Latest details on Rwanda

basilrobbie3 said:
Apparently :

  • Rwanda has only agreed to accept up to 5,700
  • Of those, the Home office doesn't actually know where around 3,500 of them are...
  • .... which makes you wonder how they are going to detain and then remove them
  • plus MPs will be able to make representations on their behalf before removal


It looks more and more like an expensive gimmick every day.
Click to expand...
Is that because 3500 haven't conformed to what they were supposed to do re checks and have simply gone into hiding.Seems to me it was very predictable of what would happen. To me, it seems like a lot of these asylum seekers are pulling the wool over a great many peoples eyes.And all these do good liberals on here are falling for it, Time and time again. I get that they don't want to go to Rwanda but nevertheless they still cross the Channel in great numbers knowing full well that once they get here they will disappear as soon as is conveniently possible. And you think that's ok?
 
Last edited:
Deterrent is working then?

They won't be so keen to pay £3,000 to come here when they're on the run and can't get housing, medical care, benefits etc and they find that their mates are working in the black market and living on the streets or have moved to Ireland. Better to stay in France.
 
20togo said:
Is that because 3500 haven't conformed to what they were supposed to do re checks and have simply gone into hiding.Seems to me it was very predictable of what would happen. To me, it seems like a lot of these asylum seekers are pulling the wool over a great many peoples eyes.And all these do good liberals on here are falling for it, Time and time again. I get that they don't want to go to Rwanda but nevertheless they still cross the Channel in great numbers knowing full well that once they get here they will disappear as soon as is conveniently possible. And you think that's ok?
Click to expand...

Where did I suggest that it was OK? It was me who was drawing attention to it.

The other big thing there - which you seem to have completely missed - was the tiny numbers of people who this scheme will affect. All at an absolutely huge cost.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Where did I suggest that it was OK? It was me who was drawing attention to it.

The other big thing there - which you seem to have completely missed - was the tiny numbers of people who this scheme will affect. All at an absolutely huge cost.
Click to expand...
you know full well the slant you were putting on it. Your post was much more focused on it all being a gimmick rather than the actual true focus on the problem being that the majority of these asylum seekers more than likely disappearing probably never to be seen again.
 
20togo said:
you know full well the slant you were putting on it. Your post was much more focused on it all being a gimmick rather than the actual true focus on the problem being that the majority of these asylum seekers more than likely disappearing probably never to be seen again.
Click to expand...
It is a gimmick, the Home Office have lost control of it and it is a spectacular waste of money. All of those three statements can be true at the same time, you know.

As it happens, I agree with you that the migrants concerned are doing themselves no favours if they have absconded. The trouble is that that seems to be the only dimension of this issue that you see, or want to see. Not that you are alone, of course.
 
A headline grabbing gimmick that expensively deals with a fraction of the actual numbers of people trying to reach our shores whilst not really addressing the problem. Laughable they don't know where 3500 are. The government haven't a clue how many illegal immigrants have entered the Uk, and they are clueless in actually deterring people from coming. That said, the empty hotel in Rwanda that was on the news awaiting asylum seekers looked lovely, maybe the government needs to have holiday brochure type advertising for that put up against a multiple occupancy house in Moss Side in December. They may just go directly to Rwanda then...
 
basilrobbie3 said:
It is a gimmick, the Home Office have lost control of it and it is a spectacular waste of money. All of those three statements can be true at the same time, you know.

As it happens, I agree with you that the migrants concerned are doing themselves no favours if they have absconded. The trouble is that that seems to be the only dimension of this issue that you see, or want to see. Not that you are alone, of course.
Click to expand...
were they ever gonna have control of it though? Apart from putting them in a secure detention centre, something like a prison camp, then it was inevitable that many would disappear. And i daresay you you would never have been in favour of that would you?
 
20togo said:
were they ever gonna have control of it though? Apart from putting them in a secure detention centre, something like a prison camp, then it was inevitable that many would disappear. And i daresay you you would never have been in favour of that would you?
Click to expand...
This lot would have trouble controlling their own bowels, it seems.

This policy isn't working, is being poorly administered and in any case, as JBPS has just pointed out, only addresses a tiny part of the problem. If this is what "taking back control" means, I'd rather have a lot less of it.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
This lot would have trouble controlling their own bowels, it seems.

