UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

Obviously I meant if it was seen as now being more difficult for illegals to enter the UK a greater number of them might want to come here, they have other means of getting places apart from boats.

Didn't think this needed to be explained but it seems it does.

I guess that you haven’t seen airlines take a passengers passport before boarding, hand it to the flight attendant in charge and then to the airline representative at the destination ? Just to make sure that they aren’t flushed down the toilet.

Paris and Frankfurt were the last two destinations where I saw immigration check passengers on the air bridge or the bottom of the steps before passengers entered a bus.

I think the point of all of this is just politics and to energise their new base of UKIP racists. And judging from what I've seen online, it's working.

I wouldn't be surprised if even one plane departs from the UK due to legal challenges. I'm sure the tories are we'll aware of this and that their supporters will blame everyone but them.

I can see the article in a future sunday paper.

Photos of some abandoned half built structures and a story about how a few well connected lads in Rawanda became very rich.

Schoolboy error by me in allowing the pedantry to emerge and allowing another way for you to avoid answering the question I put - more evidence of an inability to actually have a discussion with someone. Pick the things you want to answer, ignore the rest and expect me to answer some nonsense distraction about Australia, whose immigration policies have been about as well received in the world as Trump's decision to cage children away from their parents. I'd say you were all for that.

Israel, Denmark and now the UK have Rwanda as a destination for anyone they can legally bundle onto a plane with a cash bung and a promise of a new life. As ever with global Tories, it's a business opportunity and someone in the Rwandan government is on an enormous wedge to facilitate this. Are they now touting for business? Uganda too. Stellar history of human rights and peaceful coexistence in those nations.

Will we see reception camps being built and Rwanda becoming a dumping ground? That would end well, I'd say. The Aussies sent people to camps on an island out in the ocean. Grim. £500m a year. You could build 2,500 houses with that. £2.7billion is the first costing I've seen of Patel's brainless incompetence.

But the mugs love it. Brexit innit. Getting it done. Local elections, Raw panic at recent byelection results and polls showing Johnson as popular as HRH Andrew. Bit of red meat for the troops.

Mind you, if they all follow the Australian model, Ukrainians need to be careful. Even war and horror among white people wasn't a good enough reason for Patel to ease back the jackboot. A tricle making it to the UK and most giving up.

Interestingly, Denmark is taking 100k from Ukraine but is aiming for zero refugee/asylum seekers/muslims/brown people, many also running away from cities flattened by Russians, ISIS and the Taliban or just after a bite of the lifestyle we've been telling the world is what they should aspire to and asking them to pay for it with their resources. Wonder how many Russians live in the EU. Might be millions. Deport all of them. Do what Putin is doing in reverse. Make some room.

Maybe Irish people have reason for concern too if we get too uppity for Patel and her mates. 1000 kiwis have been given the boot so far from Australia.

The ERG have their toxic eye on the GFA and the CTA and Johnson is going to need them in the next few weeks/monthss unless the UK is totally beyond the point of no return - which is entirely possible.

Imagine if Johnson decides that the CTA has had it's day and tells the paddies to go home or we'll send you to Rwanda. That would soften your cough.

Kagame is beloved by the lives of Tony Blair and The Economist. I think they see him as some kind of benevolent dictator and they hold up up as what an authoritarian technocrat can do when they don't have to worry about the politics of being re-elected.

I have been to Rwanda. I spent two and half weeks there a few years ago. I travelled around the entire country. It's not quite the "Switzerland of Africa" that it's often made out to be. Yes, there is a fancy central business district in Kigali with a few towering buildings and a big shiny convention centre that often gets used for photographs when foreign news organisations talk about Rwanda. As a tourist you'll be able to find nice clean lodgings in most towns with air conditioning and hot showers. This is totally out of step with the vast majority of the population though.

It's the size of Munster but has a population of 13 million people - they are entirely dispersed throughout the country - mostly living in shacks farming small holdings of land. The entire country is mostly rolling hills which is probably one of the reasons that makes providing infrastructure so challenging. Most people don't have running water and in some cases people will have to travel long distances to access water. It's a land-locked country with no natural resources and a very young population. One of the main jobs for young men over there is to push bicycles between towns laden down with jerry cans filled with water. Another big industry seemed to be creating and selling charcoal - which they use to cook food their over in their huts.

There is a large Chinese-built modern paved road that links the major cities, however there are very few cars in the country. It was mostly used by minibuses, a few trucks and lots of motorcycles and bicycles.

One thing that did seem modern to me was their embrace of mobile money. Basically most people used phones for their banking purposes. Rather than open bank accounts if they wanted to send or receive money they could do it with these people who used their phones for the transactions (I believe this is very common in Africa). I saw some solar panels being used as well out in the countryside.

