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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Albania said it would not agree to return hubs for failed asylum seekers" If only there were some other country in the world that already had purpose built facilities for holding these people, and a pre-existing agreement to accept them from us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It turns out the EU had, and still has, provisions for return of failed asylum seekers. Germany are using the rules to deport bogus claimants. But our politicians were too dumb or lazy to understand the rules." We also have provisions for returning failed asylum seekers, and we do so regularly. The problem comes with those that have 'lost' their ID papers, and the country that they claim to be from doesn't recognise them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It turns out the EU had, and still has, provisions for return of failed asylum seekers. Germany are using the rules to deport bogus claimants. But our politicians were too dumb or lazy to understand the rules. We also have provisions for returning failed asylum seekers, and we do so regularly. The problem comes with those that have 'lost' their ID papers, and the country that they claim to be from doesn't recognise them." Then they must be French as that’s where they came from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is a torch light on a lovely country to send illegal migrants to. Thing is will they like it?. Could be worse. If you arrive on a dingy your an illegal migrant. Maybe some lefty tree huggers have a spare room for them. Do any Doctors arrive in dingys escaping a war torn country?." albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol" Albania already accepts the return of its citizens and residents under the existing UK-Albania agreement. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reached-in-uk-albania-agreement-on-illegal-migration It's just that they don't want to act as a concentration camp for non-Albanians. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol Albania already accepts the return of its citizens and residents under the existing UK-Albania agreement. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reached-in-uk-albania-agreement-on-illegal-migration It's just that they don't want to act as a concentration camp for non-Albanians." On resettlement, the Rwandan president said previously; it is not compulsory to stay once you’ve been sent here. You are free to take your settlement money and move on wherever you wish, including where you were sent from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" On resettlement, the Rwandan president said previously; it is not compulsory to stay once you’ve been sent here. You are free to take your settlement money and move on wherever you wish, including where you were sent from " Then they are no longer asylum seekers and can be deported. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol Albania already accepts the return of its citizens and residents under the existing UK-Albania agreement. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reached-in-uk-albania-agreement-on-illegal-migration It's just that they don't want to act as a concentration camp for non-Albanians." exactly they will take Albanians back but no one else so I don't know where two tier got the idea they would take our failed asylum seekers,the guy on the news yesterday seemed like it was the first he had heard about it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It was a clueless thing to launch a proposal in a country that was not interested in it. "Starmer filled his pants after the local elections. He doesn’t know what to do next. Yesterdays economic news gives him some respite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you ever need an example of a man not in control it is kier starmer." If you ever need an example of a man who can't spell the Prime Minister's name he lives in Dudley. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you ever need an example of a man not in control it is kier starmer. If you ever need an example of a man who can't spell the Prime Minister's name he lives in Dudley." You know what they say about people with broad shoulders, thick in the hed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol Albania already accepts the return of its citizens and residents under the existing UK-Albania agreement. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reached-in-uk-albania-agreement-on-illegal-migration It's just that they don't want to act as a concentration camp for non-Albanians.exactly they will take Albanians back but no one else so I don't know where two tier got the idea they would take our failed asylum seekers,the guy on the news yesterday seemed like it was the first he had heard about it" he didn't get the idea that they would. he got the idea of seeing if other countries would hold failed asylum seekers until they could be removed back to where they came from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It turns out the EU had, and still has, provisions for return of failed asylum seekers. Germany are using the rules to deport bogus claimants. But our politicians were too dumb or lazy to understand the rules." the electorate were too dumb to realise that Farage was a fraud. They are still too dumb to realise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Albania said it would not agree to return hubs for failed asylum seekers If only there were some other country in the world that already had purpose built facilities for holding these people, and a pre-existing agreement to accept them from us." You misunderstood the purpose of Rwanda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol Albania already accepts the return of its citizens and residents under the existing UK-Albania agreement. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reached-in-uk-albania-agreement-on-illegal-migration It's just that they don't want to act as a concentration camp for non-Albanians.exactly they will take Albanians back but no one else so I don't know where two tier got the idea they would take our failed asylum seekers,the guy on the news yesterday seemed like it was the first he had heard about it he didn't get the idea that they would. he got the idea of seeing if other countries would hold failed asylum seekers until they could be removed back to where they came from." o so like Rwanda then ? But didn't him and Labour try throwing a spanner in the works every step of the way when the Tories wanted to do something similar | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol Albania already accepts the return of its citizens and residents under the existing UK-Albania agreement. