Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda

Wizaard said:
Last year we were taking in refugees from Rwanda escaping persecution.

Is that what you're missing?
Click to expand...
Not read up on it, so ta.

So it's Rwanda itself, not the actual idea of sending people, who arrive in the country illegally, elsewhere in the world?
 
EagleDay said:
Why has Rwanda been selected for this anyway?
Click to expand...

Rwanda has signed up to it because they are happy to run concentration camps for profit. Plus they already know from experience that most of the people they take in will have voluntarily left the country soon after our payments are made.
Our government have ‘selected’ Rwanda because a) Rwanda is possibly the only country in the world (at the moment) offering this service, and b) our government obviously don’t give a shit what happens to the illegal immigrants once we’ve got rid.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I suspect what'll happen is that the moment they're told they're being sent to Rwanda, the vast majority of the "Syrians" will suddenly remember that they're from Turkey, or somewhere else safe for them to return to.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/14/priti-showing-compassion-detractors/

We were having dinner on holiday in Turkey last year, when the British couple at the next table started complaining how difficult the Covid regulations made it to return to the UK. “Be Syrian refugees!” advised the restaurant manager with a cheeky grin. Plenty of Turks he knew had travelled to the French coast, cut up their documents and credit cards and taken a small boat to England. Many were now happily working for their uncles in Tottenham.

Relatives in London, the manager explained, sent money back to their village in the Kurdish part of Turkey. Their nephews used the cash to pay the people smugglers for passage from Turkey to Greece, then, via France, by dinghy to England. And Ahmet’s your uncle!
Click to expand...
Haha
 
Halifax71 said:
Not clear exactly what the issue is here.

Ignoring the financials why is this wrong?

Is the suggestion that Rwanda is not safe - someone above says it's cruel, and the Archbishop had chipped in today with "ungodly". What am I missing?


www.bbc.co.uk

UK's Rwanda asylum plan the 'opposite of nature of God' - Welby

There were "serious ethical questions" over sending migrants to east Africa, Justin Welby says.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
More or less everything . Too much to spend time explaining sadly.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I suspect what'll happen is that the moment they're told they're being sent to Rwanda, the vast majority of the "Syrians" will suddenly remember that they're from Turkey, or somewhere else safe for them to return to.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/14/priti-showing-compassion-detractors/

We were having dinner on holiday in Turkey last year, when the British couple at the next table started complaining how difficult the Covid regulations made it to return to the UK. “Be Syrian refugees!” advised the restaurant manager with a cheeky grin. Plenty of Turks he knew had travelled to the French coast, cut up their documents and credit cards and taken a small boat to England. Many were now happily working for their uncles in Tottenham.

Relatives in London, the manager explained, sent money back to their village in the Kurdish part of Turkey. Their nephews used the cash to pay the people smugglers for passage from Turkey to Greece, then, via France, by dinghy to England. And Ahmet’s your uncle!
Click to expand...
Thanks for you contribution. Thought you were full of facts.
 
So the pesky Archbishop has dared to speak what the Tories define as politics, ie about treatment of those less well off. And on Easter Sunday, too!! Maybe they could privatise the C of E as well, that property must be worth a bob or two, churches would be more profitable as housing conversion. And think of all that silver.
 
Lost Seasider said:
I suspect what'll happen is that the moment they're told they're being sent to Rwanda, the vast majority of the "Syrians" will suddenly remember that they're from Turkey, or somewhere else safe for them to return to.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/14/priti-showing-compassion-detractors/

We were having dinner on holiday in Turkey last year, when the British couple at the next table started complaining how difficult the Covid regulations made it to return to the UK. “Be Syrian refugees!” advised the restaurant manager with a cheeky grin. Plenty of Turks he knew had travelled to the French coast, cut up their documents and credit cards and taken a small boat to England. Many were now happily working for their uncles in Tottenham.

