International News Immigration

[PottersRightBoot]

Just to be clear, under International law, that the UK signs up to, anyone crossing the channel in a boat only becomes an illegal immigrant if they do not immediately hand themselves over to the authorities.

Which means that these thousands who are making the crossing are legal. The problem is not about them arriving, it's about the desperately inadequate provisions in place to process their asylum applications. As a consequence we are having to hold and house people for years at a huge cost to everyone.

For a fraction of the cost of the Rwanda deal we could process all claims within weeks and either then allow legitimate asylum cases to be granted and having these people able to then work and contribute to society, or to be legally deported to their home country or an alternative safe country.

The legislation already existed to deal with this, but rather than funding it appropriately, our Government has decided to spend billions holding people in hotels and now sending a tiny percentage to Rwanda. At the same time, and in order to justify this wring decision, they have ignored international and humanitarian law, and used demeaning and incendiary language that has ignited the support of the far right and hugely increased racial tensions in a generally welcoming and tolerant country.

The actions of the Tories are not only those of complete incompetence but also cruel and shameful.

How come other EC countries are wanting to adopt similar methods then ?

Its so easy to use emotive language,

Why is an attempt to stop illegal immigration methods masterminded by very nasty criminals ‘cruel and shameful’ ?

This pious, ‘I’m on the side of the angels’ guff should be beyond you.

 

[MustardYellow]

What financial package do we offer asylum seekers?

We give them free accommodation, bills etc included and just under £50 a week. They also get free medical care, including free prescriptions, free dental care, free eyesight tests and glasses. All that is just while your claim is processed.

If you're successful you immediately become eligible for almost all benefits. You also gain the right to apply to bring your family over too, which if successful can push your eligibility for social housing into the higher brackets. That may not be necessary though, as support for renting private accommodation is available too.

Half of 'refugees' don't work. The huge disparity in employment rates between genuine economic migrants and 'refugees' remains even after 25 years in the country.

All of this is paid for by the hard working taxpayer, who have to pay for all this stuff themselves.

I don't know about you, but giving £5,000 to smugglers to get you to a country where you'll be able to live the rest of your life with everything provided for you seems like a pretty appealing option. It's no wonder so many are choosing to take it.

 

[QR]

Exactly this. It stops becoming about safety and persecution when rather than just taking your family to the closest safe place you choose to travel alone half way across the world through countless safe countries to the place that conveniently offers you one of the best financial packages as an 'asylum seeker'.

On your point of integration, just yesterday we had an asylum seeker from Tunisia (why are we accepting asylum seekers from f*****g Tunisia?!?!) convicted of publicly showing support for Hamas on the streets of London. We also had a Moroccan 'asylum seeker' (again, why are we accepting asylum seekers from f*****g Morocco?!?!) convicted of stabbing an elderly man to death whilst chanting 'Allahu Akbar'. He claimed it was for Islam and the people of Gaza, whilst also claiming he wanted more victims. He had travelled from Morocco to Spain in 2007 and spent time in 13 different European countries before arriving in Britain. He spent 13 years living in Italy, Germany - where he was denied asylum - and Spain, before arriving in Middlesborough by ferry from the Netherlands in 2020. He claimed asylum and spent the next three years living in a hotel in Hull and then state-funded accommodation in a terraced house in Hartlepool.

If they are asylum seekers then we haven't accepted them! We just haven't f*****g assessed their claim and sent them back!

But you don't keep going on about this utter failure do you?!

 

[bashamwonderland]

We give them free accommodation, bills etc included and just under £50 a week. They also get free medical care, including free prescriptions, free dental care, free eyesight tests and glasses. All that is just while your claim is processed.

If you're successful you immediately become eligible for almost all benefits. You also gain the right to apply to bring your family over too, which if successful can push your eligibility for social housing into the higher brackets. That may not be necessary though, as support for renting private accommodation is available too.

