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

Most large cities have changed so much, do we want to keep adding to this situation

This was aimed at Parker231's response to my post.

@MyWinterRose This thread is quite old, so a bit of a waste of time to rehash things that have already been discussed/debunked. The point that’s also been made a thousand times that you can’t be bothered to read is that safe and legal routes would allow numbers to be controlled. But the government are choosing not to deal with this. They’re choosing to have this increased number of uncontrolled boat crossings, so uncontrolled numbers. Why do you think they’re choosing to do that?

The rest is just a bunch of disgusting racist rhetoric that I cannot be bothered to deal with.

@BewareTheLibrarians ah yes the scandal that no one is allowed to mention all brushed under the carpet so as not to be seen as racist.

@lollipoprainbow Say it out loud then? If you believe that because some brown people are sex offenders, then all brown people are, I hope you’re also fine with deporting all white men? Because some of them have committed sex crimes too, so they must all be bad, right? Or are you just prejudiced against one particular group for no apparent reason?

Thank you lollipoprainbow

Some people really cannot handle reported facts or different opinions.

I must have missed the “reported facts” in those posts. I went back to check but they’ve been deleted for some reason?

As the deleted comment was to my question about what dramatic changes you believe immigration has brought, I’m assuming you were being negative and derogatory?
Where’s your evidence?

@BewareTheLibrarians I'd be equally concerned about uncontrolled immigration if they were white, their colour has zero relevance to me you have chosen to get on your high horse about racism !!

Yeah, I don’t think asking another poster not to say that brown immigrants are “ruining the country” is being on my high horse about racism. I think it’s a fairly normal standard of basic decency.

Ok, so you don’t like uncontrolled immigration. That’s fair enough (and you can make that point without couching it it derogatory terms like some posters do). So why do you keep posting at me telling me off for calling people racist, rather than question why the government are allowing this? I’ll say it for the thousandth time - the government could make the choice to control immigration and hugely reduce the boat crossings, but they don’t. Why do you think they don’t? They’ve been in power for long enough to combat this but under them, boat crossings have increased. I’d rather hear your opinion on that than your opinion on the height of my theoretical horses.

Why has more not been done to stop the boat crossings (which are not most people concerned by the way - over stayers are an even bigger category)? Various reasons - apparently you cannot safely and easily turn a boat or take people out of it. I don't know why you can't take them to the UK and straight on to safe UK boat back to France however?

@Xenia Obviously, “reduce boat crossings” means “stop more of them before they happen” NOT “chuck ‘em in the North Sea halfway across”. Just to be clear.

We can’t send them on a boat back to France because of Brexit. When we were in the EU, we had a reciprocal agreement that we could send back asylum seekers if we had good cause to believe they could have stayed in the EU. Since Brexit, we can’t do that as we’d need agreements with each country, and they’re not at all keen to sign. Boat crossings are also rising as we’re no longer able to police our border in France via the French I believe, again because of Brexit.

Overstayers is a weird one. As they come to the UK legally and with visas, they should be an easy group to keep hold of. “Vanishing”
into the underworld of cash in hand employment is one way, so crackdowns on illegal employment help. Again, there needs to be political will…

apparently a lot of them are going to stay in France rather than be sent to Rwanda. Suddenly the UK is not so appealing.

Something to do with the law of the sea you must save others whose lives are at risk. So pusing dinghies about would probably be breaking that code as you are likely to upturn the dinghy and drown the occupants. I doubt you can just dump unwanted people in France!
Also, like trying to return illegals by plane - they put up a fight - custom officers, other passengers at risk etc

The answer is to reduce the childbirth rates in countries with minimal jobs and amenities. But it seems to be the opposite happens.

We can’t send them on a boat back to France because of Brexit. When we were in the EU, we had a reciprocal agreement that we could send back asylum seekers if we had good cause to believe they could have stayed in the EU

House of Commons Library 2019:

According to Home Office figures, between 2015 and 2018, 7,365 incoming requests were made to transfer people into the UK under the Dublin regulation, from which 2,365 people were transferred to the UK (some requests may still be pending).

This means that the UK accepted around 33% of requests. During the same period, the UK made 18,953 outgoing requests to transfer people to other Member States, from which 1,395 people were transferred abroad. This amounts to around 7% of outgoing requests by the UK resulting in a transfer.

In 2018, the UK received a total of 37,453 asylum applications, and made 5,510 outgoing transfer requests under Dublin III. Of these 5,510 requests, 209 migrants were transferred out of the UK under Dublin III, whilst 1,215 came in, making the UK a net recipient in 2018.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/

This looks very bad indeed:

March 2022
Spain’s Interior Ministry denied wrongdoing after a video emerged that shows several Spanish agents beating a young African migrant who crossed the border fence into the Spanish enclave of Melilla.

The video, captured by Spain’s public broadcaster RTVE, shows a young man, who could be a minor, slowly climbing down the border fence that separates Spain’s African territory from Morocco.

Once the young man gets close to Spanish ground, agents begin striking him with their batons.

The migrant then drops off the fence and seven officers encircle him as they simultaneously beat him with their batons.

www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/spanish-police-filmed-beating-african-migrant-who-crossed-border-into-melilla/2523861

@Clavinova Your second post
… it’s horrible isn’t it? It’s not at all rare either.

Re your first post, this is the Brexity consequence (apologies for the length):

“As a result, at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, the Dublin III Regulation, EURODAC and all other elements of the CEAS ceased to apply to the UK.

In the ‘New Plan for Immigration’, the UK government admitted its plans for the return of inadmissible asylum seekers are ‘contingent on securing returns agreements’ with safe third countries. Without such agreements, Home Office removals would not be facilitated by third countries meaning removals occurring would be on dubious legal grounds.
It is looking highly unlikely that the UK will secure bilateral returns agreements with its EU member state neighbours.

Countries including France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands have said they will not agree to bilateral returns deals with the UK. Previously, when part of the Dublin system the UK was party to its returns mechanism through which asylum seekers who travelled to the UK from other Dublin countries could be returned to them.

Without replacement returns agreements, UK removals of asylum seekers will not be facilitated by their EU member state neighbours.”

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/asylum-policy-after-brexit/

And one that will thrill the crowd, I’m sure - let’s chuck millions of pounds at France, and ignore Kent:

“On 20 July, the UK and France released a joint statement on the next phase in their cooperation to manage small boat crossings on the English Channel, setting out a new funding agreement in which the UK will contribute €62.7 million (£54.1 million) towards France’s border enforcement and technology capabilities.”

Why worry about the toll of the rising cost of living on your population, when you can throw millions at France and billions at Rwanda?

Yes that's my take too.

There are a lot of people needing support and housing who are in the UK who should be prioritised

I agree with skilled migrants coming but they need to be able to pay their way

Judging by YOUGOV polls the majority of the country agree with the Rwanda scheme.

Do they? I can only see one that YouGov had carried out which showed the majority opposed the policy.

@artisanbread

I was basing that off when it was covered in the news they advised it was the majority agree. Either way from the coverage this has gotten It does seem the majority agree something needs to be done.

@MyWinterRose - the majority arriving in the U.K. are granted leave to remain and therefore are not illegal.
Where do you think those escaping wars in Syria and Afghanistan should go to? They are unlikely to have papers to prove their identity as probably not a priority when your life is at risk.