Asylum seekers to the UK sent to Rwanda

[Dodie66]

What do you think about the governments plan to send all asylum seekers that come to the UK to Rwanda to be processed. I think this is inhumane. A lot of them have come from places like Syria, Iran etc and travelled across the channel with all the associated risks only to be sent 6000 mile to be processed. What about the cost to do this? I think it’s a big mistake

@annabelindajane

Absolutely fair , those with a genuine case stay . Those that don’t go .

Stay in Rwanda, not the UK

Refugees are not sent to Rwanda for ‘processing’. The policy is to send them there forever - there is no return.

Sorry not read through the thread. I am appalled by such a policy.

The govt is trying to offload taking a small share of the world’s refugees (majority of those coming by boats are refugees). The U.K. already takes less than many other European countries, see attached graph, and 75% of the world’s refugees are taken in by neighbouring countries.

@DuncinToffee
Research suggests ‘vast majority’ are not economic migrants.

Just because a precedent is set that has stated some people from that country were asylum seekers does not mean that anyone from that country is a genuine seeker also and not an economic migrant.

@ChoiceMummy Each individual. asylum case is assessed on its own merits - you can’t just say “hi I’m from Syria, let me in!” You have to prove that your life would be in danger if you were returned to that country.

As it’s already been pointed out, over 70% of asylum claims are approved, plus more on appeal. It’s also a long process with some claims having being in the system for over 18 months when the maximum recommended time is 6 months - putting more burden on the hotels and barracks where people are housed while waiting for approval. Terrible for the mental health of those waiting, and an easy target, as we’ve seen for the right wing contingent to abuse.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]@ChoiceMummy Each individual. asylum case is assessed on its own merits - you can’t just say “hi I’m from Syria, let me in!” You have to prove that your life would be in danger if you were returned to that country.

As it’s already been pointed out, over 70% of asylum claims are approved, plus more on appeal. It’s also a long process with some claims having being in the system for over 18 months when the maximum recommended time is 6 months - putting more burden on the hotels and barracks where people are housed while waiting for approval. Terrible for the mental health of those waiting, and an easy target, as we’ve seen for the right wing contingent to abuse.[/quote]
Yes and there are websites and social media pages that advise potential claimants what to say to officials. How to state information that cannot be substantiated/verified.

And as has been asked by many before me, if someone was a genuine asylum seeker, then wtf aren't they genuinely claiming this ASAP rather than traveling through countless countries to get to our shores. This, by itself, reduces their validity, unless they already have a spouse in the UK, imo.
And tbh I don't wish to read all the usual drivel about why this could possibly be! It's irrelevant and I am afraid that I am now very much in the camp that we need to address our own issues rather than adding further to them. And interestingly, the children of migrants I know and historical asylum seekers pretty much agree! Strange that eh!

interestingly i came on here to say what a terrible idea it all was, however have had my mind changed.

I don't wish to read all the usual drivel because I prefer to continue to be ignorant so that I can be horrible without feeling ashamed

@MrsLargeEmbodied

interestingly i came on here to say what a terrible idea it all was, however have had my mind changed.

If you change so easily there is always hope you can change back!

I think last year we returned just about no one from those whose asylum applications failed. France also hardly ever returns anyone either. I believe we have 1m illegal immigrants and France about 800,000. A lot of the UK ones are visa over stayers or sneak in on fake papers rather than those coming by boat across the channel although even the number of the latter is so high now hotels according to the BBC are costing tax payers over £4m a week so it is really really has got completely out of hand and very expensive indeed.

I don't really see why sending a few to Rwanda permanently is going to help much. There may need to be a new international agreement on the issue particularly if countries are going to completely economically destroyed when climate change starts to destroy other nations. I just cannot see how we can cope in the UK.

@carefullycourageous anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, horrible and Racist, do grow up. People are allowed their own opinions.

[quote lollipoprainbow]@carefullycourageous anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, horrible and Racist, do grow up. People are allowed their own opinions. [/quote]
I'm grown up.

I do think this policy is disgusting and I'm not going to apologise for that.

Of course you are entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to my opinions about your opinions. It is still a free country despite the best efforts of ukip-voting cunts. Until it is not free I will say what I think - and my view is a lot of 'concern' about immigration is racism.

People who get upset about the word racism are usually people who know they are a bit racist but like to pretend to themselves they are not.

What do we do when the system is overloaded, money is diverted to the illegal immigrants and not on hospitals, schools etc

The Business Model has to be broken

Will await incoming 😳

@ChoiceMummy why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered in the thread?

Also lol for suggesting the border agency is too stupid to see through obvious lies and don’t bother to check who they’re letting into the country. Best change the government then if they’re doing such a bad job!

@EngTech

What do we do when the system is overloaded, money is diverted to the illegal immigrants and not on hospitals, schools etc

The Business Model has to be broken

Will await incoming 😳

Well clearly we have plenty of money to spare, because we are going to spend a fortune sending people to Rwanda. It is going to cost far, far more than we are currently spending. Is that what people want - to spend more on a stunt?

