UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[Legacywr]

Lucky bds!

https://www.visitrwanda.com/

[sunbeam alpine]

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...

[Murph7355]

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.

Previous said:

...
I dont know if this is the answer. Until as a state and society we accept we may need to accommodate unpalatable choices I don't know if there is an answer.
...

Exactly. The problem being that we will seemingly never be ready, unless the shoutier ones (at both ends) are simply ignored.

He said in his speech that we have to try something, and nobody is coming up with better, sustainable ideas.

Red meat politics aside (I tend to agree... But am also one to think that govts should not go into morbid paralysis just because of other issuettes), he is right on the ideas front, and whether one believes his motives or not, the objectives will seem fair enough to most people IMO.

Whether it will work or not will depend on many things, and how good the govt is at manoeuvring (which means it will probably fail).

[Mrr T]

Rick1.8t said:

I hope you are right about that - Could the govt plan work out if they dont apply in the UK though?

E.g. they fly people to Rwanda immediately, prior to any application where they apply for asylum in Rwanda and not the UK.

I dont agree with this plan in the slightest, but its pointless if people get the choice to return to the UK (other than initital deterrent) as lets be realistic, thats the choice everybody would make.

To apply for asylum all they need to do is inform the UK authorities, the police or BF officers that they wish to claim. Its as easy as that. I assume most who land from boat apply immediately so not really likely.

Even if they have not claimed deporting people to a country thay have never visited will also last about 10 minutes in a UK court.

[Ridgemont]

It’s a solution and to be honest there are no simple answers.

The problem is there is a snowflakes chance of this getting anywhere. The enabling legislation is held up in the HoL and the idea that it will get through uneviscerated is just for the birds and even if it gets past that it will be subject to judicial review continually and become a bleeding sore until it gets canned because it and electoral reality will mean that it’s just a great big ‘tory bds’ target.

[anonymous-user]

Guessing the £120m is just the up-front setup costs? Australia spends roughly AUD$4m per person, per year, and their annual spending for it has never been less approximately AUD$1bn.

[crankedup5]

JeffreyD said:

Vanden Saab said:

Surely once the message gets through that they might or will end up in Rwanda they will decide that the EU is a better place to live and not come here in the first place...

Not if anyone can actually do the maths, no.

500 people as part of a trial - an immaterial amount.
most people are successful in their applications and will end up here anyway.

so a small % of an immaterial amount of people could end up in Rwanda

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a higher chance of dying en-route. Or in their homeland.




Still I bet you absolutely fking love it don't you?

Hopefully it’s a start in conquering what is a growing and unwanted problem. Just to repeat in case you missed it, the scheme is designed to make ‘refugees’ scratch their chins and say to themselves, ‘what’s in it for me’. Pure and simple means of dissuasion to those who pay people traffickers for a boat trip into the U.K.

[Gaines178]

Not sure what the problem is, it’s not like they’re being sent to Glasgow.


But on a more serious note - I’m sad by what our country is becoming.

[crankedup5]

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?

[Bo_apex]

Murph7355 said:

Exactly. The problem being that we will seemingly never be ready, unless the shoutier ones (at both ends) are simply ignored.

He said in his speech that we have to try something, and nobody is coming up with better, sustainable ideas.

Red meat politics aside (I tend to agree... But am also one to think that govts should not go into morbid paralysis just because of other issuettes), he is right on the ideas front, and whether one believes his motives or not, the objectives will seem fair enough to most people IMO.

Whether it will work or not will depend on many things, and how good the govt is at manoeuvring (which means it will probably fail).

It's been an expensive shambles with lives being lost, an overhaul is long overdue.
They've finally started but it's work in progress.
A partnership with Australia might've made more sense.

[anonymous-user]

crankedup5 said:

Hopefully it’s a start in conquering what is a growing and unwanted problem. Just to repeat in case you missed it, the scheme is designed to make ‘refugees’ scratch their chins and say to themselves, ‘what’s in it for me’. Pure and simple means of dissuasion to those who pay people traffickers for a boat trip into the U.K.

As the Rwanda scheme applies to men only, do you think it's likely that this move will incentivise women to make the risky trip themselves before sending back for their families? (The opposite of what is happening at present I expect).

[Biggy Stardust]

Rick1.8t said:

s1962a said:

Rick1.8t said:

s1962a said:

Rick1.8t said:

Is the plan that once a person is in Africa and if an application is successful to 'stay' that the person is transported back into the UK, or do they gain the right to stay in Rwanda?

