FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > It's a simple question
It's a simple question
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Instead of arguing the toss about Rwanda, why not just find somewhere else????"
Because the government really don't give a fuck about any of this. It's just a load of rhetoric to rile up their more right wing supporters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Instead of arguing the toss about Rwanda, why not just find somewhere else????"
It's a good question. I wonder if there are many options tho. The ideal country has to
Be a deterrent (it seems) if we want to stop crossings.
Willing to take on the responsibility
And not charge too much.
(I believe the money we were offering Rwanda was a material part of GBP)
Process asylum seekers correctly.
I'm not aware of any other country that has signed a deal, whereas Rwanda has done deals with UK, Israel and Denmark... Which makes me wonder if the number of countries in the market to receive is a market of one.
It would also explain why the HMG have pushed so hard for Rwanda.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade."
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Because it’s not about immigration, it’s about reminding the common folk of their place
It even sounds like a bad joke. Rwanda has its own history of war crimes
Even John Major has said that’s what he doesn’t like about this government. He said their an air of “we’re the masters now” with them
And with any luck, it’s this attitude which will lead to them being replaced at the next election and Rwanda won’t be an option anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?"
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers."
the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Right wingers go mental when they hear that lawyers have defended human rights successfully
“The courts don’t work! Get rid of juries! The courts are fixed!”
Yet, when lawyers help MPs and celebrities avoid tax and hide their money in Panama: “well it’s perfectly legal, so why not?”… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Right wingers go mental when they hear that lawyers have defended human rights successfully
“The courts don’t work! Get rid of juries! The courts are fixed!”
Yet, when lawyers help MPs and celebrities avoid tax and hide their money in Panama: “well it’s perfectly legal, so why not?”…"
Alas I tend to concur. I know such a person who feels it is quite acceptable to leverage his wealth to avoid paying taxes. He believes in the letter of the law. However, credit where it's due, he's also a staunch support of human rights and is on the side of the less fortunate too. I know he gives quite a bit to charity, but he's a bit coy talking about it. I'd put him as a centrist-left politically. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc? "
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc?
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition."
that may be true. However the SC found the scheme to be unsafe so they were right to proceed whatever their motivation.
Does them coming in illegally make it okay to send them off to risk death and torture ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc?
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition.that may be true. However the SC found the scheme to be unsafe so they were right to proceed whatever their motivation.
Does them coming in illegally make it okay to send them off to risk death and torture ?
"
I always wonder if the people saying it’s ok because they’re illegals realise that this includes sending refugees from current conflicts including Israel and Ukraine
It’s as though certain people think there’s a some kind of protective halo around those refugees |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Until the Government can identify an airline willing to fly to Rwanda it seems a complete waste of energy having this debate "
I can't imagine they will given the SC decision and that the scheme is unlawful. My understanding is that would put them up for prosecution. Likewise HMG.
The next step would be to follow Bravermans suggestion of legislating Rwanda to be safe notwithstanding the facts that say otherwise. Then the SC can't stand on the way even if they believe Rwanda is unsafe.
(Although next stop with be ECHR but I believe HMG can effectively ignore this and just take the punishment.... Although that's probably got other political ramifications). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc?
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition.that may be true. However the SC found the scheme to be unsafe so they were right to proceed whatever their motivation.
Does them coming in illegally make it okay to send them off to risk death and torture ?
I always wonder if the people saying it’s ok because they’re illegals realise that this includes sending refugees from current conflicts including Israel and Ukraine
It’s as though certain people think there’s a some kind of protective halo around those refugees"
Not sure that there are any illegals from Israel and the Ukrainian influx has been government sponsored (ie. A safe route). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers."
Sounds like a good thing.
Also, they're not "doing nothing" there are things being done.
Although the Government is quite happy with the situation. How many times over the past 5-6 years when there was some kind of sleaze going on did they ramp up the "look over there at those brown people in that small boat". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc?
