Nobody should be going to Rwanda when there is any uncertainty.
Nobody should be crossing the channel on a dingy where there is even more uncertainty
The same judge who ruled for the government on the legacy benefits court case in February. He must be their go to man.
Legal certainty.
How does sending people to Rwanda make people in boats safer. We know they will take the chance anyway.
Perhaps we could shoot a few on the beach and it might deter others.
Method of transport has very little to do with a refugee's legitimacy as an asylum seeker. Sending people of various different ethnicities (including Syrian Arabs) to a country where up to a million people were killed in an ethnic conflict less than 30 years ago doesn't seem like a well thought out plan.
It’s early days but surely people will be more deterred to cross the channel if they know they will be deported ? Even if it reduces a fraction then that’s still something
To prevent people from coming is the obvious answerWhy would you want to deter someone from applying for asylum ?
Nobody should be crossing the channel on a dingy where there is even more uncertainty
SPOT ON.....it is the easiest most cost effective, most humanitarian idea out there.If you want to stop people crossing the channel, by far the quickest and most effective solution would be to let people claim asylum from France, before they risk their lives.
According to the government’s own figures, 61% of people crossing the channel pass are legitimate refugees that are granted asylum.
So if the government actually gave a shit about reducing deaths, they could halve them overnight.
Not only would you reduce the deaths, but each refugee wouldn’t have to pay a trafficker €5000 and instead they could use that money to start their new life in the UK less dependent on the government.