Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Draft Bill

Mottie said:
I don’t think it acceptable that they find criminals and risk their lives getting from one safe country to another.
Click to expand...
If they want to come here we force them to do that. There is no other way.
 
I hear folk say 'there's no other way' then read of a family who sell everything and spend £30,000 on a gang to get 'em here in a dodgy dinghy. I've no idea why. Surely, it'd be cheaper to fly Ryanair?
 
denso13 said:
it's one or the other.
Click to expand...


No; you've missed the point (as did Notchy, replying to my "non-sequitor" comment).


There are three options:

- allow work
- support in UK
- refuse entry at all

you and Notchy are missing the third.


For the avoidance of doubt, my position is (as already stated):

- you can no more "stop the boats!" as stop the Sun rising;
- abide by international law
- process arrivals fairly, and in a timely fashion
- work with other nations, to a. take our fair share (and if that needs "fair shares" renegotiating and redefining, do that too) and b. work out return arrangements for failed applicants



(y)
 
Brigadier said:
work with other nations, to a. take our fair share (and if that needs "fair shares" renegotiating and redefining, do that too) and b. work out return arrangements for failed applicants
Click to expand...
What happens to those who still arrive when all the countries have taken their "fair shares". Not the theory, the practical.
 
Right, so, negotiate a limit, when that’s exceed, renegotiate another limit, when that’s exceeded, renegotiate another limit and just keep doing that? Doesn't seem like a solution to me, sounds like "No limits". That’s the theory then. I asked about the practicality of it when these countries just can’t support any more asylum seekers. Even a lifeboat has limit on the number of passengers it can support before it will sink.

What would you do if you were on a lifeboat with your family if it was full to occupancy and one more person would sink it but there’s still ten more people wanting to get on?
 
Fine, so while you're doing that you are back to the only two options.
 
motorbiking said:
Ukrainians come via safe legal route process and most want to go home if ever they can.
Small boat people pay traffickers to jump the queue. They will never be granted citizenship, unless labour changes the law if/when they get in.
Click to expand...
A bold claim.

Opinion or fact?
 
motorbiking said:
So these people have no possibility of safety crossing through, Turkey, Greece, Germany, Italy, Croatia, France etc.
and Britain has not resettled almost 500,000 people via safe legal routes. The government must be telling fibs then:
www.gov.uk

Safe and legal routes

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

This is the reality of small boat crossings. Gangs, organised crime, more crime for the UK.
news.sky.com

A people smuggler who sends migrants across the Channel reveals how the illicit small boats trade really works

In an interview with Sky News, a people smuggler claims that the majority of his fellow criminals choose to settle in Britain and invest their money here - and discusses the "mafia" networks that cause tragedies at sea.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

Genuine refugees have many options. 3.8m in turkey seem to have managed to find them.

Britain has grown by 7M in the last 20 years due to immigration, freedom of movement, illegal immigration etc. The vast majority are law abiding bringers of value to our culture and country. A small number are organised criminals. Making the boat crossing toxic and unattractive is the best way to destroy these gangs.
Click to expand...
Catching. Prosecuting and seizing their assets would be a much better way
 
Brigadier said:
You and Notchy said there were only twoc options.
Click to expand...
I still think there are only two. Refusing entry still means they are here for the time it takes to process them.

What about shooting them in the channel as at least one person suggested. 4 options?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top