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition.that may be true. However the SC found the scheme to be unsafe so they were right to proceed whatever their motivation.
Does them coming in illegally make it okay to send them off to risk death and torture ?
I always wonder if the people saying it’s ok because they’re illegals realise that this includes sending refugees from current conflicts including Israel and Ukraine
It’s as though certain people think there’s a some kind of protective halo around those refugees
Not sure that there are any illegals from Israel and the Ukrainian influx has been government sponsored (ie. A safe route)."
Ah yes, because people fleeing countries in conflict are always able to go through the safe routes aren’t they? Families are never torn apart, and children are never orphaned, in war zones when the government sponsors them are they?
And even if they are orphaned - it’s fine because the protective halo will guide these young individuals towards their government sponsored safe route, isn’t it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc?
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition.that may be true. However the SC found the scheme to be unsafe so they were right to proceed whatever their motivation.
Does them coming in illegally make it okay to send them off to risk death and torture ?
"
Yes it does. If I break the law, I risk going to prison (dangerous places). If you break the law you face the consequences. It's called a deterrent. Why are illegal immigrants any different? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc?
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition.that may be true. However the SC found the scheme to be unsafe so they were right to proceed whatever their motivation.
Does them coming in illegally make it okay to send them off to risk death and torture ?
Yes it does. If I break the law, I risk going to prison (dangerous places). If you break the law you face the consequences. It's called a deterrent. Why are illegal immigrants any different?"
very different consequences imo.
But we've established a different on views. That's fine.
Various laws agree with me on this one hence the decision. That's not me saying im right. Just pointing out the fact. So as it stands, Rwanda is out of the question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?"
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *eavenNhellCouple 24 weeks ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?"
you do realise that we took in nearly 1 million migrants net in the last 12 months mostly via legal routes the 40k that made the illegal crossing is but a drop in the litteral ocean but hey brown people in boats look over there
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?you do realise that we took in nearly 1 million migrants net in the last 12 months mostly via legal routes the 40k that made the illegal crossing is but a drop in the litteral ocean but hey brown people in boats look over there "
Legal migration is fine because they are highly skilled, take high paying jobs and hence are net contributors to the economy. Last I checked, employment rate of asylum seeker who have been granted refugee status and hence the right to work was around 50% and even the ones who go to work earn lower than most British people.
About skin colour, you do know that the majority of legal immigration is from India. Do you think Indians are Violet skinned people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda?"
I agree with the court decision on a legal basis. But we are in this situation because the legal framework around refugees was written in a different time and is very outdated. We have reached a point where it has been exploited. So I wanted to know what people think is the ideal and practical solution for this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda?
I agree with the court decision on a legal basis. But we are in this situation because the legal framework around refugees was written in a different time and is very outdated. We have reached a point where it has been exploited. So I wanted to know what people think is the ideal and practical solution for this."
Instead of wasting millions trafficking them around the world, we could process them faster, and those that qualify could get more support to get their new lives up and running, get them into employment etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda?
I agree with the court decision on a legal basis. But we are in this situation because the legal framework around refugees was written in a different time and is very outdated. We have reached a point where it has been exploited. So I wanted to know what people think is the ideal and practical solution for this.
Instead of wasting millions trafficking them around the world, we could process them faster, and those that qualify could get more support to get their new lives up and running, get them into employment etc.
"
If a million qualify for asylum, should we take a million people?
If the ones who turn up throw away their documents to identify them and make claims, how are we supposed to verify the claims? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?"
i think refugees is an international issue and needs international solutions. I think that we should be seeking to help given our prosperity and also out history in the world. I don't think we should hide behind our geography.
I don't know what that number is. Unless you think the number we should take is zero, it's a question you should be asking of anyone.
I don't think the current approach is working. We are creating a world for criminals to prosper.
I'd not be a fan of Albania as a) it is still NIMBYism and b) I don't think that the scale would be a deterrent anyway. Whatever your asylum goals, I think these schemes are all headlines, no substance.
