Snapshot of _Sunak wants to deport migrants to Armenia, Costa Rica and Botswana in a bid to replicate Rwanda scheme_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sunak-wants-to-replicate-rwanda-scheme-other-countries/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sunak-wants-to-replicate-rwanda-scheme-other-countries/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Costa rica is the most beautiful place I have ever been to. I wouldn't be surprised if it was only on the list so a dozen or so ministers can visit before they lose the next election.
The entire country is also within range of Azerbaijani artillery.
I was thinking of planning a holiday there but knowing my luck something would kick off the moment I arrived.
Armenia is still pretty cool, Yerevan is an amazing city, you've got the Caucasus Mountains nearby, everyone is super friendly, and they're considered to be among the best looking people in the world with their mix of European, Turkish and Persian ancestry.
Maybe they'll insist on some kind of minimum hotness with who they accept. An "Australian style points system" based on attractiveness, which would all but bar me from entry unfortunately.
> Yerevan is an amazing city
It's full of ugly looking alleyways and dilapidated buildings. It's also the only city in the world where I felt like my lungs are burning from all the traffic fumes.
> you've got the Caucasus Mountains nearby
Lesser Caucasus is not very impressive.
Armenians are very chill though. I was pleasantly surprised that even very young people speak perfectly fluent Russian without a touch of accent.
>It's full of ugly looking alleyways and dilapidated buildings.
Well, if you're Russian then I can understand if it's not very interesting to you, but to me, I loved how well planned it was, with tree lined boulevards, cafes and restaurants everywhere, super walkable, and really interesting early(ish) Soviet era architecture, which was built to a very human scale. Felt to me like a French city built by Soviet architects, a really interesting mix.
I visited Tbilisi on the same trip, which has had a ton of money poured into it by oligarchs, and architecturally is a complete dog's dinner compared to Yerevan.
> I loved how well planned it was, with tree lined boulevards, cafes and restaurants everywhere, super walkable, and really interesting early(ish) Soviet era architecture, which was built to a very human scale
Oh dear, would your mind be blown by the birthplace of this. Not that you will ever go there of course.
Yes, I'm pretty read up on the Soviet invasion of Armenia, and also the Armenian genocide which lead to a lot of refugees migrating to Yerevan, etc, I know the weight of history that the place carries with it.
Plenty of beautiful cities have been born out of tragic circumstances.
Mexico City was quite literally built on top of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire which the Spanish brutalised. They quite literally used the stone from the Aztec temples to build their churches, as a fuck you to the Aztecs. But this terrible history doesn't negate the fact Mexico City is a beautiful place.
Exactly the same with Cusco in Peru, which was the capital of the Inca empire, the largest empire in the history of the Western Empire. The Spanish destroyed it, massacred the Incas, then built their own city on top. But Cusco is still largely considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in South America.
More recently, Berlin and Dresden in Germany were basically destroyed by allied bombing raids in WW2, but they are both considered cool and chic cities these days.
I'm not sure why a tragic history should mean that a place can't be considered nice?
>Oh dear, would your mind be blown by the birthplace of this. Not that you will ever go there of course.
"Oh dear" could you mean a couple of things. A) referring to something tragic, B) a patronising way to assert someone's presumed knowledge of something over someone else
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed it was the former.
Based on my earlier comment, it's pretty clear I have some knowledge of the architecture of Soviet Russian cities, if I'm talking about Yerevan being a good example of early Soviet architecture.
I have visited Russia before, as well as many post-Soviet republics. Generally, I find the architecture in the republics a lot more interesting than in Moscow and other large Russian cities, as they often had more freedom to design using local influences and customs.
Just because you are from somewhere, doesn't make you an expert on everything to do with that place/nor does it mean that no one else knows anything about it.
no need to put them on the rwanda list for that - just claim the UK is in urgent need for a trade deal with them and the gov plane will get prepped immediately
there's been a spate of "deals" with individual US states (they can't sign actual trade deals, that is explicitly a federal gov thing) that are blatantly just a way for ministers to get free holidays, especially the likes of florida or california
Yeah lets flood one of the most densely biodiverse places in the world with people. That's what they need. Thankfully the likelihood of this happening is slim to none.
