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?

@Allthegoodnamesarechosen I think you're really reaching.

We currently refuse only 23% of asylum applications. That means that, despite having immigration authorities who would love to find a reason to refuse, 77% are found to be genuine. Under this proposal, we would be spending a fortune shipping that 77% off to Rwanda only to have to spend more money bringing them back again. Many of them will be people with skills we sorely need, for example, trained health workers and carers.

Even before you get into the murky human rights issues, this is a policy that makes absolutely no sense. It would be infinitely more logical to spend the money beefing up our systems for assessing asylum claims and combining this with offering safe passage to refugees, plus also allowing refugees to work. That would mean safety for refugees and quick assimilation so that they can settle and become productive, tax-paying members of the British population. Any who are not genuine refugees should be detected quickly and sent back to their country of origin.

Also, don't knock Card Factory. I'm as liveral as they come regarding immigration policy but who wants to spend £3.99 on a card when you can get a perfectly nice one for 75p? Especially kids who look at the cards for approximately 0.3 seconds.

Rwanda is a beautiful country and Kigali is very modern, it still has terrible human rights.

The plan like most UK government plans is poorly thought out, will probably cost shit tonnes before being canned after some scandal pops up in regard to this scheme.

Why? You do know that asylum seekers are refugees, ie. people fleeing persecution? Do you think we should have taken that attitude to Jewish refugees in the 1930s? If not, what is the difference?

The British Council have been working for years with the Rwandan government to improve democracy and society there. Rwandan has been the recipient of British Foreign Aid since the genocide , because it’s been identified as a country small enough to make a positive contribution to. I think it’s also racist to think that Rwanda is not a civilised country fit to live in.

No, the records I cited above demonstrate that the majority are indeed asylum seekers.

It’s a smokescreen. The government are not actually stupid, but they are both cynical and incompetent. They know perfectly well that not one single illegal immigrant is ever going to be sent to Rwanda, because the legal obstacles are Insurmountable and the Home Office is dysfunctional & useless.

But, for political reasons, they need to be seen by their voters to be trying to do something about the problem, hence all the talk about sending migrants to Rwanda. When it doesn’t happen, they will blame the courts, the lawyers, the EU, the liberal elite, anything & everyone but themselves.

Embarrassed to have once considered myself british to be honest.

Genuine refugees aside ( a minority of those coming), everyone should be promptly returned to their country of origin. France is a safe country, as are most countries these people come from and pass through. I cannot simply go to live in ( and off) any other country I fancy, just because it has a better standard of living/welfare system etc. I have to have a passport, visa, work visa or whatever or I will not be allowed in. That is the law of those countries, and they have a duty to their citizen to control Iimmigration, for many reasons. Ihave never heard anyone weeping and wailing about those countries being racist, bigoted etc. Why should the UK be any different?

Interestingly in the future it’s been predicted developed countries will be fighting for immigrants due to our elderly population.

I think people have valid concerns where large groups of particularly male immigrants or asylum seekers move to one area and it changes the feel of an area. People should be allowed to talk about these concerns without being labelled racist.

I wonder how many of you who are anti Rwanda policy would be happy to have asylum seekers housed and settled on your doorstep? Mass social/council housing built in your street or town for example.

Of course you'll say it's no problem, but in reality it's easy to be virtuous when you you live in a wealthy or privileged postcode and you know you will never actually have see or deal with the consequences

So should we be exempt from taking any refugees because we are an island? We already take a much smaller percentage of refugees than France does - in 2021, for instance, when we hit the highest figures since 2002, we took around 50K, France took 500K.

If you had to flee your home and everything you know, do you think you might aim at a country whose language you already spoke, and where perhaps you already have relatives and friends? What is wrong with doing that?

If this government cared a jot about people risking their lives in small boats, it could put a stop to it tomorrow. by offering safe passage coupled with a more efficient system for processing asylum applications. Strangely, it would rather spend a fortune on the Rwanda farce which will achieve nothing.

How awful must your life be to risk it in a tiny boat. We have a COL crisis but I imagine it is nowhere near the poverty and hardship that drives people to put their lives at risk to escape to a better life.

Until the world’s wealth is more evenly distributed and everyone gets an acceptable standard of living of course people will try to get out of the hole they are in. There is enough wealth in the UK for there not to be a COL crisis and enough in the world that should be shared.

The idea that humans in need are moved on is abhorrent. The money spent on measures to keep people out should instead be given to countries in need to improve their infrastructure and economy.

It's already cost the UK taxpayer £120 million. The maximum people Rwanda has agreed to take is apparently 100. Currently none have been sent or are able to be sent.

I'd say the Rwandan government has knows how to make a good deal! 😂

I'd also say the U.K. taxpayer would save money by housing the few who will be possibly sent there in decent hotels and giving them Waitrose vouchers instead!

But that wouldn't make the government seem "tough".

I wonder how many of you who are anti Rwanda policy would be happy to have asylum seekers housed and settled on your doorstep?

My town has long had asylum seekers housed in two local hotels.

Those that are persecuted should be given safe passage and a simple system to apply for refuge.

The far off future of… 2022.

Precisely this.

@inky1991, how would mass social housing suddenly happen in my street with loads of immigrants turning up and being housed there? I live in a poor area in council housing, all the houses in our road are currently occupied. Obviously the council isn't going to chuck out the current residents to put people here. The best they could achieve is maybe housing a couple of families, which would be absolutely fine - ditto if it is replicated in every street in our area, which in practice is unlikely.

We have a major staffing crisis in most of the service and care industries, directly as a result of Brexit. Having a sensible immigration policy could go a long way to resolving that crisis, leading amongst other matters to greatly reduced queues in hospital A&E departments and reduced waiting times elsewhere, and safer care in care homes. Do you think that's a benefit you would like to achieve? Might that compensate for the horror of having a couple of non-Brits moving into your street?

They were put in the hotel next door but one to me.

And we could do with more housing being built. There's a huge shortage round here. Or fewer 2nd home owners. We could get rid of a few of them and solve a lot of problems.

Asylum seekers don’t bite. Do we feel the same about Ukrainian people fleeing war? Asylum seekers are displaced people in great need.

If the UK was unsafe and we had to flee it wouldn’t turn us into murderous, unsocial thieves (although some of us are already) it would make us highly vulnerable, scared people.

I live in a very diverse area, probably the most diverse postcode, in Wales. It doesn’t bother me at all.

I think it's appalling. If we want to discourage people trafficking, then open up safe, legal routes to get here.

I think it's perfectly understandable, if you are escaping from a repressive or dangerous country, that you would want to come to the country where you can speak the language, or have friends or relatives, or will be accepted for who you are, rather than the one you happen to land in first. Wouldn't we all?

Proportionally we take a lot fewer asylum seekers than other countries.

But then we are a small country with limited resources , so doesn’t it make sense to take on fewer asylum seekers than other countries? 🤔