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?

@EmpressCixi UK operates very draconian laws on who is eligible to claim legally or not and tight quotas, hence the huge issues with those fleeing Ukraine not being able to come here.

But as the french said, sort out your Labour market, provide legal ways to come to the UK and the issue will largely go away IF the issue is to prevent criminality and drownings but it it isn't, its about the appeasing the xenophobic British public.

No surprise that out of 28 countries we not only demanded a referendum, we went and left the UK, against our best interests, purely because we don't like foreigners.... unless they man our ferries, wipe our arses and do airport check ins, then they can stay... for a while or until we don't need them.

EU of course not the UK...

Asylum claims will only be considered once someone has arrived in the UK.
Unless applying via the UNHCR Resettlement scheme from a third country.

They either have to do that by deception or by travelling "illegally".
I don’t agree with this. Most refugees are honest about their status.

@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.

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?

I've worked in this area for over 20 years. Many people do obtain visas some with their own passport and visa, others through the use of an agent with a fraudulent passport and visa.

I don't think this will stop the small boat crossings. IME the people who board these boats do not do this out of choice. They are often beaten and put on the boat or forced at gunpoint when they refuse.

[quote EmpressCixi]@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.[/quote]
Ah I see what you mean. Although am I right in thinking that while it’s technically illegal, asylum seekers can’t actually be prosecuted for arriving that way? The Home Office tried recently, and the court of appeal slapped them down quite quickly.

So perhaps time to lobby the government to open/reopen safe routes of travel for asylum seekers. It would cut down on the deaths in the channel, but for some reason the government doesn’t seem interested in that part.

They do seem very interested in the part where they potentially get to make themselves very rich by setting up offshore processing centres ala covid PPE scandal.

@Freckles1978
I agree, the refugees don’t have a choice. They are either forced modern day slaves or deceived by predatory traffickers into thinking its the only option.

We have to stop these traffickers somehow, I’m open to any other solution too.

Yes, @EmpressCixi, the resettlement programme is a much better way of allowing people to come into the UK safely and legally. However, the current programme only meets a tiny fraction of that need. If you're arguing to dramatically increase the number of refugees helped by that route so that people no longer feel compelled to make those perilous journeys, then I am absolutely in support of that. In the meantime, I am concerned about the people who feel that they have no other options.

@BewareTheLibrarians
Yes, I think you are right in thinking that while it’s technically illegal, asylum seekers can’t actually be prosecuted for arriving that way. This is because they are rightly viewed as the victims of the traffickers and forced to break the law.

So perhaps time to lobby the government to open/reopen safe routes of travel for asylum seekers. It would cut down on the deaths in the channel, but for some reason the government doesn’t seem interested in that part.
I agree and there was discussion about the government negotiating opening a processing centre in Calais but it died on the vine. You’d think they’d at least have a floating ferry that could dock, prices refugees and then set sail. Or a pop up at an airport. Perhaps they fear fraudulent applications. The government can be paranoid.....

I can understand their desire to use a similar system to Australia. I’m not sure about Rwanda though, seems an odd choice. Unfortunately some small boat migrants are criminals and terrorists , and the system we have now certainly doesn’t work. How would you protect the borders? For those people who object - what would you do instead? It’s easy to criticise, but what alternative measures would you use?

But 'Boris' said something good about women, once, despite treating wonen like shit all his life, so Mumsnet will be voting Tory no matter what over atrocities they commit.
Yes this, it's seriously worrying.
FFS can we not get rid already, I hate how intolerant and further right we're all shifting and people are either ignorant or don't give a shit

The Daily Mirror has said that actually, once people have been sent to Rwanda they will not have the option of applying for asylum in the UK. And that they will be sent within 5 days of arrival in the UK, so whether nopt they are eligle for asylum will be decided in 5 days. And that LGBT refugees will also be sent to Rwanda. This is not legal. WTF are they doing?

@AlexaShutUp

Yes, *@EmpressCixi*, the resettlement programme is a much better way of allowing people to come into the UK safely and legally. However, the current programme only meets a tiny fraction of that need. If you're arguing to dramatically increase the number of refugees helped by that route so that people no longer feel compelled to make those perilous journeys, then I am absolutely in support of that. In the meantime, I am concerned about the people who feel that they have no other options.

