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

Scraping the barrel this government, finding news to distract from 'partygate'. Disgraceful.

@painauraisin

And why would the French government agree to this?

French already requested this of U.K. govt to save lives. If implemented the Ukr refugees probably would have benefitted too.

amp.france24.com/en/france/20211129-french-minister-urges-uk-to-open-legal-migration-route-amid-channel-crisis

Aren't asylum seekers allowed shoes and phones then?

I live near the barracks and have found the residents to be very polite and no bother at all. Weird how all the problems I've ever had with men acting intimidating or harassing me have been white English men. Can we send them to a camp in rwanda instead?

@Franklin12

So what should happen?

This is a deliberately disingenuous question IMO, as citizens we can oppose a policy outright on ethical grounds without being responsible for providing the alternative.

But there are reams and reams of better policies outlined by many refugeee charities, so just have a look if you are genuinely interested.

I oppose it on ethical grounds, but also I do not want to pay billions for a grandstanding policy that won't actually work except to appease people who are too thick to understand why it won't work and too racist to care.

I can't understand the argument "thet should settle in their nearest safe country"
If you think about Ukraine for example, you think Poland, Slovakia and Romania should accommodate all the millions of people fleeing?
And as the UK is an island and not the nearest country to anywhere in Europe (except Ireland) does that mean we shrug and think we're alright Jack, that's us off the hook? It's a global problem and the UK should take responsibility in taking in asylum seekers and refugees.

@Hala9

Scraping the barrel this government, finding news to distract from 'partygate'. Disgraceful.

Yes quite.

Desperate stuff really, it'll be the bloody death penalty next!

And as the UK is an island and not the nearest country to anywhere in Europe (except Ireland) does that mean we shrug and think we're alright Jack, that's us off the hook

That's exactly what they think should happen. Yet if they needed asylum one day they'd sure as hell expect someone to take them in.

When I heard this on the radio I literally said "Rwanda? Rwanda? RWANDA?" about 20 times

@Viviennemary

I think it will deter others from coming. We can't take everybody. If you rocked up on a boat into Australia or NZ you would be sent packing.

And that's obviously the intention.

It's very different to think you may claim and be processed in the UK and then go off radar if found not eligible and your multiple appeals fail, compared to the same in Rwanda.

I'm not surprised it's being considered tbh.

The only issue, is that a proper cost comparison including the costs of lost asylum seekers etc needs to be done. But I imagine the costs versus UK overall will be lower.

But I imagine the costs versus UK overall will be lower. Do you? Do you imagine that? How sweet.

So I’m in Australia and have been here through two different governments who handled the asylum seekers differently. Neither are good.
When asylum seekers were processed onshore and it was seen as a viable option for them, we had regular stories of people making the terribly dangerous, deadly crossing. Asylum seekers crossing the waters to make it here, paying extortionate money to criminals to do so, and sometimes drowning on their way. Clearly far from ideal, but presumably worth taking the risk as they continued to come.
So then we had the system where AS are processed offshore and also it was widely advertised that anyone arriving by boat would go to the back of the queue (as a deterrent). The main point wasn’t actually to stop AS (as we do take refugees) but to stop them making the perilous journey and also to stick to the safe and organised way of claiming asylum.
This has stopped the boats, which is a good thing, but the conditions in these places is not good. Terrible in fact. But that’s kind of the point - it was to make people claim asylum in the “correct” way rather than trying to come through the back door. I remember when this came in, a lot was made of how it was unfair for anyone to “jump the queue” when we have a specific process for asylum seekers to undertake.
I don’t know the answer. These dangerous, perilous journeys need to be stopped, obviously countries can’t just open their doors to however many people want to come in, but surely there has to be a safe, humane way to deal with people fleeing genuine danger.

I'm not sure. It sounds heartless and nasty.

But what is in place at the moment doesn't deserve to be called an asylum system, it's a survival of the fittest scramble to make it to the UK that favours the young, fit and those with enough money to pay the people smugglers. IMO a system should be set up to identify the most vulnerable in countries close to the country they are fleeing and bring them to the UK. I don't think the Tories will do that though.

