Protests Erupt In Syria Over Christmas...
News3 mins ago
Another Tory Lawbreaker
87 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Geoffrey13. 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.
ClareTG0ld, The people coming here on boats are economic migrants and why anyone wants them here is quite beyond my comprehension. Our health services, educational institutions and housing stocks are insufficient for the population as it is and they are costing us millions we can ill afford every day. That is ‘logic’.
bobbisox1 what on earth are you on about from the article two challenged over failures to provide cash payments to pregnant women and to children under three years old
why on earth are you commenting about how you only see male immigrants maybe because they are out trying to get jobs or money whilst others stay at home who actually knows you sure dont
why on earth are you commenting about how you only see male immigrants maybe because they are out trying to get jobs or money whilst others stay at home who actually knows you sure dont
// The people coming here on boats are economic migrants and why anyone wants them here is quite beyond my comprehension. //
As far as I can tell, we're still processing many of the boat arrivals -- referring again to the link above, around 27% are from Albania, and the rest, presumably, are not, and therefore may come from the countries I listed above (Iraq, Syria etc). Indeed, so far the majority (61%) of small boat arrivals who've had a decision on their asylum claim were accepted, so evidently, even under this Government, not all of the arrivals are seen as "economic migrants".
As for the cost: again, you don't fix this by sending people to rwanda, firstly because the deterrent effect is likely to be small, and secondly because we've had to pay rwanda a substantial amount in order to get them to take any of the migrants at all. More, in fact, than if we'd kept them here.
As far as I can tell, we're still processing many of the boat arrivals -- referring again to the link above, around 27% are from Albania, and the rest, presumably, are not, and therefore may come from the countries I listed above (Iraq, Syria etc). Indeed, so far the majority (61%) of small boat arrivals who've had a decision on their asylum claim were accepted, so evidently, even under this Government, not all of the arrivals are seen as "economic migrants".
As for the cost: again, you don't fix this by sending people to rwanda, firstly because the deterrent effect is likely to be small, and secondly because we've had to pay rwanda a substantial amount in order to get them to take any of the migrants at all. More, in fact, than if we'd kept them here.
ClareTG0ld, firstly, no one from Albania needs to come here to claim asylum. Secondly, I think you’ll find quite a lot of those arriving in small boats are from Africa - and sending them straight back there would most certainly be an effective deterrent.
Those who are willing to welcome this influx, are in fact, enabling the traffickers - but that doesn’t seem to occur to them.
Those who are willing to welcome this influx, are in fact, enabling the traffickers - but that doesn’t seem to occur to them.
This a genuine question - I’m not being obtuse.
Why would an Albanian pay 000’s to cross the channel in a rubber dinghy when they xcan get an EasyJet flight from Tirana in late August for about £50. Book a return and bring some Sterling to show an ability to pay their way, and then disappear into the black economy or join one of the many Albanian gangs?
Why would an Albanian pay 000’s to cross the channel in a rubber dinghy when they xcan get an EasyJet flight from Tirana in late August for about £50. Book a return and bring some Sterling to show an ability to pay their way, and then disappear into the black economy or join one of the many Albanian gangs?
// Those who are willing to welcome this influx, are in fact, enabling the traffickers - but that doesn’t seem to occur to them.//
On this point, I absolutely agree that stopping migrant boat arrivals is vital to undercut those criminals who profit from it. But in that case, sending people to Rwanda as a deterrent is (regardless of its merits) targeting entirely the wrong people.
// Indeed it [the Rwanda policy] is expected to stop the cost of very many arriving here uninvited ... //
The Government has made this claim, sure, but they provided no evidence for it. And, again, because it was always going to be small-scale, its deterrent policy is extremely limited.
On this point, I absolutely agree that stopping migrant boat arrivals is vital to undercut those criminals who profit from it. But in that case, sending people to Rwanda as a deterrent is (regardless of its merits) targeting entirely the wrong people.
// Indeed it [the Rwanda policy] is expected to stop the cost of very many arriving here uninvited ... //
The Government has made this claim, sure, but they provided no evidence for it. And, again, because it was always going to be small-scale, its deterrent policy is extremely limited.
// Why would an Albanian pay 000’s to cross the channel in a rubber dinghy when they can get an EasyJet flight from Tirana in late August for about £50. ... //
No idea. In the link provided below, it mentions that Albanians cite "corruption, low salaries, poor working conditions and a low quality of life" as reasons for leaving Albania, but this doesn't in itself address why they'd try the more expensive and dangerous route. If I had to guess, it's because many have been lied to -- told that coming by boat gives a greater chance of success in finding work or whatever.