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reached-in-uk-albania-agreement-on-illegal-migration It's just that they don't want to act as a concentration camp for non-Albanians.exactly they will take Albanians back but no one else so I don't know where two tier got the idea they would take our failed asylum seekers,the guy on the news yesterday seemed like it was the first he had heard about it he didn't get the idea that they would. he got the idea of seeing if other countries would hold failed asylum seekers until they could be removed back to where they came from.o so like Rwanda then ? But didn't him and Labour try throwing a spanner in the works every step of the way when the Tories wanted to do something similar " No, not like the Rwanda plan. The Rwanda plan was to process asylum seekers. So, someone arrived here seeking legit asylum could be sent to Rwanda to be processed. If granted asylum it would give them the right to stay in Rwanda but not return to the UK . These hubs are for failed asylum seekers who use all kinds of excuses not to be returned to their country of origin. Italy's use is just for processing asylum seekers. If successful, they go back to Italy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Albania said it would not agree to return hubs for failed asylum seekers" "If only there were some other country in the world that already had purpose built facilities for holding these people, and a pre-existing agreement to accept them from us." "You misunderstood the purpose of Rwanda." I know exactly what the original plan was for the facilities in Rwanda. But those facilities still exist, and if Labour hadn't been so quick to score some cheap political points by cancelling the contract, they could have re-purposed them to use as "return hubs". That would have solved the problem that Keir has today, and it would have shown him making the best of the mess that the Tories left behind. Previously Labour were quite keen to point out all the money that was wasted on Rwanda by the Tories. Now the Tories get to point out that it was Labour that cancelled the contract, and Labour that will now have to spend even more money getting the same facilities built somewhere else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Albania said it would not agree to return hubs for failed asylum seekers If only there were some other country in the world that already had purpose built facilities for holding these people, and a pre-existing agreement to accept them from us. You misunderstood the purpose of Rwanda. I know exactly what the original plan was for the facilities in Rwanda. But those facilities still exist, and if Labour hadn't been so quick to score some cheap political points by cancelling the contract, they could have re-purposed them to use as "return hubs". That would have solved the problem that Keir has today, and it would have shown him making the best of the mess that the Tories left behind. Previously Labour were quite keen to point out all the money that was wasted on Rwanda by the Tories. Now the Tories get to point out that it was Labour that cancelled the contract, and Labour that will now have to spend even more money getting the same facilities built somewhere else." There is always one who thinks they have the answers but fails to look into the details. The Rwanda facilities could host 100-200 at a time. The original purpose was just processing which wouldn't need to take too long. It would have had a reasonable turnover rate. Failed Asylum seekers try everything to avoid being returned so many could stay there for long periods of time. The facilities just didn't have the capacity. Oh, and maybe, just maybe, Rwanda don't want a load of failed asylum seekers in their country but were willing to take genuine asylum seekers who would be willing to work if granted asylum? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Rwanda facilities could host 100-200 at a time. The original purpose was just processing which wouldn't need to take too long. It would have had a reasonable turnover rate." The facilities that were constructed had a capacity of 200, but more capacity was built into the agreement. If ever the UK had wanted to send more people, plans were in place for rapid construction of more facilities. And what Labour needs now is just low capacity. It's a "returns hub", so people will be moving on after just a short time. Unless you're suggesting that Labour will be creating an internment camp for migrants. "Oh, and maybe, just maybe, Rwanda don't want a load of failed asylum seekers in their country but were willing to take genuine asylum seekers who would be willing to work if granted asylum?" If the contract was still valid and Rwanda was happy to take these people, the problem would be solved. If Rwanda didn't want to take these people, Labour could have explained that the Tories made an inflexible deal and wasted money. Not Labour's fault. But the contract did get cancelled, and now Labour will have to spend more money to create an alternative. Whether or not Rwanda would have taken the people, the critics are going to say that Labour have wasted money already spent, and are about to waste even more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posts like this are full of criticism of the Government. Much is probably justified. However, now good folk of Fab, walk a mile in the Government's shoes. What do the Fab illuminati, so quick to criticise, think the solution to the migrant issue really is? Real solutions please, not mine the channel, slash the boats with drones, fly them home and shove them out on a parachute, we shall shoot them on the beaches and on the landing grounds .... . What are the real, workable, legal solutions?" The quicker the UK population becomes insolvent the quicker the establishment will stop the economic migration to the uk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posts like this are full of criticism of the Government. Much is probably justified. However, now good folk of Fab, walk a mile in the Government's shoes. What do the Fab illuminati, so quick to criticise, think the solution to the migrant issue really is? Real solutions please, not mine the channel, slash the boats with drones, fly them home and shove them out on a parachute, we shall shoot them on the beaches and on the landing grounds .... . What are the real, workable, legal solutions? The quicker the UK population becomes insolvent the quicker the establishment will stop the economic migration to the uk." Another 1183 this week in 20 boats 1878 the previous week 3000 in a fortnight, it’s an epidemic | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posts like this are full of criticism of the Government. Much is probably justified. However, now good folk of Fab, walk a mile in the Government's shoes. What do the Fab illuminati, so quick to criticise, think the solution to the migrant issue really is? Real solutions please, not mine the channel, slash the boats with drones, fly them home and shove them out on a parachute, we shall shoot them on the beaches and on the landing grounds .... . What are the real, workable, legal solutions?" This 1951 convention regularly cited here seems to prevent any legal solutions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posts like this are full of criticism of the Government. Much is probably justified. However, now good folk of Fab, walk a mile in the Government's shoes. What do the Fab illuminati, so quick to criticise, think the solution to the migrant issue really is? Real solutions please, not mine the channel, slash the boats with drones, fly them home and shove them out on a parachute, we shall shoot them on the beaches and on the landing grounds .... . What are the real, workable, legal solutions?" The easiest solution is to leave the 1951 Convention. This would not prevent us from granting asylum to people, but it would mean that we can write our own rules about who qualifies and who doesn't. But to leave the Convention we have to give a year's notice, so it isn't an instant fix. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Rwanda facilities could host 100-200 at a time. The original purpose was just processing which wouldn't need to take too long. It would have had a reasonable turnover rate. The facilities that were constructed had a capacity of 200, but more capacity was built into the agreement. If ever the UK had wanted to send more people, plans were in place for rapid construction of more facilities. And what Labour needs now is just low capacity. It's a "returns hub", so people will be moving on after just a short time. Unless you're suggesting that Labour will be creating an internment camp for migrants. Oh, and maybe, just maybe, Rwanda don't want a load of failed asylum seekers in their country but were willing to take genuine asylum seekers who would be willing to work if granted asylum? If the contract was still valid and Rwanda was happy to take these people, the problem would be solved. If Rwanda didn't want to take these people, Labour could have explained that the Tories made an inflexible deal and wasted money. Not Labour's fault. But the contract did get cancelled, and now Labour will have to spend more money to create an alternative. Whether or not Rwanda would have taken the people, the critics are going to say that Labour have wasted money already spent, and are about to waste even more." The memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda did include provisions for scaling up capacity as needed. Rwanda has stated that it could accommodate thousands over time if necessary, with UK funding. The key being with UK funding...So we would need to pay more...which is kind of where we are now... Regardless, The UK Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers. The concern was not about UK deporting people generally but Its asylum system is not reliable. It has a record of returning people to countries where they’re at risk. Rwanda was never an option that should have been considered and Labour were spot on cancelling it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda did include provisions for scaling up capacity as needed. Rwanda has stated that it could accommodate thousands over time if necessary, with UK funding. The key being with UK funding...So we would need to pay more...which is kind of where we are now..." But there's some capacity there now, which could be used. Labour claim that it would be a "returns hub", so we wouldn't need much space. "Regardless, The UK Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers. The concern was not about UK deporting people generally but Its asylum system is not reliable. It has a record of returning people to countries where they’re at risk." But Labour would only be sending people that have failed in their asylum claim, i.e. not genuine refugees. It doesn't matter what Rwanda's history is with asylum seekers if we're not sending asylum seekers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda did include provisions for scaling up capacity as needed. Rwanda has stated that it could accommodate thousands over time if necessary, with UK funding. The key being with UK funding...So we would need to pay more...which is kind of where we are now... But there's some capacity there now, which could be used. Labour claim that it would be a "returns hub", so we wouldn't need much space. Regardless, The UK Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers. The concern was not about UK deporting people generally but Its asylum system is not reliable. It has a record of returning people to countries where they’re at risk. But Labour would only be sending people that have failed in their asylum claim, i.e. not genuine refugees. It doesn't matter what Rwanda's history is with asylum seekers if we're not sending asylum seekers." I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Rwanda facilities could host 100-200 at a time. The original purpose was just processing which wouldn't need to take too long. It would have had a reasonable turnover rate. The facilities that were constructed had a capacity of 200, but more capacity was built into the agreement. If ever the UK had wanted to send more people, plans were in place for rapid construction of more facilities. And what Labour needs now is just low capacity. It's a "returns hub", so people will be moving on after just a short time. Unless you're suggesting that Labour will be creating an internment camp for migrants. Oh, and maybe, just maybe, Rwanda don't want a load of failed asylum seekers in their country but were willing to take genuine asylum seekers who would be willing to work if granted asylum? If the contract was still valid and Rwanda was happy to take these people, the problem would be solved. If Rwanda didn't want to take these people, Labour could have explained that the Tories made an inflexible deal and wasted money. Not Labour's fault. But the contract did get cancelled, and now Labour will have to spend more money to create an alternative. Whether or not Rwanda would have taken the people, the critics are going to say that Labour have wasted money already spent, and are about to waste even more. The memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda did include provisions for scaling up capacity as needed. Rwanda has stated that it could accommodate thousands over time if necessary, with UK funding. The key being with UK funding...So we would need to pay more...which is kind of where we are now... Regardless, The UK Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers. The concern was not about UK deporting people generally but Its asylum system is not reliable. It has a record of returning people to countries where they’re at risk. Rwanda was never an option that should have been considered and Labour were spot on cancelling it. " Yvette Cooper said the Rwanda project had cost £800 million. And that Labour would be investing in 1000 new home office case workers instead Both parties hid the 5000 vacant hotel rooms costing the tax payer £600,000 a day which was reluctantly revealed by the home office at the select committee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful." The rules on deportation are pretty clear, when an asylum seeker exhausts all avenues of appeal, we can ship them back to their country of origin. There's no reason for delay. The 137,500 you quote above is (I think) the number of asylum seekers that have had their initial claim rejected, and are now in the appeals process. If those are the people that Labour is talking about sending to another country, they're being a bit disingenuous with their language. You can't really call it a "returns hub" if it's holding people that can't be returned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful. The rules on deportation are pretty clear, when an asylum seeker exhausts all avenues of appeal, we can ship them back to their country of origin. There's no reason for delay. The 137,500 you quote above is (I think) the number of asylum seekers that have had their initial claim rejected, and are now in the appeals process. If those are the people that Labour is talking about sending to another country, they're being a bit disingenuous with their language. You can't really call it a "returns hub" if it's holding people that can't be returned. " 137,500 is equivalent to 10% of the social housing waiting list, and more than the population of Exeter. Where on earth are all these people going; asking Labour/Tory/Reform | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Rwanda facilities could host 100-200 at a time. The original purpose was just processing which wouldn't need to take too long. It would have had a reasonable turnover rate. The facilities that were constructed had a capacity of 200, but more capacity was built into the agreement. If ever the UK had wanted to send more people, plans were in place for rapid construction of more facilities. And what Labour needs now is just low capacity. It's a "returns hub", so people will be moving on after just a short time. Unless you're suggesting that Labour will be creating an internment camp for migrants. Oh, and maybe, just maybe, Rwanda don't want a load of failed asylum seekers in their country but were willing to take genuine asylum seekers who would be willing to work if granted asylum? If the contract was still valid and Rwanda was happy to take these