comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
And outsourcing asylum seekers cannot be cheaper than housing them. Fack me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the costs of housing / keeping them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't be assed with that right now tbh. got other things to do at the mo. If you're so interested then why don't you do the research?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not me spouting opinion as fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not an opinion. Its fact. I know what I'm talking about. You're the one with the questions and I just don't have the time to spoonfeed you right now so you can sort yourself out as the info is available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not a fact. Its your opinion. Unless you can substantiate it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A fact is a fact whether I can substantiate it or not.
My refusal to substantiate doesn't make it any less of a fact.
https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-first-glimpse-inside-the-centre-which-will-house-channel-migrants-12589911
There is a communal eating area where people will be served three meals a day, while there are 12 toilets and five showers for around 100 people and small bedrooms, which are around 12ft by 12ft with two beds in each.
They're planning to build two more 50-room blocks in the compound - but when we asked when those would be finished, we didn't get a definite answer.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dyron Daal (U1734)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
As the origin of mankind and giver to the world of all sports, universal language, and good food, we Brits should stand firm. Civilised humanity began in Britain and then spread out around the world. You cannot just come crawling back millennia later because you didn't like where your ancestors went. We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
Although, I wouldn't be against lining up immigrants as they got off the boat and then pointing left or right based on how fit they are to work. The fit ones get sent off to do unpaid work in exchange for a cabin to sleep in and the ones deemed not fit for work are well, we shall see what has been done in the past and see if we can come to a solution. That's the Britain I would like to see and we are getting closer.
None of them ever think to bring gifts either. We can be persuaded, but they make little effort.
Maybe a Saturday night ITV show where they try and win a place in the UK via a series of entertaining rounds? Both mentally and physically. They need to prove that they are as smart and physically fit as the average Brit.
We need to make this profitable somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly this:
We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its usually not thus easy to recognise sarcasm in print.
When exactly did you Brits stop invading countries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bazteenth century
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 38 seconds ago
Why do migrants leave France for the UK?
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK.
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be lovely if we all got what we wanted. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, like thousands of refugees crossing the channel every few months. we want them to stop and stay in France, and it would be lovely if we all got what we wanted. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 4 minutes ago
Why do migrants leave France for the UK?
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK.
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The friends and family they have in the UK are usually people who have gone through the asylum process when it was easier.
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
genukne question.
What is your issue with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot fathom the inhumanity of turning away asylum seekers, (the vast vast majority of who are fleeing war and persecution).
Then sending them to dentention camps 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, denying them their legal rights, preventing them from claiming asylum in the UK, there's not really much more to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your issue with it though, specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous comments refer.
Is there a particular reason why you think its not barbaric, inhumane and probably illegal?
If you and yours had been displaced due to no fault of your own, (conflict, persecution, religious beliefs etc) and forced to flee.
How would you feel about being split up from your family, taken to a foreign country where you had no ties, no concept of its culture, language, etc forced to remain there, possibly never seeing your family again?
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 9 minutes ago
We'll know isf this story has got any legs if Uber and Deliveroo open offices in Kigali sometime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They already have offices I think
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
To clarify this is not about processing asylum claims so successful seekers can then return to the UK having been granted refugee status.
But deporting people to Rwanda where, if successful, they'll be expected to start/build a new future there whether they want to or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the government wad over thrown here and you had to escape to survive, went to claim asylum in the US but they shipped you to Rwanda with no hope of entry; would you care?
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
To clarify this is not about processing asylum claims so successful seekers can then return to the UK having been granted refugee status.
But deporting people to Rwanda where, if successful, they'll be expected to start/build a new future there whether they want to or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do human beings care about being split up from their families - possibly forever?
This is getting tedious...
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 38 seconds ago
Why do migrants leave France for the UK?
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK.
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be lovely if we all got what we wanted. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The post was there to answer why they come here. Not why it would be lovely to get what we all want. I believe the other reason is the language. Quite a few speak English as a a second language.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
genukne question.
What is your issue with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot fathom the inhumanity of turning away asylum seekers, (the vast vast majority of who are fleeing war and persecution).
