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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sending Cleverley out to Rwanda to sign a new deal might not be the best idea Hope he doesn't call it a shit hole " Rwanda will welcome them in if they are hard-working. There is a big Asian community in Kigali running , small, supermarkets, primarily. Told me the quality of life is far better than it was in the UK. I doubt they will want your Syrian, gangsters , traffickers and pimps | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sending Cleverley out to Rwanda to sign a new deal might not be the best idea Hope he doesn't call it a shit hole Rwanda will welcome them in if they are hard-working. There is a big Asian community in Kigali running , small, supermarkets, primarily. Told me the quality of life is far better than it was in the UK. I doubt they will want your Syrian, gangsters , traffickers and pimps " As part of the current deal Rwanda can send people here , so they might send us their gangsters , traffickers and pimps The first plane from The UK to Rwanda may not be returning empty | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The guy is playing you & the media big time. He knows exactly how immigration works, he’s from a culture, who are experts at it. And he also knows exactly why immigration is so important to the UK if it will have any standing in the future as a modern flourishing economy, it has to do immigration on a big scale. So 670,000 more people came to the UK last year than left. That’s a big number why didn’t he just do the right thing like other countries do and fix a percentage you want in (1.5% seems to be the right number to get the benefits, but limit the impact on nationals ) and then a points based system? No, of course he won’t do that. Here’s what he will do instead. 1/ Raise the salary limit for skilled visa to £38,700. That’s a pitiful wage for a high skilled person. About £2,500 after tax? The equivalent of a UAE skilled visa minimum is £7500 take home pay per month. That’s how you ensure you get the best global talent into your country. 2/ Limit family members coming. Sounds great doesn’t it? But then he quietly excludes healthcare, which is the sector seeing the most migration from south & Southeast Asia. The numbers are crazy. Why ? Why do women with degrees want to come and work in healthcare in the UK ? because once they’re in , they are in for life, not many countries offer, this , they can bring the whole family in and they will be able to get healthcare for the old folks and all the kids can go to school. Sunak knows this he is not stupid to the immigration of the healthcare workforce 3/ healthcare surcharge increase of 66%. It’s currently sat at £1000 per year., so will rise to about £1650. It’s still far too low. A family health care package should cost your employer about £10,000 a year Sunak knows exactly what he’s doing, so you can expect another 670,000 in next year" I dont think you're quite right here. I think you are mistaking students and refugees for the skilled workers system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lovely bits of casual racism there. A culture who are experts at it. Bringing the whole family in. Leaving that to one side. I am not sure if you are pro or anti immigration as taking in 1.5% of the UK population, as you suggest, is just over a million people. While we can expect another amount similar to last year that is about 300 thousand less than under your plan. While I am loathe to defend Sunak I'm sure he can do basic percentages before suggesting policy that increases a big number even further. " I’m racist? Be real. I’m a realist. Have a lot of respect for cultures that excel at economic migration, if my kids couldn’t get access to health care education I wouldn’t think twice of the shift into a country with free stuff like the uk I’m pro immigration. I’m anti lying politicians who think the electorate are dumb. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The guy is playing you & the media big time. He knows exactly how immigration works, he’s from a culture, who are experts at it. And he also knows exactly why immigration is so important to the UK if it will have any standing in the future as a modern flourishing economy, it has to do immigration on a big scale. So 670,000 more people came to the UK last year than left. That’s a big number why didn’t he just do the right thing like other countries do and fix a percentage you want in (1.5% seems to be the right number to get the benefits, but limit the impact on nationals ) and then a points based system? No, of course he won’t do that. Here’s what he will do instead. 1/ Raise the salary limit for skilled visa to £38,700. That’s a pitiful wage for a high skilled person. About £2,500 after tax? The equivalent of a UAE skilled visa minimum is £7500 take home pay per month. That’s how you ensure you get the best global talent into your country. 2/ Limit family members coming. Sounds great doesn’t it? But then he quietly excludes healthcare, which is the sector seeing the most migration from south & Southeast Asia. The numbers are crazy. Why ? Why do women with degrees want to come and work in healthcare in the UK ? because once they’re in , they are in for life, not many countries offer, this , they can bring the whole family in and they will be able to get healthcare for the old folks and all the kids can go to school. Sunak knows this he is not stupid to the immigration of the healthcare workforce 3/ healthcare surcharge increase of 66%. It’s currently sat at £1000 per year., so will rise to about £1650. It’s still far too low. A family health care package should cost your employer about £10,000 a year Sunak knows exactly what he’s doing, so you can expect another 670,000 in next year I dont think you're quite right here. I think you are mistaking students and refugees for the skilled workers system. " No, I read all the 5 changes in full that are passed & responses ti questions on them . There is one related to students & asylum seekers , these three 3 measures are related to workers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lovely bits of casual racism there. A culture who are experts at it. Bringing the whole family in. Leaving that to one side. I am not sure if you are pro or anti immigration as taking in 1.5% of the UK population, as you suggest, is just over a million people. While we can expect another amount similar to last year that is about 300 thousand less than under your plan. While I am loathe to defend Sunak I'm sure he can do basic percentages before suggesting policy that increases a big number even further. I’m racist? Be real. I’m a realist. Have a lot of respect for cultures that excel at economic migration, if my kids couldn’t get access to health care education I wouldn’t think twice of the shift into a country with free stuff like the uk I’m pro immigration. I’m anti lying politicians who think the electorate are dumb. " So you do want the immigration numbers to be going up? So why are all your other points about limiting migration with bigger fees and points based stuff that would only bring them down? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lovely bits of casual racism there. A culture who are experts at it. Bringing the whole family in. Leaving that to one side. I am not sure if you are pro or anti immigration as taking in 1.5% of the UK population, as you suggest, is just over a million people. While we can expect another amount similar to last year that is about 300 thousand less than under your plan. While I am loathe to defend Sunak I'm sure he can do basic percentages before suggesting policy that increases a big number even further. I’m racist? Be real. I’m a realist. Have a lot of respect for cultures that excel at economic migration, if my kids couldn’t get access to health care education I wouldn’t think twice of the shift into a country with free stuff like the uk I’m pro immigration. I’m anti lying politicians who think the electorate are dumb. So you do want the immigration numbers to be going up? So why are all your other points about limiting migration with bigger fees and points based stuff that would only bring them down? " Are you suggesting that being pro immigration means you want the net figures to increase? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lovely bits of casual racism there. A culture who are experts at it. Bringing the whole family in. Leaving that to one side. I am not sure if you are pro or anti immigration as taking in 1.5% of the UK population, as you suggest, is just over a million people. While we can expect another amount similar to last year that is about 300 thousand less than under your plan. While I am loathe to defend Sunak I'm sure he can do basic percentages before suggesting policy that increases a big number even further. I’m racist? Be real. I’m a realist. Have a lot of respect for cultures that excel at economic migration, if my kids couldn’t get access to health care education I wouldn’t think twice of the shift into a country with free stuff like the uk I’m pro immigration. I’m anti lying politicians who think the electorate are dumb. So you do want the immigration numbers to be going up? So why are all your other points about limiting migration with bigger fees and points based stuff that would only bring them down? Are you suggesting that being pro immigration means you want the net figures to increase?" That's what I'm trying to find out. He started going on about the numbers coming in being big numbers, then suggested a % which is bigger, then put a few points to reduce the numbers coming in. I don't know what his point is or what he is suggesting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The guy is playing you & the media big time. He knows exactly how immigration works, he’s from a culture, who are experts at it. And he also knows exactly why immigration is so important to the UK if it will have any standing in the future as a modern flourishing economy, it has to do immigration on a big scale. So 670,000 more people came to the UK last year than left. That’s a big number why didn’t he just do the right thing like other countries do and fix a percentage you want in (1.5% seems to be the right number to get the benefits, but limit the impact on nationals ) and then a points based system? No, of course he won’t do that. Here’s what he will do instead. 1/ Raise the salary limit for skilled visa to £38,700. That’s a pitiful wage for a high skilled person. About £2,500 after tax? The equivalent of a UAE skilled visa minimum is £7500 take home pay per month. That’s how you ensure you get the best global talent into your country. 2/ Limit family members coming. Sounds great doesn’t it? But then he quietly excludes healthcare, which is the sector seeing the most migration from south & Southeast Asia. The numbers are crazy. Why ? Why do women with degrees want to come and work in healthcare in the UK ? because once they’re in , they are in for life, not many countries offer, this , they can bring the whole family in and they will be able to get healthcare for the old folks and all the kids can go to school. Sunak knows this he is not stupid to the immigration of the healthcare workforce 3/ healthcare surcharge increase of 66%. It’s currently sat at £1000 per year., so will rise to about £1650. It’s still far too low. A family health care package should cost your employer about £10,000 a year Sunak knows exactly what he’s doing, so you can expect another 670,000 in next year I dont think you're quite right here. I think you are mistaking students and refugees for the skilled workers system. No, I read all the 5 changes in full that are passed & responses ti questions on them . There is one related to students & asylum seekers , these three 3 measures are related to workers" I am talking of your numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 2/ Limit family members coming. Sounds great doesn’t it? But then he quietly excludes healthcare, which is the sector seeing the most migration from south & Southeast Asia. The numbers are crazy. " From what I read, dependents were NOT allowed specifically for care workers who have a lower salary threshold. Is that not the case? " they will be able to get healthcare for the old folks and all the kids can go to school. " In general, dependent visas are not given for parents. Only kids and spouse can get dependent visas. Again, I think dependents aren't going to be allowed at all for care workers. | |||
(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 |
"Well it's high time SOMETHING was done. If your house was getting burgled every single day for 15 years, you'd be thought a simpleton for doing nothing. So why is our country and it's borders any different." Because we're not being burgled. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why the other week the court said they don't trust Rwanda to not deport people back to their original country despite assurances. But now just a quick treaty makes Rwanda believable in legal terms. If it is really as simple as that why did the government not do this before the court case. To me it seems to go round in circles in the legal system" That's the legislative system people vote for along with the legislative forms.   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change" The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why the other week the court said they don't trust Rwanda to not deport people back to their original country despite assurances. But now just a quick treaty makes Rwanda believable in legal terms. If it is really as simple as that why did the government not do this before the court case. To me it seems to go round in circles in the legal system" It's not guaranteed that this will be enough. My ameteur take is the concerns are deeper than the strength of the agreement. After all isn't it part of a treaty they are already in yet are said to break. Why would this treaty be stronger? Now there may be devil in the detail of the protections. Eg we accept Rwanda can't be trusted so put on failsafes. I think that's what the various panels may do. Why didn't they do this earlier ? Pass. It could be that they threw a lightweight MoU out to see where the SC challenged so only patched holes they needed to. Or it could have been arrogance that they'd win the case. Or they didn't care. This is about newspaper headlines not actual results. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going." What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter." was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why the other week the court said they don't trust Rwanda to not deport people back to their original country despite assurances. But now just a quick treaty makes Rwanda believable in legal terms. If it is really as simple as that why did the government not do this before the court case. To me it seems to go round in circles in the legal system It's not guaranteed that this will be enough. My ameteur take is the concerns are deeper than the strength of the agreement. After all isn't it part of a treaty they are already in yet are said to break. Why would this treaty be stronger? Now there may be devil in the detail of the protections. Eg we accept Rwanda can't be trusted so put on failsafes. I think that's what the various panels may do. Why didn't they do this earlier ? Pass. It could be that they threw a lightweight MoU out to see where the SC challenged so only patched holes they needed to. Or it could have been arrogance that they'd win the case. Or they didn't care. This is about newspaper headlines not actual results. " Thank you. It does seem odd that if this cobbled together treaty is enough that they did not do it earlier. That said, your comment about seeing what the SC find fault with and only fixing those concerns could prove to be accurate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter.was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? " Strange question off the back of my question….. any thoughts on my original question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As part of the "new" deal , what is the ratio of people being flown from UK to Rwanda , against the people being flown from Rwanda to The UK ? " There is no ratio. