Rwanda

[River Don]

Seems A significant number of Labour supporters agree with the move to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

I think a significant number of people in this country want to see clear controls on immigration.

The Rwanda scheme is a reaction to that but it isn't practical, will turn out to be prohibitively expensive and won't be effective.

It's  just a PR stunt really. Typical Johnson, look we're tough on immigration.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants to this country don't come over in small boats from France. Most come here on a visa and then simply remain after it expires.

What's more, if Johnson really had any care about immigration, he wouldn't be negotiating a free trade deal with India which will see thousands of Indians given UK visas. Which by the way the UK government wants because there are big shortages in the Labour force since Brexit.

Smoke and mirrors again.

[SydneyRover]

'Make a decision, what do you want democracy or chaos with johnson, those that discard the law in your name will at some time use it against you.

'In his rhetoric, Johnson stands with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. But in his actions he declares his kinship with Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and the others. He writes life-and-death laws which he then breaks, flagrantly and repeatedly. Next, he lies about his lawbreaking to parliament – the same parliament, remember, that he illegally suspended as one of his first acts in power.

None of this is in the past. This week, perhaps in an attempt to divert attention away from the Partygate scandal, he announced plans to ship those seeking asylum – including those ultimately found to have a just and fair claim to refuge – to faraway Rwanda, a dictatorship with a record on human rights so bad the UK government raised concerns just last year. It’s likely that the new policy is against the law, “a breach of the right to life, the right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to be tried before conviction”, according to one legal scholar. But that did not hold Johnson back. On the contrary, he would like nothing more than a court battle, so he can pose as the people’s tribune, once again frustrated by those he pre-emptively referred to in his Rwanda announcement as “an army of politically motivated lawyers”.

The pattern is clear: contempt for the law, contempt for those tasked with upholding it. Johnson’s defenders say he must stay in office because of Ukraine. In fact, the war for that country, and the wider struggle it has come to represent, make it all the more urgent that he go.

Read more here: Jonathan Freeland – Johnson to stay because of Ukraine? Nonsense. The war makes it more urgent that he go''

[albie]

Pud,

Yes, there is a solution.
1) Open a centre in France to process applications, adequately staffed.
2) Deal with applications promptly.
3) Allow the 75% who succeed to cross by ferry on receiving approval.
4) Advise those who fail (after appeal if relevant) on alternatives (and support) for their situation.
5) Make sure that the criteria are fully understood in the countries of origin to prevent pointless attempts.

In a nutshell, that is it.

Trouble is, the government don't really want to sort it out, they want to use it to appeal to their base.....and deflect from their corruption.

They certainly used to do some of this (not public knowledge because politically it's tricky).

But it doesn't solve the problem entirely. How do you limit it, is it 75% of 5 million, 5000???

The admin being done in France is a solution every professional working with refugees supports.
This is because it removes those with credentials from the people traffickers, they have a safe route via the ferry.

Anything that removes 75% of the business traffic from the exploiters is worth doing.

No-one in the sector has suggested this will lead to an overall increase in applications.
The number eligible remains the same under the present rules.

If you believe that those rules need to be revised, then that is a totally different issue, nothing to do with admin for the small boats problem.

[albie]

Decent summary from the BBC on the legality (or not) of the Rwanda proposal:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241

Johnson knows he is breaking the law, but thinks it is worth it to deflect his problems in the minute.
Add to the cost of this silly scheme the likely legal costs for a certain defeat in court......you and me will pay for this!

All this at the same time as no real help for people with their energy costs, what a strange priority!

[i_ateallthepies]

Once again people mixing up economic migration with refugees fleeing war and persectution.

As previously posted 75% or those crossing the channel are confirmed as genuine refugees, that is fleeing war and persecution in their home country. The 25% who are not, but are judged to be economic migrants, are returned to their country of origin.

It is not, nor ever has been, illegal to seek refugee status in this or in any other democratic country allined to the UN (although the Tories are attempting to change that).

It would be helpful when you want to solve 'the problem' you are accurate and truthful on what 'the problem' is.

Wilts, it appears you are taking exception to my post.  I'll apologise if what I have said has upset you, it wasn't my intention to be controversial, nor was I conflating economic migration with asylum seeking.  I am as disgusted with our government's response to asylum seekers as anyone else and I agree wholeheartedly with every word of condemnation it attracts.
I noted a post on here yesterday making remarks to the effect that it is a difficult 'problem' to solve, as though trying to defend the indefensible of the government's decision. 

