ChatterBank2 mins ago
Why Is Our Plan "Unnacceptable"?
114 Answers
https:/
We copied the Aussies, their plan was ok. Why is ours any different?
We copied the Aussies, their plan was ok. Why is ours any different?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A lot of the problem, though, is knowing where these people have come from in the first place. Or the simple difficulty of repatriating them,
That problem will still apply in Rwanda, presumably, so they are going to end up stuck with them, as we are now.
And then they'll say "Sorry this is not our problem any more!"
I can certainly see why it might be popular with voters mind you.
I am happy to be proved wrong.
That problem will still apply in Rwanda, presumably, so they are going to end up stuck with them, as we are now.
And then they'll say "Sorry this is not our problem any more!"
I can certainly see why it might be popular with voters mind you.
I am happy to be proved wrong.
She says it is a breach of refugee law but doesn't quote which one. This simply an opinion & not based on fact.
Previously illegal asylum seekers, could say they were homosexuals (impossible to prove otherwise) & their lives would be at risk if they were returned to an Islamic country, or if they were Afghans they could be similarly at risk from the Taliban for co-operating with the US forces.
None of these, nor any other excuses apply to Rwanda, so bring on this excellent Labour initiative, first mooted by David Blunket & Tony Blair
Previously illegal asylum seekers, could say they were homosexuals (impossible to prove otherwise) & their lives would be at risk if they were returned to an Islamic country, or if they were Afghans they could be similarly at risk from the Taliban for co-operating with the US forces.
None of these, nor any other excuses apply to Rwanda, so bring on this excellent Labour initiative, first mooted by David Blunket & Tony Blair
dannyk13
It might be thriving economically, but it is not a thriving democracy.
// Of about 4,000 people estimated to have been deported by Israel to Rwanda and Uganda under a “voluntary departure” scheme between 2014 and 2017, almost all are thought to have left the country almost immediately, with many attempting to return to Europe via people-smuggling routes. //
It might be thriving economically, but it is not a thriving democracy.
// Of about 4,000 people estimated to have been deported by Israel to Rwanda and Uganda under a “voluntary departure” scheme between 2014 and 2017, almost all are thought to have left the country almost immediately, with many attempting to return to Europe via people-smuggling routes. //
//it's very simple, they come here they get caught..//
Those who are “caught” (i.e ferried ashore by either the RNLI or the Border Farce) cannot be detained. There is no legislation in place (or planned) to enable this. They can remain voluntarily in the care of the authorities but, since they have committed no crime (in the eyes of those authorities) they must eventually be released. If they are forcibly detained it will only be until a judge orders their release.
“…and put on a plane to Rwanda..//
Provided they remain where they can be taken to the airport (see above).
“.. they apply there, if they get in they are Rwandan..”
And would then be perfectly free to travel to the UK - either legally or illegally (see Gromit's post at 12:05).
//.. if not they go back to wherever.//
“Wherever” will be their last port of call (i.e. the UK). The majority of people who arrive here either have no documentation confirming their country of origin or, if they have, that country will not accept them.
Anyway, as I said on the other thread, no need to debate too closely here and now. A “government spokesman” said he expects the first deportations to take place “within weeks or a small number of months”. I’ve marked this and the other thread out for review at the end of August and we can examine the scheme’s success then. My estimate of the number of deportations by then (to the nearest whole number) is zero. By the end of this year there may be a handful (if M’Learned Friends are a bit slow off the mark).
This is not the way to deal with this problem and this scheme is wind and puff, smoke and mirrors. A method needs to be devised to stop them actually landing here because once they have done so the chances of them being removed to Rwanda or anywhere else is remarkably close to zero. In any case, between now and the end of August (the peak of the rubber boat season) I would expect tens of thousands to have arrived here unhindered and unmolested. The capacity of the Rwandan hotel earmarked for this scheme is just 100.
Those who are “caught” (i.e ferried ashore by either the RNLI or the Border Farce) cannot be detained. There is no legislation in place (or planned) to enable this. They can remain voluntarily in the care of the authorities but, since they have committed no crime (in the eyes of those authorities) they must eventually be released. If they are forcibly detained it will only be until a judge orders their release.
“…and put on a plane to Rwanda..//
Provided they remain where they can be taken to the airport (see above).
“.. they apply there, if they get in they are Rwandan..”
And would then be perfectly free to travel to the UK - either legally or illegally (see Gromit's post at 12:05).
//.. if not they go back to wherever.//
“Wherever” will be their last port of call (i.e. the UK). The majority of people who arrive here either have no documentation confirming their country of origin or, if they have, that country will not accept them.
Anyway, as I said on the other thread, no need to debate too closely here and now. A “government spokesman” said he expects the first deportations to take place “within weeks or a small number of months”. I’ve marked this and the other thread out for review at the end of August and we can examine the scheme’s success then. My estimate of the number of deportations by then (to the nearest whole number) is zero. By the end of this year there may be a handful (if M’Learned Friends are a bit slow off the mark).
This is not the way to deal with this problem and this scheme is wind and puff, smoke and mirrors. A method needs to be devised to stop them actually landing here because once they have done so the chances of them being removed to Rwanda or anywhere else is remarkably close to zero. In any case, between now and the end of August (the peak of the rubber boat season) I would expect tens of thousands to have arrived here unhindered and unmolested. The capacity of the Rwandan hotel earmarked for this scheme is just 100.
Australia’s offshoring is very expensive for the tax payers. Each migrant costs £1.7 million to offshore.
It is revealing that the UK has not specified how many migrants it will send. If the UK proposal is based on the Australian scheme, the £120million would offshore 70 migrants. Last year we had 28,000 illegal migrants.
To offshore all 28,000 would cost £ 47.6 Billion.
It is revealing that the UK has not specified how many migrants it will send. If the UK proposal is based on the Australian scheme, the £120million would offshore 70 migrants. Last year we had 28,000 illegal migrants.
To offshore all 28,000 would cost £ 47.6 Billion.
NJ //. A method needs to be devised to stop them actually landing here //
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
Food & Drink3 mins ago
Looks Like Keir Starmer Et Al. Have...
News5 mins ago
Animals & Nature24 mins ago
Should Society Help Addicts???
ChatterBank28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.