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?

@MumblesParty

How many people could be sent to Rwanda?
Announcing the policy in April 2022, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said
“Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the
years ahead”.

The then Deputy Prime Minister later said that the number of people relocated
to Rwanda each year was more likely to be in the hundreds.

This corresponds with reported indications from the Rwandan Government that it can process 1,000 people over five years.

The Home Office has said that Rwanda has initial capacity for 200 people but
plans to increase that once flights begin.

The level of risk they're facing in their home countries to be approved for asylum. All a bit rubbish, but it is true we can't take everyone who meets the current criteria. The world is a horrible place 😪

I’m sorry you weren’t able to understand my post, perhaps it wasn’t clear enough for you.

I’ll try again:
English is a driving factor as many people have at least a smattering of English, either due to colonial ties or due to consumption of English-language media as English is the most widely spoke language in the world. Those with colonial ties to France and Belgium, for example from North Africa, parts of Central Africa, and the Francophone parts of the Carribean and Pacific generally head towards France and Belgium.

is that clearer?

We are spending £1.2 million per refugee to send people to Rwanda.

How much would it cost if they stayed here?

£21,479 per person per year until they are granted refugee status and then they will work,

A lot less or at least as much of the average person in the UK. For a start, they could work in the many jobs currently available, pay taxes and contribute to society.

Well then.

What a waste of money

One issue is traffickers are very good at understanding what meets criteria and giving this information so you tend to have a greater surge in criteria that is a yes

As for cost in pp the number of applicants is in relation to ease

The easier it is the more people who will apply

The harder the fewer - Albania is a good example

Bollocks. Lack of ID cards doesn't mean you don't have to prove you have a right to work here.

The issue comes when people exploit the desperate by employing them illegally. They should be targeted and locked up in my opinion.

I spend a fair chunk of my working life ensuring companies are not breaking the law, and that those that do face consequences. Modern slavery is still a thing, but demonising desperate people rather than those who exploit them (like the Rwandan government for accepting this deal) is abhorrent.

It's not a waste of money considering the aim was only to make headlines attractive to a certain voter base. Evidently it is working.

We currently spend around 6 million a day on hotel bills. Rwanda is a safe country for those immigrants that are actually fleeing persecution

It's a bit expensive and involves treating humans like an object to be sold on. So I think there were better ways

Keeping hotels in business.

Right, but that is the goal.
Personally I think it's abhorrent, but it's doing what it is designed to do IMO.

Saying in Parliament that Rwanda is safe does not make it safe. LGBT people for example are routinely persecuted.
We spend £21, 479 per person per year. Far less than £1.2 million per person.

The £6 million includes money spent on housing people from Afghanistan. They would never have been sent to Rwanda.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/lee-anderson-asylum-seeker-hotel-costs/

Yeah makes sense. He's on the TV now pledging money to Ukraine but I note not 1.2 million

Are you ok with the burgeoning trafficking trade though?

It is a huge business which yes can be accepted, plus higher numbers - it is an option, but it will grow

I’m not sure people will go for it when safe routes, ID cards or whatever is shown to be implausible / ineffective

The government have been told what will be effective. They are not interested. The aim is to buy votes.

Of course I'm not. I can well think that more than one thing is immoral.

What would be effective?

So what’s your preferred approach?

It’s either trafficking or deterrent

Safe routes won’t meet the demand

And does that take more or less than 55 years?

@Woohow living where? And tell me about these jobs for unskilled non-English speakers which pay enough to a) live on and b) be enough to be taxable.

The hotel/hostel bills aren't going to go away though. The Rwandan solution will take 200 people at most.