Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Draft Bill

[motorbiking]

and after her little lobbying speech. Her answer was - because they don’t want to.

They are in fact perfectly cable of claiming asylum and being given protection in any one of those countries.

The one place they can no longer claim asylum in if they cross illegally is the U.K.

 

[denso13]

The one place they can no longer claim asylum in if they cross illegally is the U.K.

And the only way they can cross is illegal.

 

[Brigadier]

Half a billion plus to the French excluding what has already been given

It's beyond question that this shower are lying, and corrupt.

But I can't believe that they (and especially, their legal representation) can seriously be this inept (not getting the Rwanda farce across the line).

Which makes me think it's all been done, to fail, by design.


Billions spaffed.

Billions stolen.


And some of you tnucs will vote for them next year.


Jeez us wept.......

 

[Roy Bloom]

The answer to the question she was asked is "because they don't want to claim in France". Again not as catchy as a her prepared speech on behalf of the lobby group she represents(ed)

You're suffering from cloth ears as well. The end of the question was: "why are they not claiming asylum in France, Italy, etc"
You've tried to change reality, and that's not possible.

Here's the address for video clip for you to clarify your confusion.

What to say when someone asks: 'why don't people claim asylum in the first safe country they reach?'

Zoe Gardner answers the big refugee question once and for all, for Jonathan Gullis and to everyone else who ever wondered.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

 

[Roy Bloom]

Not at all

£140million per person would be a lot

Last year it was £140million per zero persons

This year around £100million more for zero persons.

Don't forget the 3 sent by the PM. We can even name them:
Pritti Patel, sent by Boris.
Suella Bareverman sent by Rishi, and now
James Cleverly, or not so cleverly.

 

[Roy Bloom]

How much has the UK paid out to France ?? Ref migrant related ??

And that hasn't succeeded either.

Would you care to count up the amount paid to France (about £250,000,00 so far ), and add it to that paid to Rwanda. (£300,000,000)
Suella paid an extra £8,000,000 to France this year. https://www.channel4.com/news/migrant-deal-uk-to-pay-france-8-million-more-a-year-to-stop-small-boats#:~:text=The UK has agreed to pay another £8,of people crossing the Channel in small boats.
Thwen there's the £500,000,000 paid by Rishi. https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2023/0310/1361527-britain-france/
No wonder the UK is broke, it's paying everyone else to stop the boats, but it's not working.

Tories, the party of economics.

How much has it cost?​

The border security agreements with France have cost about £232m, according to the House of Commons Library:

• 2014: £12m over three years
• 2015: £10m over two years
• 2016: £17m
• 2018: £45.5m
• 2019: £3.25m
• 2020: £28.1m
• 2021: £54m
• 2022: £62.2m.

A further £87m has been paid to France since 2014 for border control purposes, according to the same briefing paper.
The UK committed to another £476m of funding in France between 2023 and 2026, in a joint UK-France declaration on addressing illegal migration.
All of these figures are in cash terms and have not been adjusted for inflation.

Are more small boats being stopped by French police?

Health Secretary Steve Barclay claimed 40% more boats have been stopped this year than last year.

www.bbc.com

Trying to stop the boats must be the most foolhardy policy of the century.

 

[motorbiking]

And the only way they can cross is illegal.

72,000 managed to apply last year via safe legal routes.

 

[denso13]

72,000 managed to apply last year via safe legal routes.

And some didn't because there are none for them.

 

[motorbiking]

You're suffering from cloth ears as well. The end of the question was: "why are they not claiming asylum in France, Italy, etc"
You've tried to change reality, and that's not possible.

Here's the address for video clip for you to clarify your confusion.

What to say when someone asks: 'why don't people claim asylum in the first safe country they reach?'

Zoe Gardner answers the big refugee question once and for all, for Jonathan Gullis and to everyone else who ever wondered.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Nobody is changing reality. The ones who come to the U.K. are perfectly capable of claiming protection in any one of the half a dozen safe countries that they pass through.

The simple fact is they don’t want to. They’d rather take their chances with a trafficker and pay 1500-3000 to cross the channel in a dingy.

 

[foxhole]

Mucking fuddle .

 

[motorbiking]

And some didn't because there are none for them.

Could always stay in france.

It’s a lovely country which still has better wine than the U.K. Though with climate change, not for much longer.

The South and west coast is very nice and they speak a little slower so it’s easier to learn the language.

 

[denso13]

The simple fact is they don’t want to.

Yes, and some support their choice to do that and others don't.

 

[motorbiking]

Fair enough.

 

[denso13]

Could always stay in france.

Could always have an application judged on its merits.

 

[JohnD]

Actually that was her answer.

And where is yours?