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

The Ukraine migration is simply the mirror version of the majority of asylum seeking means.

Ukranians are being brought over here safely, by air. The women and children first, then the men will join them if they decided to settle.

Those coming over on boats are the men of the family, because the journey that they're forced to make (because there is no means for them to apply for asylum abroad and get here by safe transport) is overland, dangerous and difficult. So the men take that risk, and then bring their wives and chidlren over once they have been given leave to remain.

In both instances, the entire family gets here. But Ukranians are being given safe passage, so the women and children get here first.

@saraclara That’s a really good point that’s often overlooked. If the government did set up safe routes and used resettlement schemes it would increase the number of women and children who could come. A couple of posters here have expressed the worry that large numbers of men are problematic. Safe routes would solve this problem by allowing safe passage for women and children. I would hope that’s something they could be supportive of!

Do you not? I'd be keen to hear your sources for this info. How about political persecution? You don't mention that.
Your Karachi comment is disingenuous in the extreme. Are these people in the Midlands actually being relocated? Or just finding that there are people in the neighbourhood who don't look like them?

It's like that in London as well. I totally understand

This amount of immigration is unsustainable imo

Immigration is what has made London so amazing. DT’s went to an international school in London - there were 41 nationalities in their school.

The UK government haven’t given £1.4 billion to Rwanda. The £1.4 billion is the current yearly cost of housing asylum seekers in the UK. The Rwanda scheme is initially a trial is costing £120 million.

@Parker231 how perfectly lovely for your DT's, are you aware of schools, housing and nhs issues in the real world ????

Saraclara - Agree with this

That sounds fantastic.

They have a much greater understanding of the real world by spending their school days with children who were born in so many different parts of the world.

@Parker231 I meant you

I’m aware of the big bad world - came to the U.K. when I was five. DH came when he was 21. He works in the NHS previously as a GP and now in A&E.
Immigration hasn’t caused the housing, schooling and NHS crisis. That’s down to the current government.

I’m aware of the big bad world - came to the U.K. when I was five. DH came when he was 21. He works in the NHS previously as a GP and now in A&E.
Immigration hasn’t caused the housing, schooling and NHS crisis. That’s down to the current government.

“Referring to the rumoured cost of the new scheme, Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said today: ‘Home Office claims current cost of processing asylum per person in UK is £12k. That would make offshore processing over a hundred of times more expensive.
‘And would mean cost for UK taxpayer of sending people to Rwanda would be billions. Where is that money coming from?’
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, has said offshoring the UK’s asylum system ‘will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons why people take perilous journeys to find safety’.
‘It will do little to deter them from coming to this country, but only lead to more human suffering and chaos – at a huge expense of an estimated £1.4 billion a year’, he said.”

https://metro.co.uk/2022/04/14/rwanda-asylum-seeker-scheme-will-cost-more-than-booking-them-in-ritz-16468003/amp/

Those are the figures I was quoting, but as the article says we can’t know the real cost yet. But if it’s similar to Australia’s, it’s going to be a lot of money heading to Rwanda and not a scrap used here.

As much as housing asylum seekers in hotels and hostels is not always the best solution, at least the money spent is going into the UK economy. With this scheme, even that doesn’t happen.

Sorry my last post was for @Capri3 in defence of my (usually terrible!) maths.

Yes fair point about money going back into the economy

The two sides in this debate will never bridge their divide. However it still remains helpful we can listen to each other. It does not seem to matter what Labour or Tory policy is on the issue - more and more and more people still keep coming. I don't really know how it can ever end unless we become a contry with worse benefits and jobs than the original countries

Asylum seekers arriving in the U.K. aren’t entitled to claim benefits or look for a job until they have been through the process and granted leave to remain.
if the government got its act together and completed the process quicker, the individuals could look for jobs and add to the U.K. economy as the majority of those do who arrive in the U.K..
The fault is with the government not the individuals.

The asylum seekers that I meet in my role, are desperate to work and be productive. They have skills and qualifications, and they wouldn't want to be on benefits even if they were allowed to be.

I can't say it loud enough. ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WORK, AND HAVE NO RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS, ie BENEFITS. If they're lucky they get a grotty roof over their heads, and if they're unlucky, that roof is an immigration detention centre.

As there’s been a fair bit of negative stuff on here, here’s a lovely positive - a great scheme by Talent Beyond Borders to increase the number of nurses in the NHS. Much needed at the moment!

And how about this for another positive message?

There are any number of doctors, nurses and care staff among those in limbo waiting for a Home Office decision, and unable to contribute when they know they're desperately needed.

I wonder if numbers have dropped since this was announced

The Australian version was successful. I posted this earlier in the thread.
article in the spectator

They are big drops