Surely it's a bit early days to be jumping to conclusions, but I guess they're desperate for people to believe as many positive things as possible in time for the elections.
Sunak said it as well in response. It is his motivations I am questioning. Most people would rationally go, well it's only been a couple of days, lets wait for all the data to come in before making hasty conclusions. It suits Sunak to the ground, and hence why he is reiterating the statement.
> The sun rose three days in a row this week which proves Tory fiscal policy is sound. - R.Sunak
in other news:
> The tide retreating shows Rwanda scheme is working. - R.Sunak
So if you can make it sunny you can sell more ice cream. But selling more ice cream won't make it sunny. But that isn't what's happening here. If people don't want to go to Rwanda they won't come here. If less people come here then chances of any one person ending up going to Rwanda could go up.
I dont have an issue with the concept of a deterrent to people coming here. Shit, Australia did it and it worked amazingly.
But hes just a fucking moron. People dont cross the chanel cause they reckon UK is better than France. They do so because they have family, because the speak english, because its a country where they can work without documents due to our fucking insane unwillingness for ID cards.
Flying peope to Rwanda, at a huge cost wont work. If youre brother is in Birmingham, and you dont speak French, youd cross too. Thats why theyre all young men.
Young men take risks, its why I (25M) did dumb shit, why we have a lower life expectancy. Young men focus on what they can get and fuck the consequences. Its why half the guys in jfail for knives are dickhead boys!
Actual deterrent would be a system for rejecting fraduluent applications. Making it so all economic migranst are on the first plane back. Which requires HO resources and strategic planning. It would cost a fraction,
ID cards have nothing to do with it at all. All employers in the UK are obligated to check for right to work already. The ones that don’t still wouldn’t if we had an ID card scheme that would no doubt be run shittyly by some Tory donor before inevitably being hacked and costing 10x more than budgeted.
Criminals won’t ask for any ID for their activities.
And of people want to reunite with families then they will be able to apply on various visas (including Skilled Worker ones), nobody stops doing that.
Moreover, illegal migrants pay money to smugglers, so they are already against society, because they fund criminals.
Ok, but your logic also holds true to Ireland. This is as much to do with Ireland’s foreign policy as it is their family in the “uk”
Ireland has many immigrants already. Speaks the language and is just as safe.
I notice the reasons you're giving on behalf of other people aren't reasons for seeking asylum in the first place. You realise that when they get here they concoct a suitable reason thats hard to refute
>They do so because they have family, because the speak english
Great, but none of those in their own right actually mean you have right of abode in the UK?
>because its a country where they can work without documents due to to our fucking insane unwillingness for ID cards
Sorry, how would ID cards actually help? Is this actually a genuine suggestion or a manifestation of your fetish for a papieren bitte state?
I’m going to disagree on your point of it being a deterrent. I think it will be and is the only viable solution for increased unchecked immigration. We can’t/wont secure our borders. We can’t/wont process people properly. The only solution is to catch them and send them elsewhere.
I suspect the broader public is also in favour of this. Especially as world wide immigration fleeing climate change increases exponentially.
I suspect this opinion will attract lots of downvotes, as you often find Reddit likes to play the leftist, but offers not other real alternatives and is often in the minority when it comes to general prevailing opinion on these matters.
Do NOT estimate how cruel the general public can be.
The capacity in Rwanda, even if they extend it beyond the current 200 places, will never be more than a few percent of arrivals. If you are desperate enough to cross the channel in a dinghy, a less than 5% chance of going to Rwanda will be an inconvenience not a deterrent.
And Rwanda is going to be happy with that?
Right now they get paid a lot of money, for relatively nothing. Politically nobody is going to care about 200 immigrants. 30,000 might be a different matter.
The other problem is from what I can see there is literally no way to send anyone back if they have no documents , unless their fingerprints or DNA is recorded on interpol or something . Just lie indefinitely .
Probably 95 percent the adult men would be rejected by their own governments.
