You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yeah - the narrative is going 100% to plan for the Tories so far: its those pesky Europeans meddling in our affairs, preventing us from taking back control of our borders.
Now, if there was any way to link it back to house prices/rail strikes..... maybe Abu Hamza?
To be honest Rwanda doesn't sound too bad. Hardly the third world hell hole that some have painted it as.
Appreciate it is a difficult situation, but can anyone answer the following questions?
If these are genuine refugees, fleeing war, famine, terror or oppression, then why are many not attempting to settle in France or any of the other safe European countries that they will have passed through to get to the French coast. Why risk a very dangerous and expensive channel crossing to get to the UK?
and,
What exactly should we do with illegal immigrants if they cannot be deported?
We can still deport illegal immigrants, we just won't be deporting the legal ones too
If these are genuine refugees, fleeing war, famine, terror or oppression, then why are many not attempting to settle in France
There's no requirement for any refugee to accept settlement in any country other than which ever they choose. The Dublin Agreement makes it possible for some EU countries to return some people to another EU country for settlement under some circumstances. Why not France specifically? Because mostly it's a pretty inhospitable country for immigration and refugees alike, if you are for instance; not white, European, or wealthy.
Why risk a very dangerous and expensive channel crossing to get to the UK?
Because successive UK govts have all but eliminated all the safe and legal means for refugees to otherwise come to the UK. Most are fleeing from places like Syria and Afghanistan, and flights from nearby countries are (by comparison) cheap and fast, there's a reason people are not using those routes to try to come here.
What exactly should we do with illegal immigrants if they cannot be deported?
Why is their status that of illegal? I agree we should have rules about who should come here, we don't want convicted criminals, but lots of these folks have qualifications that mean they'll contribute overall to our economy. The difference between how we treat folks fleeing conflict in Ukraine,and how we treat those fleeing conflict in Syria couldn't be more black and white.
See here
Christ. That's like reading a GCSE geography report!
Why risk a very dangerous and expensive channel crossing to get to the UK?
Because they already know people here? Have family here? Don't know any better? Have already paid for their "ticket" to get here?
Where are these people being sent to? I assume they don't just land open the door and say "off you pop". Does UK immigration have a facility there that is staffed at least in part by UK staff to allow processing? It could be an absolute hell hole if it's effectively a Rwandan holding facility built on a budget probably by a UK based firm with a CEO affiliated to the Tories.
It could be an absolute hell hole if it’s effectively a Rwandan holding facility
I think the resettlement facilities are run by the Rwandan govt. I don't think it's a hell-hole, but neither is it Butlins.
If these are genuine refugees, fleeing war, famine, terror or oppression, then why are many not attempting to settle in France or any of the other safe European countries that they will have passed through to get to the French coast. Why risk a very dangerous and expensive channel crossing to get to the UK?
The vast majority do seek asylum elsewhere in Europe - the number we get is a very small proportion.
The real gem is that people fleeing persecution in Rwanda - which has a poor record with political opposition - could get deported back there under this scheme.
Sky News skewered Zahawi, the education minister, by asking him how his life might have been different if his family had been sent to Rwanda when they fled Iraq.....
Anyway, I read somewhere that the government hasn't removed the EU legislation about compensation for cancelled flights, so we owe these people £500 each 😎
What exactly should we do with illegal immigrants if they cannot be deported?
It is strange that so many people should be so ignorant of a topic which it is claimed is foremost on people's minds.
The UK can and does regularly deport those who are deemed to be "illegal immigrants". Those deported to Jamaica are just one example:
But this of course has absolutely nothing to do with deportations to Rwanda.
The government is not pretending that those whom they are attempting to deport to Rwanda are anything other than refugees fleeing war and persecution and seeking asylum.
Instead of researching what a great life it is in Rwanda for expats it might be my useful to research what exactly the issue is?
Does UK immigration have a facility there that is staffed at least in part by UK staff to allow processing?
Why would it? Once they get to Rwanda, they’re applying for asylum in Rwanda.
