Rwanda Flights

I do. I can’t vote for Labour whilst the have a leader who has directly lied to me via the leadership hustings to get elected.

The Labour right are trying to manoeuvre him out and Streeting in which will be interesting. I’d have no problem voting for a Streeting led Labour Party as long as he clearly ran on a centre right Blairite ticket. If he can convince Labour members on an honest basis to vote for him then I’d of course support that.

 

Agree with your opening comments! Unfortunately this is the case - as always with this forum: any alternative viewpoints are rarely deliberated on appropriately and usually generate mass name calling, self righteous responses (some peddling extreme political agendas) or utterly vile remarks! It’s a shame, when there’s opportunities for debate. Shame!

 

What an absolutely magnificent post, a perfect summing up of the truth about the situation, a truth that, sadly, some people seem to have missed. Thank you for explaining it so succinctly.

 

Go on then, set out your defence for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda or pursuing a general policy which inevitably results in vulnerable people drowning. I won't call you names, I promise.

 

Flight now not leaving today

 

Blimey Priti Patel has gone from throwing them out of the country to giving them handjobs. I think I'd prefer deportation to Africa than letting her get her corrupt grubby mitts on any part of me

 

I would love to hear your opinion on why you think these flights should go ahead.

Please proceed.

 

Well the fact there travelling from a safe country and entering our country illegally is the main sticking point.

 

How many times does it have to be explained that they only enter "illegally" because we have made it so there is no legal way for any genuine asylum seeker to enter the country?

 

Could you let us all know how an asylum seeker can enter the UK legally?

 

It surely does not help that people perceive (correctly*) migrants who do arrive and have to wait months for asylum applications to be approved/rejected are a considerable drain on the economy and not, as they could be, an asset.

* This is due to the fact that the economy is screaming out for workers to fill job vacancies at record numbers and yet, it is illegal for anyone to employ them and for the asylum applicants to take up gainful employment. Madness!! Change the laws, give them temporary NI numbers put them in the system for fixed, renewable periods rather than stick them in refugee centres hostels and hostels totally funded by the taxpayer . It would also reduce risks of sex trafficking , exploitation and being drawn into a life of crime, the black economy, and make them easier to track . Yes it would not work for all migrants e.g. those with no language skills or qualifications and yes, a proportion are likely to have their application rejected if they are shown to be not-at-risk economic migrants. but the vast majority want to work, maintain their self respect and dignity and nothing provides that more than being able to support yourself financially even if you do need some additional support. God knows that applies to many UK working families already.
I certainly do not believe the current farce will discourage traffickers or their victims.

 

Won't happen as it allows for integration making it much more difficult to reject the asylum claim which is the whole point of the current system.

 

Worth reading JamDrops post which explains the situation beautifully. Would you approve if safe channels were set up? Perhaps we could speak with our French counterparts and look at how we can process and evaluate each person?

Given we have over 1 million job vacancies, many in unskilled or low skilled jobs, we could do with a few pairs of hands to help maybe?

 

This has been explained to you numerous times in this thread alone - please listen to the folk who have taken the time to explain this.

 

It honestly worries me how blind some people are to the truth of the matter here.

Let’s ignore the fact that shipping people off to Rwanda is legally questionable at best, maybe a human rights issue, maybe not. Let’s ignore that it’s morally repugnant either way. Let’s assume it happens and continues.

Just look at it for what it is. This isn’t a scheme to reduce spend on asylum. It will cost more in what we have to pay Rwanda, and chartering flights, other sundry costs, than it would to grant asylum here (and allow migrants to fill the menial job vacancies we can’t fill). By quite a bit.

It also isn’t about reducing migrant numbers settling here, as we will take back at least as many, probably more, from Rwanda. Their ‘difficult cases’ was how they were described by one news source.

So it isn’t about saving money or reducing migrant numbers. So why bother?

This is so blatantly a ridiculous policy designed solely to regain or keep support from the far right and dare I say it bigoted voters of the Conservative party, (not all Tory voters obviously, I mean the type in the red wall areas that had never previously supported them but have since Brexit ‘got done’, as well as a few died in the wool blues who lap up anything that would be perceived as stopping the dirty foreigners) in an ill-conceived, not thought out and honestly (though let’s face it, not really surprisingly) scandalous piece of politicking.

Add the facts we ignored about it being legally questionable, a potential human rights issue, definitely completely immoral - what exactly is the point?

It’s a distraction tactic, playing with people’s lives for votes.

And as for the argument about them being here illegally - make it possible to claim asylum here legally then. Either allow it at an embassy, on the Calais border, or supervise safe transit. It won’t cost a penny more than is being wasted now.

 

The policy is wrong in most peoples eyes.

Like it has been said, set up official clear channels for people to claim asylum and those that then decide to take an illegal route are simply refused asylum.

We shouldn't dismiss the question though. Why the UK? If it's because they have family here already then that's understandable. If not, why travel across numerous EU countries with the aim of getting to the UK. What are we offering that makes the UK so appealing? Maybe it's because English is their second language? Don't know but it's worth investigating this issue.

Once we welcome people into the country, the focus then has to be on integration into how life works in this country. We have seen too many times running battles between communities who set up their own isolated and insulated areas. Some of the areas in Sheffield spring to mind.

 

What amazes me is that the immigrants can locate, pay, communicate and get to the boats of the people smugglers having recently arrived in northern France with basic possessions and local knowledge, yet the combined forces of the British and French police don't seem to be able to get a sniff.

I can't recall seeing any publicity about an arrest, let alone a conviction of any.....it's almost as if they just want to punish the victims rather than the criminals

 

Just picking up some of the points in the second part of your post.

The media love to portray that migrants and asylum seekers make a beeline for the UK and ignore other countries. According to Red Cross data, in 2020 Germany received 124,380 claims. France 103,370. Spain 108,225. The UK... just 37,550.

Secondly, isn't it human nature that people find commonality? Look at the brits abroad enclaves in say Spain. Let's not pretend Brits are especially good at integration and immersing themselves in the native cultures of places beyond our shores that we visit and choose to live in.

I agree, integration and support could be much better dealt with. But given the backdrop of demonization of "migrants", much of which driven by our own government, it's hardly a surprise migrant workers and asylum seekers, once settled, may seek solace and kinship with their fellow former nationals also looking to earn a living within our borders.