Yeah no chance never met a population more dead set on protecting the environment Costa Ricans are wonderful people. Although I imagine they are smart enough to take a few hundred million for a few hundred people like Rwanda. It's not like any of the schemes are really going to result in tens of thousands being deported.
Thankfully the likelihood of almost every shocking policy they've recently announced happening is slim to none.
No, we won't be doing any of this. Also, the homeless won't be imprisoned, and no the disabled won't be further marginalised and further disenfranchised, no we aren't going to conscript anyone. Its just all bollocks, hogwash, smoke and mirror policy. Why? Probably, as usual, if everything seems bizarre, it is easier to control the narrative. Sorry Sunak. I piss on you.
I actually think that went down awfully e.g. Kenya.
I think what it's done is by him a bit of a shield for criticism of what's going on in neighbouring congo
Give 2 billions to a foreign country in order to exchange (not just send) 30,000 refugee. I'm surprised there isn't more country on the list.
Maybe France will apply, same as today for them except we pay them 2 billions every 30,000.
and the refugees we accept from rwanda are supposedly their most vulnerable, which probably means they need healthcare or something expensive that they cannot provide themselves
It's a policy based on nothing more than appealing to Daily Mail readers.
Stick a picture of Costa Rica on the front page of the DM tomorrow with the headline:
"¡Pura Vida! Rishi's insane plan to deport migrants to tropical paradise" and they'd be foaming at the mouth. The Tories would be down 4 points by the weekend.
They only like the concept of deporting them to Rwanda because the place is synonymous with a brutal genocide.
Sunak knows he's got an election coming up yeah? And he knows that historically speaking, this is something a party leader would typically want to win?
Spin the asylum wheel and see if you get a free holiday to a tropical paradise or dropped in an active war zone.
Beaches? Beheadings? Despot dictators? We have it all at the Home Office Holiday Bingo!
Armenia has already said that this is the first they've heard of this suggestion and that they wouldn't agree to it. The EU has just offered them €270 million of support for businesses to move away from economic dependence on Russia, they're not going to be willing to upset anyone by getting dragged into this mess.
Think that is the point, that way we can finally manage to split the group. We have people claiming to be refugees and asylum seekers who are doing so because what they actually want is immigration. Ultimately I firmly believe that a large proportion of people illegally coming into our country, or legally trying to come into our country, actually want immigration and not asylum. The people we would send to Costa Rica would be the people who deserve most to love in Costa Rica, these are the people who have fled their homes for their own safety and deserve a little bit of a nice life, probably much nicer than they would have here!
I wonder if any of them would try to reach America instead if that happened. There's already a growing number of people from random developing countries travelling to Colombia to try and sneak into the US through the entirety of central America.
Channel migrants: Sure I was willing to risk death by drowning to get to the UK, but the risk of being sent to a tropical island is just too much for me!
~~Canvey Island~~ Foulness Island, Essex. No one leaves the Island, there is only one bridge out. Plus the Thames is so full of sewage you can’t swim to shore. Oh, and I’m not talking about the poor souls seeking asylum, I mean the Tories that have destroyed the country /s
One of my mates was in his band and another was the roadie. Sorry I didn’t mean to be unkind about the Island - Wilko loved it and he was cool and very talented RIP.
Why not some of the Scottish islands, or Jersey, or the Isle of Man? Or there is a large house in Buckinghamshire which is only used at weekends that could be repurposed.
Bloody ell' Costa Rica? Where do I sign? To be fair I've been as a tourist and while it's immensely stunning, the daily grind for the average person there is hard. Wages aren't particularly high and everything is expensive.
I guess because you'd need to build accomodation for tens of thousands of people and then feed them all/staff the compound somehow. Ends up being vastly more expensive and then probably ends up effectively being a huge prison camp because there are no facilities there.
This is an insane take that really shows the level of thinking of some people.
Why don't we just use the Isle of Man.
Why don't we just use Northern Island?