How many times have they repeated the “frustrated by foreign judges” line on Radio4’s Today Programme this morning? Sounds like a stuck record.
This will be a good excuse for this govt to withdraw from ECHR.
This will be a good excuse for this govt to withdraw from ECHR.
As already pointed out, putting our government on a par with the Greek junta and, er, Putin.
Edit - and while lots of Little Englanders will be convinced this is the right thing to do, they are gonna be in for a shock when they realise what that does to their own human rights and access to justice.
Any likelehood of planning on leaving the ECHR provoking Tory backbenchers into changing their rules to have another vote of confidence, such as May was threatened with?
it might be my useful to research what exactly the issue is?
Given that the government are simultaneously paying people to house European refugees fleeing war and deporting to another country middle eastern and Asian people also fleeing war, it's pretty clear what the issue is
The government is not pretending that those whom they are attempting to deport to Rwanda are anything other than refugees fleeing war and persecution and seeking asylum.
Rwanda is now considered a safe country, free from war, persecution etc? So if war and persecution is indeed what you are fleeing, then you'd be fairly happy there right?
and while lots of Little Englanders will be convinced this is the right thing to do, they are gonna be in for a shock when they realise what that does to their own human rights and access to justice.
But the issue is the shock will only be theirs,most numpties are happy to have rights removed from other people 🙂
So if war and persecution is indeed what you are fleeing, then you’d be fairly happy there right?
So why isn't the government sending Ukrainian refugees there? Why doesn't their compassion extend to Ukrainians?
And you do realise that the government is arguing that deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda will be so goddamn awful for them that they won't be attracted to coming to the UK, don't you?
And you do realise that the government is arguing that deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda will be so goddamn awful for them that they won’t be attracted to coming to the UK, don’t you?
They always have the option to claim asylum in France or any other safe country they pass through on route to the UK.
Why don’t you want them here?
Iirc every single asylum seeker that comes here from Rwandan has had their claim upheld, which rather undermines the governments 'position'
Have to agree that the government more than happy for this to dominate the headlines especially now that there's the ECHR to blame- irony lost on those that don't realise that ECHR set up to make sure that 'Never Again' would we see things like forced deportations of a group dehumanised by populists for political scapegoating. And of course it was set up by Winston Churchill- one of his greatest legacies under attack from those obsessed with 'saving' his statues
Besides the legal/ethical debate. The level of incompetence and mismanagement of the scheme is sobering. Apparently, the cancelled charter flight amounts to 0.5 million and we are paying Rwanda £120mill for their end of it.
And you do realise that the government is arguing that deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda will be so goddamn awful for them that they won’t be attracted to coming to the UK, don’t you?
It's such a ridiculous, self-owning argument.
Plus the fact that the return flight, if it eventually happens, will have 10x more Rwandan refugees than our deportees. Which part of this 'Rwandan paradise' are they fleeing from? It will be impossible for their asylum claims to succeed without destroying the whole idea that Rwanda is a safe place to traffic human beings to.
And now Boris is threatening to withdraw from ECHR. His legacy, tearing up one of the better things that his supposed hero, Churchill, achieved.*
*Churchill is only his hero for the purposes of creating his fake, political image. There is nothing remotely Churchillian about the man aside from the racism.
Why don’t you want them here?
Think that's fairly obvious.
Why don’t you want them here?
Think that’s fairly obvious.
Is it?
It's utterly shameful behaviour from our government, and the goal is simply to criminalise Asylum seekers (or more generally foreigners), full stop. They can spin it and obfuscate as much as they like, but every Tory MP, party member and Little Englander knows what these "reforms" are about... last night's ruling is far from the end of it, the money and resources expended on court battles, chartered flights and Rwandan "Processing centres" would have been far better expended on some UK offshore Asylum application offices. A handful of staff and an office in Calais would do much more to disrupt people smugglers overloading up Dinghies in the Channel than this shit show...
The line that Rwandan deportations will somehow deter people smugglers must now require a bit of mental gymnastics to keep the golden thread of "logic" alive for the faithful. It's bollocks, it's another culture war tool to deter all foreigners from our blessed shores. First by turning "asylum" into a dirty word then by actively legislating against those seeking it and punishing them.
