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?

It's a model that has been proven to be an effective deterrent in many other countries. How many more people do you want to die crossing the channel? The priority must be to stop incentivising these dangerous journeys, especially for those who are leaving safe countries such as France.

Also, why do you think the migrants will be better off in the UK than in Rwanda? Our services are bursting at the seams. Healthcare isn't even effectively serving the people already here. Rwanda is a developing country that actually provides opportunities for displaced people.

Wel only the top 5% earners are actually net contributors over a lifetime, so how long will it take you to become a net contributor?

You do know that some of those 'illegal' immigrants are Aghans who fought alongside British troops

Rwanda is to deter those that aren’t actually fleeing persecution or war.
No one batted an eye lid when we had Afghanistan and Ukraine refugees. Because they were indeed fleeing war and persecution.

You think this will act as a deterrent? For people fleeing war, instability and economic hardship? But the government is selling Rwanda as a wonderfully safe place where our unwanted asylum seekers will be welcomed with open arms. So where's the deterrent..?

But I don't for a minute think that anyone will be shipped off to Rwanda anytime soon.. the government will probably end up fighting multiple court cases backed (rightly) by human rights organisations as soon as they even attempt it. It's a colossal waste of money. And political posturing in an election year that appeals predominantly to Daily Mail readers.

There is no easy fix. The harsh truth is that people from countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, etc WILL always risk their lives for the smallest chance of a better one.. and if we were in their shoes, we would probably do the same thing.

Yes I am aware. I’ve worked with Afghanistan refugees.

It's been proven to act as a deterrent.

🤣

They'll contribute by working three jobs in the sectors we can't fill jobs in, until they get themselves to a place where they can employ others or work jobs that earn more and pay more tax.

I work with lots of immigrants in London and they have a drive that the locals just don't, in most cases. You can see it every time you eat out. "Foreign" waiting staff will always be better, it's not because they love the job more, it's because they're prepared to work harder for the tips.

Presumably you're also fine with refugees from sudan, eritrea, yemen, Palestine, Iraq etc. Since they are indeed fleeing war and persecution.

Where has it proven to work?
I agree, we should stop incentivising these journeys, the problem is that this is unlikely to do it.

There has been so much comments about why people continue to travel to the UK, ( a minority in relation to the overall figure, most do stay in Europe) language, familiarity, family/friends connections etc. A better policy would be one that actually deals with the issue. An overhaul of our current immigration process, deporting those who shouldn’t be here and encouraging those who should to work and contribute. Also, dealing with the state of our public services, building houses, dealing with the NHS etc. An actual plan that makes things better instead of wasting millions on a policy that will have no actual effect on what is happening!

Where? When?

*Weighnow^
Immigrants are the reason the SE is the wealthiest part of the country

Some stats here;

London Assembly
Working out employment barriers for asylum seekers and refugees

People who have been granted asylum in the UK have a disproportionately low employment rate of 51 per cent, compared with economic migrants who have an employment rate of 88 per cent.

Although it gets a smaller, a gap remains present even after more than 25 years of residence in the country.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-press-releases/working-out-employment-barriers-asylum-seekers-and-refugees

There's zero evidence it will work as a deterrent. Either from the Home Office's research or from current numbers. That's over a billion a year on Tory electioneering.

And you are fine with deporting them to Rwanda?

Depending on a steady flow of immigrants crossing the channel in deathly dangerous dinghies isn't a viable, long term solution to a dwindling workforce...

I bet one of their friends owns the planes! £500m - you have to wonder where it all went to and there's still more to come.
What services did they pay for and who has the contracts . . .

You also seem to be confusing asylum seekers who have paid smugglers to help them leave safe countries, with "foreign" people in general. This is very simplistic and makes me think you haven't actually asked these hard working waiters in restaurants about their life story.

Or do you think that everyone who believes these terrible journeys need to stop just hate all foreign people?

LilacFatball
There's zero evidence it will work as a deterrent. Either from the Home Office's research or from current numbers

To be fair, none of the flights have actually taken off yet.

I'm not happy with the plan - but I don't trust Labour either.

The main country I know that has used other location asylum is Australia

Whether the U.K. would do the same who knows, maybe when other approaches that people rely on such as safe routes are shown not to do much for trafficking reduction

The evidence is countries that have implemented these policies, and seen a drastic reduction in illegal journeys to their shores. It's not hard to find, have a quick google.

We can't undo Brexit, but we can negotiate a deal which would at the very least reduce numbers to those pre-Brexit. Which were, zero.

"The connection is spelled out in a report on the small boat phenomenon by Prof Thom Brooks of Durham University, published in February. Can you guess what it concluded was “the primary factor behind the current problem”? The government’s post-Brexit deal, and specifically its failure to reach a “returns agreement with the EU”, whereby unauthorised migrants to the UK could be returned to the first safe EU country they had entered.
Before Brexit, there was just such an arrangement. But it expired once Britain left – and the government put nothing in its place. People traffickers spotted the opportunity almost immediately, offering to take people to a country, Britain, from where they could no longer be sent back. Staggeringly, Brooks found “no records of any individuals travelling by small boat to claim asylum in 2017 or before” – not one case. But as “the UK prepared to leave its returns agreement, small boat journeys started”. And the people making those journeys grew in number, from the low hundreds in 2018 to tens of thousands in 2023."

Yes. Iran takes the most refugees and I’d rather see them in Rwanda than there.