UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

It's going to be very popular among the working class.

Not as much in the leafy suburbs.

Do you have a source for those costs?

Seem astronomical per person

They can avoid going to Rwanda by claiming asylum in France. Or they can use the thousands of euros they’ve brought for the channel crossing to fly elsewhere. The UK is crowded, and every space for asylum should be reserved for genuine people who apply legally.

Source.

Yes, it is astronomical per person.

But think about it - if you set out intentionally to design a massively expensive, massively inefficient system for dealing with asylum-seekers, offshoring is pretty much the solution you would come up with. Proponents of such solutions will sometimes tell you they are concerned with value-for-money or with minimising the taxpayers' burden but they are, of course, lying. If they were concerned about such matters they would not advocate offshoring.

The great bulk of those who cross the channel in boats are "genuine people who apply legally". The UK proposes to send them to Rwanda and dismiss their applications unexamined just the same.

If you're looking for a scheme which deals fairly and decently with genuine people who apply legally, then this scheme is the exact opposite of that. If you support this scheme then you have either misunderstood it, or your pretended concern for genuine people who apply legally is hypocritical.

The goal is not to process applicants cheaply or 'fairly', it's to discourage them altogether.

A high cost per person processed is a sign that it's working as intended, because the fixed costs of the scheme are spread over so few people.

Why lies? Could I not just be misinformed? wrong? Could you not have misinterpreted my post?

Please tone down the aggression if you wish to engage with me.

Well, if your only goal is to discourage people from coming to seek asylum, you could do that just as effectively, or perhaps even more effectively, by, say, machine-gunning boatloads of asylum seekers (as some have in fact suggested).

But if that is your only goal (this is the generic "you", not you, Nermal, you understand) then I think my point is made; a pretended concern for "genuine people who apply legally" would indeed be hypocritical, if all you want to do is stop them applying.

What you actually said was:

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.

Setting aside the personal attacks (for now), I don't claim to have access to a divine source of knowledge on this (or any other) topic. Feel free to correct me if you feel I am wrong with your sources and proof that they are infallible.

If you give me the sources for the claim you made and I responded to, I will give you the sources for responses. Fair?

You admitted you're racist.

"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."

That's enough for me thanks.

Now where's that soap?

People that make multifaceted, complex issues all about race are perhaps, unnecessarily consumed by race.

There's a word for them alright and you seem quite familiar with it.