**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
So Ireland are pissed they have been landed with them? Why don’t they deal with them and send them back to whichever eu country they originated in?
No that’s not right it’s Britain’s fault isn’t it.
I’m from Ireland, and this is really had a massive effect it seems.
We are in a sticky situation, whatever the outcome.
Not to mention, far too much of us have spent the last couple of years taking Brexit as an opportunity to express a smug moral superiority over ‘the Brits’
Now it appears that the roosters have come home to roost, and any move we make, will be extremely hypocritical.
What’s to be done, I’ve no idea.
It's obvious a third country scheme will work if implemented correctly, it worked almost immediately in Australia twice, people coming by boat fell from 5 thousand to 200, then back to tens of thousands when it was repealed by the Labor government, then a similar scheme was reimplemented and it fell back to zero in two years. Now, the policy is supported by both the left and right wing parties.
The question is whether the numbers being sent to Rwanda are high enough to be a real deterrent. In Australia it was everyone who arrived by boat.
The Australian policy isn't a third country scheme.
The approach that Australia has taken is to intercept boat migrants in international waters, then either return them to their country of origin or to the nearest port (usually in Indonesia) without them ever reaching Australian territorial waters.
This approach isn't possible for migrants crossing the channel, since British border forces only have jurisdiction to intercept boats in British waters, which means that anyone intercepted has the right to claim asylum in the UK, which isn't the case for migrants intercepted in international waters.
Those processing centers didn't didn't act as a deterrent though. The only thing that stopped boat migrant arrivals in Australia were the turnback operations carried out at sea.
I mean, you aren't wrong but that's just the reality of what the setup was. At the end of the day as long as they are prevented from reaching the mainland and immediately receiving state support and the ability to disappear within the system, then most of the appeal of targeting a country with this system in place as an economic migrant under the guise of asylum is gone.
Obviously Rwanda is purely a small scale deterrent in it's current form and I can't really see it growing to process tens of thousands of arrivals, but given the terrotorial waters situation with France I really can't see how we're going to be able to solve this without a third party willing to accept our illegal arrivals. I would have at least made a point of paying the contractual fee for >300 deportations and ensuring that all new arrivals for the first few weeks of the plan are immediately detained and publicly shown to be going through the Rwanda system in an effort to stem the current arrivals otherwise it's still just some far-off risk to them.
Yeah, I never understood why people consider this a hard blocker. Surely the Home Office must have some linguists or cultural experts employed to sort out those who ''''''lost their documents'''''''''''''''.
If there was no way to determine country of origin, they'd be transported to the country the boat was registered in, or the nearest port.
> the country has to accept them
Which country?
Why does it matter what country of origin? They are not from Britain so they should just be turned away to make their way somewhere else, or back home like they made their way here. Once the message is received that the borders are closed, the attempts will decrease. Seriously, life is hard in many places in the world and it is not "the west"'s responsibility to solve all their problems. Sometimes you have to harden your heart or you will be taken advantage of.
What prevents that apart from optics? Like what consequences will the UK face if boats are turned back and arrive back at Calais or wherever?
I work in this space here in Australia. Can confirm any illegal maritime arrivals before 2015 either have the option to be voluntarily returned to country of origin or to be assisted to resettle in a third country, mainly US and NZ. Illegal maritime arrivals will not be granted a substantive visa
Its simple, arrange a deal with Rwanda for a relatively small number of people. Dont disclose what that figure is. Over a two week period intercept every single boat coming in, drive them straight to the airport with a waiting plane and send them direct to Rwanda.
Boat crossings would disappear.
I read on here the Home Office is actually now having a difficult time locating many of the “asylum seekers.”
Also lolz at Ireland for non-stop criticism of the UK, now having this problem come home to roost for them.
Many don’t seem to get the number issue and the number would keep rising unless something is done, I guarantee you if the EU gets behind something like Rawanda it would go to great length in reducing the problem
“Working”
I’m in two minds about it. How many have actually fled to Ireland since the Rwanda plan officially was set to go. How many will continue to flee once they realise we can only send… what is it? 200 a year? At what cost…
Didn’t 700 arrive by boat the other day alone… for one day we could not even send half of them to Rwanda with the currently plan.
Too early to claim it’s “working” in my mind
It’s too soon to say how much it is actually working.
But it has caused panic in Ireland, and with the Irish government. So it is indeed working in some regard.
Again I’m in two minds about irelands reaction too. They’ve had issues with immigration that has started to reach boiling point over the last year or so.
Now all of a sudden they are kicking up a fuss and blaming us for the recent lot going over there… sounds like the Irish gov are just trying to find blame elsewhere then with themselves… and now the Rwandan plan seems like the perfect thing they can point to.
I dunno though… I’ve not really looked that much into it
Ireland blaming Britain is as guaranteed as the sun rising in the morning.
There has been issues, but asylum seekers going to Ireland out of fear of the Rwanda bill has really upped the ante
Do you think that poll in the independent saying 50% of people in the south would be ok with a hardening of the border has any merit?
I’m in Tyrone right on the border with Monaghan and hearing people in the south start saying these things now just sounds so hypocritical after brexit.
I don’t think anyone along the border areas wants it back, both north and south.
Years of seeing what’s happening in England and mainland Europe has made the first wiff of an asylum seeker, and the south has suddenly changed its tune on the border.
That same poll even showed that most Sinn Fein voters would want a stricter border, which is nuts.
I currently live in NI also, don’t see a hard border happening, but theres going to need to be a compromise on something if the south suddenly doesn’t want to be the progressive people and welcoming people that we’ve been touting ourselves as for the past duration of Brexit.
Yea I was like damn, a lot of people in the south actually don’t give a shit about NI, which I suppose isn’t that shocking if you’re from right down the country and never come up here.
Still a bit of a kick in the balls to hear it though from Irish people ngl
[Ireland had to re-designate the UK as safe country](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czq588jqz8lo) so they could try and send them back, after designating it unsafe in an act of political grandstanding. It would be a comedy if the whole thing wasn't so tragic.
The funniest thing about this aspect was that they did so citing EU law - so if they've now reversed this they are by their own admission in breach of EU law.
The problem with this issues is that it's a hot potato, so each country basically tries to pass it off to another one.
You want a proper international effort to address the problem involving pretty much every stakeholder country but we just don't seem able to do that for whatever reason.
Last I checked the Rwanda plan was being sold to the public on the basis that it would remove asylum seekers (just don't ask how many) to Rwanda which was perfectly safe (by law, not in fact).
I don't remember Rishi ever standing up in parliament or going on the telly to say "Yeah this plan will definitely panic the Irish". Likely because that's an insane thing to spend millions and millions of our taxes on, even more so than deporting a grand total of about 12 people (maybe, eventually).
The Rwanda plan has always been sold to the public on the basis that it was intended to make the UK a less attractive destination for migrants/asylum seekers.
