Reply to: Rwanda is a no go

[WTFH]

Get ready for tomorrow's Fail headline...

Took them an extra day...

[SueEllen]

Illegal immigration is a crime and we should reduce crime. - go on argue with that.

Legal mass immigration needs careful planning and that the government should build houses & services to support the increased population or it will breed resentment.

I suspect a careful analysis of legal migration will show that those employers demanding it, are using it to acquire cheap & biddable labour as we discovered when the EU labour tap turned off, suddenly wages went up and squeals of shortages could be heard. What benefits are we getting as a country from massive immigration is a reasonable question.

We are soon likely to see automation significantly reducing the jobs for the lower paid. What exactly will happen when that bites?

We already have running street battles amongst recent immigrants the integration is really complete is it?

Huh? I think there may be a slight problem...

https://news.sky.com/story/suella-br...gally-12753780


The home secretary, appearing at the Home Affairs Select Committee, was asked by Tory MP Tim Loughton how a 16-year-old orphan from an "East African country" escaping a war zone with a sibling in the UK could get to the UK safely and legally.
Mrs Braverman said people can "put in applications for asylum" but when pressed on how she said there are "safe and legal routes".

Mr Loughton pressed her and asked how this hypothetical orphan could get to the UK if they are not from Syria, Afghanistan or Ukraine, which have official programmes for asylum with the UK.

"If you're able to get to the UK you're able to put in an application for asylum," the home secretary admitted.

"If you put in an application for asylum upon arrival that would be the process you would enter."

But Mr Loughton pointed out that they could not get to the UK legally in the first place so said they would be forced to come illegally across the Channel.

Mrs Braverman could not answer how that asylum seeker could come over legally and instead called on her permanent secretary or the clandestine Channel threat commander, both sitting next to her, to answer.

Home Office permanent secretary Matthew Rycroft then said they could talk to the UN's refugee agency "depending which country you're from" to get leave to enter the UK to put in an asylum claim.

He admitted: "But I accept there are some countries where that would not be possible."

[vetran]

Would it not make more sense to get control over "legal" migration - something that we should have control over, and have processes in place for, rather than shifting the focus and blame onto "illegal"?
The simple solution would be to declare anyone whose family arrived in the British Isles in the last, say, 1,800 years as an illegal migrant, and they will be sent to Antartica.
If all the foreigners are illegal, then we have a base to work from. Right now the "legal" ones are lost in the system, but we are told not to care about that.

Illegal immigration is a crime and we should reduce crime. - go on argue with that.

Legal mass immigration needs careful planning and that the government should build houses & services to support the increased population or it will breed resentment.

I suspect a careful analysis of legal migration will show that those employers demanding it, are using it to acquire cheap & biddable labour as we discovered when the EU labour tap turned off, suddenly wages went up and squeals of shortages could be heard. What benefits are we getting as a country from massive immigration is a reasonable question.

We are soon likely to see automation significantly reducing the jobs for the lower paid. What exactly will happen when that bites?

We already have running street battles amongst recent immigrants the integration is really complete is it?

[jamesbrown]

This will also never happen, you will always get some illegal routes and people paying to use those.

I'd venture to guess that the average person risking their life in the channel would opt for the safe route, were such a route available.

Equally, I don't deny that there's a gap in which the Tories can operate - let's call it the mince gap - whereby a non-trivial number of the voting public are completely credulous to any claims that illegal migration can be stopped unilaterally, were it only for a refactoring of our pesky domestic and international obligations. It's completely legitimate for the Tories to exploit this mince gap, populated as it is by the moron contingent among us. That's how democracy works. But there's an actual reality too. You know, things that are observable in the real world. And that reality, roughly stated, is that Rwanda was never going to work, even if the SC had personally attended the opening ceremony and performed a traditional folk dance as the first flight departed Brize Norton. Rwanda can accept a few hundred people And they have to catch 'em first.

[northernladuk]

That's the major problem, you have to get agreement of pay the receiving country and several rounds at the courts.

FTFY

[Gibbon]

And the remarkable thing (even though it wouldn't fit the desired narrative) is that if we processed asylum seekers in a timely manner and deported the ones that should be deported quickly, then the gang market for sending people here would dry up.

That's the major problem, you have to get agreement of the receiving country and several rounds at the courts.

[dsc]

[...]Really, the best you can hope for is to end the irregularity/gang market and process claims through regular asylum routes, timely. [...]

This will also never happen, you will always get some illegal routes and people paying to use those.

[WTFH]

Really, the best you can hope for is to end the irregularity/gang market and process claims through regular asylum routes, timely.

And the remarkable thing (even though it wouldn't fit the desired narrative) is that if we processed asylum seekers in a timely manner and deported the ones that should be deported quickly, then the gang market for sending people here would dry up.
Currently because of the speed of processing, it's a package holiday - come to the UK, you'll be put up in a hotel for 18 months before anything happens.
Speed up the process and it's "come to the UK, probably you'll be kicked out in 2 weeks" isn't as appealing.

But that requires investment in processing, which is unpopular when demonising people is a lot easier.

[jamesbrown]

Being opposed to illegal migration is like saying you're opposed to law breaking or opposed to death, it isn't really the point. Obviously, the law is being broken . The problem is twofold. First, most of the migration via irregular routes is not actually illegal, as roughly 90%+ asylum claims succeed. Second, the illegal fraction is already, er, illegal, and its legality or lack thereof doesn't seem to have been a deterrent.

Short of some very serious measures that almost none of the British public would be willing to accept and hence would never be lawful (like sinking small boats), the only route to addressing irregular routes is with cooperation, but you cannot really expect much there because all of our nearest allies are experiencing the same problems. Really, the best you can hope for is to end the irregularity/gang market and process claims through regular asylum routes, timely. Anyone who thinks otherwise is as thick as mince, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".

Legal migration, on the other hand, is completely within our control and has been, er, rather high in the last couple of years. Just sayin' like.

[WTFH]

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

Legal immigration needs a decent analysis.

Would it not make more sense to get control over "legal" migration - something that we should have control over, and have processes in place for, rather than shifting the focus and blame onto "illegal"?
The simple solution would be to declare anyone whose family arrived in the British Isles in the last, say, 1,800 years as an illegal migrant, and they will be sent to Antartica.
If all the foreigners are illegal, then we have a base to work from. Right now the "legal" ones are lost in the system, but we are told not to care about that.

[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.

[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]

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!

[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.

[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.