People are complaining about lefty lawyers making money. If you look at the SC evidence I have no idea why HMG saw this approach as being plausible. HMG have spunked your millions on this for nothing.
While I think these schemes are vanity winning projects, I'd be a lot more for a safe country than an unsafe country.
(Btw is Italy handing over the asylum proxess or using Albania as a place to process cheaper?)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda?
I agree with the court decision on a legal basis. But we are in this situation because the legal framework around refugees was written in a different time and is very outdated. We have reached a point where it has been exploited. So I wanted to know what people think is the ideal and practical solution for this.
Instead of wasting millions trafficking them around the world, we could process them faster, and those that qualify could get more support to get their new lives up and running, get them into employment etc.
If a million qualify for asylum, should we take a million people?
If the ones who turn up throw away their documents to identify them and make claims, how are we supposed to verify the claims?"
there's been other threads that show even those who are pro Rwanda scheme agree that identifying people shouldn't be that hard. I suspect most lefties are comfortable with a degree of burden of proof on the applicant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc?
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition.that may be true. However the SC found the scheme to be unsafe so they were right to proceed whatever their motivation.
Does them coming in illegally make it okay to send them off to risk death and torture ?
Yes it does. If I break the law, I risk going to prison (dangerous places). If you break the law you face the consequences. It's called a deterrent. Why are illegal immigrants any different?very different consequences imo.
But we've established a different on views. That's fine.
Various laws agree with me on this one hence the decision. That's not me saying im right. Just pointing out the fact. So as it stands, Rwanda is out of the question. "
Rwanda wouldn't be necessary in the first place of our esteemed EU neighbours closed the corridor through which illegal immigrants pass. We shouldn't be expected to take unvetted immigrants - they are a security risk. Just look at Albanian drugs gangs - what social damage are they inflicting? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?i think refugees is an international issue and needs international solutions. I think that we should be seeking to help given our prosperity and also out history in the world. I don't think we should hide behind our geography.
I don't know what that number is. Unless you think the number we should take is zero, it's a question you should be asking of anyone.
I don't think the current approach is working. We are creating a world for criminals to prosper.
I'd not be a fan of Albania as a) it is still NIMBYism and b) I don't think that the scale would be a deterrent anyway. Whatever your asylum goals, I think these schemes are all headlines, no substance.
People are complaining about lefty lawyers making money. If you look at the SC evidence I have no idea why HMG saw this approach as being plausible. HMG have spunked your millions on this for nothing.
While I think these schemes are vanity winning projects, I'd be a lot more for a safe country than an unsafe country.
(Btw is Italy handing over the asylum proxess or using Albania as a place to process cheaper?)
"
I don't think the number should be zero. At the same time it shouldn't be too high. Taking refugees comes at an economic and social cost based on where the refugees are coming from. If a country takes too many, it will disrupt the host countries. This is exactly what's happening in Europe right now. No country has control over it. IMO every country needs to be able to set limits on the number and send everyone else back.
There are so many other problems we have with the current approach. The scale, inability to verify asylum applications, inability to deport failed applicants, even convicted criminals. That's why I believe that the whole system needs an overhaul. Unfortunately no one has the political will to do that.
If a country mistreats some minority group, other countries taking that minority group may make sense. But if an entire country is in turmoil for other reasons, I don't think migrating that population to another country is a solution.
I am not sure whether Albania will take care of asylum processing. I am also not a big fan of these kind of solutions. The only way out is to overhaul the whole legal framework around this. As long as that doesn't happen, every country will just look for methods which they believe will be deterrent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda?
I agree with the court decision on a legal basis. But we are in this situation because the legal framework around refugees was written in a different time and is very outdated. We have reached a point where it has been exploited. So I wanted to know what people think is the ideal and practical solution for this.
Instead of wasting millions trafficking them around the world, we could process them faster, and those that qualify could get more support to get their new lives up and running, get them into employment etc.
If a million qualify for asylum, should we take a million people?
