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?

@Soffit

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).

Ah, OK, got you. White European refugees are good, non-white non-European refugees are bad. That explains a lot.

Great idea. May deter people from claiming asylum in the UK when they could have stopped at the first safe country on the way as they are meant to

@NameInUseAlreadyAgain

Great idea. May deter people from claiming asylum in the UK when they could have stopped at the first safe country on the way as they are meant to

It won't, the boats will still come, but enjoy the fantasy for another few days.

Where do you think the women and children are? Many are waiting desperately in dangerous places or refugee camps for their man to overcome incredible physical and mental hardships to get somewhere safe, get a job and then send for them legally.

We are clearly not going to agree

@NameInUseAlreadyAgain

Great idea. May deter people from claiming asylum in the UK when they could have stopped at the first safe country on the way as they are meant to

Where do you get the idea that asylum seekers are meant to stop at the first safe country?

Neither international law nor domestic law makes such a requirement.

@SleeplessInEngland

They'll fuck it up somehow anyway. Tory cruelty is only outweighed by tory incompetence.

That second sentence should be their new slogan.

@Soffit

We are clearly not going to agree

I should hope not.

Anyone agreeing about innate differences between white European migrants and non-white, non-European migrants is pretty plainly a racist. I am very pleased to see that poster challenging your prejudices.

They don't need to fuck it up. The fucked-upness is pre-baked into it.

@theDudesmummy

Where do you think the women and children are? Many are waiting desperately in dangerous places or refugee camps for their man to overcome incredible physical and mental hardships to get somewhere safe, get a job and then send for them legally.

‘Waiting for their man’ you say.. is that Lou Reed style?

So why not stay in France then. Why come to UK if get shipped to Rwanda.

@Soffit

We are clearly not going to agree

No, clearly not.

This policy is currently illegal in the UK, and will be until the Nationality and Borders Bill is passed, which won’t be any time soon. I suspect the Lords will continue to amend and stall it until the next general election.

It’s a ridiculous, hugely expensive, inhumane, and unworkable policy, but won’t be implemented any time soon. The aim of this is to generate dog-whistle headlines for the government ahead of the local elections, and to distract from “partygate”.

I'll admit I'm morbidly curious to see the effect this has on tory polling. Everyone thought Johnson's jaunt in Ukraine would imbue a statesman-like quality and repair partygate damage. Polling increased by a whopping... 1 point. And that was before the fine.

Oh that old chestnut But I’m of immigrant stock and I am talking about other Caucasian people

@NameInUseAlreadyAgain

So why not stay in France then. Why come to UK if get shipped to Rwanda.

A lot of mixed messages on this thread. Rwanda has gone from being 'warm and safe' to being a preventative punishment.

@cansu

So vulnerable people will be sent to a place with a terrible record of human rights abuses. Yes that sounds a really good idea. Ffs this is awful. You could not make it up.

The genocide was Frances fault apparently..

Utterly despicable. Is there anything Johnson wouldn't do to distract people from his lying? And Patel is equally appalling for promoting this wretched idea of sending refugees to a tin pot despot's country with a one way ticket. It's pandering to the far right of course. What has our country come to that we have a Prime Minister of such low integrity and morals? The Party must get rid of him and his crony Cabinet.

@Babdoc

It is all very well to condemn the plan to send them to Rwanda, but what is your alternative? The UK does not have sufficient housing for our own population. Waiting lists for council accommodation are soaring, houses are unaffordable, and we are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. Migrant numbers would involve building a new city every year. And that doesn’t include provision for their future children. So what do you suggest, OP?

The reason we don't have enough housing us because the Tories sold it all off in the 80s and there has been no significant investment in it since.

What are the migrant numbers? Do you include Ukrainians in this (because clearly Ukrainians are "proper" refugees, unlike the Syrians or Afghanis)?

This country is also one of the richest in the world, has hundreds of thousands of homes that no one lives in ( 238,306 in 2020) - the problems here are all about lack of Government investment and policy. Again, Conservatives. Who seem to be moving further and further to the right in a daily basis.

@AlexaShutUp

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.

There’s no point getting snippy with me! As usual, the left wing frothing on MN starts before anyone has actually read and absorbed the facts.

The policy is going to apply to male economic migrants only. That’s not “what I’m claiming.” It’s what is actually being reported. Read a news article, take it from the source rather than from a MN thread.

From The Times:

Migrants who arrive in the UK will be assessed initially by Home Office officials to determine whether they are economic migrants or genuine asylum seekers who have fled persecution in their home countries. It is not yet known how long this process will take or how they will judge whether an individual is an economic migrant.

Nine in ten of the 28,526 migrants who crossed the Channel in small boats last year were male, according to official statistics. Seven in ten were single.

Women are also included in this deportation

I'm not getting snippy, @Tippexy. I'm asking how it's going to work and what the point of this policy will be if it only applies to people who have already been deemed to have no right to remain in the UK. Why not just deport them to their home country instead of spending millions of pounds off taxpayers money on sending them to Rwanda. What would this achieve, exactly?

The policy is going to apply to male economic migrants only

Not according to the Home Office minister interviewed on R4 at 1pm. They also interviewed Nigel Farage who said it won’t work and is a pointless waste of money. My jaw dropped. I thought he’d love it.

I can't believe I am as one with Farage. I need to sit down.

Everyone, even Patel, knows it couldn't work, though. It's not supposed to. It's just a very nasty stinking dead cat.