Asylum seekers to be sent to..... Rwanda

Nano said:
It isn't but that isn't what asylum is for. Asylum is about seeking safety.

I don't know what the answer is. Ideally there would be some sort of independent global organisation, funded by all nations, that determines asylum wherever people arrive into a safe country. Each country agrees an amount of asylum seekers they can accommodate. That organisation then decides which country they should go to. They might send them to a country where they speak the language, where they have other family etc. Basically, remove the political element of it.
Click to expand...
Could never happen; I would think most Western countries governments would fall if that happened. Politically a non-starter.

We take absurdly small numbers of refugees compared to similar countries, despite us seemingly being a real draw for them.

This scheme is pretty much unworkable. However if someone wants to explain how they think it would, including what they do with people who both granted and not granted asylum, then I'm all ears.
 
This is all the former Labour, now happy Tory voters, will be hearing and discussing today and right up to the local elections. Forget Johnson and his law breaking - that’s no longer an issue for them. Many a glass will be raised to flying them back to Africa - good enough for them!!
I feel physically sick at the blatant inhumanity in how our government deals with desperate people and people in most need. When did we become such a horrible little island. Deeply depressing
 
I have sort of got over how scummy Tories are (and they are) but even just looking at this plan with a cold heart; it makes no sense.

Australia spent £461 million last year to process 239 asylum seekers offshore

We are only spending £120 million on this

600 people crossed the Channel yesterday
 
I just wish some of the people who endorse, support and vote for despicable policies such as this one were properly held to account for it. I mean, interviewed on live television by people who quote facts and figures that expose these things for what they are.

The NHS is in trouble because it’s been deliberately underfunded by successive Tory governments, not because of immigration and people in dinghies. We’ve had 10 years of austerity, of cutting public services to the bone. That’s a Conservative policy and nothing to do with immigrants coming over ‘ere, etc.

Do people not understand that the financial collapse, the subsequent theft of billions and billions of pounds worth of taxpayers’ money and deliberate Conservative party policy has led us to where we are now?

This is where our news media shows itself to be completely unfit for purpose. Opinion, increasingly extreme and provocative opinion, masquerading as fact allows governments to do what they’re doing now. You have paid patsies and mouthpieces on TV and radio panels allowed to say anything without being pulled up or asked to show evidence. Newspapers print whatever nasty sh*t they like and get away with it. I’ve been saying for years that opinion masquerading as fact in our media outlets will create huge issues, the abandonment of facts and evidence and reasoning. Well here we are.

This Rwanda idea is abhorrent, cruel, offensive, an encapsulation of this government’s institutional racism and inherent selfishness. It is appalling. It is also possible to blow the whole thing apart in less than five minutes, if you’re so inclined. The issue is it’ll be on Question Time and on the news and Facebook and The Sun and everywhere else, it’ll do it’s job of getting the parties and Sunak’s taxes, off the front pages and will never be tackled properly. There’ll be no discussion, no alternative view given, no evidence provided. And when the next government scandal appears, we’ll do it all again.

It is just an absolutely appalling, depressing, soul-destroying state of affairs.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
I just wish some of the people who endorse, support and vote for despicable policies such as this one were properly held to account for it. I mean, interviewed on live television by people who quote facts and figures that expose these things for what they are.

The NHS is in trouble because it’s been deliberately underfunded by successive Tory governments, not because of immigration and people in dinghies. We’ve had 10 years of austerity, of cutting public services to the bone. That’s a Conservative policy and nothing to do with immigrants coming over ‘ere, etc.

Do people not understand that the financial collapse, the subsequent theft of billions and billions of pounds worth of taxpayers’ money and deliberate Conservative party policy has led us to where we are now?

This is where our news media shows itself to be completely unfit for purpose. Opinion, increasingly extreme and provocative opinion, masquerading as fact allows governments to do what they’re doing now. You have TV and radio panels allowed to say anything without being pulled up or asked to show evidence. Newspapers print whatever nasty sh*t they like and get away with it. I’ve been saying for years that opinion masquerading as fact in our media outlets will create huge issues, the abandonment of facts and evidence and reasoning. Well here we are.

This Rwanda idea is abhorrent, cruel, offensive, an encapsulation of this government’s institutional racism and inherent selfishness. It is appalling. It is also possible to blow the whole thing apart in less than five minutes, if you’re so inclined. The issue is it’ll be on Question Time and on the news and Facebook and The Sun and everywhere else, it’ll do it’s job of getting the parties and Sunak’s taxes, off the front pages and will never be tackled properly. There’ll be no discussion, no alternative view given, no evidence provided. And when the next government scandal appears, we’ll do it all again.

It is just an absolutely appalling, depressing, soul-destroying state of affairs.
Click to expand...
But clever politics. £120 million advertising poster.
 
kuepper said:
He's also breaking the electoral convention not to announce long-term initiatives or use public money “for party political purposes” in the three weeks before polls open at 7am on Thursday 5 May.
Click to expand...
Boris doesn't care - Boris is pandering to the racist right to turn those 'don't knows' into Tory votes.
After the disgraceful 'Savile' slur on Starmer I knew he had no morals
 
Same_as_before said:
But clever politics. £120 million advertising poster.
Click to expand...
I don't actually think it is. They're not actually going to do very much but making a big deal of it. They're now going to get questioned why they don't use the system that they put in place. Most people end up getting granted asylum, so it's not going to be a deterrent even if they know that this system is in place.
 
