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?

Hi all,
We just wanted to remind everyone on this thread (and the wider site tbh) that we have guidelines that we really want everyone to keep within.
Mumsnet is a discussion site; differences of opinion, expressed within our guidelines, should be tolerated such that they are able to be engaged with and talked through.
We really would appreciate your help with this, and we are grateful to those who reported.

France is taking ten times as many refugees as the UK. That doesn't sound as if we are offering wondrous luxuries, does it?

No, genuine refugees are the majority. 73% of asylum claims were granted last year.

Why should we be exempt just because we're an island?

No, if our navy turns boats back so that they have to lengthen an already highly perilous journey and thus increases the risk of disaster, we bear direct responsibility. As has been pointed out more than once, we could resolve this problem very easily by offering safe passage coupled with an efficient asylum processing system. People who claim that their ONLY concern is about the dangers involved always seem to go quiet when that option is discussed.

Why should we stop refugees from coming here? Why is always someone else's problem?

You do know that even after that ruling, we are still light years away from it happening on any meaningful level. It is already horrendously expensive and will be the biggest waste of money this government has to it's name.

It's a good deal for Rwanda though. 😀

Why do pp think it will be delayed? Due to appeals or other

You really haven't been checking the facts, have you? There is far too much evidence that Rwanda is certainly neither safe nor supportive. If it's so great and our country is so crowded, how come more of our residents aren't moving there voluntarily?

Our infrastructure positively needs migrants. Anyone who has had anything to do with the NHS recently will be aware that it is absolutely dependent on migration, and indeed the reason it is currently collapsing is the number of migrants who had to leave due to Brexit.

Net migration is up since Brexit. We can and do get many people arriving and can use work visas - more effective if it’s matching workforce skills too

I suspect you are talking there about asylum claims accepted, as opposed to asylum seekers. This page for example, shows that France accepted almost 500,00 in 2021, whilst these UK government statistics show that in the same period we accepted 56,495.

So why is workforce an issue?

www.theguardian.com/business/2022/dec/20/exodus-of-more-than-half-a-million-from-workforce-puts-uk-economy-at-risk

Given that we are rubbish at following through with deportation, there really isn't much point in separating out the two categories. There is a lot of paid-for infrastructure in place to help those who are already physically present. There is no incentive to apply beforehand and become become logged onto a system forever as a rejectee.

Hopefully, the Albania scheme will make a difference.

Yes, my page shows the number of asylum refugee applications accepted in France and U.K. (and other countries) in 2021. Which is what you said the 500k and 50k numbers represented.

Your page actually shows the running total of all asylum seekers granted refugee status and currently living in France. So it’s not the number accepted in 2021 but total refugee population.

Your page also doesn’t show “50k for U.K.” but 137k…

The U.K. Gov statistics don’t run on calendar year but April-March tax year and that is why they are slightly different from EUROSTAT ones.

The biggest generation of people- the Baby boomers are retiring & dying. That’s why. This has been in the news for decades that this was going to happen.

I was wondering about the 500k it did seem very high

Now that I’ve read closer the U.K. Government statistics you quoted and linked above, I’ve found that the 56,495 isn’t the number of asylum seekers accepted as you stated but the number of people for which asylum seeker applications have been received. It is a report for calendar year 2021… even though usually ONS does report on the Apr-Mar cycle.

There were 48,540 asylum applications (relating to 56,495 people) in the UK in 2021. (from your link..section 2)

It is important to distinguish between number of applications received and number of asylum seekers or asylum applications actually accepted/approved as quite a few countries will crow about receiving thousands of applications and then rejecting 90% of them.

In fact the whole U.K. Government page doesn’t say how many were accepted. It says how many applied and how many decision were made (without saying how many were rejected and how many approved) and they says how many appeals were lodged.

So to see who is actually taking in refugees you have to look at the number accepted/approved either as #people or #applications (tend to be families), not the number that have applied for asylum as every country has a different rejection rate.

Another note is that once refugees actually get settlement status, they are no longer counted as refugees in the country but regular immigrants/migrants. Depends on country, but in U.K. it’s five years to settlement (ILR). Other countries it’s longer and so their total refugee population will naturally accumulate to a higher total.

I've met quite a few refugees/asylum seekers through work, from Syria, Ukraine, Iran and Eritrea, and I'd hate to think of any of them uprooted and sent to a country where they would have to start from scratch yet again. The government seems to forget that these are human beings, many of whom are traumatised, who have left everything behind to get to a place of safety. Yes, they have passed other safe countries to get here, but many speak or at least understand a little English from films & TV, and they may already have contacts here. We take much lower numbers of displaced people than other countries

The government seems to forget that these are human beings

Our government is notorious for this. Whole segments of our population are not seen as human beings with human rights, so it’s no surprise they’d view asylum seekers as subhuman too. Appalling and depressing, but not a shock.

Wish we could replace the them. Just keep trying to vote for good eggs I suppose.

No France isn’t taking ten times what we are…I’ve already shown how your numbers are wrong. It’s more like twice what we are and so they should. They are richer and have more room.

Sorry @SnowlayRoundabout I thought I’d clicked on next page, but it reloaded old page. So I see now this post was from before our numbers discussion.

There was an LBC chat about this on Saturday.

One asylum seeker said the reason he came here on a boat said it was because he spoke English (badly) and had family and friends here.

They also pointed out that lots of French speaking colonies would go to France but there seemed to be the misconception that streets here are paved with gold (not my words!).

I think properly trained workers of course are needed here but with the people trafficker issues no one knows who’s coming to the UK or the first safe country and yes they can’t work currently if they’re asylum seekers. I do see sometimes Albanians who control it seems drugs and prostitution and petty crime but all that is brushed under the carpet.

I do think other countries have much stricter immigration policies than the UK to be fair.

I wonder how they are actually going to implement the Rwanda policy…

They might have to use RAF planes as all the commercial airlines have backed out from what I understand. So could be Brize Norton to Rwanda flights. Would stop the protesters from sneaking onto the airport and chaining themselves to aircraft wheels as well.

Whether people wish to speak openly about it immigration is a huge issue for a lot of people.
Whether it's because they believe the rubbish peddled to them by the media or actual concern.
My question is and i have asked this on refugee charity site.... why do the French allow unaccompanied minors to live in camps? Why are they not in care in France? And treated as the children they are.
There was 4/5 unaccompanied minors on the last boat that got into trouble and one died. Why are the camps not checked?