UK to fly failed asylum seekers to Rwanda
Scroll to see replies
The majority of the young men arriving across the Channel are Kurdish. A lot of Kurds already live peaceful and hard working lives in the UK. What exactly is the terrible threat here that requires this extreme level of government expenditure and policy overreaction?
Original post by 04MR17
Boris Johnson speaking live now explaining how this new process will mean Britain "takes back control"
This is a trial, a £120m deal with Rwanda is being signed by Priti Patel today
BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114
What do you think of this story?
Is this a distraction from partygate?
Let us know your thoughts.
This is a trial, a £120m deal with Rwanda is being signed by Priti Patel today
BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114
What do you think of this story?
Is this a distraction from partygate?
Let us know your thoughts.
While I have doubts as to whether the civil service and human rights groups will allow the government to attempt to tackle these asylum seekers I think it’s a great step forward.
While there is a place for some asylum (Hong Kong folk, Ukrainians, translators), it’s important to remember that there are dozens of safe countries and refugees are amongst the least statistically valuable to us thus severe disincentives are required.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The majority of the young men arriving across the Channel are Kurdish.
Is this based on government statistics, independent reports, the claims of local grassroots groups/ngo's or personal experience?
Original post by londonmyst
Is this based on government statistics, independent reports, the claims of local grassroots groups/ngo's or personal experience?
If you Google it, the main countries of origin are Iran, Iraq and Syria, but ethnicity is Kurdish. That's around 70%.This is fairly widely reported.
what if there are ukrainians on the boats crossing channel
Original post by yeet_21
what if there are ukrainians on the boats crossing channel
Then they are foolish. The UK is essentially accepting any Ukranians with family links. Hundreds of thousands.
They'd be choosing to flee France for little reason.
this plan has echoes of Hitler's scheme to relocate the Jews of Europe to Madagascar 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
Original post by the bear
this plan has echoes of Hitler's scheme to relocate the Jews of Europe to Madagascar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
The way they keep talking about "processing" the migrants, eerily similar to Himmler's 'special handling'.
Original post by londonmyst
Are you joking or do you genuinely want Tony Blair back at No 10?
Ooh, that's a tough one... I mean he was a lying cheese faced scoundrel... But I can't overlook that back then we had hospitals, interest rates and social services... we also at least had the faith he could be kicked out (and was) but Bojo even more than May before him seems determined to break every rule to stay, there's a depressing 'This is just what we'll need to put up with forever' vibe about all this.
Original post by Crazed cat lady
Sounds expensive. Another policy brought to you by the party that believes money grows on trees.
What do you think they should do instead?
The only other real feasible option (short of violating human rights/ international law) is doing nothing and letting anyone come here indefinitely. Which is politically and financially costly.
Unironically looking forward to seeing Ukranian skinheads battle with Rwandan gangs for dominance over London.
Original post by Crazed cat lady
If you think that rather extreme position is the only other feasible option it is evident you don’t really understand what you are talking about. May I suggest you take some time to actually educate yourself on the issue first.
Again, what do you think they should do that's better then, miss clever clogs?
Original post by SEHas1099
I'm just going to leave this stat right here lol
'54% of those receiving state support are White British'.
And which humanitarian argument is weak specifically?
'54% of those receiving state support are White British'.
And which humanitarian argument is weak specifically?
Slightly pointless statistics, as you would expect the majority of welfare recipients to be white in a predominately white country. If anything your statistic shows ethnic minorities disproportionately claim state welfare.
The humanitarian argument, that we ought not implement measures to stop boats because those travelling here are supposedly in need, is weak in my view. The migrants have travelled through most of continental Europe to reach the French coast and the vast majority of the countries they've passed through have fully functional asylum systems, not to mention numerous state and charitable agencies who operate along these migration corridors.
Original post by DSilva
This fails to understand the point of asylum. It's not to take in people for economic reasons, it's to provide a refuge to people who face persecution or war in their own country.