By effectively closing down legal routes for people outside the UK to apply, we've driven them into the hands of the smugglers, by criminalising Asylum seekers for making an "illegal" entry to blighty and then making the default sentence a one way flight to Rwanda, we've finally proven to the world that the UK is home to pernicious bastards and nothing more.
Thérèse Coffey's half arsed assurance (on R4) that we're not leaving the ECHR didn't fill me with confidence either.
We already know international legal agreements, accords and memberships are there to be torn up...
Funny how quiet Priti is this morning innit? Still if you're going to nail your colours to a failed Australian policy, you should expect to have to dodge the press a bit...
Is it?
You tell us.
And welcome back to the forum. How long you staying for?
Is it?
seems that way to me, but why don't you tell everyone why you don't want them to come to the UK?
seems that way to me, but why don’t you tell everyone why you don’t want them to come to the UK?
Seems what way to you?
This is not my post nor anything to do with me or my views, so don’t shoot the messenger. I read it on FB & it’s from a haulier in NE England.
I really have offended a lot of people with my Rwanda post. but as a haulier who has lost tens of thousands of pounds in damage to goods & trailers, paid unjust fines to border force even though we have been the victims of organised crime and people trafficking, smashed windscreens, terrified drivers, threatened with weapons and violence driving through fires and downed trees and blockades just to try and get from Calais back into the Uk safely. Holes cut in roofs of trailers, rear trailer doors damaged multiple times, duct taping themselves to axles. All these people who comment negatively against me have never been effected directly other than to feel sorry for them, they have not seen the real story. young fighting age males with iPhones and designers clothes. Hardly any woman and children. When they get to the UK illegally they can not work so a lot of them turn to crime to find income. They drain our economy & benefit system dry, I have sympathy for genuine refugees and they deserve the UK’s help, Regardless of skin colour, religious beliefs, birthplace or culture. We recently sent a trailer of humanitarian aid to help the Ukrainian refugees.
But to drive through a 100+ mob of young males throwing bricks at 2am in the morning in Calais trying to get to the ferry is one of the most frightening experiences you can ever have.
Refugees need our help.
Economic Migrants who are Young Fighting Age Males with Iphones and designer clothes need to go to Rwanda.
If you don’t like this please unfollow the page.
I don’t know what his original post said.
Does he have a point?
My son works for a haulier in Durham but not as a driver, this stuff happens to his drivers too.
Seems what way to you?
Answer my question first.
Rwanda is now considered a safe country, free from war, persecution etc?
Considered by who? Tories? Or the people fleeing from Rwanda due to, errrr, persecution.
Agreed, much like many of those who chose to be vaccinated against Covid-19 were more than happy to have rights taken away from those who, for whatever reason, declined to be vaccinated.
No one had their "rights" removed for refusing to get vaccinated. They may, however have been persecuted for their beliefs.
Seems what way to you?
Answer my question first.
Your question is not relevant because I have never said I don't want them here. I simply asked questions regarding the alternatives?
So go on then, seems what way to you?
No one had their “rights” removed for refusing to get vaccinated. They may, however have been persecuted for their beliefs.
Perhaps tell that to my sister who lost her job as manager of a care home because she was not vaccinated, despite having what she considered a valid medical exemption.
Hey there,
It occurred to me that the only people I want on this flight are Conservative MP's.
The only way I can handle this completely ignorant malaise of a government is by humor.
BR
JeZ
Your posts are giving all the alternatives they could do, rather than just settle here. Why can’t they just settle here?
Re: The haulier post
I entirely sympathise, but those things are primarily the consequence of not dealing with asylum claims in a rational and compassionate way. There are virtually no legal routes to present yourself in the UK as an asylum seeker, so you do the things listed above, or pay money to people smugglers to make a dangerous boat crossing. Because you are desperate.
The solution is to actually cooperate with our neighbours rather than antagonising them, and set up processing centres to resolve their claims before they have to become criminals to get here.