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why the other week the court said they don't trust Rwanda to not deport people back to their original country despite assurances. But now just a quick treaty makes Rwanda believable in legal terms. If it is really as simple as that why did the government not do this before the court case. To me it seems to go round in circles in the legal system It's not guaranteed that this will be enough. My ameteur take is the concerns are deeper than the strength of the agreement. After all isn't it part of a treaty they are already in yet are said to break. Why would this treaty be stronger? Now there may be devil in the detail of the protections. Eg we accept Rwanda can't be trusted so put on failsafes. I think that's what the various panels may do. Why didn't they do this earlier ? Pass. It could be that they threw a lightweight MoU out to see where the SC challenged so only patched holes they needed to. Or it could have been arrogance that they'd win the case. Or they didn't care. This is about newspaper headlines not actual results. Thank you. It does seem odd that if this cobbled together treaty is enough that they did not do it earlier. That said, your comment about seeing what the SC find fault with and only fixing those concerns could prove to be accurate. " It was actually in discussion quite a while back when this case was ongoing. I did mention it in s previous thread that the uk was already in discussions with rwnada should it go against the gov. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""In 2022/23, more than 40% of all new nurses registered with the NMC (domestic and international) came from low and lower middle income countries (using World Bank classification), up from 10% in 2018." If we stop lower paid healthcare workers from coming, we need a plan to replace them. That would mean paying UK people more to train. Which would probably need tax raises. I'd be all for that, I suspect many people wouldn't. " There are different rules and agreements in place for nhs workers vs visas for private sector. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter.was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? Strange question off the back of my question….. any thoughts on my original question?" you mean a question about the original topic? Just trying to link the two. I'm trying to work out why you introduced the boats into a thread. I'm happy to concede that it's probably those on work visas that are keeping the economy growing so are probably the ones that they are talking about. Possibly students too via spending. That's about 700k. Refugees funnily enough don't tend to be as economicly positive. Also, that number is 25k. That's not Liverpool sized numbers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why the other week the court said they don't trust Rwanda to not deport people back to their original country despite assurances. But now just a quick treaty makes Rwanda believable in legal terms. If it is really as simple as that why did the government not do this before the court case. To me it seems to go round in circles in the legal system It's not guaranteed that this will be enough. My ameteur take is the concerns are deeper than the strength of the agreement. After all isn't it part of a treaty they are already in yet are said to break. Why would this treaty be stronger? Now there may be devil in the detail of the protections. Eg we accept Rwanda can't be trusted so put on failsafes. I think that's what the various panels may do. Why didn't they do this earlier ? Pass. It could be that they threw a lightweight MoU out to see where the SC challenged so only patched holes they needed to. Or it could have been arrogance that they'd win the case. Or they didn't care. This is about newspaper headlines not actual results. Thank you. It does seem odd that if this cobbled together treaty is enough that they did not do it earlier. That said, your comment about seeing what the SC find fault with and only fixing those concerns could prove to be accurate. It was actually in discussion quite a while back when this case was ongoing. I did mention it in s previous thread that the uk was already in discussions with rwnada should it go against the gov." can you see this going all the way back to the SC ? (Does it have to start again or does it go straight there?) I suspect more legal challenges and can see this not finishing before a GE. Part of me wonders if that's the plan. Keep it on life support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter." Small boats are around 40k. The rest of the number are here filling jobs. The other 700k people we are pulling in to do the jobs we need to pay taxes and keep the public services and pensions going. Small boats make up 5% of the number but are the ones the government highlight all the time. Do not let them confuse you by making you think the small boats make up the bigger percentage when they don't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why the other week the court said they don't trust Rwanda to not deport people back to their original country despite assurances. But now just a quick treaty makes Rwanda believable in legal terms. If it is really as simple as that why did the government not do this before the court case. To me it seems to go round in circles in the legal system It's not guaranteed that this will be enough. My ameteur take is the concerns are deeper than the strength of the agreement. After all isn't it part of a treaty they are already in yet are said to break. Why would this treaty be stronger? Now there may be devil in the detail of the protections. Eg we accept Rwanda can't be trusted so put on failsafes. I think that's what the various panels may do. Why didn't they do this earlier ? Pass. It could be that they threw a lightweight MoU out to see where the SC challenged so only patched holes they needed to. Or it could have been arrogance that they'd win the case. Or they didn't care. This is about newspaper headlines not actual results. Thank you. It does seem odd that if this cobbled together treaty is enough that they did not do it earlier. That said, your comment about seeing what the SC find fault with and only fixing those concerns could prove to be accurate. It was actually in discussion quite a while back when this case was ongoing. I did mention it in s previous thread that the uk was already in discussions with rwnada should it go against the gov." can you see this going all the way back to the SC ? (Does it have to start again or does it go straight there?) I suspect more legal challenges and can see this not finishing before a GE. Part of me wonders if that's the plan. Keep it on life support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The guy is playing you & the media big time. He knows exactly how immigration works, he’s from a culture, who are experts at it. And he also knows exactly why immigration is so important to the UK if it will have any standing in the future as a modern flourishing economy, it has to do immigration on a big scale. So 670,000 more people came to the UK last year than left. That’s a big number why didn’t he just do the right thing like other countries do and fix a percentage you want in (1.5% seems to be the right number to get the benefits, but limit the impact on nationals ) and then a points based system? No, of course he won’t do that. Here’s what he will do instead. 1/ Raise the salary limit for skilled visa to £38,700. That’s a pitiful wage for a high skilled person. About £2,500 after tax? The equivalent of a UAE skilled visa minimum is £7500 take home pay per month. That’s how you ensure you get the best global talent into your country. 2/ Limit family members coming. Sounds great doesn’t it? But then he quietly excludes healthcare, which is the sector seeing the most migration from south & Southeast Asia. The numbers are crazy. Why ? Why do women with degrees want to come and work in healthcare in the UK ? because once they’re in , they are in for life, not many countries offer, this , they can bring the whole family in and they will be able to get healthcare for the old folks and all the kids can go to school. Sunak knows this he is not stupid to the immigration of the healthcare workforce 3/ healthcare surcharge increase of 66%. It’s currently sat at £1000 per year., so will rise to about £1650. It’s still far too low. A family health care package should cost your employer about £10,000 a year Sunak knows exactly what he’s doing, so you can expect another 670,000 in next year" Not just Asia we have friends in Zimbabwe and people are coming from there as well towork in health care. Then bring the family. Working in Zimbabwe is $10 a day the only thing that is slowing the flow is the cost of living crisis. As its harder to make it work on minimum wage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter.was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? Strange question off the back of my question….. any thoughts on my original question?you mean a question about the original topic? Just trying to link the two. I'm trying to work out why you introduced the boats into a thread. I'm happy to concede that it's probably those on work visas that are keeping the economy growing so are probably the ones that they are talking about. Possibly students too via spending. That's about 700k. Refugees funnily enough don't tend to be as economicly positive. Also, that number is 25k. That's not Liverpool sized numbers. " You think it is only people who have arrived to work on visas that are keeping the UK economy alive? I would like to understand how you arrived at that view, same for they poster that suggested this in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As part of the "new" deal , what is the ratio of people being flown from UK to Rwanda , against the people being flown from Rwanda to The UK ? There is no ratio." so we could have more people coming from Rwanda to The UK than go from The UK to Rwanda ,??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter.was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? Strange question off the back of my question….. any thoughts on my original question?you mean a question about the original topic? Just trying to link the two. I'm trying to work out why you introduced the boats into a thread. I'm happy to concede that it's probably those on work visas that are keeping the economy growing so are probably the ones that they are talking about. Possibly students too via spending. That's about 700k. Refugees funnily enough don't tend to be as economicly positive. Also, that number is 25k. That's not Liverpool sized numbers. You think it is only people who have arrived to work on visas that are keeping the UK economy alive? I would like to understand how you arrived at that view, same for they poster that suggested this in the first place. " I didn't say alive. I said growing. That may have been an absolute statement that needed to be softened. It contributes to the growth. Productivity is a large part. Happy to correct. To flip it, would you see out economy being better or worse with nil immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter.was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? Strange question off the back of my question….. any thoughts on my original question?you mean a question about the original topic? Just trying to link the two. I'm trying to work out why you introduced the boats into a thread. I'm happy to concede that it's probably those on work visas that are keeping the economy growing so are probably the ones that they are talking about. Possibly students too via spending. That's about 700k. Refugees funnily enough don't tend to be as economicly positive. Also, that number is 25k. That's not Liverpool sized numbers. You think it is only people who have arrived to work on visas that are keeping the UK economy alive? I would like to understand how you arrived at that view, same for they poster that suggested this in the first place. " Growth comes from 2 places. 1. Increased productivity. 2. More people. Productivity has been flat in this country for around a decade. This leaves us with the only growth coming from immigration. As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why the other week the court said they don't trust Rwanda to not deport people back to their original country despite assurances. But now just a quick treaty makes Rwanda believable in legal terms. If it is really as simple as that why did the government not do this before the court case. To me it seems to go round in circles in the legal system It's not guaranteed that this will be enough. My ameteur take is the concerns are deeper than the strength of the agreement. After all isn't it part of a treaty they are already in yet are said to break. Why would this treaty be stronger? Now there may be devil in the detail of the protections. Eg we accept Rwanda can't be trusted so put on failsafes. I think that's what the various panels may do. Why didn't they do this earlier ? Pass. It could be that they threw a lightweight MoU out to see where the SC challenged so only patched holes they needed to. Or it could have been arrogance that they'd win the case. Or they didn't care. This is about newspaper headlines not actual results. Thank you. It does seem odd that if this cobbled together treaty is enough that they did not do it earlier. That said, your comment about seeing what the SC find fault with and only fixing those concerns could prove to be accurate. It was actually in discussion quite a while back when this case was ongoing. I did mention it in s previous thread that the uk was already in discussions with rwnada should it go against the gov.can you see this going all the way back to the SC ? (Does it have to start again or does it go straight there?) I suspect more legal challenges and can see this not finishing before a GE. Part of me wonders if that's the plan. Keep it on life support. " If the plan addresses the supreme courts doubts then maybe As I said chapter 13 should have addressed this. But the SC in its infinite wisdom decided it didn't. It will now seemingly be uk judges presiding over any case of a further deportation of a former uk asylum seeker. So I would think the SC would only be involved if a uk judge agreed Rwanda could deport a migrant. That was my brief understanding from a radio discussion but I've bot seen tbe full agreement | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As part of the "new" deal , what is the ratio of people being flown from UK to Rwanda , against the people being flown from Rwanda to The UK ? There is no ratio. so we could have more people coming from Rwanda to The UK than go from The UK to Rwanda ,???" No | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter.was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? Strange question off the back of my question….. any thoughts on my original question?you mean a question about the original topic? Just trying to link the two. I'm trying to work out why you introduced the boats into a thread. I'm happy to concede that it's probably those on work visas that are keeping the economy growing so are probably the ones that they are talking about. Possibly students too via spending. That's about 700k. Refugees funnily enough don't tend to be as economicly positive. Also, that number is 25k. That's not Liverpool sized numbers. You think it is only people who have arrived to work on visas that are keeping the UK economy alive? I would like to understand how you arrived at that view, same for they poster that suggested this in the first place. Growth comes from 2 places. 1. Increased productivity. 