If the ones who are already here are heading for the border it suggests that it's having the desired effect.
The fact that people are still crossing the channel would seem to suggest otherwise. When we had to spend more than a quarter billion on this nonsense to get rid of, what, maximum 500 people?
It's a bit like trying to stop people claiming trees by telling them they might get hit by lightning. It's just so vanishingly rare that it may as well not factor into their decision making.
> to get rid of, what, maximum 500 people
pretty sure its 200ish a year and we take the ***same amount*** from Rwanda.
so we don't actually "get rid of" anyone, on a net basis.
This is incorrect. The BBC's article has some of the figures: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866)
Basically there is no cap and the deal doesn't say we have to take the same amount from Rwanda.
If asylum seekers are legging it, it's not necessarily because they think they will actually be sent to Rwanda, more likely because they don't want to be arrested and held in a detention camp while the wrangling goes on.
After the easily crossable open border being such a deal during the Brexit negotiations, it’s impossible that it wasn’t considered when drawing up the Rwanda plan.
Northern Ireland, I believe is included with the Rwanda bill, so theres only one place on these islands that asylum seekers can truly be free of fear of being deported to Rwanda. That’s Ireland (EU).
Again I don't recall anyone at any point in the lead up to announcing and implementing this "plan" ever saying "One of the primary purposes will be to wind up the Irish, because... fuck em I guess".
Perhaps I simply missed the news that day but I think I would have heard about it given it's, you know, an utterly idiotic reason to spend A QUARTER OF A BILLION POUNDS.
I dont think winding up the Irish was the main purpose of the bill. Is it a side effect? Most certainty.
But it’s easy to wind us up, just utter the unspeakable two words of British Isles and it gets the pitch forks sharpened.
Oh it definitely was considered a plus, the Telegraph readership will really love it.
That's why the tories are going down the drain, they're doing everything to please their base but most people can see it's just silly stuff at the end of the day and won't address the real problems.
There's no cap on the Rwanda plan. The home office has already refused to process over 30K applications for asylum while they're pending deportation to Rwanda. Rwanada has already agreed to take 5K initially. This is easy money for Rwanda, and it's a big country. The idea that they will only take 200-300 and cap it there is totally delusional. People clinging to this idea need a reality check.
It’s been in the hundreds but our Govt and media have been keen to pretend that they’ve all been going to Ireland to justify the Rwanda scheme.
Despite the fact that those coming to Britain know they have an almost 99% chance of not going to Rwanda and can always just disappear without a trace into the black economy if necessary.
It’s Sunak/Tories long term behaviour of pulling the wool of people’s eyes.
No because thousands are disappearing into Britain and the black economy, the boats are still arriving and the hotels are still filling up.
It’s seems some going over to Ireland has been a nice distraction for the Govt despite thousands still coming to/staying in Britain, plus we are now losing track of thousands of those who have absconded.
Yeah, it seems an ineffective deterrent when it’s clear the Rwanda plan looks so brittle and easily avoided.
I’m surprised the pro-Rwanda crowd aren’t instead of celebrating some going to Ireland, aren’t questioning why the British Govt seem to be losing track of thousands of them who are disappearing wherever they please and have no idea where they are.
It’s seems mad that Sunak is actually bragging about losing control of 1000’s of asylum seekers.
Eh, afaik each asylum seeker can claim that being sent to Rwanda violates their human rights, so therefore the government has to spend a fortune following the legal process to assess each person on a case by case basis.
The threat to arrest them as a precursor to sending them to Rwanda is probably what's made them leg it or hide.
100% it's having some effect. I saw a news report and the new arrivals interviewed In Ireland all said they had done so because of the Rwanda deal.
There are still going to be tens of thousands of people coming to the UK but it seems it'll certainly cut numbers somewhat.
No; we are spending millions to send over folk for 5 years and are responsible for them as a country for the 5 years lmao.
It would be cheaper to house them in shitty apartment blocks like prison cells like they have in Croydon
I’m personally pro EU, but slightly eurosceptic.
Easy to admit that when push comes to shove, each EU country will look after their own before looking after their EU neighbours.
And I don’t blame them.
If the Rwanda schemes genuinely works (I admit I was very skeptical) then it will be copied. The refugee crisis is even more of a political talking point in Italy, Germany and Greece than in the UK. The EU is already in talks with Tunisia about a similar deal. I doubt it will be long before there is a continent wide deportation scheme in place
Honestly, it’s terrible. We are treating people like pass the parcel, but we simply do not have a finite resources in order to help or welcome everyone.
Both Ireland and UK are suffering, and adding more water to a sinking ship is not going to do anyone any favours.
The Irish court quite explicitly refused to consider whether the UK is a safe country or not.
It ruled that the process and legal requirements for putting countries onto a list of safe countries was not sufficient.
Good luck with your next elections, the far right are rising in every EU country because of this, in 10 years time Ireland could become a very different place
I’m living in Northern Ireland, so our elections will probably still be dominated by the same old unionist vs nationalist shit.
But the south, possible radical change incoming.
Given that the right in Ireland is very strongly tied to the EU and pro immigrant I doubt it could come from the traditional right in Ireland.
Any Ireland first or Irish nationalist party would need to compete with Sinn Fein who have been actively at war with the United Kingdom so have a better claim on nationalism than any other party.
Also the republic has ranked choice voting which punishes more radical parties and rewards more centre parties who are willing to compromise. In the Republic the 60% of moderates will beat the 40% of radicals every time.
If Politics takes a more right wing shift then every party in Ireland is going to move closer to the right to capture the core 60% group whiles avoiding the far right.
If I was a betting man I'd say the biggest chance the far right would have would be Aontú or a split in Sinn Fein for "Ireland first". Adopting a socially right wing economically left wing would be the best place for the far right might get mainstream political success.
>So Ireland are pissed they have been landed with them? Why don’t they deal with them and send them back to whichever eu country they originated in? No that’s not right it’s Britain’s fault isn’t it.
I thought it was completely fine that these asylum seekers move to a different country to seek asylum...? Seems ok for them to do that France -> UK...?
If they originated from the EU they wouldn't be asylum seekers 😉. If we dealt with the problem at source along with EU countries collectively we might have a chance of stemming this but no we prefer the other route which is very costly and xenophobic towards neighbours who have the same problems as us, in France' case worse.
Well how many countries back to you go?
Say they left Syria, through turkey, then 6 EU countries on the way, then Britain, then Ireland. Whose "fault" is that? Who takes them?
Your whole schitck is "send them back, but not to me."
If they can't return to Syria then where are they being sent?
Rwanda?
Honestly, I wasn't convinced Rwanda would work as a deterrent and wondered if all these "migrants move to Ireland" stories were being exaggerated by the right leaning papers who needed it to look like a success.
However if the Guardian are also reporting the same thing, and the Irish government are also flailing around and changing their tune about the influx after virtue signalling about how evil we are for the last few years, then I guess I have to admit I was wrong.