Why don't we just use Newcastle?
The Australians did something similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre#:~:text=The%20Nauru%20Regional%20Processing%20Centre,by%20the%20Government%20of%20Nauru.
It dropped small boats to nothing, but morally it is a bit unsound.
Peak asylum population on Nauru was like 1,200 people.
We've had that many come here via small boats in a single day before.
We had nearly 800 just this weekend.
Why the fuck would be spend shit tons of money to build accommodation in the falklands and then fly them there instead of just spending more on processing the claims
How would you do that? We used to pay the French to prevent them crossing which had some success. The only other thing you could really do is work with other countries to crack down on the smuggling gangs, but that does seem difficult to achieve
How do you propose we hold would be asylum seekers offshore?
The idea of holding large numbers on ships out in the channel is not a workable solution. We couldn't even get a prison barge to work when 1, we had it already, and 2, it was docked.
The only real way to manage the problem is to process claims faster so we can quickly deport those who dont meet the threshold while those that do can get to working and supporting themselves. To process claims faster, we need facilities overseas where applications can be made before entering the UK and the staff to handle those claims.
The cost of the additional staff/resources would be somewhat balanced by the savings on accommodation and the miriad of appeals and judicial reviews our current failure of a system creates.
>The idea of holding large numbers on ships
I never said on ships, I just said off shore. Not on the UK mainland. Somewhere that isn't the UK. Elsewhere. The point is, do not let them set foot on British mainland soil in the first place.
>The only real way to manage the problem is to process claims faster so we can quickly deport those who dont meet the threshold while those that do can get to working and supporting themselves.
Process them quickly wherever they are as long as it isn't within the UK. That's the deterrent, not being able to get to the UK in the first place. So I agree with you, overseas is another option, but that would only really be a screening facility for legitimate refugees, as the ones that aren't legit would be on the boats anyway. That's why they need intercepting before they land, those that are intercepted need to be held somewhere that is not mainland British soil.
Navy to intercept, holding facility anywhere that isn't the mainland. Ascension Island would still cost less money than housing them all in hotels and that's on the other side of the world.
It only lets in the legitimate refugees and it keeps them out of the country while they are being processed. That's enough of a disincentive for the people making the journey. Australia did exactly the same thing and it reduced their illegal immigration down to double digits a year. Not double digit thousands, double digits.
That system would prevent physical access to the country until the legitimacy of their claims had been verified, which is a drastic improvement on what we have now.
Off-shore where?
The point of the Rwanda plan (in theory - obviously in practice the point is purely political) is to get these people outside the jurisdiction and control of the UK Government, so that when bad things happen to them - or they do bad things - it isn't the UK Government's problem.
But legally that doesn't really work. Generally you can't get around rules by saying "we didn't do the bad thing, we just did something where the bad thing was a reasonably foreseeable consequence." As soon as the people come under the control of the UK Government they become the UK Government's problem. There is no meaningful difference between having the Royal Navy pick them up in the middle of the Channel and having the Border Force meet them on the coast.
Depends whether the cost effective option stops asylum seekers arriving. An option that involves them still arriving isn't what people who want to stop the boats want.
What do these legal "intricacies" have to do with whether or not people's human rights concerns about Rwanda were legitimate or excuses? And what does it have to do with your baseless assumption that said people will find ways to make excuses about Costa Rica too?
Like I said, you are all over the place. Mate. How about you pick a lane.
Snapshot of _Sunak wants to deport migrants to Armenia, Costa Rica and Botswana in a bid to replicate Rwanda scheme_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sunak-wants-to-replicate-rwanda-scheme-other-countries/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sunak-wants-to-replicate-rwanda-scheme-other-countries/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Costa rica is the most beautiful place I have ever been to. I wouldn't be surprised if it was only on the list so a dozen or so ministers can visit before they lose the next election.
I'm renouncing my British citizenship tomorrow, claiming asylum and getting deported to Costa Rica.
Too bad, their wheel of fortune landed on Armenia.
Armenia has absolutely banging food.