Half of 'refugees' don't work. The huge disparity in employment rates between genuine economic migrants and 'refugees' remains even after 25 years in the country.

All of this is paid for by the hard working taxpayer, who have to pay for all this stuff themselves.

I don't know about you, but giving £5,000 to smugglers to get you to a country where you'll be able to live the rest of your life with everything provided for you seems like a pretty appealing option. It's no wonder so many are choosing to take it.

Yep, and as you say, all paid for by working British citizens.

It's not surprise society is breaking down, what's the point in working hard to pay for a society where everything is sucked away by parasites (meaning not only boat people, but shady offshore corporate entities, billionaires, Russians, Chinese, non-doms etc.).

 

[Scotchegg]

We give them free accommodation, bills etc included and just under £50 a week. They also get free medical care, including free prescriptions, free dental care, free eyesight tests and glasses. All that is just while your claim is processed.

If you're successful you immediately become eligible for almost all benefits. You also gain the right to apply to bring your family over too, which if successful can push your eligibility for social housing into the higher brackets. That may not be necessary though, as support for renting private accommodation is available too.

Half of 'refugees' don't work. The huge disparity in employment rates between genuine economic migrants and 'refugees' remains even after 25 years in the country.

All of this is paid for by the hard working taxpayer, who have to pay for all this stuff themselves.

I don't know about you, but giving £5,000 to smugglers to get you to a country where you'll be able to live the rest of your life with everything provided for you seems like a pretty appealing option. It's no wonder so many are choosing to take it.

And we fix this by processing claims fairly and quickly. This Government has pissed hundreds of millions up the wall by focusing on a scheme that will impact 200 people rather than addressing the real issue.

And I know that you Google everything, but where is the evidence that 50% of migrants don't work even after 25 years or more?

 

[Scotchegg]

How come other EC countries are wanting to adopt similar methods then ?

Its so easy to use emotive language,

Why is an attempt to stop illegal immigration methods masterminded by very nasty criminals ‘cruel and shameful’ ?

This pious, ‘I’m on the side of the angels’ guff should be beyond you.

Absolutely nothing pious in anything I've posted. I've no issue whatsoever with controlling our immigration levels, both legally and illegally. My issue is spending hundreds of millions on a failed scheme that will have zero impact when that could have been used to fund proper border controls and to process applications fairly and efficiently.

But if the alternative view to yours is "on the side of angels" then sign me up!

 

[Wandering Yellow]

Free board and lodgings , no bills ,£50 a week while you work on the side before being able to properly claim if successful, or alternatively disappear into a Town/City of your choosing .

How do I apply? Rent is a nightmare.

 

[Thomas/Brock/Jones]

How do I apply? Rent is a nightmare.

Get yourself a boat and head over to France

 

[PottersRightBoot]

Absolutely nothing pious in anything I've posted. I've no issue whatsoever with controlling our immigration levels, both legally and illegally. My issue is spending hundreds of millions on a failed scheme that will have zero impact when that could have been used to fund proper border controls and to process applications fairly and efficiently.

But if the alternative view to yours is "on the side of angels" then sign me up!

It hasn’t started yet, so how can the scheme have failed?

Why will it have zero impact?

What are the lottery numbers tonight?

Who’s scoring our winner this afternoon, and in what minute?

 

[MC Yellow]

It hasn’t started yet, so how can the scheme have failed?

Why will it have zero impact?

What are the lottery numbers tonight?

Who’s scoring our winner this afternoon, and in what minute?

How do you know we are going to win ?

Let’s not forget that this was a policy Rishi was against when he was Chancellor. Something along the lines of not being cost effective and having concerns about ethics . I mean who would have thought, a politician having concerns about ethics!

But in true political form, to save himself he’s now backing it with enthusiasm. Perfectly ethical I suppose


You’re also an accountant, do you honestly believe this is an effective use of taxpayers money, to fly a few hundred people over to Rwanda? Will it really be a deterrent ? Would you support this in the form of a strategic business plan?