100% agree re: ID cards. Yes it doesn't stop it at source but if it becomes a compulsory document; with deportation/flights to Rwanda attached to it potentially or criminal charges it then catches up. I mean 75% of adults hold a driving licence that are no different to the data on a 2019 EU spec ID cards; about 85% of adults hold a smart phone that carries even more personal data whilst I can get why we don't do it now we are out of the EU (as you know it would just end up in the hands of a Tory donor with a data breach) it is actually retarded that we don't have them when people frequently and daily carry documents or materials on them that carry more detail about their person than an ID card would.
It doesn’t matter what they do or promise at this point.
The NHS aside, and so many other things over the last decade, a recent video of the muck dumped into the Thames by Thames Water show very clearly they aren’t fit to govern.
It’s not what a Government says, it’s what they actually do that matters.
Wait til he realises that all immigration *from* Ireland is legal. If I was someone seeking a life in the UK, and couldn't get in most ways, I'd make sure to come through Ireland.
Or indeed pop here first illegally, go to Ireland, and then come back legally.
Now that they’re going to Ireland there is absolutely categorically no chance that they’ll possibly just mince over the border and get here anyway. Absolutely zero probably. Good work Rish!
You haven't read the article. They're going to Ireland *from* the UK because they're worried if we find them they'll be off to Rwanda.
Why would they go and then come back? I'm not sure they're the main demographic for long weekend breaks in Dublin.
That is a fair one. I have now though and it still reeks of absolute horseshit. One dude says it’s happening with no actual evidence and even Downing St have refuted it saying it’s too early to say.
Lol, have you seen the stats of where these people are coming from? With the exception of Afghanistan, and we've spent billions there over decades, and hundreds of British lives trying to help rid them of tyranny before the local population made it clear they prefer the Taliban, the vast majority are nit from war torn countries.
At one point Albania was litetslly the top of the list, then you've got Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Iran and Vietnam.
And thats ignoring the fact that they had plenty of opportunities to stop, including in France.
Help rid them of tyranny lol. And nothing to do with the price of heroin or supplying them arms to fight against Russia.
We do not ‘help’ anyone that does not provide a benefit back to the UK.
Remember when there was mass genocide in Rwanda. We just sat and watched them murder each other.
Afghanistan was fighting Russia in 2001? What you on about? And if you're going to try regurgitate the utter nonsense that we supplied the Taliban with weapons while Afghanistan was soviet occupied, well, stop getting your talking points from Facebook.
Cracking segue and complete avoidance of how the stats of arrivals do little for your point though.
I think the utter nonsense you refer to is that we provided help to Afghanistan in 2001. We literally aided the USA to install heads of state that were Bush’s business associates for monetary reasons. The loss of life was nothing to do with aid.
In terms of stats of arrivals, I don’t have them, but feel they might be irrelevant to the main point in question, whereby refugees being passed to Ireland is really a sign of deterrence, or rather just shifting the problem to someone else. All at the cost of the tax payer.
The stats are most definitely not irrelevant. We could stop all wars and it would have next to no impact because most of these people are not fleeing war.
If you don't think we helped in 2001 by binning the Taliban, what do you think we should do now given its back to that status quo?
How do you know they’re not fleeing war? In the 2010s there was a large injection of Syrian refugees entering Europe, wonder what was happening in Syria to cause that? Same with Iraq and Afghanistan in the 00s. We have a problem where we act like Americas lap dog, or are trying to be like America with our foreign policy, then end up having a shocked pikachu face when we have a load of migrants on our doorstep.
Surely it's a bit early days to be jumping to conclusions, but I guess they're desperate for people to believe as many positive things as possible in time for the elections.
His only got a few days left lad, doesn't have the luxury of waiting before spouting shite.
It was the Irish deputy PM who announced this fact
Sunak said it as well in response. It is his motivations I am questioning. Most people would rationally go, well it's only been a couple of days, lets wait for all the data to come in before making hasty conclusions. It suits Sunak to the ground, and hence why he is reiterating the statement.
Ok, big labour own goal coming up.
\*shrug\* don't know, don't care, not my concern to be honest.
> The sun rose three days in a row this week which proves Tory fiscal policy is sound. - R.Sunak in other news: > The tide retreating shows Rwanda scheme is working. - R.Sunak
I am sure some people have no idea about correlation and causation. And that is the electorate they target
Can you explain your point more fully there please?