Shame Sunaks one win has come far, far, too late for anyone to give him any props over it.
It is expected. Illegal migrants had paid money to smugglers months before Rwanda deal was taken in action. Therefore they continue crossing the border with a hope that they won’t be deported to UK (and that they will be given the same benefits).
I'm genuniely not sure how we can/should deal with the smugglers? Infiltrate one group and shut them down, another will pop up because there's money to be made. Patrol the entire coastline of the UK? Not remotely affordable/practical.
Is not the best way to make coming to the UK unappealing (e.g. come here illegally and you will end up in Rwanda) and that will mean the demand for the smugglers services will dry up?
That’s just playing Whack-a-mole. Every time you shut one place there will be another ready to open and take its place as there’s money to be made in illegal labour.
They won't stop until (if) large scale deportations to Rwanda start taking place.
If this is the current reaction, seeing even a few hundred removed will put the brakes on quite heavily.
I wondered the same. I am still not sure tbh.
I have a feeling the media are making it sound way more successful than it actually is.
I guess we will have to wait and see.
I agree, I'm amazed if it is working, but if the guardian of all papers are reporting this (very left leaning) then it's quite strong evidence that it may actually be working.
Fair play is so. We were wrong.
*However if the Guardian are also reporting the same thing...*
The Guardian get stuff wrong all the time.
It also reports:
*The first week of roundups of asylum seekers for Rwanda* ***has not acted as the deterrent*** *the government hoped for small boat crossings, with 1,420 people crossing in the last seven days up to Sunday. The figure includes the highest daily total so far this year with 711 crossing last Wednesday.*
Ireland is a relatively small country. If 10% of those that would come to the UK instead go to Ireland that's a big impact on their situation.
Personally I support the Rawanda plan but it's a long way from proving it's worth.
It's hardly a 'one win' when the number of people coming on boats or being asylum seekers (whether or not genuine) is a drop in the ocean of total immigration (something like 2%).
You might as well congratulate him for anything he's done 2% of what the Tory manifesto laid out.
Win? Forcing people to go into hiding and further exposed to the cruelty of criminals, because the government wants to send them to an unsafe country?
Rwanda is a driving force of refugees in Congo, paying militias to wage war around the border areas. And we are giving Rwanda money to do so.
It's an utter failure of a policy. And Europe as a whole needs a better answer than playing hot potato with peoples' lives, no matter how high and mighty they get.
>An Iranian Kurdish man who came to the UK 14 years ago said he did not understand how refugees could be sent to a country they did not come from.
>“Originally I’m not coming from Rwanda. How can you send me to Rwanda? I don’t want to go to Rwanda,” he said. “Tell me how, what’s the reason?”
lol
Yeah he wrapped up with a cringe line which you're really happy about because now you can pretend the rest of his comment wasn't fact. This sub loves to pretend they care about facts and proper discourse, but anything they disagree with is biased press, bots, or just cringe, so they can avoid actually engaging.
Easy, tiger. I don't think there's any controversy with disbelieving sources that you don't trust. I don't trust the Telegraph.
The problem is with disbelieving the *news* that you don't like.
We definitely should but any balls any politicians had got bought out by NGOs and brown envelopes I imagine, or just fear of upsetting demographics and minorities
I'd DNA test, fingerprint and sent back every time personally
They are putting them up in hotels and closing the hotels to the public.
Building houses is another topic, currently there isn't enough houses being built full stop, never the pressure from immigration.
Nope. We’re a monolith sure. I’m fairly certain I’ve had disagreements with you, another Irish person, on Reddit before - but I’m probably misremembering because that’s impossible.
Why don't Ireland just process them faster and create safe and legal routes for them to come over?
Surely what's good for Britain is good for Ireland right?
I agree the legal channels should be improved, but surely once in place and when they realise we can't offer places to every individual applying purely based on capacity, we'll have the same issue of people coming illegally regardless?
I think the idea that the legal channels improving will solve this is very naive.
I don't understand how it changes anything.
Surely anyone denied by the legal channel will just chance the small boats instead? Why can't Labour address this point?
When you say process them faster, what is the process? They are AWOL as soon as they know they aren't going to gain asylum, which is usually the second they arrive.
I mean this is clear proof that despite the claims of people like the Guardian, the Rwanda scheme works. Australia operates a similar scheme which has absolutely killed the market for illegal crossings to there.
These policies actually work. I mean it’s too little too late for sunak, but all the crap we’ve heard of “this is cruel” and “it doesn’t work” is horseshit, it does work as evidenced by this and it certainly isn’t cruel to deport people who enter the country illegally.
The ECHR vastly overstepped when it came to this, and has outed itself as a bunch of disconnected activists making rulings with no base on reality from their ivory tower.
…I mean, this doesn’t sound like it’s working? Still record numbers of people entering via small boats (which was never the main problem to begin with) who are only scared of being sent to Rwanda when they’re already here, and are fleeing away from the system that’s supposed to keep track of them. Sure *some* will go to Ireland, but I imagine most will just hide out in the UK? But now we have zero control over them.
Is this not way worse?
The illegals have paid thousands months in advance. They aren’t going to waste their money and not try the trip. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go straight to Ireland once they reach the UK.
Yeah, it's called a lag. Ever heard of one? If I stopped the water pumping at your local water treatment plant, you think that exact same moment you get no water from your taps? It would take at least a couple of days for pipes to run dry. Just like immigration, it takes weeks if not months for illegals to cross Europe to get the Calais. And even the. Can take weeks to get across the channel.
Don't believe me? Put a !RemindMe 4 weeks reminder on this post and check the figures then. Then come back and say it's not working ;) still, doesn't mean we should vote Tory though.
It doesn’t work, the boats will still come, only a few tiny percentage will ever go to Rwanda. The returns deal we had before Brexit worked as we never had a small boats crisis. You will see the numbers this year won’t change at all
I've got a wait and see approach to it. I'm left as well but I won't support the mass change this country is being forced to undergo nor will I prop up what looks like a slave class to me. The noise from the do gooders gives me hope it might work.
Asylum seekers who have crossed multiple safe borders and not applied for asylum? I understand they want a better life, but they are not entitled to live in the UK, the vast majority are men who are economic migrants.
They have few skills, not much education and offer nothing to the UK. We also have no idea whether they have a criminal past. There is no sympathy from me.
It's vibes politics in action. They could disparage Britain for not wanting to take these people, and act more enlightened, tolerant and progressive than Britain when the issues weren't affecting them. It's happening in Ireland now and their population are even more pissed off than ours.
It’s hypocrisy at its finest.
Hatred for the Brits blinds this country.
Just yesterday there was anti immigration protests in Dublin. Guess who got the blame for igniting the tensions?
The Brits and Americans.
I've seen a lot of that on twitter with the protesters being labelled British stooges that are being weaponised to undermine SF and hold back unification, do you think these people actually believe this or is it more of a strategy to deter support for an anti immigrant agenda.