people, the problem would be solved. If Rwanda didn't want to take these people, Labour could have explained that the Tories made an inflexible deal and wasted money. Not Labour's fault. But the contract did get cancelled, and now Labour will have to spend more money to create an alternative. Whether or not Rwanda would have taken the people, the critics are going to say that Labour have wasted money already spent, and are about to waste even more. The memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda did include provisions for scaling up capacity as needed. Rwanda has stated that it could accommodate thousands over time if necessary, with UK funding. The key being with UK funding...So we would need to pay more...which is kind of where we are now... Regardless, The UK Supreme Court ruled in November 2023 that Rwanda was not a safe country to send asylum seekers. The concern was not about UK deporting people generally but Its asylum system is not reliable. It has a record of returning people to countries where they’re at risk. Rwanda was never an option that should have been considered and Labour were spot on cancelling it. Yvette Cooper said the Rwanda project had cost £800 million. And that Labour would be investing in 1000 new home office case workers instead Both parties hid the 5000 vacant hotel rooms costing the tax payer £600,000 a day which was reluctantly revealed by the home office at the select committee. " completely irrelevant to this discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful. The rules on deportation are pretty clear, when an asylum seeker exhausts all avenues of appeal, we can ship them back to their country of origin. There's no reason for delay. The 137,500 you quote above is (I think) the number of asylum seekers that have had their initial claim rejected, and are now in the appeals process. If those are the people that Labour is talking about sending to another country, they're being a bit disingenuous with their language. You can't really call it a "returns hub" if it's holding people that can't be returned. " You can't just pop an failed asylum seeker back home to Afghanistan. You do understand why not? No , that figure is those who, as explained, were refused and were awaiting further action. My point is that out of that figure, many of these will have exhausted all opportunities. I can't find these figures BUT it's clear that the number from the 137,500 will be many many times more than the Rwanda capacity. My point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful. The rules on deportation are pretty clear, when an asylum seeker exhausts all avenues of appeal, we can ship them back to their country of origin. There's no reason for delay. The 137,500 you quote above is (I think) the number of asylum seekers that have had their initial claim rejected, and are now in the appeals process. If those are the people that Labour is talking about sending to another country, they're being a bit disingenuous with their language. You can't really call it a "returns hub" if it's holding people that can't be returned. 137,500 is equivalent to 10% of the social housing waiting list, and more than the population of Exeter. Where on earth are all these people going; asking Labour/Tory/Reform " Return hubs? 
I really don't understand people like you. We have a problem that we agree on. There's many failed asylum seekers that need to be returned. BUT tell me, how do we physically return people to places like Afghanistan? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is a torch light on a lovely country to send illegal migrants to. Thing is will they like it?. Could be worse. If you arrive on a dingy your an illegal migrant. Maybe some lefty tree huggers have a spare room for them. Do any Doctors arrive in dingys escaping a war torn country?.albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol" It does seem a bespoke deal between Albania and Italy though last I read on it, that has run in legal problems to, just like the Rwanda deal did. Not sure if they have gotten over that hurdle yet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is a torch light on a lovely country to send illegal migrants to. Thing is will they like it?. Could be worse. If you arrive on a dingy your an illegal migrant. Maybe some lefty tree huggers have a spare room for them. Do any Doctors arrive in dingys escaping a war torn country?.albania aint accepting anyone from us, they have a one off agreement with italy and thats it, someone from there gov was on tv lastnight saying they have no such agreement with us so more bullshit from the dear leader lol It does seem a bespoke deal between Albania and Italy though last I read on it, that has run in legal problems to, just like the Rwanda deal did. Not sure if they have gotten over that hurdle yet" No they haven't. Another example though of how processing asylum seekers isn't a simple task. Whoever thought of giving people human rights eh?! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful. The rules on deportation are pretty clear, when an asylum seeker exhausts all avenues of appeal, we can ship them back to their country of origin. There's no reason for delay. The 137,500 you quote above is (I think) the number of asylum seekers that have had their initial claim rejected, and are now in the appeals process. If those are the people that Labour is talking about sending to another country, they're being a bit disingenuous with their language. You can't really call it a "returns hub" if it's holding people that can't be returned. " I don't think they can be shipped back to their country of origin if they claim to be from a dangerous place but mysteriously have lost all proof and the authorities can't prove otherwise. As I understand it this is a reason they all get careless on the dingy and drop their ID overboard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My point is that out of that figure, many of these will have exhausted all opportunities. I can't find these figures BUT it's clear that the number from the 137,500 will be many many times more than the Rwanda capacity. My point." Let's assume those numbers are close to the actual ones. In that case Labour isn't building a "returns hub", it's building an offshore detention facility for migrants. Which country does Starmer think will accept 137,500 people, even if we do offer to pay to have the buildings constructed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"explained, were refused and were awaiting further action." I've just checked, and Downing Street has confirmed that the "returns hub" is only for those asylum seekers that have exceeded all legal avenues of appeal, and are scheduled to be deported. That means that the figures quoted above are not applicable, since they also include those asylum seekers that are still in the appeals process. The number of people to be deported will be a tiny fraction of the number given above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful. The rules on deportation are pretty clear, when an asylum seeker exhausts all avenues of appeal, we can ship them back to their country of origin. There's no reason for delay. The 137,500 you quote above is (I think) the number of asylum seekers that have had their initial claim rejected, and are now in the appeals process. If those are the people that Labour is talking about sending to another country, they're being a bit disingenuous with their language. You can't really call it a "returns hub" if it's holding people that can't be returned. 137,500 is equivalent to 10% of the social housing waiting list, and more than the population of Exeter. Where on earth are all these people going; asking Labour/Tory/Reform Return hubs?