Relatives in London, the manager explained, sent money back to their village in the Kurdish part of Turkey. Their nephews used the cash to pay the people smugglers for passage from Turkey to Greece, then, via France, by dinghy to England. And Ahmet’s your uncle!
Click to expand...
Yeah and I met this bloke in the Dog & Duck who knows this bloke who has a cousin who came over in a boat. Got a council house without going on the list and now gets £2,000 a WEEK! for child benefit for his 20 kids. It's true as I'm standing here chief...(cont. p.96)
 
Tangerinemoss said:
So the pesky Archbishop has dared to speak what the Tories define as politics, ie about treatment of those less well off. And on Easter Sunday, too!! Maybe they could privatise the C of E as well, that property must be worth a bob or two, churches would be more profitable as housing conversion. And think of all that silver.
Click to expand...
Henry VIII part 2, or more pertinently, who will ris me of this damned priest?
 
Shandypants said:
Those bloody illegal immigrants taking our benefits and taking our jobs.....mmm let's think that one through.
Western Europe has a huge demographic problem which is not sustainable unless there is a massive upsurge in birthrates, which isn't going to happen. Over here we can't have a grown up debate, the easy fix is to allow more immigrants but the ukip (now tory) vote was built on demonising immigration. I see the usual arguments about there not being enough capacity, frankly that it BS theses issues have been caused by policies such as austerity.
In Germany Merkel realised the problem and allowed 1m immigrants to enter. We cannot afford the amount of pensioners we have now and the problem will get far worse.
Click to expand...
Surely what we actually need, in terms of environmental sustainability, is a managed decline in population?

The economic system in its current form is a Ponzi scheme, essentially needing more and more people to prop it up - that though is an environmental disaster.

If we allow populations to fall, in countries which exploit the environment the most, pollute the most etc, it will be far better long term.

It will mean a decline in living standards for some places, but it's probably a price worth paying.

That in itself, will reduce the 'pull' from the West and may allow, long term, a more equitable trading relationship and an improvement in living standards for the global poor - reducing the 'push'.

If we made a strategic decision to do it, the species and planet would benefit.
 
TSSeasider said:
Surely what we actually need, in terms of environmental sustainability, is a managed decline in population?

The economic system in its current form is a Ponzi scheme, essentially needing more and more people to prop it up - that though is an environmental disaster.

If we allow populations to fall, in countries which exploit the environment the most, pollute the most etc, it will be far better long term.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I’m being a bit thick, but I am not quite sure what you are suggesting or how you would achieve it?
 
What you have not realised about the UK-Rwanda agreement is that there is a reciprocal arrangement for refugees already in Rwanda, who cannot be settled there for special reasons, to be sent to the UK for asylum. These special reasons are generally that the refugees have histories causing mental health issues that Rwanda’s social services cannot cope with. Often caused by African civil violence and traumatic abuse.

All detailed in the Daily Mail if you want to source it.

As for the Rwanda deportation threat, it will not make the blindest bit of difference to those boarding the boats on the Calais beaches. We would need the French to stop that, and guess what, after Brexit they could not give a toss.

The whole scheme is just another piece of raw meat thrown on the table to distract stupid people from the real issues in the May elections. Those real issues being poverty caused by Sunak’s and Johnson’s repression.
 
As I have Covid ATM I was able to watch Priti Patel's introduction of this policy to the houses of parliament yesterday
From what she said;
  • there is no evidence that the policy works (Israel have abandoned the same policy), she provided none whatsoever. There were no figures in her announcement either about numbers being deported or the cost of this.
  • She could not say how many people would be sent to Rwanda in the first 12 months (an extraordinary admission)
  • She could not say how much this would cost per person (again extraordinary)
  • She could not say how this is forecast to effect channel crossings (in terms of numbers)
It was all very much back of an envelope stuff and even the well known snowflake and ex Home Secretary Teresa May said that she could not support this policy and that the details were not clear. The only thing that I think was made clearer by Patel was that families will not be split up when they are deported to Rwanda.
In short, she doesn't really have a scooby about how to make this work, and I would expect that this idea will be quietly kicked into the long grass sometime into the future (after the next election if the Conservatives win). However, the policy and £120 million already spent has served it's purpose as it has distracted attention from the PM's law breaking. I wonder what they will think of the next time the PM gets a fine? - if I was a betting man (and looking at this board) I would guess that it will be something about transgender stuff.
 
