Rwanda is a no go

[jamesbrown]

lets send them to Albania, its ok for Italy


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...red%20a%20year.

Yeah, except Albania was explicitly clear that this was for Italy only on the basis of their shared history and, in any case, it is completely different to the Rwanda policy because those with successful claims will be immediately granted asylum in Italy (i.e., it is offshore processing only, similar to Australia). This is kind of a problem when 90%+ of claims succeed. The Rwanda policy allowed for asylum claims to Rwanda, not the UK.

[WTFH]

There is another choice - maybe accept that the harebrained idea should be dropped. They're happy to drop sensible ideas like HS2, building houses, building hospitals, levelling up, being the party of law and order, being the party of family values, etc etc, so why not this one?

[vetran]

There is another choice - maybe accept that the harebrained idea should be dropped. They're happy to drop sensible ideas like HS2, building houses, building hospitals, levelling up, being the party of law and order, being the party of family values, etc etc, so why not this one?

So where do we send all those nice bogus asylum seekers?

[DoctorStrangelove]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island

.

[WTFH]

So where do we send all those nice bogus asylum seekers?

First we process them, then we can deport them.
Can't keep sweeping them under the carpet, or renting a big boat off a friend of the government for millions a year. Eventually we have to process all asylum seekers, even the 0.0000000000001% that aren't bogus (or whatever the approved figure is)

[northernladuk]

lets send them to Albania, its ok for Italy


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...red%20a%20year.

That was my first thought as well. The reasoning is sound but I think everyone wondered if Rwanda of all places was really a good choice.

[vetran]

First we process them, then we can deport them.
Can't keep sweeping them under the carpet, or renting a big boat off a friend of the government for millions a year. Eventually we have to process all asylum seekers, even the 0.0000000000001% that aren't bogus (or whatever the approved figure is)

sadly even when we do deport convicted criminals some idiot opposes it.

Agree we should lock them up and process them quickly Albania's criminal population is decimated and Pakistans LGBT fathers are all over here.

[vetran]

That was my first thought as well. The reasoning is sound but I think everyone wondered if Rwanda of all places was really a good choice.

It was obviously a stupid choice, we should have compulsorily purchased houses in Notting hill!

[ladymuck]

That was my first thought as well. The reasoning is sound but I think everyone wondered if Rwanda of all places was really a good choice.

My take on going with Rwanda was that it would act as a deterrent. If a couple of plane-loads had actually gotten there and the people processed, it would (hopefully) send the signal that illegal immigration to the UK was not a goer.

However, the greatest immigration issue is actually legal immigration but, hey ho.

[vetran]

My take on going with Rwanda was that it would act as a deterrent. If a couple of plane-loads had actually gotten there and the people processed, it would (hopefully) send the signal that illegal immigration to the UK was not a goer.

However, the greatest immigration issue is actually legal immigration but, hey ho.

Its both, I am vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, it is something our government must do.

Legal immigration needs a decent analysis.