I really don't understand people like you. We have a problem that we agree on. There's many failed asylum seekers that need to be returned. BUT tell me, how do we physically return people to places like Afghanistan?"The reality is we don't return them to such places, and that is why we need a strong deterrent and a change to the 1951 refugee convention to help us overcome loopholes such as this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BUT tell me, how do we physically return people to places like Afghanistan?" Physically - we put them on a plane to Pakistan, then put them in a car and drive them to the border. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful. The rules on deportation are pretty clear, when an asylum seeker exhausts all avenues of appeal, we can ship them back to their country of origin. There's no reason for delay. The 137,500 you quote above is (I think) the number of asylum seekers that have had their initial claim rejected, and are now in the appeals process. If those are the people that Labour is talking about sending to another country, they're being a bit disingenuous with their language. You can't really call it a "returns hub" if it's holding people that can't be returned. I don't think they can be shipped back to their country of origin if they claim to be from a dangerous place but mysteriously have lost all proof and the authorities can't prove otherwise. As I understand it this is a reason they all get careless on the dingy and drop their ID overboard. " Exactly, and that the problem. Doesn't seem to be a solution and, removing the EHRC as some suggest, isn't going to help one bit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My point is that out of that figure, many of these will have exhausted all opportunities. I can't find these figures BUT it's clear that the number from the 137,500 will be many many times more than the Rwanda capacity. My point. Let's assume those numbers are close to the actual ones. In that case Labour isn't building a "returns hub", it's building an offshore detention facility for migrants. Which country does Starmer think will accept 137,500 people, even if we do offer to pay to have the buildings constructed?" You are making assumptions. The point is, it's not 100. It will be thousands. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't find the numbers who are waiting on deportation but as of the end of 2024, the UK had approximately 137,500 individuals whose asylum claims had been refused and were awaiting further action, such as appeal outcomes or deportation. I think it's safe to assume that the numbers waiting to be deported are far in excess of the Rwanda capacity... I thought you would have realised why I mentioned Asylum seekers but clearly not. using a returns hub in Rwanda does not eliminate the legal or moral risk. Unless the hub country: Has proven respect for human rights, and Allows fair processing, appeals, and oversight, then the UK could still be held accountable for violating asylum seekers' rights. These are the very reason that the use of Rwanda was considered unlawful. The rules on deportation are pretty clear, when an asylum seeker exhausts all avenues of appeal, we can ship them back to their country of origin. There's no reason for delay. The 137,500 you quote above is (I think) the number of asylum seekers that have had their initial claim rejected, and are now in the appeals process. If those are the people that Labour is talking about sending to another country, they're being a bit disingenuous with their language. You can't really call it a "returns hub" if it's holding people that can't be returned. 137,500 is equivalent to 10% of the social housing waiting list, and more than the population of Exeter. Where on earth are all these people going; asking Labour/Tory/Reform Return hubs?
I really don't understand people like you. We have a problem that we agree on. There's many failed asylum seekers that need to be returned. BUT tell me, how do we physically return people to places like Afghanistan?