It's the sort of country where foreigners really stand out. Adults would be subtle - they'd walk past you and flick the eyes at you at the last second - children on the other hand would just stare and point at you - especially in the less visited east of the country. I never felt threatened though for the very simple reason that there are armed security forces everywhere. I've done a fair bit of travelling and I've never seen anything like it. Police, army, security guards. All with big guns. I never saw any trouble when I was there but you kind of got the impression that those guys would react quickly if needed.

I didn't have any personal experience of minor corruption over there, nor did I get the impression that it was a thing. I have paid small bribes in other countries in the past so I wouldn't be oblivious as to when this is expected. I suspect that Rwanda is better for this kind of thing than other African countries.

I didn't bring up politics with any of the local people that I talked to because I didn't want to put them in an awkward spot. I do remember one lady who worked in a guesthouse I stayed in telling me that she couldn't wait for an upcoming trip of hers to Uganda. When I asked her what was so great about Uganda she replied "You feel free there". Bear in mind that Uganda is also ruled by an autocrat so that gives you a window into the feeling over there.

Another interesting thing is when you visit the Genocide museum in Kigali the official line is that there are no such thing as Tutsi and Hutu - they say that the Belgians essentially created this distinction as a way to sow division. So now those terms are not used. However it's blatantly obvious that a lot of the people look tall and thin and lighter coloured (like Kagame) and a lot look shorter, darker and thicker. The people with the fancy jobs in the business district of Kigali appeared to be in the former category for the most part.

Kagame deserves credit for keeping order and maintaining stability after the horrors of the genocide. It is a lot more stable than Burundi to the south and especially to the DRC to the west. Under different leadership there may have been a lot of war or an outright collapse in the social order. However he has clearly done this by ruling with an iron fist and snuffing out any sort of opposition to his rule. Famously the man who the movie Hotel Rwanda was about, Paul Rusesabagina, was tricked into returning to Rwanda from exile and then promptly locked him up. Many other opposition voices have simply been murdered.

In my time there the only non-Rwandan, non-tourist I saw over there was an Indian man running a corner shop in Kigali so I really can't see a bunch of Afghans or Syrians starting a new life there.

I would be very surprised if any of the people that the UK send over will stay in the country. Keeping those migrants if they do not want to stay would cost money for Rwanda. The easiest thing for them is to pocket the money that the UK sends them for each migrant and then look the other way as they leave the country.

I think for the Tories this serves as a nice bit of red-meat to throw to the party base but in the long run is unlikely to be successful as a policy. it also doubles as a distraction for Boris Johnson from his own problems.

Look at you, with time on your hands to idle away the hours debating the finer points of UK immigration policy and lobbing racist bits and pieces into your spiel is if that's alright because Donald said so.

This is what you're really here for. You're fully distracted from the real source of your problems and are now preoccupied in your little edgelord racist bubble

"pushing the agenda of darker skin people coming into Europe"

There it is

"I realise people want to shout that it's racism, and it is racist.. but who really cares anymore?"

"We're all a little jaded over being called racist for everything under the sun, that the term doesn't have much umpf anymore."

The ignorance contained in this little nest of horrors is not surprising. Juvenile edgelord word salad.

Racism is racism and you speak for nobody but yourself.

Like the other creature, I feel I need a wash after talking to you.

Anyone who has flushed their documentation down the toilet on the plane over should be fingerprinted and sent back to never be allowed enter the country again.

Lies from beginning to end, I'm afraid, sonar. I don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but wherever it is you should stop treating it so credulously. They are making you look very gullible, which is probably the look you are reaching for.

Some facts; firstly, everyone who arrives in Australia by boat to claim asylum is deported, without any examination of their claim; no attempt is made to identify "dodgy claims" and deport only those. Secondly, Australia doesn't avoid processing them. Unlike in the proposed UK model, Australia does process the claims of those who have been deported, though its position is that it will never admit them to Australia . Thirdly, when processed, the claims turn out not to be dodgy; 83% of them are successful. Fourthly, the scheme doesn't avoid the problem of deporting failed applicants; they remain in the system, at the expense of Australia, because there is nowhere to send them. Fifthly, Australia hasn't "saved untold millions"; the cost of the scheme is $9 billion and rising — an average cost of $3.4 million per asylum seeker. It is by far the most expensive asylum application processing scheme in the world. Sixthly, it hasn't put people traffickers out of business; the trade continues to thrive. With keen supporters like the UK government determined to drum up business for them, how can we be surprised at this?

Why do supporters of these schemes feel the need to lie so consistently and comprehensively about them? Because they know if they told truth they could not justify their own support of the schemes, or hope to win yours. So they lie, and they hope you are very stupid.