since Jan 2018 to June 2021 with no documentation was 98%.
"If those numbers are correct in 2022 too, and approx 45k people made the journey I can understand why there is such a backlog in processing approx 441k people with no ID. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
