UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[Rick1.8t]

Bloxxcreative said:

Ludicrous idea regardless of what it costs at the moment (which is probably mis-managed and used to line their mates and donors pockets anyway).

Sort of the official routes for migration. Make the next steps more efficient.

Not sure it's rocket science - but I am probably giving too much credit there to Priti and team.

Australia spent nearly £500 million shipping 239 migrants out of the country to hold / process them. Thats right, about £2million each.

We are planning on spending £150 million on 500 people.

This 'plan' is nothing more than total and utter red meat bullst timed to deflect from the party issue and get in before local elections.

The kind of situation you are describing requires time, planning, judgement - someting Priti and the goverment is absent of so this is the answer, a genuine, functional arrangement to deal with the issue may as well be rocket science to them.

Its highly likely not to happen at all, but it might work for them over the next few weeks.

Edited by Rick1.8t on Thursday 14th April 14:22

[Four Litre]

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

Chrishum said:

This is a stupid idea.

Surely if migrants are travelling to the UK we should process them in the UK at a far lower cost. As for the fears of the UK being full etc surely those worried about losing their jobs can just migrate elsewhere to find one?

If I am reading this right, you are saying that UK citizens should migrate elsewhere to allow illegal immigrants to be employed in the UK?

Are you the boss of P&O by any chance?

Its crazy that some people seem to think the UK is the worlds charity. Sad to break it to you but we are not.

I cant just rock up anywhere in the world (illegally) and expect them to look after me, people would think I'm nuts. What's the difference?

[768]

That this will likely not happen to any great degree aside, I think hosting refugees in a third country could be made a worthwhile idea. Keep people closer to their homes for when they wish to move back, in countries with more space (not convinced Rwanda is that, I think it's quite high in terms of population density), cheaper cost of living, where labour is cheap enough that we could more or less guarantee them a job, good weather, etc.

I can think of a few places in the Middle East where we have good relations, where people think highly of the UK and where I think we should be making it more palatable for UK businesses to invest. Combine that with motivated people who are also favourable to the UK and just need some safety and a kick start to their working life and I'd have thought it could be a win all round. Way more than £150m required though.

Just dumping them anywhere, not least sandwiched between the DRC and Burundi, would be a disaster.

[Rick1.8t]

768 said:

I think hosting refugees in a third country could be made a worthwhile idea. Keep people closer to their homes for when they wish to move back

When they wish to move back to their homes, like Aleppo or somewhere like that, or maybe somwhere where your life would be in danger if you returned? What is your understanding of a refugee?

[Four Litre]

sunbeam alpine said:

Mash on the money...

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/how-to...

No surprise to see the usual Brexit-supporting racists cheering this on...

You know what a bigot is don't you. Its you!

[petop]

Having spent a lot of time in the countries that majority of these people are coming from then I am all for whatever is put into place to reduce the increased influx into the UK.
Lets be realistic the Rwanda thing the more i look into it is to both appease the voters and hopefully put people off coming, knowing that you could end up in Rwanda.
All the bleating about trying to stop the influx from other countries like Belgium, France etc will fall on deaf ears in those Governments because as long as they keep going through and arriving on a dinghy in the middle of the Channel for Her Majesty's Taxi Service to bring them ashore then they will turn a blind eye.
Fighting Aged Males as we called them should be staying with their families and sorting out what problem(s) is causing them to leave and to make the journey across continents and safe countries to reach the UK.

[Mrr T]

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

It's in the article and I am sure its what the government wants but they have applied in the UK and under the UNCR there right to asylum are in the UK. If they agree to live in Rwanda that's fine but any attempt by the UK to force them to stay there will last about 10 minutes in the courts.

Part of Johnson's speech on the topic suggested to me that they are ready to "debate" that angle.

I think you debate moral issues. On legal issues you normally get an opinion.

This was covered some years ago when the Schengen treaty proposed moving asylum seeks. Not sure it was ever before a court but much was written about it by a number of lawyers. It was clear the obligations under the UNCR rest with the signatory nation and cannot be out sourced.

