Just when you think this government can't get any worse - now they are going to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

[daimbarsatemydogsbone]

I didn't vote for this shower. The problem with people arriving (if they make it) in small boats needs addressing but AIBU that sending them on a one way trip to Rwanda isn't the answer?

@theDudesmummy

I do probably fall into your category of middle-class social justice saviour (no longer suburban though) but the arguments I have made here are more about how it can never work, rather than that it is monstrously wrong (although it is).

They are trying to distract you and give the DM readers an orgasm is all.

I can assure you that I am not easily distracted and I am certainly not a DM reader. I have agreed that the policy is crap and won’t work but the problem is a real one ( I know somebody who lives on the edge of a cliff in Kent who photographs the new arrivals daily. He is very pro immigration despite not knowing where it is headed).

Rwanda may not be the right place, however where do you propose OP? We can’t take everyone. This country is on its knees right now without taking more people in.

@HRTQueen

It may surprise you have many immigrants would agree with this policy ….

We know. One of them crafted it.

@HRTQueen

It may surprise you have many immigrants would agree with this policy ….

The ones who are already safely settled here? Not especially a surprise. "I'm alright, Jack" transcends ethnicity and background.

If someone has had to leave their home and their country for fear of persecution, how would that be guaranteed to change within a couple of years?

It wouldn't yet for some reason people persist in comparing Ukrainian refugees with Syrian etc asylum seekers and talking about the different treatment unable to see that different circumstances require different solutions.

May have been said before, but Australia did this by sending refugees and "boat people" to Papua New Guinea for "processing". That system is now being withdrawn but processing of migrants will continue on the isolated island of Nauru in the Pacific.

So there is precedent within the Commonwealth. That does not make it right by any stretch, and Australia is known to be quite racist.

"Ukranian refugees - welcome! Everyone else welcome to Rwanda" 😂
You can't make this up.

@ExplodingElephants

Rwanda may not be the right place, however where do you propose OP? We can’t take everyone. This country is on its knees right now without taking more people in.

The country isn't 'on its knees' because of migrants. Growth and productivity have fallen off a cliff.

In fact a few thousand 'economic migrants' properly processed, directed to useful secors and taxed could help with that.

But then, this is a political issue, isn't it?

@AlexaShutUp

It’smale economic migrants.

Not refugees.

Have I misunderstood?

I thought that the idea was to ship male asylum seekers off to Rwanda so that their asylum claims could be processed there instead of here.

But you seem to be saying that we will be processing asylum claims here in the UK and allowing the genuine refugees to stay, so that it is only the economic migrants who will be shipped off to Rwanda.

Or perhaps it is you that has misunderstood.

Yes, you have misunderstood (along with plenty others on the thread, to be fair!).

@AlexaShutUp So do I. My ancestors were all European immigrants who came here during WW2 and I now live in a diverse part of London packed with both refugees and asylum seekers with whom I interact daily . I can assure you that even after generously adjusting for the passage of time and a load of other factors, we are not dealing with the same type of people.

Mmm I’ve seen it to often that it considered only white working class (with very few exceptions) have views such as this

This isn’t a new idea (maybe the country of choice) it’s been floating around a while

We also have the uprise again of the far right in France (further to the right than our government but then has joined up with some far left ideas) hopefully Macron shall win move to appease the right in France and who are the easiest target

How bizarre then, that everyone wants to come here......

What a bizarre comment.

There are about 30 million refugees and asylum seekers in the world. About 200,000 of them are in the UK. About 0.65% of the world's refugees and asylum seekers are in the UK.

That is despite the UK making up about 0.9% of the world's population and about 2.25% of the world's GDP.

So no, everyone does not want to come here. What a pathetic and insular view. The UK has far fewer refugees and asylum seekers than its population and, particularly, its wealth suggest it should have.

Meant to type but Macron will move to appease the right ..