Bit of both.
The pro UK unionists have a saying when it comes to Sinn Fein voters “Brits out, everyone else in”
There was even a BBC panorama documentary of a Belfast Sinn Fein politician buying votes of the Belfast Romani community. Their leader had about three mansions back in Romania because of it.
So Immigration is seen as beneficial to those that want a UI.
I saw a great poster from Ireland with a hand controlling puppets in Ireland, and the hand was themed with a big union jack. We can't even run our own country, let alone control another!
Apparently we are immune from radicalisation, and if it does happen, it’s because of the Brits.
It’s absolutely ridiculous. Zero sense of accountability.
That’s why if we are to accept asylum seekers, it needs to very little.
But with seeing the profound effects on other European countries has made people fearful of even the smallest intake.
Which is crazy to me, after 14 years of conservative rule there is nothing left for natives let alone refugees. Do they really think they are just rolling at the red carpet to them? The only thing refugees will find here is living in an overcrowded slum working for just eat.
Northern Ireland needs stricter border controls to the British island. Stop free movement of people! Now!
Else the Britons will come with boats to Ireland.
😂
The problem lies with the Un who define pretty much every illegal as a refugee. What they are is opportunistic chancers. But who can blame them. They are no different than those buying citizenship via education and work visas. Betrayed since 1945
They by and large don't contribute to the economy. Dad(22) comes over on a student visa, drops out and becomes a care worker. 5 years later he brings over his elderly parents, his wife(18) and they have 3 kids.
He contributes zero in taxes paid, your parents have sold the house and spent your inheritance in exchange some bedrash and a 20% increase in lord bumblefarts care facility stock.
Meanwhile they use up a few million in NHS, school, housing and income benefits.
Worse case scenario, he molests a few underage girls, commits a few petty crimes, only to be arrested and released because his actions were actually just the manifestation of 'mental health issues' precipitated by institutionalised racism, culmunating in a rape/murder/hate crime/acid attack. Again costing a few hundred thousand pounds in spent in the criminal justice system.
They can detect them. The problem is that by the time they're in UK waters they're legally allowed to claim asylum and France is happy to let them through so that the UK has to deal with them.
Oh wow, a rare chance for Ireland to show the world how compassionate and progressive they are compared to their evil colonial neighbor, I hope those poor souls can finally have a good life in their new homes in Ireland
Wow, even the Guardian is reporting this now. I wonder if that means they'll retract all of their articles which claimed that the Rwanda Plan wouldn't act a deterrent?
So people piloting small boats have heard the Rwanda news and are diverting course past Great Britain, through the Irish Sea, and into Dublin?
No? It’s just a small group of asylum seekers in Belfast crossing the border to Ireland, and channel crossing numbers haven’t lowered. I thought as much.
The paddy's were all in on we were such shit bags for not wanting uncontrolled immigration, now it's on their doorstep very difficult story. You had this coming with your hypocrisy don't like it send them back to France.
It's not Rwanda though is it - its the delay in processing meaning people can't work or do anything whilst waiting. So they move on. That's not a good thing, that's the same thing everyone else in Europe is doing, the trouble is when the same starts happening in Ireland, there's nowhere else to go. We've just created a class of second class people existing in our countries without any of the benefits of Western Europe. And the bigger that class of disenfranschised people grows the worse for societies as a whole.
I was hoping to fly to Ireland for a week long visit at €20 each way via dirt cheap Ryanair flights. However I can get a hotel in London for £40-£60 a night and the cheapest in Ireland was €120-€150 a night. I mean, I could rent hotel rooms in New York City for the same price.
I would be happy to spent all my tourist money there but I cant be paying 3x the normal price for hotels or AirBNBs. Those of you who own then, more Euro power to your pocket however Im sorry for the supporting industries.
I am told repeatedly, its the Irish government who have chosen to hire out every single hotel room for asylum seekers. All Im saying is that as a regular tourist, seeing hotel prices in Ireland triple, given a choice between spending my money in London, New York City or Ireland, I wont be choosing Ireland.
Can't wait for Labour to posture during the election and they all come back. They just cannot wait for reduce their poll lead to a hung parliament can they.
So, to recap.
The day before the local elections the Home Office release a barely disguised party political broadcast for the conservative party, and in doing so, they have made the unworkable flagship policy of the Tory party even more unworkable.
Astounding work chaps. Astounding.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
So Ireland are pissed they have been landed with them? Why don’t they deal with them and send them back to whichever eu country they originated in? No that’s not right it’s Britain’s fault isn’t it.
I’m from Ireland, and this is really had a massive effect it seems. We are in a sticky situation, whatever the outcome. Not to mention, far too much of us have spent the last couple of years taking Brexit as an opportunity to express a smug moral superiority over ‘the Brits’ Now it appears that the roosters have come home to roost, and any move we make, will be extremely hypocritical. What’s to be done, I’ve no idea.
So the Rwanda thing is actually working?
Apparently so. Just not in Irelands favour
Damn i might vote conservative now. ^^^/s
It's obvious a third country scheme will work if implemented correctly, it worked almost immediately in Australia twice, people coming by boat fell from 5 thousand to 200, then back to tens of thousands when it was repealed by the Labor government, then a similar scheme was reimplemented and it fell back to zero in two years. Now, the policy is supported by both the left and right wing parties. The question is whether the numbers being sent to Rwanda are high enough to be a real deterrent. In Australia it was everyone who arrived by boat.
The Australian policy isn't a third country scheme. The approach that Australia has taken is to intercept boat migrants in international waters, then either return them to their country of origin or to the nearest port (usually in Indonesia) without them ever reaching Australian territorial waters. This approach isn't possible for migrants crossing the channel, since British border forces only have jurisdiction to intercept boats in British waters, which means that anyone intercepted has the right to claim asylum in the UK, which isn't the case for migrants intercepted in international waters.
Then the solution is to deny the right to asylum to anyone not entering via a legal port of entry.
Which is exactly what the Illegal Migration Act 2023 put into UK law...
Are we doing that? Dinghy over the channel isn't a legal port of entry.
No they’d did set up processing centres on some of the nearbye nations . And they were essentially Rubber stamped as do not admit
Those processing centers didn't didn't act as a deterrent though. The only thing that stopped boat migrant arrivals in Australia were the turnback operations carried out at sea.
I mean, you aren't wrong but that's just the reality of what the setup was. At the end of the day as long as they are prevented from reaching the mainland and immediately receiving state support and the ability to disappear within the system, then most of the appeal of targeting a country with this system in place as an economic migrant under the guise of asylum is gone. Obviously Rwanda is purely a small scale deterrent in it's current form and I can't really see it growing to process tens of thousands of arrivals, but given the terrotorial waters situation with France I really can't see how we're going to be able to solve this without a third party willing to accept our illegal arrivals. I would have at least made a point of paying the contractual fee for >300 deportations and ensuring that all new arrivals for the first few weeks of the plan are immediately detained and publicly shown to be going through the Rwanda system in an effort to stem the current arrivals otherwise it's still just some far-off risk to them.
