• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Finney Is Back said:
One could also argue that it is immoral to travel to a foreign country as an economic migrant and try to use the asylum route (thus potentially depriving those with a real need for asylum of a place in a safe country).
Click to expand...

But the Rwanda scheme could impact any migrant, whether bona fide refugee or economic chancer. Too late once they’ve been moved out as it’s not a processing centre for the UK - there’s no coming back if you are found to be a genuine asylum seeker.
 
Personally I think the issues around immigration could be significantly reduced by having application processing centres abroad (in France for instance).
It seems to me that the conservatives are purposefully not dealing with immigration effectively and focussing on more hairbrained and headline grabbing schemes so that the immigration issue can be used as a distraction

It’s far easier to blame the nations woes on immigrants than actually getting to grips with social inequality, the decline of British industry outside of the financial sector, the decline of public services, especially health and education, the failure of privatisation of public transport and utilities, and the decline in ethical standards and competence in our political system and civil service, while fringe groups exploit the public’s apathy and naivety to loot public resources for themselves and ride off into the sunset.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
But the Rwanda scheme could impact any migrant, whether bona fide refugee or economic chancer. Too late once they’ve been moved out as it’s not a processing centre for the UK - there’s no coming back if you are found to be a genuine asylum seeker.
Click to expand...

Then refugees should come through the proper channels - UN aid camps or oversees embassies.

Arriving at a country that is 1500 miles away from the nearest war zone or despotic regime isn't any sort of way to demonstrate genuine need.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
But the Rwanda scheme could impact any migrant, whether bona fide refugee or economic chancer. Too late once they’ve been moved out as it’s not a processing centre for the UK - there’s no coming back if you are found to be a genuine asylum seeker.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but I think the idea is that it stops the dangerous and uncontrolled boat crossings (well that is the 'official' stance). If you don't want to be sent to Rwanda then don't travel to the UK illegally by making a channel crossing facilitating organised crime.
 
unfortunately you have to be in the uk before you can claim asylum in the uk, hence nearly all asylum seekers (whether genuine or otherwise) will de facto be illegal immigrants when they arrive in the uk.

The number of illegal immigrants and demand for smugglers services could be greatly reduced through having an application processing service available in france (near Calais for example).

source: From the uk government website:

“Overview
You must apply for asylum if you want to stay in the UK as a refugee.

You should apply when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country. Your application is more likely to be denied if you wait.

To be eligible you must have left your country and be unable to go back because you fear persecution.”
 
Finney Is Back said:
I could be wrong but I think the idea is that it stops the dangerous and uncontrolled boat crossings (well that is the 'official' stance). If you don't want to be sent to Rwanda then don't travel to the UK illegally by making a channel crossing facilitating organised crime.
Click to expand...

That may be the intention but how do you determine an economic migrant vs a genuine refugee until that have been through the process? it’s an abhorrent policy.
 
Last edited:
Finney Is Back said:
One could also argue that it is immoral to travel to a foreign country as an economic migrant and try to use the asylum route (thus potentially depriving those with a real need for asylum of a place in a safe country).
Click to expand...


The government’s latest figures (up to June 2022) show that 76% of initial decisions in the last year were grants of asylum for humanitarian or protection purposes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ending-june-2022/summary-of-latest-statistics
 
SpurMeUp said:
How long does it take for the army to build a hanger in a field? Saving million or billions. There is a lack of invention in government.
Click to expand...
It's not a lack of invention it's deliberate, it keeps the frothy mouthed focused on other things than the fact that in 12 years the Tory's have robbed the country blind and broken everything that the gammony types rely on, social care, Doctors, Dentists, benefits, the CAB, housing.............
 
Finney Is Back said:
Which Western nation has implemented (and I mean properly implemented) a policy like Rwanda previously?

You don't think the likelihood (and it would have to be a likelihood) of getting shipped to Rwanda would be a deterrent to economic migrants trying to come to the UK?
Click to expand...
The question wasn't do I know any, the question was about whether or not analysis had gone into the policy making.
So no idea why you are asking.

Re: whether it's a deterrent or not.
Possibly. Before being able to give even a moderately robust view I'd need to know a lot more about the backgrounds of recent illegal migrants - what was the driver for migration, what were the facilition factors (people trafficed; gang related with payment after obtaining work here; payment up front; collateral (IE endangered family if certain conditions not met); access to information in their country of origin (IE do they know about the Rwanda policy in detail and still made the choice to come? Do they have adequate to the information etc etc)).

These are just for baseline off the top of my head and from my limited understanding. They are also before further requirements are identified during policy development discussions.

For what it's worth - I'd take a different approach. The data above should help to identify routes and origins of the people that put their lives at risk to come here.
The immediate question is - why? Looking at it from a national governance point of view, if I don't want illegal migrants (note - distinct from asylum seekers), I need to understand why it's better for them to be here than there (wherever there is) and I either look to work and/or punish the nation of origin.
Despite (in spite of?!) Brexit, the UK is still a huge global player and will very likely have influence over the countries of origin.

Instead of targeting the victims, target the people creating/perpetuating the issues.
 
Last edited:
Finney Is Back said:
That is a decent idea in many ways and would work for goods purchased. Might be a little more difficult for services however. Also what happens if somebody orders online but collects from a 'store' does that still count as an online purchase? What about if it moves to 'reserving' online and then paying as they collect from the store?
Click to expand...

Plus more people driving to the shops = more pollution though economically more people going into town might be better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back