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?

What? I'm saying immigrants always contribute, no matter what their background, and the immigtlrants that have undertaken these atrocious journeys are more driven than most.

Wow. That deterrent really worked today didn't it

Of course the journeys need to stop, but what on earth makes you think sending 200 people to Rwanda will make that happen?

So they need a returns agreement, obviously.

If you want the journeys to stop you’re looking at Aus style approach

You're not choosing between Iran and Rwanda. You're sending them from here to Rwanda. Do you really think that's fine?

Yes, they'll work (several) minimum wage jobs (which we do need peolem to fill) for now and then they'll progress. These are, on the whole young people, of course they're not big businessmen or doctors from day one.

The sooner we let them work, the sooner that process can start.

There are 3.7 million low paid jobs un UK, they're not all filled by migrants, plenty of British born people contributing at a similar level.

The migrants sent to Rwanda will fare much better there than in the UK at present. Rwanda is a beautiful, developing country with endless opportunities and an actual need to boost its population. The UK is the opposite.

That's a seperate issue. Most arguments here have been that we don't want them/can't afford to have them here. I'd argue we need some of them at least.

Yes, the boats need to stop, but sending 200 people to Rwanda isn't going to make that happen.

But not one that breaks International law, won't get off the ground and costs billions. Rwanda isn't processing claims for residence in the UK, it's a one-way ticket. Unless they pay smugglers to get them back here, which some have said they will.

We absolutely don't "need" channel migrants for the economy. Have you looked at their employment levels? This is factually incorrect. Where did you get this from?

I'm very familiar with Rwanda thanks. You're very wrong.

See pp for the only thing that works…

If you are genuinely escaping terrible persecution, famine or war you would not think Rwanda was a bad place to live.

LilacFatball
Staggeringly, Brooks found “no records of any individuals travelling by small boat to claim asylum in 2017 or before” – not one case

Isn't that because asylum seekers tried to storm the Channel Tunnel and hide in lorries instead - then the UK and France tightened up security and built a big wall around the Eurotunnel sight?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/29/calais-one-dead-1500-migrants-storm-eurotunnel-terminal

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/07/britain-to-build-calais-wall-to-stop-refugees-from-entering-channel-tunnel-media-reports.html

There's no evidence that the Rwanda plan will be a deterrent - we know this because there is a Home Office report that says that. Thats why it is being paid for by Ministerial Direction - they simply can't judge that the policy offers value for money.

Furthermore a Home Office explicitly stated that - many asylum seekers “have little to no understanding of current asylum policies and the economic conditions of a destination country”.

In Australia we know that the year after offshore processing was introduced, the number of small boat arrivals grew, from 17,204 to 20,587 – a record high.

Numbers of arrivals only dropped only after the pushbacks began.

Off you pop to Rwanda then. If it's the land of freedom and opportunity you seem to think, be the trailblazer.

Handy chart showing what happened in Australia.

Maybe I should!

LilacFatball
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

"Here we go again. In 2017 under the Dublin Regulation 314 migrants were transferred out of the UK and 461 migrants were transferred to the UK. The year before the numbers were 362 and 558. Dublin didn't work. Labour aren't serious."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1800425/yvette-cooper-labour-migrant-returns-deal-eu

In which countries has it proven to be effective? Australia was offshoring illegal immigrants to PNG and detaining them, that is no longer happening as it was so inhumane. Israel had a policy of sending failed asylum seekers to Rwanda, but that has now been scrapped. Denmark's plans to send migrants to Rwanda are apparently on hold. Any others I've missed? There are some UN backed schemes in Turkey / Libya but none that appear to compare to what our government is proposing.. so I'd be very interested to know where this policy has worked?

Yes I do.

And Ukrainians?

They didn’t come over on dinghies

This is Aus arrivals are fairly negligible