Same_as_before said:
But clever politics. £120 million advertising poster.
Click to expand...
There’s an image of a National Front poster doing the rounds on Twitter this morning. Probably from the late 1970s, early 80s. All the demands on it are being enacted by this government. As I read last night, the reason we don’t seem to have a Le Pen-style fascist party within mainstream British politics is because the people who’d vote for it are happy with what the current government is doing.
 
Duffman said:
I feel physically sick at the blatant inhumanity in how our government deals with desperate people and people in most need. When did we become such a horrible little island. Deeply depressing
Click to expand...

I guess that the point is that they aren't necessarily the people in the most need. Many of them are attempting it because of what we offer. They want to come to the UK and that is very different than having to leave their own country. Asylum is about safety. Once they are in a safe country then they are no longer fleeing. It doesn't make sense to do something dangerous to get from one safe place to another so they are making a choice.

As I said before, I don't know what the answer is. It isn't fair that the closest countries take them all so there has to be a better system for sharing the burden. We are a long way from anywhere dangerous so you have to wonder why so many choose to come here and not one of the several safe countries they have had to pass through to get here. We don't take enough for the relative size of our economy. I'd imagine if there was a war in Ireland or France etc and we were the closest we would take a much bigger share.
 
Nano said:
I guess that the point is that they aren't necessarily the people in the most need. Many of them are attempting it because of what we offer. They want to come to the UK and that is very different than having to leave their own country. Asylum is about safety. Once they are in a safe country then they are no longer fleeing. It doesn't make sense to do something dangerous to get from one safe place to another so they are making a choice.

As I said before, I don't know what the answer is. It isn't fair that the closest countries take them all so there has to be a better system for sharing the burden. We are a long way from anywhere dangerous so you have to wonder why so many choose to come here and not one of the several safe countries they have had to pass through to get here. We don't take enough for the relative size of our economy. I'd imagine if there was a war in Ireland or France etc and we were the closest we would take a much bigger share.
Click to expand...
The vast, vast majority don’t come to the UK. Those that do probably have familial ties or speak English. There’s loads of reasons people come right through to the UK.

It’s amazing that a tiny number of people in dinghies can cause so much upset when we have a government that is literally stealing billions and billions of pounds worth of OUR money. Those fleeing war, death, famine, persecution face far, far more scrutiny than those trashing our country and it’s finances. It’s disgusting IMO.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
There’s an image of a National Front poster doing the rounds on Twitter this morning. Probably from the late 1970s, early 80s. All the demands on it are being enacted by this government. As I read last night, the reason we don’t seem to have a Le Pen-style fascist party within mainstream British politics is because the people who’d vote for it are happy with what the current government is doing.
Click to expand...
There is a market for that type of politics, as you say look at France.

To me it's simple, put a poster up of that poor child who died on the beach with an arrow beside it with Rwanda as the destination.

Be as evil as this bunch.
 
Nano said:
I guess that the point is that they aren't necessarily the people in the most need. Many of them are attempting it because of what we offer. They want to come to the UK and that is very different than having to leave their own country. Asylum is about safety. Once they are in a safe country then they are no longer fleeing. It doesn't make sense to do something dangerous to get from one safe place to another so they are making a choice.

As I said before, I don't know what the answer is. It isn't fair that the closest countries take them all so there has to be a better system for sharing the burden. We are a long way from anywhere dangerous so you have to wonder why so many choose to come here and not one of the several safe countries they have had to pass through to get here. We don't take enough for the relative size of our economy. I'd imagine if there was a war in Ireland or France etc and we were the closest we would take a much bigger share.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like huge numbers are coming here; there aren't. A small percentage of them come here for various reasons, whether that be family members or them speaking English.
 
Nano said:
I guess that the point is that they aren't necessarily the people in the most need. Many of them are attempting it because of what we offer. They want to come to the UK and that is very different than having to leave their own country. Asylum is about safety. Once they are in a safe country then they are no longer fleeing. It doesn't make sense to do something dangerous to get from one safe place to another so they are making a choice.

As I said before, I don't know what the answer is. It isn't fair that the closest countries take them all so there has to be a better system for sharing the burden. We are a long way from anywhere dangerous so you have to wonder why so many choose to come here and not one of the several safe countries they have had to pass through to get here. We don't take enough for the relative size of our economy. I'd imagine if there was a war in Ireland or France etc and we were the closest we would take a much bigger share.
Click to expand...
Easy send them to Rwanda
 
BoroMart said:
the problem with this claim that you have to apply prior to getting here and go through a complex process is that the real asylum seekers won't have the time and safety to apply, they can't pop down the post office in whichever oppressive regime it is to get a passport, they probably don't have access to a british embassy or internet to do applications.

The whole idea that it can be organised that way is fantasy. But it appeals to some people, because it makes it impossible for people in need of help to come here. But it does allow the rich to come over here and exploit like our own rich people already do.
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting that this was the only option, ie that this would prohibit people from applying on arrival.
 
This plan was actually suggested as a joke in the Thick of It. It is just a dead cat to distract from Boris' fines. It will appeal to racists too but that is a slippery slope. I have feeling that the practicalities of this will make this very difficult and hideously expensive to setup and operate so they probably won't go through with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top