This policy isn't working, is being poorly administered and in any case, as JBPS has just pointed out, only addresses a tiny part of the problem. If this is what "taking back control" means, I'd rather have a lot less of it.
Click to expand...
yes, i get that but where we differ is the focus. Let's face it, if these asylum seekers weren't illegally coming in big numbers into this country then we wouldn't have the problem we have would we? It's all about where you want to apportion blame isn't it?.
 
20togo said:
yes, i get that but where we differ is the focus. Let's face it, if these asylum seekers weren't illegally coming in big numbers into this country then we wouldn't have the problem we have would we? It's all about where you want to apportion blame isn't it?.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do differ in focus. I recognise that some of these people are economic opportunists, that an immigration system is supposed to identify.

But there are also large numbers of people who are fleeing war, famine or political persecution (sometimes all three). They deserve compassionate and humane treatment - not "blame". Forcibly sending some of them to a country with an under-developed economy and a poor human rights record is neither of this things.
 
According to the latest news they've got to find them before they can send them to Rwanda.
They're doing a disappearing act in the UK before they get sent.😢
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Yes, we do differ in focus. I recognise that some of these people are economic opportunists, that an immigration system is supposed to identify.

But there are also large numbers of people who are fleeing war, famine or political persecution (sometimes all three). They deserve compassionate and humane treatment - not "blame". Forcibly sending some of them to a country with an under-developed economy and a poor human rights record is neither of this things.
Click to expand...
my point is that it doesn't matter who is in Gov't be that red, blue, yellow or green, these asylum seekers and migrants would be still coming here be that whether there is a Rwanda policy in place or not! And the vast majority would be disappearing never to be seen again under the names they give. So a situation impossible to control by whoever. And it's amazing how those fleeing war, famine or political persecution seem to perhaps be a majority of young men.
 
Last edited:
tommytwojags said:
Deterrent is working then?

They won't be so keen to pay £3,000 to come here when they're on the run and can't get housing, medical care, benefits etc and they find that their mates are working in the black market and living on the streets or have moved to Ireland. Better to stay in France.
Click to expand...
Another 1000 crossed in the past week, perhaps too early to say the deterrent is working.

It's not great that these people can just disappear without a trace, not that I blame them, I'd probably do the same in their position.
 
20togo said:
And it's amazing how those fleeing war, famine or political persecution seem to perhaps be a majority of young men.
Click to expand...
Don’t be so disingenuous. You know perfectly well that women, especially with children, and old people don’t have the same resources or capabilities to travel alone on an arduous journey half-way across the world.

In many cases young men are sent by their communities with pooled resources to establish a beach-head (pun intended) in another country in the hope their families may be able to follow later. Whether by dependancy claims or arranged marriages etc.
 
One of the issues we will face now is a rise in crime. If we aren’t accounting for a large number of folk then they won’t be financially supported by any legal means, and a man gotta eat. People do what they have to to survive.

I don’t have any answers to this. It does have to be reiterated though that they are leaving a safe country (France) to get here. That kind of negates the argument that they are fleeing danger and persecution by the time they get on that dinghy in the channel.

No winners at all at the moment.
 
The French treat refugees like wild animals with little or no assistance. Do you remember the migrants’ camps at Sangatte, just polythene sheet tents and temporary shelters made out of rubbish built in a swamp. The only help or food and water tended to come from charitable organisations. Eventually, the gendarmes just forcibly cleared it. What did they do with or for the migrants cleared out? Nothing much, they just dispersed them more widely.

It’s no wonder the migrants want to flee France, although giving what money they have to smuggling gangs rather than trying to establish themselves in France seems stupid. But they must see no happy future or integration with the French.
 
Can you spot the inconsistency in what you've posted?

Archibald Knox said:
The French treat refugees like wild animals with little or no assistance.
Click to expand...

Archibald Knox said:
In many cases young men are sent by their communities with pooled resources to establish a beach-head (pun intended) in another country in the hope their families may be able to follow later. Whether by dependancy claims or arranged marriages etc.
Click to expand...
 
Apparently, the French don’t have to support migrants and let them live in swamp encampments simply because the migrants are there illegally and have not made a formal claim for asylum in France. The same would apply in the UK except that they do claim asylum.

www.quora.com

Why can France leave immigrants to live in tent towns while as soon as they reach the UK they are housed in hotels or houses?