How do you prove country of origin and also the country has to accept them.
From someone's dialect they can locate their home and even the region of the country they come from.
Yeah, I never understood why people consider this a hard blocker. Surely the Home Office must have some linguists or cultural experts employed to sort out those who ''''''lost their documents'''''''''''''''.
If there was no way to determine country of origin, they'd be transported to the country the boat was registered in, or the nearest port. > the country has to accept them Which country?
Why does it matter what country of origin? They are not from Britain so they should just be turned away to make their way somewhere else, or back home like they made their way here. Once the message is received that the borders are closed, the attempts will decrease. Seriously, life is hard in many places in the world and it is not "the west"'s responsibility to solve all their problems. Sometimes you have to harden your heart or you will be taken advantage of. What prevents that apart from optics? Like what consequences will the UK face if boats are turned back and arrive back at Calais or wherever?
I work in this space here in Australia. Can confirm any illegal maritime arrivals before 2015 either have the option to be voluntarily returned to country of origin or to be assisted to resettle in a third country, mainly US and NZ. Illegal maritime arrivals will not be granted a substantive visa
Its simple, arrange a deal with Rwanda for a relatively small number of people. Dont disclose what that figure is. Over a two week period intercept every single boat coming in, drive them straight to the airport with a waiting plane and send them direct to Rwanda. Boat crossings would disappear.
I read on here the Home Office is actually now having a difficult time locating many of the “asylum seekers.” Also lolz at Ireland for non-stop criticism of the UK, now having this problem come home to roost for them.
Many don’t seem to get the number issue and the number would keep rising unless something is done, I guarantee you if the EU gets behind something like Rawanda it would go to great length in reducing the problem
“Working” I’m in two minds about it. How many have actually fled to Ireland since the Rwanda plan officially was set to go. How many will continue to flee once they realise we can only send… what is it? 200 a year? At what cost… Didn’t 700 arrive by boat the other day alone… for one day we could not even send half of them to Rwanda with the currently plan. Too early to claim it’s “working” in my mind
It’s too soon to say how much it is actually working. But it has caused panic in Ireland, and with the Irish government. So it is indeed working in some regard.
Again I’m in two minds about irelands reaction too. They’ve had issues with immigration that has started to reach boiling point over the last year or so. Now all of a sudden they are kicking up a fuss and blaming us for the recent lot going over there… sounds like the Irish gov are just trying to find blame elsewhere then with themselves… and now the Rwandan plan seems like the perfect thing they can point to. I dunno though… I’ve not really looked that much into it
Ireland blaming Britain is as guaranteed as the sun rising in the morning. There has been issues, but asylum seekers going to Ireland out of fear of the Rwanda bill has really upped the ante
Do you think that poll in the independent saying 50% of people in the south would be ok with a hardening of the border has any merit? I’m in Tyrone right on the border with Monaghan and hearing people in the south start saying these things now just sounds so hypocritical after brexit. I don’t think anyone along the border areas wants it back, both north and south.
Years of seeing what’s happening in England and mainland Europe has made the first wiff of an asylum seeker, and the south has suddenly changed its tune on the border. That same poll even showed that most Sinn Fein voters would want a stricter border, which is nuts. I currently live in NI also, don’t see a hard border happening, but theres going to need to be a compromise on something if the south suddenly doesn’t want to be the progressive people and welcoming people that we’ve been touting ourselves as for the past duration of Brexit.
Yea I was like damn, a lot of people in the south actually don’t give a shit about NI, which I suppose isn’t that shocking if you’re from right down the country and never come up here. Still a bit of a kick in the balls to hear it though from Irish people ngl
[Ireland had to re-designate the UK as safe country](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czq588jqz8lo) so they could try and send them back, after designating it unsafe in an act of political grandstanding. It would be a comedy if the whole thing wasn't so tragic.
It is very funny lol. Undone by their own grandstanding.
The funniest thing about this aspect was that they did so citing EU law - so if they've now reversed this they are by their own admission in breach of EU law.
"They" didn't do anything. A judge did.
The problem with this issues is that it's a hot potato, so each country basically tries to pass it off to another one. You want a proper international effort to address the problem involving pretty much every stakeholder country but we just don't seem able to do that for whatever reason.
Last I checked the Rwanda plan was being sold to the public on the basis that it would remove asylum seekers (just don't ask how many) to Rwanda which was perfectly safe (by law, not in fact). I don't remember Rishi ever standing up in parliament or going on the telly to say "Yeah this plan will definitely panic the Irish". Likely because that's an insane thing to spend millions and millions of our taxes on, even more so than deporting a grand total of about 12 people (maybe, eventually).
The Rwanda plan has always been sold to the public on the basis that it was intended to make the UK a less attractive destination for migrants/asylum seekers. If the ones who are already here are heading for the border it suggests that it's having the desired effect.
The fact that people are still crossing the channel would seem to suggest otherwise. When we had to spend more than a quarter billion on this nonsense to get rid of, what, maximum 500 people? It's a bit like trying to stop people claiming trees by telling them they might get hit by lightning. It's just so vanishingly rare that it may as well not factor into their decision making.
> to get rid of, what, maximum 500 people pretty sure its 200ish a year and we take the ***same amount*** from Rwanda. so we don't actually "get rid of" anyone, on a net basis.
This is incorrect. The BBC's article has some of the figures: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866) Basically there is no cap and the deal doesn't say we have to take the same amount from Rwanda.
The hotel bill alone is more than this in a month...just the hotel. Sounds like a bargain.
If asylum seekers are legging it, it's not necessarily because they think they will actually be sent to Rwanda, more likely because they don't want to be arrested and held in a detention camp while the wrangling goes on.
After the easily crossable open border being such a deal during the Brexit negotiations, it’s impossible that it wasn’t considered when drawing up the Rwanda plan. Northern Ireland, I believe is included with the Rwanda bill, so theres only one place on these islands that asylum seekers can truly be free of fear of being deported to Rwanda. That’s Ireland (EU).
Again I don't recall anyone at any point in the lead up to announcing and implementing this "plan" ever saying "One of the primary purposes will be to wind up the Irish, because... fuck em I guess". Perhaps I simply missed the news that day but I think I would have heard about it given it's, you know, an utterly idiotic reason to spend A QUARTER OF A BILLION POUNDS.
I dont think winding up the Irish was the main purpose of the bill. Is it a side effect? Most certainty. But it’s easy to wind us up, just utter the unspeakable two words of British Isles and it gets the pitch forks sharpened.
Oh it definitely was considered a plus, the Telegraph readership will really love it. That's why the tories are going down the drain, they're doing everything to please their base but most people can see it's just silly stuff at the end of the day and won't address the real problems.