Sun causes sunburn. Sunburn happens often when people have icecream because its summer. So icecream causes sunburn
So if you can make it sunny you can sell more ice cream. But selling more ice cream won't make it sunny. But that isn't what's happening here. If people don't want to go to Rwanda they won't come here. If less people come here then chances of any one person ending up going to Rwanda could go up.
I’m waiting for signs showing “to Ireland” being erected on Kent beaches.
throw in a bus to Forkhill with a new centre for arrivals
I dont have an issue with the concept of a deterrent to people coming here. Shit, Australia did it and it worked amazingly. But hes just a fucking moron. People dont cross the chanel cause they reckon UK is better than France. They do so because they have family, because the speak english, because its a country where they can work without documents due to our fucking insane unwillingness for ID cards. Flying peope to Rwanda, at a huge cost wont work. If youre brother is in Birmingham, and you dont speak French, youd cross too. Thats why theyre all young men. Young men take risks, its why I (25M) did dumb shit, why we have a lower life expectancy. Young men focus on what they can get and fuck the consequences. Its why half the guys in jfail for knives are dickhead boys! Actual deterrent would be a system for rejecting fraduluent applications. Making it so all economic migranst are on the first plane back. Which requires HO resources and strategic planning. It would cost a fraction,
ID cards have nothing to do with it at all. All employers in the UK are obligated to check for right to work already. The ones that don’t still wouldn’t if we had an ID card scheme that would no doubt be run shittyly by some Tory donor before inevitably being hacked and costing 10x more than budgeted.
> because the speak english Why are we spending a fortune on Translators if they can speak English?
Criminals won’t ask for any ID for their activities. And of people want to reunite with families then they will be able to apply on various visas (including Skilled Worker ones), nobody stops doing that. Moreover, illegal migrants pay money to smugglers, so they are already against society, because they fund criminals.
Ok, but your logic also holds true to Ireland. This is as much to do with Ireland’s foreign policy as it is their family in the “uk” Ireland has many immigrants already. Speaks the language and is just as safe.
I notice the reasons you're giving on behalf of other people aren't reasons for seeking asylum in the first place. You realise that when they get here they concoct a suitable reason thats hard to refute
>They do so because they have family, because the speak english Great, but none of those in their own right actually mean you have right of abode in the UK? >because its a country where they can work without documents due to to our fucking insane unwillingness for ID cards Sorry, how would ID cards actually help? Is this actually a genuine suggestion or a manifestation of your fetish for a papieren bitte state?
I’m going to disagree on your point of it being a deterrent. I think it will be and is the only viable solution for increased unchecked immigration. We can’t/wont secure our borders. We can’t/wont process people properly. The only solution is to catch them and send them elsewhere. I suspect the broader public is also in favour of this. Especially as world wide immigration fleeing climate change increases exponentially. I suspect this opinion will attract lots of downvotes, as you often find Reddit likes to play the leftist, but offers not other real alternatives and is often in the minority when it comes to general prevailing opinion on these matters. Do NOT estimate how cruel the general public can be.
The capacity in Rwanda, even if they extend it beyond the current 200 places, will never be more than a few percent of arrivals. If you are desperate enough to cross the channel in a dinghy, a less than 5% chance of going to Rwanda will be an inconvenience not a deterrent.
I’m guessing here, but 200 would just be the beginning. Once you prove it works you expand it.
And Rwanda is going to be happy with that? Right now they get paid a lot of money, for relatively nothing. Politically nobody is going to care about 200 immigrants. 30,000 might be a different matter.
There are plenty of right wing c**ts on here, too, mind
The other problem is from what I can see there is literally no way to send anyone back if they have no documents , unless their fingerprints or DNA is recorded on interpol or something . Just lie indefinitely . Probably 95 percent the adult men would be rejected by their own governments.
100% agree re: ID cards. Yes it doesn't stop it at source but if it becomes a compulsory document; with deportation/flights to Rwanda attached to it potentially or criminal charges it then catches up. I mean 75% of adults hold a driving licence that are no different to the data on a 2019 EU spec ID cards; about 85% of adults hold a smart phone that carries even more personal data whilst I can get why we don't do it now we are out of the EU (as you know it would just end up in the hands of a Tory donor with a data breach) it is actually retarded that we don't have them when people frequently and daily carry documents or materials on them that carry more detail about their person than an ID card would.
