UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[Penny Whistle]

How do these modern-day boat people get across Europe ? Do they buy a "ticket" from the traffickers in their home country (/neighbour) to get all the way to the UK and travel across Europe in a bus/truck, or do they just get into the EU and then find their own way across a few thousand miles to Calais where they buy another ticket to get to the UK ?

[hairykrishna]

Those border force ads can't be real can they? They look like something from Starship Troopers

I also can't quite believe that we've given the Rwandan government £120 million of our money just so the Tories can say 'we could be tough on immigrants, if it wasn't for those pesky lawyers!' at the next election. The attempted reframing of 'the government has spunked billions on hotel bills by not having an efficient system to process asylum claims' as 'illegal asylum seekers are costing us a fortune' is pretty cheeky too.

[robm3]

Mrr T said:

irc said:

ZedLeg said:

Shipping people to Rwanda isn't going to stop it either, anyone who really thinks it will is lying to themselves. At least with my idea we'd have £180mil worth of new social housing for anyone who needs it.

It worked for Australia. Can you show a country that has tried it and it hasn't worked?

Well for a start it did not work for Australia. Do some research.

Offshore processing didn't work that well but as a deterrent it was extremely effective.

What has worked exceedingly well is the policy to turn the boats back 'operation relex'. Not only is it politically popular for both conservative (liberal) and Labour but it's been effective in reduction of boats attempting the crossing from Indonesia to Aus.
Two of my mates are in the Australian Navy and have been part of relex so I've heard some first hand accounts.
That said, Australia takes roughly 20,000 refugees per year as well as around 400,000 migrants. All done through legal channels.
We're still one of the grossly underpopulated countries though, we have 25m people but can sustain 100m.

[Mrr T]

Vanden Saab said:

Ah ha, do some research, very good. While offshoring was not the whole answer it was certainly part of the solution.

Well it rather depends if you regard locking up people who have committed no crime as a reasonable think to do. Personally I do not. But then again I like to live in a civilised society.

Edited by Mrr T on Thursday 23 March 07:00

[Mrr T]

robm3 said:

Offshore processing didn't work that well but as a deterrent it was extremely effective.

What has worked exceedingly well is the policy to turn the boats back 'operation relex'. Not only is it politically popular for both conservative (liberal) and Labour but it's been effective in reduction of boats attempting the crossing from Indonesia to Aus.
Two of my mates are in the Australian Navy and have been part of relex so I've heard some first hand accounts.
That said, Australia takes roughly 20,000 refugees per year as well as around 400,000 migrants. All done through legal channels.
We're still one of the grossly underpopulated countries though, we have 25m people but can sustain 100m.

Turning back boats is a lot easier when you have lots of international waters to work with.

Edited by Mrr T on Thursday 23 March 08:17

[blueg33]

irc said:

ZedLeg said:

Shipping people to Rwanda isn't going to stop it either, anyone who really thinks it will is lying to themselves. At least with my idea we'd have £180mil worth of new social housing for anyone who needs it.

It worked for Australia. Can you show a country that has tried it and it hasn't worked?

£180m only buys about 900 new houses. So sadly doesn’t scratch the surface of the housing issue. But I agree it’s wasted on the daft and morally wrong Rwanda plan.

[Electro1980]

Better than 0 houses.

[bitchstewie]

This is especially unpleasant.

UK asylum seekers who complain about conditions ‘threatened with Rwanda’

[rjfp1962]

Main debate in The House Of Commons on Wednesday 26 April.

"Report and third reading of the Illegal Migration Bill - with new amendments to toughen up the bill and prevent judges, whether British or European, from preventing deportations. They have been introduced following pressure from the backbench Common Sense Group of Conservative MPs, and there may be pressure from former ministers like Robert Buckland and Tim Loughton, who have their own amendments to create "safe and legal" routes for migrants. Watch out for an interesting amendment from former Prime Minister Theresa May and former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith to exempt victims of modern slavery from the removal provisions of the bill."

"Labour frontbench amendments include creating a new duty to consult local councils where asylum seeker accommodation is located, setting up fast-track asylum procedures from specified counties, holding annual investigations of border security effectiveness and providing safe and legal routes for unaccompanied children with close family members in the UK."
(BBC News website)

Could get heated again in the H.o.C!, not just with Labour, but the Tories too...!

[Biggy Stardust]

bhstewie said:

This is especially unpleasant.

UK asylum seekers who complain about conditions ‘threatened with Rwanda’

If they don't like it then they are free to leave. They can even warn others about how evil we are so they don't bother travelling here in the first place.

It's all good.

[Bannock]

rjfp1962 said:

Main debate in The House Of Commons on Wednesday 26 April.

"Report and third reading of the Illegal Migration Bill - with new amendments to toughen up the bill and prevent judges, whether British or European, from preventing deportations. They have been introduced following pressure from [b]the backbench Common Sense Group of Conservative MPs[/], and there may be pressure from former ministers like Robert Buckland and Tim Loughton, who have their own amendments to create "safe and legal" routes for migrants. Watch out for an interesting amendment from former Prime Minister Theresa May and former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith to exempt victims of modern slavery from the removal provisions of the bill."

"Labour frontbench amendments include creating a new duty to consult local councils where asylum seeker accommodation is located, setting up fast-track asylum procedures from specified counties, holding annual investigations of border security effectiveness and providing safe and legal routes for unaccompanied children with close family members in the UK."
(BBC News website)

Could get heated again in the H.o.C!, not just with Labour, but the Tories too...!

What fresh hell is this (the bolded bit)? Is that the ERG re-branding or something? God save us from any more right wing "common sense".