Something like 80% of current claims are successful - this means that these people are not simply economic migrants, but genuinely fleeing persecution or war (and yes, fighting age men do, on occasion, flee war).
The truth is, though, this is not about stopping people dying in the Channel, or freeing hauliers from the ridiculous requirement to do the border force's job for them. They could set up legal routes for asylum seekers and solve that problem almost overnight. This is about demonising a group of people for electoral gain. And sadly, it is working.
Also, complaining about people resorting to criminal activity because you have criminalised them and prevented them from working is an odd argument.
Our current asylum policy is not just killing and criminalising genuine refugees, it is failing UK citizens as well.
Your posts are giving all the alternatives they could do, rather than just settle here. Why can’t they just settle here?
Tom, I will ask you again, how do I seem to you? Have the courage to say what you meant, or if not please apologise for your thinly veiled accusation.
Tom, I will ask you again, how do I seem to you?
Can't speak for Tom but to me you seem like a small minded racist. Prove me wrong.
Racism. There I said it. Happy now? Care to answer the question and prove me wrong?
So YOU call me a racist with no evidence, but it is ME who has to justify to you why I am not? Is this honestly where you are going? Really?
Do not feed the obvious troll.
Do not feed the obvious troll.
So a troll now as well as a racist. Seems that's standard form for on here for anyone who asks an awkward question.
I haven’t accused you of anything. Your posts indicate, by providing every reason/other ‘option’ other than to settle here, that you don’t want them to settle here. Why is this?
I don’t think you’re a troll TBF. Just a racist.
That is a very interesting observation considering that I am of mixed race. I think you need to calm yourself down to be honest as you seem to have lost a grip on what you should be saying to someone you don't know in a public, online forum. I have reported your post but perhaps you ought to take a break from this thread as it is clearly not good for your mental health. Perhaps use that time to seek some professional help. And I say this with genuine concern for you.
Seems that’s standard form for on here for anyone who asks an awkward question.
I didn't see any awkward questions.
I watched the BBC news last night and found it very worrying that they are not just allowing government spokespeople to get away with using terms like ‘lefty lawyers’ unchallenged (they are simply ‘lawyers’) but are also using the terms themselves. They were doing it again on Radio 4 this morning
So much for impartiality and objectivity
Funny how quiet Priti is this morning innit? Still if you’re going to nail your colours to a failed Australian policy, you should expect to have to dodge the press a bit…
She’s been AWOL through this whole charade, sending Home Office underlings out to do her dirty work. Like Truss, and her boss she’s dodged Parliament as well, in her case to spare the usual ritual of her being torn a new one by Yvette Coooper
I have reported your post
Diddums! If you don't like being called a racist stop posting racist sounding stuff.
PS. Your ethnicity is irrelevent.
Diddums! If you don’t like being called a racist stop posting racist sounding stuff.
PS. Your ethnicity is irrelevent.
Please quote something I have said then that is actually racist?
Perhaps tell that to my sister who lost her job as manager of a care home because she was not vaccinated, despite having what she considered a valid medical exemption.
So she was persecuted for her beliefs. Specifically the belief that she knows better.
Can you tell me what rights she had infringed?
That is a very interesting observation considering that I am of mixed race.
Point of order - being mixed race/an ethnic minority does not mean you can't be racist.
I think like the folks who shouted loudest to get us out of the EU are now aiming their ignorance at getting the UK to leave the ECHR.
Please quote something I have said then that is actually racist?
You're parroting all the usual lines that proven racists like Farage et al spout on the asylum issue, and then when called out on it repeatedly refuse to answer a simple question which could show us that you're not like them. That's all I need to form an opinion. If that opinion is wrong, tell me why. You've been asked many times and still you refuse the invitation. ('being' mixed race doesn't count BTW)
So one last opportunity, why do you not want asylum seekers to come here?
That is a very interesting observation considering that I am of mixed race.
The entire sending asylum seekers to Rwanda policy has racism at its very core. As indeed UK immigration and nationality laws in general have. Jamaicans are treated differently to Italians, Ukrainians are treated differently to Afghans, and so on.