It's rather naive to assume those travelling here are doing so to flee persecution - I understand the point of asylum but find it hard to believe they'd risk their lives (as well as their children's lives) by getting into a small dingy when Britain is equally as safe as the rest of Europe. The main difference is a bigger black economy in the UK compared to other European countries, alongside the most comprehensive healthcare system in the world and generous welfare support. That's why I believe huge numbers of those arriving by boat are not genuine asylum seekers but instead economic migrants.
Original post by JOSH4598
Slightly pointless statistics, as you would expect the majority of welfare recipients to be white in a predominately white country. If anything your statistic shows ethnic minorities disproportionately claim state welfare.
Original post by JOSH4598
Slightly pointless statistics, as you would expect the majority of welfare recipients to be white in a predominately white country. If anything your statistic shows ethnic minorities disproportionately claim state welfare.
The humanitarian argument, that we ought not implement measures to stop boats because those travelling here are supposedly in need, is weak in my view. The migrants have travelled through most of continental Europe to reach the French coast and the vast majority of the countries they've passed through have fully functional asylum systems, not to mention numerous state and charitable agencies who operate along these migration corridors.
It's rather naive to assume those travelling here are doing so to flee persecution - I understand the point of asylum but find it hard to believe they'd risk their lives (as well as their children's lives) by getting into a small dingy when Britain is equally as safe as the rest of Europe. The main difference is a bigger black economy in the UK compared to other European countries, alongside the most comprehensive healthcare system in the world and generous welfare support. That's why I believe huge numbers of those arriving by boat are not genuine asylum seekers but instead economic migrants.
The humanitarian argument, that we ought not implement measures to stop boats because those travelling here are supposedly in need, is weak in my view. The migrants have travelled through most of continental Europe to reach the French coast and the vast majority of the countries they've passed through have fully functional asylum systems, not to mention numerous state and charitable agencies who operate along these migration corridors.
It's rather naive to assume those travelling here are doing so to flee persecution - I understand the point of asylum but find it hard to believe they'd risk their lives (as well as their children's lives) by getting into a small dingy when Britain is equally as safe as the rest of Europe. The main difference is a bigger black economy in the UK compared to other European countries, alongside the most comprehensive healthcare system in the world and generous welfare support. That's why I believe huge numbers of those arriving by boat are not genuine asylum seekers but instead economic migrants.
It isn't a pointless stat because it debases the focus on economic implications of asylum seekers. The stat is useful because holistically migrants do not have a large impact on welfare. Furthermore, more White British people are more likely to be out of employment than immigrants. Asylum seekers are however not allowed to work in most cases for a period of time - but the point stands that inwards immigrants, regardless of ethnicity, are likely to join the workforce more. Furthermore, your obsession with the economics actually makes no sense because empirically Australia has already done this and they have admitted it has cost billions to facilitate. So acc your points are flimsy and I have no idea what NRK 'respecter' is clapping for lmao.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by JOSH4598
Slightly pointless statistics, as you would expect the majority of welfare recipients to be white in a predominately white country. If anything your statistic shows ethnic minorities disproportionately claim state welfare.
The humanitarian argument, that we ought not implement measures to stop boats because those travelling here are supposedly in need, is weak in my view. The migrants have travelled through most of continental Europe to reach the French coast and the vast majority of the countries they've passed through have fully functional asylum systems, not to mention numerous state and charitable agencies who operate along these migration corridors.
It's rather naive to assume those travelling here are doing so to flee persecution - I understand the point of asylum but find it hard to believe they'd risk their lives (as well as their children's lives) by getting into a small dingy when Britain is equally as safe as the rest of Europe. The main difference is a bigger black economy in the UK compared to other European countries, alongside the most comprehensive healthcare system in the world and generous welfare support. That's why I believe huge numbers of those arriving by boat are not genuine asylum seekers but instead economic migrants.