2. More people. Productivity has been flat in this country for around a decade. This leaves us with the only growth coming from immigration. As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner." Growth indeed comes from productivity. And productivity is reduced by cheap labour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The guy is playing you & the media big time. He knows exactly how immigration works, he’s from a culture, who are experts at it. And he also knows exactly why immigration is so important to the UK if it will have any standing in the future as a modern flourishing economy, it has to do immigration on a big scale. So 670,000 more people came to the UK last year than left. That’s a big number why didn’t he just do the right thing like other countries do and fix a percentage you want in (1.5% seems to be the right number to get the benefits, but limit the impact on nationals ) and then a points based system? No, of course he won’t do that. Here’s what he will do instead. 1/ Raise the salary limit for skilled visa to £38,700. That’s a pitiful wage for a high skilled person. About £2,500 after tax? The equivalent of a UAE skilled visa minimum is £7500 take home pay per month. That’s how you ensure you get the best global talent into your country. 2/ Limit family members coming. Sounds great doesn’t it? But then he quietly excludes healthcare, which is the sector seeing the most migration from south & Southeast Asia. The numbers are crazy. Why ? Why do women with degrees want to come and work in healthcare in the UK ? because once they’re in , they are in for life, not many countries offer, this , they can bring the whole family in and they will be able to get healthcare for the old folks and all the kids can go to school. Sunak knows this he is not stupid to the immigration of the healthcare workforce 3/ healthcare surcharge increase of 66%. It’s currently sat at £1000 per year., so will rise to about £1650. It’s still far too low. A family health care package should cost your employer about £10,000 a year Sunak knows exactly what he’s doing, so you can expect another 670,000 in next year" Healthcare and social care workers were exempt from the minimum wage rules… but NOT from being allowed to bring in dependents … they won’t be allowed from next April | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Jenrick gone; no confidence in Sunak Braverman gone; no confidence in Sunak This going nowhere anytime soon " It's just going in circles and unless they somehow get this scheme in place really quickly and it actually shows results then Sunak might struggle to get to the GE. If it drags on and only gets done just before the GE then it's pointless as Labour will simply scrap it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The guy is playing you & the media big time. He knows exactly how immigration works, he’s from a culture, who are experts at it. And he also knows exactly why immigration is so important to the UK if it will have any standing in the future as a modern flourishing economy, it has to do immigration on a big scale. So 670,000 more people came to the UK last year than left. That’s a big number why didn’t he just do the right thing like other countries do and fix a percentage you want in (1.5% seems to be the right number to get the benefits, but limit the impact on nationals ) and then a points based system? No, of course he won’t do that. Here’s what he will do instead. 1/ Raise the salary limit for skilled visa to £38,700. That’s a pitiful wage for a high skilled person. About £2,500 after tax? The equivalent of a UAE skilled visa minimum is £7500 take home pay per month. That’s how you ensure you get the best global talent into your country. 2/ Limit family members coming. Sounds great doesn’t it? But then he quietly excludes healthcare, which is the sector seeing the most migration from south & Southeast Asia. The numbers are crazy. Why ? Why do women with degrees want to come and work in healthcare in the UK ? because once they’re in , they are in for life, not many countries offer, this , they can bring the whole family in and they will be able to get healthcare for the old folks and all the kids can go to school. Sunak knows this he is not stupid to the immigration of the healthcare workforce 3/ healthcare surcharge increase of 66%. It’s currently sat at £1000 per year., so will rise to about £1650. It’s still far too low. A family health care package should cost your employer about £10,000 a year Sunak knows exactly what he’s doing, so you can expect another 670,000 in next year" I expect the mass movement of people is not helping the poorer countries either. Surely they also need care workers, doctors and nurses too. Is it right that after failing to train enough of its own people the the UK strips poorer countries of their staff? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Jenrick gone; no confidence in Sunak Braverman gone; no confidence in Sunak This going nowhere anytime soon " he just needs to get a bill passed that says not withstanding the evidence, he's a good PM.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter.was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? Strange question off the back of my question….. any thoughts on my original question?you mean a question about the original topic? Just trying to link the two. I'm trying to work out why you introduced the boats into a thread. I'm happy to concede that it's probably those on work visas that are keeping the economy growing so are probably the ones that they are talking about. Possibly students too via spending. That's about 700k. Refugees funnily enough don't tend to be as economicly positive. Also, that number is 25k. That's not Liverpool sized numbers. You think it is only people who have arrived to work on visas that are keeping the UK economy alive? I would like to understand how you arrived at that view, same for they poster that suggested this in the first place. Growth comes from 2 places. 1. Increased productivity. 2. More people. Productivity has been flat in this country for around a decade. This leaves us with the only growth coming from immigration. As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner." Overall GDP increases with the number of people, but GDP per person hasn’t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wont be long when we will have to build a city the size of liverpool, its all pee and wind the masses will still come till economy collapses completley its all a load of hot air ,nothing will change The amount of immigration is the only thing giving us any form of growth and keeping the economy going. What type of immigration, controlled and people with skills the country needs? Or are you suggesting those arriving by small boat are the ones keeping the economy going? Interested in the detail if it is the latter.was anything announced about humanitarian migration ? Strange question off the back of my question….. any thoughts on my original question?you mean a question about the original topic? Just trying to link the two. I'm trying to work out why you introduced the boats into a thread. I'm happy to concede that it's probably those on work visas that are keeping the economy growing so are probably the ones that they are talking about. Possibly students too via spending. That's about 700k. Refugees funnily enough don't tend to be as economicly positive. Also, that number is 25k. That's not Liverpool sized numbers. You think it is only people who have arrived to work on visas that are keeping the UK economy alive? I would like to understand how you arrived at that view, same for they poster that suggested this in the first place. Growth comes from 2 places. 1. Increased productivity. 2. More people. Productivity has been flat in this country for around a decade. This leaves us with the only growth coming from immigration. As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner. Overall GDP increases with the number of people, but GDP per person hasn’t." GDP is a crap measure. GDP per capita isn't too much better. We can increase the GDP capita by sendind all the telephone sanitisers off on an ark. But any frood who knows where his towel is, knows that's gonna end badly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner." I think people with British passport can bring dependents irrespective of their earnings. It's only people with work visas who have the earnings limit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner. I think people with British passport can bring dependents irrespective of their earnings. It's only people with work visas who have the earnings limit" I've not looked enough at this but have seen threads that suggest it applies. Eg from independent Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner. I think people with British passport can bring dependents irrespective of their earnings. It's only people with work visas who have the earnings limitI've not looked enough at this but have seen threads that suggest it applies. Eg from independent Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said." It is household income I believe. So if both are working full time it shouldn't be a problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Sunak et al in this govt are so convinced that the Rawanda plan is "the will of the people " why wont they put it to the people in the form of an election?" What the actual  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner. I think people with British passport can bring dependents irrespective of their earnings. It's only people with work visas who have the earnings limitI've not looked enough at this but have seen threads that suggest it applies. Eg from independent Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said. It is household income I believe. So if both are working full time it shouldn't be a problem." Sorry that is not correct. It is if the Brit earns less than 38k then the partner can't stay on a visa. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Sunak et al in this govt are so convinced that the Rawanda plan is "the will of the people " why wont they put it to the people in the form of an election?" If you give them ideas like that, they'll win the 2024 GE against all the odds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. " So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Sunak et al in this govt are so convinced that the Rawanda plan is "the will of the people " why wont they put it to the people in the form of an election?" The sceptic in me thinks that maybe what he is thinking of. If he gets the scheme up and running (highly unlikely, I know) then he will claim success. If however it is blocked but only blocked by outside courts / human rights type organization then I think he will make it a British sovereignty of parliament versus foreign courts, battle type of thing and use it heavily in the GE. Boris used get brexit done so rishi may use get the boats stopped. Just a thought though, nothing more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable)." Under the tories its got worse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. " Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?" what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As an aside the spousal visa thing means that only the top 25% of earners can afford to fall in love with a foreigner. I think people with British passport can bring dependents irrespective of their earnings. It's only people with work visas who have the earnings limitI've not looked enough at this but have seen threads that suggest it applies. Eg from independent Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said. It is household income I believe. So if both are working full time it shouldn't be a problem. Sorry that is not correct. It is if the Brit earns less than 38k then the partner can't stay on a visa. " https://www.gov.uk/uk-family-visa/proof-income Has the old figures but clearly states combined income. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. " No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. " and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I've asked on many threads, and no-one seems to have the answer, what's stopping the UK directly copying the Australian model???" points or asylum model ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I've asked on many threads, and no-one seems to have the answer, what's stopping the UK directly copying the Australian model???points or asylum model ?" Both | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I've asked on many threads, and no-one seems to have the answer, what's stopping the UK directly copying the Australian model???points or asylum model ? Both " assumption here is tej point system is successful at limiting migration. Its at 450k from what I can see. Which feels higher per capita. Of course we can set a higher point score. But at some point we need to accept that has consequences too. We want our bars and coffee shops and affordable NHS. But not pay for it. On refugees, Rwanda feels closest to PNG approach. However PNG don't seem to have the same issues with processing cases appropriately. Australia also have managed to get agreements with many countries to support turnbacks. The UK would need an agreement with France. However we don't have much in tje way of negoting power here. I suspect money is needed. Which is why albamoa system worked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I've asked on many threads, and no-one seems to have the answer, what's stopping the UK directly copying the Australian model???points or asylum model ? Both assumption here is tej point system is successful at limiting migration. Its at 450k from what I can see. Which feels higher per capita. Of course we can set a higher point score. But at some point we need to accept that has consequences too. We want our bars and coffee shops and affordable NHS. But not pay for it. On refugees, Rwanda feels closest to PNG approach. However PNG don't seem to have the same issues with processing cases appropriately. Australia also have managed to get agreements with many countries to support turnbacks. The UK would need an agreement with France. However we don't have much in tje way of negoting power here. I suspect money is needed. Which is why albamoa system worked. " I think you're over complicating the issue which standard practice in the UK. The Aussie model can be cut and pasted if the political will is there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said." Most of the staff at my friends business earn no where near that. So ramping up their overseas workers pay to meet that threshold is going to cause massive ill-will amongst the national staff. To meet that uplift in pay, 33%, he would need to charge families he provides services for an extra £429 / week for those overseas staff. This "plan" is dead in the water. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I've asked on many threads, and no-one seems to have the answer, what's stopping the UK directly copying the Australian model???points or asylum model ? Both assumption here is tej point system is successful at limiting migration. Its at 450k from what I can see. Which feels higher per capita. Of course we can set a higher point score. But at some point we need to accept that has consequences too. We want our bars and coffee shops and affordable NHS. But not pay for it. On refugees, Rwanda feels closest to PNG approach. However PNG don't seem to have the same issues with processing cases appropriately. Australia also have managed to get agreements with many countries to support turnbacks. The UK would need an agreement with France. However we don't have much in tje way of negoting power here. I suspect money is needed. Which is why albamoa system worked. I think you're over complicating the issue which standard practice in the UK. The Aussie model can be cut and pasted if the political will is there. " sorry, I can't tell if you are serious here. Poe's law etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As I've asked on many threads, and no-one seems to have the answer, what's stopping the UK directly copying the Australian model???" You've been told several times that the Australian model works because there are hundreds of miles of open sea between them and the nearest other country. You just don't want to hear that, so you forget it as soon as the thread closes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? " I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said. Most of the staff at my friends business earn no where near that. So ramping up their overseas workers pay to meet that threshold is going to cause massive ill-will amongst the national staff. To meet that uplift in pay, 33%, he would need to charge families he provides services for an extra £429 / week for those overseas staff. This "plan" is dead in the water." It is household income so both adults need to work unless one earns a good wage. What is wrong with that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As part of the "new" deal , what is the ratio of people being flown from UK to Rwanda , against the people being flown from Rwanda to The UK ? There is no ratio. so we could have more people coming from Rwanda to The UK than go from The UK to Rwanda ,??? No" Probably *yes* | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The guy is playing you & the media big time. He knows exactly how immigration works, he’s from a culture, who are experts at it. And he also knows exactly why immigration is so important to the UK if it will have any standing in the future as a modern flourishing economy, it has to do immigration on a big scale. So 670,000 more people came to the UK last year than left. That’s a big number why didn’t he just do the right thing like other countries do and fix a percentage you want in (1.5% seems to be the right number to get the benefits, but limit the impact on nationals ) and then a points based system? No, of course he won’t do that. Here’s what he will do instead. 1/ Raise the salary limit for skilled visa to £38,700. That’s a pitiful wage for a high skilled person. About £2,500 after tax? The equivalent of a UAE skilled visa minimum is £7500 take home pay per month. That’s how you ensure you get the best global talent into your country. 2/ Limit family members coming. Sounds great doesn’t it? But then he quietly excludes healthcare, which is the sector seeing the most migration from south & Southeast Asia. The numbers are crazy. Why ? Why do women with degrees want to come and work in healthcare in the UK ? because once they’re in , they are in for life, not many countries offer, this , they can bring the whole family in and they will be able to get healthcare for the old folks and all the kids can go to school. Sunak knows this he is not stupid to the immigration of the healthcare workforce 3/ healthcare surcharge increase of 66%. It’s currently sat at £1000 per year., so will rise to about £1650. It’s still far too low. A family health care package should cost your employer about £10,000 a year Sunak knows exactly what he’s doing, so you can expect another 670,000 in next year" What culture that is expert at immigration are you saying he is part of? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?" I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As part of the "new" deal , what is the ratio of people being flown from UK to Rwanda , against the people being flown from Rwanda to The UK ? There is no ratio. so we could have more people coming from Rwanda to The UK than go from The UK to Rwanda ,??? No Probably *yes* " ... And ,,, Would it be possible for Rwanda to send people to The UK before the UK sends people to Rwanda ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. " I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless" Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. " fair. But also let's not pretend this is a "new" bill. The original scheme was launched. 100s of millions has been sent. We should have these numbers or projections by now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. " Did the Rwandan spokesman who was talking only yesterday give any indication of the number of people Rwanda would / could send to The UK ? Is it less , the same or greater than the number going UK to Rwanda ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Did the Rwandan spokesman who was talking only yesterday give any indication of the number of people Rwanda would / could send to The UK ? Is it less , the same or greater than the number going UK to Rwanda ? " You know the answer to that question, which is no. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. fair. But also let's not pretend this is a "new" bill. The original scheme was launched. 100s of millions has been sent. We should have these numbers or projections by now. " Where did I say it was new, I mentioned if this bill ever gets passed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Did the Rwandan spokesman who was talking only yesterday give any indication of the number of people Rwanda would / could send to The UK ? Is it less , the same or greater than the number going UK to Rwanda ? You know the answer to that question, which is no. " I wonder if our spokesmen / ministers would be able to answer the question | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Did the Rwandan spokesman who was talking only yesterday give any indication of the number of people Rwanda would / could send to The UK ? Is it less , the same or greater than the number going UK to Rwanda ? You know the answer to that question, which is no. I wonder if our spokesmen / ministers would be able to answer the question " You also know the answer to that question. The issue here is no set numbers have been agreed on either side. The Rwandan side is still not known to exact figures but it has the potential to run into thousands, due to the number of facilities. The returning number is a 2 fold as far as I can see, a criminal who commits crime can be sent back to us and Rwandan refugees. The latter is obviously the unknown entity, but it has me thinking of what refugees they could be. I know the UNHCR house refugees in Rwanda for training before onward movement to other countries such as a Canada, could we expect to become part of that scheme? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Did the Rwandan spokesman who was talking only yesterday give any indication of the number of people Rwanda would / could send to The UK ? Is it less , the same or greater than the number going UK to Rwanda ? You know the answer to that question, which is no. I wonder if our spokesmen / ministers would be able to answer the question You also know the answer to that question. The issue here is no set numbers have been agreed on either side. The Rwandan side is still not known to exact figures but it has the potential to run into thousands, due to the number of facilities. The returning number is a 2 fold as far as I can see, a criminal who commits crime can be sent back to us and Rwandan refugees. The latter is obviously the unknown entity, but it has me thinking of what refugees they could be. I know the UNHCR house refugees in Rwanda for training before onward movement to other countries such as a Canada, could we expect to become part of that scheme? " Potentially thousands each way | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. " Ok that makes more sense than just 200 per year and if they really can send them to Rwanda shortly after arriving in the UK then I can see the deterrent factor. Getting this up and running before the GE is unlikely in my opinion. However if by some miracle they do get it started before the GE and it proves to be successful then it will be interesting to see if Labour scrap it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Did the Rwandan spokesman who was talking only yesterday give any indication of the number of people Rwanda would / could send to The UK ? Is it less , the same or greater than the number going UK to Rwanda ? You know the answer to that question, which is no. I wonder if our spokesmen / ministers would be able to answer the question You also know the answer to that question. The issue here is no set numbers have been agreed on either side. The Rwandan side is still not known to exact figures but it has the potential to run into thousands, due to the number of facilities. The returning number is a 2 fold as far as I can see, a criminal who commits crime can be sent back to us and Rwandan refugees. The latter is obviously the unknown entity, but it has me thinking of what refugees they could be. I know the UNHCR house refugees in Rwanda for training before onward movement to other countries such as a Canada, could we expect to become part of that scheme? Potentially thousands each way " Your key word was “potentially”. Anything we discuss on numbers travelling back is pure speculation driven by assumptions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Did the Rwandan spokesman who was talking only yesterday give any indication of the number of people Rwanda would / could send to The UK ? Is it less , the same or greater than the number going UK to Rwanda ? You know the answer to that question, which is no. I wonder if our spokesmen / ministers would be able to answer the question You also know the answer to that question. The issue here is no set numbers have been agreed on either side. The Rwandan side is still not known to exact figures but it has the potential to run into thousands, due to the number of facilities. The returning number is a 2 fold as far as I can see, a criminal who commits crime can be sent back to us and Rwandan refugees. The latter is obviously the unknown entity, but it has me thinking of what refugees they could be. I know the UNHCR house refugees in Rwanda for training before onward movement to other countries such as a Canada, could we expect to become part of that scheme? Potentially thousands each way Your key word was “potentially”. Anything we discuss on numbers travelling back is pure speculation driven by assumptions" exactly , totally agree , pure guess work ,, as is the numbers travelling from the UK to Rwanda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. fair. But also let's not pretend this is a "new" bill. The original scheme was launched. 100s of millions has been sent. We should have these numbers or projections by now. Where did I say it was new, I mentioned if this bill ever gets passed" but why weren't these numbers known when we signed the MoU and sent them the money. This bill is only here because they failed under SC scrutiny. Absent of that, the scheme would be live. Surely we should know the numbers by now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Ok that makes more sense than just 200 per year and if they really can send them to Rwanda shortly after arriving in the UK then I can see the deterrent factor. Getting this up and running before the GE is unlikely in my opinion. However if by some miracle they do get it started before the GE and it proves to be successful then it will be interesting to see if Labour scrap it" Sunak has nothing to lose and only gains from this scheme. If he makes it happen he will feel he has a legacy of achievement. If it fails he will say it was everyone else blocking. The dilemma comes if it does happen and small boat crossing slow or stop, Labour would be either stuck with it or they would be throwing away their government leadership by scrapping it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Ok that makes more sense than just 200 per year and if they really can send them to Rwanda shortly after arriving in the UK then I can see the deterrent factor. Getting this up and running before the GE is unlikely in my opinion. However if by some miracle they do get it started before the GE and it proves to be successful then it will be interesting to see if Labour scrap it Sunak has nothing to lose and only gains from this scheme. If he makes it happen he will feel he has a legacy of achievement. If it fails he will say it was everyone else blocking. The dilemma comes if it does happen and small boat crossing slow or stop, Labour would be either stuck with it or they would be throwing away their government leadership by scrapping it" "Sunak nothing to lose " sounds a tad optimistic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here you go Sunak https://x.com/daveatherton20/status/1733448630621651348?s=48&t=1nEqYOtSm3WgDZaXlcKxCg" What's the relevance of this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. Ok that makes more sense than just 200 per year and if they really can send them to Rwanda shortly after arriving in the UK then I can see the deterrent factor. Getting this up and running before the GE is unlikely in my opinion. However if by some miracle they do get it started before the GE and it proves to be successful then it will be interesting to see if Labour scrap it Sunak has nothing to lose and only gains from this scheme. If he makes it happen he will feel he has a legacy of achievement. If it fails he will say it was everyone else blocking. The dilemma comes if it does happen and small boat crossing slow or stop, Labour would be either stuck with it or they would be throwing away their government leadership by scrapping it "Sunak nothing to lose " sounds a tad optimistic " What has he got to lose? He wont be winning the next GE, anything he can do now that brings him a legacy is all he will concentrate on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. fair. But also let's not pretend this is a "new" bill. The original scheme was launched. 100s of millions has been sent. We should have these numbers or projections by now. Where did I say it was new, I mentioned if this bill ever gets passedbut why weren't these numbers known when we signed the MoU and sent them the money. This bill is only here because they failed under SC scrutiny. Absent of that, the scheme would be live. Surely we should know the numbers by now? " How can they get down to numbers that mean something? The scheme goes live and no boats cross, the number is 0, the boats don't slow the number is 45K, somewhere in the middle, somewhere to the left of that?? All guess work. Same for the return, no idea on numbers, how could they and nobody is going to sign up to nX / £X. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. fair. But also let's not pretend this is a "new" bill. The original scheme was launched. 100s of millions has been sent. We should have these numbers or projections by now. Where did I say it was new, I mentioned if this bill ever gets passedbut why weren't these numbers known when we signed the MoU and sent them the money. This bill is only here because they failed under SC scrutiny. Absent of that, the scheme would be live. Surely we should know the numbers by now? How can they get down to numbers that mean something? The scheme goes live and no boats cross, the number is 0, the boats don't slow the number is 45K, somewhere in the middle, somewhere to the left of that?? All guess work. Same for the return, no idea on numbers, how could they and nobody is going to sign up to nX / £X." Im asking how many the arrangement can take as a maximum, and ideally how this ramps up. As someone says, today it's 200 and I'd assume a large part of the 150m is to build new accomodation, but for how many and how quick ? These are (imo) sensible questions to be asking about the scheme to see if it's actually going to be good value for money or just posturing. Or if it will act as a deterrent at any point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. fair. But also let's not pretend this is a "new" bill. The original scheme was launched. 