One issue with this policy is that it splits families, so lets say they do stick to men, what happens to their immediate families?

But of course they cannot limit it to men only, it is anyone that gets to the UK illegally, remember the young Kurd woman who drowned in the channel recently? or the many Vietnamese women suffocated in a lorry?

Cruel beyond belief.

@ExplodingElephants

Rwanda may not be the right place, however where do you propose OP? We can’t take everyone. This country is on its knees right now without taking more people in.

We currently take 0.65% of the worlds refugees and asylum seekers, despite having 2.25% of the world's wealth.

The UK is far better placed than most countries to pull its weight.

[quote Soffit]@AlexaShutUp So do I. My ancestors were all European immigrants who came here during WW2 and I now live in a diverse part of London packed with both refugees and asylum seekers with whom I interact daily . I can assure you that even after generously adjusting for the passage of time and a load of other factors, we are not dealing with the same type of people.[/quote]
We are not dealing with the same type of people?

What do you actually mean by that exactly? Do people suddenly undergo a personality transplant when they are granted asylum and they become refugees? 🤔

I suggest that your post reflects the fact that you very clearly don't understand what these terms mean.

Please take a look at Patrick Wintour's latest tweet from today about human righs in Rwanda. then imagine you are an immigration solicitor with a client who risks being sent there...

I was comparing the European immigrants of the past century ( and possibly present) with the current arrivals (call them what you please, the labels are largely meaningless).

Counld't help but laugh at the BBC's current headline of "UK to give asylum seekers one-way ticket to Rwanda."

It reads like a parody of crappy immigration policy, almost like it was contrived by a Corbynite.

This is what is in that tweet, US annual report THIS WEEK on human rights by country, this is what is says for Rwanda

Sounds like an ideal place to, as Patel put it, "resettle and thrive".

Yes, you have misunderstood (along with plenty others on the thread, to be fair!).

OK, @Tippexy. If I have misunderstood, please enlighten me as to how this is going to work.

From what you're claiming, it seems that we are going to process asylum claims here in the UK so that we can differentiate between genuine refugees and economic migrants. It generally takes months or even years to process asylum claims, so everyone will remain here in the UK while this is underway.

We will then allow the genuine refugees to stay, while those who are refused asylum will be deemed to be economic migrants and shipped off to Rwanda. For what purpose, exactly?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just deport them back to their countries of origin? Of course, that isn't always straightforward and many will go underground when their asylum claim has been refused, but I can't see that sending them to Rwanda will make any difference to that.

If we are only sending economic migrants to Rwanda and no refugees, please explain to me why we would do this and how it's all going to work.

A lot of people theorising the govt know it won't work (duh) but it nevertheless wants to create an argument with the ECHR to reopen brexit wounds.

To be honest I think that's giving them too much credit - no way the current cabinet are clever enough to think that many moves ahead.

@Alexandra2001

One issue with this policy is that it splits families, so lets say they do stick to men, what happens to their immediate families?

But of course they cannot limit it to men only, it is anyone that gets to the UK illegally, remember the young Kurd woman who drowned in the channel recently? or the many Vietnamese women suffocated in a lorry?

Cruel beyond belief.

This is the issue with the boats though. Their occupants are predominantly young men, in contrast to Ukrainian refugees who are predominantly women, children and the elderly.

This could be that young men are more at risk in the countries they're fleeing, or that they're the only ones able to make the trip, but some would say they should stay and fight (as in Unkraine) and others would say this "proves" that they are economic migrants and not genuine asylum seekers at all, when you'd likely be moving heaven and earth to get your family out too.

These all male groups also present difficulties for the communities in which they settle. That might be something that needs to be tolerated/dealt with for humane reasons, but it is an issue.

Where are all the women and children?

Watch and wait for the private companies who expect to make money out of this scheme. providing "services", building facilities in Rwanda, whatever. And guess what, they will be linked to Tories making profits. I would bet my house on it.