Personally, I just can’t fathom it.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

How do you know we are going to win ?

Let’s not forget that this was a policy Rishi was against when he was Chancellor. Something along the lines of not being cost effective and having concerns about ethics . I mean who would have thought, a politician having concerns about ethics!

But in true political form, to save himself he’s now backing it with enthusiasm. Perfectly ethical I suppose


You’re also an accountant, do you honestly believe this is an effective use of taxpayers money, to fly a few hundred people over to Rwanda? Will it really be a deterrent ? Would you support this in the form of a strategic business plan?

Personally, I just can’t fathom it.

You can absolutely guarantee that if anyone other than the Tories had come up with and forced through the Rwanda removals policy and legislation, then the usual duty Tories would be all over it, calling it batshit crazy, unworkable and fiscally irresponsible.

 

[Scotchegg]

It hasn’t started yet, so how can the scheme have failed?

Why will it have zero impact?

What are the lottery numbers tonight?

Who’s scoring our winner this afternoon, and in what minute?

It has failed to address the problem whilst diverting hundreds of millions of pounds away from the system which actually processes applications quickly and returns thousands more people to their countries or origin or an alternative safe country.

Even if this Rwanda deal works perfectly and 200 people are flown out in days, they will have then reached capacity and there is absolutely no deterrent for anyone else looking to cross the channel. So crossing numbers will remain high, tens of thousands will still need to have their applications for asylum processed through an increasingly broken system, leading to more and more people bring housed in hotels or rented accommodation for longer and longer.

So this policy can be carried out to the letter and will still become an absolute failure.

It's sad that you and others can't see how you are being played for fools by a party that know that they'll never have to deal with the consequences of getting this so horribly wrong.

 

[QR]

It hasn’t started yet, so how can the scheme have failed?

Why will it have zero impact?

What are the lottery numbers tonight?

Who’s scoring our winner this afternoon, and in what minute?

I've still to hear anyone answer the question, if the risk of death when crossing the channel isn't a deterrent why would the risk of being sent to Rwanda be one?

Are you brave enough to have a go?

 

[Essexyellows]

I'd go further and say not only do we mainly agree but we also agree with @QR . The silence of @Essexyellows I am taking as agreement (no holes in my thinking there).

We're all done here and I'm now going over to the middle east to sort that out.

Exactly this. It stops becoming about safety and persecution when rather than just taking your family to the closest safe place you choose to travel alone half way across the world through countless safe countries to the place that conveniently offers you one of the best financial packages as an 'asylum seeker'.

On your point of integration, just yesterday we had an asylum seeker from Tunisia (why are we accepting asylum seekers from f*****g Tunisia?!?!) convicted of publicly showing support for Hamas on the streets of London. We also had a Moroccan 'asylum seeker' (again, why are we accepting asylum seekers from f*****g Morocco?!?!) convicted of stabbing an elderly man to death whilst chanting 'Allahu Akbar'. He claimed it was for Islam and the people of Gaza, whilst also claiming he wanted more victims. He had travelled from Morocco to Spain in 2007 and spent time in 13 different European countries before arriving in Britain. He spent 13 years living in Italy, Germany - where he was denied asylum - and Spain, before arriving in Middlesborough by ferry from the Netherlands in 2020. He claimed asylum and spent the next three years living in a hotel in Hull and then state-funded accommodation in a terraced house in Hartlepool.

Sometimes there is no need to speak when others post reality.

So in this case the individual is refused asylum by Germany but successful in the UK probably thanks to coaching in what to say on arrival then rides the system for all its worth.

Others who CHOOSE not to claim asylum in the first safe country they land in are not "fleeing war and famine" they are actively looking to arrive where the benefits are greater.

Ergo we have to make it less appealing to arrive and stay..... like France.

 

[Essexyellows]

I've still to hear anyone answer the question, if the risk of death when crossing the channel isn't a deterrent why would the risk of being sent to Rwanda be one?

