Lionator Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 4 minutes ago, BKLFox said: Did he provide a breakdown of costs, is there a UK process figure to compare what 800x more actually is, will people now be quoting the figure as fact? No because it was essentially a soundbite on the radio but flying someone to a place on another continent plus the Rwandan bribe money on top, it’s pretty obvious that it would be a hell of a lot more expensive.
Salisbury Fox Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 16 minutes ago, Lionator said: No because it was essentially a soundbite on the radio but flying someone to a place on another continent plus the Rwandan bribe money on top, it’s pretty obvious that it would be a hell of a lot more expensive. It’s proving to be expensive here as well to be fair, 1.7 billion a year in hotel costs alone is not small change.
BKLFox Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 36 minutes ago, Lionator said: No because it was essentially a soundbite on the radio but flying someone to a place on another continent plus the Rwandan bribe money on top, it’s pretty obvious that it would be a hell of a lot more expensive. 4 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said: It’s proving to be expensive here as well to be fair, 1.7 billion a year in hotel costs alone is not small change. See is it that obvious because MPs are calling this a 120m distraction but that number put against the mooted UK 1.7bn figure isn’t 800x more. Not saying it’s right or wrong but how many think tanks appeared with outrageous figures during COVID? I think we need to see figures on both sides before we can all start saying we are throwing money away better suited elsewhere.
Parafox Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 3 hours ago, LiberalFox said: Let's be honest we aren't sending the blacks back to africa for economic reasons are we? ????? Mods? 1 1
Jimothy Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 5 minutes ago, Parafox said: ????? Mods? That's what you have an issue with? Clunky language shouldn't distract from the message, he's right, we aren't sending them back for economic reason, it's because if their skin colour.
Parafox Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 1 minute ago, Facecloth said: That's what you have an issue with? Clunky language shouldn't distract from the message, he's right, we aren't sending them back for economic reason, it's because if their skin colour. I don't disagree with his message. It's obvious and I'm not stupid. It seems his terminology is a bit... well, odd.
Jimothy Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 1 minute ago, Parafox said: I don't disagree with his message. It's obvious and I'm not stupid. It seems his terminology is a bit... well, odd. I think it's straight to the point. These people are what people who agree with this policy would refer to as blacks, and the reason the Tories and the people who agree with this are happy to do this is because if that reason, they are black, or what they would call black. That's the reason it's being done, the attitude of white man is good, black man is bad. I find it more odd you felt the need to call it out to the mods rather than just let it lie, especially as you agreed with the main point. 1 1
Popular Post LiberalFox Posted 15 April 2022 Popular Post Posted 15 April 2022 I grew up in an area with a lot of racism so I was framing it in the way a racist person would refer to black people. Apologies if that in itself is over the line. It's wrong to view people of a skin colour or ethnicity as somehow separate from "us" but people did and almost certainly still do. My point is that the policy is racist and not an economically motivated one. It's not about money it's keeping "them" out of "our" country. Is Johnson racist? I don't know. Probably not, but this is all about going right up to the line to try and create cultural strife and he doesn't seem to care or understand about whose beliefs it validates. 5
Parafox Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 31 minutes ago, Facecloth said: I think it's straight to the point. These people are what people who agree with this policy would refer to as blacks, and the reason the Tories and the people who agree with this are happy to do this is because if that reason, they are black, or what they would call black. That's the reason it's being done, the attitude of white man is good, black man is bad. I find it more odd you felt the need to call it out to the mods rather than just let it lie, especially as you agreed with the main point. 4 minutes ago, LiberalFox said: I grew up in an area with a lot of racism so I was framing it in the way a racist person would refer to black people. Apologies if that in itself is over the line. It's wrong to view people of a skin colour or ethnicity as somehow separate from "us" but people did and almost certainly still do. My point is that the policy is racist and not an economically motivated one. It's not about money it's keeping "them" out of "our" country. Is Johnson racist? I don't know. Probably not, but this is all about going right up to the line to try and create cultural strife and he doesn't seem to care or understand about whose beliefs it validates. Fair enough from both of you. I guess I was a bit shocked by the outright use of the word on here but your explanations seem sound. 1 1
BlueSi13 Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 10 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said: It’s proving to be expensive here as well to be fair, 1.7 billion a year in hotel costs alone is not small change. I sense some people are missing (probably deliberately) the point about the expense of the Rwanda scheme. Everyone knows this is going to be very expensive, but the main aim of this is to stop the boats altogether by destroying the incentive to pay the smugglers and get in one. Those getting in to the boats, and their smugglers, are destroying any and all documents they have so that once they land on UK soil, we have absolutely no idea who they are, or where they come from. Therefore the likelihood of them being deported (where exactly?) is next to none even if their application for asylum is denied. More than 5,000 (overwhelmingly young single men) have made it across the channel so far this year (that was mostly during winter BTW) and those numbers are expected to reach a 1,000 per day later this year. They will all need housing, medical care, food, energy etc etc. All at the expense of the taxpayer. It is not sustainable as well as completely unfair on those waiting patiently for an asylum decision after following the rules legally. We have an asylum application process and borders for a reason. But as it stands the incentives to pay the smugglers and get in the boats are overwhelming, if we do nothing numbers are only going to get higher and higher. Considering France were unwilling/unable to stop the smuggling gangs (TBH why would they?), this was always going to be the only game in town. BTW Denmark have also signed a similar agreement with Rwanda. 4
