Asylum Seekers to Rwanda - A Deterrent?

[Fagin2021]

The real answer of course is to reduce those factors that make someone from a warm and sunny clime wish to live in this cold, rain-slashed swamp – war, poverty, oppression, corruption and so on and so on.

This might be an impossible and expensive task that’s rarely debated and, IMHO, not helped by the ‘it’s all the fault of the West’ ‘it’s the legacy of colonialism’ brigade whose only solution is to chuck more and more aid money at the problem.

 

[Newchodge]

Rwanda has accepted the obligation to take them . . . . . apparently.

I would be extremely surprised if any of those intended to be forcibly removed to Rwanda would have had Rwanda as the first safe country they came to. Rwanda has been paid to take them.

 

[Newchodge]

Oh well, at least I managed to amuse you! But I'm sure you knew what I meant, and I'm sure everyone else managed to use their common sense in order to comprehend the context and deduce what I meant!

The bit about the right being less impartial was not the funniest part of your post.

 

[MOIC]

I would be extremely surprised if any of those intended to be forcibly removed to Rwanda would have had Rwanda as the first safe country they came to. Rwanda has been paid to take them.

Is the UK the first safe country they came to?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Is the UK the first safe country they came to?

Why is that relevant? It's the country they initially depart that matters, not the countries they pass through.


Karl Limpert

 

[UkAppCoder]

The real answer of course is to reduce those factors ...

... chuck more and more aid money at the problem.

I agree on both of your points, Fagin2021. Afghanistan is a prime example.

First point: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Second point: (I said this in the 'charity' thread) it has cost us thousands of deaths and life-changing injuries inflicted on our troops, plus arms worth billions of dollars given to the enemy, plus billions of pounds given in aid plus more than twenty years of genuine, hear-felt compassion, aid and assistance.

Result: Afghanistan is no better off than when we started. What should have been a formidable army surrendered because some Taliban soldier stuck his tongue out at them, and now the left wing, loony, civil libertarian bleeding hearts are bubbling and crying about how the west is exploiting them and are reluctant to take them into the UK.

It's ridiculous and we're sick to the teeth of it!

We should concentrate on genuine refugees such as the Ukrainians who will appreciate our help.

 

[thetiger2015]

We should concentrate on genuine refugees such as the Ukrainians who will appreciate our help.

Why are they more genuine than others?

There are plenty of other countries where laws are discriminatory and the only answer is for people to travel thousands of miles, to seek what they've been told is the land of wealth and shelter.

We may think the UK is bleak but compared to parts of Africa, we have running water, we have boats and buses, we have cities and restaurants. The weather is rubbish but in many ways, we have so much that other countries do not.

I don't quite understand why people don't settle in France/Italy but I think it depends on where they come from. Some speak French as a second language, so they seem to stay there but others speak some basic English and have been told that the UK will house and feed them forever, because we're such a rich country. Making a trip of thousands of miles makes sense, if someone has told you that there's a very rich country full of English gentlefolk who will give you money, because they have too much to keep for themselves.

There's also the issue of such a wide range of asylum seekers / illegal immigrants / genuine immigrants - from those fleeing war and persecution to those fleeing arrest in their own country for awful crimes. I don't quite see how the Rwanda thing helps with any of this. Rwanda will just take the money, release them and then they'll just try and get back in to the UK again. Someone will tell them you have to try 5 times and then you get accepted or something. Those ferrying people around are getting paid, so they'll say anything to get more passengers across the channel. Double bubble now, with faces they saw a few weeks ago.

The answer can only be to re-educate people in their own countries. Keep the processing in those countries. I don't know the mechanisms or ability to do this but surely, the UK government should be looking at ways to reduce the volume of people trying to make the perilous journey from the very start point. No point turning their dinghies back, they'll just try again tomorrow and then you'll just have to keep deploying more and more ships to scoop them all up. Like a bucket with holes in...useless.

 

[UkAppCoder]

That is such a nice, balanced view, tiger2015. There is no malice in you at all. I honestly wish I could be more like you - my life would be so much easier!