Then sending them to dentention camps 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, denying them their legal rights, preventing them from claiming asylum in the UK, there's not really much more to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your issue with it though, specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous comments refer.
Is there a particular reason why you think its not barbaric, inhumane and probably illegal?
If you and yours had been displaced due to no fault of your own, (conflict, persecution, religious beliefs etc) and forced to flee.
How would you feel about being split up from your family, taken to a foreign country where you had no ties, no concept of its culture, language, etc forced to remain there, possibly never seeing your family again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you bother? You're conversing with the equivalent of the 5 whys.
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dyron Daal (U1734)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
As the origin of mankind and giver to the world of all sports, universal language, and good food, we Brits should stand firm. Civilised humanity began in Britain and then spread out around the world. You cannot just come crawling back millennia later because you didn't like where your ancestors went. We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
Although, I wouldn't be against lining up immigrants as they got off the boat and then pointing left or right based on how fit they are to work. The fit ones get sent off to do unpaid work in exchange for a cabin to sleep in and the ones deemed not fit for work are well, we shall see what has been done in the past and see if we can come to a solution. That's the Britain I would like to see and we are getting closer.
None of them ever think to bring gifts either. We can be persuaded, but they make little effort.
Maybe a Saturday night ITV show where they try and win a place in the UK via a series of entertaining rounds? Both mentally and physically. They need to prove that they are as smart and physically fit as the average Brit.
We need to make this profitable somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly this:
We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its usually not thus easy to recognise sarcasm in print.
When exactly did you Brits stop invading countries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bazteenth century
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh so I just imagined that thingy in Iraq in 2003.
Shut up.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think ... (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
genukne question.
What is your issue with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot fathom the inhumanity of turning away asylum seekers, (the vast vast majority of who are fleeing war and persecution).
Then sending them to dentention camps 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, denying them their legal rights, preventing them from claiming asylum in the UK, there's not really much more to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your issue with it though, specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous comments refer.
Is there a particular reason why you think its not barbaric, inhumane and probably illegal?
If you and yours had been displaced due to no fault of your own, (conflict, persecution, religious beliefs etc) and forced to flee.
How would you feel about being split up from your family, taken to a foreign country where you had no ties, no concept of its culture, language, etc forced to remain there, possibly never seeing your family again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the demograph they're looking at.
Young, single, male enconomic migrants of Christian, African heritige are the boxes that would have to be ticked.
Not even Priti would be sending Syrian or Afghan families to Rwanda.
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
=====
If you were an asylum seeker would you care where you were given asylum?
What a silly question tbh.
What’s really important to learn is whether or not these refugees speak with a submissive tone.
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 26 seconds ago
What’s really important to learn is whether or not these refugees speak with a submissive tone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, uppity refugees should be sent to Rwanda.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61106231
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
I've been to France a few times, I don't understand what horrors they are so desperately running away from that require them to come to the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The English language and culture in the UK is a big attraction as are the women who shave their armpits here!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah spoken to a few and they were most looking forward to drinking 10 pints of carling, downing zambucca’s on Saturday nights, spewing up then fighting outside kebab shops at 3am.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldn’t be making them all promises, Baz. You can’t take them all out with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says who?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Also, I’m in )
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 14 minutes ago
Why do migrants leave France for the UK?
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK.
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A survey in the camp at Calais? I'm surprised its as high as 12% want to stay in France. Why else would they be at the camp in Calais?
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
To clarify this is not about processing asylum claims so successful seekers can then return to the UK having been granted refugee status.
But deporting people to Rwanda where, if successful, they'll be expected to start/build a new future there whether they want to or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is possibly the outright stupidest question I have ever read.
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think ... (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
genukne question.
What is your issue with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot fathom the inhumanity of turning away asylum seekers, (the vast vast majority of who are fleeing war and persecution).
Then sending them to dentention camps 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, denying them their legal rights, preventing them from claiming asylum in the UK, there's not really much more to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your issue with it though, specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous comments refer.