Your final remark I do not appreciate.  Please explain why you accuse me of being untruthful.

[normal rules]

If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?

[BillyStubbsTears]

If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?

How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?

[albie]

Latest data for those who like a stat;
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/

The numbers fluctuate, according to season and the number of people displaced from war zones, but this gives a broad overview.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's worked hasn't it?

Crosby's Dead Cat strategy.

No-one is talking about Johnson and lies in Parliament any more.

[tyke1962]

It's worked hasn't it?

Crosby's Dead Cat strategy.

No-one is talking about Johnson and lies in Parliament any more.

Until the next fine drops through the number 10 letterbox maybe .

[ravenrover]

Do you think we will hear about the next fine from Downing Street and then the 1 after that etc etc?

[DRFCSouth]

It all seems very wrong. Irrespective of the challenges of the situation as a whole, we shouldn't be looking to offload people to Rwanda.

I do always wonder why the first safe country is the UK and not one of the many they have travelled through.

[wilts rover]

Once again people mixing up economic migration with refugees fleeing war and persectution.

As previously posted 75% or those crossing the channel are confirmed as genuine refugees, that is fleeing war and persecution in their home country. The 25% who are not, but are judged to be economic migrants, are returned to their country of origin.

It is not, nor ever has been, illegal to seek refugee status in this or in any other democratic country allined to the UN (although the Tories are attempting to change that).

It would be helpful when you want to solve 'the problem' you are accurate and truthful on what 'the problem' is.

Wilts, it appears you are taking exception to my post.  I'll apologise if what I have said has upset you, it wasn't my intention to be controversial, nor was I conflating economic migration with asylum seeking.  I am as disgusted with our government's response to asylum seekers as anyone else and I agree wholeheartedly with every word of condemnation it attracts.
I noted a post on here yesterday making remarks to the effect that it is a difficult 'problem' to solve, as though trying to defend the indefensible of the government's decision. 

Your final remark I do not appreciate.  Please explain why you accuse me of being untruthful.

Sorry pies.

If I have a problem with/or am replying to a particular post then I will quote it so there is no misunderstanding. I wont lie and say that it wasn't your post that caused me to write mine - but it was not aimed at, nor was it a reply to you. I have been frustrated by a number of previous posts on this thread that have been inaccuate/spreading misinformation so was aimed at the whole board - not any particular individual.

For the avoidance of any further doubt I have never thought anything you have posted was untruthful. And should I ever do so in future I will adress you directly (same with anyone else).

[tyke1962]

Do you think we will hear about the next fine from Downing Street and then the 1 after that etc etc?

I can't think why a serving PM receiving multiple fines for breaking the rules he set wouldn't make headline news .

[drfchound]

If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?

How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?

What about younger women though who could travel 4000 miles overland.
Is that a fair question?

[Bentley Bullet]

If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?

How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?

What about younger women though who could travel 4000 miles overland.
Is that a fair question?

No, it's not really a fair question hound, because BST, in his desperation, has to turn everything into an example of racism in order to pursue his point. You should know that!

[albie]

The claim that 90% of applications are from young men is incorrect.

The Red Cross gives the figure for women and children as 43%, leaving 57% as the figure for men of all ages;
https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/how-we-support-refugees/find-out-about-refugees

Not that this is relevant to the unlawful decision to use extraordinary rendition against the vulnerable escaping war.

Do people really think those fleeing the Ukraine should be off-shored to Rwanda?
All those offering support to refugees seem to want them here, and out of harm's way.

[drfcdrfc]

If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?

Here he is to save the day!

How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?

What about younger women though who could travel 4000 miles overland.
Is that a fair question?

No, it's not really a fair question hound, because BST, in his desperation, has to turn everything into an example of racism in order to pursue his point. You should know that!

[SydneyRover]

If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?

As has been shown, you are wrong, but what would it matter if they were? a refugee is a refugee.

Aug 2021

''You have no idea what I do for a living. I work closely with immigration enforcement as part of a partner agency strategy. The uk govt makes no disparity between economic migrants and asylum seekers. They are either illegal entrants or not. It’s that simple.
I read no daily rag. I base my comments on real life experience.
I have personally been involved in extraditions within the schengen  area pre covid.
The uk is not the place for tens of thousands of migrants to settle''

I would have thought you'd have been across the details of immigration NR?

[River Don]

If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?

How do you think old women would escape from a war zone and travel 4000 miles overland?