Judging by how much this scheme is costing, probably by private jet back to the UK

Hard not to see costs spiralling too - But like I say - are we going to transport them back here, or are we forcing them into Rwanda if approved for asylum?

Good question - BBC article says this

Under the proposal, Rwanda would take responsibility for the people who make the more than 4,000 mile journey, put them through an asylum process, and at the end of that process, if they are successful, they will have long-term accommodation in Rwanda.

Thanks for that - so it looks like if this goes ahead migrants sent to Rwanda will be staying in Rwanda, we wont be taking them back in any case, even if found to be eligible for asylum and not an 'economic migrant'.

Asbsolute madness.

They're away from whatever war or similar they're fleeing from; bargain.

The fact that they don't get to work in a kebab shop/car wash in one of the grottier parts of London is too bad but not really our problem. We're full.

[Rick1.8t]

Bo_apex said:

Murph7355 said:

Exactly. The problem being that we will seemingly never be ready, unless the shoutier ones (at both ends) are simply ignored.

He said in his speech that we have to try something, and nobody is coming up with better, sustainable ideas.

Red meat politics aside (I tend to agree... But am also one to think that govts should not go into morbid paralysis just because of other issuettes), he is right on the ideas front, and whether one believes his motives or not, the objectives will seem fair enough to most people IMO.

Whether it will work or not will depend on many things, and how good the govt is at manoeuvring (which means it will probably fail).

It's been an expensive shambles with lives being lost, an overhaul is long overdue.
They've finally started but it's work in progress.
A partnership with Australia might've made more sense.

Australia sent its migrants elsewhere and that failed, Israel sent its migrants elsewhere (I think actually Rwanda) and that failed.

Are you saying we should have had a partnership where we send our migrants to Australia? - Why?

[crankedup5]

cuprabob said:

Like others have said in the thread, this is never going to happen, it's just bluster to distract the media from parties and cost of living.

Utter nonsense, Government could pick up on no end of distractions, why i k up on what is now a problem climbing near to the top of the Governments agenda of ‘problems to solve’ A distraction and a failure on this issue will sign off the Tory Parties chances of another GE win. Too many people want and demand an end to people trafficking across the Channel into the U.K. Government promised to resolve this issue and they are running out of time as much as people are running out of patience.

[crankedup5]

Gaines178 said:

Not sure what the problem is, it’s not like they’re being sent to Glasgow.


But on a more serious note - I’m sad by what our country is becoming.

what is our Country becoming?

[Bo_apex]

Rick1.8t said:

Bo_apex said:

Murph7355 said:

Exactly. The problem being that we will seemingly never be ready, unless the shoutier ones (at both ends) are simply ignored.

He said in his speech that we have to try something, and nobody is coming up with better, sustainable ideas.

Red meat politics aside (I tend to agree... But am also one to think that govts should not go into morbid paralysis just because of other issuettes), he is right on the ideas front, and whether one believes his motives or not, the objectives will seem fair enough to most people IMO.

Whether it will work or not will depend on many things, and how good the govt is at manoeuvring (which means it will probably fail).

It's been an expensive shambles with lives being lost, an overhaul is long overdue.
They've finally started but it's work in progress.
A partnership with Australia might've made more sense.

Australia sent its migrants elsewhere and that failed, Israel sent its migrants elsewhere (I think actually Rwanda) and that failed.

Are you saying we should have had a partnership where we send our migrants to Australia? - Why?

Culture and climate are better in Australia

[JagLover]

Previous said:

Whatever your views on the merits of that, and whatever the scheme, I'm sure the Home Office will find a way of turning it into an overburdensome admin nightmare.

Gove has been accused of "bullying" because he lost his temper with some civil servants over the Ukrainian Visa situation apparently. I think the Rolls Royce long ago became a Trabant.

[crankedup5]

MrMan001 said:

crankedup5 said:

Hopefully it’s a start in conquering what is a growing and unwanted problem. Just to repeat in case you missed it, the scheme is designed to make ‘refugees’ scratch their chins and say to themselves, ‘what’s in it for me’. Pure and simple means of dissuasion to those who pay people traffickers for a boat trip into the U.K.

As the Rwanda scheme applies to men only, do you think it's likely that this move will incentivise women to make the risky trip themselves before sending back for their families? (The opposite of what is happening at present I expect).

Under those circumstances I would expect Government would tweak the system to include male and female. Time will tell of course.

[Google [bot]]

Rick1.8t said:

Australia sent its migrants elsewhere and that failed

Did it?

[s1962a]

£120m downpayment for 500 people, with no upper limit as long as we pay sounds like a terrible waste of money to me. Who's paying for this?