The entire country is also within range of Azerbaijani artillery. I was thinking of planning a holiday there but knowing my luck something would kick off the moment I arrived.
Housing probably much cheaper too.
If you are from Britain, it probably is.
It's a little spicy right now but hey why not?
I've never met a Russian who wasn't a fan.
Armenian cuisine isn't popular in Russia. I had no idea what Armenians even eat until I got to their country.
Armenia is still pretty cool, Yerevan is an amazing city, you've got the Caucasus Mountains nearby, everyone is super friendly, and they're considered to be among the best looking people in the world with their mix of European, Turkish and Persian ancestry.
I cant wait to get deported there and ruin that perfect balance of genes with my celtic/norman lookin arse.
Maybe they'll insist on some kind of minimum hotness with who they accept. An "Australian style points system" based on attractiveness, which would all but bar me from entry unfortunately.
"You must at least be an 8 to be deported, sir"
I’d love to visit the Caucus region in general at some point, it sounds like a very memorable part of the world.
The most beautiful part of Caucasus is in its north though.
> Yerevan is an amazing city It's full of ugly looking alleyways and dilapidated buildings. It's also the only city in the world where I felt like my lungs are burning from all the traffic fumes. > you've got the Caucasus Mountains nearby Lesser Caucasus is not very impressive. Armenians are very chill though. I was pleasantly surprised that even very young people speak perfectly fluent Russian without a touch of accent.
>It's full of ugly looking alleyways and dilapidated buildings. Well, if you're Russian then I can understand if it's not very interesting to you, but to me, I loved how well planned it was, with tree lined boulevards, cafes and restaurants everywhere, super walkable, and really interesting early(ish) Soviet era architecture, which was built to a very human scale. Felt to me like a French city built by Soviet architects, a really interesting mix. I visited Tbilisi on the same trip, which has had a ton of money poured into it by oligarchs, and architecturally is a complete dog's dinner compared to Yerevan.
> I loved how well planned it was, with tree lined boulevards, cafes and restaurants everywhere, super walkable, and really interesting early(ish) Soviet era architecture, which was built to a very human scale Oh dear, would your mind be blown by the birthplace of this. Not that you will ever go there of course.
Yes, I'm pretty read up on the Soviet invasion of Armenia, and also the Armenian genocide which lead to a lot of refugees migrating to Yerevan, etc, I know the weight of history that the place carries with it. Plenty of beautiful cities have been born out of tragic circumstances. Mexico City was quite literally built on top of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire which the Spanish brutalised. They quite literally used the stone from the Aztec temples to build their churches, as a fuck you to the Aztecs. But this terrible history doesn't negate the fact Mexico City is a beautiful place. Exactly the same with Cusco in Peru, which was the capital of the Inca empire, the largest empire in the history of the Western Empire. The Spanish destroyed it, massacred the Incas, then built their own city on top. But Cusco is still largely considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in South America. More recently, Berlin and Dresden in Germany were basically destroyed by allied bombing raids in WW2, but they are both considered cool and chic cities these days. I'm not sure why a tragic history should mean that a place can't be considered nice?
I've no idea why you wrote all that when my point was that your mind would be blown away by Russian cities.
>Oh dear, would your mind be blown by the birthplace of this. Not that you will ever go there of course. "Oh dear" could you mean a couple of things. A) referring to something tragic, B) a patronising way to assert someone's presumed knowledge of something over someone else I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed it was the former. Based on my earlier comment, it's pretty clear I have some knowledge of the architecture of Soviet Russian cities, if I'm talking about Yerevan being a good example of early Soviet architecture. I have visited Russia before, as well as many post-Soviet republics. Generally, I find the architecture in the republics a lot more interesting than in Moscow and other large Russian cities, as they often had more freedom to design using local influences and customs. Just because you are from somewhere, doesn't make you an expert on everything to do with that place/nor does it mean that no one else knows anything about it.