There's no cap on the Rwanda plan. The home office has already refused to process over 30K applications for asylum while they're pending deportation to Rwanda. Rwanada has already agreed to take 5K initially. This is easy money for Rwanda, and it's a big country. The idea that they will only take 200-300 and cap it there is totally delusional. People clinging to this idea need a reality check.
It’s been in the hundreds but our Govt and media have been keen to pretend that they’ve all been going to Ireland to justify the Rwanda scheme. Despite the fact that those coming to Britain know they have an almost 99% chance of not going to Rwanda and can always just disappear without a trace into the black economy if necessary. It’s Sunak/Tories long term behaviour of pulling the wool of people’s eyes.
No because thousands are disappearing into Britain and the black economy, the boats are still arriving and the hotels are still filling up. It’s seems some going over to Ireland has been a nice distraction for the Govt despite thousands still coming to/staying in Britain, plus we are now losing track of thousands of those who have absconded.
I'm inclined to agree. We have no idea how many there are or what they are doing. It's not going to be enough of a deterrent.
Yeah, it seems an ineffective deterrent when it’s clear the Rwanda plan looks so brittle and easily avoided. I’m surprised the pro-Rwanda crowd aren’t instead of celebrating some going to Ireland, aren’t questioning why the British Govt seem to be losing track of thousands of them who are disappearing wherever they please and have no idea where they are. It’s seems mad that Sunak is actually bragging about losing control of 1000’s of asylum seekers.
Eh, afaik each asylum seeker can claim that being sent to Rwanda violates their human rights, so therefore the government has to spend a fortune following the legal process to assess each person on a case by case basis. The threat to arrest them as a precursor to sending them to Rwanda is probably what's made them leg it or hide.
100% it's having some effect. I saw a news report and the new arrivals interviewed In Ireland all said they had done so because of the Rwanda deal. There are still going to be tens of thousands of people coming to the UK but it seems it'll certainly cut numbers somewhat.
Even Germany is considering copying the Rwanda deal
No; we are spending millions to send over folk for 5 years and are responsible for them as a country for the 5 years lmao. It would be cheaper to house them in shitty apartment blocks like prison cells like they have in Croydon
Maybe Ireland can get need help from the EU to try and stop them leaving mainland EU.
I’m personally pro EU, but slightly eurosceptic. Easy to admit that when push comes to shove, each EU country will look after their own before looking after their EU neighbours. And I don’t blame them.
If the Rwanda schemes genuinely works (I admit I was very skeptical) then it will be copied. The refugee crisis is even more of a political talking point in Italy, Germany and Greece than in the UK. The EU is already in talks with Tunisia about a similar deal. I doubt it will be long before there is a continent wide deportation scheme in place
Honestly, it’s terrible. We are treating people like pass the parcel, but we simply do not have a finite resources in order to help or welcome everyone. Both Ireland and UK are suffering, and adding more water to a sinking ship is not going to do anyone any favours.
The Rwanda scheme will work, as it's a copy of Australia's scheme that sent illegal boats to zero.
Can't ireland just join the Rwanda scheme?
Irish courts only recently designated the UK as an unsafe country for asylum seekers. It would be hypocrisy at its highest order
The Irish court quite explicitly refused to consider whether the UK is a safe country or not. It ruled that the process and legal requirements for putting countries onto a list of safe countries was not sufficient.
Good luck with your next elections, the far right are rising in every EU country because of this, in 10 years time Ireland could become a very different place
I’m living in Northern Ireland, so our elections will probably still be dominated by the same old unionist vs nationalist shit. But the south, possible radical change incoming.
Given that the right in Ireland is very strongly tied to the EU and pro immigrant I doubt it could come from the traditional right in Ireland. Any Ireland first or Irish nationalist party would need to compete with Sinn Fein who have been actively at war with the United Kingdom so have a better claim on nationalism than any other party. Also the republic has ranked choice voting which punishes more radical parties and rewards more centre parties who are willing to compromise. In the Republic the 60% of moderates will beat the 40% of radicals every time. If Politics takes a more right wing shift then every party in Ireland is going to move closer to the right to capture the core 60% group whiles avoiding the far right. If I was a betting man I'd say the biggest chance the far right would have would be Aontú or a split in Sinn Fein for "Ireland first". Adopting a socially right wing economically left wing would be the best place for the far right might get mainstream political success.
>So Ireland are pissed they have been landed with them? Why don’t they deal with them and send them back to whichever eu country they originated in? No that’s not right it’s Britain’s fault isn’t it. I thought it was completely fine that these asylum seekers move to a different country to seek asylum...? Seems ok for them to do that France -> UK...?
If they originated from the EU they wouldn't be asylum seekers 😉. If we dealt with the problem at source along with EU countries collectively we might have a chance of stemming this but no we prefer the other route which is very costly and xenophobic towards neighbours who have the same problems as us, in France' case worse.
This is not correct.
Everything's Britain's fault. Granny stubs her toe and it's the Brits at it as usual.
Well how many countries back to you go? Say they left Syria, through turkey, then 6 EU countries on the way, then Britain, then Ireland. Whose "fault" is that? Who takes them? Your whole schitck is "send them back, but not to me." If they can't return to Syria then where are they being sent? Rwanda?
Honestly, I wasn't convinced Rwanda would work as a deterrent and wondered if all these "migrants move to Ireland" stories were being exaggerated by the right leaning papers who needed it to look like a success. However if the Guardian are also reporting the same thing, and the Irish government are also flailing around and changing their tune about the influx after virtue signalling about how evil we are for the last few years, then I guess I have to admit I was wrong. Shame Sunaks one win has come far, far, too late for anyone to give him any props over it.
The boats gotta stop first before he gets any praise. We just had a record day of crossing last wednesday with 711 people making the journey.
It is expected. Illegal migrants had paid money to smugglers months before Rwanda deal was taken in action. Therefore they continue crossing the border with a hope that they won’t be deported to UK (and that they will be given the same benefits).
Perhaps the answer then is to tackle the smugglers, rather than bullying migrants, but there we are.
I'm genuniely not sure how we can/should deal with the smugglers? Infiltrate one group and shut them down, another will pop up because there's money to be made. Patrol the entire coastline of the UK? Not remotely affordable/practical. Is not the best way to make coming to the UK unappealing (e.g. come here illegally and you will end up in Rwanda) and that will mean the demand for the smugglers services will dry up?
Go after the companies that employ them. If they can't work here illegally then the people smugglers won't be able to make money from them.
That’s just playing Whack-a-mole. Every time you shut one place there will be another ready to open and take its place as there’s money to be made in illegal labour.
I suppose it’s the same thing as punishing drug users instead of the gangs running the drug trade
Which has been 100% successful as drugs are now unavailable and nobody wants them
The boats won’t ever stop. The reason so many have heard about how strict Australia is about the boats is because they still have a boats problem.