Naomi:
// I think you’ll find quite a lot of those arriving in small boats are from Africa ... //
See: https:/
No idea. In the link provided below, it mentions that Albanians cite "corruption, low salaries, poor working conditions and a low quality of life" as reasons for leaving Albania, but this doesn't in itself address why they'd try the more expensive and dangerous route. If I had to guess, it's because many have been lied to -- told that coming by boat gives a greater chance of success in finding work or whatever.
Naomi:
// I think you’ll find quite a lot of those arriving in small boats are from Africa ... //
See: https:/
//However, by that logic, the UK presumably ought to receive no asylum applications at all, or at least not more than a handful://
Precisely.
The original idea of asylum for refugees was that they fled where they were in peril and sought haven in the first safe country in which they arrived. It was not so that they could roam the globe until they reached the destination of their choice.
The asylum system has been cast completely into disrepute by people roaming across Europe until they reach their chosen destination. Many of the people arriving here in small boats (who are overwhelmingly young men) would be better advised to remain in their countries of origin and try to sort out the problems evident in them. It does those countries no good at all if European nations are simply going to welcome vast numbers of young people who should be trying to improve their homelands. What would have happened in the UK if all the young men of military service age simply upped sticks and left for neutral countries in 1939? They would no doubt be eligible for asylum had they claimed it because they were in danger of being either bombed out or being conscripted into the military.
Precisely.
The original idea of asylum for refugees was that they fled where they were in peril and sought haven in the first safe country in which they arrived. It was not so that they could roam the globe until they reached the destination of their choice.
The asylum system has been cast completely into disrepute by people roaming across Europe until they reach their chosen destination. Many of the people arriving here in small boats (who are overwhelmingly young men) would be better advised to remain in their countries of origin and try to sort out the problems evident in them. It does those countries no good at all if European nations are simply going to welcome vast numbers of young people who should be trying to improve their homelands. What would have happened in the UK if all the young men of military service age simply upped sticks and left for neutral countries in 1939? They would no doubt be eligible for asylum had they claimed it because they were in danger of being either bombed out or being conscripted into the military.
// Who out of those boat people - many of whom come from Africa - would come here if they knew they would end up in Rwanda?//
Again, see the data above, many *don't* come from Africa, so already your premise is flawed. Secondly, the word "knew" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Firstly, the people coming have to *know* about the policy. Most of us don't know much, if anything, about how UK Migration policy works, so why should people elsewhere be so deeply informed? Many won't know, either because they didn't do proper research or were lied to, or some other reason.
Secondly, even if they knew about the policy, they might figure it to be worth the risk -- it only applies to people who get caught, and while as far as I know most people attempting to enter on small boats are picked up, migrants might take the risk anyhow (either by underestimating the chances of getting caught or by deciding that the small chance of success is enough to justify a crossing).
And thirdly, because if you have 50,000 people arriving in small boats or whatever and only send 200 to Rwanda, then even if arrivals knew about the policy and expected to be caught then around 49,800 of them a year would still end up being processed here. Rwanda has neither the capacity nor the will to take all 50,000+ arrivals here, and once they've reached their maximum tolerance then, lo and behold, whatever deterrent there was comes to an end.
Again, see the data above, many *don't* come from Africa, so already your premise is flawed. Secondly, the word "knew" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Firstly, the people coming have to *know* about the policy. Most of us don't know much, if anything, about how UK Migration policy works, so why should people elsewhere be so deeply informed? Many won't know, either because they didn't do proper research or were lied to, or some other reason.
Secondly, even if they knew about the policy, they might figure it to be worth the risk -- it only applies to people who get caught, and while as far as I know most people attempting to enter on small boats are picked up, migrants might take the risk anyhow (either by underestimating the chances of getting caught or by deciding that the small chance of success is enough to justify a crossing).
And thirdly, because if you have 50,000 people arriving in small boats or whatever and only send 200 to Rwanda, then even if arrivals knew about the policy and expected to be caught then around 49,800 of them a year would still end up being processed here. Rwanda has neither the capacity nor the will to take all 50,000+ arrivals here, and once they've reached their maximum tolerance then, lo and behold, whatever deterrent there was comes to an end.
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.