One-way ticket to Rwanda for some UK asylum seekers

[pilgrimhudd]

Party gate, what nine minutes in a room with some sausage rolls and a cake which stays in the Tupperware container? And while people boil there **** over it ,women and children are getting raped ,people getting tortured and executed ,towns and cities wiped off the map ,people should think their selfs lucky they have only got party gate to worry about !

Not so much the party but the lying that gets me. Taking all of for fools, I dont want that in my prime minister.

 

[Brewnaldo]

Just because there is horrible **** going on the world, doesn't mean we suddenly abandon our morals or stop worrying about what's happening here does it? That's a ludicrous non sequitur.

If "but is it as bad as Mariupol" becomes the test anything has to pass before we can complain about it, then this Tory party will have plenty other things they can slide in.

 

[Brewnaldo]

I posted about this in post #53.

It doesn't matter how difficult it is we have to stop these people thinking this country is the best place in the world to come to it isn't and we have to stop them giving their life savings to scum that happily put them in containers or on totally unsuitable boats meaning many of them die trying to get here, if the threat of being sent to Rwanda for processing if you enter illegally achieves this its got to be worth trying.

Why arent the allowed to take that choice for themselves?

Why is it for us to tell folk where they can and can't want to settle?

No one is saying we have to let everyone in. Claiming asylum is different from being granted asylum but if our methods are causing people to seek the help of gangsters and resulting in the deaths of humans in the Channel, its us who should be looking at ourselves, not the other way around.

 

[moto748]

I'm off to St Helens on it shortly for the big Good Friday derby, starseeker!

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Why arent the allowed to take that choice for themselves?

Why is it for us to tell folk where they can and can't want to settle?

We are not telling them where they want to settle we are telling those that may in the future decide to risk illegally travelling here in a lorry or boat will mean they are sent to another country for processing and that getting here doesnt guarantee them a place here.

No one is saying we have to let everyone in. Claiming asylum is different from being granted asylum but if our methods are causing people to seek the help of gangsters and resulting in the deaths of humans in the Channel, its us who should be looking at ourselves, not the other

If you have a genuine reason to come here why pay to do so illegally and risk your life in doing so?

 

[Brewnaldo]

We are not telling them where they want to settle we are telling those that may in the future decide to risk illegally travelling here in a lorry or boat will mean they are sent to another country for processing and that getting here doesnt guarantee them a place here.





If you have a genuine reason to come here why pay to do so illegally and risk your life in doing so?

Because despite your genuine reason, the UK gov have made it impossible for you to do so via legal means?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Because despite your genuine reason, the UK gov have made it impossible for you to do so via legal means?

There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum.

If you are in danger in your country of origin or residence, and you want the UK to grant you international protection, you can claim asylum when you are in the UK.

Because there is no formal visa to claim asylum, people get to the UK how they can. Some people enter the UK legally, using their passport and maybe a visa for entry to the UK for some other purpose.

Other people are not able to do this, and have to enter the country illegally.

https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/enter-uk-asylum/

 

[TonyT]

There has been talk of this having no effect on the migrant trade as they will be fed a load of BS by the traffickers ,sorry but they mostly all have something called a mobile phone ,once word gets back that people are getting processed in holding centres and then given a choice of going home or to Rwanda,this trade will stop .The issues need sorting in the home countries of those seeking better lives, the uk can not take possilbly tens of millions of migrants if it is left to carry on as it is .

Tens of millions? That’s a phenomenal figure, what’s your source.

 

[Brewnaldo]

What are the safe routes for refugees and their families to get to the UK?

1. Refugee family reunion
Refugee Family Reunion provides a safe way for family members to join someone who has already been granted refugee status in the UK. The Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill will all but destroy this vital route out of conflict for women and children.
Over the last five years as many as 29,000 people have been able to come to the UK safely under refugee family reunion, over 90% of whom were women and children.
New rules for asylum will severely restrict refugee family reunion.

2. Refugee resettlement
Refugee resettlement is the transfer of refugees from an initial country of asylum. Resettlement to the UK nearly ground to a halt during the height of the Covid pandemic in 2020.
A new resettlement scheme introduced in 2021 has no targets attached. Furthermore, a scheme announced in August 2021 specifically for Afghans didn’t launch until January 2022, and then only for those already evacuated to the UK. We are calling for a commitment to the resettlement of 10,000 refugees a year.

3. Humanitarian visas
We need a humanitarian visa system to allow people to apply for visas to enter the UK for the purposes of claiming asylum. People can only claim asylum in the UK when they are physically here, which is why people are crossing the Channel to reach the UK. It doesn’t have to be this way – humanitarian visas would enable people in need of protection to travel to the UK in a safe manner.
Join our call to save lives through the implementation of a humanitarian visa scheme.
If the Government is serious about saving lives and tackling smuggling gangs, it must invest in expanding safe routes for refugees to get to the UK.

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/safe-routes-save-futures/

I'm not sure this C&P you keep doing says what you think it does mate?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I'm not sure this C&P you keep doing says what you think it does mate?

Try this -

Below it says some use a passport to legally enter others are not able to do this and have to enter the country illegally this new scheme is not aimed at the former its trying to stop the latter.

