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?

@Getoff you assume incorrectly. I’ve copied my post from earlier in the thread, here:

More perspective here, useful for those posters who keep saying asylum seekers are coming to the UK illegally. (Writer is David Simmonds, Conservative MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and chair of the APPG on Migration.)

“We must also be mindful of our tone and language in this debate. The people that are crossing the Channel are not ‘illegal immigrants’. Those crossing the Channel are allowed under our laws to seek refuge in the United Kingdom. It is only once they reach our shores that they have their asylum claims processed. If they are successful, they are deemed as refugees, and it is only if they are unsuccessful that they are deemed to have no legal status to be in our country.”

Apparently Israel tried something similar with Rwanda, and it was an absolute boon for people smugglers who now had an entirely new market of customers who still wanted to go back to Europe anyway. Hey-ho.

@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

Aye, no doubt Sunak's wife will have shares in 'em too. This "government" is just a club for robbing us all blind.

Thank you for that @BewareTheLibrarians many people really do not understand that

They have to get here before their claim will even be looked at.

There are legal ways of travelling here as a refugee, getting in a dinghy to cross the channel is an illegal death wish way to travel across the border.

There are legal ways of travelling here as a refugee,

Fairly sure that isn't true for the most part - but please enlighten us.

@notanotheroneagain
What has race anything to do with this.

The definition of race includes different nationalities, so by virtue of calling British work shy and non British refugees as good for fruit picking, yes that’s a racist comment.

@EmpressCixi, please can you set out the process that you think people should follow if they want to travel to the UK as a refugee. What do they have to do in order to do this legally, in your opinion?

"There are legal ways of travelling here as a refugee, getting in a dinghy to cross the channel is an illegal death wish way to travel across the border."

Not sure how many times it has to be said but: if you're claming asylum, which can only be assessed once you arrive by whatever means, it isn't illegal. That's a basic UN convention, and the UK has signed up to it.

@Soffit

The ideological infection is not just a British problem, it has also been propagated all over the Third World.

The entire history of the world has been entirely reframed as the history of emancipation so nobody will blame the migrants for breaking through every border and barrier they want and relaying their heroic escape tales in 'safe spaces' to hyper-psychologized British aid workers where 'there's no moral judgment' and 'everyone's victimhood is valid'.
It is a foolproof way of destroying a civilization from within.

This “logic” only works if you assume that brown people either inherently have no civilisation, cannot integrate into different societies, or are evil enough to purposely destroy another.

It’s weird that you feel comfortable to say that “out loud” as it were, as it’s incredibly narrow minded and racist.

@BewareTheLibrarians, if you read @Soffit's posts above, it's pretty clear what he/she thinks about people who are not white European. No point arguing with self confessed racists.

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

There's a meme for that

@theDudesmummy

Thank you for that *@BewareTheLibrarians* many people really do not understand that

Thanks like I said in either this thread or the other one, the people with the most hatred towards asylum seekers are the ones who seem to know the least about the system, and have never even seen an asylum seeker, let alone had a conversation with them or bothered to learn the history of the country they’re coming from.

@AlexaShutUp
Refugees can and do travel by commercial plane or boat or train or Chunnel to the U.K. with travel documentation and upon arrival present themselves to border control as an asylum claimant. Over 44k people claimed asylum last year and most of them came to the U.K. one of these ways and not by paying a homicidal human trafficker to stick them on a dinghy or the back of a lorry.

@SleeplessInEngland
It’s not “by whatever means” ....yes the refugees themselves are not illegal, but their means of travel can be illegal. The channel crossings in the dinghies arranged by human traffickers ARE in fact illegal.

So true, @BewareTheLibrarians.

Sigh.

Are any of you who object to economic migrants( only).
Not refugees..going down this route actaully living in the areas with an influx of the economic migrants at all? Do you understand any of the feelings of some the locals. ? Or do you live in leafy rich suburbs? I am.not agree but i do think this requires thought. Its like how we got brexit amd the tories in.. the people who such things affect are npt heard until in desperation they vote tory..? They need.to be heard and then empathised with somehow and things at.least addressed somehow( extra funding innsuch areas etc?? I dont know,,)unless u want a tory vote.. until then they may feel.unheard and takenthe only route they feel.open to them. Anger , hatred amd labellimg of such voters doesnt work . My relative is .political commenter and said denial of peoples real experience does not work .. it leads to polorisation ie things like this being on the cards.