glasshalffull said:
Sorry if I’m being a bit thick, but I am not quite sure what you are suggesting or how you would achieve it?
Click to expand...
We could euthanize all those of a certain age, and neuter all those of a certain class, how's that for starters? It goes without saying, the elite would be excused from these measures.
 
glasshalffull said:
Sorry if I’m being a bit thick, but I am not quite sure what you are suggesting or how you would achieve it?
Click to expand...
What I am saying, is that Germany (example given by Shandypants - I think) imported a million extra citizens to prop up the pensioners in their country as the economy is built on having ever more people consuming/producing ever more things to keep it going (Ponzi). It's a million now; it will eventually lead to millions more as they have children and so on.

The difficulties with this is the exploitation of the environment as a result.

If Germany (and the rest of the developed world) said, actually we want to reduce our population by 20% over x amount of years, the demands placed on the environment would reduce - there would be a fall in living standards but we aren't talking destitution here.

If that were to happen, we may see less need to import a population, we may effectively stop the 'pull' of the West - throw in better global trading arrangements we might see an equalising of living standards across the globe, reducing the 'push' to leave some really poor places as they get economically closer to the West.

The climate emergency is down to a growing species exploiting the environment to prop up an economic system that cannot be sustained.

Regarding those seeking asylum; we've historically done ok and will continue to do so; but as our immigration policy hasn't been fit for purpose for decades, we have a system which is wide open to being exploited.

And thanks for the support; I'm not in favour of euthanasia - I don't like the idea of assisted dying for individuals - so on a societal level - no thanks.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
So the pesky Archbishop has dared to speak what the Tories define as politics, ie about treatment of those less well off. And on Easter Sunday, too!! Maybe they could privatise the C of E as well, that property must be worth a bob or two, churches would be more profitable as housing conversion. And think of all that silver.
Click to expand...
Henry VIII already did that when he took England out of the Roman Church. Rather like the way the Tories have taken the UK out of the EU. It was for personal gain.
 
Does anyone seriously think that this idea can act as a deterrent to the smuggling gangs?
Say we deport 1 in 50 to Rwanda (2%) which still amounts to a lot of people (and each person deported will be at a great cost). About 30,000 made the trip last year, that we know about, so 2% of that is 600 deportations. Each is estimated to cost over £1m per year in fees to Rwanda - it is hard to put a figure on this because nothing is forthcoming from the government.
Do we think that the average migrant will say, 'I won't take that boat trip because, apart from the very real risk of drowning, there is a very small chance that I will end up in Rwanda'.
The whole thing seems ridiculously confused and the opposition are not really asking the right questions. Can any of the supporters of the policy tell us how it will actually reduce crossing numbers, the supposed point of the policy?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Does anyone seriously think that this idea can act as a deterrent to the smuggling gangs?
Say we deport 1 in 50 to Rwanda (2%) which still amounts to a lot of people (and each person deported will be at a great cost). About 30,000 made the trip last year, that we know about, so 2% of that is 600 deportations. Each is estimated to cost over £1m per year in fees to Rwanda - it is hard to put a figure on this because nothing is forthcoming from the government.
Do we think that the average migrant will say, 'I won't take that boat trip because, apart from the very real risk of drowning, there is a very small chance that I will end up in Rwanda'.
The whole thing seems ridiculously confused and the opposition are not really asking the right questions. Can any of the supporters of the policy tell us how it will actually reduce crossing numbers, the supposed point of the policy?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned earlier, Israel carried out the same process for about 3 years. They reckoned it INCREASED trafficking, because nearly everyone they deported fled Rwanda and started the illegal route all over again, meaning the traffickers got paid twice!
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Does anyone seriously think that this idea can act as a deterrent to the smuggling gangs?
Say we deport 1 in 50 to Rwanda (2%) which still amounts to a lot of people (and each person deported will be at a great cost). About 30,000 made the trip last year, that we know about, so 2% of that is 600 deportations. Each is estimated to cost over £1m per year in fees to Rwanda - it is hard to put a figure on this because nothing is forthcoming from the government.
Do we think that the average migrant will say, 'I won't take that boat trip because, apart from the very real risk of drowning, there is a very small chance that I will end up in Rwanda'.
The whole thing seems ridiculously confused and the opposition are not really asking the right questions. Can any of the supporters of the policy tell us how it will actually reduce crossing numbers, the supposed point of the policy?
Click to expand...
I suppose the answer is to deport everyone we catch; which given how we escort them across the channel must be quite easy to do.