If the ones who turn up throw away their documents to identify them and make claims, how are we supposed to verify the claims?there's been other threads that show even those who are pro Rwanda scheme agree that identifying people shouldn't be that hard. I suspect most lefties are comfortable with a degree of burden of proof on the applicant. "
If the applicant can't prove where they come from and the asylum application fails, where do we send them to? This is the problem we have. The moment they arrive, it's really hard to send them back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Or we could forget the whole thing and sit on our hands gormlessly watching our borders being violated. Like we did for the past decade.
Are there no other options than violate human rights, or do nothing?
Seemingly not. Or at least none that don't get shot down by human rights lawyers.the easy answer is choose a better country than Rwanda.
If lawyers can show something is unlawful, is it wrong they do this?
Can I assume you are okay if we send people somewhere that then risks they get killed, tortured etc?
Well if you trust lawyers to be acting for the right reasons fair enough. A cynic might say they are funding their £2mil. homes and boarding schools at taxpayers expense.
I don't want anybody to get killed, but remember they did enter the UK illegally of their own volition.that may be true. However the SC found the scheme to be unsafe so they were right to proceed whatever their motivation.
Does them coming in illegally make it okay to send them off to risk death and torture ?
Yes it does. If I break the law, I risk going to prison (dangerous places). If you break the law you face the consequences. It's called a deterrent. Why are illegal immigrants any different?very different consequences imo.
But we've established a different on views. That's fine.
Various laws agree with me on this one hence the decision. That's not me saying im right. Just pointing out the fact. So as it stands, Rwanda is out of the question.
Rwanda wouldn't be necessary in the first place of our esteemed EU neighbours closed the corridor through which illegal immigrants pass. We shouldn't be expected to take unvetted immigrants - they are a security risk. Just look at Albanian drugs gangs - what social damage are they inflicting? "
we should do vetting. That's the asylum process.
Are the Albanian drug gangs claiming asylum (and getting it)?
I thought many of these are the ones sat in the unprocessed queue.
We have a very good border for capturing irregular enterants. And given the majority asylum seekers stay in Europe I wonder (but don't know) if this is just a difficult job to do.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda?
I agree with the court decision on a legal basis. But we are in this situation because the legal framework around refugees was written in a different time and is very outdated. We have reached a point where it has been exploited. So I wanted to know what people think is the ideal and practical solution for this.
Instead of wasting millions trafficking them around the world, we could process them faster, and those that qualify could get more support to get their new lives up and running, get them into employment etc.
If a million qualify for asylum, should we take a million people?
"
There's like 40k a year, where is this "million people" coming from?
"
If the ones who turn up throw away their documents to identify them and make claims, how are we supposed to verify the claims?"
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda?
I agree with the court decision on a legal basis. But we are in this situation because the legal framework around refugees was written in a different time and is very outdated. We have reached a point where it has been exploited. So I wanted to know what people think is the ideal and practical solution for this.
Instead of wasting millions trafficking them around the world, we could process them faster, and those that qualify could get more support to get their new lives up and running, get them into employment etc.
If a million qualify for asylum, should we take a million people?
If the ones who turn up throw away their documents to identify them and make claims, how are we supposed to verify the claims?there's been other threads that show even those who are pro Rwanda scheme agree that identifying people shouldn't be that hard. I suspect most lefties are comfortable with a degree of burden of proof on the applicant.
If the applicant can't prove where they come from and the asylum application fails, where do we send them to? This is the problem we have. The moment they arrive, it's really hard to send them back."
I agree with that. This is where a scheme may work. If you can't prove who you are then you removed to safe country. But the processing is still done by UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
There's like 40k a year, where is this "million people" coming from?
"
Aren't most of you also asking for legal routes. If we establish legal routes. What's theoretically the maximum number of asylum seekers we should take?