I mean basically we need a worldwide processing effort, near or in each country to totally cut out the criminal element and the dangerous journey.
Like the UN could set up processing centres in every country, then AS could rank 1-20 countries where they could go, with points given if you have family support, then they could be given a certain amount of money, and just….allowed to live their lives? Get a job, get an education, work, support their family. There seems to be this idea that AS (even economic ones) are doing something criminal or dodgy but why shouldn’t young men be looking for a better life?

@midsomermurderess

Cost less to send asylum seekers to Rwanda? You think? This from today's Mirror: 'MPs previously heard Australia’s offshore processing system cost $1bn a year for just 300 people - or £1.9m per refugee per year. Tory ex-minister Andrew Mitchell warned last month: “It would be much cheaper to put each one in the Ritz and send all the under-18s to Eton.” And where is this eye-watering amount of money per person in going?

Agree. I think it's for dogmatic political reasons, rather than money saving or humane reasons. I think it is a horrible thing to do but it might win votes as the gov will now say they have say they have sorted illegal immigration.

Although PPs have a point about we need to come up with a plan.

"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."

This ^ is another myth. have you heard them being interviewed? Most of them don't speak English at all. They are here for the "free" NHS and the multiple jobs and benefits available in the UK (and the streets paved with gold).

I think the best bet would be to locate all the areas of the UK with the lowest council tax rates and build special accommodation there for everyone coming across the channel. They could increase the council tax to the amount the rest of us have to pay to fund the scheme. I suspect that when the hand-wringers and do-gooders actually have to suffer the effects of illegal immigration then something will finally be done about it. All the time it's just Kent's problem nobody else gives a shit. Exactly the same as the Lorry issue.

@OberthursGrizzledSkipper

"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."

This ^ is another myth. have you heard them being interviewed? Most of them don't speak English at all. They are here for the "free" NHS and the multiple jobs and benefits available in the UK (and the streets paved with gold).

I think the best bet would be to locate all the areas of the UK with the lowest council tax rates and build special accommodation there for everyone coming across the channel. They could increase the council tax to the amount the rest of us have to pay to fund the scheme. I suspect that when the hand-wringers and do-gooders actually have to suffer the effects of illegal immigration then something will finally be done about it. All the time it's just Kent's problem nobody else gives a shit. Exactly the same as the Lorry issue.

I think expensive areas of London have very low council tax rates. A lot of property belonging to Russian oligarchs is currently empty- sounds good!

I'm appalled that as a nation we have forgotten how we have built our success on the back of immigrants.
I'm disgusted that we are viewed globally as hostile to refugee asylum seekers.
Sadly not surprised but incredibly disappointed.

I find it really interesting that the posters gleefully announcing this is a great idea seem to have no idea how the system works for asylum seekers (no, it’s not a legal requirement to stop in the first safe country, it’s not “illegal” to come to the UK, and no, you don’t get given a council house and benefits as soon as you arrive, plus other countries take far more asylum seekers than the UK etc etc).

They also don’t seem to ever read the thread to notice the “young men” and “economic migrants” argument has already been debunked, which looks a bit daft.

As for the “young men in flash trainers with mobile phones hanging round staring at girls” argument (which no white men have ever done ever so that’s understandably terrifying 🙄), one bill currently pinging between the Lords and House of Commons includes the right for asylum seekers to work while waiting for their claim to be processed. Currently, asylum seekers can’t work while waiting for their claim to be processed. As some claims are currently taking a year/18 months to be processed, that’s a long time to be without a job and a purpose. If Right to Work was granted after 6 months, people could be in work, contributing to society, paying taxes, integrating in the community. However, our current government would rather leave asylum seekers jobless and jobs unfilled. I hope the posters complaining about “young men on the streets” will be lobbying their MP for the government to give asylum seekers the right to work.

Inhumane and horrific. Tantamount to torturing already tortured people.

If your family had suffered so much already, travelling 1000s of miles to safety, how would you feel about being moved to a country with a poor human rights record? Terrifying.

We are all where we are through an accident of birth.