Drive straight to the nearest military airport (or build one for the purpose), use an RAF transporter plane to stop any silly business with passengers, take off and land in Rwanda. If you actually want to claim asylum and have a case, explain it there and hopefully get a flight back at some point in the future.

If not you'll try the people smuggling route again BUT eventually you'll run out of money.

I think that's the general gist.

It really should be as straightforward as that.

Commit to it properly and it will act as a deterrent.

I'm not saying it's the correct policy, but the implementation of it is relatively straight forward.
 
TSSeasider said:
I suppose the answer is to deport everyone we catch; which given how we escort them across the channel must be quite easy to do.

Drive straight to the nearest military airport (or build one for the purpose), use an RAF transporter plane to stop any silly business with passengers, take off and land in Rwanda. If you actually want to claim asylum and have a case, explain it there and hopefully get a flight back at some point in the future.

If not you'll try the people smuggling route again BUT eventually you'll run out of money.

I think that's the general gist.

It really should be as straightforward as that.

Commit to it properly and it will act as a deterrent.

I'm not saying it's the correct policy, but the implementation of it is relatively straight forward.
Click to expand...
What you have suggested isn't what has been proposed, what you have proposed I think is probably illegal. Every asylum seeker must have legal representation in line with asylum law for instance.
Can you tell me, how the policy as it has been proposed will act as a deterrent?
 
TSSeasider said:
I suppose the answer is to deport everyone we catch; which given how we escort them across the channel must be quite easy to do.

Drive straight to the nearest military airport (or build one for the purpose), use an RAF transporter plane to stop any silly business with passengers, take off and land in Rwanda. If you actually want to claim asylum and have a case, explain it there and hopefully get a flight back at some point in the future.

If not you'll try the people smuggling route again BUT eventually you'll run out of money.

I think that's the general gist.

It really should be as straightforward as that.

Commit to it properly and it will act as a deterrent.

I'm not saying it's the correct policy, but the implementation of it is relatively straight forward.
Click to expand...

As I understand the deal, those who get granted asylum in Rwanda get 5 years living IN Rwanda, not the freedom to come back here.
 
Johnno said:
As I understand the deal, those who get granted asylum in Rwanda get 5 years living IN Rwanda, not the freedom to come back here.
Click to expand...
When Israel did it, 98% had left within 3 months. Increased trafficking with the traffickers getting double payments
 
Regardless of the minutiae of policy and practical application, this policy is morally wrong. Open up more avenues through which asylum seekers can be processed, instead of cutting out the means through which this can be done.
This is playing to the gallery writ large. And the gallery it is playing to is a nasty one.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
What you have suggested isn't what has been proposed, what you have proposed I think is probably illegal. Every asylum seeker must have legal representation in line with asylum law for instance.
Can you tell me, how the policy as it has been proposed will act as a deterrent?
Click to expand...
Well give them legal advice on boat that picks them up or the fight to Rwanda?