The fact that the Home Secretary is, apparently unlike you, 100% non-white, does not on any way diminish that fact. In the same way that non-white involvement in the regimes in Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa did not diminish the racist character of those regimes.
They always have the option to claim asylum in France or any other safe country they pass through on route to the UK.
Unless of course they wish to make their lives even a modicum easier after the hell they're escaping by going to the country where they can speak some of the language, such is English's worldwide reach. It's a tiny head start for people who just want to stand on their own two feet.
Does he have a point?
Well, some people behave badly, that doesn't mean all refugees are bad and therefore don't deserve help. Not sure what that post was about exactly? Sounded like a bit of a 'yeah but' angle.
@bendover I'm not part of this bun fight - why don't you think refugees can live here?
It’s a tiny head start for people who just want to stand on their own two feet.
And it's of course not simply the fact that the amount of European countries where English is spoken is extremely limited, there are also other reasons for asylum seekers to aim for the UK, such as the man who was due to be deported on that flight yesterday who has a son living in the UK.
Plus also all those who actively helped HM forces during periods of occupation.
It does seem like a fairly simple question to answer - why don't you think refugees can live here?
The reason they come here is pretty simple, a lot have friends of family or another connection to the UK.
If this country descended into war & you grabbed your family & ran, where would you run? The nearest country or the one half way round the world where you have connections & the possibility of making a new life for yourself.
Free member with dubious forum name that joined 5 days ago getting into arguments on internet forum shocker.
Is this the room for an argument?
It does seem like a fairly simple question to answer – why don’t you think refugees can live here?
It's coz with over 67 million people living here there's no more room, innit?
The fact that more people died in the UK of Covid last week than were going to be on that flight yesterday doesn't come into it.
The numbers entering the UK fleeing wars and persecution are inconsequential, which is precisely why the UK has a very long history welcoming them, including Priti Patel's parents and Nigel Farage's ancestors.
Alp Mehmet from Migration Watch UK, which campaigns for lower immigration into the UK, thinks it’s a disgrace that the flight have been cancelled
The hypocrisy of the likes of this clown , Patel and zahawi, all either immigrants themselves, or children of immigrants, boils my piss
I like the way you frame someone wanting to leave the EU as ‘ignorant’.
I'm framing those who led the arguments, the polemicists, journalists, and politicians as ignorant. I don't hold those who voted for leaving responsible, on the back on huge amounts of falsehoods thrown at them daily, for the shit we're in now. I'll bet money that Venn diagram of people criticizing the ECHR in this morning's press and those blaming the EU fr all the world's ill are largely overlapping.
However, It's pretty clear who you are, I don't suppose this version of your account will last much longer than any of the other's you've used before
It's a first step in the right direction. Rwanda is safe. So it meets the remit of providing asylum, right? Anything else is economic migration surely and should be points based or adaptable based on the economic needs of the country, and which is already available via the official routes that don't include arriving here in a plastic boat.
It might be a bit clumsy but it can be adapted going forward. At least something is being done, for too long it's been a case of sticking our fingers in our ears and ignoring the issue. Quite apart from breaking the trade in misery from the people smuggling, the UK can't, or won't sustain an open borders policy for migrants. There is a shortage of affordable housing for a start, get that sorted first. Start another massive council-housing scheme, multiple new towns etc.
There is a shortage of affordable housing for a start, get that sorted first. Start another massive council-housing scheme, multiple new towns etc.
How much council housing have they got in Rwanda?
Can't we get asylum seekers to build some council housing in the UK?
Good point about council housing though.
Quite apart from breaking the trade in misery from the people smuggling
I'm not sure the policy of sending them to Rwanda will do this.
the UK can’t, or won’t sustain an open borders policy for migrants.
However an easy legal route into the UK for refugees absolutely will. (break the trade in people smuggling)
Excellent piece on 5 Live yesterday with an Australian based in Rwanda - he was horrified the UK are making the same pointless and expensive mistakes Australia did with offshore refugees (leaving aside the moral and legal problems) and also pointed out that the Rwandan economy isn't really set up to offer opportunities to these people
We should be flying families in straight from refugee camps and settling them here.