There is plenty of money for stunts and dodgy contracts, the government is just choosing to withhold investment from our services.

@Xenia this is about the 5th time you’ve been asked but where are you getting the 1 million from? The only stats quoting 1 million I can find are pretty disputed.

Also to @Xenia but the reason so much money is being wasted on hotels is being the home office aren’t meeting their targets of processing claims within 6 months. It’s not unusual now for cases to be waiting for 18 months, two years. Imagine that multiplied by thousands.

It’s not the asylum seekers wasting money, it’s the government.

A lot of people on this thread should watch this and reflect on why they are so willing to believe false narratives peddling by proven liars with no morals and no regards for the law.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]**@Xenia this is about the 5th time you’ve been asked but where are you getting the 1 million from? The only stats quoting 1 million I can find are pretty disputed.

Also to @Xenia but the reason so much money is being wasted on hotels is being the home office aren’t meeting their targets of processing claims within 6 months. It’s not unusual now for cases to be waiting for 18 months, two years. Imagine that multiplied by thousands.

It’s not the asylum seekers wasting money, it’s the government.[/quote]
And if they weren't permitted to make these claims in the UK, then we wouldn't have these costs at all would we?

It should save money sending people to Rwanda - cheaper labour so less cost. A bit like the elderly being shipped to Thailand for care. Much cheaper, better care.

@ChoiceMummy So the government needs to focus on setting up safe routes for people to apply for asylum and come to the UK - that would solve the problem that you’re (understandably) worried about. Help, I think we’re finding common ground

@SScoobiedoo

It should save money sending people to Rwanda - cheaper labour so less cost. A bit like the elderly being shipped to Thailand for care. Much cheaper, better care.

Believe that if you like, but you are kidding yourself.

I always find it super cute when someone believes in a Johnson policy announcement though.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]@ChoiceMummy So the government needs to focus on setting up safe routes for people to apply for asylum and come to the UK - that would solve the problem that you’re (understandably) worried about. Help, I think we’re finding common ground [/quote]
In terms of how many would use this what are your thoughts?

Would we see an increase, should there be a cap and would we see yearly increase due to increasing climate issues?

Iirc you work in this area? So it would be interesting to hear how you see it working in terms of numbers

It doesn’t though @SScoobiedoo - it’s going to work out more expensive than housing refugees in the Ritz. More of that tax payers money down the drain.

And wait who’s sending their elderly to Thailand for care?

Absolutely fair , those with a genuine case stay . Those that don’t go .

Er, this has always been the case with seeking asylum. The difference with this policy is that those with a right to asylum in the UK may now be sent to Rwanda.

@MarshaBradyo I work supporting asylum seekers, I don’t set government policy and you know full well there’s no point me pulling random numbers out of the air so forgive me for thinking that sounds like some kind of trap.

But from an amateur point of view, and not taking into account the clusterfuck the government would make of it, numbers wouldn’t need to be increased unless there are unexpected events like Ukraine. I don’t see any connection between safe routes and increased numbers. (In fact, the UNHCR resettlement figures are really low.) Having safe routes means more parity in housing asylum seekers - ie not bunging everyone into Kent as arrivals are a known quantity.

Yearly increase for climate change events is a definite possibility, and while it’s comforting to think that won’t be for many years down the line, it’s worth remembering that climate change in part triggered issues in Syria leading to conflict. Climate change is a very global issue and climate refugees would need to be considered and rehomed globally. I can’t see a push for the UK receiving more than their “fair share” compared to other developed countries.

What do you think should happen re climate refugees? It’s certainly a question that’s getting more urgent.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]@MarshaBradyo I work supporting asylum seekers, I don’t set government policy and you know full well there’s no point me pulling random numbers out of the air so forgive me for thinking that sounds like some kind of trap.

But from an amateur point of view, and not taking into account the clusterfuck the government would make of it, numbers wouldn’t need to be increased unless there are unexpected events like Ukraine. I don’t see any connection between safe routes and increased numbers. (In fact, the UNHCR resettlement figures are really low.) Having safe routes means more parity in housing asylum seekers - ie not bunging everyone into Kent as arrivals are a known quantity.

Yearly increase for climate change events is a definite possibility, and while it’s comforting to think that won’t be for many years down the line, it’s worth remembering that climate change in part triggered issues in Syria leading to conflict. Climate change is a very global issue and climate refugees would need to be considered and rehomed globally. I can’t see a push for the UK receiving more than their “fair share” compared to other developed countries.

What do you think should happen re climate refugees? It’s certainly a question that’s getting more urgent.[/quote]
It wasn’t a trap

You have answered the immediate question here - I don’t see any connection between safe routes and increased numbers.

I don’t know what should happen re climate. One solution is we all take people equally?

The alternative is pretty dire.

But if I wanted to think about it more as a reality that may hit everyone soon I’d probably need cold hard numbers, right now it’s quite abstract but we’ve seen how the world can change from what we know and are comfortable with.

I’ve been reading about Nauru and what that is like, and found it interesting what led to that scheme. Also Howard did well in the election from it. So I guess we’ll see big issues arise and maybe push back in terms of votes.