100s of millions has been sent. We should have these numbers or projections by now. Where did I say it was new, I mentioned if this bill ever gets passedbut why weren't these numbers known when we signed the MoU and sent them the money. This bill is only here because they failed under SC scrutiny. Absent of that, the scheme would be live. Surely we should know the numbers by now? How can they get down to numbers that mean something? The scheme goes live and no boats cross, the number is 0, the boats don't slow the number is 45K, somewhere in the middle, somewhere to the left of that?? All guess work. Same for the return, no idea on numbers, how could they and nobody is going to sign up to nX / £X.Im asking how many the arrangement can take as a maximum, and ideally how this ramps up. As someone says, today it's 200 and I'd assume a large part of the 150m is to build new accomodation, but for how many and how quick ? These are (imo) sensible questions to be asking about the scheme to see if it's actually going to be good value for money or just posturing. Or if it will act as a deterrent at any point. " You might need to wait until the scheme is found to be legal for those numbers. As I have previously mentioned, we spend £2.9 billion a year on accommodation, this scheme would need to provide savings | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote." I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. fair. But also let's not pretend this is a "new" bill. The original scheme was launched. 100s of millions has been sent. We should have these numbers or projections by now. Where did I say it was new, I mentioned if this bill ever gets passedbut why weren't these numbers known when we signed the MoU and sent them the money. This bill is only here because they failed under SC scrutiny. Absent of that, the scheme would be live. Surely we should know the numbers by now? How can they get down to numbers that mean something? The scheme goes live and no boats cross, the number is 0, the boats don't slow the number is 45K, somewhere in the middle, somewhere to the left of that?? All guess work. Same for the return, no idea on numbers, how could they and nobody is going to sign up to nX / £X.Im asking how many the arrangement can take as a maximum, and ideally how this ramps up. As someone says, today it's 200 and I'd assume a large part of the 150m is to build new accomodation, but for how many and how quick ? These are (imo) sensible questions to be asking about the scheme to see if it's actually going to be good value for money or just posturing. Or if it will act as a deterrent at any point. You might need to wait until the scheme is found to be legal for those numbers. As I have previously mentioned, we spend £2.9 billion a year on accommodation, this scheme would need to provide savings " imo odd to have to wait. As surely the scheme was thought to have been legal. I'd hope this scheme provides savings. Feels like the kinda thing to have worked out before committing 250m. But we are where we are. ATM is 250 for nil ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist?" I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD" What do you mean by this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sunak is splattering around in the shit trying to find anything,ANYTHING, to get his chin above the smell of impending doom. Immigration fears were used by the brexiteers in their campaign to leave Europe. Its the Tory party fall back position when all else fails. So what do we do when our national borders are being violated on a daily basis? Don't you realise that illegal people smuggling works against the interests of genuine asylum seekers by clogging-up the system? There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable). Under the tories its got worse. Indeed, but there could be external factors behind that (Bush/Blair wars?). But that aside, if you don't like the Rwanda plans what is your alternative solution to people smuggling? The truth is, nobody has a viable alternative. So do we sit on our hands for another decade or what?what are you seeking to reduce? The number of asylum seekers we take on, or the criminal element ? (I'd argue Rwanda scheme does notjing on either front, but to answer your question, we need to understand what a good outcome looks like) If it's number of applications what's a reasonable number and why ? That may help shape the answer too. No problem with genuine immigrants nor genuine asylum seekers. The irony, is that decades of abuse of asylum rules coupled with criminal people smugglers actually makes it harder for genuine applicants. and do you see any of those that come over in board as being genuine ? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else. The numbers arriving have overwhelmed our vetting processes. So a high proportion of mostly male 'refugees' just disappear. Apart from the illegality, don't you see the security risks in that?I'm just trying to establish what you see as facts here. For a second i read some of your posts as people who enter irregulary couldnt be genuine asylum seekers. There is a bit of paradox that they both disappear and over whelm the system. But I guess it can do both. For me there are a couple of parts, the short term trends and long term patterns. There has been a spike, and it does appear that spike has been driven by Albania. I'm open to these cases as being ones that are not as genuine as others (although I'm open to this being because they have been brainwashed into thinking they can get accepted into UK, rather than villanising them as intentionally playing the system). I also wouldn't be suprised if many now fall under sl@very rules due to be in debt servitude. Assuming they are starting in the system and not disappearing I would say they are adding to the overwhelm. We were doing rubbish before 2022. I'd also say that kudos to HMG they actually have taken action here and it seems to have worked to some extent. That may help alleviate much if the issues you've raised. And this is where long term trends matter. Many of the genuine cases we have seen will have come via people smuggling. (The other route is overstaying visas which is also illegal, but may involve less organised crime) If we want to do something to help these people in need, but stop criminals, we need to think smarter. I get the concern about those who disappear. That's an issue with our system ATM. There were stats that showed it was a highish number. It was (imo) underhand not to provide any form of breakdown with these numbers. Eg nationality, time in system, how they entered the country. (It could be most were overstayers say... That would ruin any boat people narrative) Again, we need to think smarter here. Rwanda is a poor poor scheme for addressing any of your concerns as it deals with what, 200 cases, a year. That's no deterrent. (0.5pc chance of rwanda'd) ... Especially when they are facing into death when crossing. It won't help processing viljems We also will have to take back those that commit serious crimes in Rwanda. So if you believe that 1 in those 200 are a risk, we get to eventually keep that one and leave the rest. Again, if we really want to address this we need to think different. A proper offshore processing relationship could work to manage flight risk. It doesnt address the criminality side as people need to get here. The idea I've seen that appears to work best is to have processing nearer refugee hot spots. Especially with international cooperation That's the basis of the unhcr Rwanda scheme from what I can see. I still don't think this scheme will get of the ground but just wanted to clarify if the 200 figure per year is a definite and not just a trial batch? If it is correct, then I would agree that the deterrent factor is extremely low. However I thought one of the changes was it gives the government the power to send everyone that arrives by irregular means (small boat) to Rwanda, which suggests far more than 200. I thought this was the deterrent factor. Pay thousands of pounds for the trip, risk your life crossing the channel and end up in Rwanda instead of the UK. To me that's a powerful deterrent but if the 200 figure is correct then it is useless Rwanda can take more than 200 people per year, this number was thrown around and has become more or less folk law.The number has some grounding in truth, if the bill ever gets passed the first group will be 200. However, early on in the development of the scheme a Rwandan representative was asked how many people they could take, she said 200, which was correct for that particular facility and the plan, it is not the overall capacity of all available facilities. A Rwandan spokesperson only yesterday, dismissed the number as misinformation and there is no limit on the number they can take. fair. But also let's not pretend this is a "new" bill. The original scheme was launched. 100s of millions has been sent. We should have these numbers or projections by now. Where did I say it was new, I mentioned if this bill ever gets passedbut why weren't these numbers known when we signed the MoU and sent them the money. This bill is only here because they failed under SC scrutiny. Absent of that, the scheme would be live. Surely we should know the numbers by now? How can they get down to numbers that mean something? The scheme goes live and no boats cross, the number is 0, the boats don't slow the number is 45K, somewhere in the middle, somewhere to the left of that?? All guess work. Same for the return, no idea on numbers, how could they and nobody is going to sign up to nX / £X.Im asking how many the arrangement can take as a maximum, and ideally how this ramps up. As someone says, today it's 200 and I'd assume a large part of the 150m is to build new accomodation, but for how many and how quick ? These are (imo) sensible questions to be asking about the scheme to see if it's actually going to be good value for money or just posturing. Or if it will act as a deterrent at any point. You might need to wait until the scheme is found to be legal for those numbers. As I have previously mentioned, we spend £2.9 billion a year on accommodation, this scheme would need to provide savings imo odd to have to wait. As surely the scheme was thought to have been legal. I'd hope this scheme provides savings. Feels like the kinda thing to have worked out before committing 250m. But we are where we are. ATM is 250 for nil !" Yep and I guess that part of the frustration from a government perspective is the costs being racked up by failing in the courts, and now we have potentially new laws. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this?" That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The word racist has lost its meaning, along with far-right." I couldn’t agree more, the way logic, understanding and rational thinking is disappearing for knee jerk grand standing, is worrisome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote." That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry." Who are these racists and what is their wider agenda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. Who are these racists and what is their wider agenda?" Racists, you know those people who are actual racists. Understand? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. Who are these racists and what is their wider agenda? Racists, you know those people who are actual racists. Understand?" What is their agenda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. Who are these racists and what is their wider agenda? Racists, you know those people who are actual racists. Understand? What is their agenda?" I'd imagine a racists agenda is more about believing they are superior to someone of a different colour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. Who are these racists and what is their wider agenda? Racists, you know those people who are actual racists. Understand? What is their agenda?" 1. I responded to another poster who threw racist into the mix, as is the norm when the topic can’t be discussed in an adult fashion. 2. You have won the war of attrition! your questions as much as I try to answer them make me feel you are on some kind of wind up, and unless you can begin dialogue with open and honest questions of more than 2 or 3 words I will no longer bother answering 3. Understand? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. Who are these racists and what is their wider agenda? Racists, you know those people who are actual racists. Understand? What is their agenda? 1. I responded to another poster who threw racist into the mix, as is the norm when the topic can’t be discussed in an adult fashion. 2. You have won the war of attrition! your questions as much as I try to answer them make me feel you are on some kind of wind up, and unless you can begin dialogue with open and honest questions of more than 2 or 3 words I will no longer bother answering 3. Understand?" Lol. I rarely ask you questions. You usually ask me a lot of questions, and usually unrelated to the topic of discussion. I asked you two questions to clarify something you said and you seem to be upset. Your response did genuinely make me laugh. Fair play to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry." I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit." Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. " I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There's a huge difference between legal immigration (desirable) and people smuggling (undesirable)." Good point. That's another reason why it has been so mad for the UK to turn its back on the European Union. Fighting human trafficking affects women in particular because of the sex trade and domestic involuntary servitude. That's why there are EU agencies to help tackle it. That's why there are committees in the European Parliament about it. The UK's Mary Honeyball MEP was on womens' rights committees in the European Parliament with the Labour party. According to the EU, most irregular migrants came legally and then overstayed. The EU Publications Office has got more stuff about migration than any other topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD" Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist?" Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist." You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho...." If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you." You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. " You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want." I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views." If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation." Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally..The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally..The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed" You may be wrong about you having a problem with comprehension. There absolutely is a need to have a sensible conversation but you seem to want from the point of there is nothing the government can do apart from the Rwanda scheme. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally..The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed You may be wrong about you having a problem with comprehension. There absolutely is a need to have a sensible conversation but you seem to want from the point of there is nothing the government can do apart from the Rwanda scheme." I think you are mixing myself and feisty up… There are many ways of entering the country, skilled work visa, student visas etc, this topic is about the Rwanda scheme…. 
There is another thread specifically about immigration, maybe that would be worth a look | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. " So a quicker more efficient process would help. Getting people into the workforce paying taxes so they can... " Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and " ...contribute to building the country. " people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally.. " British people also break the law. " The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed" 90% of the conversation is from the elements of the media who use fear of immigrants as a distraction tool or to whip up support for the Tories or for Brexit or for whatever is going on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally..The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed You may be wrong about you having a problem with comprehension. There absolutely is a need to have a sensible conversation but you seem to want from the point of there is nothing the government can do apart from the Rwanda scheme. I think you are mixing myself and feisty up… There are many ways of entering the country, skilled work visa, student visas etc, this topic is about the Rwanda scheme….