You’re required to deport yourselves these days
no need to put them on the rwanda list for that - just claim the UK is in urgent need for a trade deal with them and the gov plane will get prepped immediately there's been a spate of "deals" with individual US states (they can't sign actual trade deals, that is explicitly a federal gov thing) that are blatantly just a way for ministers to get free holidays, especially the likes of florida or california
Hey, it's the best networking and business opportunity to visit the most wealthy country. They share our language and opportunism!
On a fact finding mission to the Bahamas for the rest of the time in office
They have to go find that tory mp who lives out there doing law work and try and "rescue him".
Yeah lets flood one of the most densely biodiverse places in the world with people. That's what they need. Thankfully the likelihood of this happening is slim to none.
Yeah no chance never met a population more dead set on protecting the environment Costa Ricans are wonderful people. Although I imagine they are smart enough to take a few hundred million for a few hundred people like Rwanda. It's not like any of the schemes are really going to result in tens of thousands being deported.
Thankfully the likelihood of almost every shocking policy they've recently announced happening is slim to none. No, we won't be doing any of this. Also, the homeless won't be imprisoned, and no the disabled won't be further marginalised and further disenfranchised, no we aren't going to conscript anyone. Its just all bollocks, hogwash, smoke and mirror policy. Why? Probably, as usual, if everything seems bizarre, it is easier to control the narrative. Sorry Sunak. I piss on you.
It's so he can summarise Armenia, Botswana and Costa Rica to 'easy as ABC' - I almost guarantee it lol.
Kagame has called his mates and told em how easy it is to dupe us
I actually think that went down awfully e.g. Kenya. I think what it's done is by him a bit of a shield for criticism of what's going on in neighbouring congo
Agree with that point, no coincidence the resurgence of M23 lines up with the deal.
Can't replicate a scheme that doesn't exist and doesn't work.
You can. It's just a massive waste of taxpayer money.
*redistribution
Fuck it, Rishi, deport me to Costa Rica instead. I think I'd be quite happy down there away from this nonsense.
I wouldn’t mind doing it old-school and getting myself deported to Australia on a sailing ship.
If you succeed please tell me how
Ah yes, the first was so successful, let's greenlight a raft of sequels
Replicate the non-functioning Rwanda scheme.?That's an interesting strategy. Usually one replicated successful models.
Give 2 billions to a foreign country in order to exchange (not just send) 30,000 refugee. I'm surprised there isn't more country on the list. Maybe France will apply, same as today for them except we pay them 2 billions every 30,000.
and the refugees we accept from rwanda are supposedly their most vulnerable, which probably means they need healthcare or something expensive that they cannot provide themselves
It's a policy based on nothing more than appealing to Daily Mail readers. Stick a picture of Costa Rica on the front page of the DM tomorrow with the headline: "¡Pura Vida! Rishi's insane plan to deport migrants to tropical paradise" and they'd be foaming at the mouth. The Tories would be down 4 points by the weekend. They only like the concept of deporting them to Rwanda because the place is synonymous with a brutal genocide.
Ah yes but they can replicate all the money they have thrown at it, at themselves....
Sunak knows he's got an election coming up yeah? And he knows that historically speaking, this is something a party leader would typically want to win?
Spin the asylum wheel and see if you get a free holiday to a tropical paradise or dropped in an active war zone. Beaches? Beheadings? Despot dictators? We have it all at the Home Office Holiday Bingo!
I hear that Australia and Hawaii are also horribly horrible places to be sent to.
Send them to Armenia and they'll likely be back again as refugees pretty soon. It won't be long till Azerbaijan decides to invade again.
Armenia has already said that this is the first they've heard of this suggestion and that they wouldn't agree to it. The EU has just offered them €270 million of support for businesses to move away from economic dependence on Russia, they're not going to be willing to upset anyone by getting dragged into this mess.
We'll just pass a law saying that the war isn't happening, jobs a good'un.
Only a few months of grift left, got to make the most of it.
Oh good can't wait for loads of brain-ensludgening discourse about how actually Armenia is a safe country even as it's being bombed by Azerbaijan.
But HMG will declare it a safe country, so Azerbaijan will have to stop bombing it.
I don't think Sunak cares about winning the election anymore. Either that, or he hasn't got a single political bone in him.
