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?

Rwanda is not a safe country.

I think this approach needs numbers

I can’t see that we have the funds to deal with whole other countries as well as our own. Especially if they struggle with an autocratic mafia gov / cartels etc

We are looking for funding as it is

I think people need to be realistic with solutions

Absolutely, but shhhhhh. You aren't supposed to point that out on these types of thread.

The government have no had any intention of a flight taking off. Braverman might but Sunak and co don't.

They just want to hide behind pesky human rights lawyers. If they were serious they'd have it in a safe country, not one where the lawyers can stop flights ever happening.

Well yes, it's not going to be solved over night. Rwanda certainly isn't going to do it. Maybe work with one country first?

They are using Rwanda to process not stay there permanently.
They choose to risk their children’s lives to get here, while travelling through safer countries than ours.
They are being sold, they aren’t slaves

@Teentaxidriver there is that pesky thing called the law.

We can’t resolve the world. We have funding issues here to start with

I mean you could dispose of autocratic gov and put in puppet gov but it tends to not go down well and people get fed up with deaths if there’s conflict

I don't think it's really fair to involuntarily relocate someone

I get this but devils advocate - there is a limit to how many people the UK can reasonably house and support....it's not really fair to the tax paying populace to overwhelm all of its systems either. So these people are fleeing war/oppression and need a new start - if Rwanda wants to give it to them then why not? I get why it makes people uncomfortable but I don't think just being nice and fair is an actionable plan.

Well there's no excuses now.

£370 million in set up costs in Rwanda.

Plus £6 million in individual payments for asylum seekers.
Plus £45 million in processing and operational costs in Rwanda.

Tens of millions more spent setting up detention facilities and an airbase in the UK plus contracts for aircraft and security.

Let's see whether sending 300 people to Rwanda over 5 years stops people crossing the channel.

@GoonieGang why do you keep repeating untruths when links have been posted showing you are wrong?
The plan is that people will stay in Rwanda if granted asylum.

FGS, they're not. If asylum applications are successful in Rwanda, they will be granted asylum in Rwanda.

@FixItUpChappie because the court has said that Rwanda is not a safe country, in spite of what politicians spout and some of the public.

There are excuses, it'll be lefty lawyers because no flights will ever take off there and the government know that.

We'll have some thinly veiled threat of leaving the ECHR, while the Tories know they'll be out of government so won't have to enact that.

Anyone who ever thought this was a serious policy is a fool. It was designed to keep Farage quiet, with his binoculors on Dover beach, and show the Daily Mail they're doing something because they can't actually do anything to stop the boats.

Yes and according to some they're all caused by immigration.

Presumably their home countries don't want to lose all the healthy young men with enough nouse and resources to make these crossings happen, there must be something, better than what's happening now that can be done by working together with some of them.

I stand corrected. Still doesn’t change the fact that they have travelled through safer countries.

Kagame has spent a fortune on good publicity, keeping the city clean and in order - but it's a very thin veneer. I've been there many times, lived many years (recently) in a neighboring country - things I've heard, couldn't pay me to live in Rwanda.

@GoonieGang do you understand the law around asylum seekers? They can travel through however many countries they want to claim asylum. Not to allow that would mean a small number of countries would be totally overwhelmed with asylum seekers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866

They would have their asylum claims processed there, rather in than the UK.
If successful, they could be granted refugee status and allowed to stay in the landlocked east-central African country.

If not, they could apply to settle in Rwanda on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country".

No asylum seeker would be able to apply to return to the UK.

@DuncinToffee thanks. I have posted links saying the same. It does not stop the same people repeating untrue things.

1. No they aren't.
2. Yes- why is this?
3. The government are being paid to send people there. They are being sold.

would you really trust any of this lot to actually do a good job in cleaning anything up? they are only capable of making messes. not cleaning them

And? No one is disputing that.

I am sure they would mess it up, and find out how "safe" Rwanda really is in the process.

@GoonieGang do you accept as fact that the Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was an unsafe country to transport migrants to from the UK as there was a real risk of refoulment. You keep saying Rwanda is a safe country, but that's what the Americans call alternative facts (ie a lie).