 

[MOIC]

Why is that relevant? It's the country they initially depart that matters, not the countries they pass through.


Karl Limpert

Not according to the Home Office.

If the Home Office think that you travelled through a “safe country” on your way to the UK, they can decide to investigate whether your claim should be treated as inadmissible. While your claim is being considered under these rules, your asylum claim will not move forward in the UK.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Not according to the Home Office.

If the Home Office think that you travelled through a “safe country” on your way to the UK, they can decide to investigate whether your claim should be treated as inadmissible. While your claim is being considered under these rules, your asylum claim will not move forward in the UK.

Oh well, if the Home Office say that, it must be true.


I guess the courts got it wrong when they were trying to rule on the 1951 Refugee Convention and said (at paragraph 69)

As a result there is a choice of refuge beyond the first safe territory by land or sea

Karl Limpert

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Not according to the Home Office.

If the Home Office think that you travelled through a “safe country” on your way to the UK, they can decide to investigate whether your claim should be treated as inadmissible. While your claim is being considered under these rules, your asylum claim will not move forward in the UK.

The UNHCR disagrees too - haven't they read what the Home Office says about this?


And the civil service aren't convinced the policy will be effective in achieving its (stated) aims, but perhaps it will win some votes next month, which are perhaps its real aims.


Karl Limpert

 

[MOIC]

The UNHCR would disagree wouldn’t they?

Edit: They seem content on France allowing refugees to leave their country on dangerous vessels.

Hypocrisy?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The UNHCR would disagree wouldn’t they?

Yes, as the custodian of the international rules, they probably would say something (as it's their obligation) when they believe the rules aren't being followed.


Karl Limpert

 

[MOIC]

They seem content on France allowing refugees to leave their country on dangerous vessels.

Hypocrisy?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Office say that, it must be true.

They seem content on France allowing refugees to leave their country on dangerous vessels.

Hypocrisy?

Clearly I haven't been paying attention. When did the UNHCR ever say they were "content" for asylum seekers to leave France on dangerous vessels?

For that matter, when did France ever say they permitted or "allowed" them to leave on dangerous vessels?

Last I read, France was stopping this activity whenever they could; I didn't realise they're allowing it now... or are you just talking bovine excrement?


Karl Limpert

 

[MOIC]

Clearly I haven't been paying attention. When did the UNHCR ever say they were "content" for asylum seekers to leave France on dangerous vessels?

They haven't spoken against it.

For that matter, when did France ever say they permitted or "allowed" them to leave on dangerous vessels?

LOL

Last I read, France was stopping this activity whenever they could; I didn't realise they're allowing it now...

Doesn't seem to have worked . . . . . perhaps they bought fishing boats instead.

or are you just talking bovine excrement?

Why the elongated version?

Karl, I'm enjoying our debate.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

That Patel woman ?

I have never encountered such a bitter , nasty and spiteful person !

 

[MOIC]

That Patel woman ?

I have never encountered such a bitter , nasty and spiteful person !

LOL

Never one to hold back!

 

[Newchodge]

Is the UK the first safe country they came to?

Please read your own post about the inadmissabiity rules.

 

[Newchodge]

The UNHCR would disagree wouldn’t they?

Edit: They seem content on France allowing refugees to leave their country on dangerous vessels.

Hypocrisy?

Are you seriously suggesting there is any legal right to prevent someone leaving France? Convicted criminals subject to a jail sentence excepted, of course.

 

[Newchodge]

LOL

Never one to hold back!

No she isn't, especially if she can make someone else's life a misery.

 

[MOIC]

Please read your own post about the inadmissabiity rules.

I Have.

You're very good at ordering people to do this and that.

Some people have their own opinion, which may be different to yours.

Accept it.

 

[Newchodge]

Accept it.

You're very good at ordering people to do this and that.

 

[MOIC]

Are you seriously suggesting there is any legal right to prevent someone leaving France? Convicted criminals subject to a jail sentence excepted, of course.