Answer (1 of 13): “Why can France leave immigrants to live in tent towns while as soon as they reach the UK they are housed in hotels or houses?” The people living in ‘tent towns’ in France are not officially there: they are waiting for opportunities to travel to the UK where they intend to clai...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
 
Archibald Knox said:
Don’t be so disingenuous. You know perfectly well that women, especially with children, and old people don’t have the same resources or capabilities to travel alone on an arduous journey half-way across the world.

In many cases young men are sent by their communities with pooled resources to establish a beach-head (pun intended) in another country in the hope their families may be able to follow later. Whether by dependancy claims or arranged marriages etc.
Click to expand...
does that include risking their lives by crossing in a dinghy? Some sacrifice!
 
20togo said:
does that include risking their lives by crossing in a dinghy? Some sacrifice!
Click to expand...
What sacrifice? I didn’t mention anything like that.

I think what I was saying is that there are true refugees and economic migrants all mixed up. Many stay in France and Germany (>90%). The UK is getting the 10% or less who see the UK as preferable, whether for family, cultural or other preferences.
 
Archibald Knox said:
Not at all. All types of migrants exist. It’s not B&W like your world view.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but in your first post you are trying to spin them as "refugees", and in your second you explicitly acknowledge that they are economic migrants.

In any event, I'd be interested to hear what war/persecution they are fleeing from in France.
 
Archibald Knox said:
What sacrifice? I didn’t mention anything like that.

I think what I was saying is that there are true refugees and economic migrants all mixed up. Many stay in France and Germany (>90%). The UK is getting the 10% or less who see the UK as preferable, whether for family, cultural or other preferences.
Click to expand...
maybe, maybe not but it's not really relevant to my points first made.
 
Archibald Knox said:
I think what I was saying is that there are true refugees and economic migrants all mixed up. Many stay in France and Germany (>90%). The UK is getting the 10% or less who see the UK as preferable, whether for family, cultural or other preferences.
Click to expand...
That sound to me like the "true refugees" stay in places like France, Germany, etc, and the ones who make it over here are asylum/benefit shopping.

Which is kind of the point we've been making all along.
 
Lala said:
One of the issues we will face now is a rise in crime. If we aren’t accounting for a large number of folk then they won’t be financially supported by any legal means, and a man gotta eat. People do what they have to to survive.

I don’t have any answers to this. It does have to be reiterated though that they are leaving a safe country (France) to get here. That kind of negates the argument that they are fleeing danger and persecution by the time they get on that dinghy in the channel.

No winners at all at the moment.
Click to expand...
It's something of a stretch to blame migrants for an increase in crime. If crime is actually rising I'd put the blame on massive police cuts. Its up to refugees where they go, it isn't for us to reason why, maybe they have family here, speak the lingo or maybe fought alongside UK forces in Afghanistan. Its a ridiculous statement that they should stay in the first safe country, that would impact on immediate countries adjoining, France and Germany takeaway a lot more than we do but a sizeable % of the UK population seem to think this isn't our problem.
 
Shandypants said:
It's something of a stretch to blame migrants for an increase in crime. If crime is actually rising I'd put the blame on massive police cuts. Its up to refugees where they go, it isn't for us to reason why, maybe they have family here, speak the lingo or maybe fought alongside UK forces in Afghanistan. Its a ridiculous statement that they should stay in the first safe country, that would impact on immediate countries adjoining, France and Germany takeaway a lot more than we do but a sizeable % of the UK population seem to think this isn't our problem.
Click to expand...
I’m not blaming the migrants for any current crime rises, I’m saying there is likely to be more crime now a few thousand have gone off radar.

And I’m still not blaming them, I’m saying it’s inevitable as they have to eat to survive and won’t be supported financially by any legal means.

I’m blaming the mismanagement of the whole situation on the UK, and French governments.
 
20togo said:
you know full well the slant you were putting on it. Your post was much more focused on it all being a gimmick rather than the actual true focus on the problem being that the majority of these asylum seekers more than likely disappearing probably never to be seen again.
Click to expand...
What part of the scheme ISN'T a gimmick?
 
