Thread: Plans to send some asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda

It is a, becoming , well publicised deterrent. The deter people from even thinking about jumping on a rubber boat to the UK. Nothing more.

Publishing that in 2020 98% of asylum seekers who did in fact jump on a rubber boat and turn up in UK, did in fact have their asylum granted, sounds like more of a recommendation than a deterrent to me.

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

My Mrs can't fly to UK without a visa, and the rules to obtain one are rather stringent.

Airlines check for a valid visa at check-in. Flying into Thailand is one example, unless the two countries have Visa exceptions.

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

I'm referring to ones that do go to UK.

Cyrille got it.

I 'got it' as well, but whining over such a minute number of people when fairly well anyone else is helping more is . . . well, nit that brilliant.

Originally Posted by Neverna

There is something called air travel. It has been around for a while now. Some people fly to the UK and claim asylum on arrival at the airport.

Do non-citizens have to show a valid visa before checking in for a flight to the UK?

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

The way I see it, claiming asylum is when you get to the first safe country after fleeing your own, unsafe country.

Originally Posted by Troy

^ There is no obligation for a refugee or asylum seeker to remain in the first safe country they travel under UN law.

Yes and No

Under the UN Refugee Convention, there is no obligation on refugees to do this—an interpretation which is upheld in UK case law. Those trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

That said, there is some UK domestic law which allows the government to refuse to consider an asylum application if it is judged that the person could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach? - Full Fact

Thanks David, that’s how I remember it.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Do non-citizens have to show a valid visa before checking in for a flight to the UK?

It depends on their nationality. Nationals of some countries require a visa to enter the UK. Nationals of other countries don't. Some nationals even need a visa to transit the UK.

Visa policy of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Sept_2021.pdf

On the issue of arriving by boat to the UK, I think that a lot of the rise in the numbers of people crossing the channel by small boats has been due to Covid and the subsequent restrictions imposed due to Covid making travel to the UK by regular means more difficult.

Why send them to Rwanda?
if indeed they are economic refugees , and I agree many of them are, and are using the refugee excuse to circumvent the legal immigration process, it would make them illegal aliens. and as such should be deported to their country of origin.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

deported to their country of origin.

... and they throw their Passports into the English Channel as they cross?

Immigration:- What country do you come from?

Asylum Seeker:- I forget ... or Sweden, or Germany, or Iceland

^David I think the law in Australia is that anyone who sets foot on land there illegally will never be granted any type of a permanent visa? Pretty sure that's the law, and that other countries should think about doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

Most of them are economic migrants France and the EU in general seem happy to let the trafficking gangs operate on EU territory.

Good Lord . . . like a broken record with your anti-EU, anti-French bullshit - why not return to reality, Backspit . . . err NPT.

Originally Posted by Bonecollector

The vast majority of these so called refugees are as Mike pointed out, male middle aged economic migrants.

It's like a circus here . . . and where did Mike mention anything of the sort?

Originally Posted by malmomike77

Most of them are economic migrants

Originally Posted by Troy

Asylum seekers are also not illegal immigrants. They are not criminals and should not be treated as such.

Bingo

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

Fuck me, the UK are only about 50 more Immigrants away from recognising Sharia Law. What then.

By Christ, you don't half talk some bollocks.

You suggest that the 'facts' you've claimed are true and have been shown to be false don't really matter, it's your opinions, obviously derived from your nonsense 'facts', that we should all focus on.

Pretty sure there's a major flaw in your argument there.

You better hope the good citizens of Songkla are less worried about their culture being polluted by your sausage rolls.

Originally Posted by malmomike77

^ all good Troy and like so many others who are outraged by this. but what is your solution to the ever increasing numbers being bred like locusts in the Africa & ME - you can moan all you like but someone has to pay for and meet the needs of these people and generally it ain't the people who are moaning about the Govts approach to this. The problem is the root cause and the solution ain't housing all the disaffected in countries thousands of miles from their source.

Your beloved EU is allowing the traffickers to operate with impunity and quite frankly is as ineffectual in dealing with them as they are in dealing with any internal issues. Being uncharitable i would even say they are encouraging them to punish the UK, but off course like Micron and his hate for the UK that's unthinkable.

So i ask again Troy what are you suggesting as the solution, or are you another David Lammy.

Firstly, the UK should stop grouping asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants as the same. They are not. Refugees should not need any form of visa to enter the country. They have a special status that the UK is ignoring.
There is no simple answer to the problem. I would like the UK to work with France, Belgium and Holland to create a safe route for migrants and safe refuge for processing before allowing those eligible safe crossing. The processing should be carried out in a timely manner and those not eligible sent home.
They are all people and should be treated in the same way we ourselves would wish to be treated.
The notion that they are unworthy to breed is too disgraceful to comment upon.

Originally Posted by cyrille

By Christ, you don't half talk some bollocks.

You suggest that the 'facts' you've claimed are true and have been shown to be false don't really matter, it's your opinions, obviously derived from your nonsense 'facts', that we should all focus on.

Pretty sure there's a major flaw in your argument there.

You better hope the good citizens of Songkla are less worried about their culture being polluted by your sausage rolls.

I was just trying to lighten it up a bit.

I was interested enough to ask you where you got your 8% statistic from, could you just focus on that for starters?

I've never said my 'facts' are true, just shared what I found when I researched it and quoted my source.

I am entitled to my opinion.

Stop being a pedantic bastard.

What is your opinion on all of this? We are not in the Dog House now. Please contribute to the subject at hand or fuck off.

We've all seen those pictures of desperate young male refugees fresh off the boat, texting and calling on their mobile phones. Where did they get the SIM cards from, or are they on roaming? Who are they calling anyway- the UN?

Originally Posted by sabang

Who are they calling anyway- the UN?

A Russian troll farm in Saint Petersburg looking for work.

Originally Posted by Troy

The notion that they are unworthy to breed is too disgraceful to comment upon.

Troy, you'll have to help me out here, where did i say they are not worthy to breed?

Originally Posted by Troy

Firstly, the UK should stop grouping asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants as the same. They are not

True

Originally Posted by Troy

Refugees should not need any form of visa to enter the country. They have a special status that the UK is ignoring.

And how do you determind which are which..(who's who).in Dover ?

Originally Posted by Troy

There is no simple answer to the problem.

Britain and other ...ahem..countries think that they found a solution.

Ship the lot to Rwanda.

And do the paperwork there

The refugee burden is not the issue here.

Getting the non-refugees to leave is the challenge

Originally Posted by bsnub

A Russian troll farm in Saint Petersburg looking for work.

And always a childish comment from you

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Yes and No



Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach? - Full Fact

The Dublin Agreement no longer applies to the UK. It hasn't since Dec 2020 because, you know, Brexit.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Refugees who arrive in the UK after passing through another EU country can, under certain circumstances, also be returned to the first EU country they entered, under an EU law known as the Dublin Regulation.

WHAT WAS CLAIMED

Under the Geneva Convention refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.


OUR VERDICT

Incorrect. The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

From David's link

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Do refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach? - Full Fact

Refugees can as I understand it, claim asylum seeker status in, any and not necessary the first safecountry they enter.

They will be fingerprinted each time they apply and will be shipped to the first country of "printing".

There seems to be limits to the "shopping around".


I think that there is some sharing of the economic burden of the refugees/migrants.

Greece, Malta and Italy are being paid.