urban.spaceman Posted 15 April 2022 Posted 15 April 2022 If anyone’s ever bothered to remember the theme I tend to relate to on here it’s generally Africa related; I’ve never been to Rwanda nor do I know what the current political situation is like, plus I’m kinda idealistic so to play devils advocate on this issue… could this be a positive way forward? I mean in a perfect world of course - our governments treatment of migrants and asylum seekers is utterly abhorrent and I wouldn’t want to see anyone mistreated. On the other hand, if a country with a workforce deficit did a deal with a country who had either a workforce surplus/unneeded immigration, couldn’t there be a good deal worked out? The UK isn’t all it’s cracked up to be anyway. Ever since this was announced I’ve been thinking I’d actually love to go to and experience Rwanda. I love Botswana and after Brexit I really hoped we would instead make a success out of the commonwealth but that just hasn’t happened.
Dunge Posted 16 April 2022 Posted 16 April 2022 19 minutes ago, weller54 said: This sums it up for me.... Solid lyrics; can’t quite work out the tune yet. 2
Lionator Posted 16 April 2022 Posted 16 April 2022 9 hours ago, urban.spaceman said: If anyone’s ever bothered to remember the theme I tend to relate to on here it’s generally Africa related; I’ve never been to Rwanda nor do I know what the current political situation is like, plus I’m kinda idealistic so to play devils advocate on this issue… could this be a positive way forward? I mean in a perfect world of course - our governments treatment of migrants and asylum seekers is utterly abhorrent and I wouldn’t want to see anyone mistreated. On the other hand, if a country with a workforce deficit did a deal with a country who had either a workforce surplus/unneeded immigration, couldn’t there be a good deal worked out? The UK isn’t all it’s cracked up to be anyway. Ever since this was announced I’ve been thinking I’d actually love to go to and experience Rwanda. I love Botswana and after Brexit I really hoped we would instead make a success out of the commonwealth but that just hasn’t happened. Most relatively stable African countries are basically funded/bribed by the Chinese in this day and age so that the Chinese can have access to their natural resources. In turn China improves their infrastructure. Botswana is a good example of that. Rwanda I’m not so sure what their situation is. But bribing the Rwandan government to take in asylum seekers headed for the UK, so that they can change their population demographics just doesn’t sit well with me. It’s obviously not on the level of colonialism but it is shrouded by the ghosts of it. Put it this way, if Russia started shipping off asylum seekers tomorrow to a random country where mass genocide happened less than 30 years ago, then our media/people would be rightly outraged. 1
The Horse's Mouth Posted 16 April 2022 Posted 16 April 2022 On 15/04/2022 at 08:02, Lionator said: There was a bloke on 5 live yesterday, from an economic think tank so the caveat is that I don’t know his political leanings. But he suggested that their research shows each asylum seeker processed in Rwanda would cost the tax payer 800x more than if they were processed here. Absolute madness. Infairness though, isn't the whole move to effectively stop trafficking here in the first place, it will be a huge blow for human traffickers as they can't sell England unless they have a more complex operation than what they're used to doing.
Parafox Posted 16 April 2022 Posted 16 April 2022 20 hours ago, BlueSi13 said: I sense some people are missing (probably deliberately) the point about the expense of the Rwanda scheme. Everyone knows this is going to be very expensive, but the main aim of this is to stop the boats altogether by destroying the incentive to pay the smugglers and get in one. Those getting in to the boats, and their smugglers, are destroying any and all documents they have so that once they land on UK soil, we have absolutely no idea who they are, or where they come from. Therefore the likelihood of them being deported (where exactly?) is next to none even if their application for asylum is denied. More than 5,000 (overwhelmingly young single men) have made it across the channel so far this year (that was mostly during winter BTW) and those numbers are expected to reach a 1,000 per day later this year. They will all need housing, medical care, food, energy etc etc. All at the expense of the taxpayer. It is not sustainable as well as completely unfair on those waiting patiently for an asylum decision after following the rules legally. We have an asylum application process and borders for a reason. But as it stands the incentives to pay the smugglers and get in the boats are overwhelming, if we do nothing numbers are only going to get higher and higher. Considering France were unwilling/unable to stop the smuggling gangs (TBH why would they?), this was always going to be the only game in town. BTW Denmark have also signed a similar agreement with Rwanda. Finally. This makes sense above all the other, often knee jerk, reactions. It's what I was trying to construct into a sensible, balanced consideration about this. I know Aus tried it and found it hugely expensive, but over the longer term it would likely be more cost effective for the country and ultimately better for those actually seeking asylum using the legal and safer routes.
