Hotel Rwanda?

[Kaz]

Well said Osc!

[Workingman]

But you have had that problem for very many years with successive governments failing to tackle it in any way. This cruelty is not the way.

Which is what I have said more than a few times.

[Workingman]

Just coming back to this.

Genuine refugees / asylum seekers, and illegals of all types, are mutually inclusive, they are two sides of the same coin at the same time.

However, they must be treated separately. We must show compassion to those who are genuine, but at the same time we must also deal harshly with illegals.

Is that so wrong? Asking for a country.

Anybody got any perfect answers?

[cromwell]

There are no perfect answers, are there?
You can't just depend on kindness.
If a ship sinks and one lifeboat gets away, if you let too many people on the lifeboat the lifeboat sinks as well and instead of some people surviving the shipwreck, nobody survives. You've been kind by letting everyone on the lifeboat but by doing so you've killed everybody.

In the same way someone has to stop illegal immigration. Someone has to say "No, you can't come in". Someone has to physically prevent that and to physically remove illegals too. Our chattering classes flinch from such action.
As far as the Hotel Rwanda scheme goes I can't see it working. The civil service in the UK sees itself as the real government and they will be against it. The last head of the Border Agency referred to borders as being "A pain in the a**e". That's what you're up against.

The media are against this scheme, the civil service are against it, the UN is against it and the human rights lawyers will be queueing up for a piece of the taxpayer sponsored action.

It's doomed as far as I can see.

There won't be a solution unless we withdraw from international treaties forbidding "pushback" of "migrants", there is massive civil service reform (read, redundancies) and changes to human rights law.

None of which I can see happening.

[medsec222]

I think we have to be proactive regarding economic migrants and illegal immigrants. They are determined to come to the UK and if they can't get here by legal means they will force their way in, even before those who apply legally through the normal channels, irrespective of the dangers they face when crossing the channel. I agree with Cromwell and also take the view that we can only do so much. What starts as a trickle of people wanting to come to the UK through illegal routes can turn into a tide if they are successful.

I have heard the view expressed on various news programmes that the UK should take its fair share of immigrants and live up to its obligatins, but how the UK compares with neighbouring countries on immigration numbers, I am not sure, and whilst that could be said for genuine refugees fleeing from persecution, the same cannot be said for economic migrants, who want to come to the UK for a better standard of living. I don't blame anyone for that, but it all comes down to the UK taxpayer to meet the rapidly increasing costs when so many low paid workers with families are already feeling the pinch. There is also the security aspect to consider. Many economic migrants destroy their passports/papers/phones so that their country of origin cannot be traced, so we cannot even be certain whether there are people amongst those who make the journey successfully who are here to improve their prospects or to do some harm in the UK.

[cruiser2]

Over 20 years ago my DIL before she married my son, had to go out of the UK for 48 hours even though she was working and not claiming
any benefits. We enjoyed the Belgian chocolates she brought back. Had several phone calls with Home Office but could not change the
rules.
Lot different to the situation now with immigrants.

[Suff]

I ignore the constant carping of how this is disgusting and terrible. I do note the occasional comment that the loudest detractors from the Rwanda "solution" are the most silent on just what solution should replace it!

Let's face facts, Nobody and I do mean NOBODY, that has publicly decried the attempts of the UK to protect its borders from illegal migrants (refugees from conflict ARE NOT ILLEGAL MIGRANTS), has had a single constructive word to say about how we stop it. Why? Because they don't want to stop it. In fact not only will they not stop it, they will use every power that the very fair and open UK laws have to Ensure that it Continues.

Now let's understand what continuing this means.

- It means that Refugee's, real and true legal Migrants, are buried under a mountain of bodies who are stampeding them into the ground to make a quick buck and get the family over to partake of hundreds of years of stable government and stable laws and legal systems which promote a stable economy and a safe place to live
- It means millions of people will beg, borrow, scrounge, money to "get" to the UK so that they can reap this bounty without having done a single thing to create it.
- It means that thousands of families and children will be dragged a thousand or more miles across the country in hostile conditions carrying out unsafe sea journeys and handing hundreds of millions or billions into the hands of cynical people traffickers.

That, to me, is morally indefensible and those who scream RWANDA IS INHUMANE need to step back and give their own viable and "humane" solution to stop the wholesale misery and death from the list above. All driven by a serious lack of backbone in the UK government and a very vocal minority of the people driving an unacceptable situation.

Those who decry attempts to control this situation, without offering a workable solution itself, which stops this horror migration, are, in my opinion, largely responsible for these migrations and deaths.

And I really mean and believe that. Which, to me, is morally indefensible and totally disgusting.

Nobody, not anywhere, has a legal right to cross the channel to the UK and demand asylum as a refugee. Because the UK does not border any one of their countries and the UK borders no countries where refugees might need to flee to. Not One. This makes them all Illegal Migrants.

Even setting up Rwanda is, in the eyes of the law, more than we should be doing. But then there is compassion and there are those in extremis. The problem is sorting out the first from the second.

You can be damned sure that the economic migrants will debunk from Rwanda as fast as they can as soon as they realise that they won't be able to leverage UK courts to force their way into the UK. Leaving the truly vulnerable behind to apply for asylum. All of whom I'd let in.

The press is doing a major fandango about how "Hotel Rwanda" has not stopped the illegals. How could it? They read the news too and see that people in the UK are determined to stop Rwanda at all costs. This means that they are More likely, not less, to take any risk to get in as soon as they can and hope that those opposed to Rwanda keep them in the UK.

Want to talk about disgusting and untenable? THAT is disgusting and untenable. Encouraging illegals to take any risk on the chance that the bleeding hearts will use the fair and balanced UK laws to keep them in the UK if they can just touch UK shores.