I suppose if we pass a law which effectively says, that boat, that plane and that part of Rwanda is British Territory (a bit like an embassy?) them essentially that's what we are offering.

It's about being willing to send people somewhere else for processing.

If the person leaving France genuinely believes they are going to get picked up in transit and stuck on a plane to Rwanda for up to 5 years; they may well believe that applying for asylum in France is a better option.

And I'll say again, this is not me saying it's a good policy but how it can be implemented to be an effective deterrent.
 
Johnno said:
As I understand the deal, those who get granted asylum in Rwanda get 5 years living IN Rwanda, not the freedom to come back here.
Click to expand...
Well that's not fair.

If you have a legitimate claim to be fleeing persecution, then of course, you should be allowed in.

Where you prove that claim should be all this policy is about
 
TSSeasider said:
Well that's not fair.

If you have a legitimate claim to be fleeing persecution, then of course, you should be allowed in.

Where you prove that claim should be all this policy is about
Click to expand...
The 'pushback policy' in the Nationality and Borders Bill has come under fire following the disclosure that unpublished parts of a controversial policy to push back migrant dinghies in the Channel said the tactic would not be used against asylum seekers. This has been established through a Freedom of Information request that Priti Vacant opposed on grounds of national security. The judge decided that allowing access to this information did not amount to an issue for national security, hence the disclosure. So, why not be open and honest? Obviously because Vacant is playing to the gammons among the Tory support. Tough on immigration but don't tell about the stuff you're not tough on.
Btw, it's worth noting that over 90% of asylum cases that are processed through official UK channels, are passed. Alas that doesn't feature on the front pages of the Heil and the Excess.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
The 'pushback policy' in the Nationality and Borders Bill has come under fire following the disclosure that unpublished parts of a controversial policy to push back migrant dinghies in the Channel said the tactic would not be used against asylum seekers. This has been established through a Freedom of Information request that Priti Vacant opposed on grounds of national security. The judge decided that allowing access to this information did not amount to an issue for national security, hence the disclosure. So, why not be open and honest? Obviously because Vacant is playing to the gammons among the Tory support. Tough on immigration but don't tell about the stuff you're not tough on.
Btw, it's worth noting that over 90% of asylum cases that are processed through official UK channels, are passed. Alas that doesn't feature on the front pages of the Heil and the Excess.
Click to expand...
You could write all of that without the childish n insults.

Meanwhile, I can't see how we can physically push back boats; age certainly we can't differentiate the difference between who is on the boat at the time they are sailing the channel.

Beyond that, once we've safely guy then ashore, put them on an army truck, transport them to the airport, put them on an RAF Transporter (or hold them until we have a plane load) and land in Rwanda. Put a solicitor on the plane as we go.

That would probably do it in respects on how to make it a workable policy which would deliver an effective deterrent.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Your lack of humanity does you a disservice. Or maybe that's how you want to be perceived.
Click to expand...
I've been at pains throughout my responses to state this is not whether I think it's a decent policy.

I am describing how it could be a workable policy and act as a deterrent, given some are suggesting "it won't work"

If HMG want to stop immigration to the UK via the dangerous route of the channel and interrupt the human trafficking business element (which are not unreasonable ambitions) those people who are leaving France have to believe that they will be immediately sent to Rwanda and have no chance of melting into the general population so they don't risk it.

Their alternative needs to be seen as creating a new life on the other side of the channel so they can normalise their application to live in the UK in the future.

Regarding your comment about lack of humanity.

FWIW I led a charity which worked with people seeking asylum and refugees from 2002-2009 and helped establish a local response in Stockton to the national 'dispersal programme' as it was rolled out by the then Labour Government.

In fact I actually won a national award from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for my work in Community Cohesion back then as we were one of the very few organisations to create a programme with the host communities to explain what was happening and why to create the conditions where there was less tension - this also included working with the established Pakistani community who were incredibly concerned about it.

