Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

I know, why don't we send them all to Rwanda?

765 replies

Weighnow · 23/04/2024 07:48

Does anyone else think this sounds like a suggestion someone made as a joke, to liven up a dull or fraught meeting and somehow, someone decided to run with it?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
TeenLifeMum · 23/04/2024 14:52

I think those living along the coast will have different views. It’s very scary sitting on the beach eating an ice cream when a boat full of 20yo men arrives. Mil won’t walk along the beach anymore. Beautiful hotels that were wedding venues now get more money housing asylum seekers. There’s drugs, fights etc in quiet Kentish towns. You can be sympathetic when it doesn’t have a negative impact on your life.

not sure Rwanda is the answer but we need something for those on boats. They’re already safe in France. If they had a Central European site we could work together to distribute and support these individuals equally (obviously that’ll never happen as there’s too many egos)

Notonthestairs · 23/04/2024 14:52

The Home office don't have the evidence that the Rwanda plan will act as a deterrent or they'd publish it - in fact their own report says there's no evidence!

Thats why it's being paid by ministerial direction ie the SoS is on the hook for it.

AnneElliott · 23/04/2024 14:52

Ifailed · 23/04/2024 10:07

If the purpose of this policy is to dissuade Asylum seekers from crossing the channel illegally, why not just process them in France, as the French have offered to facilitate?

You must ask yourself why France's hasn't opened such a facility in Greece or Italy. I'm sure those countries would be equally happy to facilitate it.

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 14:52

EasternStandard · 23/04/2024 14:46

What would be effective?

Setting up safe routes for asylum seekers from refugee camps.

GoonieGang · 23/04/2024 14:52

Weighnow · 23/04/2024 14:50

The hotel/hostel bills aren't going to go away though. The Rwandan solution will take 200 people at most.

To start with, if people don’t keep trying to prevent it.

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 14:54

@GoonieGang I will be surprised if a single person is sent to Rwanda. This plan is against the law. Simply declaring a country safe in parliament does not change material realities.
It is to buy votes, nothing else.

Kinshipug · 23/04/2024 14:54

EasternStandard · 23/04/2024 14:47

So what’s your preferred approach?

It’s either trafficking or deterrent

Safe routes won’t meet the demand

My views on this are always controversial because I don't think there is a solution.

My opinion is, the best way to reduce numbers of displaced people is to reduce global inequality. Which, as a nation quite literally built upon creating and exploiting this inequality, isn't going to happen.

Deterring people from coming here doesn't reduce the number of asylum seekers, it just makes them somebody else's problem. Which breeds its own issues...

MumblesParty · 23/04/2024 14:55

Kinshipug · 23/04/2024 14:19

Why do you think asylum seekers are the reason for these problems?

@Kinshipug where did I say asylum seekers were the reason for these problems? I didn't say that.

But the UK is a country which is, as so often stated on MN, in complete disarray. Long waits for healthcare, crowded schools, housing shortage, rising homelessness, record usage of foodbanks etc.
Are we really in a position to welcome more people? More poor people who are unskilled and can't speak English.
Are we really doing these people any favours by letting them live on the streets of our over-stretched country?

EasternStandard · 23/04/2024 14:55

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 14:52

Setting up safe routes for asylum seekers from refugee camps.

Can envisage numbers?

How high do you think the demand would be

patchworkpal · 23/04/2024 14:57

TeenLifeMum · 23/04/2024 14:52

I think those living along the coast will have different views. It’s very scary sitting on the beach eating an ice cream when a boat full of 20yo men arrives. Mil won’t walk along the beach anymore. Beautiful hotels that were wedding venues now get more money housing asylum seekers. There’s drugs, fights etc in quiet Kentish towns. You can be sympathetic when it doesn’t have a negative impact on your life.

not sure Rwanda is the answer but we need something for those on boats. They’re already safe in France. If they had a Central European site we could work together to distribute and support these individuals equally (obviously that’ll never happen as there’s too many egos)

I'm not saying something shouldn't be done about the boats but I really don't think flying people to another country without any connection to the people without their permission is it. Especially not just so people can eat ice cream without witnessing it. They aren't doing it for a jolly.

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 14:57

@EasternStandard Currently there are no safe routes. The only way to get to the UK is through people smugglers.

Woohow · 23/04/2024 14:58

MumblesParty · 23/04/2024 14:50

@Woohow living where? And tell me about these jobs for unskilled non-English speakers which pay enough to a) live on and b) be enough to be taxable.

Most refugees are English speakers, are not unskilled and would be net contributors. The big issue with wages is down to housing costs which is why we need to build then most jobs would provide a living wage.

