We do. I’ve never said we shouldn’t. Define 'some' and tell us how you would choose.we should accept some refugees, that’s what decent countries do.
We do. I’ve never said we shouldn’t. Define 'some' and tell us how you would choose.we should accept some refugees, that’s what decent countries do.
It's hard for me to imagine why you would volunteer to starve yourself when you have escaped from war and starvation once alreadySeekers ( 18?) are on hunger strike as they are going to be deported to Rwanda they said they would rather die than go to Rwanda ?
In other words ukraine and other european refugees are welcome and everyone else is going for a trip to Rwandawe should accept some refugees, that’s what decent countries do.
it’s illegal to send them to Rwanda, it’s just a dead cat to appeal to the base - it won’t be successful, as Australia proves
We do not accept any by legal meansWe do. I’ve never said we shouldn’t. Define 'some' and tell us how you would choose.
second time they don't get a parachuteThis is a deterant. So far seems to be working... the way I understand is that once in Rwanda they are free to leave. Then they can start all over again.
But how will they learn this?
I don't think papers like the Mail and Express are available in Africa and the BBC has a limited reach. And even then, what would you do when faced with famine, drought, war and all the problems faced by these people.
yeah, Mottie's already pointed that out - but we already have reports that an asylum seeker has less of an easy life than the tabloids would have you believe. Kept in little more than prison, or at least Borstal, conditions, and driven through a process that would make Kafka weep with despair.By exactly the same route the information takes to get to them, that UK life is an easy life for asylum seekers.
And as Minj eeta pointed out; this country is tripping over itself to bring Ukrainians over here while African and Middle Easterners are not welcomed to the same extent. You can see why the UK is accused of institutionalised racism when you put these two side-by-side.
We do not accept any by legal means
so that’s your argument gone in a second
In these 'woke' days you aren't seriously suggesting that females get preferential treatment to men are you?The reason for the apparent bias is obvious - The Ukrainians are westernised and better able to fit in with UK society, most are not adult male and are obviously not economic migrants.
Got it in oneIn other words ukraine and other european refugees are welcome and everyone else is going for a trip to Rwanda
You say 'bias' - some say 'prejudice'.The reason for the apparent bias is obvious - The Ukrainians are westernised and better able to fit in with UK society, most are not adult male and are obviously not economic migrants.
1. People granted protection and other leave through asylum and resettlement routes
This section covers individuals granted leave to remain in the UK via three routes: applying for asylum, resettlement, and family reunion visas.
The UK offered protection, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement, to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021. Of these:
Additionally, 6,134 partners and children of refugees living in the UK were granted entry to the UK through family reunion visas, 28% more than the previous year.
- 81% were granted refugee status following an asylum application (‘asylum’)
- 6% were granted humanitarian protection
- 2% were granted alternative forms of leave (such as discretionary leave, UASC leave)
- 11% were granted refugee status through resettlement schemes
In these 'woke' days you aren't seriously suggesting that females get preferential treatment to men are you?
If the men are lgbt+ does that make any difference?