There is another thread specifically about immigration, maybe that would be worth a look"I think you’re right, apologies! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. So a quicker more efficient process would help. Getting people into the workforce paying taxes so they can... Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and ...contribute to building the country. people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally.. British people also break the law. The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed 90% of the conversation is from the elements of the media who use fear of immigrants as a distraction tool or to whip up support for the Tories or for Brexit or for whatever is going on. " Has anyone found any figures on how much those that arrive by small boats and go through the system actually contribute to building the country? I'm talking specifically about this group not those that come on visas ect. I disagree with this notion that it is used as a distraction by the government. The whole topic has been a constant source of failure and embarrassment for the government. I don't think anyone in government would want to highlight this issue as it just highlights their failure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. So a quicker more efficient process would help. Getting people into the workforce paying taxes so they can... Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and ...contribute to building the country. people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally.. British people also break the law. The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed 90% of the conversation is from the elements of the media who use fear of immigrants as a distraction tool or to whip up support for the Tories or for Brexit or for whatever is going on. Has anyone found any figures on how much those that arrive by small boats and go through the system actually contribute to building the country? I'm talking specifically about this group not those that come on visas ect. I disagree with this notion that it is used as a distraction by the government. The whole topic has been a constant source of failure and embarrassment for the government. I don't think anyone in government would want to highlight this issue as it just highlights their failure." it is lower than the average brit or visa. But this is (imo) a humanitarian issue more so than an economic one. And some of the gap may be closed by taking that humanitarian view past the asylum decision. Many of these people will be dealing with trauma. That gets in the way of contributing to society... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. So a quicker more efficient process would help. Getting people into the workforce paying taxes so they can... Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and ...contribute to building the country. people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally.. British people also break the law. The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed 90% of the conversation is from the elements of the media who use fear of immigrants as a distraction tool or to whip up support for the Tories or for Brexit or for whatever is going on. Has anyone found any figures on how much those that arrive by small boats and go through the system actually contribute to building the country? I'm talking specifically about this group not those that come on visas ect. I disagree with this notion that it is used as a distraction by the government. The whole topic has been a constant source of failure and embarrassment for the government. I don't think anyone in government would want to highlight this issue as it just highlights their failure." The average immigrant contributes more to the economy than the average Brit, is less likely to live in social housing, and less likely to use the NHS. Not sure about asylum seekers in particular, although seeing this through a purely economic lens is a little inhumane. I mean children don’t exactly contribute to the economy, in fact they are a major drain on it while they are kids, but we still allow them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The average immigrant contributes more to the economy than the average Brit, is less likely to live in social housing, and less likely to use the NHS." Where are you getting this information from? I do like to peruse a nice set of figures. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No one is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, it’s a very expensive stunt to placate backbenchers and get the racist vote. I don't consider it racist to control the borders of the country and stop illegal entry. What part is racist? I said they were after the racist vote, not that controlling borders is racist. Looks like they are getting what they are after too. Mr DD What do you mean by this? That they are definitely appealing to the racist vote. That would include labour too…The problems of illegal entry via small boat isn’t going to go away when the tories leave office. A situation needs resolving, it is not racist to deal with it and labour have said they will deal with it, how I don’t know yet. None of the above is racist, and I would go as far as saying that racists have a wider agenda than the illegal small boat entry. I agree racists have a wider agenda but the Rwanda issue is rather like Brexit, in the sense that not everyone who voted Brexit is a racist but all racists voted for Brexit. Lazy statement, I’ve heard this so many times from people who want throw away gotchas. You used racist, you started using it and you’ve probably achieved your goal by now by derailing sensible conversation, which is again the norm. I said they were going for the racist vote, you attempted to turn that into me saying controlling borders is racist, which of course I didn’t but for some reason it touched a nerve with you. Anyone with half a brain knows that the Rwanda policy has been a rather transparent attempt to trap Labour into saying it’s racist from the start, thus allowing the Tories to paint them as weak on immigration. It’s a last pitiful throw of the dice from an incompetent government, and that anyone takes it remotely seriously is a sad indictment of how dumbed down political discourse has be ome in this country. Mr DD Simple yes or no. Is border control racist? Why on earth would I engage in your embarrassingly simplistic attempts at a ‘gotcha’? I know this is hard but the world cannot be split into simplistic binaries. We all look for very simple answers to very complex questions, some of us know they don’t exist. You derailed the thread by bringing racism into the conversation. So many points to discuss on the Rwanda plan, but hey ho.... If you think racism doesn’t play a very big part in the Rwanda plan then I have a bridge to sell you. You keep talking about racism and how 'all racists voted for Brexit'. 13m people who were registered to vote didn't in the 2016 referendum, ever considered some of them were racist? As someone else has already mentioned, it's just a lazy catchphrase. You seem to be having some difficulty with comprehension. Blaming the country’s woes on immigrants has long been a racist way of both distracting from the inadequacies of the government, and courting the racist vote. The Rwanda policy is nothing more than throwing red meat to those who have a tendency to need someone else to blame for the deficiencies of both themselves and the country. The economic fact is that this country needs immigration, we cannot do without it. The government keeps talking about bringing in the brightest and best but it’s not the brightest and best we need to look after our old people, it’s not the brightest and best we need to pick fruit and vegetables in the fields. We have a government which will spend getting on for a quarter of a billion pounds to send no one to Rwanda but won’t invest in a functioning asylum system. Asylum seekers could be filling the job roles we need to fill and not be housed at taxpayers expense in hotels but it’s better for the government to give the impression that the country is ‘flooded’ with illegal immigrants, so they create long backlogs rather than helping those who qualify for asylum to become taxpayers and benefit the country. Rather than create safe routes for asylum the government is forcing desperate people into the arms of the people smuggling gangs. There is of course a better way to do things, the negotiation with Albania for instance, but that doesn’t feed the racist/xenophobic idea that everything would be ok if it wasn’t for those pesky foreigners. We can discuss the detail of this nonsense scheme all we like but that simply ignores the reason why it s happening at all. But then that’s what some people want. I'm not struggling with comprehension at all. I haven't blamed any of our woes on immigrants. The real issue here is you believe you're absolutely right, and don't actually seem open to hearing other views. You're last paragraph says as much. I must say it was a very long reply without actually addressing what I said, again, proof that you're not interested in other views. If anyone wants to provide an alternative explanation for why we have had to resort to a humiliating scheme like this then I’m all ears but so far all anyone seems to talk about is having to control our borders, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with, no one seems to be able to explain why doing something that doesn’t work, but harder, is a sensible way to approach the situation. Cost, £2.9 billion a year on accommodation alone. So a quicker more efficient process would help. Getting people into the workforce paying taxes so they can... Failing infrastructures, a dying NHS and ...contribute to building the country. people ignoring the law of the land and arriving here illegally.. British people also break the law. The list is long and those things need to be understood to be able to address, that is why sensible adult conversations are needed 90% of the conversation is from the elements of the media who use fear of immigrants as a distraction tool or to whip up support for the Tories or for Brexit or for whatever is going on. Has anyone found any figures on how much those that arrive by small boats and go through the system actually contribute to building the country? I'm talking specifically about this group not those that come on visas ect. I disagree with this notion that it is used as a distraction by the government. The whole topic has been a constant source of failure and embarrassment for the government. I don't think anyone in government would want to highlight this issue as it just highlights their failure. The average immigrant contributes more to the economy than the average Brit, is less likely to live in social housing, and less likely to use the NHS. Not sure about asylum seekers in particular, although seeing this through a purely economic lens is a little inhumane. I mean children don’t exactly contribute to the economy, in fact they are a major drain on it while they are kids, but we still allow them. " So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns." Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns." "Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion”" Did they account for the increased 'pull factor'? If we allow asylum seekers to work while their cases are getting heard, there will be a significantly increased incentive for people to come here. That means there will be an increase in the numbers arriving. Have they accounted for that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” Did they account for the increased 'pull factor'? If we allow asylum seekers to work while their cases are getting heard, there will be a significantly increased incentive for people to come here. That means there will be an increase in the numbers arriving. Have they accounted for that?" I don’t know, take a read of their report and let us know. Given that over 75% of asylum claims are granted on the first hearing I think you’re rather overestimating the economic pull for f the UK as an influence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” " Is that the boat arrivals only? And is it as the system is now or are the figures relating to if they can work while awaiting their claim outcome? If all is correct and as theists system is now then it's really odd why this is not more widely shouted about. I can understand those that are against the boat people totally not mentioning these figures but why on earth do those that are very pro boat people not say these figures. I have seen many debates on the topic but severe heard this claim even from the strongest supporters. I feel they are missing an opportunity | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” " I am curious how they arrived at those numbers. Last I checked, the employment rate of people who have been given refugee status and right to work was 51% https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-press-releases/working-out-employment-barriers-asylum-seekers-and-refugees#:~:text=People%20who%20have%20been%20granted,rate%20of%2088%20per%20cent. And even the ones who work were on average making far less than the national average | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion”" "Did they account for the increased 'pull factor'? If we allow asylum seekers to work while their cases are getting heard, there will be a significantly increased incentive for people to come here. That means there will be an increase in the numbers arriving. Have they accounted for that?" "I don’t know, take a read of their report and let us know." I've read it. They didn't. "Given that over 75% of asylum claims are granted on the first hearing I think you’re rather overestimating the economic pull for f the UK as an influence." I'm not sure of your point there. For both genuine and bogus asylum seekers, the idea of being able to work and start to build a life as soon as you arrive will be attractive. Changing the law to allow it will definitely result in an increase in applications. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” Is that the boat arrivals only? And is it as the system is now or are the figures relating to if they can work while awaiting their claim outcome? If all is correct and as theists system is now then it's really odd why this is not more widely shouted about. I can understand those that are against the boat people totally not mentioning these figures but why on earth do those that are very pro boat people not say these figures. I have seen many debates on the topic but severe heard this claim even from the strongest supporters. I feel they are missing an opportunity" Boat people are accounted for in the official figures… those that come in via “methods other than aeroplanes” who then go on to claim asylum account for about 5% of the total figures…. Basically the likes of braverman and jenrick aren’t jumping on it as an immigration issue.. it’s being highlighted as culture war issue , basically to stick it to the libs… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” Is that the boat arrivals only? And is it as the system is now or are the figures relating to if they can work while awaiting their claim outcome? If all is correct and as theists system is now then it's really odd why this is not more widely shouted about. I can understand those that are against the boat people totally not mentioning these figures but why on earth do those that are very pro boat people not say these figures. I have seen many debates on the topic but severe heard this claim even from the strongest supporters. I feel they are missing an opportunity Boat people are accounted for in the official figures… those that come in via “methods other than aeroplanes” who then go on to claim asylum account for about 5% of the total figures…. Basically the likes of braverman and jenrick aren’t jumping on it as an immigration issue.. it’s being highlighted as culture war issue , basically to stick it to the libs… " That's the concern as I see it, theIr figures are mixed in with others so we don't get figures for just them. All we see is the negative figures for accommodation and things like that. If it could be shown that for each of those landing on the beach, over time and on average they will provide £ X benefit to the economy even after the initial costs of helping them have been deducted then it would help their case. If they are mixed in then it's not possible to make that claim as others could be hiding any negative impacts | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” Is that the boat arrivals only? And is it as the system is now or are the figures relating to if they can work while awaiting their claim outcome? If all is correct and as theists system is now then it's really odd why this is not more widely shouted about. I can understand those that are against the boat people totally not mentioning these figures but why on earth do those that are very pro boat people not say these figures. I have seen many debates on the topic but severe heard this claim even from the strongest supporters. I feel they are missing an opportunity Boat people are accounted for in the official figures… those that come in via “methods other than aeroplanes” who then go on to claim asylum account for about 5% of the total figures…. Basically the likes of braverman and jenrick aren’t jumping on it as an immigration issue.. it’s being highlighted as culture war issue , basically to stick it to the libs… That's the concern as I see it, theIr figures are mixed in with others so we don't get figures for just them. All we see is the negative figures for accommodation and things like that. If it could be shown that for each of those landing on the beach, over time and on average they will provide £ X benefit to the economy even after the initial costs of helping them have been deducted then it would help their case. If they are mixed in then it's not possible to make that claim as others could be hiding any negative impacts" The potential return in £'s that individuals who have entered the country by illegal means is losing focus on the issue, which is people arriving in the country illegally. There are a number of problems that need addressing, the crossings and the small boat gangs, the ability to use laws that afford genuine asylum seekers protections being used by anyone who wants to play the system. The time and effort it takes to identify people, and the fact in most instances we can't identify them. There are so many moving parts to this, and we need to get things right, genuine asylum seekers being offered support and a new