"
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent. "
It's not a tangent. There are multiple issues with how the law works now. This is a part of it. If someone doesn't bring their documents, it's hard to verify their asylum claims. If we decide to fail their asylum claims, we can't send them anywhere because we can't force the country they claim to come from to take them back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the ones who complain about every solution, how many asylum seekers do you think this country must take? Do you really believe that shifting the entire population from a country that has various problems to Europe is good for that country or Europe? Will you be happy if we choose Albania instead of Rwanda, given that Italy is working on a deal with them?
Are you addressing those complaining that solutions aren't inhumane enough. Or those who agree with the court ruling and think it goes against human rights to traffic humans to Rwanda?
I agree with the court decision on a legal basis. But we are in this situation because the legal framework around refugees was written in a different time and is very outdated. We have reached a point where it has been exploited. So I wanted to know what people think is the ideal and practical solution for this.
Instead of wasting millions trafficking them around the world, we could process them faster, and those that qualify could get more support to get their new lives up and running, get them into employment etc.
If a million qualify for asylum, should we take a million people?
If the ones who turn up throw away their documents to identify them and make claims, how are we supposed to verify the claims?there's been other threads that show even those who are pro Rwanda scheme agree that identifying people shouldn't be that hard. I suspect most lefties are comfortable with a degree of burden of proof on the applicant.
If the applicant can't prove where they come from and the asylum application fails, where do we send them to? This is the problem we have. The moment they arrive, it's really hard to send them back.I agree with that. This is where a scheme may work. If you can't prove who you are then you removed to safe country. But the processing is still done by UK. "
Agree this scheme can work to leave people with failed asylum claims |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
There's like 40k a year, where is this "million people" coming from?
Aren't most of you also asking for legal routes.
"
Whose the "you"?
"
If we establish legal routes. What's theoretically the maximum number of asylum seekers we should take?
"
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
"
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
It's not a tangent. There are multiple issues with how the law works now. This is a part of it. If someone doesn't bring their documents, it's hard to verify their asylum claims. If we decide to fail their asylum claims, we can't send them anywhere because we can't force the country they claim to come from to take them back."
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whose the "you"?
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin. "
These issues are not separate.
We have a situation where people can just get into the country's border, throw away their identities and claim asylum. We can't verify their claims properly. Even if we reject their claim, we can't deport them. So theoretically, we have open borders.
Every country has some limit on how many refugees they can take without screwing up themselves. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce this limit?
The right way would be to throw away the age old legal framework and rewrite them in a way that works for modern day. Given that this kind of change could take close to a decade thanks to the bureaucracy around it, countries are left to find some solution within the current framework.
The Rwanda move which seems to be a failure so far. But I am just asking people who vehemently oppose any solution to actually provide an alternative way to limit the number of asylum seekers. The most common alternative everyone seems to shout is to provide legal routes which doesn't fix the problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whose the "you"?
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin.
These issues are not separate.
We have a situation where people can just get into the country's border, throw away their identities and claim asylum. We can't verify their claims properly. Even if we reject their claim, we can't deport them. So theoretically, we have open borders.
Every country has some limit on how many refugees they can take without screwing up themselves. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce this limit?
The right way would be to throw away the age old legal framework and rewrite them in a way that works for modern day. Given that this kind of change could take close to a decade thanks to the bureaucracy around it, countries are left to find some solution within the current framework.
The Rwanda move which seems to be a failure so far. But I am just asking people who vehemently oppose any solution to actually provide an alternative way to limit the number of asylum seekers. The most common alternative everyone seems to shout is to provide legal routes which doesn't fix the problem."
I'd change legislation to allow claims to be made at specific offshore places, and set these up closer to the hot spots. That way you are more likely to have credible cases and as you aren't in the UK, you wouldn't have the same issues with deportation. You could have one in France too, but only for cases that aren't related to the hot spots.
(Ideally I think these would be international camps and with international cooperation). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whose the "you"?
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin.
These issues are not separate.
We have a situation where people can just get into the country's border, throw away their identities and claim asylum. We can't verify their claims properly. Even if we reject their claim, we can't deport them. So theoretically, we have open borders.
