Rwanda ruling

You’ll have to look up cost but on whether it would work deterrence does work, looking at Aus. Numbers have fallen drastically.

If it did work would you want it anyway?

You are not exactly adverse to diverting the topic and posting information light posts yourself.

The Australian methods a decade ago cost an estimated £552 million (although that doesn't include the cost of the compensation claims for poor treatment in processing centres).
So how much do we think the Rwanda plan might cost? We've already spent a non refundable £140 million for 200. We need to build detention centres and staff them. We will still need to house the backlog for X years. We need to pay for carriers. What else?

If people engaged in debate beyond safe routes will fix it, no wars and endless aid then these threads might have more to them

Even if people divert from questions each time it’s not going to stop the issue getting bigger

We’re already seeing the impact in the EU with a shift politically to the right. They won’t likely break apart but it will get messy - in terms of backlash from citizens

I'd like to see some honesty in regards to the total costs involved in the Rwanda project and some evidence that it works.

The same woman that doesn't believe in human rights?

Of course not.

I’m afraid this is miss world territory although I’d love the end of wars as much as the next woman (or man).

My take on anything that will deter boats will be extreme. Look at Australia and the methods used there. Which both political sides have adopted and have not in the end put Aus at any disadvantage.

I don’t mind if people say I don’t want to do what Aus does it’s too harsh, but then there will be smugglers and boats.

There’s no nice way to tackle it. People accept mass migration hits their shores or not, but that we can just do safe routes and put in processes, no I don’t find that convincing.

The question imo is do you want to deter or not, if you don’t then expect rising numbers if you do it won’t be anything you’d feel good about although citizens in Aus mostly are ok with it.

What I think I’m not sure yet I would like some honesty first on numbers and more info

Nobody has said safe routes will fix it. Safe routes will improve it as one measure alongside a raft of other ones, the main one of which is dealing with the causes. That means efforts to end wars and it also means efforts to improve the standard of living in countries whose people migrate for economic reasons. Massive cuts to international development in the UK take us in the exact opposite direction, that should be plain to see.

While we're here, what are your suggestions, and do you think the Rwanda policy is 1) a good idea and 2) legal?

That safe routes will fix it is what is unrealistic

If people accepted there still would be a crisis that means people leave through smugglers then it’s a start

I don't think anyone has denied there is a crisis. Just that without having sight of the impact assessment of the Rwanda policy we struggle to see that that is the answer. We aren't even informed as to the total cost.

I'd rather not believe that the Government has committed to it blindly so they must have the information, they just don't want to share it.

Sorry if I've missed the answer - somebody upthread said that 80% of applications from those coming over in the boats are approved, what happens to the other 20% out of curiosity?

And what happens to those who ditch their documents? If somebody ditches the documents and then refuses to give their details so they can be traced - why should we offer them sanctuary, they could be lying about anything. OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions where documents are damaged or lost, but they could still give their details on arrival so checks could take place on their identity?

I do believe the people whose claims are accepted should be fast-tracked to get an NI number etc so they can work, contribute and become part of our society. We DO need migrants, we have a lot of jobs in health and social care and farming that they could help with.

The whole system just needs an overhaul - surely if they could apply from abroad that would help, successful applications could be helped to cross safely and those unsuccessful would stay where they were

When I read these posts it sounds like posters envisage a world where a certain amount of people safely and neatly cross borders from countries that have also had enough aid to help fix issues with mafia states, hunger or persecution

It will run well and no need for smugglers

I think that’s unrealistic. Firstly the countries who provide aid will continue to be strained for various reasons but mostly it underestimates the sheer human effort to gain safety.

As climate crisis intensifies it will get messier. So for a start I’d like conversations from those proposing solutions to recognise this.

Then once people say yes it’s going to get tough it’s a starting point on what to do

My prediction is citizens will demand more with borders but what that’s actually like when they do, I’m not sure

I suspect there are better qualified people that actually work in that area can answer that question so I won't try.

Regardless I doubt cutting budgets will be beneficial overall as Rory Stewart has long argued.

I asked before what your preferred limit was - what is your solution to the problem?

Nobody has said there is an easy solution. There isn't. But there's a right and a wrong way of doing things. Yes, the world is volatile. That means more genuine refugees - people who need and deserve help. Closing the shutters like the UK is doing is morally unacceptable - we do not do enough. It needs long term international collaboration to address both the causes and the consequences of migration.

It's simplistic to call it all 'long term migration' - do you really think people wouldn't return if their countries were safe and stable?

How much would it need to be increased by to resolve the issues?

"Although you do realise numbers are increasing as things become more volatile?"

Which I guess is where the international aid budget cuts at FCDO come in.

Funding was slashed by 69% to Syria, 62% in Bangladesh and 49% in South Sudan as the FCDO sought to reduce the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income. Support for Palestinian refugees in Syria was discontinued, despite warnings about the impact on health and education, and funding to the UN population fund was cut.
The audit, published on Thursday, said 15 FCDO country and regional offices had their funding cut by more than 50% compared with the previous year.

amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/31/uk-foreign-office-rushed-42bn-of-aid-cuts-official-audit-finds

Cuts to the BBC world service were short sighted in terms of strengthening our soft power.

Ok deflection as the question isn’t that easy to answer.

Although you do realise numbers are increasing as things become more volatile?

Look to those crossing the Mediterranean

Fine you don’t want to answer, or it’s difficult. The latter is true. But thinking we can face mass migration with an easy safe passage in a stroke as pp put it is rather optimistic.

If people want to convince that safe passage is an easy solution they’d have to say more about the reality of why people pay smugglers and what would need to be done to resolve it.

That isn't a new issue though, it's always been there. It's always been managed. And not by shipping people off to a really not very pleasant country with a really unpleasant regime without any form of due process.

If the Rwanda plan was the answer then the Government would have published the impact assessments/cost benefit analysis right?

And lots of advice to deal with immigrants applications quickly - yes, v good idea, but how when someone arrives with no papers, nothing - I mean you don't even know where they've come from (they may say a war torn country but how to prove that) - no age, no id, no nothing. I'm not sure how that can be done quickly without assuming stuff eg nationality, age etc. which is probably not allowing them their human rights.

@SunnyEgg the data on the number of small boats coming in before the UK left the Dublin agreement is there for you to Google. That's what having a plan and international collaboration does - go look it up.

No. No one has directly answered on the numbers

How many will it take to stop people paying to get here outside the safe passage?

If someone puts an actual figure then it’s the answer

This has been answered on this thread already, several times, but OK.

Safe routes from outside the UK coupled with a fast, efficient and transparent processing scheme means that:

• You will get a decision quickly
• If that decision is negative, you know that you will be removed
• If you do come in a small boat, you will also be removed, preferably to a country where that same safe route exists

That removes the incentive for people to use traffickers because there is no gain in it. Doing this will need international cooperation on refugees, but we need that anyway - and we had it, before Brexit. It can be done. We don't need all this performative lawbreaking.

Meanwhile in the background, countries also need to work on the reasons why people leave their homes, but it's very often war. After appeals, over 80% of the people who come in small boats are granted asylum here, so you can't legitimately say that they're all economic migrants either.

No she isn't just 'shunting them out of the way'. Have you read the policy?

Once you go to Rwanda there is no opportunity for you to come back. You don't have your claim considered and cone back to the UK. You have you claim considered and either get to stay in Rwanda or deported back to your original country. She is proposing that we very expensively outsource our issue.

How does safe passage resolve it though?

How many will arrive (and from which countries) so that no one else would want to pay a smuggler, and if you have any kind of limit what do you do if the next person arrives on a boat?