[Penny Whistle]

rjfp1962 said:

"Labour frontbench amendments include creating a new duty to consult local councils where asylum seeker accommodation is located, setting up fast-track asylum procedures from specified counties, holding annual investigations of border security effectiveness and providing safe and legal routes for unaccompanied children with close family members in the UK."
(BBC News website)

Oh that will speed things up, won't it !

And as for "fast-track asylum procedures from certain counties", will that only be those with a Labour council ? That's meant to be a joke, I know the original will have been a typo.

[s1962a]

Biggy Stardust said:

bhstewie said:

This is especially unpleasant.

UK asylum seekers who complain about conditions ‘threatened with Rwanda’

If they don't like it then they are free to leave. They can even warn others about how evil we are so they don't bother travelling here in the first place.

It's all good.

Yeah, lets give them mouldy bread to eat and threaten them with deportation to Rwanda, because we can't deport them really, and we need to show them who's boss.

[Vasco]

s1962a said:

Biggy Stardust said:

bhstewie said:

This is especially unpleasant.

UK asylum seekers who complain about conditions ‘threatened with Rwanda’

If they don't like it then they are free to leave. They can even warn others about how evil we are so they don't bother travelling here in the first place.

It's all good.

Yeah, lets give them mouldy bread to eat and threaten them with deportation to Rwanda, because we can't deport them really, and we need to show them who's boss.

The problem with the various asylum issues that many of us probably believe there are two types - the very genuine cases which deserve our help and sympathy versus the (mostly younger men) who give a good impression of being on the scrounge, by any means possible.
If - repeat IF - most of these young men were sent to Rwanda would it stop others ?

[s1962a]

Vasco said:

The problem with the various asylum issues that many of us probably believe there are two types - the very genuine cases which deserve our help and sympathy versus the (mostly younger men) who give a good impression of being on the scrounge, by any means possible.
If - repeat IF - most of these young men were sent to Rwanda would it stop others ?

If the Rwanda plan can get "off the ground" and they are able to deport them then it would discourage others I think. I don't see it happening though - the government would have a more effective outcome trying to stop them coming here in the first place, and massively ramping up the asylum processing. Is it like 1 a week they are doing at the moment?

[Vasco]

s1962a said:

Vasco said:

The problem with the various asylum issues that many of us probably believe there are two types - the very genuine cases which deserve our help and sympathy versus the (mostly younger men) who give a good impression of being on the scrounge, by any means possible.
If - repeat IF - most of these young men were sent to Rwanda would it stop others ?

If the Rwanda plan can get "off the ground" and they are able to deport them then it would discourage others I think. I don't see it happening though - the government would have a more effective outcome trying to stop them coming here in the first place, and massively ramping up the asylum processing. Is it like 1 a week they are doing at the moment?

Would ramping up the asylum processing really help much ?. They'd need to be doing, say, 500-1,000 each week if they were to evidence real determination. At that volume it might just deter a small % but the people smugglers can easily put out a different tale to those people who have already got as far as the French coast.

I don't see much is likely to stop further large numbers unless the news got back that a majority actually ended up in Rwanda (or other non-UK country).

[s1962a]

Vasco said:

s1962a said:

Vasco said:

The problem with the various asylum issues that many of us probably believe there are two types - the very genuine cases which deserve our help and sympathy versus the (mostly younger men) who give a good impression of being on the scrounge, by any means possible.
If - repeat IF - most of these young men were sent to Rwanda would it stop others ?

If the Rwanda plan can get "off the ground" and they are able to deport them then it would discourage others I think. I don't see it happening though - the government would have a more effective outcome trying to stop them coming here in the first place, and massively ramping up the asylum processing. Is it like 1 a week they are doing at the moment?

Would ramping up the asylum processing really help much ?. They'd need to be doing, say, 500-1,000 each week if they were to evidence real determination. At that volume it might just deter a small % but the people smugglers can easily put out a different tale to those people who have already got as far as the French coast.

I don't see much is likely to stop further large numbers unless the news got back that a majority actually ended up in Rwanda (or other non-UK country).

I heard on the radio earlier one of the MP's saying that "the Rwanda plan can only house a few hundred migrants, and what about the other 99%?"

any truth in that? I thought the Rwanda plan was to get most of them out there once it was established.

[s1962a]

Vasco said:

Would ramping up the asylum processing really help much ?

Yes of course it would

- any bogus claimed would be weeded out quickly and "sent back"
- we wouldn't have to pay to house them
- it would send a message that you can come here if you like on a boat, but you'll be dealt with very quickly

[pequod]

s1962a said:

Vasco said:

Would ramping up the asylum processing really help much ?

Yes of course it would

- any bogus claimed would be weeded out quickly and "sent back"
- we wouldn't have to pay to house them
- it would send a message that you can come here if you like on a boat, but you'll be dealt with very quickly

How, and where?

Given the weeks/months, and possibly years, to establish who these people are, and where from, claiming asylum, including the illegal migrants, the HO is unable to process the numbers arriving until now. The estimates suggest more will arrive this Summer...

Notwithstanding the above, how are other countries in Europe proposing to deal with this?

[PRTVR]

s1962a said:

Vasco said:

Would ramping up the asylum processing really help much ?

Yes of course it would

- any bogus claimed would be weeded out quickly and "sent back"
- we wouldn't have to pay to house them
- it would send a message that you can come here if you like on a boat, but you'll be dealt with very quickly

Sent them back where ?
At present we are struggling to deport a 40 year old who is claiming to be 17, the courts are being used against us.
We would still be responsible for housing and feeding them even if are refused till deported.