A Contentious Issue ?

[Bobbisox1]

Flight to remove asylum seekers from UK to Rwanda allowed by court https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61763818

Right or wrong ?

Why are the illegals so against getting a clean bed, food etc albeit in another country , furthermore ,will it deter more crossings?

[naomi24]

Right. And, yes. If it continues, as it should, it will deter further crossings.

They’re not against getting a clean bed, food, etc., in another country. They just want that other country to be the UK.

[Bobbisox1]

One has to ask why although I think we all know the answer Naomi but there’s been a series of handwringers throughout the day saying we have a moral obligation, we’ll I don’t think we have

[naomi24]

Neither do I.

[Deskdiary]

Pearl clutching lawyers will be having a field day, and will be getting handsomely paid...by the taxpayer.

[naomi24]

That could be cheaper in the long run, DD, especially if it does prove to be a deterrent - and the run isn’t as long as it might have been.

[New Judge]

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

[Spungle]

Good riddance.

[FatticusInch]

https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-deportation-plan-first-flight-can-go-ahead-high-court-rules-12631489

[Bobbisox1]

Fatti, that’s in my OP ( link)

[FatticusInch]

The one on Sky News indicated an update minutes ago.

[FatticusInch]

Your original link shows an update 3 minutes ago too.

[douglas9401]

It could be the beginning of a major success story, look how Australia did getting settled by the unwanted.

[sanmac]

If these illegal infiltrators do end up in Rwanda they won't be too pleased as they might have to find a job since I wouldn't think that that country has such a bountiful welfare system as the UK's.

[New Judge]

We need to keep in mind that, as part of this deal, the UK has undertaken to accept some of the migrants already in Rwanda, notably those who have "complex medical and psychological needs.":

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vulnerable-rwanda-refugees-head-to-uk-wq7vq2njb#:~:text=Under%20the%20terms%20of%20the,being%20sent%20the%20other%20way.

"Under the terms of the immigration deal that Priti Patel, the home secretary, signed last week in Kigali, the UK has agreed to take in “a portion” of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in exchange for illegal migrants being sent the other way.

Most are expected to be Congolese refugees who have been living in makeshift camps in Rwanda for years or those who have specific health conditions that would benefit from being transferred to the UK. A Home Office source last night said the number would be “less than 50”. Congolese citizens make up more than half of the 130,000 refugees in Rwanda."

But as I said, there's a long time between now and Tuesday. Unfortunately I'm away next week and will probably not be able to keep proper track of events.

[Ellipsis]

> Flight to remove asylum seekers from UK to Rwanda ...
> Right or wrong ?
> Why are the illegals so against ...

"Asylum seekers" become "the illegals" in a very short space. They are not synonymous.

Genuine asylum seekers have every right to be aggrieved. Illegal immigrants have no such right. Lumping them both together is offensive to genuine asylum seekers ...

[Bobbisox1]

It’s the illegals I am referring to in my OP Ellipses

[ynnafymmi]

From all accounts ive heard it would be cheaper giving every one of these migrants a thousand pounds a week for the next ten years as it would work out cheaper than this crazy Rwanda thing.Never mind,its only us crazy taxpayers money that Bojo is squandering.Bah,humbug.

[ynnafymmi]

@20.00.Yes,NJ.We send out healthy (presumably)migrants,they send us back migrants with various mental health and tropical diseases issues.Doesnt sound like a good idea to me.What do i know,im just another mug taxpayer.

[Old_Geezer]

Of course, for every one Rwanda gets they send a vulnerable individual here in exchange. Not the image the government gave. Let's hope it works ok and stops the illegal economic migrants.

[Old_Geezer]

Giving every one of these migrants a thousand pounds a week for the next ten years will only encourage them, when the aim is to discourage them and dry up the arrival rate. So hardly any sort of option.