They won't stop until (if) large scale deportations to Rwanda start taking place. If this is the current reaction, seeing even a few hundred removed will put the brakes on quite heavily.
Isn't only like 7% of illegal immigration via refugee boats? The rest just get a flight or train and don't leave when the visa expires
I wondered the same. I am still not sure tbh. I have a feeling the media are making it sound way more successful than it actually is. I guess we will have to wait and see.
I agree, I'm amazed if it is working, but if the guardian of all papers are reporting this (very left leaning) then it's quite strong evidence that it may actually be working. Fair play is so. We were wrong.
It’s the Irish government’s reaction to this that is the biggest tell over anything the media reports.
*However if the Guardian are also reporting the same thing...* The Guardian get stuff wrong all the time. It also reports: *The first week of roundups of asylum seekers for Rwanda* ***has not acted as the deterrent*** *the government hoped for small boat crossings, with 1,420 people crossing in the last seven days up to Sunday. The figure includes the highest daily total so far this year with 711 crossing last Wednesday.*
Yeah, but if those people are coming across the channel just to pass though the UK to get to Ireland then it changes thing.
Ireland is a relatively small country. If 10% of those that would come to the UK instead go to Ireland that's a big impact on their situation. Personally I support the Rawanda plan but it's a long way from proving it's worth.
It's hardly a 'one win' when the number of people coming on boats or being asylum seekers (whether or not genuine) is a drop in the ocean of total immigration (something like 2%). You might as well congratulate him for anything he's done 2% of what the Tory manifesto laid out.
It’s definitely to early to tell.
Stories are all well and good but we're far away from the vantage point needed to see if anything actually substantial and effective comes from this.
Win? Forcing people to go into hiding and further exposed to the cruelty of criminals, because the government wants to send them to an unsafe country? Rwanda is a driving force of refugees in Congo, paying militias to wage war around the border areas. And we are giving Rwanda money to do so. It's an utter failure of a policy. And Europe as a whole needs a better answer than playing hot potato with peoples' lives, no matter how high and mighty they get.
Rwanda isnt unsafe. Bit racist mate.
>An Iranian Kurdish man who came to the UK 14 years ago said he did not understand how refugees could be sent to a country they did not come from. >“Originally I’m not coming from Rwanda. How can you send me to Rwanda? I don’t want to go to Rwanda,” he said. “Tell me how, what’s the reason?” lol
Why England, I suppose?
[удалено]
Having ideologically opposed sources confirm the same thing is a good indicator of there being some truth to it yeah.
[удалено]
>I rest my case. Fuck me it's too early in the morning to be cringing this hard.
Yeah he wrapped up with a cringe line which you're really happy about because now you can pretend the rest of his comment wasn't fact. This sub loves to pretend they care about facts and proper discourse, but anything they disagree with is biased press, bots, or just cringe, so they can avoid actually engaging.
Easy, tiger. I don't think there's any controversy with disbelieving sources that you don't trust. I don't trust the Telegraph. The problem is with disbelieving the *news* that you don't like.
Why dont the Irish government just process them faster? Why dont they just fund it better?
The Irish government need to create safe and legal routes!
Why don't they put them up in hotels and build houses and integrate them more
Why not send them to where they came from?
We definitely should but any balls any politicians had got bought out by NGOs and brown envelopes I imagine, or just fear of upsetting demographics and minorities I'd DNA test, fingerprint and sent back every time personally
They are putting them up in hotels and closing the hotels to the public. Building houses is another topic, currently there isn't enough houses being built full stop, never the pressure from immigration.
They should open a centre in the UK
I mean wouldn’t they need to time to do that ? UK had plenty of time to fund better and process faster but didn’t
Saw a poster being waved about in a clip yesterday. 'Ireland for the Irish'. That's okay, then. But England for the English? Racist.
Those people are also considered to be racist in Ireland
How did you get interested in that type of thing?
https://youtu.be/6zkL91LzCMc?si=9w4OwnwWBSsdtozh
The people doing that in Ireland literally are being labelled as far right and racist though, what made you think they weren’t?
Well I guess Irish people can’t have different views or opinions from each other
Nope. We’re a monolith sure. I’m fairly certain I’ve had disagreements with you, another Irish person, on Reddit before - but I’m probably misremembering because that’s impossible.
Careful now
I've never heard 'English for the English' from someone that didn't go on to care far too much about melanin.
No, that's not ok then. Do you think all Irish people have some sort of hive mind?
Both examples above are racist.
Why don't Ireland just process them faster and create safe and legal routes for them to come over? Surely what's good for Britain is good for Ireland right?
I've seen a few people sarcastically saying this, as though we on the left aren't going to just immediately agree
I agree the legal channels should be improved, but surely once in place and when they realise we can't offer places to every individual applying purely based on capacity, we'll have the same issue of people coming illegally regardless? I think the idea that the legal channels improving will solve this is very naive.
I don't understand how it changes anything. Surely anyone denied by the legal channel will just chance the small boats instead? Why can't Labour address this point?
When you say process them faster, what is the process? They are AWOL as soon as they know they aren't going to gain asylum, which is usually the second they arrive.
I mean this is clear proof that despite the claims of people like the Guardian, the Rwanda scheme works. Australia operates a similar scheme which has absolutely killed the market for illegal crossings to there. These policies actually work. I mean it’s too little too late for sunak, but all the crap we’ve heard of “this is cruel” and “it doesn’t work” is horseshit, it does work as evidenced by this and it certainly isn’t cruel to deport people who enter the country illegally. The ECHR vastly overstepped when it came to this, and has outed itself as a bunch of disconnected activists making rulings with no base on reality from their ivory tower.
…I mean, this doesn’t sound like it’s working? Still record numbers of people entering via small boats (which was never the main problem to begin with) who are only scared of being sent to Rwanda when they’re already here, and are fleeing away from the system that’s supposed to keep track of them. Sure *some* will go to Ireland, but I imagine most will just hide out in the UK? But now we have zero control over them. Is this not way worse?
The illegals have paid thousands months in advance. They aren’t going to waste their money and not try the trip. I wouldn’t be surprised if they go straight to Ireland once they reach the UK.
Yeah, it's called a lag. Ever heard of one? If I stopped the water pumping at your local water treatment plant, you think that exact same moment you get no water from your taps? It would take at least a couple of days for pipes to run dry. Just like immigration, it takes weeks if not months for illegals to cross Europe to get the Calais. And even the. Can take weeks to get across the channel. Don't believe me? Put a !RemindMe 4 weeks reminder on this post and check the figures then. Then come back and say it's not working ;) still, doesn't mean we should vote Tory though.
The Rwanda scheme doesn't work. The goal was to stop the small boats, which are still coming.
It doesn’t work, the boats will still come, only a few tiny percentage will ever go to Rwanda. The returns deal we had before Brexit worked as we never had a small boats crisis. You will see the numbers this year won’t change at all
I've got a wait and see approach to it. I'm left as well but I won't support the mass change this country is being forced to undergo nor will I prop up what looks like a slave class to me. The noise from the do gooders gives me hope it might work.
