Death in the channel…again

[Roy Bloom]

How much do they cost the taxpayer?

The cost of keeping asylum seekers in accomodation is more about the failure of the asylum process.
That's absolutely the fault of the government, not that of the asylum seekers.

Perhaps TUI could be commissioned to provide a nice brochure to help them pick?

Perhaps you could ask them?

Nothing in the Charter prevents a state from removing an asylum seeker to a safe 3rd country (e.g. Dublin convention). So no they can't choose where they end up.

The non-refoulement is in the Charter and wouldalso be considered by the ECHR.

The principle of non-refoulement forms an essential protection under international human rights, refugee, humanitarian and customary law.

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/ThePrincipleNon-RefoulementUnderInternationalHumanRightsLaw.pdf

The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement,

https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention

 

[motorbiking]

If a country is a safe 3rd country, then there is no issue of non-refoulement.

The cost of keeping asylum seekers in accommodation is more about the failure of the asylum process.

How much would an alternative solution cost?

I would have thought these are important questions that people should appraise themselves with, if they want to engage in credible debate.

 

[Roy Bloom]

If a country is a safe 3rd country, then there is no issue of non-refoulement.

If the 'safe' country, that is prepared to take the asylum seekers from UK can be found, I rather suspect it would have been found by now.

How much would an alternative solution cost?

You mean a working system for processing asylum seekers?
We had one before. What happened to it?

I would have thought these are important questions that people should appraise themselves with, if they want to engage in credible debate.

I woulld have thought that declaring all asylum seekers arriving in UK as illegal, and trying to fly them out to Rwanda, is hardly conducive to a credible debate.

 

[motorbiking]

oh dear the rolling eyes are out again... You'll go blind if you keep doing that.

The UK is not declaring all asylum seekers arriving in the UK as illegal nor are they trying to fly them all out to Rwanda. Why do you think that?

 

[Roy Bloom]

The UK is not declaring all asylum seekers arriving in the UK as illegal nor are they trying to fly them all out to Rwanda. Why do you think that?

Is it not obvious?
At £170,000 per asylum seeker? It would cost about £28 Billion to send them all !!!!! That's just the bribes to Rwanda. The cost of transport on top?
Might as well throw the money in the boats for the asylum seekers to collect and go elsewhere.

 

[motorbiking]

More 2D thinking.

A man with a shotgun can easily hold 100 people captive. Why? Because nobody fancies their chances when the odds are 1:50. The same applies to Rwanda.

 

[Notch7]

Momentum is very much running the show still

I don’t see any evidence of that.

Starmer has sacked or demoted the Corbyn cultists whenever he has an opportunity.
there are some MPs which are also members of the Socialist Campaign Group but they are mostly keeping quiet.

Momentum still exist, but they certainly don’t run the show.

 

[gant]

Poor notchy, do you think this lot will stay quiet if labour gets elected, they walk amongst you, don't choke on your sugar puffs

What we stand for – Labour Left Internationalists

We are putting forward a programme that centres on three big themes: 1. Democracy 2. Class struggle 3. Internationalism If you want to be a part of the campaign, and develop and shape its politics, head to the Get Involved page and sign up. 1. Democracy One of the basic problems in society –...

momentuminternationalists.org

If your still standing bone up on Clive Lewis one of Corbyn ex cabinet ministers here's a flavour

Labour Must 'Open The Borders' And Back Free Movement, Says Clive Lewis

Shadow minister says party is guilty of "moral failure" for not defending migrants' rights.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

 

[Notch7]

More 2D thinking.

A man with a shotgun can easily hold 100 people captive. Why? Because nobody fancies their chances when the odds are 1:50. The same applies to Rwanda.

yeah thats the Tory propaganda line.

 

[Notch7]

Poor notchy, do you think this lot will stay quiet if labour gets elected, they walk amongst you, don't choke on your sugar puffs

What we stand for – Labour Left Internationalists

We are putting forward a programme that centres on three big themes: 1. Democracy 2. Class struggle 3. Internationalism If you want to be a part of the campaign, and develop and shape its politics, head to the Get Involved page and sign up. 1. Democracy One of the basic problems in society –...

momentuminternationalists.org

If your still standing bone up on Clive Lewis one of Corbyn ex cabinet ministers

I didn’t say they they didn’t exist, I said they aren’t running the show.

try to comprehend what you read more carefully it will help you

 

[Notch7]

If your still standing bone up on Clive Lewis one of Corbyn ex cabinet ministers

He has no power, please try to avoid making irrelevant points

 

[gant]

Nice try notchy, spine a little wobbly now you've been reminded of the bogey men in your party you'd air brushed out

 

[Roy Bloom]

More 2D thinking.

More then twice the value of your blinkered, short-sighted one-eyed view.
In the world of the blind, the one-eyed person is king.

A man with a shotgun can easily hold 100 people captive. Why? Because nobody fancies their chances when the odds are 1:50. The same applies to Rwanda.

I suspect their chances of crossing the Channel were little better than 1:50, so the risk of going to Rwanda is much better odds.
How many asylum seekers arrived since the Bill was passed into law? How may have been sent to Rwanda so far?

Actuslly the odds of being sent to Rwanda are better than 1:50, even if the plan had serious legs.
Supposedly the plan would allow for 500 per year to be sent to Rwnada, if it was ruled legal by all agencies, and so far there's no indication that it will be, and assumimg that Rwanda keeps their side of the 'bargain'. (There have been asylum seeekrs from Rwanda, seeking asylum in other countries. ), and assuming that Rwanda does not send any asylum seekers to UK.
Let's assume about 30,000 per year 'boat arrivals' to UK, and only 500 per year can be sent to Rwanda, I'd say that's more like a 1:60 chance.
And it'll cost UK about £85 Million per year to send 500 asylum seekers to Rwanda.
And Rwanda gets to keep the money whatever happens.

Might as well give the money away on the beaches of France. That way each potential asylum seeker could have about £3K each, per year, and stay in France.

 

[Notch7]

Nice try notchy, spine a little wobbly now you've been reminded of the bogey men in your party you'd air brushed out

Not my party

and he isn’t a bogey man, he has no power.

back to the drawing board for you eh

 

[Notch7]

The UK is not declaring all asylum seekers arriving in the UK as illegal

You said recently they were illegal immigrants.

The UK is not declaring all asylum seekers arriving in the UK as illegal nor are they trying to fly them all out to Rwanda. Why do you think that

False argument

UK has a few, very few agreed schemes.

UK has no schemes to help those from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Eritrea and the Afghanistan scheme is not fit for purpose.

this argument of “they should come by legal routes“ is Tory propaganda.