EasternStandard · 23/04/2024 14:58

Kinshipug · 23/04/2024 14:54

My views on this are always controversial because I don't think there is a solution.

My opinion is, the best way to reduce numbers of displaced people is to reduce global inequality. Which, as a nation quite literally built upon creating and exploiting this inequality, isn't going to happen.

Deterring people from coming here doesn't reduce the number of asylum seekers, it just makes them somebody else's problem. Which breeds its own issues...

I don’t think it’s controversial I just think it’s implausible

Especially with climate pressures incoming and separately increased strain on people here

EasternStandard · 23/04/2024 15:00

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 14:57

@EasternStandard Currently there are no safe routes. The only way to get to the UK is through people smugglers.

We do have safe routes about £60k on average per year but what numbers are you envisaging?

How many countries would you include and how many roughly per country

I doubt you’d meet the demand but I’m interested in what you envisage

Kinshipug · 23/04/2024 15:01

EasternStandard · 23/04/2024 14:58

I don’t think it’s controversial I just think it’s implausible

Especially with climate pressures incoming and separately increased strain on people here

It is my view that we will reach a point where climate and conflict will make it so that there is nothing that will deterr people from attempting to reach a safe place. Quibbling over a few hundred thousand now is going to feel stupid in 10 years time. We need to start addressing these issues now.
It isn't implausible. Just unpopular.

millymoo1202 · 23/04/2024 15:02

My elderly uncle is in full agreement to this as he happily told us last week, according to him their roads and services are better than ours, he read this from Jeremy Clarksons colum! These people walk amongst us

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 15:03

@EasternStandard we do not have safe routes except for people from Ukraine and Hong Kong.
So anyone from any other country has to come through people smuggling. We will never stop people smuggling if we provide no safe routes.

EasternStandard · 23/04/2024 15:04

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 15:03

@EasternStandard we do not have safe routes except for people from Ukraine and Hong Kong.
So anyone from any other country has to come through people smuggling. We will never stop people smuggling if we provide no safe routes.

And on the other questions

How many countries/ people do you have in mind?

MumblesParty · 23/04/2024 15:04

Woohow · 23/04/2024 14:58

Most refugees are English speakers, are not unskilled and would be net contributors. The big issue with wages is down to housing costs which is why we need to build then most jobs would provide a living wage.

@Woohow where is the evidence that most asylum seekers are English speakers with skills?

And why build more houses on our tiny crowded island while countries like France have way more space?
It makes no sense.
We have limited land, limited NHS capacity, limited school places, limited housing, poor people, homeless people, significant foodbank use... What is it about the UK that you think makes it an appropriate place to accommodate extra people who won't earn enough to contribute to the public purse ?

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 15:07

@EasternStandard so you are happy for people to only be able to get to the UK through people smuggling routes? Got it.

EasternStandard · 23/04/2024 15:09

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 15:07

@EasternStandard so you are happy for people to only be able to get to the UK through people smuggling routes? Got it.

Why are you deflecting from the question?

What numbers are you thinking of?

Your conclusion isn’t correct btw obviously since I’ve been highlighting the downsides to trafficking on this thread

patchworkpal · 23/04/2024 15:10

millymoo1202 · 23/04/2024 15:02

My elderly uncle is in full agreement to this as he happily told us last week, according to him their roads and services are better than ours, he read this from Jeremy Clarksons colum! These people walk amongst us

Great- when does he want to go then?

Teentaxidriver · 23/04/2024 15:12

"Most refugees are English speakers, are not unskilled and would be net contributors."

My experience is that they do not speak good enough English, are unskilled and will NOT be net contributors when you take into account their ability to then apply to bring over a bride, elderly parents, go to university, etc etc. Basically the costs of absorbing the thousands of irregular migrants are eye watering.

This country does not have enough money to pay for its own poor, without importing them from the rest of the world. Or, let's make a choice and say that we will prioritise them over, say, the NHS, pensioners, education, the military, etc.

And as for the fanciful idea that we should have safe routes in, this policy has not been pursued due to research showing how high demand would be and the administrative costs of dealing with the applications.

I am sure the 'tax the rich' brigade advocate 70% income tax to bridge the gap: unfortunately as Labour discovered in the 1970s, that leads to a flight abroad of the highly mobile top rate tax payers who say "fuck this, for a game of soldiers."

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 15:15

@EasternStandard you are expecting me to provide a completely worked out policy that could be implemented. Do you not think that is a tad unrealistic?
The government already set targets for asylum seekers and every year we have more people coming to Britain than they predicted. The government are failing to provide what you are asking me to provide on a chat forum.

NoisySnail · 23/04/2024 15:17

@Teentaxidriver could you provide a link to research showing that safe routes would not work?

Swipe left for the next trending thread