We should allow asylum seekers to work.
Asylum seekers are a small part of immigration. The Tories conflate asylum and immigration for political gain, they are ****s and the media just let them get away with it.
Has Human Rights Lawyer SKS put his head above the parapet yet?
So things I admit to not knowing about this.
There are being sent to Rwanda to seek asylum there. (Seem a fundamental thing I didn't know)
Accomodation is "basic hostels" near Kigali. (Having seen basic hostels and schools in Zambia that would be a potential shock to our western eyes).
Most of the 150,000 current refugees in Rwanda are unemployed on £35 per month.
70% of Rwanda's population are subsistence farmers.
UK paid £120m up front for 1000 refugees, to be followed by further payment if they "handled" more refugees.
All from BBC news website.
Has Human Rights Lawyer SKS put his head above the parapet yet?
We'll find out in a few minutes.
He'd be wise not to. Labour should stick to other voices challenging this.
including Priti Patel’s parents and Nigel Farage’s ancestors.
If the tories wanted to get people onside they should try this.
A refugee today could produce a Patel or Farage in the next generation. Is it worth the risk?
Free member with dubious forum name that joined 5 days ago getting into arguments on internet forum shocker.
Not just this thread either, although this one does seem to have provided the desired result
It does seem like a fairly simple question to answer – why don’t you think refugees can live here?
Thing is, if you ask that question and dont get an answer its very easy to ask yourself why they wouldn't. And its very easy to end up with "they just dont want them here coz theyre not from us" and whatever that entails.
I personally, cant think of a reason that would over-ride the benefits of helping them.
I personally, cant think of a reason that would over-ride the benefits of helping them.
Me either, but look at any opinion poll on the matter and these sorts of policies are surprisingly popular. Again years of grinding away at; Taking your job. Can't get a GP appointment. Claiming benefits. Taking jobs....and so on and and on. Undoing all that narrative will take decades, and because it's useful to govt of all stripes as cover for all sorts of neo-liberal policies, I doubt will happen in my lifetime.
Me either, but look at any opinion poll on the matter and these sorts of policies are surprisingly popular.
No you need to be selective with regards to which poll you look at. Polls actually show huge public support in the UK for those fleeing war and persecution:
There is little doubt that many people who currently support the government's Rwanda policy do so because they have bought into the government's claim that it is for asylum seekers own good, and that Rwanda is a great place.
The opposition bears some responsibility for not effectively challenging the government's false narrative and running scared of the whole issue.
they have bought into the government’s claim that it is for asylum seekers own good, and that Rwanda is a great place
Nah, plenty the see the Rwanda project as a deterrent to stop people coming here to claim asylum, as the government claims it is. Those potential voters are a minority of a minority, but the government is happy to spend a fortune, and damage the UK's reputation, to demonstrate that they're acting tough on their behalf... keeping people out.
Well, after the BBC (and others) happily repeating the "interfering foreign lawyers/courts/judges" line all morning... it turns out that in four cases it was UK courts that stopped people being deported without asylum application to Rwanda, not the ECHR (I posted details of one of them in this thread yesterday).
BBC news still reporting it as if the ECHR blocked the flight, rather than put on hold the deportation of just three of the people who were supposed to be on the flight. UK court decisions were key.
Now that we've got rid of the troll/racist (*delete as applicable), we can talk about the real purpose of this policy. I don't think for a second it was ever serious. They never intended to deport anyone to Rwanda, but they did want to generate headlines in the tory rags which would stoke the anti-EU, anti-woke culture war, and in that respect it's done its job quite successfully. The only thing Johnson cares about is short term media management.
“interfering foreign lawyers/courts/judges”
everyone needs a friend like that; someone who is genuinely a friend to you but who won't be shy to step in at the right time when you're about to make a dick of yourself and tell you the honest truth.
If you don't have a friend like that, get one.