Shandypants said:
It's something of a stretch to blame migrants for an increase in crime. If crime is actually rising I'd put the blame on massive police cuts. Its up to refugees where they go, it isn't for us to reason why, maybe they have family here, speak the lingo or maybe fought alongside UK forces in Afghanistan. Its a ridiculous statement that they should stay in the first safe country, that would impact on immediate countries adjoining, France and Germany takeaway a lot more than we do but a sizeable % of the UK population seem to think this isn't our problem.
Click to expand...
There is no legal requirement to stay in the first safe country, by the way. Most want to come here because they don't speak French, German, Spanish, Italian etc, but do speak English as a consequence of Empire.
 
Wizaard said:
There is no legal requirement to stay in the first safe country, by the way. Most want to come here because they don't speak French, German, Spanish, Italian etc, but do speak English as a consequence of Empire.
Click to expand...
Perhaps those who've fled to Ireland should be returned to England.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
There's nothing like an immigration thread to raise the hackles, is there? Oh, unless it's a 'taking the knee' thread.
Click to expand...
4 police officers killed in America today.

America is a seriously Dangerous place to be a police officer.

Taking the knee for the movement Black lives matter is a disgrace.
 
Wizaard said:
What part of the scheme ISN'T a gimmick?
Click to expand...
read my post to which you have replied. In fact read all of my posts on here. I'll say this one thing again. it doesn't matter whether there is a a rwanda policy or not, the fact is thousands of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are still coming here and are disappearing in this country rather than reporting to the authorities and it wouldn't make a difference whoever was in Gov't. Perhaps that doesn't suit your agenda because you clearly want to solely focus on this gimmick rather than face the facts.
 
no9 said:
4 police officers killed in America today.

America is a seriously Dangerous place to be a police officer.

Taking the knee for the movement Black lives matter is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
Nobody takes the knee for the Black Lives Movement. Your post is disingenuous.
 
I'm not surprised no one has mentioned the knife/sword attack in London today in which a school boy was murdered as it didn't involve a suspected terrorist or asylum seeker .
 
Archibald Knox said:
Don’t be so disingenuous. You know perfectly well that women, especially with children, and old people don’t have the same resources or capabilities to travel alone on an arduous journey half-way across the world.

In many cases young men are sent by their communities with pooled resources to establish a beach-head (pun intended) in another country in the hope their families may be able to follow later. Whether by dependancy claims or arranged marriages etc.
Click to expand...
We took on a refugee at work (that is a successful asylum seeker) it impacted on everyone. He was severely traumatised, lost his wife, kids, mum and Dad, brother and sister to blanket bombing of Mousel in Iraq by the USA. Guy was actually a professor of architecture but could barely hold himself together. Changed my views on the issue forever. We cannot be involved in bombing places and take no responsibility for the consequences. The whole asylum issue is a massive mess but this Government has lost the plot and has absolutely no standing globally. This needs international cooperation to address but the UK will probably screw that one up whilst this set of lunatics are in charge.
 
Cuthbert said:
The whole asylum issue is a massive mess but this Government has lost the plot and has absolutely no standing globally. This needs international cooperation to address but the UK will probably screw that one up whilst this set of lunatics are in charge.
Click to expand...
The whole of the west is struggling to cope with the migrant crisis and it's threatening to bring down governments across Europe but let's blame the Tories for this pan-Europe chaos. I'm sure Labour has a plan to solve it. They just don't know what it is.
 
tommytwojags said:
The whole of the west is struggling to cope with the migrant crisis and it's threatening to bring down governments across Europe but let's blame the Tories for this pan-Europe chaos. I'm sure Labour has a plan to solve it. They just don't know what it is.
Click to expand...
I blame Angela Merkel for allowing the flood of refugees into Germany in 2015 which led to the leave vote in 2016 with many in the UK believing this would secure our borders!
 
tommytwojags said:
The whole of the west is struggling to cope with the migrant crisis and it's threatening to bring down governments across Europe but let's blame the Tories for this pan-Europe chaos. I'm sure Labour has a plan to solve it. They just don't know what it is.
Click to expand...
The Tories have been in power for fourteen years, and took us out of Europe eight years ago saying that - amongst other things - they were going to take back control of our borders. Who should we blame if not them?
 
basilrobbie3 said:
The Tories have been in power for fourteen years, and took us out of Europe eight years ago saying that - amongst other things - they were going to take back control of our borders. Who should we blame if not them?
Click to expand...
It's nothing to do with us leaving the EU. Otherwise none of the 27 member states would have a migrant problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top