start, and those who are entering for other reasons, identified and removed. We only need to get the last part right to solve this problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” Is that the boat arrivals only? And is it as the system is now or are the figures relating to if they can work while awaiting their claim outcome? If all is correct and as theists system is now then it's really odd why this is not more widely shouted about. I can understand those that are against the boat people totally not mentioning these figures but why on earth do those that are very pro boat people not say these figures. I have seen many debates on the topic but severe heard this claim even from the strongest supporters. I feel they are missing an opportunity Boat people are accounted for in the official figures… those that come in via “methods other than aeroplanes” who then go on to claim asylum account for about 5% of the total figures…. Basically the likes of braverman and jenrick aren’t jumping on it as an immigration issue.. it’s being highlighted as culture war issue , basically to stick it to the libs… That's the concern as I see it, theIr figures are mixed in with others so we don't get figures for just them. All we see is the negative figures for accommodation and things like that. If it could be shown that for each of those landing on the beach, over time and on average they will provide £ X benefit to the economy even after the initial costs of helping them have been deducted then it would help their case. If they are mixed in then it's not possible to make that claim as others could be hiding any negative impacts The potential return in £'s that individuals who have entered the country by illegal means is losing focus on the issue, which is people arriving in the country illegally. There are a number of problems that need addressing, the crossings and the small boat gangs, the ability to use laws that afford genuine asylum seekers protections being used by anyone who wants to play the system. The time and effort it takes to identify people, and the fact in most instances we can't identify them. There are so many moving parts to this, and we need to get things right, genuine asylum seekers being offered support and a new start, and those who are entering for other reasons, identified and removed. We only need to get the last part right to solve this problem. " can I check, do you see genuine asylum seekers and people entering illegally as mutually exclusive, or can one be both genuine and enter illegally ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” Is that the boat arrivals only? And is it as the system is now or are the figures relating to if they can work while awaiting their claim outcome? If all is correct and as theists system is now then it's really odd why this is not more widely shouted about. I can understand those that are against the boat people totally not mentioning these figures but why on earth do those that are very pro boat people not say these figures. I have seen many debates on the topic but severe heard this claim even from the strongest supporters. I feel they are missing an opportunity Boat people are accounted for in the official figures… those that come in via “methods other than aeroplanes” who then go on to claim asylum account for about 5% of the total figures…. Basically the likes of braverman and jenrick aren’t jumping on it as an immigration issue.. it’s being highlighted as culture war issue , basically to stick it to the libs… That's the concern as I see it, theIr figures are mixed in with others so we don't get figures for just them. All we see is the negative figures for accommodation and things like that. If it could be shown that for each of those landing on the beach, over time and on average they will provide £ X benefit to the economy even after the initial costs of helping them have been deducted then it would help their case. If they are mixed in then it's not possible to make that claim as others could be hiding any negative impacts The potential return in £'s that individuals who have entered the country by illegal means is losing focus on the issue, which is people arriving in the country illegally. There are a number of problems that need addressing, the crossings and the small boat gangs, the ability to use laws that afford genuine asylum seekers protections being used by anyone who wants to play the system. The time and effort it takes to identify people, and the fact in most instances we can't identify them. There are so many moving parts to this, and we need to get things right, genuine asylum seekers being offered support and a new start, and those who are entering for other reasons, identified and removed. We only need to get the last part right to solve this problem. " Even if we look at the potential £'s, if we look at the numbers per capita, it would be so poor. As I shared in a link above, the employment rate of people with refugee status is 51%. Even the ones who work earn less than the national average. Economically speaking, illegal arrivals are in no way net contributors to economy. If we take into account the social cost and the fact that the country doesn't have control over its borders anymore, it only makes it worse. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So maybe I was not clear enough. I am asking specifically about those that arrive by small boats across the channel. Not combined with any other groups. We know there is an initial outlay with processing them, housing, food ect but not about what they return. Personally I think if it is a positive figure overall over a good range then it may alleviate some concerns. Probably a difficult thing to measure as they are likely awaiting the processing of their asylum claims but the National Institute of Economic and Social Research says “ We find that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would be: Increased Tax Revenue by £1.3 billion. Reduced Government Expenditure by £6.7 billion. Increased GDP by £1.6 billion” Is that the boat arrivals only? And is it as the system is now or are the figures relating to if they can work while awaiting their claim outcome? If all is correct and as theists system is now then it's really odd why this is not more widely shouted about. I can understand those that are against the boat people totally not mentioning these figures but why on earth do those that are very pro boat people not say these figures. I have seen many debates on the topic but severe heard this claim even from the strongest supporters. I feel they are missing an opportunity Boat people are accounted for in the official figures… those that come in via “methods other than aeroplanes” who then go on to claim asylum account for about 5% of the total figures…. Basically the likes of braverman and jenrick aren’t jumping on it as an immigration issue.. it’s being highlighted as culture war issue , basically to stick it to the libs… That's the concern as I see it, theIr figures are mixed in with others so we don't get figures for just them. All we see is the negative figures for accommodation and things like that. If it could be shown that for each of those landing on the beach, over time and on average they will provide £ X benefit to the economy even after the initial costs of helping them have been deducted then it would help their case. If they are mixed in then it's not possible to make that claim as others could be hiding any negative impacts The potential return in £'s that individuals who have entered the country by illegal means is losing focus on the issue, which is people arriving in the country illegally. There are a number of problems that need addressing, the crossings and the small boat gangs, the ability to use laws that afford genuine asylum seekers protections being used by anyone who wants to play the system. The time and effort it takes to identify people, and the fact in most instances we can't identify them. There are so many moving parts to this, and we need to get things right, genuine asylum seekers being offered support and a new start, and those who are entering for other reasons, identified and removed. We only need to get the last part right to solve this problem. Even if we look at the potential £'s, if we look at the numbers per capita, it would be so poor. As I shared in a link above, the employment rate of people with refugee status is 51%. Even the ones who work earn less than the national average. Economically speaking, illegal arrivals are in no way net contributors to economy. If we take into account the social cost and the fact that the country doesn't have control over its borders anymore, it only makes it worse." I don't disagree with your numbers, but there's other things to take into account. Should be factor in the likelihood of employing others ? Or should we factor in reduced training costs to get a refugee doctor up to skill versus starting from scratch ? But as I said earlier, is it right to be putting an economic lens over a humanitarian issue ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigration accounts for around 4% of total immigration to the UK, on a yearly basis, so to say that the country has ‘lost control’ of its borders is frankly hyperbolic. Also, as others have said, viewing asylum seekers through an economic lens is frankly inhumane. It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the UK legally these days, so just because they are doing something illegal to get here, it doesn’t mean their asylum claims are invalid. Surely the best way of dealing with asylum seekers is to have a robust, efficient, and effective process that allows genuine asylum seekers to get the support they need, and those who don’t have a claim to be removed fromthe country quickly?" I don't see how the scale of illegality matters. It's binary. ANY illegal activity should be stopped, or where do you draw the line? Overlook murderers because only 0.001% are victims? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigration accounts for around 4% of total immigration to the UK, on a yearly basis, so to say that the country has ‘lost control’ of its borders is frankly hyperbolic. Also, as others have said, viewing asylum seekers through an economic lens is frankly inhumane. It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the UK legally these days, so just because they are doing something illegal to get here, it doesn’t mean their asylum claims are invalid. Surely the best way of dealing with asylum seekers is to have a robust, efficient, and effective process that allows genuine asylum seekers to get the support they need, and those who don’t have a claim to be removed fromthe country quickly?" The 45K people who entered the country illegally entered our borders, that doesn't sound like controlled borders to me. 98% of those entering had no paperwork making identification near impossible unless they had committed a crime on their passage through Europe and it was recorded. This puts excess effort and resource into the most important task, and that it is the main reason people who should not be granted asylum are being granted asylum. The resolution is tough, it must be or it would not still be a problem. As you rightly say, grant asylum to genuine and remove the others quickly, but how? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigration accounts for around 4% of total immigration to the UK, on a yearly basis, so to say that the country has ‘lost control’ of its borders is frankly hyperbolic. Also, as others have said, viewing asylum seekers through an economic lens is frankly inhumane. It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the UK legally these days, so just because they are doing something illegal to get here, it doesn’t mean their asylum claims are invalid. Surely the best way of dealing with asylum seekers is to have a robust, efficient, and effective process that allows genuine asylum seekers to get the support they need, and those who don’t have a claim to be removed fromthe country quickly? I don't see how the scale of illegality matters. It's binary. ANY illegal activity should be stopped, or where do you draw the line? Overlook murderers because only 0.001% are victims?" No but to carry on your analogy if you make it illegal to phone 999 and all crimes have to be reported in person at a police station, in office hours, do you think that’s a reasonable way of dealing with people in need of the police? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No but to carry on your analogy if you make it illegal to phone 999 and all crimes have to be reported in person at a police station, in office hours, do you think that’s a reasonable way of dealing with people in need of the police?" No one in France *needs* to come here to claim safety. They could claim safety in any other European country much more easily. They come here because they *want* to, not because they *have* to. To go back to the analogy, I'm fairly sure that we already block 999 calls that are made from outside the UK, and that seems like a reasonable thing to do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigration accounts for around 4% of total immigration to the UK, on a yearly basis, so to say that the country has ‘lost control’ of its borders is frankly hyperbolic. Also, as others have said, viewing asylum seekers through an economic lens is frankly inhumane. It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the UK legally these days, so just because they are doing something illegal to get here, it doesn’t mean their asylum claims are invalid. Surely the best way of dealing with asylum seekers is to have a robust, efficient, and effective process that allows genuine asylum seekers to get the support they need, and those who don’t have a claim to be removed fromthe country quickly? The 45K people who entered the country illegally entered our borders, that doesn't sound like controlled borders to me. 98% of those entering had no paperwork making identification near impossible unless they had committed a crime on their passage through Europe and it was recorded. This puts excess effort and resource into the most important task, and that it is the main reason people who should not be granted asylum are being granted asylum. The resolution is tough, it must be or it would not still be a problem. As you rightly say, grant asylum to genuine and remove the others quickly, but how? " do you know that people who shouldn't be granted asylum, are being granted ? And what does this look like ? Is it an Iraqi who isn't being persuxted claiming to be one that is? Or are we talking people claiming to be from different countries ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 could notwithstand that if she really wanted to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigration accounts for around 4% of total immigration to the UK, on a yearly basis, so to say that the country has ‘lost control’ of its borders is frankly hyperbolic. Also, as others have said, viewing asylum seekers through an economic lens is frankly inhumane. It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the UK legally these days, so just because they are doing something illegal to get here, it doesn’t mean their asylum claims are invalid. Surely the best way of dealing with asylum seekers is to have a robust, efficient, and effective process that allows genuine asylum seekers to get the support they need, and those who don’t have a claim to be removed fromthe country quickly? The 45K people who entered the country illegally entered our borders, that doesn't sound like controlled borders to me. 98% of those entering had no paperwork making identification near impossible unless they had committed a crime on their passage through Europe and it was recorded. This puts excess effort and resource into the most important task, and that it is the main reason people who should not be granted asylum are being granted asylum. The resolution is tough, it must be or it would not still be a problem. As you rightly say, grant asylum to genuine and remove the others quickly, but how? do you know that people who shouldn't be granted asylum, are being granted ? And what does this look like ? Is it an Iraqi who isn't being persuxted claiming to be one that is? Or are we talking people claiming to be from different countries ? " Rhetorical questions again... If you prefer to bury your head in the sand and refuse to accept that the majority of people entering the country by small boat are not true asylum seekers and have paid and played the system to gain entry, that is your prerogative, it does however take away the validity of your questions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For me the first question we need to agree on is whether we seek to play out part in the refugee crisis? Or does our geographical position mean we can simply watch those with less fortunate geographies take the pain. If we agree we should take a number (and have agreed a number) then it's about how we take on this number. As it stands it's a few number of "legal" referrals. Which the UNHCR say is only a small percentage given it's vulnerable (in their new country) people only. Therefore how do we fulfil the balance in a safe, legal way that protects our borders. This is the difficulty question. Of course the other way of stopping illegal things happening is make it legal. I'm sure Braverman with her legal nous could notwithstand that if she really wanted to. "We could send those who enter illegally to a 3rd country, such as Rwanda? Set them up for a new life, training and job prospects maybe? Or how about we simply let them in to the UK with a big smile, nowhere to live, no job but they can have a pen and application form for benefits once they get out the hotel room we put them up in? As long as it appeases all we are good to go | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For me the first question we need to agree on is whether we seek to play out part in the refugee crisis? Or does our geographical position mean we can simply watch those with less fortunate geographies take the pain. If we agree we should take a number (and have agreed a number) then it's about how we take on this number. As it stands it's a few number of "legal" referrals. Which the UNHCR say is only a small percentage given it's vulnerable (in their new country) people only. Therefore how do we fulfil the balance in a safe, legal way that protects our borders. This is the difficulty question. Of course the other way of stopping illegal things happening is make it legal. I'm sure Braverman with her legal nous could notwithstand that if she really wanted to.