Is there a particular reason why you think its not barbaric, inhumane and probably illegal?
If you and yours had been displaced due to no fault of your own, (conflict, persecution, religious beliefs etc) and forced to flee.
How would you feel about being split up from your family, taken to a foreign country where you had no ties, no concept of its culture, language, etc forced to remain there, possibly never seeing your family again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the demograph they're looking at.
Young, single, male enconomic migrants of Christian, African heritige are the boxes that would have to be ticked.
Not even Priti would be sending Syrian or Afghan families to Rwanda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement is that you are married, and nationality not (to date) a consideration. A single parent could in fact be separated from their family (siblings of over 16). Or a brother, uncle, nephew, or dad.
And we know from years of family displacement decicions by the HO, these measures would only exacerbated if outsourced to Rwanda.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dyron Daal (U1734)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
As the origin of mankind and giver to the world of all sports, universal language, and good food, we Brits should stand firm. Civilised humanity began in Britain and then spread out around the world. You cannot just come crawling back millennia later because you didn't like where your ancestors went. We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
Although, I wouldn't be against lining up immigrants as they got off the boat and then pointing left or right based on how fit they are to work. The fit ones get sent off to do unpaid work in exchange for a cabin to sleep in and the ones deemed not fit for work are well, we shall see what has been done in the past and see if we can come to a solution. That's the Britain I would like to see and we are getting closer.
None of them ever think to bring gifts either. We can be persuaded, but they make little effort.
Maybe a Saturday night ITV show where they try and win a place in the UK via a series of entertaining rounds? Both mentally and physically. They need to prove that they are as smart and physically fit as the average Brit.
We need to make this profitable somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly this:
We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its usually not thus easy to recognise sarcasm in print.
When exactly did you Brits stop invading countries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bazteenth century
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh so I just imagined that thingy in Iraq in 2003.
Shut up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the Bazteenth C is a thing? Glorious.
“Young, single, male enconomic migrants of Christian, African heritige are the boxes that would have to be ticked.”
They’re all asylum seekers until the processing of their claims has been completed.
Until then, none of them are “economic migrants”.
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dyron Daal (U1734)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
As the origin of mankind and giver to the world of all sports, universal language, and good food, we Brits should stand firm. Civilised humanity began in Britain and then spread out around the world. You cannot just come crawling back millennia later because you didn't like where your ancestors went. We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
Although, I wouldn't be against lining up immigrants as they got off the boat and then pointing left or right based on how fit they are to work. The fit ones get sent off to do unpaid work in exchange for a cabin to sleep in and the ones deemed not fit for work are well, we shall see what has been done in the past and see if we can come to a solution. That's the Britain I would like to see and we are getting closer.
None of them ever think to bring gifts either. We can be persuaded, but they make little effort.
Maybe a Saturday night ITV show where they try and win a place in the UK via a series of entertaining rounds? Both mentally and physically. They need to prove that they are as smart and physically fit as the average Brit.
We need to make this profitable somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly this:
We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its usually not thus easy to recognise sarcasm in print.
When exactly did you Brits stop invading countries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bazteenth century
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh so I just imagined that thingy in Iraq in 2003.
Shut up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the Bazteenth C is a thing? Glorious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aw naw. You got me.
I guess that's what I get for arguing with an idiot.
My mistake.
The reply feature on here is worse than this government.
Sign in if you want to comment
Rwanda
Page 11 of 20
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
And outsourcing asylum seekers cannot be cheaper than housing them. Fack me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the costs of housing / keeping them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't be assed with that right now tbh. got other things to do at the mo. If you're so interested then why don't you do the research?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not me spouting opinion as fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not an opinion. Its fact. I know what I'm talking about. You're the one with the questions and I just don't have the time to spoonfeed you right now so you can sort yourself out as the info is available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not a fact. Its your opinion. Unless you can substantiate it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A fact is a fact whether I can substantiate it or not.
My refusal to substantiate doesn't make it any less of a fact.
posted on 14/4/22
https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-first-glimpse-inside-the-centre-which-will-house-channel-migrants-12589911
There is a communal eating area where people will be served three meals a day, while there are 12 toilets and five showers for around 100 people and small bedrooms, which are around 12ft by 12ft with two beds in each.