There is no visa for coming to the UK to claim asylum.
If you are in danger in your country of origin or residence, and you want the UK to grant you international protection, you can claim asylum when you are in the UK.
Because there is no formal visa to claim asylum, people get to the UK how they can. Some people enter the UK legally using their passport and maybe a visa for entry to the UK for some other purpose.
Other people are not able to do this, and have to enter the country illegally.
https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/enter-uk-asylum/

 

[Rodcx500z]

The rule's are you claim asylum in the first safe country you get to, i get that what i don't get is the other miles to get in a rubber boat and sail across the busiest shipping lanes in the world to get to the uk, why, will someone please answer this in a proper manner because i don't do abuse

 

[Brewnaldo]

I understand now. What you are saying is that you are cool with the system as it is, which makes it wildly difficult to come here legally then claim asylum, aswell as reinforcing the punishment for coming here illegally.

So what you want then is a de facto closed shop for refugees in Britain. In a world where our RAF, army and Navy has a storied history of bombing these people back the stone, and also colonising and exploiting half the world, and we consider ourselves "civilised"

 

[Brewnaldo]

The rule's are you claim asylum in the first safe country you get to, i get that what i don't get is the other miles to get in a rubber boat and sail across the busiest shipping lanes in the world to get to the uk, why will someone please answer this in a proper because i don' do abuse

No that's 100% NOT the rule. There is no obligation to do that on a legal or moral basis, nor should anyone be obliged to explain to us, since we had the blind luck of being born on this segment of a spinning rock, why they wish to come here.

Again tho, by no means am I saying every applicant for asylum should get it. I am saying if peoples lives are at risk, we should make it easier, with LESS liklihood of death and misery. Not more difficult, with MORE death, misery, and a frankly bizarre side order of spending millions upon millions making a show of shipping folk to Rwanda whilst Brits freeze in their homes, or choose between food and fuel

 

[Chippy_Tea]

The rule's are you claim asylum in the first safe country you get to, i get that what i don't get is the other miles to get in a rubber boat and sail across the busiest shipping lanes in the world to get to the uk, why, will someone please answer this in a proper manner because i don't do abuse

As discussed here, many times more refugees do stay in the first country they arrive in rather than continue their journey onwards. However, we also see cases where people first arrive in a country such as Greece, Italy or Hungary and initially do try to settle there, but, if that country has economic problems like acute unemployment or food shortages it becomes impossible for them to survive and they end up destitute in the street. Some therefore decide to move on to France, or further, due to a desire to become independent and contribute to society. In the long term this will benefit both the refugee and the host country

Refugees who have lost everything due to war or persecution face a daunting task in trying to rebuild their lives.
Ask yourself, “If I had to suddenly leave home and everything behind me tomorrow, arriving to a new country without shelter and without work, which country would I go to and why?”

The number one reason we hear for refugees continuing their journey to the UK is that they have family ties here. In fact, this covers at least 50% of cases.
Family ties run deep, especially when you have lost everything else.

Read in full -
https://care4calais.org/the-refugee-crisis/why-dont-refugees-stay-in-the-first-safe-country/

 

[Brewnaldo]

https://msf.org.uk/article/five-things-government-isnt-telling-you-about-its-anti-refugee-plan
Here's what Medicins Sans Frontieres say about this situation.

Posted without comment.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

https://msf.org.uk/article/five-things-government-isnt-telling-you-about-its-anti-refugee-plan
Here's what Medicins Sans Frontieres say about this situation.

Posted without comment.

I don't know what the answer is but this has been going on far too long and it needs to stop.
As discussed earlier in the thread I (and others) don't see why genuine asylum seekers who have no family ties to the U.K cannot stay at the first safe country they get to.

 

[Brewnaldo]

I don't know what the answer is but this has been going on far too long and it needs to stop.
As discussed earlier in the thread I (and others) don't see why genuine asylum seekers who have no family ties to the U.K cannot stay at the first safe country they get to.

View attachment 66736

You might not see why, but as they arent legally duty bound to do so, uts really irrelevant what you or me thinks about why. It's quite literally, none of our business and this is another case of people being desperate to intervene in the lives of others and I struggle to fathom out why.

Well.... in this particular case, the R word is never far from front and centre tbh.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

You might not see why, but as they arent legally duty bound to do so, uts really irrelevant what you or me thinks about why. It's quite literally, none of our business and this is another case of people being desperate to intervene in the lives of others and I struggle to fathom out why.

So do we take in every person that lands here illegally with no ties to the the UK, if yes its going to mean more will die trying to get to the land of milk and honey, how many can we take?

 

[Brewnaldo]

So do we take in every person that lands here illegally with no ties to the the UK, if yes its going to mean more will die trying to get to the land of milk and honey, how many can we take?

No. For now the third or fourth time, no one is saying we accept every claim for asylum.

Continuing to argue that every claim is a burden on the state is wilfully misrepresenting what's happening. It happens too often for it to be anything else.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

No. For now the third or fourth time, no one is saying we accept every claim for asylum.

Where do you draw the line where do they put the people who's claim fails?