They didn't stop the boats.

[srb7677]

It would only have needed a tweak by Labour to make the plan work like that , would have been better than dumping it altogether .Agreed .

The problem was the politics of it. The scheme as formulated by the Tories had become so discredited in the eyes of the moral majority and the sort of people whose votes Labour needs that it had to be ditched for political reasons.

If the Tories had instead invested the money wasted on it in quicker processing of asylum claims, and kept Rwanda in the mix solely as somewhere to send failed asylum seekers whose nation of origin could not be determined, it would have made much more sense, would likely not have fallen foul of human rights legislation and faced much less of a challenge in court. Support for it amongst the electorate would have been far broader, and Labour would likely have continued the policy.

But the Tory version so fouled their own nest on this one that Labour felt compelled the throw the nest away, and ultimately will have to come up with something else, if original country of origin not being discoverable becomes a big thing.

[Streetwalker]

Having some such nation specifically to send failed asylum seekers to when their countries of origin are not known makes some practical sense. If that was what the Rwanda plan had been it would have made more sense. 

It would only have needed a tweak by Labour to make the plan work like that , would have been better than dumping it altogether .

But it wasn't. It was a plan to send a few hundred asylum seekers - a mere drop in the ocean - to Rwanda without their claims having even been processed, and leaving them there even if their claims subsequently proved to be valid. In that sense it was an expensive and unjust gimmick.

Agreed . 

[Scott777]

Because I have been busy moving two houses whilst looking after my autistic son and my father with dementia and running a business.

Much as I love our discussions they sometimes have to take a backseat to life.

Well that's fair enough then.  It just looked fishy that you were posting a lot in other places, but not the things where you struggled to justify an argument.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  😉

[srb7677]

That would be a reasonable course of action though would be made easier by the cancelled Rwanda plan which could have come into play  instead of prosecution and  imprisonment

Having some such nation specifically to send failed asylum seekers to when their countries of origin are not known makes some practical sense. If that was what the Rwanda plan had been it would have made more sense. But it wasn't. It was a plan to send a few hundred asylum seekers - a mere drop in the ocean - to Rwanda without their claims having even been processed, and leaving them there even if their claims subsequently proved to be valid. In that sense it was an expensive and unjust gimmick.

[Streetwalker]

Send them to their countries of origin where these can be determined. For cases where they cannot we make it a criminal offence not to reveal your true country of origin and deter that by the threat of prosecution and imprisonment. We also log, fingerprint and photograph them so that if they should return once deported we can identify them quickly. All such fingerprints and photographs should be stored on a database, and all new arrivals checked for possible matches.

That would be a reasonable course of action though would be made easier by the cancelled Rwanda plan which could have come into play  instead of prosecution and  imprisonment 

[srb7677]

Faster processing is fine — those accepted are in, but to where does the UK return those it rejects, and how?

Setting up asylum and visa application facilities abroad isn't going to stop small boats arriving, and once they do, and the passengers are apprehended and processed, the same problem arises — ie, to where does the UK send those it rejects...?

Send them to their countries of origin where these can be determined. For cases where they cannot we make it a criminal offence not to reveal your true country of origin and deter that by the threat of prosecution and imprisonment. We also log, fingerprint and photograph them so that if they should return once deported we can identify them quickly. All such fingerprints and photographs should be stored on a database, and all new arrivals checked for possible matches.

[Nick]

I do not disagree with you, but nevertheless maintain that faster processing of claims can only be a good thing, because this will mean the genuine ones being integrated into the economy much more quickly and the failed ones being deported much more quickly.

I acknowledge that the problem is international but our ability to process claims of people arriving here isn't. It is something we can do ourselves just by investing sufficient resources to do the job reasonably quickly

The issue is that now, faster just means let them all in. Starmer has the lowest vote tally for ages, Labour will be trying to turn percentages into votes in the next 5 years, at any cost. 

[Nick]

Thank you,. It's been a ride and we're only half way through!

I will get back to the great global warming debate, but frankly I've forgotten where we got to and it's a hell of a ball ache to reread all those posts to get my head around it.again.

Doesn't matter for now, your family is more important. 

[patman post]

I do not disagree with you, but nevertheless maintain that faster processing of claims can only be a good thing, because this will mean the genuine ones being integrated into the economy much more quickly and the failed ones being deported much more quickly.

I acknowledge that the problem is international but our ability to process claims of people arriving here isn't. It is something we can do ourselves just by investing sufficient resources to do the job reasonably quickly

Faster processing is fine — those accepted are in, but to where does the UK return those it rejects, and how?

Setting up asylum and visa application facilities abroad isn't going to stop small boats arriving, and once they do, and the passengers are apprehended and processed, the same problem arises — ie, to where does the UK send those it rejects...?

[BeElBeeBub]

I wish you all the best with that Mr B, that is a lot of weight for one person. Life does really suck some times.

Thank you,. It's been a ride and we're only half way through!

I will get back to the great global warming debate, but frankly I've forgotten where we got to and it's a hell of a ball ache to reread all those posts to get my head around it.again.

[Nick]

Because I have been busy moving two houses whilst looking after my autistic son and my father with dementia and running a business.

Much as I love our discussions they sometimes have to take a backseat to life.

I wish you all the best with that Mr B, that is a lot of weight for one person. Life does really suck some times. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Why did you run away from our discussion on climate change?  Did you concede that the world's richest would benefit from an electric world?

https://pol-tics.com/index.php?topic=7009.msg125108#msg125108

Because I have been busy moving two houses whilst looking after my autistic son and my father with dementia and running a business.

Much as I love our discussions they sometimes have to take a backseat to life. 

[papasmurf]

There have always been people who have fled the country due to excessive immigration, thus themselves becoming an immigrant in someone else's country.  Usually they are too stupid to recognise either the irony or hypocrisy in their decision.

It would not be immigration the reason for my decision.

[srb7677]

Frankly I am getting more and more tempted to do just that.

There have always been people who have fled the country due to excessive immigration, thus themselves becoming an immigrant in someone else's country.  Usually they are too stupid to recognise either the irony or hypocrisy in their decision. 

[Scott777]

Why did you run away from our discussion on climate change?  Did you concede that the world's richest would benefit from an electric world?

https://pol-tics.com/index.php?topic=7009.msg125108#msg125108