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 don’t know where this idea came from (implied by several posters) that you can’t be a genuine refugee if you are a man.
Also the the claim that no one should seek asylum in the UK if they’ve come through another country to get here. As others point out speaking English or having family here are perfectly sensible reasons.
The graph below shows that we actually accept very few refugees compared to other European countries (the purple bar). Just because we happen to be on the west side of Europe and other countries are easier to get to, does that mean we get to go ‘haha your problem, we’re not taking any refugees’ to France, Italy, Greece?

[quote lollipoprainbow]@Ylvamoon agree entirely, the NHS is at breaking point. As usual the thread is full of virture signalling do gooders. [/quote]
Luckily most people who are being targeted by this policy are going to be unlikely to use the NHS much as they will be young men.

In theory, with all the jobs in the UK ,they could end up working in the NHS and supporting it.

@notanotheroneagain

Asylum seekers? As in people running away from war/abuse/hostile environment etc?

Does that include Ukraine?

Just us brown folk.

Why would the Rwandan government agree to this? It's crazy.

It is a repulsive idea but I don’t think it will happen
It is being dangled to distract from the gift’s lawbreaking

How low we have sunk

I think people in the UK would be shocked to know the numbers of refugees in some countries.

The countries that are next to countries with wars on.

www.unhcr.org/flagship-reports/globaltrends/

1% of the world's population is displaced
Turkey continued to host the largest number of refugees with just under 4 million, most of whom were Syrian refugees (92 per cent). Colombia followed, hosting over 1.7 million displaced Venezuelans. Germany hosted the third largest population – almost 1.5 million, with Syrian refugees and asylum-seekers as the largest group (44 per cent). Pakistan and Uganda completed the top-5 hosting countries, with about 1.4 million each

That was in 2020.

Kind of makes our issues look pitiful

I have found the link and notice the words;

reportedly
considering
could
suggestion

also references to Israel

so nothing concrete just another pile of speculative crap and anti-semitism from a left-wing rag.

Govt not gift!

I'm just listening to Radio 4 with someone talking about this. The plan is the trip to Rwanda is a one way ticket. They won't return here even if they get through the system.

@GirlsTalk250

If it stops people being trafficked across the Channel in unseaworthy dingies, it’s a good thing. At a centre in Rwanda asylum seekers will be safe and looked after whilst their applications are processed.

Would that it were so.

@Seema1234

I'm just listening to Radio 4 with someone talking about this. The plan is the trip to Rwanda is a one way ticket. They won't return here even if they get through the system.

I’m trying to understand the single male part too

What happens to women and children?

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]@osprey24. Just a couple of things.

1. do you work with asylum seeker support groups to know that for a fact or is it speculation?

2. can you understand that “young healthy men” can be at risk of persecution, torture and death, which is why they’re fleeing their country?

3. are you aware that in some regions, women and children seek asylum in a closer/neighbouring country, but would be in camps, and/or often unable to work? Therefore “young healthy men” (who, let’s remember, are also at risk) seek asylum in countries further afield as they are often the only ones who can physically cope with the journey, and earn money to support their family? This strengthens the narrative that only “healthy young men” are arriving but doesn’t tell anything like the full story.

4. are these “economic migrants” flocking to the UK for the extravagant sum of £35 per week, and a hotel room or shitty barracks deemed unsafe for human habitation?[/quote]
   Thank you, Beware.

It's no surprise to me that the government feels confident in making these sorts of plans; they know that they will appeal to the ignorant.

@Thesefeetaremadeforwalking

I have found the link and notice the words;

reportedly
considering
could
suggestion

also references to Israel

so nothing concrete just another pile of speculative crap and anti-semitism from a left-wing rag.

Did you read the Daily Mail?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10716709/Priti-Patel-launches-plan-smash-Channel-boat-gangs-sending-asylum-seekers-Africa.html

@Lampzade

For all those who agree with this - I hope that you are never in a position where you have to seek help Our lives can be turned upside down in the twinkle of an eye. Many of those asylum seekers come from countries which we have helped destroy with our interference. So please spare me all the nonsense about economic migrants It is highly unlikely that this will ever go through . However, this government has showed itself as having a lack of moral compass. I honestly don’t know how anyone can vote for Boris Johnson and the rest of his cronies.

They’re probably white, so they know they’ll be welcomed with open arms. Probably the same people who weren’t fussed about non-white people not being allowed on trains etc to leave Ukraine.

What they need to do is put facilities to process asylum claims in calais

And why would the French government agree to this?

