Rwanda Poll

[Deleted member 294929]

I voted no as there are aspects that have just a political factor. It's better than making big waves in the channel. Nothing new about it. One country abandoned it another hasn't and it has reduced the number of boats

However until what they intend to do surfaces via rules and laws I'd vote pass if I could.

You can

 

[Deleted member 294929]

I was working . Had to get done before the lunch trade... no report seen or commented on

Also experienced it in Australia

 

[Justin Passing]

Although you are a wet Liberal type that's a good question, because you mention numbers, which means you are thinking in terms of of limits; something that the loony left never ever discusses.

At the moment we should take NO more foreigners, legal or illegal, because we already have far too many; do not know how many and have no control over them. In principle I do believe in taking in genuine refugees, but there should always be a defined limit. There should be a defined limit in the number; in the time they stay and in where they stay. By that last point I mean they should be contained in an area rather than allowed to move freely through the country as they are now. Most importantly, the cost of their stay should be recovered in the future from whatever belligerent nation or group displaced them.

We had Kosovan refugees over here in the 1990s. They caused no problems and eventually returned safely to their homeland. Do the people we currently call refugees intend to eventually go home?

As for how refugees should apply: through official channels.

Also, nobody has pointed out that I am wrong!

OK, I'll point out that you're wrong.
You say they should apply through official channels.
There isn't one.
Aready explained, you have to BE HERE to apply, but you can't get here legally.
So now what?

I've always advocated having a number. That would depend on type of refugee - and where from, etc.
Anyone without a UK passport should have to have an identity card .


I'm not a wet liberal but you're puerile tin-hat nutjob.
You san NO refugees - unless they're Ukranians. You're gonna have to do better than that. Other than Ukranians, none from any war or persecution anywhere? Find one other country with the same silly attitude.

 

[Deleted member 294929]

He said yhere was reports... I don't know if these were American reports or from someone cutting his hair. I simply said I've experienced it. Once in a Chinese takeaway and a few times in Australia.

And Hong kong and Thailand

 

[Deleted member 294929]

And Hong kong and Thailand

I also know of old school friends who were illegal in the US

 

[JP_]

No it isn't.

Do you remember when all those Jewish people invaded Poland in the 40s, setting up their camp sites all over the place? It's the same as then.

And when the Britons invaded Wales, after the Romans came here on holiday.

And when the Africans invaded the Americas, using our Navy and ships to do so!

All these prove invading all these times. About time we stopped them, by forcing them on to another country that doesn't want them or have the resources to look after them.

The Rwandans are great at looking after vulnerable people, i think they've won awards for human rights achievements. They really looked after the Tutsis, so well we never even hear about them these days. They must all be very happy now.

 

[Ihavenojob]

You mean you ended up here for a reason other than boredom? A diy query maybe?

No friends.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

That report is total nonsense, for obvious reasons.

Direct your complaint to Migration Watch.

I'm going to use an analogy, maybe not a very good one, however it will hopefully demonstrate my point.

A few years back there was a tv series about various streets in the UK.

I remember that series and yes it was interesting. What I remember mostly, and this is changing the subject, is how a lot of old properties were demolished in the 1960s and replaced with tower blocks. The tower blocks only lasted a few decades whilst the old houses that were not demolished are still standing and have been refurbished to very high standards. The tower blocks cost a fortune to maintain and so the obvious conclusion to draw is that the towers should never have been built and the money spent instead on the old houses. That is an example of an extremely poor government decision.

Back to the subject...the past immigration trends that you refer to are not relatable to the present day, because current immigration levels are unprecedentedly and deliberately high, this being a result of government policy. Also, anything on the BBC about the racial mix of Britain in the past must be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[transam]

Mind you if there are any professional people in this boat migrants

such as doctors
Engineers ect they should be
Allowed to stay ??? Than again this catetgory of people should not
Have to get on a rubber boat in the first place ?

mind you I dare say the French scoundrels have already sorted them out

so the UK only get the dead beats

 

[ReganAndCarter]

While sending migrants to Rwanda may seem a slightly mad idea, with all the costs, legal challenges and logistical problems - it will quickly reduce the numbers coming here. It worked for Australia. So in the long term, it's a very cost effective and productive scheme.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

The BBC merely reports on data from ONS and other governmental organisations. They don't invent the news, unless mynameisbod and ihavenojob are undercover BBC reporters. But as they appear to have difficulty with making sensible contributions to a discussion forum, I doubt if they'd be able to complete the application form correctly. That's why he's called ihavenojob.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

While sending migrants to Rwanda may seem a slightly mad idea, with all the costs, legal challenges and logistical problems - it will quickly reduce the numbers coming here. It worked for Australia. So in the long term, it's a very cost effective and productive scheme.

Rwanda is the most densely populated country in Africa and we are the most densely populated country in Europe. The migrants want to come to densely populated but rich England where they are not wanted; they don't want to go to densely populated but poor Rwanda where I am certain they will not be wanted also, so there may be trouble ahead.

Most of Africa used to be part of Britain, and the world was peaceful and prosperous then; we had a reciprocal relationship with the Africans. If we cannot be rid of this current "migration crisis" why can't we turn it to our advantage and get them working for us in return for the help we are extending to them?

Just as I have always advocated that dole recipients should work for their money, why shouldn't we make the immigrants to Rwanda do some productive work to provide us with whatever produce Rwanda is abundant in?

Perhaps Rwanda could become British territory? Why should all the help be one-way?

 

[noseall]

But they do. There are reports regularly of places of work being raided and illegals being arrested. Working for peanuts and paying no tax is a double kick in the balls for the UK economy.

People that earn 'peanuts' don't pay income tax but they pay tax on all the stuff they need to survive. Bonus for the UK.

 

[Mottie]

People that earn 'peanuts' don't pay income tax but they pay tax on all the stuff they need to survive. Bonus for the UK.

In the same way as violent criminals and burglars spend their ill gotten gains. Is that also a bonus for the UK in your eyes?

 

[noseall]

In the same way as violent criminals and burglars spend their ill gotten gains. Is that also a bonus for the UK in your eyes?

Proceeds of Crime recovery is a good thing, yes. Criminals should be brought to justice - yes. People that have no intention of working and sponge benefits are a drain on the UK - yes.