Quiz Answers..famous People Closes...
Crosswords4 mins ago
Keir Starmer Opens Door To Processing Asylum Claims Outside Uk
https:/
Isn't that exactly what the Conservatives had in mind - the plan that Starmer ditched immediately he took office? Having raised continual objections to that scheme and now thrown away the money the previous government spent on it, I wonder how much he intends to pay for the service - and to whom?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have been saying for a long time that a foreign country isn't needed. Charter or buy a large liner, put it at anchor offshore, take the small boat migrants to it before they even set foot on dry land & process them on board.
If their application fails, take them back on smaller, but safe vessels to from whence they came or their country of origin, if their application is successful bring them in.
Cheaper and more efficient than the 7 millions we are spending on them each day that passes.
"Labour have done more in two weeks that the previous lot managed in the last 2 years."
Er..no. They've talked a lot about what they might do. Apart from tearing up the Rwanda scheme, they haven't actually done anything.
Processing asylum claims offshore - particularly if it is done where there is ovreland access to their chosen desination - will not work. Claimants who suspect their claims may be turned down won't bother to apply and will simply travel to Calais to do what they are doing now. Those who do claim but are unsuccessful will do likewise.
As I keep repeating, the answer to this problem lies only with physically preventing migrants from arriving. Once they've arrived (particularly in the UK) the chances of them being removed are minimal.
Labour has not been stopped from putting any plans into action yet. Big difference to what the last government had to contend with. And what they have announced either as a vague aim or otherwise tends to be in the wrong direction on most subjects. But let them revive the old idea of processing before illegally entering by all means. At least we are then 100% sure which illegals have been rejected and are returnable. (Not that we don't already know that they all are since they come as refugees from the EU.)
The Rwanda Scheme was always going to fail because there was never enough money to make it work.
// Australia’s offshoring is very expensive for the tax payers. Each migrant costs £1.7 million to offshore.
It is revealing that the UK has not specified how many migrants it will send. If the UK proposal is based on the Australian scheme, the £120million would offshore 70 migrants. Last year we had 28,000 illegal migrants.
To offshore all 28,000 would cost £ 47.6 Billion. //
Gromit Sat 16th Apr 2022
Last year both SKS and Yvette Cooper talked about processing asylum claims abroad, so they're not adverse to the idea, they're just adverse to Rwanda because it was a Tory policy.
So which third party countries would be acceptable to them? Will it be less expensive than Rwanda?
So far SKS has said he'll spend £84m across North and East Africa and parts of the Middle East (that's a naffing big area for £84m) to fund health and education projects in a bid to stop illegal immigration. Is he having a laugh? If he truly thinks this will work, then I'm a Nigerian Prince who will give him the money if he pays me a million to release it.
I knew we were going to get some batsiht ideas from these clowns, I just didn't think it would be this quickly.
the rwanda policy was not that claims would be "processed" there was it? unless i am mistaken the idea was that they would stay in rwanda.
regardless the rwanda policy was not intended to work or to solve a problem. it was never a serious policy. it was designed so that the tories could campaign on leaving the ECHR later in the year... party before country yet again. unfortunately for them sunak called the election too early for that to work.
"The [National Audit Office]’s estimates suggest that the UK government would spend around £600 million to send 300 people to Rwanda, equivalent to around £2 million per person; and around £4 billion to send 20,000 people, which is around £200,000 per person. These estimates exclude the wider costs of implementing the Illegal Migration Act, such as expanding detention capacity. By contrast, the UK government’s Impact Assessment for the Illegal Migration Act estimates that the cost of processing a person’s asylum claim in the UK as normal is around £106,000."
Would the cost of processing claims in Rwanda being almost double the cost of dealing with them in the UK even after many decades, not be justification for cancelling that arrangement?
The threat of being sent to Rwanda would have been a deterrent but how many would need to be deterred for that scheme to have been a cost benefit?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.