Strokes Posted 16 April 2022 Posted 16 April 2022 11 hours ago, Dunge said: Solid lyrics; can’t quite work out the tune yet. 🎶 And I love the thought of attempting brexit, even if I know we can’t make it 🎶
Sampson Posted 16 April 2022 Posted 16 April 2022 1 hour ago, Parafox said: Finally. This makes sense above all the other, often knee jerk, reactions. It's what I was trying to construct into a sensible, balanced consideration about this. I know Aus tried it and found it hugely expensive, but over the longer term it would likely be more cost effective for the country and ultimately better for those actually seeking asylum using the legal and safer routes. What are these legal and safe routes? They either don't exist or are there in theory so they can say they're there but are virtually impossible to actually be accepted through. 2
BlueSi13 Posted 16 April 2022 Posted 16 April 2022 2 hours ago, Sampson said: What are these legal and safe routes? They either don't exist or are there in theory so they can say they're there but are virtually impossible to actually be accepted through. Net migration to the UK stands at around 290,000 per year. So basically a population the size of Nottingham added to the UK every single year just via migration. There are plenty of safe and legal routes available to those in the most need/whose skills we require.
Sampson Posted 16 April 2022 Posted 16 April 2022 (edited) 31 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said: Net migration to the UK stands at around 290,000 per year. So basically a population the size of Nottingham added to the UK every single year just via migration. There are plenty of safe and legal routes available to those in the most need/whose skills we require. Huh? What do economic/family migrants and specialist work visas have to do with safe and legal routes to processing asylum applications? The "safe and legal" routes for asylum seekers in the UK are virtually non-existent or almost impossible to pass if you come from many countries. We are so backwards compared to most of the rest of Western Europe in this regards. Edited 16 April 2022 by Sampson 3
leicsmac Posted 17 April 2022 Posted 17 April 2022 2 hours ago, BlueSi13 said: Net migration to the UK stands at around 290,000 per year. So basically a population the size of Nottingham added to the UK every single year just via migration. There are plenty of safe and legal routes available to those in the most need/whose skills we require. The latter certainly, the former... is rather more of a question. Since when has such humanitarian policy (when not in the interests of PR/geopolitics ala Ukraine) been a motivation for this government?
Jimothy Posted 17 April 2022 Posted 17 April 2022 Calling asylum seeker immigrants is like saying someone being put up in a hotel after their house burns down is moving house. 1
NasPb Posted 17 April 2022 Posted 17 April 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Sampson said: Huh? What do economic/family migrants and specialist work visas have to do with safe and legal routes to processing asylum applications? The "safe and legal" routes for asylum seekers in the UK are virtually non-existent or almost impossible to pass if you come from many countries. We are so backwards compared to most of the rest of Western Europe in this regards. And keep in mind even in western Europe the safe and legal routes are still very sketchy limited and difficult themselves. ie they're difficult to access to. So that gives a picture of how bad the situation is in the UK. It's funny, these governments and their predecesors whom have created millions of refugees and destroyed a large amount of the developing world and whom have supported dictators and such complain when the only people suffering are the citizens of said nations. No one takes responsibility for their actions Edited 17 April 2022 by NasPb 1
Dahnsouff Posted 17 April 2022 Posted 17 April 2022 18 minutes ago, Facecloth said: Calling asylum seeker immigrants is like saying someone being put up in a hotel after their house burns down is moving house. An asylum seeker is not a refugee*, they may be the same, they may not, if you had said refugee then I agree. Not so say an asylum seeker may not be a refugee, and the system needs to be clear, the process defined, the trafficking stopped, Rwanda is a very horrid answer to that. * according to the UN
Jimothy Posted 17 April 2022 Posted 17 April 2022 6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: An asylum seeker is not a refugee*, they may be the same, they may not, if you had said refugee then I agree. Not so say an asylum seeker may not be a refugee, and the system needs to be clear, the process defined, the trafficking stopped, Rwanda is a very horrid answer to that. * according to the UN Point still stands that lumping people who have fled war and persecution in with people who have hopped on a plane go take a job in are bar or a warehouse isn't right. On the subject of Rwanda, didn't Israel have a similar deal, which actually ended up with more trafficking just from Rwanda instead?
Recommended Posts