One way ticket to Rwanda - the right thing to do or not?

Whitesince63 wrote:

Sadly we don’t live in an ideal world and the majority of these young men coming here don’t want to work, at least not the work that you suggest needs doing like crop picking and similar low paid and also seasonal work. The vast majority coming across the Channel are economic migrants, people who have chosen to make this journey, not forced to.

wanderlust wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:

Sadly we don’t live in an ideal world and the majority of these young men coming here don’t want to work, at least not the work that you suggest needs doing like crop picking and similar low paid and also seasonal work. The vast majority coming across the Channel are economic migrants, people who have chosen to make this journey, not forced to.

So if they don't want to work as you say, doesn't that mean that my proposal would act as a deterrent for them to come in the first place?

Sluffy wrote:Even putting that to one side, you still can't make them work against their will - and you still have to feed, house and provide education and medical care them no matter what - even if they are denied benefits!

What do you propose we do with the growing thousands of illegal 'guest workers', who are entering the country in ever increasing multitudes of people year on year who we provide open ended free accommodation, food, health care, education, etc, to - and have quite rightly used their right not to 'compulsory' work???

You seem to be fixated that the answer to the problem is to turn them into some sort of 'forced labour' and have them work in the fields???

Real life doesn't work that way, these 'guest workers' of yours have a choice not to do that - what are you going to do then - or have you not thought of that...?

Clearly you haven't!

We still will have a massive ongoing burden on the British tax payers and still have no deterrent to any other 'guest workers' looking to illegally entering the country for free housing, food, education, medical facilities, etc, etc???

okocha wrote:How does anyone know what "the vast majority" want or what their motives are?

Sluffy wrote:

That's easy to answer - you just ask them!

Nearly all talk about a better life, to get an education, to raise their families and have better opportunities.

And to be fair this country does give them a all the opportunities to do that and probably more so than France, Spain, Italy etc.

If I was an immigrant I'd want to come here.

If however I was seeking safety I'd want to get to the first country I came to where I was given that and God willing return to my own country as soon as it was safe again.

The immigrants trying to illegally get into the UK have already passed through multiple safe country's and clearly have no intentions of returning back to their own countries because they know the better life for them is here.

That's why they come.

And will keep on coming until we do something like this to make them think places like France, Spain, Italy, etc, aren't really too bad a place to set up home instead.

Whitesince63 wrote:
Spot on Sluffy. At the end of the day we are a small country already over populated on historical grounds. Our social services, healthcare, schools and housing are creaking at the seems, yet some on here don’t seem to realise that we can’t continue to accommodate the number of people who want to come here, whatever their reason. As you say, it can’t possibly be safety, they’re already in a safe country and they have absolutely no intention of returning “home” in the future. We were originally a lifeboat for those fleeing terror but the boats now full and if we keep allowing these people in, we’re going to capsize it to the detriment of us all. Send them to a different lifeboat, ie Rwanda.

wanderlust wrote:Wake up and smell the coffee mate - we can't afford to send them to Rwanda can we? Especially not at the shit rates Patel negotiated.
We can maybe send a couple of hundred as a political gesture but last year alone 28,000 arrived and with the global food crisis that the Ukraine war is about to create, that's going to be a drop in the ocean in future years.
We need a radical solution not a political gesture so the government needs to put their thinking caps on and consider practical partial solutions such as the one I propose - it isn't perfect but it's a damn sight better than this bullshit.

Sluffy wrote:You do make me laugh though, simply ignoring and pretending my posts don't exist when they completely refute what you say - don't you think everyone else can't see your weird and mental behaviour or something???

Sluffy wrote:The government pays either way - they either pay to move refugees to Rwanda and pay for infra structure to help them arrive there - hostels, etc, or they pay for them to stop in the UK (and once they are allowed to stay, bring in their family - that's why most refugees to the UK are single men) and potentially end up paying for them and their families for a lifetime of housing, healthcare, education and benefits.

Which is more cost effective - a one off payment up front (plane ticket and building hostels), or a potential lifetime of costs for housing, education, healthcare, benefits for not only the refugee but also his immediate family who will follow them once he has obtained indefinite leave?

The greater total cost is obviously by keeping them in the UK.