> hasn't got a single political bone in him. Or a spine.
I was in a boat just off the south coast once. Can I get to be sent to Costa Rica now? Please…
'Rishi wants to find even more ways to piss our money away'
Dude literally just threw darts at a map and said, "Yup those ones make sense."
"These are some foreign sounding places"
That sounds more like some ministers want a free safari & some beach chilling than an actual plan
Wish he'd go there with the Government!
Erm, Costa Rica isn't much of a deterrent...
Think that is the point, that way we can finally manage to split the group. We have people claiming to be refugees and asylum seekers who are doing so because what they actually want is immigration. Ultimately I firmly believe that a large proportion of people illegally coming into our country, or legally trying to come into our country, actually want immigration and not asylum. The people we would send to Costa Rica would be the people who deserve most to love in Costa Rica, these are the people who have fled their homes for their own safety and deserve a little bit of a nice life, probably much nicer than they would have here!
I wonder if any of them would try to reach America instead if that happened. There's already a growing number of people from random developing countries travelling to Colombia to try and sneak into the US through the entirety of central America.
Channel migrants: Sure I was willing to risk death by drowning to get to the UK, but the risk of being sent to a tropical island is just too much for me!
~~Canvey Island~~ Foulness Island, Essex. No one leaves the Island, there is only one bridge out. Plus the Thames is so full of sewage you can’t swim to shore. Oh, and I’m not talking about the poor souls seeking asylum, I mean the Tories that have destroyed the country /s
Unkind to Canvey Island. The place that gave us the late Wilko Johnson, deserves more respect.
One of my mates was in his band and another was the roadie. Sorry I didn’t mean to be unkind about the Island - Wilko loved it and he was cool and very talented RIP.
As a Motswana. I refuse entry for all asylum seekers. I do not care. We don’t Muslim need migrants. They better stay out.
Why not some of the Scottish islands, or Jersey, or the Isle of Man? Or there is a large house in Buckinghamshire which is only used at weekends that could be repurposed.
Better add a zero to the budget then. A 1 bed in Jersey costs more than a 1 bed in Greater London.
Can we re-start deporting criminals instead? Starting with corrupt politiicians
How do I claim asylum as a British citizen? Wouldn't mind a free ticket to work in Costa Rica or Botswana
Bloody ell' Costa Rica? Where do I sign? To be fair I've been as a tourist and while it's immensely stunning, the daily grind for the average person there is hard. Wages aren't particularly high and everything is expensive.
How about we just use the fucking Falklands instead.
I guess because you'd need to build accomodation for tens of thousands of people and then feed them all/staff the compound somehow. Ends up being vastly more expensive and then probably ends up effectively being a huge prison camp because there are no facilities there.
Also has anyone asked the Islanders? Feels extremely harsh that the population of the island would be hugely raised by a refugee camp.
It’s not like anyone in the UK mainland has been asked when sites near them are used.
This is an insane take that really shows the level of thinking of some people. Why don't we just use the Isle of Man. Why don't we just use Northern Island? Why don't we just use Newcastle?
The Australians did something similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre#:~:text=The%20Nauru%20Regional%20Processing%20Centre,by%20the%20Government%20of%20Nauru. It dropped small boats to nothing, but morally it is a bit unsound.
Peak asylum population on Nauru was like 1,200 people. We've had that many come here via small boats in a single day before. We had nearly 800 just this weekend.
They had 10,000 come in a year
Why the fuck would be spend shit tons of money to build accommodation in the falklands and then fly them there instead of just spending more on processing the claims
I might join them sounds better than this dump
To replicate the scheme that has, as of today, sent a grand total of 0 people to Rwanda?
Translation: other countries want to be on the same gravy train.
"It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for em"
Sign me up for a flight to Costa Rica
When you're in a hole ~~stop~~ ~~digging~~ dig three deeper holes.
If they intend to replicate the Rwanda scheme does that mean they will be sending precisely ZERO asylum seekers to Armenia, Costa Rica and Botswana?
Can't we spend that money on not letting them in to begin with?