[Rick1.8t]

petop said:

Fighting Aged Males as we called them should be staying with their families and sorting out what problem(s) is causing them to leave and to make the journey across continents and safe countries to reach the UK.

What if they dont have any family and their 'problem' is that they face persecution from their own countries goverment?

Just stay and 'sort it out' yea?

[anonymous-user]

Four Litre said:

I cant just rock up anywhere in the world (illegally) and expect them to look after me, people would think I'm nuts. What's the difference?

You could if you were being persecuted, it’s your human right. Are you being persecuted?

[petop]

Rick1.8t said:

petop said:

Fighting Aged Males as we called them should be staying with their families and sorting out what problem(s) is causing them to leave and to make the journey across continents and safe countries to reach the UK.

What if they dont have any family and their 'problem' is that they face persecution from their own countries goverment?

Just stay and 'sort it out' yea?

To be blunt yes. The amount that fall under that category is very few.

[anonymous-user]

petop said:

To be blunt yes. The amount that fall under that category is very few.

Aren’t around 70% of asylum claims successful? That would imply most asylum seekers demonstrate that they face serious persecution in their home country.

[Supercilious Sid]

Countdown said:

Vanden Saab said:

grumbledoak said:

What a ridiculous idea. Creating new not-concentration-camps-really in the third world.

If we are to intercept boat traffic across the Channel, we should put them on the Isle of Wight. I bet that doesn't happen either.

Concentration camps??? what are you on about, They will be safe and free from the threat of war or persecution so they will be bailed and allowed to live and earn a living in Rwanda until their case is settled.

Yes. Rwanda is world-famous for being free of war and persecution.

Evidence for your insinuation please.

[ATG]

TCX said:

Tonberry said:

Nice little vote winner for this cesspit of hatred.

Luckily, they'll never legally be able to do it.

Interesting point of view, someone walks into your house uninvited ,what would you think/ do?
Someone 'walks' into the country uninvited,you consider this ok?

Someone walls into your house and asks for help.

[768]

Rick1.8t said:

When they wish to move back to their homes, like Aleppo or somewhere like that, or maybe somwhere where your life would be in danger if you returned? What is your understanding of a refugee?

Population of Aleppo.

1998 - 2,061,000
2010 - 3,078,000 (peak)
2013 -   903,000 (low)
2022 - 2,098,000

[Supercilious Sid]

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

menousername said:

Wonder if this be acceptable for Ukrainian refugees also

I am in no way championing the current situation but it is entirely possible / probable that a significant portion of those arriving are fleeing some kind of war, instability or persecution

There is a lot of that going on in France.

The fact that conveniently get ignored consistently by those whinging about this.

[Supercilious Sid]

Electro1980 said:

TCX said:

Tonberry said:

Nice little vote winner for this cesspit of hatred.

Luckily, they'll never legally be able to do it.

Interesting point of view, someone walks into your house uninvited ,what would you think/ do?
Someone 'walks' into the country uninvited,you consider this ok?

You know that is a ridiculous comparison. If you genuinely believe they are the same thing then you lack the knowledge and intellect to even be worth discussing this with.

Consider yourself to have dodged a bullet here TCX.

[Rick1.8t]

768 said:

Rick1.8t said:

When they wish to move back to their homes, like Aleppo or somewhere like that, or maybe somwhere where your life would be in danger if you returned? What is your understanding of a refugee?

Population of Aleppo.

1998 - 2,061,000
2010 - 3,078,000 (peak)
2013 -   903,000 (low)
2022 - 2,098,000

I am not sure what you think that proves? - That someone who leaves a destroyed city to come to the UK would want to return, or that people that left the city for its locale returned once it wasnt being shelled to bits? - A bit like people returning to Kyiv?

And to your previous point that people should stay closer to their home country - they already do: 73% of 'refugees' reside in a country neigbouring that of which they came.

[768]

It proves that people do want to return. Nothing more, nothing less.

And yes, many stay close, again, because they want to. We should facilitate that as best we can.

[ATG]

This policy is shameful and it is also idiotic. God help us.

[Seventy]

I think Rwanda has played a blinder here…