"It’s not “by whatever means” ....yes the refugees themselves are not illegal, but their means of travel can be illegal. The channel crossings in the dinghies arranged by human traffickers ARE in fact illegal."

Nope. The illegality comes if they arrive and try to avoid due process, usually set up by the trafficker. But an asylum seeker in a boat on the channel? Not illegal.

There is also the UNHCR Resettlement scheme where refugees in other countries can also be given protection in the UK via resettlement schemes. The UK works with the UN Refugee Agency (the UNHCR) to arrange for the transfer of refugees from an asylum country to the UK, with the aim of ultimately granting them permanent residence.

Refugees can and do travel by commercial plane or boat or train or Chunnel to the U.K. with travel documentation and upon arrival present themselves to border control as an asylum claimant. Over 44k people claimed asylum last year and most of them came to the U.K. one of these ways and not by paying a homicidal human trafficker to stick them on a dinghy or the back of a lorry.

OK, so that's great if you are able to obtain a different kind of visa that enables you to travel to the UK via another means, e.g. if you qualify for a tourist visa etc. You can then travel to the country safely and claim asylum once you get here. What are you supposed to do if you aren't eligible for another kind of visa that would enable you to do this?

Do you think people choose to pay people traffickers extortionate sums of money to make a perilous journey in a dinghy if they had the option of just getting on a plane instead? Why do you think they would do that?

@SleeplessInEngland

"It’s not “by whatever means” ....yes the refugees themselves are not illegal, but their means of travel can be illegal. The channel crossings in the dinghies arranged by human traffickers ARE in fact illegal."

Nope. The illegality comes if they arrive and try to avoid due process, usually set up by the trafficker. But an asylum seeker in a boat on the channel? Not illegal.

They’re paying the trafficker to avoid due process ergo, they are crossing illegally. Cant believe you are seriously arguing that human traffickers are operating a legal immigration service across the channel and thus implying all the deaths by drowning are acceptable?

They’re paying the trafficker to avoid due process

How are they avoiding due process?

People who fly in to the country on a tourist visa or similar, and then claim asylum once they get here, face the same process as people who come in on a dinghy.

If the people who are arriving in ways that you deem to be "legal" were honest about their intentions to claim asylum on arrival, the reality is that they wouldn't be allowed to travel.

Asylum claims will only be considered once someone has arrived in the UK. They either have to do that by deception or by travelling "illegally". While it would be infinitely better if someone could rock up to a British Embassy in their home country and claim asylum there, that isn't how the process currently works.

@EmpressCixi Copy-pasting my reply from a few posts above again:

More perspective here, useful for those posters who keep saying asylum seekers are coming to the UK illegally. (Writer is David Simmonds, Conservative MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and chair of the APPG on Migration.)

“We must also be mindful of our tone and language in this debate. The people that are crossing the Channel are not ‘illegal immigrants’. Those crossing the Channel are allowed under our laws to seek refuge in the United Kingdom. It is only once they reach our shores that they have their asylum claims processed. If they are successful, they are deemed as refugees, and it is only if they are unsuccessful that they are deemed to have no legal status to be in our country.”

What are you supposed to do if you aren't eligible for another kind of visa that would enable you to do this? There is the UNHCR Resettlement scheme which allows refugees to apply from outside the U.K. for asylum.

Do you think people choose to pay people traffickers extortionate sums of money to make a perilous journey in a dinghy if they had the option of just getting on a plane instead? They may not know they have the option, the human traffickers are very very good at lying and convincing refugees that their way is the only way in.

Why do you think they would do that? See above.

Do you have a better solution? The Rwanda scheme will be part of the UNHCR Resettlement scheme...

@BewareTheLibrarians
I agree refugees are not illegal immigrants.
But this is different from being a legal refugee making an illegal crossing of the channel. You can be a legal refugee but still break the law.

To the previous poster who asked about bringing family over.

No one can apply for Family Reunion until they have been granted refugee status. You cannot qualify for Family Reunion if you are refused asylum and granted another form of leave to remain. The length of time it takes to decide an asylum claim varies as does the length of time to go through the appeals process.