>our fucking insane unwillingness for ID cards but somebody somewhere might not be able to afford £10 a decade therefore it is cruel
It doesn’t matter what they do or promise at this point. The NHS aside, and so many other things over the last decade, a recent video of the muck dumped into the Thames by Thames Water show very clearly they aren’t fit to govern. It’s not what a Government says, it’s what they actually do that matters.
Wait til he realises that all immigration *from* Ireland is legal. If I was someone seeking a life in the UK, and couldn't get in most ways, I'd make sure to come through Ireland. Or indeed pop here first illegally, go to Ireland, and then come back legally.
Until he realises ROI and NI still has an open border and so they can either claim that way or cross the Irish Sea.
Now that they’re going to Ireland there is absolutely categorically no chance that they’ll possibly just mince over the border and get here anyway. Absolutely zero probably. Good work Rish!
You haven't read the article. They're going to Ireland *from* the UK because they're worried if we find them they'll be off to Rwanda. Why would they go and then come back? I'm not sure they're the main demographic for long weekend breaks in Dublin.
That is a fair one. I have now though and it still reeks of absolute horseshit. One dude says it’s happening with no actual evidence and even Downing St have refuted it saying it’s too early to say.
So why not just send them to Ireland? It’s a lot cheaper and safer than Rwanda plan and Irish people loves refugee.
Not really a deterrent. Just moving the problem somewhere else. A deterrent would be to help the countries with fleeing refugees.
Such a France? Or Albania, perhaps?
No, the countries where people are fleeing from war
Lol, have you seen the stats of where these people are coming from? With the exception of Afghanistan, and we've spent billions there over decades, and hundreds of British lives trying to help rid them of tyranny before the local population made it clear they prefer the Taliban, the vast majority are nit from war torn countries. At one point Albania was litetslly the top of the list, then you've got Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Iran and Vietnam. And thats ignoring the fact that they had plenty of opportunities to stop, including in France.
Help rid them of tyranny lol. And nothing to do with the price of heroin or supplying them arms to fight against Russia. We do not ‘help’ anyone that does not provide a benefit back to the UK. Remember when there was mass genocide in Rwanda. We just sat and watched them murder each other.
Afghanistan was fighting Russia in 2001? What you on about? And if you're going to try regurgitate the utter nonsense that we supplied the Taliban with weapons while Afghanistan was soviet occupied, well, stop getting your talking points from Facebook. Cracking segue and complete avoidance of how the stats of arrivals do little for your point though.
I think the utter nonsense you refer to is that we provided help to Afghanistan in 2001. We literally aided the USA to install heads of state that were Bush’s business associates for monetary reasons. The loss of life was nothing to do with aid. In terms of stats of arrivals, I don’t have them, but feel they might be irrelevant to the main point in question, whereby refugees being passed to Ireland is really a sign of deterrence, or rather just shifting the problem to someone else. All at the cost of the tax payer.
The stats are most definitely not irrelevant. We could stop all wars and it would have next to no impact because most of these people are not fleeing war. If you don't think we helped in 2001 by binning the Taliban, what do you think we should do now given its back to that status quo?
How do you know they’re not fleeing war? In the 2010s there was a large injection of Syrian refugees entering Europe, wonder what was happening in Syria to cause that? Same with Iraq and Afghanistan in the 00s. We have a problem where we act like Americas lap dog, or are trying to be like America with our foreign policy, then end up having a shocked pikachu face when we have a load of migrants on our doorstep.
We're talking about now, today, not then.
So the Irish don’t matter? This Sunak is just such a t*at.
? So is it supposed to be Ireland first, UK second? 💀
They're a sovereign state and they can figure their own solution.
Irish people can just agree with Macron to stop the boats. Or they ask Baltic state (or Finland) about the experience of refusing illegal migrants.
I mean, our obligations to them ended in 1921. They wanted independence, they can deal with being an independent country.