What do you think about asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda?

[lurkinglittleladybug]

Just seen on the news that some of the asylum seekers arriving here on boats will be sent to Rwanda…

Do you think this will discourage people from making the dangerous journey across the channel? Is this the answer?

Im not sure what to think about it, seems a bit random… Why Rwanda?

But I guess something needs to be done to discourage people from paying these criminal gangs to set them up with unsafe boats with the intention of coming to the UK… What does everyone else think about this?

Me too.. Bye bye.

It's a poorly thought out policy designed to appeal to the racist section of British society and I'd love to see who is making money from the plans.

Stupid.
Expensive.
Failure.

Poor policy that's just meant to create headlines instead of actually doing anything about the issue of illegal immigration.

It won’t deter people and it’s unlikely we’ll end up deporting any there. If the government have got any sense they will take the ‘victory’ and quietly drop the policy.

They don’t have any sense so we’re going to end up with long protracted and expensive need I’ve court battles which end up going nowhere.

An important point. Most of these people are not asylum seekers. They are not fleeing war etc, they are looking for a better life outside their own country. That is entirely legitimate, people look to emigrate all the time but there are legal procedures which must be followed.
Those seeking asylum, genuinely fleeing a threat need a safe place until it is safe to return home. What is the problem with them being taken to a safe place where they can find work and a life until it’s safe for them to return to their country of origin?

I think if it stops people risk their lives and the lives of their DC in small boats, then it’s a good idea.

France is a safe country.

Statistically most of these people are asylum seekers.

It’s heartless and cruel.
It’s been proven not to work by other countries who tried similar policies.
It’s designed to appeal to racists.
It’ll cost more money than alternative plans that involve processing them in the UK.

Repulsive policy that is going to a) not work and b) cost loads. From the racist and xenophobic tools who gave us Brexit, not a shock.

But then does the UK have the resources needed to keep them all here… I’m thinking social housing? School places? etc

We are only a small country and no effort money has been put into building new council houses for a long time. We don’t have unlimited resources🤷🏼‍♀️

Is that returned in small boats or officially returned?

I don’t think we’ll get to 30. The court ruled that it wasn’t unlawful to have a policy but overturned every individual case as being unlawful. By the time the Hone Office manage to get the right paperwork in place and the asylum seekers have exhausted all legal routes we’ll have a new government. Fortunately for the asylum seekers and the UK’s reputation the Home Office is a total clusterfuck.

I think Rwanda is a weird choice but I think countries like Japan and South Korea could take more refugees. Perhaps they are starting to? I dont know.

Most of them are asylum seekers. Whether they qualify as refugees (and will therefore be granted asylum) according to the UN definition is a different matter.

The only thing in it's favour is that no alternative way of housing and processing migrants has been suggested.

Thought this was interesting, it's a deeply unpopular policy so really not sure why they are pushing it - just 1/10 of general population think it's the best way to address the issue.

But then does the UK have the resources needed to keep them all here… I’m thinking social housing? School places? etc

Surely all the people who left after Brexit have left gaps for them to fill?

About a million, give or take some thousands.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/08/million-people-left-britain-pandemic-exodus-brexit

Sorted

If the UK does not want to live up to its international treaty obligations, that is its choice. But the government should do the honourable thing and withdraw from the treaties rather than just unilaterally breaking them.

Do you think this will discourage people from making the dangerous journey across the channel? Some, it might. But the consequences for being caught were already pretty dire so for most, probably not. Is this the answer? If the question is how to make your country a pariah state - yeah, it's one route to take.

Im not sure what to think about it, seems a bit random… Why Rwanda? The UK does a lot of business with (and gives a lot of aid to) the Rwandan government. It's alleged that they approached several other national governments and even considered using Gibraltar; Rwanda was the first "hit" in that (1) the Rwandan government agreed to the plan and (2) Rwanda's human rights record, while not good, is not so bad every single person in the UK will be up in arms about it (as, for example, if they'd decided on sending people to Afghanistan or Syria).

But I guess something needs to be done to discourage people from paying these criminal gangs to set them up with unsafe boats with the intention of coming to the UK… How is this impacting criminal gangs?* And how is the UK Home Office any better than or different from the gangs, if it's just doing the same thing and sending people onward willy-nilly for its own unclear purposes? What does everyone else think about this? *It's a human rights violation, and it's going to cost more than it saves. They should have quietly dropped it after Patel resigned.

Now that it's been declared legal let's crack on. Contrary to mumsnetters the country isn't all metropolitan liberals and people who play the race card on everything. The average person on the street has put immigration and reducing it as one of the top priorities according to Oxford migration survey for years. You can't just shut people down by declaring legitimate viewpoints racist.

It’s a policy created to appeal to the not insignificant number of truly stupid people who make up the numbers for ‘aspirational voters’ so they continue voting Conservative, despite the fact the party will do nothing to benefit them in reality.

In reality it is a cruel and racist policy.

Most of these people are not asylum seekers
Could you link to the legit stats that bear that out? Because the official government stats show the opposite, between 2018-22 94% of small boat arrivals claimed asylum. And of those that were processed, by June 2022, 76% were granted.

Not all view points are legitimate. Many are racist, sexist, homophobic etc

The average Card Factory shopper’s opinion is unlikely to be a viewpoint with value.