Added to that the deterrent of sending refugees to Rwanda will eventually diminish the numbers of future refugees seeking 'safety' in the UK - continuing to do nothing and stay as we are is clearly attracting substantially more refugees arriving here year on year.

Sluffy wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:What am I missing that makes this a good idea? Unless I’ve got this wrong, there are only places for 100 refugees initially with accommodation being boosted to 300, but we don’t know how long that will take. There are about 600-800 migrants a day coming across at the moment so how can it possibly be a deterrent? Please tell me if I’ve got this wrong, otherwise it just seems to be too small a number to be worth doing.

You may be right on the current details but I suspect that's just the start.

Once the scheme gets really going (if it gets off the ground with all the legal challenges that will no doubt be brought to stop it) I would imagine there will be substantially more that are put on a plane to Rwanda - potentially thousands.

Yes the cost per head will be enormous but the cost to the taxpayers for giving the refugee's who illegally enter the UK would be vastly more in a lifetime of free health, education, housing and benefits for not only them but their whole family's who they then have a right to bring over once they have been granted indefinite leave to stay.

wanderlust wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:
Spot on Sluffy. At the end of the day we are a small country already over populated on historical grounds. Our social services, healthcare, schools and housing are creaking at the seems, yet some on here don’t seem to realise that we can’t continue to accommodate the number of people who want to come here, whatever their reason. As you say, it can’t possibly be safety, they’re already in a safe country and they have absolutely no intention of returning “home” in the future. We were originally a lifeboat for those fleeing terror but the boats now full and if we keep allowing these people in, we’re going to capsize it to the detriment of us all. Send them to a different lifeboat, ie Rwanda.

Wake up and smell the coffee mate - we can't afford to send them to Rwanda can we? Especially not at the shit rates Patel negotiated.
We can maybe send a couple of hundred as a political gesture but last year alone 28,000 arrived and with the global food crisis that the Ukraine war is about to create, that's going to be a drop in the ocean in future years.
We need a radical solution not a political gesture so the government needs to put their thinking caps on and consider practical partial solutions such as the one I propose - it isn't perfect but it's a damn sight better than this bullshit.

Whitesince63 wrote:I don’t think anyones got the exact costs Biggie, but we certainly know that we’re currently spending £5m a day to house these people and that’s without the additional costs of healthcare and other social costs. With more arriving every day that bills just going to get bigger and bigger unless we find a way to stem the flow. Clearly Lusty can’t get his head round that fact, still banging on about doing something with them when they’re here. The objective is to stop them coming in the first place then deal with the problem of true refugees, actually fleeing terror and not these pretenders coming from within Europe. Whatever the perceived initial cost, it has to be worth it if it succeeds in defeating the smugglers and putting a big hole in their hulls.

wanderlust wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:I don’t think anyones got the exact costs Biggie, but we certainly know that we’re currently spending £5m a day to house these people and that’s without the additional costs of healthcare and other social costs. With more arriving every day that bills just going to get bigger and bigger unless we find a way to stem the flow. Clearly Lusty can’t get his head round that fact, still banging on about doing something with them when they’re here. The objective is to stop them coming in the first place then deal with the problem of true refugees, actually fleeing terror and not these pretenders coming from within Europe. Whatever the perceived initial cost, it has to be worth it if it succeeds in defeating the smugglers and putting a big hole in their hulls.

Nope - you still haven't got it.

But rather than go round in circles and re explain the cost/income/production/social  etc benefits - and deterrent value- of my proposal to you again, I'll leave it there and see if Patel does finally answer the questions she has avoided relating to the actual cost and details of the Rwanda deal that has been struck.
I'm sure the figure of £1million per deportee (who is likely to return anyway) that is being bandied about isn't exactly right, but it'll come out in the wash and maybe then we can discuss it.

Whitesince63 wrote:Yep, just about sums it up Sluffy.

wanderlust wrote:
You have an idiot for a translator?
You can do better mate

Biggie wrote:Ahem.

I resent the comment, "even Biggie"...

Sluffy wrote:

Sorry, I was making a point and it came across much better adding the emphasis of the word 'even'.

I would have used it for anyone else who had raised a comment about this but apart from 63 and myself there was only you.

No offence intended.