Every country has some limit on how many refugees they can take without screwing up themselves. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce this limit?
The right way would be to throw away the age old legal framework and rewrite them in a way that works for modern day. Given that this kind of change could take close to a decade thanks to the bureaucracy around it, countries are left to find some solution within the current framework.
The Rwanda move which seems to be a failure so far. But I am just asking people who vehemently oppose any solution to actually provide an alternative way to limit the number of asylum seekers. The most common alternative everyone seems to shout is to provide legal routes which doesn't fix the problem."
Maybe you could articulate "the problem"?
Is it the numbers of people claiming asylum, or is it the difficulty in processing the claims? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whose the "you"?
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin.
These issues are not separate.
We have a situation where people can just get into the country's border, throw away their identities and claim asylum. We can't verify their claims properly. Even if we reject their claim, we can't deport them. So theoretically, we have open borders.
Every country has some limit on how many refugees they can take without screwing up themselves. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce this limit?
The right way would be to throw away the age old legal framework and rewrite them in a way that works for modern day. Given that this kind of change could take close to a decade thanks to the bureaucracy around it, countries are left to find some solution within the current framework.
The Rwanda move which seems to be a failure so far. But I am just asking people who vehemently oppose any solution to actually provide an alternative way to limit the number of asylum seekers. The most common alternative everyone seems to shout is to provide legal routes which doesn't fix the problem."
If I can refer you to the my original post, the answer is staring us in the face. The Australian govt has done all the legwork so what's the issue with copying it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We could resource our refugee application processing as well as create safer, official routes for asylum seekers. You know, the regular things that normal countries that have humanitarian principles, decency and are not morally bankrupt, would prioritise.
We could prioritise how we spend our public £billions, such that we build public trust in government, moving away from the repugnant waste and sanctioned pilfering that's been widespread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whose the "you"?
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin.
These issues are not separate.
We have a situation where people can just get into the country's border, throw away their identities and claim asylum. We can't verify their claims properly. Even if we reject their claim, we can't deport them. So theoretically, we have open borders.
Every country has some limit on how many refugees they can take without screwing up themselves. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce this limit?
The right way would be to throw away the age old legal framework and rewrite them in a way that works for modern day. Given that this kind of change could take close to a decade thanks to the bureaucracy around it, countries are left to find some solution within the current framework.
The Rwanda move which seems to be a failure so far. But I am just asking people who vehemently oppose any solution to actually provide an alternative way to limit the number of asylum seekers. The most common alternative everyone seems to shout is to provide legal routes which doesn't fix the problem.I'd change legislation to allow claims to be made at specific offshore places, and set these up closer to the hot spots. That way you are more likely to have credible cases and as you aren't in the UK, you wouldn't have the same issues with deportation. You could have one in France too, but only for cases that aren't related to the hot spots.
(Ideally I think these would be international camps and with international cooperation). "
If we set offshore camps, what's still stopping anyone who knows their claim will fail to still just show up here because they know that it's really hard to deport? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whose the "you"?
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin.
These issues are not separate.
We have a situation where people can just get into the country's border, throw away their identities and claim asylum. We can't verify their claims properly. Even if we reject their claim, we can't deport them. So theoretically, we have open borders.
Every country has some limit on how many refugees they can take without screwing up themselves. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce this limit?
The right way would be to throw away the age old legal framework and rewrite them in a way that works for modern day. Given that this kind of change could take close to a decade thanks to the bureaucracy around it, countries are left to find some solution within the current framework.
The Rwanda move which seems to be a failure so far. But I am just asking people who vehemently oppose any solution to actually provide an alternative way to limit the number of asylum seekers. The most common alternative everyone seems to shout is to provide legal routes which doesn't fix the problem.
Maybe you could articulate "the problem"?
Is it the numbers of people claiming asylum, or is it the difficulty in processing the claims?"
