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

I think it will be a very small number returned. If there were 1m illegal immigrants in the UK. There are about 125,000 active UK asylum applications. Most illegal immigrants break the law to be here and do not apply for asylum and just try to stay off the radar so about a tenth seem to be on the books of the home office - the 125k although I doubt we will send 125,000 to Rwanda. In 2020, there were 1,546 asylum related returns. We return hardly anyone. Once you are here you tend to be here for life come what may no matter how many laws you broke to get here or you broke whilst here.

Where does the figure of £1m come from? It’s not illegal/breaking any law to come to the U.K. on a small boat from France. They are only illegal if their application to stay in the U.K. is refused. The majority have the rights to remain in the U.K..

@Xenia Given that this is the third time I’ve asked you and still haven’t answered, I’m just going to assume you don’t have any source for the figures you’re quoting.

“No matter how many laws you broke to get here” doesn’t make any sense in this context as seeking asylum in the UK isn’t breaking the law, and neither is not stopping in the first “safe” country you come from. Also making your use of the term “illegal immigrants” nonsense.

“Or laws you break while you’re here” I posted either upthread or on the other thread sources showing that there was no evidence that increase in migration increased the crime rate in the UK.

“We return hardly anyone” because they have a genuine claim for asylum.

It’s all just sourceless, baseless xenophobia.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]@ChoiceMummy Scaremongering? No, it’s taken from the government’s own fact sheet. (It might give some people pause to see how easily the government’s own policies can be criticised as “scaremongering”.)

Here’s the quote from the government factsheet, link below.

Every person who comes to the UK illegally, or by dangerous or unnecessary methods from safe countries – including those arriving by small boats, hidden in the back of lorries and found in the UK without leave – will be considered for relocation to Rwanda.
Any person who has arrived in the UK in this way since 1 January 2022 will be considered for relocation to Rwanda.

homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/factsheet-migration-and-economic-development-partnership/

If you have a link from official documents to show that they have since reversed this decision, I would be very happy to see it. Genuinely, not snark - I’m only one person and can’t keep up with everything. As you’ve accused me of scaremongering you must have some pretty strong evidence, and it would benefit both of us for you to show it.[/quote]
The memorandum of understanding is a "capture all" document.

The ministers have been clear about how this will proceed.

The Secretary of State for Wales Simon Hart said the plan was focused on single young men.

"This is about male economic migrants in the main.....There is a different set of issues with women and children."

So,as I said clearly above, the pilot is focussed on single males. Once reviewed this may change. It obviously depends on the outcomes and quite clearly the needs of the other groups.

This has been clearly quoted in multiple press sources.

@Parker231

Where does the figure of £1m come from? It’s not illegal/breaking any law to come to the U.K. on a small boat from France. They are only illegal if their application to stay in the U.K. is refused. The majority have the rights to remain in the U.K..

The immigration bill clewrly states that arriving in the UK without permission is a criminal offence. Eg not going via border/passport control. Go via border/passport control and legitimately claim asylum that's not illegal. Turn up in a dinghy on a Kent shore, illegal!

Why is anyone upset about laws being broken by asylum seekers? Our PM believes that breaking the law is acceptable.

@Summerhillsquare

It would be against international law.

Well it was against the Dublin convention that refugees were not dealt with, ie fingerprinted and dealt with by the first country they arrive I, but those countries didn't give a fuck as they were busy sending them on their way to the U.K. desperate times as we can't keep taking economic migrants.

There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, and it is not illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum.

Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country.

The UN Refugee Convention also recognises people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means to escape and claim asylum in another country, and they cannot be penalised for doing so.

It is also a requirement under International Maritime Law for states to rescue people in trouble at sea. What is illegal is people smuggling.

@ChoiceMummy thank you for the source. Much more helpful. Now the only problem we have is whether

a) ministers statements in the media are accurate (not something that this current bunch have a good track record of lately)

b) whether ministers’ statements are a stronger/more trustworthy source than the relevant documents (and that honestly could go either way!)

and c) whether the phrase “male economic migrants in the main” is actually reassuring as 1) over 70% of claims are genuine asylum claims, so a very small number would be sent to Rwanda (i.e. not worth the money they’re proposing to spend on the scheme) and 2) “in the main” doesn’t mean “only and exclusively” which leaves us with the original problem.

Although I don’t share the same sentiment, I can see why those statements have reassured you, and why you’d see my post as scaremongering. But given that the information is so scarce and contradictory, I guess we’re both potentially right?

What is the reason we don't process asylum seekers in Calais?

@Parker231

There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, and it is not illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum.

Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country.

The UN Refugee Convention also recognises people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means to escape and claim asylum in another country, and they cannot be penalised for doing so.

It is also a requirement under International Maritime Law for states to rescue people in trouble at sea. What is illegal is people smuggling.

But they don't have to be disembarked on to British ground.

Disembarkment is not included within the laws!

It is illegal to enter the UK without permission and it is illegal to obtain or seek to obtain leave to enter or remain by deception.

It is not illegal to claim asylum but it may be illegal to be in the country in the first place.

This article is quite old, but covers the legality/illegality quite well.

How do they claim asylum?
Asylum seekers are told to present themselves to authorities "when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country".
If caught by police illegally in the UK, they are at first arrested on immigration offences. Immigration officers will submit an application on behalf of those seeking asylum.
Asylum seekers will be asked to explain how they were persecuted in their home country and why they are afraid to go back, and to provide any evidence supporting their claims.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33729417.amp

Those first two paragraphs are separate btw - basically, arrive and immediately present yourself to authorities = OK
Arrive and hide and live under the radar = illegal.

