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?

The death penalty won't happen (just like this scheme won't happen) but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it starts being talked about as if it could

@Puzzledandpissedoff

If anyone has actually read the article properly ...

But many don't, Georgeskitchen; what they enjoy instead is a few trigger words ("refugees, human rights, Tories, etc.), a bit of virtue signalling and a good old Godwins Law froth about nazis

If there was the slightest chance of this happening I'd be as appalled as the rest, but for now it seems just a silly distraction technique - and looking at the fuss it seems to be working

what should people do then when our leader publicly details the intended plan? If we don't condemn these plans and pretend they're never going to happen we wake up one day and find they're being carried out.

@Fishwishy

I'm glad the government are starting to get to grips with our soft touch on immigration. This needed doing years ago and has been a major political headache for ages as it is a popular position outside of the chattering ladies of Mumsnet who are hardly representative of the electorate as a whole.

It's actually myth that treating asylum seekers poorly is a popular vote winner. Voter attitues towards immigration have massively relaxed post-brexit (one of the few, albeit unintended, cosequences of it).

And it never works for the tories anyway - the boats will still come and the small demographic who lose their minds over it get even angrier they were duped. There's a reason Priti Patel is sitting bottom on the party membership satisfaction table.

It is a crap solution to a massive problem which is sadly unsolvable within the current cultural/legal framework. It is Priti's way of demonstrating to the voters that she is a real badass and has THE solution of a generation. Of course, it won't get off the ground but it won't destroy her career prospects in the process.

Australia does have a similar system. From where I am it looks like a way of shoving refugees somewhere out of sight basically hoping they will either die or go away. Read on the BBC that only people from "countries like Syria or Afghanistan" will be sent to Rwanda. Does this mean that white, non-muslim refugees will be treated differently then?

I'm not convinced that they're actually seriously considering this. It sounds more like an attention-grabbing headline to get people talking about something other than partygate. It seems to have worked.

We could set up a proper scheme for people to apply or asylum in our foreign embassies.

This would be good, and is something that this government seems unwilling to do. And as they’re unwilling to do this, the number of asylum seekers making unsafe journeys will increase. The government could improve this, they just choose not to.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/channel-migrants-dinghy-tragedy-johnson-b1964477.html?amp

More perspective here, useful for those posters who keep saying asylum seekers are coming to the UK illegally. (Writer is David Simmonds, Conservative MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and chair of the APPG on Migration.)

“We must also be mindful of our tone and language in this debate. The people that are crossing the Channel are not ‘illegal immigrants’. Those crossing the Channel are allowed under our laws to seek refuge in the United Kingdom. It is only once they reach our shores that they have their asylum claims processed. If they are successful, they are deemed as refugees, and it is only if they are unsuccessful that they are deemed to have no legal status to be in our country.”

“The government must ensure that applications are decided within a 6-month period and where they are not, asylum seekers must be given the right to work so they are not left languishing, with no way to contribute to our society. Lifting the ban on asylum seekers working would also contribute hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the public purse.”

“It is only by bringing in safe and legal routes, enhancing cooperation with our international counterparts and smashing the business model of the evil people smugglers can we ensure that such a horrific tragedy does not take place again.”

www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/safe-and-legal-routes-must-be-a-pillar-of-our-asylum-system

If it's a deterent, why will it cost £120m?

Surely after a few weeks there'll be no more need? If it works.

The opposite happened in Australia and the scheme increased numbers.

Fucking horrific. Every time it’s a new low they find a way to go lower.

@OctopusSay

Which court, now we're not in Europe? Genuine question, I don't know the answer, but this was one of my (many) fears over leaving.

Well you can cross that worry off your list -

ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/whats-the-difference-between-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-the-european-court-of-human-rights-and-the-european-court-of-justice/

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its European Court of Human Rights are part of a completely different legal system to the EU. The ECHR and its court are part of the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, including Russia and the UK. The EU, on the other hand, consists of 27 Member States. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the body responsible for overseeing compliance with EU law within the EU.

