UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[Rick1.8t]

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?

[psgcarey]

JagLover said:

psgcarey said:

My dad is not an outlier in his age group/demographic. All his friends think very similarly.

He is also one of the 77% that think this Govt. is handling the situation badly. Or very badly in his case. He does not, however, see this as an acceptable solution. For him, and probably many of his generation, this is not the way this country should behave.

I also note that the survey you quoted also asks "Sending people who apply for asylum in the United Kingdom to another country while their application is processed" with a 47% approval rating.

I would suspect that is because it is seen as a "softer" option. You will note that 61% want to simply turn the boats back and 68% want to stop any asylum applications from those coming from a safe country, such as France.

He agrees with stopping applications from those coming from a safe country, and that asylum should be asked for in the first safe country you land in.

[Mr Penguin]

JeffreyD said:

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?

If its a trial, it will probably be extended to more if it is successful.

[s1962a]

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.

[Chrishum]

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?

[Rick1.8t]

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.

[Previous]

It's red meat distraction politics. Like others have said. And left to the control of the Home Office it'll end up being a typical shambles.

That said, I'm not against the principle per-se. Making it known (by actions, not words) that if you enter the country illegally you'll end up further away than you were when you started will hopefully deter the abhorrent people trafficking trade.

(Of course, that implies there is a legal route available- different issue).

Of course, some will be unfairly caught up in this. We'll then have lots of legal wrangling. And triumphs for individuals will continue to come at the cost of many who pay for passage, and end up exploited, drowning, or in modern slavery.

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.

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

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?

[Vanden Saab]

JeffreyD said:

Vanden Saab said:

It is a good start, until you can explain where we put the 80 million 'refugees' you want to welcome to our already overcrowded Island then finding a way to stop them coming in the first place will remain the best solution.

you don't seriously think this is a serious effort to resolve the refugee situation do you?

You are a deeply cynical individual - why does that attitude change now?

It has not changed, as I said it is a start. If it goes some way to stop people risking their lives trying to get here then even better. If it is not enough then hopefully it will be expanded. As with everything time will tell. Will you ever agree it was a good thing if it works or is it just the principal of not letting all and sundry in you object to?

[LukeBrown66]

Without spending an absolute fortune on security turning them back or preventing them coming over from France, I see no easy solutions, the rumours are that 80k plus could be coming over this year which however you dress it is a colossal drain on our resources and finances.

I don't think Rwanda thing is a very attractive pilot, but let's be honest the real method here is to make coming here looking un appealing for the vast majority who do try it on, who are just unskilled chancers, who make up up stories, buy passports from whoever sells them to make them look like refugees and end up living here and sending vast amounts of their income back to families at home, thereby only slightly benefitting our economy.

I have worked with numerous people who are not from where their passport says they are from, it is ridiculously easy, and maybe more time should be spend at that end aswell?

Either way, if you can make it look more unappealing I have no issue with this, but it is not the best solution, the best solution is far stricter control, a better relationship with France or elsewhere, and far more stringent checks, instead of basically pandering to these chancers when they come across.

[JagLover]

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

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?

[Carl_Manchester]

From the telegraph:

"Mr Johnson says the deal with Rwanda is "uncapped" and the African country will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead. "


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/14/bo...

[Previous]

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?

The argument is that per individual this is more expensive, but long term will reduce illegal immigration and therefore become a net saving.

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.

[cuprabob]

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.

[Mrr T]

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.

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.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

I think if Boris Jonnson set out to annex Poland and wipe out the world's Jews someone would say it was just to distract from "partygate."

[2xChevrons]

Rick1.8t said:

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.

Fortunately we have a pilot scheme to see how Rwanda handles refugees sent there for 'processing' by other nations - Israel instituted a similar scheme in 2018 for Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers:

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/c...

University of Oxford Faculty of Law said:

All interviewees testified that upon landing in Rwanda the travel document produced by Israel, the only identity document in their possession, was taken away. They were transferred to a guarded hotel and were prevented, under threat, from leaving. None of them were given the opportunity to apply for asylum. Lacking identity documents and exposed to robberies and threats they were forced to embark on dangerous journeys. Dawit, who left Israel to Rwanda in December 2015, described it as follows: ‘We said we want to go to the UNHCR… But they tell us ‘no, no, no, you have a permit for three days… If you do not move to another country [by then] we will return [you] to your country… We are afraid.’

None of the interviewees who had landed in Rwanda stayed in the country for more than a few days. This information corresponds with recent reports, which state that out of several thousands of people, very few asylum seekers who left Israel remain in Rwanda.

Oh...

So it seems that, if this fruitcake scheme even happens, it's just paying Rwanda to take the asylum seekers off our hands and dump them in Africa. I look forward to the inquiry in about 2062 which will talk about the unfortunate conduct of the Rwandan authorities, but that's in no way the UK's fault....

I still manage to be surprised by how venal and purposefully, callously cruel this government can be. Sadly.

[ChocolateFrog]

I bet we'll be able to count the number of refuges flown to Rwanda on one hand in 5 years time.

And those will have been induced with a cash payment.

[Rick1.8t]

Mrr T 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.

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.

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.

[Gecko1978]

s1962a said:

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.

Meaning they are safe from persecution in Rawanda. That's going to be a shock to some