They're planning to build two more 50-room blocks in the compound - but when we asked when those would be finished, we didn't get a definite answer.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dyron Daal (U1734)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
As the origin of mankind and giver to the world of all sports, universal language, and good food, we Brits should stand firm. Civilised humanity began in Britain and then spread out around the world. You cannot just come crawling back millennia later because you didn't like where your ancestors went. We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
Although, I wouldn't be against lining up immigrants as they got off the boat and then pointing left or right based on how fit they are to work. The fit ones get sent off to do unpaid work in exchange for a cabin to sleep in and the ones deemed not fit for work are well, we shall see what has been done in the past and see if we can come to a solution. That's the Britain I would like to see and we are getting closer.
None of them ever think to bring gifts either. We can be persuaded, but they make little effort.
Maybe a Saturday night ITV show where they try and win a place in the UK via a series of entertaining rounds? Both mentally and physically. They need to prove that they are as smart and physically fit as the average Brit.
We need to make this profitable somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly this:
We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its usually not thus easy to recognise sarcasm in print.
When exactly did you Brits stop invading countries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bazteenth century
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 38 seconds ago
Why do migrants leave France for the UK?
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK.
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be lovely if we all got what we wanted. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, like thousands of refugees crossing the channel every few months. we want them to stop and stay in France, and it would be lovely if we all got what we wanted. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 4 minutes ago
Why do migrants leave France for the UK?
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK.
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The friends and family they have in the UK are usually people who have gone through the asylum process when it was easier.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
genukne question.
What is your issue with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot fathom the inhumanity of turning away asylum seekers, (the vast vast majority of who are fleeing war and persecution).
Then sending them to dentention camps 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, denying them their legal rights, preventing them from claiming asylum in the UK, there's not really much more to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your issue with it though, specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous comments refer.
Is there a particular reason why you think its not barbaric, inhumane and probably illegal?
If you and yours had been displaced due to no fault of your own, (conflict, persecution, religious beliefs etc) and forced to flee.
How would you feel about being split up from your family, taken to a foreign country where you had no ties, no concept of its culture, language, etc forced to remain there, possibly never seeing your family again?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 9 minutes ago
We'll know isf this story has got any legs if Uber and Deliveroo open offices in Kigali sometime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They already have offices I think
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
To clarify this is not about processing asylum claims so successful seekers can then return to the UK having been granted refugee status.
But deporting people to Rwanda where, if successful, they'll be expected to start/build a new future there whether they want to or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the government wad over thrown here and you had to escape to survive, went to claim asylum in the US but they shipped you to Rwanda with no hope of entry; would you care?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
To clarify this is not about processing asylum claims so successful seekers can then return to the UK having been granted refugee status.
But deporting people to Rwanda where, if successful, they'll be expected to start/build a new future there whether they want to or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do human beings care about being split up from their families - possibly forever?
This is getting tedious...
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 38 seconds ago
Why do migrants leave France for the UK?
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK.
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be lovely if we all got what we wanted. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The post was there to answer why they come here. Not why it would be lovely to get what we all want. I believe the other reason is the language. Quite a few speak English as a a second language.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
genukne question.
What is your issue with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot fathom the inhumanity of turning away asylum seekers, (the vast vast majority of who are fleeing war and persecution).
Then sending them to dentention camps 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, denying them their legal rights, preventing them from claiming asylum in the UK, there's not really much more to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your issue with it though, specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous comments refer.
Is there a particular reason why you think its not barbaric, inhumane and probably illegal?
If you and yours had been displaced due to no fault of your own, (conflict, persecution, religious beliefs etc) and forced to flee.
