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?

Yes, I am aware of that. Italy says hello. And also says "We will send these people to Albania for processing." Other countries in the EU, and Scandinavia, are developing similar systems.

I also do not think it is immoral to make this country less attractive in order to stop illegal people carrying across unsafe routes.

So - as you can clearly see it is not a "UK problem" alone. There is a mass exodus from East to West in general with Germany really struggling to manage their rising migrant population and provision for them

The UN criticised them as did Amnesty International and the EU, they have now shelved the idea and are attempting, without luck, to get other EU nations to join forces with them. Not a single person has been sent to Rwanda from Denmark.

Yes and they have ID cards as mentioned by pp, it’s not slowing down the issue

Not sure what you point is here?

Yes i had assumed you wouldn't think it immoral. Feigning ignorance rather than in engaging in reasonable discussion is not uncommon among certain groups.

It’s worked with Albania trafficking has pretty much stopped

It works with Aus

Whether the U.K. will vote for similar I guess we’ll see, but all the other suggestions from safe routes, ID cards, processing in France or ‘smashing gangs’ won’t do it

People will end up deciding if they want higher numbers via trafficking or harsher policy especially as numbers pick up which they are and will

Unemployment is Rwanda nearly 15% compared to less than 4% in UK. Why is going to Rwanda going to be so good for them?

What ignorance am I feigning?

Do you think it is moral to not try to disincentivise the people traffickers?

They are not "going to Rwanda" in that sense. They are going to asylum processing centres in another country.

"They are not "going to Rwanda" in that sense. They are going to asylum processing centres in another country."

What do you mean? They aren't coming back here even if the asylum application is accepted.

Exactly! So they are going to Rwanda.

How do you go to Rwanda without going to Rwanda? Is geography another thing you can't grasp?

Thanks for that. I remember them putting in the policy - but it wasn’t as newsworthy as when we did it (for quite obvious reasons).

Be interesting to see if we drop the policy or double down like Australia did a few years ago.

There are too many.

They are going to asylum processing centres in Rwanda. They are not being accepted as immigrants by Rwanda.

Maybe take that up with Rwanda?

@Geebray and where do you think they are going after they have been processed?

Rwanda is in Rwanda. You understand that right?

Either the UK, if their claim is accepted, or their country of origin.

It's not terribly complicated.

The UK has said they will not be allowed here if their claim is accepted.

Presumably wherever Kagame can dump them. God knows. He certainly won't let then stay in Rwanda competing for already scarce menial work.

Yes dear.

If their asylum claim is accepted - they come to the UK.

If not - they are returned to their country of origin.

Unless Rwanda wants to accept them?

What do you think that means. They'renot coming back once their claim has been processed. What do you think happens next to successful/unsuccessful applicants?

Has a plan been released detailing what will happen to them when they get there? Surely that's the first thing that should be said by the gvt on the subject?

@Geebray please provide a link saying they can come to the UK? Because that is not what I have read.
I think you do not realise that is the point if the parliament declaring Rwanda a safe country. So if their claim is accepted they stay in Rwanda.