Both. We need to limit the number of people we take. But processing claims is hard. Even if we process them, it's really hard to send back rejected applicants |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whose the "you"?
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin.
These issues are not separate.
We have a situation where people can just get into the country's border, throw away their identities and claim asylum. We can't verify their claims properly. Even if we reject their claim, we can't deport them. So theoretically, we have open borders.
Every country has some limit on how many refugees they can take without screwing up themselves. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce this limit?
The right way would be to throw away the age old legal framework and rewrite them in a way that works for modern day. Given that this kind of change could take close to a decade thanks to the bureaucracy around it, countries are left to find some solution within the current framework.
The Rwanda move which seems to be a failure so far. But I am just asking people who vehemently oppose any solution to actually provide an alternative way to limit the number of asylum seekers. The most common alternative everyone seems to shout is to provide legal routes which doesn't fix the problem.
If I can refer you to the my original post, the answer is staring us in the face. The Australian govt has done all the legwork so what's the issue with copying it? "
I guess there is a challenge to find a country like Papua New Guinea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We could resource our refugee application processing as well as create safer, official routes for asylum seekers. You know, the regular things that normal countries that have humanitarian principles, decency and are not morally bankrupt, would prioritise.
We could prioritise how we spend our public £billions, such that we build public trust in government, moving away from the repugnant waste and sanctioned pilfering that's been widespread. "
How many "normal countries" with "decency" are actually doing it? And what should we do with people who still show up here because they know their applications will be rejected? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Whose the "you"?
Do you mean how many should we process, or how many should we grant asylum to?
I don't work in this field. I don't know how it's dealt with. And I don't know what this has got to do with your original question. Seems like you've gone on a tangent.
This is a separate issue to the "how many" question you're asking. I don't know the answer for what we should do with people who refuse to disclose their country of origin.
These issues are not separate.
We have a situation where people can just get into the country's border, throw away their identities and claim asylum. We can't verify their claims properly. Even if we reject their claim, we can't deport them. So theoretically, we have open borders.
Every country has some limit on how many refugees they can take without screwing up themselves. How exactly is a country supposed to enforce this limit?
The right way would be to throw away the age old legal framework and rewrite them in a way that works for modern day. Given that this kind of change could take close to a decade thanks to the bureaucracy around it, countries are left to find some solution within the current framework.
The Rwanda move which seems to be a failure so far. But I am just asking people who vehemently oppose any solution to actually provide an alternative way to limit the number of asylum seekers. The most common alternative everyone seems to shout is to provide legal routes which doesn't fix the problem.
Maybe you could articulate "the problem"?
Is it the numbers of people claiming asylum, or is it the difficulty in processing the claims?
Both. We need to limit the number of people we take. But processing claims is hard. Even if we process them, it's really hard to send back rejected applicants "
We have less asylum claims than Germany, France, Spain, Australia, Italy etc.
If you really want to reduce the number of people applying, we could stop contributing to the reasons that people are being displaced, war, climate change etc.
Or do you mean, out of the number of people applying, we need to accept less applications? I'm not sure why we'd want to do this.
As for the difficulty processing claims. I don't have a suggestion. Every country in the world has that, especially those countries that get high volumes of applications, like Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Instead of arguing the toss about Rwanda, why not just find somewhere else????"
Because somewhere else doesn't exist.
You'd need to find a 3rd country.wiling to take them.
The easiest thing is to change the law.
Or the memorandum.
Point 13 should have dealt with it. But foursome reason our judges didn't take notice.
So now we alter the law or memorandum and they still go to Rwanda.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 24 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Instead of arguing the toss about Rwanda, why not just find somewhere else????
Because somewhere else doesn't exist.
You'd need to find a 3rd country.wiling to take them.
The easiest thing is to change the law.
Or the memorandum.
Point 13 should have dealt with it. But foursome reason our judges didn't take notice.
So now we alter the law or memorandum and they still go to Rwanda.
"
On a swinger site that was a great typo Morley...”foursome ” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