Are you brave enough to have a go?

The risk of death might change the minds of 1 person, or 100 or 1,000 we don`t know how many choose not to risk it.

With the scheme active the reward/benefits of success are no longer there for everyone.

Surviving the crossing to be put on a plane to Rwanda might change the minds of 1 person, or 100 or 1,000.

If its not there it won`t.

It`s also not the only policy being used to reduce people taking the risk of death from disrupting the gangs to stronger policing it all plays a part.

You see far fewer people dying in the backs of lorries these days because stronger measures are in place, but that didn`t happen overnight.

 

[Scotchegg]

Over 500 people have arrived by small boats since the Rwanda bill was passed in parliament. If we had planes immediately ready to send these people to Rwanda, 300 of them would remain and join the thousands of others in paid for accommodation for 2 or 3 years, because only 200 spaces exist in Rwanda.

If, however, we properly invested in the assessment system whilst upgrading unused army accommodation, we could have held everyone of this 500 and many more for the weeks necessary to complete their applications to remain. They would then either be granted asylum, and could then legally earn and contribute in yo our society, or they could be returned to their country of origin or an appropriate safe country.

Rwanda neither poses a deterrent or a solution to the problem we have with a broken immigration system.

 

[PottersRightBoot]

Over 500 people have arrived by small boats since the Rwanda bill was passed in parliament. If we had planes immediately ready to send these people to Rwanda, 300 of them would remain and join the thousands of others in paid for accommodation for 2 or 3 years, because only 200 spaces exist in Rwanda.

If, however, we properly invested in the assessment system whilst upgrading unused army accommodation, we could have held everyone of this 500 and many more for the weeks necessary to complete their applications to remain. They would then either be granted asylum, and could then legally earn and contribute in yo our society, or they could be returned to their country of origin or an appropriate safe country.

Rwanda neither poses a deterrent or a solution to the problem we have with a broken immigration system.

The Irish Governmemt are already complaining that illegal immigrants are swerving the Uk because of this so-called ‘failed policy’ and rocking up on their doorstep,

Rwanda is hopefully a cost- effective solution for the UK tax-payer ; that’s why it’s being implemented.

Its not ‘failed’ - because it hasn’t started yet.

I guess it boils down to whether you’re prepared to welcome illegal immigramts, most of whom are economic chancers, delivered to their destination by gangsters.

Frankly, I’m not. I welcome the scheme.

And as far as Starmer and his cohorts are concerned I have no idea what their illegal immigration plan is.

They apparently want an election next week but they haven’t got specific manifesto commitments. On anything. They are playing the electorate for fools. They’re not fools - and the election, when it comes, will show that.

 

[chuckbert]

They are playing the electorate for fools. They’re not fools - and the election, when it comes, will show that.

That statement’s a hostage to fortune! Are you going to repeat it if Labour come in with a landslide?

 

[Scotchegg]

The Irish Governmemt are already complaining that illegal immigrants are swerving the Uk because of this so-called ‘failed policy’ and rocking up on their doorstep,

Rwanda is hopefully a cost- effective solution for the UK tax-payer ; that’s why it’s being implemented.

Its not ‘failed’ - because it hasn’t started yet.

I guess it boils down to whether you’re prepared to welcome illegal immigramts, most of whom are economic chancers, delivered to their destination by gangsters.

Frankly, I’m not. I welcome the scheme.

And as far as Starmer and his cohorts are concerned I have no idea what their illegal immigration plan is.

They apparently want an election next week but they haven’t got specific manifesto commitments. On anything. They are playing the electorate for fools. They’re not fools - and the election, when it comes, will show that.

You do understand that a manifesto is only delivered ONCE an election has been called?

 

[Essexyellows]

Manifesto - "what we tell you we will give you and then renege on once we have had your vote".

Imagine SKS promising £28 billion on green investment then ditching it a few weeks later...