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?

The thing is, if it applies to economic migrants only, they will have to go through the whole asylum process first, which often takes years. Lots of people will disappear in that time anyway, and even if they don't, the plan doesn't deliver any benefits for the UK taxpayer.

I don't think that can be the plan, as there is literally no point, so I assume that the idea is for home office officials to do some kind of dodgy half-arsed "initial assessment" of whether they think that someone is likely to have a valid asylum claim or not, without all of the usual legal protections that would be in place. Then those who are unlucky enough to be deemed economic migrants will get shipped off to Rwanda while their asylum cases are being processed properly via the legal route. Undoubtedly, that would mean that some genuine refugees were amongst those shipped off to Rwanda, but I guess they will simply be regarded as collateral damage. The unlucky ones sacrificed for a greater cause.

I imagine that there would be major legal challenges to such a policy. I'm not sure how it would all play out in practice.

I imagine that there would be major legal challenges to such a policy

I expect the Good Law Project is already building a case.

@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.

As you work in the system, could you say how long it generally takes for them to be able to bring their families to the UK?

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

Absolutely - and that will be the second "purpose" on the list, just after creating a nice diverting headline

After what we've seen during Covid it frankly amazes me that folk would expect anything else

Problem is that it's not even making any financial sense.

Australia spent 400M processing under 240 applicants. We have a budget of 120M. Then we say we have 600 per day. So just how many are we supposed to process with this.

Also 'healthy young men' are least likely to drain the NHS, but can provide the physical labour (we are so shy to do) and possibly build that housing and pick that fruit we need so much.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

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

Absolutely - and that will be the second "purpose" on the list, just after creating a nice diverting headline

After what we've seen during Covid it frankly amazes me that folk would expect anything else

Bet Reese Mogg, already has his finance and all his contracts for cronies in order already.

Snap polling has come in from YouGov:

Overall voters:

Support: 35%
Oppose: 42%
Don't Know: 23%

Among tory voters:

Support: 59%
Oppose: 22%
Don't Know: 19%

That 59% figure isn't as high as I thought it be for what amounts to a no-holds-barred policy like this. Maybe voters are wary from other failed dingy promises.

@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?

Do you have a better idea?

There's no way around the fact that if we want to have an immigration policy, we will have to do something that anyone with any empathy for those whose hopes and dreams are being crushed will find horrible.

Those are literally the choices, don't have an immigration policy, or do something horrible.

Fair enough to say that there are different levels and kinds of horrible, but I challenge you to come up with something better. Remember that the point of this policy is not to put lots of people in Rwanda, it's to stop them travelling to the UK in the first place. Once it's working, if it works, almost no-one will be being sent to Rwanda, because they won't be traveling to the UK in the first place.

BTW, I agree it's horrible. I don't have a better idea though, so I'm not criticising anyone.

It’s only for those illegally crossing the Channel. It’s not for all refugees. I think it is better than drowning due to the traffickers. It will save lives in the long run. This will deter people from paying thousands to get in a flimsy dinghy and try and make it across open sea. And it’s not definitely a one way ticket as they’ll be in a safe accommodation (the pictures look quite nice actually) where they can apply for a visa and then come legally....which the Ukrainians are managing to do despite the horrors they are fleeing. If the Ukrainians can do legal refugee visa applications, then why can’t these others? And what’s wrong with housing them in sunny, warm. Africa while their applications are processed? Surely it’s better than a sports Centre in snowy Poland or Romania?

Also 'healthy young men' are least likely to drain the NHS, but can provide the physical labour (we are so shy to do) and possibly build that housing and pick that fruit we need so much.

That’s pretty racist to say that’s what immigrants are good for and also that British are work shy.

I do think there's a high chance this won't work. If I had to guess, most likely outcome is that something bad will happen to some refugees in Rwanda, there will be a UK witch-hunt by media and the half of the population who did not vote for the government, who don't need any rational reason to blame the government for anything, and the government will be forced to back away from the only solution they've managed to think of. So the policy will fail not because it's technically flawed, but because it becomes emotionally/politically untenable.

@EmpressCixi

It’s only for those illegally crossing the Channel. It’s not for all refugees. I think it is better than drowning due to the traffickers. It will save lives in the long run. This will deter people from paying thousands to get in a flimsy dinghy and try and make it across open sea. And it’s not definitely a one way ticket as they’ll be in a safe accommodation (the pictures look quite nice actually) where they can apply for a visa and then come legally....which the Ukrainians are managing to do despite the horrors they are fleeing. If the Ukrainians can do legal refugee visa applications, then why can’t these others? And what’s wrong with housing them in sunny, warm. Africa while their applications are processed? Surely it’s better than a sports Centre in snowy Poland or Romania?

Crossing the channel to claim asylum isn't illegal, because the staus of that claim can only be determined by due process.

@MrsEdnaWelthorpe that's not the part of the system I work in really, I work with serious offenders in secure psychiatric units, they are in general not sending for their families if they have any, while they are in hospital. So I don't really know from personal experience how long it takes once someone is established in the UK after having succesfully claimed asylum to get visas for family members. Money will be a factor of course. I have several family members who got residence through me (I am British) and it was very very expensive.

That the policy never gets off the ground in the first place (due to legal or political opposition) seems even more likely to me than that it will eventually fail, if it ever does get started.

If the Ukrainians can do legal refugee visa applications, then why can’t these others?

That's a very reasonable question, @EmpressCixi. The answer is that we don't give them that option.

@EmpressCixi I am willing to bet that you have spent no time in poverty-stricken central African countries under dictatorships

Crossing the channel to claim asylum isn't illegal, because the staus of that claim can only be determined by due process.

They are entering the country illegally, their status is irrelevant. Even if they were full British citizens returning from holiday who thought this would be a fun way to get home, they would still be committing a crime, I assume.

[quote theDudesmummy]@EmpressCixi I am willing to bet that you have spent no time in poverty-stricken central African countries under dictatorships[/quote]
Sorry, are you saying Rwanda is a poverty stricken dictatorship? Because that is patently untrue.

Well, they're not necessarily committing a crime, I suppose. If, like any international arriving boats, they contact immigration on arrival and go through all procedures, then I guess they would be here legally. Not sure how often that happens.

People need to understand that refugees cannot just rock up at the nearest British Embassy to claim asylum. They have to get here before their claim will even be looked at.

The arrangements that have been put in place for the Ukrainians, no matter how inadequate, are not the same for people fleeing from other war zones.

Your definition of poverty then? And your definition of dictatorship?

@EmpressCixi

Also 'healthy young men' are least likely to drain the NHS, but can provide the physical labour (we are so shy to do) and possibly build that housing and pick that fruit we need so much.

That’s pretty racist to say that’s what immigrants are good for and also that British are work shy.

What has race anything to do with this.

Unless you are admitting this rule only applies to people of colour.

and also that British are work shy.

Where on earth were you just end of last year, when we were offering EU citizens (that we kicked out on brexit), 3 months visa to come pick fruit we would not do, and then tell them to fuck off before xmas.

Well Barness Warsi has come out pretty unequivocally against this madness