The humanitarian argument, that we ought not implement measures to stop boats because those travelling here are supposedly in need, is weak in my view. The migrants have travelled through most of continental Europe to reach the French coast and the vast majority of the countries they've passed through have fully functional asylum systems, not to mention numerous state and charitable agencies who operate along these migration corridors.
It's rather naive to assume those travelling here are doing so to flee persecution - I understand the point of asylum but find it hard to believe they'd risk their lives (as well as their children's lives) by getting into a small dingy when Britain is equally as safe as the rest of Europe. The main difference is a bigger black economy in the UK compared to other European countries, alongside the most comprehensive healthcare system in the world and generous welfare support. That's why I believe huge numbers of those arriving by boat are not genuine asylum seekers but instead economic migrants.
The problem is that your 'beliefs' aren't based on evidence. In fact they run counter to the available evidence. 7/10 of asylum seekers who cross the Channel do have their asylum claims accepted by the Home Office so I'm not sure it is "rather naive" to assume that the majority of cases are genuine. Unless you know something the Home Office officials assessing their applications don't...
The second part of your response appears also to be based largely on tabloid stereotypes rather than facts or evidence. For starters, France has higher welfare payments for refugees so the idea that they are coming here for welfare, as you suggest without any evidence, appears to be "rather naive".
There is also no requirement in international law, including the refugee convention that we signed up to, for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Which I'm sure you know. So the argument that they shouldn't be allowed in on that basis seems rather weak. Unless you think that countries bordering war zones should have to take in basically every single refugee, with other countries not being required to do anything.
(edited 2 years ago)
twitter.com/i/status/1515007100694540299
Whats really happening
Tory party will never stop mass immigration, they're zionoglobalists
Off with all their heads
Whats really happening
Tory party will never stop mass immigration, they're zionoglobalists
Off with all their heads
Original post by SEHas1099
It isn't a pointless stat because it debases the focus on economic implications of asylum seekers. The stat is useful because holistically migrants do not have a large impact on welfare.
Furthermore, more White British people are more likely to be out of employment than immigrants. Asylum seekers are however not allowed to work in most cases for a period of time - but the point stands that inwards immigrants, regardless of ethnicity, are likely to join the workforce more. Furthermore, your obsession with the economics actually makes no sense because empirically Australia has already done this and they have admitted it has cost billions to facilitate. So acc your points are flimsy and I have no idea what NRK 'respecter' is clapping for lmao.
Furthermore, more White British people are more likely to be out of employment than immigrants. Asylum seekers are however not allowed to work in most cases for a period of time - but the point stands that inwards immigrants, regardless of ethnicity, are likely to join the workforce more. Furthermore, your obsession with the economics actually makes no sense because empirically Australia has already done this and they have admitted it has cost billions to facilitate. So acc your points are flimsy and I have no idea what NRK 'respecter' is clapping for lmao.
46% would be a HUGE impact lmao.
Well yeah Brits are here all their lives unless they migrate and are thus typically in school or/ and retired. However, unlike new arrivals, they and their families have been ,"paying into the system" for generations.
I'm not even anti immigrants btw, I'm largely ambivalent about it. That said if you're working class then immigration is a net negative for you- the only beneficiaries are huge corporations and left wing parties.
Original post by DSilva
The problem is that your 'beliefs' aren't based on evidence. In fact they run counter to the available evidence. 7/10 of asylum seekers who cross the Channel do have their asylum claims accepted by the Home Office so I'm not sure it is "rather naive" to assume that the majority of cases are genuine. Unless you know something the Home Office officials assessing their applications don't...
The second part of your response appears also to be based largely on tabloid stereotypes rather than facts or evidence. For starters, France has higher welfare payments for refugees so the idea that they are coming here for welfare, as you suggest without any evidence, appears to be "rather naive".
There is also no requirement in international law, including the refugee convention that we signed up to, for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Which I'm sure you know. So the argument that they shouldn't be allowed in on that basis seems rather weak. Unless you think that countries bordering war zones should have to take in basically every single refugee, with other countries not being required to do anything.