The reality is we don't return them to such places, and that is why we need a strong deterrent and a change to the 1951 refugee convention to help us overcome loopholes such as this. "Deterrent yes. But, when they are here, there is little that can be down regardless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BUT tell me, how do we physically return people to places like Afghanistan? Physically - we put them on a plane to Pakistan, then put them in a car and drive them to the border." So we would need Pakistan to approve a flight full of failed asylum seekers without passports to enter their country. Once there, Pakistan would have to drive these people to the border where the afghans (Taliban) wouldn't allow them in because they don't have passport...or, they do let them in and just execute them. Yeah, I can see Pakistan agreeing to that idea... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As Albania is very pro Muslim I would have thought they would be ideal to take all the Muslim immigrants, shame Statmer didn't sell it to the Albanian Prime Minister. Which shows he is put of his depth and doesn't hold any weight dealing with foreign affairs. " 108,138 people claimed asylum in the UK in 2024, which was 18% more than in 2023 and 5% more than the previous recorded peak of 103,081 in 2002. In 2024, 84,231 claimants were main applicants and 23,907 were dependants (gov web). 67,337 asylum applications were made in 2023, and these applications related to 84,425 people. This was a 17% decrease from the 81,130 applications in 2022 (Gov web) In 2021, there were 48,540 asylum applications made in the UK, excluding dependants. This represented a 63% increase compared to the 29,815 applications in 2020. Add another 11,000 in small boats so far this year. Roughly half a million over five years if government figures are accurate. Can’t see anyone anywhere wanting these numbers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are making assumptions. The point is, it's not 100. It will be thousands." OK, I'll stop assuming that your figures are correct. Given that we both agree that the figures aren't available, what makes you believe that the number will be thousands? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BUT tell me, how do we physically return people to places like Afghanistan?" "Physically - we put them on a plane to Pakistan, then put them in a car and drive them to the border." "So we would need Pakistan to approve a flight full of failed asylum seekers without passports to enter their country. Once there, Pakistan would have to drive these people to the border where the afghans (Taliban) wouldn't allow them in because they don't have passport...or, they do let them in and just execute them. Yeah, I can see Pakistan agreeing to that idea..." That's not what I said. We provide a secure bus, a driver, and some guards. When a flight arrives, we put the returnees straight into the bus, and drive them to Afghanistan. We have quite good relations with Pakistan, I'm sure they could be persuaded to allow such a plan. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BUT tell me, how do we physically return people to places like Afghanistan? Physically - we put them on a plane to Pakistan, then put them in a car and drive them to the border. So we would need Pakistan to approve a flight full of failed asylum seekers without passports to enter their country. Once there, Pakistan would have to drive these people to the border where the afghans (Taliban) wouldn't allow them in because they don't have passport...or, they do let them in and just execute them. Yeah, I can see Pakistan agreeing to that idea... That's not what I said. We provide a secure bus, a driver, and some guards. When a flight arrives, we put the returnees straight into the bus, and drive them to Afghanistan. We have quite good relations with Pakistan, I'm sure they could be persuaded to allow such a plan." A generous bung would secure it, we are currently paying £50M a week in accommodation alone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are making assumptions. The point is, it's not 100. It will be thousands. OK, I'll stop assuming that your figures are correct. Given that we both agree that the figures aren't available, what makes you believe that the number will be thousands?" How about the fact that 20k were returned under starmer so far? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BUT tell me, how do we physically return people to places like Afghanistan? Physically - we put them on a plane to Pakistan, then put them in a car and drive them to the border. So we would need Pakistan to approve a flight full of failed asylum seekers without passports to enter their country. Once there, Pakistan would have to drive these people to the border where the afghans (Taliban) wouldn't allow them in because they don't have passport...or, they do let them in and just execute them. Yeah, I can see Pakistan agreeing to that idea... That's not what I said. We provide a secure bus, a driver, and some guards. When a flight arrives, we put the returnees straight into the bus, and drive them to Afghanistan. We have quite good relations with Pakistan, I'm sure they could be persuaded to allow such a plan." You said car and not bus. Even you don't know what you said Yeah, I am sure Pakistan would want to be involved in something that resulted in Afghans getting murdered. It would look really good on the international stage and it wouldn't at all damage relationships with other countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are making assumptions. The point is, it's not 100. It will be thousands." "OK, I'll stop assuming that your figures are correct. Given that we both agree that the figures aren't available, what makes you believe that the number will be thousands?" "How about the fact that 20k were returned under starmer so far?" That figure is for all returns, not just asylum seekers. Even if it were, that works out to about 58 per day. The people to be shipped out will only be those that have already been approved for deportation. How long do you expect them to remain in the Returns Hub? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah, I am sure Pakistan would want to be involved in something that resulted in Afghans getting murdered. It would look really good on the international stage and it wouldn't at all damage relationships with other countries." You sent to be making assumptions about these theoretical Afghans that you haven't explained. Why do you think that they'd be murdered as soon as they arrive? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are making assumptions. The point is, it's not 100. It will be thousands. OK, I'll stop assuming that your figures are correct. Given that we both agree that the figures aren't available, what makes you believe that the number will be thousands? How about the fact that 20k were returned under starmer so far? " More than that will have been borne here in uk to those seeking asylum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation!" That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are making assumptions. The point is, it's not 100. It will be thousands. OK, I'll stop assuming that your figures are correct. Given that we both agree that the figures aren't available, what makes you believe that the number will be thousands? How about the fact that 20k were returned under starmer so far? That figure is for all returns, not just asylum seekers. Even if it were, that works out to about 58 per day. The people to be shipped out will only be those that have already been approved for deportation. How long do you expect them to remain in the Returns Hub?" I am fully aware of what those figures are. It's an increasing number of which, many will be failed asylum seekers but, importantly, on top of that, there are tens of thousands that haven't been deported yet. There were 44k failed asylum seekers in 2024 and that's prior to the ramping up of processing to