If it's single men - then I fear that we are going to see forced marriages in the camps or en route - and people saying that they are married, so you can't send me to Rwanda.

Unforeseen consequences - and I am sure Priti Patel does not want to see VAWG and forced marriages as a consequence of this policy.

It will cost in excess of 4 billion pounds. Approximately 2 million per refugee. Someone in the Tory party or their circle of friends, donors, cronies or lovers will make it rich on the backs of others' suffering.

@Ylvamoon

If it stopps some of the trafficking it would be a great idea! And yes, I too believe that the majority of people that arrive illegally on the Kent beaches are young, male and economic migrants. We have no obligation to house, feed and care for them. They have already travelled through several safe countries that would have granted every single one asylum if they were genuine. Doubious family connections or language barriers are just not enough to warrant £,£££ paid to criminals and a potentially deadly journey across the Channel.

Honestly, my sympathy is wearing thin, especially when I look around me with a massive housing shortage, the cost of basic food going up and very long waiting times for hospital treatments or dentists.
You can't look after others if you don't take care of yourself.

We can help, but this help should be delivered long before anyone enters the clutches of criminal trafficking gangs.

Ugh, this tired trope about "have already passed through several safe countries to get here" winds me up every time. You seem to assume that every single one of these asylum seekers are so desperate to get to the UK, that NONE of them stop anywhere else. I assume you've never actually looked at any statistics on this (no, why would you when you can read a provocative headline designed to invoke outrage and decide it must be the whole truth?).

But MILLIONS of migrants end up in other countries. The vast majority of Syrian refugees (over 3 million) are in Turkey, followed by other Middle Eastern countries (Lebanon, Jordan, etc). Lebanon has a population of only 6 million people, but have over half a million Syrian refugees. These countries that are accepting literally millions of refugees have even less infrastructure and resources than we do, yet are doing far far more.

Look at how many people Poland has accepted from Ukraine, and yet there are still some people in this country who are complaining about us taking any Ukrainian refugees because "there are people still living on the streets here and we should be putting our own first". Do they think Poland doesn't have people living on the streets too, or that they have thousands of spare houses lying spare to house refugees?

So please stop bleating on about people not wanting to stop in the next safe country. The vast, vast majority do. It's just easier for small minded people with their own selfish agendas to believe that all refugees or asylum seekers want to come here.

I really recommend you read up on this. Just to get you started:

www.worldvision.org/refugees-news-stories/syrian-refugee-crisis-facts#:~:text=%C2%A9World%20Vision)-,Where%20are%20Syrian%20refugees%20going%3F,the%20largest%20refugee%20population%20worldwide.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Sorry, not millions of migrants, I meant millions of asylum seekers.

@cakeorwine

If it's single men - then I fear that we are going to see forced marriages in the camps or en route - and people saying that they are married, so you can't send me to Rwanda.

Unforeseen consequences - and I am sure Priti Patel does not want to see VAWG and forced marriages as a consequence of this policy.

Yes the consequences of single men seems incredibly dangerous to me. Once this is known how will women and children be used.

Find a town in the UK with one or more Britannia hotels. Go and take a look at the crowd of young men in their 20s in their designer trainers and iPhones. Staring at young girls.
Very intimidating to walk past.
Where ar the women and children?

I think this I saw on Twitter by @lottelydia sums up how I feel:
If you’re advocating offshore processing of refugees and you’re citing Australia as your inspiration, then you’re endorsing a system so brutal that a twelve year old girl tried to burn herself to death

I have no respect for anyone who supports this policy.

@Georgeskitchen I imagine this this is the reality of the situation more than the ones the hand wringers here are talking about.

@YerWanIsGettinNotions

It won't discourage anyone. A very high proportion of asylum applications are granted, contrary to belief. Reaching the UK will still be the trigger and the fact of overseas processing doesn't change that. Once it is granted, we will have to ship them all back (and be responsible for their passage in both directions, together with the effects and consequences of ill-treatment, or lack of care, during those journeys).

And the other reason people come here from other countries and don't stop in the "first safe country" is that they speak English and have family here. Why would someone claim asylum in France if they speak English, maybe have GCSEs or uk-recognised education standards, and have cousins in Leicester who want to host them, but don't speak French and know nobody in France?

The French lady who covers the BBC News paper review occasionally says it's because in France they are harassed for their papers regularly and that there is little black economy for them to disappear into.

Do they get offered hotel accommodation in France? They do here.

So what should happen?