We could send those who enter illegally to a 3rd country, such as Rwanda?
Set them up for a new life, training and job prospects maybe?
Or how about we simply let them in to the UK with a big smile, nowhere to live, no job but they can have a pen and application form for benefits once they get out the hotel room we put them up in?
As long as it appeases all we are good to go"Can illegal imjgrants claim benefits ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can illegal imjgrants claim benefits ?" If someone has an asylum claim pending, they are officially under our protection, and we are required to ensure their basic needs are met. That means feeding, clothing, and housing them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigration accounts for around 4% of total immigration to the UK, on a yearly basis, so to say that the country has ‘lost control’ of its borders is frankly hyperbolic. Also, as others have said, viewing asylum seekers through an economic lens is frankly inhumane. It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the UK legally these days, so just because they are doing something illegal to get here, it doesn’t mean their asylum claims are invalid. Surely the best way of dealing with asylum seekers is to have a robust, efficient, and effective process that allows genuine asylum seekers to get the support they need, and those who don’t have a claim to be removed fromthe country quickly? The 45K people who entered the country illegally entered our borders, that doesn't sound like controlled borders to me. 98% of those entering had no paperwork making identification near impossible unless they had committed a crime on their passage through Europe and it was recorded. This puts excess effort and resource into the most important task, and that it is the main reason people who should not be granted asylum are being granted asylum. The resolution is tough, it must be or it would not still be a problem. As you rightly say, grant asylum to genuine and remove the others quickly, but how? do you know that people who shouldn't be granted asylum, are being granted ? And what does this look like ? Is it an Iraqi who isn't being persuxted claiming to be one that is? Or are we talking people claiming to be from different countries ? Rhetorical questions again... If you prefer to bury your head in the sand and refuse to accept that the majority of people entering the country by small boat are not true asylum seekers and have paid and played the system to gain entry, that is your prerogative, it does however take away the validity of your questions. " they are questions to understand the issues at hand. I'm not sure how they are rhetorical when I'm hoping to get an answer! I have accepted that I suspect many of the Albanians were probably attempting to play the system (although I wonder if they were conned into it) But if we assume we can sort that one issue out (and as I have said befor HMG seem to be addressing that) then I'd like to know the residual issue. If asking for some evidence is burying my head in the sand, then I'm happy to be an ostrich. Because until I see that, this ostrich is watching people claiming there are ghosts in them woods. There may be ghosts. I'm open to that. But simply telling me there are isn't enough. Show me why you believe it to be true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigration accounts for around 4% of total immigration to the UK, on a yearly basis, so to say that the country has ‘lost control’ of its borders is frankly hyperbolic. Also, as others have said, viewing asylum seekers through an economic lens is frankly inhumane. It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the UK legally these days, so just because they are doing something illegal to get here, it doesn’t mean their asylum claims are invalid. Surely the best way of dealing with asylum seekers is to have a robust, efficient, and effective process that allows genuine asylum seekers to get the support they need, and those who don’t have a claim to be removed fromthe country quickly? The 45K people who entered the country illegally entered our borders, that doesn't sound like controlled borders to me. 98% of those entering had no paperwork making identification near impossible unless they had committed a crime on their passage through Europe and it was recorded. This puts excess effort and resource into the most important task, and that it is the main reason people who should not be granted asylum are being granted asylum. The resolution is tough, it must be or it would not still be a problem. As you rightly say, grant asylum to genuine and remove the others quickly, but how? do you know that people who shouldn't be granted asylum, are being granted ? And what does this look like ? Is it an Iraqi who isn't being persuxted claiming to be one that is? Or are we talking people claiming to be from different countries ? Rhetorical questions again... If you prefer to bury your head in the sand and refuse to accept that the majority of people entering the country by small boat are not true asylum seekers and have paid and played the system to gain entry, that is your prerogative, it does however take away the validity of your questions. they are questions to understand the issues at hand. I'm not sure how they are rhetorical when I'm hoping to get an answer! I have accepted that I suspect many of the Albanians were probably attempting to play the system (although I wonder if they were conned into it) But if we assume we can sort that one issue out (and as I have said befor HMG seem to be addressing that) then I'd like to know the residual issue. If asking for some evidence is burying my head in the sand, then I'm happy to be an ostrich. Because until I see that, this ostrich is watching people claiming there are ghosts in them woods. There may be ghosts. I'm open to that. But simply telling me there are isn't enough. Show me why you believe it to be true. " Ah Hovis waffle, we have been round the houses on this many times, 3 name changes in all
Answers are always going to be the same, and you know what, Rwanda scheme could be the only way of ever finding out the true asylum / false asylum numbers! But even then I’m not convinced those that make the small boat crossings will stop, the dream is big, the reality I think could be a bit of a shock.
Here is a thought, why don’t the government make a small video asking those crossing in small boats what they think of life in the UK. Play that on big screens around the north French coast, no more crossings…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We still do not know (1) how many we can send from UK to Rwanda (2) how many Rwanda can send to UK (3)will Rwanda begin sending people to UK prior to anyone moving UK to Rwanda Even those in favour of the scheme must be wondering why these simple questions can not be answered " You are asking for to much, just accept the answer is some | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We still do not know (1) how many we can send from UK to Rwanda (2) how many Rwanda can send to UK (3)will Rwanda begin sending people to UK prior to anyone moving UK to Rwanda Even those in favour of the scheme must be wondering why these simple questions can not be answered You are asking for to much, just accept the answer is some" brilliant lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Illegal immigration accounts for around 4% of total immigration to the UK, on a yearly basis, so to say that the country has ‘lost control’ of its borders is frankly hyperbolic. Also, as others have said, viewing asylum seekers through an economic lens is frankly inhumane. It is virtually impossible for asylum seekers to enter the UK legally these days, so just because they are doing something illegal to get here, it doesn’t mean their asylum claims are invalid. Surely the best way of dealing with asylum seekers is to have a robust, efficient, and effective process that allows genuine asylum seekers to get the support they need, and those who don’t have a claim to be removed fromthe country quickly? The 45K people who entered the country illegally entered our borders, that doesn't sound like controlled borders to me. 98% of those entering had no paperwork making identification near impossible unless they had committed a crime on their passage through Europe and it was recorded. This puts excess effort and resource into the most important task, and that it is the main reason people who should not be granted asylum are being granted asylum. The resolution is tough, it must be or it would not still be a problem. As you rightly say, grant asylum to genuine and remove the others quickly, but how? do you know that people who shouldn't be granted asylum, are being granted ? And what does this look like ? Is it an Iraqi who isn't being persuxted claiming to be one that is? Or are we talking people claiming to be from different countries ? Rhetorical questions again... If you prefer to bury your head in the sand and refuse to accept that the majority of people entering the country by small boat are not true asylum seekers and have paid and played the system to gain entry, that is your prerogative, it does however take away the validity of your questions. they are questions to understand the issues at hand. I'm not sure how they are rhetorical when I'm hoping to get an answer! I have accepted that I suspect many of the Albanians were probably attempting to play the system (although I wonder if they were conned into it) But if we assume we can sort that one issue out (and as I have said befor HMG seem to be addressing that) then I'd like to know the residual issue. If asking for some evidence is burying my head in the sand, then I'm happy to be an ostrich. Because until I see that, this ostrich is watching people claiming there are ghosts in them woods. There may be ghosts. I'm open to that. But simply telling me there are isn't enough. Show me why you believe it to be true. Ah Hovis waffle, we have been round the houses on this many times, 3 name changes in all
Answers are always going to be the same, and you know what, Rwanda scheme could be the only way of ever finding out the true asylum / false asylum numbers! But even then I’m not convinced those that make the small boat crossings will stop, the dream is big, the reality I think could be a bit of a shock.
Here is a thought, why don’t the government make a small video asking those crossing in small boats what they think of life in the UK. Play that on big screens around the north French coast, no more crossings…."Now that idea I do like can we add a pice on the cost of living and a bit on homeless / cost of housing. Could this also be on adverts around the world and on posters. The Broken Briton. Do you want to live in a county where you need to work 80 hours @ £12/hour and the government takes a quarter.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We still do not know (1) how many we can send from UK to Rwanda (2) how many Rwanda can send to UK (3)will Rwanda begin sending people to UK prior to anyone moving UK to Rwanda Even those in favour of the scheme must be wondering why these simple questions can not be answered You are asking for to much, just accept the answer is some"
You're right it doesn't matter, the whole point of the scheme is to rile up people who are fearful of foreigners "comin' over 'ere". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No but to carry on your analogy if you make it illegal to phone 999 and all crimes have to be reported in person at a police station, in office hours, do you think that’s a reasonable way of dealing with people in need of the police? No one in France *needs* to come here to claim safety. They could claim safety in any other European country much more easily. They come here because they *want* to, not because they *have* to. To go back to the analogy, I'm fairly sure that we already block 999 calls that are made from outside the UK, and that seems like a reasonable thing to do." We don’t block 999 calls from foreign people who are in the UK however, regardless of how they got here. A person isn’t required to claim asylum in a particular country, and people choose to do so in the UK for a number of reasons, generally not for our benefits system though, which is not as generous and France and other European countries. It is recognised in the 1951 Refugee Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum. It is not illegal to claim asylum in any country that is a signatory to the 1951 convention, which the UK is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