Interestingly, the government's own website advises that if you're LGBT you shouldn't travel to Rwanda. So that's good.

There's also the fact the people with viable options do not tend to get on unsafe, overloaded boats with a high risk of drowning during the crossing. They're desperate people who see it as the least shitty option of several shitty options. This scheme isn't going to deter them.

It's a complex issue but I'd start with a vast increase in Police and Border force numbers. One powerful pull factor to coming here is the almost total lack of enforcement of any laws, ever

It's a good idea on the face of it, but if the slighest hindrance is placed in the way of potential deportees I guarantee there'll be howls of protest from some.
You only have to look at what happened at Stansted, where those due to be removed included murderers, child rapists and more - and even then the protesters were pardoned because it was said they were acting with "genuine motives"

Saw this on Twitter

Three points on Rwanda policy.

1. Last year Australia spent £461m to process 239 asylum seekers offshore
2. The UK is spending £120m
3. 600 people crossed the Channel on Wednesday

So either this is a stunt, to deter and ease political pressure or a lot more money will be needed

I don't believe this is actually going to happen. It's a disgusting cynical dogwhisle to the far right, to noth deflect from Big Dog's myriad problems and shore up the right wing vote, because that is the only vote they are going to get going forward.

I am very very glad I left.

@MythicalBiologicalFennel

Australia does have a similar system. From where I am it looks like a way of shoving refugees somewhere out of sight basically hoping they will either die or go away. Read on the BBC that only people from "countries like Syria or Afghanistan" will be sent to Rwanda. Does this mean that white, non-muslim refugees will be treated differently then?

Is that not just where most asylum seekers come from right now though? I'm not sure there are many asylum seekers coming from white-majority countries are there?

Apparently (according to the article) more than 28000 people crossed the channel this was last year and this facility will be able to deal with up to 100 at a time, 500 pa and cost £120m. Is that pa? To set up? Forever?

So even if it was a great idea, it will barely scratch the surface anyway. And how will it be a deterent if the chances of going to Rwanda are far lower than not going to Rwanda?

@theDudesmummy

I don't believe this is actually going to happen. It's a disgusting cynical dogwhisle to the far right, to noth deflect from Big Dog's myriad problems and shore up the right wing vote, because that is the only vote they are going to get going forward.

I am very very glad I left.

Agree. They have no intention of actually implementing this.

@SleeplessInEngland

Interestingly, the government's own website advises that if you're LGBT you shouldn't travel to Rwanda. So that's good.

According to Boris, Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world!

Is that not just where most asylum seekers come from right now though? I'm not sure there are many asylum seekers coming from white-majority countries are there?

Ukraine?

@Hospedia

There's also the fact the people with viable options do not tend to get on unsafe, overloaded boats with a high risk of drowning during the crossing. They're desperate people who see it as the least shitty option of several shitty options. This scheme isn't going to deter them.

I have to admit I don't fully understand this position. Yes, of course re crossing the Med, but it doesn't make sense for crossing the Channel.

I understand of course, why they'd prefer to be in UK, where they'll often know people and have some of the language, but why is it still worth such dire risk to life once they're safe in France or elsewhere in Europe?

What should people do then when our leader publicly details the intended plan?

Simple - treat it like all the other attention-seeking nonsense he spouts, but keep an eye on anything that really matters to see what comes next

9 times out of 10 nothing will happen once the headline's been relished and possibly a few backhanders doled out, and in the few cases where anything really does start up, that's the time to start getting enraged

Ukrainians aren't asylum seekers. There's a very careful distinction.

I don't know about English lessons but they would be better off training Tom Daley style in multi-sports:
rowing (across the Channel) /swimming (just in case you fall off the dinghy) /cycling (well, you never know!) / ultramarathon (sprint into Kent before Border Force catch you and send you to Rwanda).
Of course, the majority of takers will be young male economic migrants but there will be a hell of a lot more of them than before.