Indeed, some of this highlights of my time there was attending Citizenship Ceremonies with people who I'd supported from arrival as they considered me family and I'm still in touch with 3 or 4 of them and have a brilliant friendship with one man in particular.

My experience of working with literally thousands of people seeking asylum, from all over Africa, South America and the Middle East, and having tens of thousands of conversations with them about the why's and wherefore's of why the UK and their process to get here is what is informing the answers I'm giving about how this policy could be workable.
 
TSSeasider said:
I've been at pains throughout my responses to state this is not whether I think it's a decent policy.

I am describing how it could be a workable policy and act as a deterrent, given some are suggesting "it won't work"

If HMG want to stop immigration to the UK via the dangerous route of the channel and interrupt the human trafficking business element (which are not unreasonable ambitions) those people who are leaving France have to believe that they will be immediately sent to Rwanda and have no chance of melting into the general population so they don't risk it.

Their alternative needs to be seen as creating a new life on the other side of the channel so they can normalise their application to live in the UK in the future.

Regarding your comment about lack of humanity.

FWIW I led a charity which worked with people seeking asylum and refugees from 2002-2009 and helped establish a local response in Stockton to the national 'dispersal programme' as it was rolled out by the then Labour Government.

In fact I actually won a national award from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for my work in Community Cohesion back then as we were one of the very few organisations to create a programme with the host communities to explain what was happening and why to create the conditions where there was less tension - this also included working with the established Pakistani community who were incredibly concerned about it.

Indeed, some of this highlights of my time there was attending Citizenship Ceremonies with people who I'd supported from arrival as they considered me family and I'm still in touch with 3 or 4 of them and have a brilliant friendship with one man in particular.

My experience of working with literally thousands of people seeking asylum, from all over Africa, South America and the Middle East, and having tens of thousands of conversations with them about the why's and wherefore's of why the UK and their process to get here is what is informing the answers I'm giving about how this policy could be workable.
Click to expand...
I withdraw my 'humanity' comment and unreservedly apologise for it.
 
The climate emergency is down to a growing species exploiting the environment to prop up an economic system that cannot be sustained.

Absolutely. The nub of the problem.
 
TSSeasider said:
I suppose the answer is to deport everyone we catch; which given how we escort them across the channel must be quite easy to do.

Drive straight to the nearest military airport (or build one for the purpose), use an RAF transporter plane to stop any silly business with passengers, take off and land in Rwanda. If you actually want to claim asylum and have a case, explain it there and hopefully get a flight back at some point in the future.

If not you'll try the people smuggling route again BUT eventually you'll run out of money.

I think that's the general gist.

It really should be as straightforward as that.

Commit to it properly and it will act as a deterrent.

I'm not saying it's the correct policy, but the implementation of it is relatively straight forward.
Click to expand...
Illegal apart from the rest. People have a legal right to claim asylum once they have arrived here.
 
Always tangerine said:
Illegal apart from the rest. People have a legal right to claim asylum once they have arrived here.
Click to expand...
If Australia can process claimants in PNG under 3rd Party arrangements, there is a technical way to say 'you're claiming asylum, but we will house you elsewhere whilst we assess the claim.'

We've also heard that Israel has used this system (which I hadn't been before this thread)

I assume the attorney general has all this sorted before the government announced the idea

The success of failure of the policy as set out is to make sure those about to depart on a boat across the channel genuinely believe that they will end up, in short order, on a flight to Rwanda - if they believe that, assuming they have a legitimate case to asylum, they are more likely to build a life in continental Europe; which to be fair, by most measures, is as safe as the UK - and the weather is better too.
 
Perhaps to give the impression that they are being tough on asylum seekers by sending them to Central Africa without really doing much of it?

I suppose if it keeps people out of the channel it will be deemed a success?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top