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?

Israel sent their refugees to Rwanda, it didn't work so they stopped as people were pretty much handed to the traffickers.

This is a waste of money and a waste of time by our waste of space government.

It is quite "world-beating" to come up with a plan which is simultaneously expensive, immoral, illegal and completely unworkable, I will give them that. Lessons will be learned. Pockets will be lined.

@theDudesmummy

It is quite "world-beating" to come up with a plan which is simultaneously expensive, immoral, illegal and completely unworkable, I will give them that. Lessons will be learned. Pockets will be lined.

This…

It won’t work. There will be legal challenges. It’s just a distraction from party gate. Don’t be taken in…

Don’t be taken in…

But they will be taken in because, just like the eminem/Rhianna song, they love the way this government lies.

@VestaTilley

It’s abominable. Even for them, a new low.

Aren't the Danes planning to do the same thing? They seem a pretty well adjusted society.

Aren't the Danes planning to do the same thing? They seem a pretty well adjusted society

Well if they are, they ain't now.

Denmark made a deal to do this a year ago, but hasn't actually sent anyone. Probably for all the reasons that we won't be sending anyone, either.

It's now coming out that, most unusually, this policy has been signed off by Patel on a ministerial direction, which means that the Permanent Secretary felt he couldn't sign it.

This seems to me like a complicated plan that won't be very effective. Rwanda seems like an odd choice, not close to where the people are coming from. Maybe someone earlier in the thread mentioned why it was chosen but at face value it seems odd.

However, the concept is already widely accepted for processing large numbers of refugees, because the method of just having people find their way to wherever they can doesn't really work either.
There are already many many camps like this where people wait to have their applications to all kinds of different countries processed. Usually they are as close as possible to where the people are fleeing from. It does also often involve background ckecks

I'm not sure I buy the argument that refugees from Ukraine or any other place should be treated differently than others, just because their situation is in the news at the moment. And it's also the case that when there are large numbers, it becomes a real administrative problem to try and find places for all without overwhelming services, which is a real possibility. I've worked in an organization that supports refugees local to me for a while in a volunteer type capacity, and we've actually stopped accepting applications for now because there is no housing where we are - many people are living in shelters or tents already. While the international refugee system is in concept a deeply humanitarian idea, in execution it probably isn't an answer to the problems of displacement of masses of people.

@mrshoho

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

And workable, which similarly surprising/worrying.

@MangyInseam this, from my reading of it, is not intended to be a camp where people are accommodated while their applications are processed. It is a permanent one way ticket (to one of the poorest and most densely populated countries on earth). Anyway, the amount of people and organisations now coming out and saying it cannot work is quite remarkable. It was never intended to work. Just some Save Big Dog crap plus a nice bit of jackbootery for the DM readers ahead of the local elections.

@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.

How does moving people to Rwanda protect people from further exploitation? The Tories who have defended this on the radio have not demonstrated any interest in or knowledge of Rwanda or even the detail of the scheme.

This is so weird and I don’t know how much it’s going to cost the country - does anyone? Why Rwanda, a country that was committing genocide not that long ago, apart from the point that the U.K. can obviously bully them into something now but couldn’t stop the genocide then?

It does raise the point again that we simply haven’t got the room to support all these displaced human populations. There are millions on the move, between war and climate change.

If you think we dont have room, Rwanda definitely doesnt @ParsleySageRosemary.

[quote theDudesmummy]@MangyInseam this, from my reading of it, is not intended to be a camp where people are accommodated while their applications are processed. It is a permanent one way ticket (to one of the poorest and most densely populated countries on earth). Anyway, the amount of people and organisations now coming out and saying it cannot work is quite remarkable. It was never intended to work. Just some Save Big Dog crap plus a nice bit of jackbootery for the DM readers ahead of the local elections.[/quote]
I don't think that's the case, it's just not how refugee camps work. It is true that people may be in them a long time before being placed, and many aren't placed at large refugee camps - though i suspect Ukrainians would be easier to place than some other groups. And then there will always be some people who may be rejected.

The UN have said the scheme is breach of international and refugee law. It’s only been announced as a distraction from Boris’s actions over Partygate

Absolutely agree Parker
They needed a distraction that could be seen from space.

I am also hoping it’s a distraction but for me it’s abhorrent even as a distraction. News of these plans has already got back to asylum seekers newly arrived, so the stress that’s causing them is off the charts. Interestingly though, many say it won’t reduce crossings to the UK, it will just result in more people trying to go under the radar and avoiding the authorities which is exactly what the government don’t want.

Interesting comment from the people traffickers who heard about the Rwanda scheme too - “the British government is just pushing money into our hands with this!”

Yeah. When the people traffickers are relishing the extra money they’ll get because of your useless scheme, you know you’ve fucked up.

It’s like Priti Patel is competing for the most heartless and illogical things that she can possibly come out with.
I wonder how it works? Do they get an extra biscuit with their tea at cabinet meetings every time they are successful at trying to make themselves look worse than the PM?

I think it’s more testing the public and we have elections very soon

They have a distraction that’s Ukraine

It’s proven to be fairly popular (no surprise)

Glad the UN have spoken up.

Interesting about Denmark politics is that the have a centre left party taking on right wing policies around immigration. Look to France they have a right wing opponent taking on left wing policies and many feeling politically homeless from the left (similar to here) but won’t vote for Macron (hopefully will do in the next round)

Maybe will be the surge off centre politics across Europe in the next few years

*It’s like Priti Patel is competing for the most heartless and illogical things that she can possibly come out with

A poster on here once said "She's the kind of woman who'd unplug someone's life support machine to charge her phone"

Not a pleasant idea I know, but it did make me giggle

I don't find the policy worrying, it's that so many of the public cannot see it for what it is, that it will never work and even encourages more trafficking from Rwanda, so even more will die trying to get back into Europe.

The tragedy is that women & children will now be forced into making the channel crossing and leave their countries of origin, so more women open to sex abuse... but Boris knows what a woman is....

Much like the Ukrainian refugee policies, it makes us feel nice and wooly but the reality is we will take in hardly any Ukrainians.

@theDudesmummy

It is quite "world-beating" to come up with a plan which is simultaneously expensive, immoral, illegal and completely unworkable, I will give them that. Lessons will be learned. Pockets will be lined.

Quite.

“Aren't the Danes planning to do the same thing? They seem a pretty well adjusted society”

Well they haven’t managed to ban mink farms.

Unions warning of mass walkouts and transfer requests rather than implement this policy - www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/15/priti-patel-faces-home-office-mutiny-rwanda-migrants-plan/