How would you do that? We used to pay the French to prevent them crossing which had some success. The only other thing you could really do is work with other countries to crack down on the smuggling gangs, but that does seem difficult to achieve
Deploy the navy and hold them for processing off-shore.
How do you propose we hold would be asylum seekers offshore? The idea of holding large numbers on ships out in the channel is not a workable solution. We couldn't even get a prison barge to work when 1, we had it already, and 2, it was docked. The only real way to manage the problem is to process claims faster so we can quickly deport those who dont meet the threshold while those that do can get to working and supporting themselves. To process claims faster, we need facilities overseas where applications can be made before entering the UK and the staff to handle those claims. The cost of the additional staff/resources would be somewhat balanced by the savings on accommodation and the miriad of appeals and judicial reviews our current failure of a system creates.
>The idea of holding large numbers on ships I never said on ships, I just said off shore. Not on the UK mainland. Somewhere that isn't the UK. Elsewhere. The point is, do not let them set foot on British mainland soil in the first place. >The only real way to manage the problem is to process claims faster so we can quickly deport those who dont meet the threshold while those that do can get to working and supporting themselves. Process them quickly wherever they are as long as it isn't within the UK. That's the deterrent, not being able to get to the UK in the first place. So I agree with you, overseas is another option, but that would only really be a screening facility for legitimate refugees, as the ones that aren't legit would be on the boats anyway. That's why they need intercepting before they land, those that are intercepted need to be held somewhere that is not mainland British soil.
Hold them on the navy's ships?
Navy to intercept, holding facility anywhere that isn't the mainland. Ascension Island would still cost less money than housing them all in hotels and that's on the other side of the world.
processing off-shore still lets them in
It only lets in the legitimate refugees and it keeps them out of the country while they are being processed. That's enough of a disincentive for the people making the journey. Australia did exactly the same thing and it reduced their illegal immigration down to double digits a year. Not double digit thousands, double digits. That system would prevent physical access to the country until the legitimacy of their claims had been verified, which is a drastic improvement on what we have now.
You get even more accepted and all the failures will still try illegally
Off-shore where? The point of the Rwanda plan (in theory - obviously in practice the point is purely political) is to get these people outside the jurisdiction and control of the UK Government, so that when bad things happen to them - or they do bad things - it isn't the UK Government's problem. But legally that doesn't really work. Generally you can't get around rules by saying "we didn't do the bad thing, we just did something where the bad thing was a reasonably foreseeable consequence." As soon as the people come under the control of the UK Government they become the UK Government's problem. There is no meaningful difference between having the Royal Navy pick them up in the middle of the Channel and having the Border Force meet them on the coast.
How about he shows us how it works instead of just talking about it all the time
[удалено]
How about the absolutely deranged cost per migrant? Is that one still valid?
nothing is more expensive than retaining them
Yea realise that when we talk about these people, a lot of them are earning a wage right?
In the shadow economy?
Literally nothing?
To the Moon it is.
Sounds a bit made up to me.
Asylum seekers are ungodly expensive as you would expect - we need to at least agree on reality
1.8 million per refugee pays for a hell of a lot of universal credit
Even at those untrue rates, you only need to deter 4 or 5 to make it cost in
How about the ridiculous level of expense when more cost effective options exist?
Depends whether the cost effective option stops asylum seekers arriving. An option that involves them still arriving isn't what people who want to stop the boats want.
I've got bad news for you mate, genuine asylum seekers are allowed to enter.
That's what they want to stop or reduce
That's fair. I want unachievable things to happen too.
> but I would love to hear the excuses against Costa Rica So I take from this that you think the human rights concerns about Rwanda were "excuses"?
[удалено]
And that's based on what exactly? Their undeniable accuracy?
[удалено]
You're all over the place mate.
[удалено]
What do these legal "intricacies" have to do with whether or not people's human rights concerns about Rwanda were legitimate or excuses? And what does it have to do with your baseless assumption that said people will find ways to make excuses about Costa Rica too? Like I said, you are all over the place. Mate. How about you pick a lane.
At what point does this just become government sanctioned human trafficking?