clear the Tory back log. Obviously, some of these appeal. It isn't rocket science. Let's go with the 58 a day though. Well, that would mean turnover every 2 days. These people are failed asylum seekers so what do you mean approved for deportation? Deporting takes time and is, in most cases, extremely challenging given they have no documentation or the returns country refuses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah, I am sure Pakistan would want to be involved in something that resulted in Afghans getting murdered. It would look really good on the international stage and it wouldn't at all damage relationships with other countries. You sent to be making assumptions about these theoretical Afghans that you haven't explained. Why do you think that they'd be murdered as soon as they arrive?" I am not saying I think that they will be murdered but, it's not unrealistic to assume they are at significant risk when returned. If you think that they can just cross the border and be taken back to their home town to live a peaceful life then you are completely deluded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are making assumptions. The point is, it's not 100. It will be thousands. OK, I'll stop assuming that your figures are correct. Given that we both agree that the figures aren't available, what makes you believe that the number will be thousands? How about the fact that 20k were returned under starmer so far? More than that will have been borne here in uk to those seeking asylum. " Given they are apparently all men of fighting age living in hotels, can you explain how they are producing significant offspring? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why pay someone else to take them? If their case is rejected, as nearly all should be, send then back to their country of origin at zero cost other than the transport. No passport or ID Automatic deportation! Country of origin denies them. Stop all aid to that county and give the migrant the opportunity to serve in Ukraine for a year and earn Ukrainian citizenship " How do you determine country of origin if they refuse to say? What if they lied on their asylum claim that they came from a dangerous country? They can be sent and won't be accepted there. So, how can we cut aid to a country (assumption there they actually get aid) for not accepting a failed asylum seeker from another country? Seriously, walk through your thought process before posting. Have you ever thought about talking your argument through with chatGPT? I took your comment and asked for an opinion. This is the response: ------- Deporting failed asylum seekers isn’t as simple as just putting them on a plane. The UK is bound by international laws and human rights conventions, which means every person has the right to a fair process—even if their asylum claim is ultimately rejected. 1. Cost of deportation: Deportation involves not just transport but legal processes, appeals, and coordination with the destination country. Many countries refuse to accept individuals unless they confirm citizenship, and if someone has no ID, it’s often unclear where they’re from. 2. No ID, no deportation? Automatically deporting people with no ID isn’t legally or practically possible. We can’t send someone to a country they may not belong to—this risks breaking international law and creates diplomatic issues. 3. Cutting aid: Using aid as leverage to force deportations can backfire. Aid often funds things like healthcare and education, not the government directly. Cutting it can worsen conditions and drive more people to flee. 4. Military service in Ukraine: Forcing or encouraging people to join a foreign conflict to “earn” citizenship raises serious ethical and legal concerns. It risks violating human rights and undermines the principle that people shouldn't be penalized for seeking asylum. The asylum system isn’t perfect, but it's built on law and humanitarian values. Simplifying it to “just send them back” ignores the complex realities involved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The asylum system isn’t perfect, but it's built on law and humanitarian values. Simplifying it to “just send them back” ignores the complex realities involved." The asylum system is being exploited and nothing is being done to close out the loopholes. We can go around the houses again and again but no plan is going to work while we remain bound to the 1951 refugee convention as it is written today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better." Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Have you ever thought about talking your argument through with chatGPT? I took your comment and asked for an opinion. This is the response: ... " That was actually fun 
How about the Australian system: intercept them at sea; take them to a safe and friendly island. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Have you ever thought about talking your argument through with chatGPT? I took your comment and asked for an opinion. This is the response: ... That was actually fun
How about the Australian system: intercept them at sea; take them to a safe and friendly island."We are doing that today I believe, however some make it to the safe island without assistance.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Have you ever thought about talking your argument through with chatGPT? I took your comment and asked for an opinion. This is the response: ... That was actually fun
How about the Australian system: intercept them at sea; take them to a safe and friendly island."Did you ask ChatGPT on that one? It's fun and gives a reasonable explanation if I remember correctly from when someone mentioned that in the past. I really wish people who think we can just deport them or say that they crossed through a thousand safe countries would have a chat with ChatGPT first. It saves effort all around. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? " Hilarious! You do realise that most people fleeing these countries have never been abroad. They don't usually jump on a plane a couple of times a year for a week all inclusive in benidorn...Most don't have passports which is a reason they have to flee and cross borders illegally! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? Hilarious! You do realise that most people fleeing these countries have never been abroad. They don't usually jump on a plane a couple of times a year for a week all inclusive in benidorn...Most don't have passports which is a reason they have to flee and cross borders illegally! " 400,000 young men over the last five years are ‘fleeing’ nothing. There here for a free house and lodgings. I would do the same if young and I had no money or prospects. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? Hilarious! You do realise that most people fleeing these countries have never been abroad. They don't usually jump on a plane a couple of times a year for a week all inclusive in benidorn...Most don't have passports which is a reason they have to flee and cross borders illegally! " The smuggling gangs advise the people who have paid for their services to destroy their ID, as it improves their chances of asylum and it prevents efforts to identify and deport them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? Hilarious! You do realise that most people fleeing these countries have never been abroad. They don't usually jump on a plane a couple of times a year for a week all inclusive in benidorn...Most don't have passports which is a reason they have to flee and cross borders illegally! 400,000 young men over the last five years are ‘fleeing’ nothing. There here for a free house and lodgings. I would do the same if young and I had no money or prospects. " Why do you keep banging an with stats? We recognise the problems! But, the solutions are a bit more complex. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? Hilarious! You do realise that most people fleeing these countries have never been abroad. They don't usually jump on a plane a couple of times a year for a week all inclusive in benidorn...Most don't have passports which is a reason they have to flee and cross borders illegally! The smuggling gangs advise the people who have paid for their services to destroy their ID, as it improves their chances of asylum and it prevents efforts to identify and deport them. " Yes, we all know that! ID, for most, being a national ID card or driving licence. NOT a passport! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How about the fact that 20k were returned under starmer so far?" "That figure is for all returns, not just asylum seekers." "I am fully aware of what those figures are." And yet you presented that figure in a discussion about asylum returns, knowing that they weren't relevant to the discussion. I see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah, I am sure Pakistan would want to be involved in something that resulted in Afghans getting murdered. It would look really good on the international stage and it wouldn't at all damage relationships with other countries." "You sent to be making assumptions about these theoretical Afghans that you haven't explained. Why do you think that they'd be murdered as soon as they arrive?" "I am not saying I think that they will be murdered ..." You are saying that. Those are your words up above. "... but, it's not unrealistic to assume they are at significant risk when returned." It is unrealistic. We have a long and complex process to determine whether these people are at risk in their home country, and an even more exhaustive appeals process. Those that are at risk simply won't be returned. I'll remind you again that the Returns Hub is only for those people that have no further appeal channels left, and have been determined to not be at risk of harm when returned to their home country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...but no plan is going to work while we remain bound to the 1951 refugee convention as it is written today." To be pedantic - the wording of the 1951 Convention allows us to just send most people back. It's the hundreds of extensions that have been added onto it through 'established precedent' in the human rights courts that are causing the problem. We can't just re-write the 1951 Convention, we need to scrap it and start again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation!" "That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better." "Most are not genuine refugees." But some of them might be. We can't just go sending people back without giving them a chance to prove that they are genuine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? Hilarious! You do realise that most people fleeing these countries have never been abroad. They don't usually jump on a plane a couple of times a year for a week all inclusive in benidorn...Most don't have passports which is a reason they have to flee and cross borders illegally! The smuggling gangs advise the people who have paid for their services to destroy their ID, as it improves their chances of asylum and it prevents efforts to identify and deport them. Yes, we all know that! ID, for most, being a national ID card or driving licence. NOT a passport! " Semantics.. They are destroying their ID, whatever that happens to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How about the fact that 20k were returned under starmer so far? That figure is for all returns, not just asylum seekers. I am fully aware of what those figures are. And yet you presented that figure in a discussion about asylum returns, knowing that they weren't relevant to the discussion. I see." I thought you were bright enough to join the dots. Clearly not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? Hilarious! You do realise that most people fleeing these countries have never been abroad. They don't usually jump on a plane a couple of times a year for a week all inclusive in benidorn...Most don't have passports which is a reason they have to flee and cross borders illegally! The smuggling gangs advise the people who have paid for their services to destroy their ID, as it improves their chances of asylum and it prevents efforts to identify and deport them. Yes, we all know that! ID, for most, being a national ID card or driving licence. NOT a passport! Semantics.. They are destroying their ID, whatever that happens to be. " We know. But you were responding to a post specifically about them picking up their passports. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How about the fact that 20k were returned under starmer so far?" "That figure is for all returns, not just asylum seekers." "I am fully aware of what those figures are." "And yet you presented that figure in a discussion about asylum returns, knowing that they weren't relevant to the discussion. I see." "I thought you were bright enough to join the dots. Clearly not" Ah, We've finally reached the gratuitous insults stage. I think this discussion has come to its conclusion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No passport or ID Automatic deportation! That would be illegal under the 1951 Convention. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution might not be able to grab their ID when escaping, and we shouldn't punish them for failing to plan their escape better. Most are not genuine refugees. They had time to make arrangements to cross Europe and half of Africa/Asia, they have 10 seconds to grab their passport. How are they crossing a dozen countries borders with no ID? Or is saying “we’re not stopping we’re heading to the UK” enough to get you unhindered passage? Hilarious! You do realise that most people fleeing these countries have never been abroad. They don't usually jump on a plane a couple of times a year for a week all inclusive in benidorn...Most don't have passports which is a reason they have to flee and cross borders illegally! The smuggling gangs advise the people who have paid for their services to destroy their ID, as it improves their chances of asylum and it prevents efforts to identify and deport them. Yes, we all know that! ID, for most, being a national ID card or driving licence. NOT a passport! Semantics.. They are destroying their ID, whatever that happens to be. We know. But you were responding to a post specifically about them picking up their passports." The question still remains unanswered. How does someone get from the Middle East or the horn of Africa to a French beach with no ID? I said passport but any form of ID was implied. What was it you said to someone else….. “I thought you’d be intelligent enough to join the dots but clearly not” ? If you watch any of the documentaries you’ll hear from the horses mouth that the vast majority are not fleeing persecution, they are here for the freebies. One on a French beach, I saw only a few days ago, was asked if the UK wasn’t giving free houses what would they do and they said they would go elsewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After a vast amount if discussion on here, there is not an easy solution is there? No British government, of any colour, let alone an in-experienced, incompetent, one trick pony like Reform, is ever going to solve this matter. It will take years. We will need agreements with the migrants homelands to allow them to be returned legally if we are to legally reduce the number. " Your suggestion does not tend to work due to the 1951 refugee convention and ECHR. Reform are suggesting we remove ourselves from those conventions and treaties, and rewrite our own. This should allow loopholes to be closed and a modern convention to be put in place that actually supports genuine asylum seekers. The task is huge as it touches most of the laws and practices we have, such as the Good Friday agreement as an example. The task being difficult should not be a reason to ignore this option, and we should begin the analysis that is required to understand the outcomes of such a fundamental change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