The second part of your response appears also to be based largely on tabloid stereotypes rather than facts or evidence. For starters, France has higher welfare payments for refugees so the idea that they are coming here for welfare, as you suggest without any evidence, appears to be "rather naive".
There is also no requirement in international law, including the refugee convention that we signed up to, for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Which I'm sure you know. So the argument that they shouldn't be allowed in on that basis seems rather weak. Unless you think that countries bordering war zones should have to take in basically every single refugee, with other countries not being required to do anything.
Ah so if government bureaucracies decide something then it's defacto correct. Interesting. Presumably then, all those people IDS sanctioned on benefits were "fit to work"? Of course not. These things make mistakes. We can see this with numerous examples of mistakes made by these agencies.
Well why are they coming here and not France then? Do you think welfare is not a factor at all?
Sure one or two countries. But some of these people are going past more than several including safe EU countries.
Original post by DSilva
The problem is that your 'beliefs' aren't based on evidence. In fact they run counter to the available evidence. 7/10 of asylum seekers who cross the Channel do have their asylum claims accepted by the Home Office so I'm not sure it is "rather naive" to assume that the majority of cases are genuine. Unless you know something the Home Office officials assessing their applications don't...
Having your claims accepted and being a genuine asylum seeker are very different in my opinion. If you take a look at the eligibility criteria it's pretty imprecise, particularly if you discard any documentation upon arrival. 70% may pass the criteria, but are those 70% being entirely truthful about where they're from or which route they used to get here? The Home Office have no way of knowing this without documentation meaning the only real option is to grant them asylum. Even if they are refused, they can't be deported very easily if you don't know where they're from.
Original post by DSilva
The second part of your response appears also to be based largely on tabloid stereotypes rather than facts or evidence. For starters, France has higher welfare payments for refugees so the idea that they are coming here for welfare, as you suggest without any evidence, appears to be "rather naive".
I never said the UK is the most generous, but we offer world-class healthcare and a lot of opportunities for illegal work in the black economy which other countries do not. I would say putting thousands of asylum seekers up in hotels, providing them with mobile phones while paying them every week is still very generous when most British taxpayers get nothing of the sort.
Original post by DSilva
There is also no requirement in international law, including the refugee convention that we signed up to, for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Which I'm sure you know. So the argument that they shouldn't be allowed in on that basis seems rather weak. Unless you think that countries bordering war zones should have to take in basically every single refugee, with other countries not being required to do anything.
While the legal basis of what you're saying is correct, I don't perceive asylum seekers who hand-pick the most economically-attractive country to be genuine. The genuine ones are those who stayed in one of the first safe countries they reached rather than needlessly risking their family's life in a dingy. There is also the Dublin Regulation (which I don't believe the UK is now part of - but that's another can of worms) showing how the first safe country you reach does have relevance to your application. Again though, asylum seekers are well-versed on how to play the game which is why many discard any documentation to avoid being traced.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targets
- parliamentary sovereignty
- Asylum seeker dies on bibby Stockholm barge
- Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the Lords
- LNAT Section B
- essay question sociology
- College application
- essay question
- I’m an asylum seeker Can I do work placement or travel abroad ?
- "The best thing about the course is the placements." - Emily, Public Health
- Rejection student finance England
- France Calais border?
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- oversea’s student fees
- Application process
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
Litigation Caseworker Home Office 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
BT Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
Application approved before evidence was able to be submittedLast reply 12 minutes ago
AQA Level 2 Further Maths 2024 Paper 1 (8365/1) - 11th June [Exam Chat]Last reply 14 minutes ago
March Riba part 2 Manchester vs SheffieldLast reply 21 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 27 minutes ago
Confused in undergrad final grade at University of GreenwichLast reply 43 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Trending
Last reply 8 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 12 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 8 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 12 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