What about younger women though who could travel 4000 miles overland.
Is that a fair question?

As we are seeing with Ukraine, younger women travelling are extremely vulnerable. People traffickers and sexual exploitation.

[drfchound]

The claim that 90% of applications are from young men is incorrect.

The Red Cross gives the figure for women and children as 43%, leaving 57% as the figure for men of all ages;
https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/how-we-support-refugees/find-out-about-refugees

Not that this is relevant to the unlawful decision to use extraordinary rendition against the vulnerable escaping war.

Do people really think those fleeing the Ukraine should be off-shored to Rwanda?
All those offering support to refugees seem to want them here, and out of harm's way.

Just to be clear albie, I am not against refugees from war torn areas coming here, whatever race or colour or gender they are. 

[normal rules]

If those crossing the channel in dinghies are genuine refugees, and not economic migrants, Can someone tell me why 90% of them are young males?

As has been shown, you are wrong, but what would it matter if they were? a refugee is a refugee.

Aug 2021

''You have no idea what I do for a living. I work closely with immigration enforcement as part of a partner agency strategy. The uk govt makes no disparity between economic migrants and asylum seekers. They are either illegal entrants or not. It’s that simple.
I read no daily rag. I base my comments on real life experience.
I have personally been involved in extraditions within the schengen  area pre covid.
The uk is not the place for tens of thousands of migrants to settle''

I would have thought you'd have been across the details of immigration NR?

That was aug 2021.
This is now.
Single males will be treat differently if the HO gets its way.

[SydneyRover]

So not yet then and it doesn't change the fact you were wrong and not for the first time either.

[normal rules]

We can argue all day about the stats.

I’ve looked at some publications to assure myself I’m not far off in what I am led to believe.
The times reports this.

The vast majority — 90 per cent — of all small boat arrivals in 2021 were male. Three quarters of all arrivals were men aged 18 to 39. Just 7 per cent of arrivals were women. Children made up 12 per cent of all small boat arrivals, of whom three quarters were boys.

The migration observatory at Oxford Uni report the same stats. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjyqYa15Jr3AhVKa8AKHZl1D9AQFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmigrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk%2Fresources%2Fcommentaries%2Fqa-migrants-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats%2F&usg=AOvVaw3KC_wDmykigCOhhCVrtr47

But you can find contradictory reports if you look elsewhere of course.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The reply by Cold War Steve to Rees-Mogg here has to be the most perfect put down to sanctimonious hypocrisy in human history.

https://mobile.twitter.com/coldwarsteve/status/1515629295720357891

[Sprotyrover]

As we have seen recently with the Ukraine
The people seeking asylum from that country are 90% Women and children the men have stayed to fight. Which begs a few questions to be raised about all those boat loads of military age males
Landing at Dover?

[SydneyRover]

''The Evil May Day Riots of 1517''

''On the night of 30 April/1 May 1517, Tudor London was gripped by violent riots. But what was the cause? Dr Joanne Paul explores the tensions that mounted that spring, leading to a night of looting and anger against ‘strangers’ in the capital ...''

''Lincoln was not the only Londoner who had long harboured resentment of foreigners, a sentiment that had increased in the months before Lincoln’s execution. Contemporary chroniclers suggest that European visitors had been boasting about their closeness to the king, mocking the Englishmen whom they displaced. In the more common streets of London, Englishmen complained of being cheated by foreigners who were protected by their nations’ favoured ambassadors. The native resentment at these uppity foreigners had spread and broken out in the riots that took place on the night of 30 April and into the early hours of 1 May.''

https://www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/evil-may-day-riots-what-happened-violence-london-foreigners/

[albie]

What questions does it raise Sproty?

Not following your reasoning here.
Are you talking about asylum seekers, those looking to migrate, or people applying for resettlement?

The Red Cross link I put up above explains the difference between them.
Arriving in a small boat is beside the point...what is important is if they have a legitimate claim!

[Glyn_Wigley]

Has anybody said who's going to pay for the successful applicants to be flown back from Rwanda to the UK?

And pay for the unsuccessful applicants to be flown to...wherever?

[albie]

Glyn,

Press coverage suggested it was a one way ticket to Rwanda.
Once there, detainees could apply to remain in Rwanda.

Which raises the probability of a new trafficking route from Rwanda back into Europe....not presumably the aim of the policy.

Completely unlawful under existing legal definitions of responsibilities towards refugees.