Yes, the UNHCR Resettlement scheme needs to be drastically expanded. Yes, also highly concerned about refugees left in such hopeless optionless situations. Just think it’s worth trying if it saves even a dozen lives from drowning in the open sea.

This is what immigration minister Lord Harrington said on LBC on 5 April

Refugees Minister Lord Harrington declares there is 'no possibility' refugees will be sent to Rwanda, despite reports

[quote EmpressCixi]@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.[/quote]
Race and nationality are nothing to do with one another but I expect you do not realize that

@theDudesmummy

This is what immigration minister Lord Harrington said on LBC on 5 April

Refugees Minister Lord Harrington declares there is 'no possibility' refugees will be sent to Rwanda, despite reports

I guess he hadn't read the memo.

@Donkeyinamanger

I'd imagine he thinks it will please all the people who voted for Brexit because it would keep all those nasty foreigners out.

Well some of them are racist, so it will please those ones. Not all though.

Doesn't matter what he does though. He needs to start actually killing children himself to not get voted in, and even then I'm not convinced he wouldn't win.

I now think I had vaguely heard about this so-called plan around the news channels but dismissed to the back of my mind, as no doubt Harrington did, as an absolutely ridiculous idea.

I still don't think it will or can happen. All the details that are emerging raise the certainty of multiple infringements of human rights law at the very least. If it starts it will be like the Israel version, it will be scrapped.

@theDudesmummy

I now think I had vaguely heard about this so-called plan around the news channels but dismissed to the back of my mind, as no doubt Harrington did, as an absolutely ridiculous idea.

I still don't think it will or can happen. All the details that are emerging raise the certainty of multiple infringements of human rights law at the very least. If it starts it will be like the Israel version, it will be scrapped.

I agree that it can't happen. I would be outraged if I thought that it could, but I'm convinced that it's just a dead cat.

They are immigrants not entering through the correct channels and leaving from a safe country. I think its a good deterrent and will hopefully give us more scope to allow the truly needy in using the proper process and reduce the money going to gangs and the loss of life on the channel.

@mrsmolks

They are immigrants not entering through the correct channels and leaving from a safe country. I think its a good deterrent and will hopefully give us more scope to allow the truly needy in using the proper process and reduce the money going to gangs and the loss of life on the channel.

What life do you think they will have if they are shunted off to Rwanda? The majority have escaped from wars in Afghanistan and Syria - records show at least 75% would qualify to stay in the U.K.

People voted in a right wing government and this is what right wing governments do. Australia tried it. It failed! It cost a shed load of money too!

@mrsmolks

They are immigrants not entering through the correct channels and leaving from a safe country. I think its a good deterrent and will hopefully give us more scope to allow the truly needy in using the proper process and reduce the money going to gangs and the loss of life on the channel.

Asylum seekers entering the ciuntry Wo a visa ARE entering through the correct channels. That’s the whole point of being an asylum seeker - that you cannot apply for it from outside the country you are applying for!!

Maybe it’s time to start learning a little more about what is an asylum seeker rather than lumping everyone in the same bag.

Dogmum40
Surely this is a better alternative to people coming in illegally on boats who have paid vast sums to traffickers! If they genuinely need help this could be a better solution all round as if they are genuine they should find the legal route of entering.

It is not illegal to enter on boats despite what the Daily Mail, Express, etc tell you and I believe around 70% are granted asylum.

The govt has basically shut down most safe routes.

It would cost a fortune, wouldn't work and probably be illegal. It hasn't gone through Parliament and likely won't happen, thank God.

I don't see an issue with it, Rwanda has lovely weather this time of year and the scenery is beautiful.

From @jonfeatonby on Twitter:

“Important point in the Home Office factsheet on the Rwanda deal. Anyone who arrives on a small boat etc will be considered for transfer. That means it would include women and families. The only group that wouldn't be eligible is unaccompanied children.”

I know some on these threads were relieved it would be young men only, so I hope those posters very quickly reconsider their position now it’s clear than women and children in family groups will also be affected.

Link to Home Office doc:
homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/factsheet-migration-and-economic-development-partnership/

This document also states “Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers” Yet as @StarbucksSmarterSister says, the government has shut down or refused to open safe routes to the UK. And rather than open those safe routes, their solution is to inflict more suffering and waste more money. What is wrong with them?