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 conflicted on the issue. Many people who are saying we should allow immigrants into the UK live in largely white, middle class areas. Liberal voting habits. Immigrants don't usually end up living in those areas.

I think we are doing our disadvantaged in society a disservice when we distribute asylum seekers. They can't get the school place they need (maybe a school all the family go to), struggle to get a GP appointment, can't get a hospital appointment etc. There are sometimes groups of young men congregating outside hostels.

I really don't think liberal, white, middle class people would be happy if Hugo, Lottie or sone other middle class child didn't get their school place due to a large Somalian family arriving last minute. Would they be happy for their thirteen year old daughter to walk to guides past a gang of Afghani men? Would they want their child to do worse in school because the class has to accommodate many EAL students who need to catch up? Liberal left wing people are often keen for their own child to make good progress.

If you are then why not try to find space in a naice area for the hostel? Or is it only ok to welcome a load of young men to deprived areas?

I do however feel very sorry for people coming from areas like Afghanistan or Syria. We need to stop interfering in other countries & dropping bombs. I don't know what the answer is.

@SleeplessInEngland

Patel in the commons now saying the government "has done more than any other in recent history to support those fleeing persecution, conflict, or instability."

Not even the most insane tory believes this, so why even pretend?

But that's the problem, isn't it? If broad statements like this are fair game for lying why bother ever telling the truth?

Extraordinary.

Last November, Patel told the House of Commons that the Nationality and Borders Bill would create safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, meaning that they would no longer have to turn to traffickers and take dangerous boat journeys.

Two months ago, Patel told the Home Affairs Select Committee that there were no safe routes for asylum seekers other than those from Syria and Afhanistan, but that they were creating them.

Last week, she admitted she had misled Parliament, there was no provision in the bill for safe routes, and they still had done fuck all to create them.

And now she claims they've done more than any other to protect those fleeing persecution. You only have to look at every other country's asylum figures to see that that is arrant nonsense. Her claims is only possibly true if you interpret "recent history" as meaning "within the last 5 minutes", and it probably isn't even true then.

It's all part of the big con. This will play well with the far right wing, but not anyone with a brain. How can Tory MPs seriously sit there and cheer this nonsense on?

I'm not a Tory btw & have no time for Boris or Priti. I think this has been rolled out to deflect from party gate.

@converseandjeans I really agree with you on the distribution issue. It causes problems on both sides, but again there seems to be little political will to make it more fair, and not affect disadvantaged areas unfairly.

@Fulmine It looks even worse written down like that What’s the point of ever believing anything they say?

@BewareTheLibrarians

Here you go:

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.

That above is all from the UNHCR website.

For your second q, why the UK? Shared language - hard to get a good job in France if you don’t speak French. No job = no house, no food.

They may have a family member (this is spouse or child only) although the number of family reunion visas isn’t that high.

They may have been lied to by people traffickers (who want their money after all!) that the UK will give you free benefits and a house as soon as you arrive. When you’re in a tent in Calais that the police keep burning down, that probably sounds quite good.

I’d imagine none of those sound like good enough reasons in some people’s eyes. But the UK is a developed “rich” country and has responsibilities as a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention. And those responsibilities add up to… 8%. It’s not “overwhelming” in a numbers term, but must feel overwhelming when the government does nothing to stop places in Kent for eg being overwhelmed, does nothing to speed up asylum claims to save money on accommodation etc.

That bad feeling is all caused by government mismanagement, but they do nothing to fix it. Why?

The UK doesn’t have 8% of Europe’s land mass, it doesn’t have 8% of Europe’s wealth, so if anything we’re doing more than enough taking 8% of the total number of asylum seekers… it does have a higher population density than Germany, France, Spain and Italy, and we’re a much smaller country. So it’s absolutely right that we take fewer than those countries do.

Having personally learned French (not fluently, but I wasn’t living in France at the time) and survived a non-fatal drowning, I can safely say learning French was the far easier of the two.

If they have a spouse or a child in the UK, shouldn’t they be able to enter through legal channels (no pun intended)?

Would they have to live in a tent in Calais if they claimed asylum in France?

Bewarethelibrarians

The fair thing to do would be to allocate housing & school places to asylum seekers in more affluent areas to spread the burden.

It just seems liberal voters want something to happen knowing they won't on a personal level be affected.

You only have to see how worked up people get about school places to realise they don't actually want their own children to sit in classrooms with a diverse mix. The over subscribed schools tend to be white & middle class 🤷🏻‍♀️

It is much much easier to work in the "informal" economy here than it is in France. In France it is frowned upon and people can be sent to prison for employing workers "on the black" as they call it.
Here we have almost zero enforcement (of anything) so it's much easier to find work. Also Englsih may harder to learn but it's more widely used.

@converseandjeans Given that the people in Kent currently don’t have a choice, I’d say the affluent areas would just have to suck it up.

The important point being that there’s not such a huge influx (if spread out properly) that no white kid will never get a school place again. We need to be clear that we’re talking about asylum seekers only here, not other types of migrant which makes a big difference to how the numbers are perceived.

The UK’s not doing that badly, although it might depend which metric you used? This one has the UK second, others have the UK 3rd on GDP, and ranking highly on total wealth. Although I appreciate that it doesn’t feel like it right now with cost of living increases etc. Please correct me if I’m wrong though.

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180511-1

Quick q re the French and the drowning (That must have been so scary to go through, hope you’re OK now.) The time periods are a bit different - if you need money now so you don’t starve, you’d probably don’t have the time to become proficient enough in that language to work.

If they have a spouse or child then yes, then can enter legally. I think there’s more in the link I posted upthread.

@converseandjeans

Bewarethelibrarians

The fair thing to do would be to allocate housing & school places to asylum seekers in more affluent areas to spread the burden.

It just seems liberal voters want something to happen knowing they won't on a personal level be affected.

You only have to see how worked up people get about school places to realise they don't actually want their own children to sit in classrooms with a diverse mix. The over subscribed schools tend to be white & middle class 🤷🏻‍♀️

The over subscribed schools tend to be white & middle class 🤷🏻‍♀️ I don't think that's universally true. DD's school is in a naice area but is exceptionally diverse and oversubscribed.

How many jumpsuits does Jane own

What IS the answer then ?

I agree, I think we waste a lot if money I this area. Pricing Patel has done nothing to speed up the time taken to process claims and instead has decided to waste a shit ton more of taxpayers money on a hare brained, ill thought out scheme with no evidence to say it will solve the problem.

To push this through despite people with expertise saying it won't work takes a special kind of stupidity and self importance mix.