I work with refugees and will be fighting this all the way.

I’d suggest reading The Beekeeper of Aleppo as a start to realising that fleeing a war torn country is not a cushy option.

[quote OhPullThemUpBrenda]@BewareTheLibrarians, whilst I don't agree with it I just have to point out they were not housed in shitty barracks, millions had been spent updating the barracks near me , then they set fire to it
Some are now housed in local hotels
I just wanted to put the record straight, as I said I don't agree with it but I think the truth is important[/quote]
There are still major concerns around Napier Barracks, sadly despite its “improvements”.

“During a meeting hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on immigration detention on Tuesday, MPs said that they had encountered “outrageous” conditions during a visit to the site last week, while charities warned that it remained “damaging” for the 300 residents living there.”

“speaking to the APPG, Naomi Blackwell, detention outreach manager at the Jesuit refugee Services (JRS), which visits the site once a week, said: “There is an impression that following the court judgement in 2021 it has improved and is no longer damaging to men being held there. I want to dispel that myth.”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/napier-barracks-asylum-seekers-home-office-b2010248.html?amp

@Ozgirl75

So I’m in Australia and have been here through two different governments who handled the asylum seekers differently. Neither are good. When asylum seekers were processed onshore and it was seen as a viable option for them, we had regular stories of people making the terribly dangerous, deadly crossing. Asylum seekers crossing the waters to make it here, paying extortionate money to criminals to do so, and sometimes drowning on their way. Clearly far from ideal, but presumably worth taking the risk as they continued to come. So then we had the system where AS are processed offshore and also it was widely advertised that anyone arriving by boat would go to the back of the queue (as a deterrent). The main point wasn’t actually to stop AS (as we do take refugees) but to stop them making the perilous journey and also to stick to the safe and organised way of claiming asylum. This has stopped the boats, which is a good thing, but the conditions in these places is not good. Terrible in fact. But that’s kind of the point - it was to make people claim asylum in the “correct” way rather than trying to come through the back door. I remember when this came in, a lot was made of how it was unfair for anyone to “jump the queue” when we have a specific process for asylum seekers to undertake. I don’t know the answer. These dangerous, perilous journeys need to be stopped, obviously countries can’t just open their doors to however many people want to come in, but surely there has to be a safe, humane way to deal with people fleeing genuine danger.

I feel I’m more used to Australian policy than the introduction of it here. Is it the Rwanda element or just because it’s new I’m not sure.

From another perspective what do you think about U.K. doing this?

Something else I’ve noticed from these threads is that people who have worked with asylum seekers/refugees, who have heard their stories and know their characters and have spent time with them, are angered by these plans and very protective/understanding of asylum seekers.

The people who support this plan, who think that “young men”
are “economic migrants” and “illegal” have never had a conversation with an asylum seeker, and get their opinions from Fb or the media.

Makes you think. Interesting, but also pretty shameful.

Unbelievable. Echoes of the Nazi plan to house Jews on the island of Madagascar.

@OberthursGrizzledSkipper

"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."

This ^ is another myth. have you heard them being interviewed? Most of them don't speak English at all. They are here for the "free" NHS and the multiple jobs and benefits available in the UK (and the streets paved with gold).

I think the best bet would be to locate all the areas of the UK with the lowest council tax rates and build special accommodation there for everyone coming across the channel. They could increase the council tax to the amount the rest of us have to pay to fund the scheme. I suspect that when the hand-wringers and do-gooders actually have to suffer the effects of illegal immigration then something will finally be done about it. All the time it's just Kent's problem nobody else gives a shit. Exactly the same as the Lorry issue.

'Most of them', is it, aye?

And I see you hold the Schrodinger's Immigrant view. Do 'they' come here for the jobs, or for the benefits? Which one is it?

To fund asylum seekers (and by the way, you and I are only NOT asylum seekers from the sheer good luck of having been born in a relatively stable country and time), the government could always allow them to start work while waiting for their claim to be processed.

Oh, and a) people seeking asylum is NOT 'illegal immigration'
and b) the Kent lorry issue is directly due to the decision to leave the EU.