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?

They seem to think this will cost around £50K per migrant to cover hotel costs, travel, and a pitiful 3 months' subsistence in Rwanda. None of that, of course, factors in the legal costs involved in successful challenges and the greatly increased hotel costs in this country whilst legal challenges are going through.

The immigration system is staggeringly inefficient. If they applied the funding they've found for this to remedying that, it would make so much more sense. In particular, the sooner they process genuine asylum claims, the less they have to shell out in hotel costs and the quicker the claimants can settle down and become productive, taxpaying members of society.

@TooBigForMyBoots

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

Just checked, not kidding are you. Very young population too. It makes them an even stranger choice.

£30,000 per asylum seeker. Imagine what that money could do for your local school! Asylum seekers have broken no law in coming to the UK, yet could find themselves in Rwanda fgs. Totally immoral, but it is Priti Patel. Even her department civil servants have had to be overruled by her, first time a minister has done this for 30+ years.

It’s a one way ticket to Rwanda to deter crossings....they won’t be put up into be U.K. so should think twice...who knows 🤔

Asylum seekers have broken no law in coming to the UK, yet could find themselves in Rwanda fgs

However by attempting to send asylum seekers to Rwanda it’s almost certain the government would be breaking the law, and would have to spend £££ on legss as l fees, if this daft policy ever happens.

This shit was way way bad enough when I’d initially misunderstood and thought they wanted to just process the applications in Rwanda, then let people come to the UK. That’s not it at all, is it.

The actual proposal feels (morally) exactly like the US’ forced extraditions to Guantanamo Bay. I’m not an international lawyer so no idea legally, but it feels every bit as outrageous to nonnegotiably take innocent vulnerable people somewhere they don’t want to go and just dump them there to live their lives.

The Eu have been paying for refugees to be transferred to Turkey for some time havent they ?

What’s the EU to do with it?

It’s a U.K. problem with U.K. consequences, incl the fact that the proposal in unlawful in the eyes of international law.
Whether you think that deported asylum seekers to Rwanda (which they have started btw) is ok or not has nothing to do with what the Eu or Russia or North Korea, the USA etc.. are doing or not

@5plus5

“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.

As far as I know the Danes were planning processing centres abroad (eg in Syria), not to deport people to force them to apply for asylum in a country they have ties with.

@ilovebrie8

It’s a one way ticket to Rwanda to deter crossings....they won’t be put up into be U.K. so should think twice...who knows 🤔

There have been warnings that the deterrent value is minimal. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61133983

You have to ask yourself what information would-be illegal migrants have about the risks and rewards of the dangerous trip to the U.K., and where they are getting it.

What also worries me from the BBC story about Patel overruling those concerns is that “The home secretary replied it would be "imprudent" to allow a lack of modelling to delay the scheme.”

That’s the way everything is done in Britain now, isn’t it: act first, according to what sounds good in a sound bite, think and plan later. Or rather, regret the lack of planning and thinking later.

£30,000 per asylum seeker. Imagine what that money could do for your local school!

Sounds like £350 million for the NHS, but could they not use that money to properly fund the police to find and deal with the smugglers instead?

@Unphased

What a good idea, nobody condemns the French for refusing to have them back, it’s a step up from have snipers taking out the boats in French water, we haven’t enough houses for U.K. citizens and it’s costing over 3 million a day for hotels etc, if the people are real refugees, they will have somewhere warm and safe while their applications are being processed, rising prices people starting to struggle in this country now.

This. ^ Like roughly half of posters voting, I see no problem with sending non-European asylum seekers to Uganda. Why should the UK always have to take refugees, and get berated when they don't, and why do the 'refugees' come across over a dozen countries to get here?

Why am I even asking?! We all know why! They know they've got it made over here. And no way have they all got relatives in the UK! No way.

Some people don't seem to like people saying they are against non-European refugees coming here do they? The liberal left do NOT like differing opinions to theirs! And they have the temerity to call others 'bigoted' and narrow minded ... All the LOLz!

Also, as has been said, other countries have no problem refusing them. Yet the UK seems to get waaaaay more hate and vitriol for refusing refugees, than ANY other country. And some of the hate is from the UK's own people. They should be ashamed of themselves!

Have to agree, it's become ridiculous

*Lol. How bizarre you believe everyone wants to go to the UK.

*Well they clearly do don't they hence the whole discussion ???

@MurmuratingStarling

All your post really shows is that you haven’t bothered to read the thread, as most of your complaints have already been debunked. Here’s a useful post from earlier on the thread: (btw people don’t disagree because they’re liberal lefties who don’t like other opinions, it’s because people are spouting obvious mistruths.)

“The media/mainstream media has done a job in making the public believe that all asylum seekers are coming to the UK rather than staying in continental Europe, but it’s not true.

UNHCR info here:

In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510). When compared with the EU+, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44, 190 – including main applicants and dependents). This equates to 8% of the total asylum applicants across the EU+ and UK combined over that period, or the 18th largest intake when measured per head of population.
Germany, France, Spain and Italy accounted for around 70% of all first-time applicants in the EU-27. These figures include all asylum applicants, not just main applicants (i.e. including children and other dependents). World-wide around 85% of all refugees live in developing regions , not in wealthy industrialised countries, and 73% of refugees displaced abroad live in countries neighbouring their countries of origin.

Do you think we should take zero asylum seekers just because we’re a few miles over to the west? What’s the logic? You think other European counties should shoulder all the burden and we shouldn’t, because the North Sea exists?

Receiving 8% of total asylum applicants should not necessitate this level of hysteria.

@lollipoprainbow

*Lol. How bizarre you believe everyone wants to go to the UK. *Well they clearly do don't they hence the whole discussion ???

Everyone? The entire world population is trying to get into the UK? It’s the bloody DFS sales isn’t it.

@BewareTheLibrarians urgh it's you again. The context was about all immigrants wanting to get into the UK not the entire world population.

@lollipoprainbow

*Lol. How bizarre you believe everyone wants to go to the UK. *Well they clearly do don't they hence the whole discussion ???

Except that the facts demonstrate that they clearly don't. We only take around 8% of the total number of asylum applicants across Europe and the UK. The vast majority never get anywhere near the UK.

Why am I even asking?! We all know why! They know they've got it made over here.

@MurmuratingStarling, would you think you had it made if you had to live wherever you were put, including a room in a hostel dormitory or a shared room in a shitty B&B, with £40.85 per week for subsistence?

But what did some of them have in their own country.

At least they are safe here

Some are staying in hotels and then complain about the food

@Fulmine or hotels with spas and pools ??

@woodhill

But what did some of them have in their own country.

At least they are safe here

Some are staying in hotels and then complain about the food

Perhaps the food made them ill? or an allergic reaction? You don't know the circumstances of any complaint but then post this as if they are all moaning & ungrateful.

As for "safe" (both here and on route) many end up trafficked into sex gangs and slavery, this is one reason why men make the very dangerous journey from their homeland, instead of more vulnerable women and children, conditions in places like Libya are very unsafe.

[quote lollipoprainbow]@BewareTheLibrarians urgh it's you again. The context was about all immigrants wanting to get into the UK not the entire world population. [/quote]
I’m so sorry that my facts make your hyperbole look ridiculous

All immigrants clearly don’t want to get into the UK, as shown by the stats and data people keep posting. And you keep ignoring, so you can carry on demonising people you’ve never met and clearly don’t know much about.