How would you feel about being split up from your family, taken to a foreign country where you had no ties, no concept of its culture, language, etc forced to remain there, possibly never seeing your family again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you bother? You're conversing with the equivalent of the 5 whys.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dyron Daal (U1734)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
As the origin of mankind and giver to the world of all sports, universal language, and good food, we Brits should stand firm. Civilised humanity began in Britain and then spread out around the world. You cannot just come crawling back millennia later because you didn't like where your ancestors went. We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
Although, I wouldn't be against lining up immigrants as they got off the boat and then pointing left or right based on how fit they are to work. The fit ones get sent off to do unpaid work in exchange for a cabin to sleep in and the ones deemed not fit for work are well, we shall see what has been done in the past and see if we can come to a solution. That's the Britain I would like to see and we are getting closer.
None of them ever think to bring gifts either. We can be persuaded, but they make little effort.
Maybe a Saturday night ITV show where they try and win a place in the UK via a series of entertaining rounds? Both mentally and physically. They need to prove that they are as smart and physically fit as the average Brit.
We need to make this profitable somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly this:
We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its usually not thus easy to recognise sarcasm in print.
When exactly did you Brits stop invading countries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bazteenth century
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh so I just imagined that thingy in Iraq in 2003.
Shut up.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think ... (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
genukne question.
What is your issue with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot fathom the inhumanity of turning away asylum seekers, (the vast vast majority of who are fleeing war and persecution).
Then sending them to dentention camps 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, denying them their legal rights, preventing them from claiming asylum in the UK, there's not really much more to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your issue with it though, specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous comments refer.
Is there a particular reason why you think its not barbaric, inhumane and probably illegal?
If you and yours had been displaced due to no fault of your own, (conflict, persecution, religious beliefs etc) and forced to flee.
How would you feel about being split up from your family, taken to a foreign country where you had no ties, no concept of its culture, language, etc forced to remain there, possibly never seeing your family again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the demograph they're looking at.
Young, single, male enconomic migrants of Christian, African heritige are the boxes that would have to be ticked.
Not even Priti would be sending Syrian or Afghan families to Rwanda.
posted on 14/4/22
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
=====
If you were an asylum seeker would you care where you were given asylum?
What a silly question tbh.
posted on 14/4/22
What’s really important to learn is whether or not these refugees speak with a submissive tone.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 26 seconds ago
What’s really important to learn is whether or not these refugees speak with a submissive tone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, uppity refugees should be sent to Rwanda.
posted on 14/4/22
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61106231
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
I've been to France a few times, I don't understand what horrors they are so desperately running away from that require them to come to the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The English language and culture in the UK is a big attraction as are the women who shave their armpits here!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah spoken to a few and they were most looking forward to drinking 10 pints of carling, downing zambucca’s on Saturday nights, spewing up then fighting outside kebab shops at 3am.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You shouldn’t be making them all promises, Baz. You can’t take them all out with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says who?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Also, I’m in )
posted on 14/4/22
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 14 minutes ago
Why do migrants leave France for the UK?
In the few studies that exist, family ties have been identified as the main reason migrants wish to travel from France to the UK.
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53699511
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A survey in the camp at Calais? I'm surprised its as high as 12% want to stay in France. Why else would they be at the camp in Calais?
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
To clarify this is not about processing asylum claims so successful seekers can then return to the UK having been granted refugee status.
But deporting people to Rwanda where, if successful, they'll be expected to start/build a new future there whether they want to or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do genuine asylum seekers care where they are given asylum?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is possibly the outright stupidest question I have ever read.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think ... (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Salam Reds (Pro ETH) (U22803)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 34 seconds ago
Ultimately, we all know what the problem is.
Its racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet they strike a deal with a black country?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, of course. Why would racism stop them from doing that?
Also, Rwanda wasn't their first choice. They've had to settle for Rwanda after everyone else told them to fack off with their racist sheeeet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel had a scheme from 2014 to 2017 when around 4,000 migrants were deported to Rwanda. Only nine remained and many others were smuggled, trafficked back to Europe.
https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1514564192526905345?t=ZdKpX_udiKDLb_9_ZfrScQ&s=19
According to the arrangement the:
"objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals.
Ergo asylum seekers will not be relocated to the UK (even if they have a valid claim).
"migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies"
And as per existing policy it will be practically impossible to asylum seekers to gain access to legal counsel to challenge and get to the UK.
And anyone who is successful will be repatriated in Rwanda.
Utterly reprehensible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
genukne question.
What is your issue with this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot fathom the inhumanity of turning away asylum seekers, (the vast vast majority of who are fleeing war and persecution).
Then sending them to dentention camps 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, denying them their legal rights, preventing them from claiming asylum in the UK, there's not really much more to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your issue with it though, specifically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My previous comments refer.
Is there a particular reason why you think its not barbaric, inhumane and probably illegal?
If you and yours had been displaced due to no fault of your own, (conflict, persecution, religious beliefs etc) and forced to flee.
How would you feel about being split up from your family, taken to a foreign country where you had no ties, no concept of its culture, language, etc forced to remain there, possibly never seeing your family again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the demograph they're looking at.
Young, single, male enconomic migrants of Christian, African heritige are the boxes that would have to be ticked.
Not even Priti would be sending Syrian or Afghan families to Rwanda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement is that you are married, and nationality not (to date) a consideration. A single parent could in fact be separated from their family (siblings of over 16). Or a brother, uncle, nephew, or dad.
And we know from years of family displacement decicions by the HO, these measures would only exacerbated if outsourced to Rwanda.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114
posted on 14/4/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dyron Daal (U1734)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
As the origin of mankind and giver to the world of all sports, universal language, and good food, we Brits should stand firm. Civilised humanity began in Britain and then spread out around the world. You cannot just come crawling back millennia later because you didn't like where your ancestors went. We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
Although, I wouldn't be against lining up immigrants as they got off the boat and then pointing left or right based on how fit they are to work. The fit ones get sent off to do unpaid work in exchange for a cabin to sleep in and the ones deemed not fit for work are well, we shall see what has been done in the past and see if we can come to a solution. That's the Britain I would like to see and we are getting closer.
None of them ever think to bring gifts either. We can be persuaded, but they make little effort.
Maybe a Saturday night ITV show where they try and win a place in the UK via a series of entertaining rounds? Both mentally and physically. They need to prove that they are as smart and physically fit as the average Brit.
We need to make this profitable somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly this:
We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its usually not thus easy to recognise sarcasm in print.
When exactly did you Brits stop invading countries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bazteenth century
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh so I just imagined that thingy in Iraq in 2003.
Shut up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the Bazteenth C is a thing? Glorious.
posted on 14/4/22
“Young, single, male enconomic migrants of Christian, African heritige are the boxes that would have to be ticked.”
They’re all asylum seekers until the processing of their claims has been completed.
Until then, none of them are “economic migrants”.
posted on 14/4/22
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Shinjury list (U1700)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dyron Daal (U1734)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
As the origin of mankind and giver to the world of all sports, universal language, and good food, we Brits should stand firm. Civilised humanity began in Britain and then spread out around the world. You cannot just come crawling back millennia later because you didn't like where your ancestors went. We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
Although, I wouldn't be against lining up immigrants as they got off the boat and then pointing left or right based on how fit they are to work. The fit ones get sent off to do unpaid work in exchange for a cabin to sleep in and the ones deemed not fit for work are well, we shall see what has been done in the past and see if we can come to a solution. That's the Britain I would like to see and we are getting closer.
None of them ever think to bring gifts either. We can be persuaded, but they make little effort.
Maybe a Saturday night ITV show where they try and win a place in the UK via a series of entertaining rounds? Both mentally and physically. They need to prove that they are as smart and physically fit as the average Brit.
We need to make this profitable somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly this:
We Brits don't come invading your countries when we get a bit cold or whatever, why are you trying to invade ours?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its usually not thus easy to recognise sarcasm in print.
When exactly did you Brits stop invading countries?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bazteenth century
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh so I just imagined that thingy in Iraq in 2003.
Shut up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the Bazteenth C is a thing? Glorious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aw naw. You got me.
I guess that's what I get for arguing with an idiot.
My mistake.
posted on 14/4/22
The reply feature on here is worse than this government.
Page 11 of 20
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16