And how else would you present yourself to authorities? You can’t catch a plane or a ferry when your id/documents have been destroyed or never issued in the first place. You can’t pilot your dingy into a ferry port. You can’t apply outside the UK, as apart from the UNHCR resettlement scheme which takes very few, there is no possible way to do this.

This has been clearly quoted in multiple press sources

Curious

No mention in the Memorandum

2.1 The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals after their claim is decided, in accordance with Rwanda domestic law, the Refugee Convention, current international standards, including in accordance with international human rights law and including the assurances given under this Arrangement.

Oh...and look..we get some Rwandan refugees back

16.1 The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.

The Home Office press release does not imply single men, Priti Patel refused to confirm who would be targeted

And reports that only adult men would be sent to Rwanda have not been confirmed by the government. (Johnson said seven out of 10 people arriving on small boats last year were men under 40, but Patel said that if she disclosed the criteria that would be used to decide who would be sent to Rwanda, she would create a new opportunity for the people smugglers).

@VladmirsPoutine

I would like to deport Farage and Patel to Rwanda, I really would.

Again why? Why does anyone think this an appropriate thing to say at all? I should be shocked but I'm really not.

Patel is the one actually planning to deport people to Rwanda.

What is 'inappropriate' about saying that what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

@BewareTheLibrarians

This article is quite old, but covers the legality/illegality quite well.

How do they claim asylum?
Asylum seekers are told to present themselves to authorities "when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country".
If caught by police illegally in the UK, they are at first arrested on immigration offences. Immigration officers will submit an application on behalf of those seeking asylum.
Asylum seekers will be asked to explain how they were persecuted in their home country and why they are afraid to go back, and to provide any evidence supporting their claims.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33729417.amp

Those first two paragraphs are separate btw - basically, arrive and immediately present yourself to authorities = OK
Arrive and hide and live under the radar = illegal.

And how else would you present yourself to authorities? You can’t catch a plane or a ferry when your id/documents have been destroyed or never issued in the first place. You can’t pilot your dingy into a ferry port. You can’t apply outside the UK, as apart from the UNHCR resettlement scheme which takes very few, there is no possible way to do this.

This is usurped by the updated immigration bill.

@ChoiceMummy Then why aren’t asylum seekers arrested as soon as they present themselves to authorities?

@carefullycourageous, it's inappropriate because Patel and Farage are our problem. Rwanda does not deserve that!

This is usurped by the updated immigration bill

How do people claim asylum in the UK in the future?

“But can asylum seekers actually come to the UK ‘illegally’?

The short answer is no, not in the way the Home Secretary has been desperately trying to depict. The idea of the ‘illegal’ asylum seeker is a falsehood that has been actively peddled by the Home Office and the Home Secretary in recent years. When people talk about asylum seekers coming to the UK ‘illegally’, what they really mean is asylum seekers arriving via informal and unofficial routes, such as crossing the Channel via small boat. However, asylum seekers are legally allowed to come to the UK even when making an ‘illegal entry’. As, although it would be illegal for migrants who are not seeking asylum to enter by such means, asylum seekers are entitled to come to the UK via whatever means possible, provided they inform the authorities of their presence upon their arrival and have good reason for seeking asylum. Asylum seekers cannot therefore come to the UK ‘illegally’; illegality may only ever occur if they do not report their presence to the authorities and remain in the UK as undocumented migrants.”

www.lancaster.ac.uk/law/blog/the-myth-of-the-illegal-asylum-seeker

I haven't read every post. I just like people to obey the law like the rest of us do. The figures in my last post I looked up on Govenrment sources other than the 1m in UK and 800,000 illegal immigrants in France.

The 1m I just looked up again and it is from 2010 from the Times. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-home-to-1m-illegal-immigrants-92ll6h0dxxj I expect it will be many more now. I believe sewage records by the way also help confirm that figure. My London borough alone has more "beds in sheds" than any other London borough. Heat seeking equipment helps to see how many are living in garages etc etc too. The 800k in France - I see this one has UK up to 1.2m and France up to 400k www.pewresearch.org/global/fact-sheet/unauthorized-immigrants-in-france/ I definitely read 800k for France somewhere. If we could start with removing 2m from UK and France who are here illegally that might help the 6m on NHS waiting lists and hardly any homes to rent in the UK where we have 18m more people than when I was born.

also the world is changing - we just cannot take everyone who might be discriminated at home because they are gay or converted to Christianity however cruel that might seem or because their country is affected by climate change. The Uk already does tremendously well in foreign aid.

I just like people to obey the law like the rest of us do.

Unless you are the PM, his wife and the Chancellor who have just been fined for breaking the law.

also the world is changing - we just cannot take everyone who might be discriminated at home because they are gay or converted to Christianity however cruel that might seem or because their country is affected by climate change. The Uk already does tremendously well in foreign aid

We really aren't taking a lot of refugees though, are we...

I see you mention climate change....yes, there will be people who need to leave countries because of climate change - of which we and other Western nations have contributed our fair share too.

I think we have had some impact on the world with our arms trade.

It's a good thing we are an island. Otherwise we would have to put a big wall like Trump around our borders.

Let's hope that people in the UK never have to become refugees or claim asylum elsewhere

so many of those arriving by dinghy are 17 year old men
and are placed in care
and yet many are lonely unhappy and isolated

Ah makes sense. The Pew Research figures are the ones that are disputed.

“Earlier this year, ONS and the Home Office produced a joint statement suggesting they did not plan to produce a new estimate using this method, because of limitations in the data and methodologies.”

From the Migration Observatory.

Why do you think the hospital waiting lists and lack of homes to rent is due to what is, population wise, a tiny number, and not the fault of the government who’ve run the NHS into the ground and obliterated the rental market?

No wonder you’re desperate to get rid of immigrants if you think they’re more powerful than the government.