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

[Weighnow]

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?

I’m asking you to think of numbers because it’s easy to see they will be high if you include multiple countries but they still won’t meet the demand

It’s the issue of not meeting the demand that is problematic- it means traffickers will still play a part

You’ll have both - safe routes and trafficking. So say 60 to 100k safe routes? Add trafficking on top of that

It isn't that safe routes wouldn't work, of course they would work. It is that they would be too popular and create yet more immigration. Popular opinion for safe routes is predicated, I think, on the boats being stopped - replacing regular asylum seekers with irregular asylum seekers.

English language use and proficiency of migrants in the UK - Migration Observatory - The Migration Observatory (ox.ac.uk)

We need more houses for our existing population so that should happen anyway, we're not that crowded and countries like France already take way more refugees than us.
We can expand all that and should have done decades ago. We blamed EU migrants before even though they were net contributors too! Same argument different group. They DID contribute to the public purse on low wage jobs and so will refugees if we let them.

So still no links showing research that safe routes would not work?

We could jail anyone involved in people for smuggling for a very, very, very long time and put the immigrants immediately on a flight to .... Rwanda. But that means leaving the EHRC otherwise the legal obstacles just keep on getting thrown up.

Do you see the issue with not meeting demand?

Traffickers would still have a business

I don't have any research, IT IS ENTIRELY SELF-EVIDENT THAT SAFE ROUTES WOULD WORK. That is the point I am making, they would be too popular. Got it?

See my post at 15.26 for how to stop the traffickers.

How do you know? They still have to meet asylum seeker criteria.

Which must be very low given the 10000000000 who qualify.

And the vast majority of immigrants who settle in the UK are not coming through people smuggling routes.

@Teentaxidriver now you are just spouting made up figures.

I think they should look at why people come here over other countries. I doubt its because the other countries threaten to sell 300 of them to another country.

@Woohow I don't think you know how being a net contributor works. Most of the population aren't as you have to earn £40-45k to be a net contributor and each citizen currently costs c. £12k per annum. So each person added to the population makes the rest of us poorer unless they're a high earner It is well-documented that EU migrants were net contributers whereas non eu aren't. I think it is being acknowledged now that alot of costs have not been included, eg building new hospitals, cost of future pensions. With record no on out of work benefits (5million), the govt should concentrate on getting these people into work rather than putting services under even more strain.

The problem obviously is that we've had over 6000 people try to enter the country on small boats this year already and we're barely out of winter, last year there were around 45,000 in all. The numbers are already overwhelming, if we had safe routes can you imagine how many more thousands there would be? And then thousands of relatives would understandably want to come to be with their family members. We don't have enough housing for the people here already, costs are through the roof.

I don't think there is any easy answer but I think it's something the world as a whole needs to really try to sort out. There are huge numbers of people living through wars and famine and people living miserable lives under dictators and tyrannical leaders. The world is a hugely over populated mess.

What we really need to do is support the countries they're coming from so that they're not places everyone wants to leave. But foreign aid isn't a vote winner.

@Northernnature the idea each citizen costs £12k is based on an average. It is clear some people cost much more than others. There are plenty of years where my cost has been nowhere near this.

Why is it against the law?

Snail - 84,425 individuals qualified for asylum in 2023, part of the 1,200,000 people who arrived in the last year. Do you think those numbers suggests that we have a high bar for qualifying or a low one?

Not of they're young, childless and healthy as most EU migrants and people who survive the journey across the continent and at least one sea in a dingy are. You are conflating non-EU migrants and asylum seekers, I was just talking about the asylum seekers who tend to be young, childless men or am I making the wrong assumptions based on what I read in the press?

So the immigrants have a connection to the UK? Where? Or are you saying they are joining family members?

@GoonieGang have you not been reading anything about this?
Link provided so you can read more.

UK judges ruled unanimously that the Rwanda policy was unlawful because “there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of refoulement”.
Under international law, countries are obliged to follow the “principle of non-refoulement”, which the judges explain means “not return[ing] refugees to another country where their life or freedom would be threatened”.

The judges felt that there was a strong chance that people sent to Rwanda would have their asylum claims rejected and they would be sent back to their country of origin, where they would be in danger.

They reached this conclusion based on evidence from the UN refugee agency, which shows Rwandan authorities rejected 100 per cent of asylum claims from Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria between 2020 and 2022.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-was-the-rwanda-asylum-policy-and-why-did-the-supreme-court-rule-it-unlawful

84, 425 people applied for asylum in 2023, none of them have been processed yet.

@Woohow can you tell me the number of immigrants that France take in per square km vs the same for the UK.

And yes, we are overcrowded. How can you say we're not? Have you driven through out town lately, been on the motorway, tried to get a school place, tried to get an outpatient appointment, been to A&E?!!

Golf course use more land in Britain than housing. We use land wrongly.