Who mentioned a legal right?

Allowing women and children crossing the channel in overcrowded vessels which are not seaworthy, might be morally wrong - don't you think?

 

[MOIC]

No she isn't, especially if she can make someone else's life a misery.

As you're well aware it was directed at Jeremy (not your friend), but as usual, you turn it around . . . . .ppffhhhhh

 

[MOIC]

@Newchodge, why do you like getting personal?

 

[Newchodge]

@Newchodge, why do you like getting personal?

With whom are you suggesting that I am getting personal?

 

[MOIC]

With whom are you suggesting that I am getting personal?

You're on a yellow, one more and you're on my ignore list.

I'm guessing, I'll be hitting that ignore button in about 36 seconds . . . . .

 

[Newchodge]

You're on a yellow, one more and you're on my ignore list.

I'm guessing, I'll be hitting that ignore button in about 36 seconds . . . . .

Make my day

 

[MOIC]

Bang on 36 seconds. Your wish is my command.

 

[UkAppCoder]

Bang on 36 seconds. Your wish is my command.

LOL! She's the first moderator I've ever come across whom actually needs a moderator to moderate her behaviour!

 

[Newchodge]

LOL! She's the first moderator I've ever come across whom actually needs a moderator to moderate her behaviour!

Who, not whom.

 

[Ian J]

Who, not whom.

Tut tut. That's not appropriate behaviour from a moderator

 

[Newchodge]

Tut tut. That's not appropriate behaviour from a moderator

Dang!

 

[UkAppCoder]

Who, not whom.

Wrong! The only way I can imagine 'who' being correct is if the first moderator (you) is the same as the second moderator. But I think it is clear to everyone, including yourself, that this is not the intention. Therefore 'whom' is correct.

Remember that forums like this are naturally very loose and informal as far as language is concerned. If this were not the case, then clearly there would be no forums anywhere!

You seem to be a very defensive kind of person, Newchodge. Do you have an inferiority complex or something?

 

[Newchodge]

Wrong! The only way I can imagine 'who' being correct is if the first moderator (you) is the same as the second moderator. But I think it is clear to everyone, including yourself, that this is not the intention. Therefore 'whom' is correct.

Remember that forums like this are naturally very loose and informal as far as language is concerned. If this were not the case, then clearly there would be no forums anywhere!

You seem to be a very defensive kind of person, Newchodge. Do you have an inferiority complex or something?

You seem to be the sort of person who cannot recognise a joke when they see one.

 

[KM-Tiger]

You seem to be the sort of person who cannot recognise a joke when they see one.

I'm lost, who is telling a joke to whom?

 

[AWA Training]

The problem here is, legal or inethical, what are the altneratives?
Without the PC brigade screaming "racist" the facts are most local authorities do not have spare resources. They are already struggling to deal with the existing population. For example, here in Northamptonshire, while they throw up houses as if they are going out of fashion, they neglect the fact there are not the doctors surgeries, dentists, or schools to cope. The hospital it already at capacity. That story seems shared across the board.
So sure, could argue about the legality but what else would the powers that be in their wigs suggest could or should be done?

 

[AWA Training]

As to whether i think it will deter them, who is to know. How are they to know? They don't tend to follow social media. Yes, i suppose after a few months if all their compatriots were being sent to Rwanda the word might get out that it's fruitless. Many may try to "sneak" ashore undetected and work their they into the country. But at some point they will need something from the country, medical aid (for example), then be discovered and potentially shipped off.

 

[Newchodge]

The problem here is, legal or inethical, what are the altneratives?
Without the PC brigade screaming "racist" the facts are most local authorities do not have spare resources. They are already struggling to deal with the existing population. For example, here in Northamptonshire, while they throw up houses as if they are going out of fashion, they neglect the fact there are not the doctors surgeries, dentists, or schools to cope. The hospital it already at capacity. That story seems shared across the board.
So sure, could argue about the legality but what else would the powers that be in their wigs suggest could or should be done?

How do you think other countries, who take many more refugees than we do, cope?