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?

I'm worried that by regarding this as a mere distraction it will push through. The headline today is that they will be ready to commence within weeks. I think it's a big mistake.

Judging by the 44% YABU votes there are many people who believe this awful plan to be acceptable.

I'm worried that by regarding this as a mere distraction it will push through

I find that's the benefit of following more than just the latest shrieking headline
Even if they really do push ahead with it there's no way this incompetent government will be able to organise things within weeks, so there'll be plenty of time to act if there's any evidence it's actually being done

I strongly suspect, though, that the furthest it'll get is some funding being found, which will instantly be grabbed by the cronies

@mrshoho

Judging by the 44% YABU votes there are many people who believe this awful plan to be acceptable.

There is a reason why BJ and Patel brought that now, just before the MY elections… same with the trans agenda.

Never mind it breaches the electoral rules too.

Or it’s not manageable - I mean they find find BILLIONS of pounds to send a few thousands of people in a foreign country but they can’t do the same for the NHS? How?!?

It’s about those awful immigrants arriving in dinghies that are swamping our shores!!!! We are being invaded!

@mrshoho

I'm worried that by regarding this as a mere distraction it will push through. The headline today is that they will be ready to commence within weeks. I think it's a big mistake.

I agree.

Whether it’s a distraction or not, it needs to be addressed.
And I wouldn’t address it as a moral issue as such (even though IT IS a immoral) but as a cost issue (billion of pounds every year) , with total lack of efficiency (Israel tried that and it didn’t work).
I have enough to see this government spending our taxes on crap and nothing in what will make a real difference to the population whilst walking all over their manifesto pledge.
Enough!

Never mind it breaches the electoral rules too

I’m not sure it does, I think purdah only applies to government in general elections, it’s applied locally for local ones.

I can’t see it happening either @Puzzledandpissedoff. They can’t even sort out the red tape for the refugees they’re welcoming with open arms.

What will push through is the money. The rest will be a complete mess.

This is an interesting angle which I had not thought of, re how this "plan" would make things more dangerous if it were to actually happen

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/14/rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan-is-just-a-senseless-soundbite

Never mind it breaches the electoral rules too

I had a look as interested, as had not heard of this but I don’t think it does.

‘On 5 May 2022, local elections are taking place in across Scotland and Wales, in London, and some English authorities.
For UK and devolved government departments the pre-election period for local elections is not fixed to any particular date. The general convention is that special care should be taken in the three weeks preceding the elections. In 2022, that will be 14 April to 5 May.’

‘ commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05262/

Discussing this with a friend. They said about the high number of crimes committed by asylum seekers/failed asylum seekers, refugees in the UK. I cannot see these figures anywhere to check or see if she is wrong. Does anyone have a link to a verified independent source of information?

No mention of national government:

What you shouldn't do

Produce publicity on matters which are politically controversial
Make references to individual politicians or groups in press releases
Arrange proactive media or events involving candidates
Issue photographs which include candidates
Supply council photographs or other materials to councillors or political group staff unless you have verified that they will not be used for campaigning purposes
Continue hosting third party blogs or e-communications
Help with national political visits, as this would involve using public money to support a particular candidate or party. These should be organised by political parties with no cost or resource implications for the council.

@Trainbear yes that is absolute bollocks (based on studies in Europe and USA - although I’m not sure they officially referred to it as bollocks )

I will find the actual data later, but when asylum seekers do commit crimes it tends to be visa related such as overstaying or working before their claim is processed.

There are extreme outliers too, such as the stabbing at a hotel where asylum seekers were held, where ptsd and mental health problems have been left untreated and exacerbated by living conditions and claims left unprocessed for far too long.

@Trainbear Here’s a link to a UK study on migrants and crime rates, which found “The foreign-born share of the population is unrelated to violent crime according to the most recent research findings.”

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/

Germany had a bigger problem and this article also touches on the reasons - basically if you mistreat and isolate your asylum seeker population and make them unwelcome/know their claims will fail, the crime rate becomes higher. If asylum seekers can be placed with their family, and/or allowed to work or otherwise integrate, the crime rates are lower.

www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKBN1ES16J

Basically, treat people like humans is the message there.

As young men (of any nationality) are more likely to commit crimes, increasing the population of young men in any country can be a risk, which is why it’s so important to make sure asylum seekers are properly integrated into communities and learn the cultural norms they need to live by. I personally am very direct and strict when explaining to young men/teenagers I work with that yes, girls here dress differently but that doesn’t mean you can stare or touch, and also explain (appropriately) consent and women’s rights, as I do with my own sons, and what happens if you don’t respect that. Doing that protects both the asylum seekers and the people they interact with.