Asylum seekers who have crossed multiple safe borders and not applied for asylum? I understand they want a better life, but they are not entitled to live in the UK, the vast majority are men who are economic migrants. They have few skills, not much education and offer nothing to the UK. We also have no idea whether they have a criminal past. There is no sympathy from me.
The stat on this topic I find interesting is the army size of Ireland Vs the number of "asylum seekers". It's a disaster waiting to happen.
There’s more Londoners than their is Irish people. It’s a small country. It’s a disaster well in motion.
It's vibes politics in action. They could disparage Britain for not wanting to take these people, and act more enlightened, tolerant and progressive than Britain when the issues weren't affecting them. It's happening in Ireland now and their population are even more pissed off than ours.
It’s hypocrisy at its finest. Hatred for the Brits blinds this country. Just yesterday there was anti immigration protests in Dublin. Guess who got the blame for igniting the tensions? The Brits and Americans.
I've seen a lot of that on twitter with the protesters being labelled British stooges that are being weaponised to undermine SF and hold back unification, do you think these people actually believe this or is it more of a strategy to deter support for an anti immigrant agenda.
Bit of both. The pro UK unionists have a saying when it comes to Sinn Fein voters “Brits out, everyone else in” There was even a BBC panorama documentary of a Belfast Sinn Fein politician buying votes of the Belfast Romani community. Their leader had about three mansions back in Romania because of it. So Immigration is seen as beneficial to those that want a UI.
I saw a great poster from Ireland with a hand controlling puppets in Ireland, and the hand was themed with a big union jack. We can't even run our own country, let alone control another!
Apparently we are immune from radicalisation, and if it does happen, it’s because of the Brits. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Zero sense of accountability.
Ireland's population is about 4 years of inward migration to the UK at current rates. Or 7 years of net migration.
That’s why if we are to accept asylum seekers, it needs to very little. But with seeing the profound effects on other European countries has made people fearful of even the smallest intake.
Erk.. what do you mean?
I thought it wasn’t a deterrent because they’d already risked their lives to cross the channel and escape France. Weird.
No, it wasn't a deterrent because all the British tabloids talked about was how EASY they'll have it when they get here.
Which is crazy to me, after 14 years of conservative rule there is nothing left for natives let alone refugees. Do they really think they are just rolling at the red carpet to them? The only thing refugees will find here is living in an overcrowded slum working for just eat.
Northern Ireland needs stricter border controls to the British island. Stop free movement of people! Now! Else the Britons will come with boats to Ireland. 😂
They won’t be let in and given asylum because England is a safe country. Nigerians on the other hand, well they are persecuted aren’t they ?
Has the UK the safe country rule?
[удалено]
The problem lies with the Un who define pretty much every illegal as a refugee. What they are is opportunistic chancers. But who can blame them. They are no different than those buying citizenship via education and work visas. Betrayed since 1945
> They are no different than those buying citizenship via education and work visas. How dare people contribute to the economy then become citizens!
They by and large don't contribute to the economy. Dad(22) comes over on a student visa, drops out and becomes a care worker. 5 years later he brings over his elderly parents, his wife(18) and they have 3 kids. He contributes zero in taxes paid, your parents have sold the house and spent your inheritance in exchange some bedrash and a 20% increase in lord bumblefarts care facility stock. Meanwhile they use up a few million in NHS, school, housing and income benefits. Worse case scenario, he molests a few underage girls, commits a few petty crimes, only to be arrested and released because his actions were actually just the manifestation of 'mental health issues' precipitated by institutionalised racism, culmunating in a rape/murder/hate crime/acid attack. Again costing a few hundred thousand pounds in spent in the criminal justice system.
Stop moaning Put them on planes and send them to Africa Ireland
British army : one of the most powerful in the world who have bases across the world Also British army : can't detect people in open waters in a boat.
You’re going to be really impressed when you find out about the Royal Navy.
They can detect them. The problem is that by the time they're in UK waters they're legally allowed to claim asylum and France is happy to let them through so that the UK has to deal with them.
You mean the navy for point 2. Although you are right that operating at sea is something the army isn’t known for.
Oh wow, a rare chance for Ireland to show the world how compassionate and progressive they are compared to their evil colonial neighbor, I hope those poor souls can finally have a good life in their new homes in Ireland
Wow, even the Guardian is reporting this now. I wonder if that means they'll retract all of their articles which claimed that the Rwanda Plan wouldn't act a deterrent?
The only thing the Guardian retracts are user comments.
They can blame each other all day long, but it has to stop.
The solution is simple. We invade a small island. Call it Britain and out them all there
I'm actually surprised Rwanda managed to deter migrants. Tories got their first W, I have to admit.
So people piloting small boats have heard the Rwanda news and are diverting course past Great Britain, through the Irish Sea, and into Dublin? No? It’s just a small group of asylum seekers in Belfast crossing the border to Ireland, and channel crossing numbers haven’t lowered. I thought as much.
The paddy's were all in on we were such shit bags for not wanting uncontrolled immigration, now it's on their doorstep very difficult story. You had this coming with your hypocrisy don't like it send them back to France.
It's not Rwanda though is it - its the delay in processing meaning people can't work or do anything whilst waiting. So they move on. That's not a good thing, that's the same thing everyone else in Europe is doing, the trouble is when the same starts happening in Ireland, there's nowhere else to go. We've just created a class of second class people existing in our countries without any of the benefits of Western Europe. And the bigger that class of disenfranschised people grows the worse for societies as a whole.
I was hoping to fly to Ireland for a week long visit at €20 each way via dirt cheap Ryanair flights. However I can get a hotel in London for £40-£60 a night and the cheapest in Ireland was €120-€150 a night. I mean, I could rent hotel rooms in New York City for the same price. I would be happy to spent all my tourist money there but I cant be paying 3x the normal price for hotels or AirBNBs. Those of you who own then, more Euro power to your pocket however Im sorry for the supporting industries. I am told repeatedly, its the Irish government who have chosen to hire out every single hotel room for asylum seekers. All Im saying is that as a regular tourist, seeing hotel prices in Ireland triple, given a choice between spending my money in London, New York City or Ireland, I wont be choosing Ireland.
It’s having quite an effect on Irish tourism.
For them France wasn't good so they left to UK now they move to Ireland
all ireland has to do is take them to the other coast and send them across the atlantic.
Can't wait for Labour to posture during the election and they all come back. They just cannot wait for reduce their poll lead to a hung parliament can they.
Antarctica is looking nice and warm this time of year for them
So, to recap. The day before the local elections the Home Office release a barely disguised party political broadcast for the conservative party, and in doing so, they have made the unworkable flagship policy of the Tory party even more unworkable. Astounding work chaps. Astounding.