Just a random thought, but why can't we process their assylum/immigration request in Calais, that way they might be less inclined to risk life and limb crossing the worlds busiest shipping lane, and might stop them using the services of people traffickers.It certainly hasn't acted as a deterrent so far.
Yesterday (or one day this week, not sure which) had the highest number of channel crossings for 2 months.
Thanks for that Tony, it's certainly a policy that's not currently fit for purpose.The government could start by dealing with the real big issue for illegal immigration. Visa overstay. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are through Visa overstay, in other words they arrive at Heathrow or wherever with a valid short stay visa, clear customs and then disappear, presumably into the black employment market for the majority of them. Start by A) acknowledging that then B) dealing with that.
The people coming by dingy represent a fraction of arrivals, an even smaller percentage will have no genuine claim for refugee status, something like 65% of them successfully claim asylum. Including a young man from Syria who came by boat, successfully claimed asylum, finished his education here and then last year was voted NHS doctor of the year. If the government were serious about stopping the boats they’d open asylum claims in France and then give anyone successful safe passage. The current system doesn’t work as the Ukrainian refugee crisis has highlighted. Thousands of Ukrainians are currently stranded on the continent waiting to be placed with either family or sponsors already based in the UK, the government promised months ago to sort it by making the process simpler and quicker for them. They haven’t.
Unfortunately we have a government who think the electorate is stupid so as long as they whip up hysterical paranoia and trick the people they think are stupid into believing that they are the only ones who can save them they’ll keep voting for them. It’s pure Trumpism.
Over 28000 people crossed the channel in boats last year, the government were going to send a plain with 7 passengers on it yesterday. If I was trying to get to the UK to claim asylum I’d take those odds. There’s also the small issue that apparently 69 asylum seekers were leaving Rwanda on the return journey so in reality all the flight would have done was raised the number of asylum seekers in the UK by 62.Fuck me, I hope they like Rwander!!!
I can see why the government might see this as some kind of deterant, but Jesus h christ its no fucking solution!
Lol, well I hope they can come up with a plan BOver 28000 people crossed the channel in boats last year, the government were going to send a plain with 7 passengers on it yesterday. If I was trying to get to the UK to claim asylum I’d take those odds. There’s also the small issue that apparently 69 asylum seekers were leaving Rwanda on the return journey so in reality all the flight would have done was raised the number of asylum seekers in the UK by 62.
Only someone who considers you a moron would suggest that this is a deterrent and to be blunt only a moron would buy it.
It is a simplistic solution. The reason the government don’t do it is by choice. People have lots of reasons to cross other countries to get to the UK, could be something as basic as they speak English (our language is and always has been our most successful export) but I understand that the driving factor is reuniting with friends and family already here.Just a random thought, but why can't we process their assylum/immigration request in Calais, that way they might be less inclined to risk life and limb crossing the worlds busiest shipping lane, and might stop them using the services of people traffickers.
Those who do then cross the chanel can automatically be treated as failed asylum seekers and can then be repatriated straight away, without any legal challenges.
I know this is a very simplistic proposition, but it must of been in effect at some stage, so what changed? Is it down to demand for entry to the UK outstripping the agreed quota system? Or has something else happened? And why travel across Europe to try and be smuggled into the UK specifically?
It's hard to disagree with that.
Oh and by the way we are paying. And it's a lot.Fuck me, I hope they like Rwander!!!
I can see why the government might see this as some kind of deterant, but Jesus h christ its no fucking solution!
Country is on its arse mateJust exchanged some Sterling for Dollars, (u fortunately I'm not going anywhere, got them as a pressie fr someone), didn't realise the pound was so badly on its arse.
Just exchanged some Sterling for Dollars, (u fortunately I'm not going anywhere, got them as a pressie fr someone), didn't realise the pound was so badly on its arse.
It’s a popular policy majority of citizens agree with it that’s the shameAbsolutely correct , this Rwanda policy is a shame on Britain ffs what's the matter with the cunting government
Is it?It’s a popular policy majority of citizens agree with it that’s the shame
Not sure that’s the case?It’s a popular policy majority of citizens agree with it that’s the shame
is itIt’s a popular policy majority of citizens agree with it that’s the shame
Just exchanged some Sterling for Dollars, (u fortunately I'm not going anywhere, got them as a pressie fr someone), didn't realise the pound was so badly on its arse.
Cooper is very good.
Was a bbc interviewer so why am I surprisedis it
Was a bbc interviewer so why am I surprised
He’ll be wrong and Boris will be okBoom, there it is.
Cooper is very good.
Just watching over PMQs. Why is the Criminal Clown banging on about 'Labour's rail strikes'?
We’re a country of nasty cunts. It’s the only possible explanation.On public opinion on Rwanda, this is an interesting read. Seems we don’t think it’ll work in any way but support it anyway
Despite the outrage, the polls show support for Rwanda immigration plans
Having a plan, even with flaws, is better in public opinion terms than appearing to have no plan at allinews.co.uk
I’ll give it to the Tories, they’ve played a blinder on this conveniently ahead of next weeks by election in Wakefield. I fully expect them to hold onto this seat listening to interviews with local residents on the news.Trying to create a narrative. It goes back to what D’OD said earlier, all they’re looking to do with all of this is start culture wars. It’s why Starmer’s spokesperson didn’t comment on the Rwanda situation - he says he’s against it and it’ll be spun into “they’re the party that want uncontrolled immigration”. It’s a really difficult balance as of course you want him to slam the policy but it then hands the opportunity to the Tories to create the narrative.
I’ll give it to the Tories, they’ve played a blinder on this conveniently ahead of next weeks by election in Wakefield. I fully expect them to hold onto this seat listening to interviews with local residents on the news.
Trying to create a narrative. It goes back to what D’OD said earlier, all they’re looking to do with all of this is start culture wars. It’s why Starmer’s spokesperson didn’t comment on the Rwanda situation - he says he’s against it and it’ll be spun into “they’re the party that want uncontrolled immigration”. It’s a really difficult balance as of course you want him to slam the policy but it then hands the opportunity to the Tories to create the narrative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?