@FelicityFlops

Has anyone considered that a lot of this movement is actually human trafficking/organised/financial crime? By removing the asylum seekers from UK soil, they are being protected from further exploitation and possibly being given options and opportunities that would not be available had they remained on UK soil? It will be interesting to see if this move results in a significant reduction in refugees/asylum seekers. Obviously a better final destination might have been desirable & the cost is ridiculous.

Yes that is a good point

Anything to stop the people trafficking which is what is obviously needed

@woodhill As I replied to that post,

Unfortunately the human trafficking doesn’t start in Calais, it starts where the asylum seekers are coming from. Libya for eg, where a lot of asylum seekers will cross to Europe from, is a hotbed of slavery, taking advantage of the desperation people have to get to safety. This scheme sadly won’t do anything to combat that.

What would make it better though, I don't think the situation can continue like this

No, I agree @woodhill The government could set up safe routes to the UK (it’s their refusal to do this that has increased dangerous boat crossing and strain on Kent) but they won’t.

That way they can play off people arriving in boats as out of their control, and pander to their right wing base by appearing to be “strong on immigration”.

Ultimately though by refusing to set up safe routes to the UK they’re unwittingly increasing uncontrolled immigration.

What can we do? Let your mp know you think this scheme is abhorrent, and ask your mp to push for safe routes to the UK to reduce dangerous boat crossings.

Will those who have travelled from Rwanda and are waiting for a decision have to return there while they wait?
This seems a little um strange, especially if the meme above about 100% of Rwanda claims in 2020 were successful.

@BewareTheLibrarians

No, I agree *@woodhill* The government could set up safe routes to the UK (it’s their refusal to do this that has increased dangerous boat crossing and strain on Kent) but they won’t.

That way they can play off people arriving in boats as out of their control, and pander to their right wing base by appearing to be “strong on immigration”.

Ultimately though by refusing to set up safe routes to the UK they’re unwittingly increasing uncontrolled immigration.

What can we do? Let your mp know you think this scheme is abhorrent, and ask your mp to push for safe routes to the UK to reduce dangerous boat crossings.

Sorry @BewareTheLibrarians but I’d you set up safe routes for people to come to the U.K., then they are NOT a asylum seekers.

The whole thing about seeking asylums is that you arrive in that country illegally, that you can only claim asylum once you are in the country.

What you are describing is not helping asylum seekers. It’s supporting people leave dangerous places but that’s not getting asylum.
And tbh it also assumes the system isn’t completely bonkers and crazy complicated (like what they’ve done for CHILDREN coming from Ukraine).

@MarriedThreeChildren
I’m not 100% sure I understand what you’re saying (which is probably due to my brain, not how you’ve written it ) Is the problem the technical definition of the term asylum seeker, or the fact that they’re not considered as in need if a safe route is given closer to their country?

This is from Amnesty International on the kind of safe route scheme I’m thinking of:

“Accordingly, as regards people seeking asylum, Amnesty International UK calls upon the Government to both:
• make safe and legal routes available (to reduce exploitation, abuse, loss of life and other harms; and to reduce opportunity for smugglers and traffickers); and
• respect and protect the rights of all women, men and children seeking asylum to do so (including in the UK and including by such other routes as they may need to take).”

@mrshoho

Judging by the 44% YABU votes there are many people who believe this awful plan to be acceptable.

Theres a strong and vocal right wing authoritarian contingent on MN, came for the transphobia and stayed for the racism

Theres a strong and vocal right wing authoritarian contingent on MN, came for the transphobia and stayed for the racism

No I don’t think so. There’s many who care about women’s rights who are attacked in this way, but I don’t agree.

Let's not bring that whole "transphobia" thing into this thread, that is not a "left v right" issue whereas this fascist refugee plan definitely is...

Theres a strong and vocal right wing authoritarian contingent on MN
Completely agree so I'm sadly not surprised by the results either.
Been here years and it never used to be like this, I'd have said it was more left wing when first started MNetting, past few years have become more and more extreme, it's pretty scary really in my opinion.

@theDudesmummy

Let's not bring that whole "transphobia" thing into this thread, that is not a "left v right" issue whereas this fascist refugee plan definitely is...

Yes it’s a shame it’s being used in this way

Mn is one of the few spaces where women can discuss their rights without attacks. Although we still get some.