Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Just when you think this government can't get any worse - now they are going to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

639 replies

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 14/04/2022 08:25

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Choopi · 14/04/2022 12:11

@AlexaShutUp

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?

They aren't asylum seekers.
Flapjacker48 · 14/04/2022 12:13

The Tories are clever - there is some hand-wringing on places like MN and Twitter about this, but they know the vast majority of voters do want immigration reduced, especially illegal immigration. Watch Labour struggle to say anything coherent about this without it descending into verbose, vague statements compare this to:

"Boris and the Tories want to reduce immigration and care about women - they have my vote!"

However true/practical this it will appeal to the electorate.

Fulmine · 14/04/2022 12:14

@Babdoc

It is all very well to condemn the plan to send them to Rwanda, but what is your alternative? The UK does not have sufficient housing for our own population. Waiting lists for council accommodation are soaring, houses are unaffordable, and we are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. Migrant numbers would involve building a new city every year. And that doesn’t include provision for their future children. So what do you suggest, OP?
Not actually true. We do have sufficient housing for own population, the problem is that our housing system is incredibly inefficient.
AlexaShutUp · 14/04/2022 12:14

They aren't asylum seekers.

Only because we have chosen to give them visas before they arrive. If we did the same for other refugees, then they wouldn't be asylum seekers either. The principal is the same.

SleeplessInEngland · 14/04/2022 12:14

@Soffit

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.
Sounds exhausting. If someone's willing to go through all that then good luck to 'em.
theDudesmummy · 14/04/2022 12:15

One of my roles for many years has been working with mentally disordered offenders, many of whom are "illegals" ie have no residence status. It is extremely common (and rightly so) for the human rights/immigration lawyers be able to resist deportation on mental health grounds, if the country the patient is to be deported to has a lesser mental health care system and/or medication vital to the person's health are not available here (or are only available for sums which are outside the person's means). Rwanda is one such country. Many asylum seekers have mental health problems. The lawyers will fight this scheme all the way (if it is a real thing, which I seriously doubt) and it will be untenable.

Unless the UK is intending to set up a health care service in Rwanda which rivals NHS services and has the same very expensive medications available? I don't think so.

GatoradeMeBitch · 14/04/2022 12:17

They've signed the agreement. I imagine both political sides will be keen to get it going. It has an unpleasant colonial whiff about it though, delegating our issues to an African country. It's very clearly a threat, not something organized with anyone's welfare in mind. But DM readers will be thrilled that we're sending some people with dark skin off to Africa - it literally sounds like a plan made up by bigots in a pub.

And we haven't been told anything about the Rwanda side. Unsuccessful applicants - apparently all men - will be urged to begin a new life there. What do people from Rwanda think about this?

I think if this happens it's going to make us look shameful as a country.

OctopusSay · 14/04/2022 12:17

@AlexaShutUp

They aren't asylum seekers.

Only because we have chosen to give them visas before they arrive. If we did the same for other refugees, then they wouldn't be asylum seekers either. The principal is the same.

It's not. Asylum seekers are escaping political persecution.

Refugees are usually escaping war.

Neither will typically have a visa.

Choopi · 14/04/2022 12:17

Only because we have chosen to give them visas before they arrive. If we did the same for other refugees, then they wouldn't be asylum seekers either. The principal is the same.

Of course. Temporary visas could be offered to Afghans and Syrians too. I think a lot people would be in favour in this. A year or 2 in the UK then off you go back home.

MarriedThreeChildren · 14/04/2022 12:18

Do you remember 5 years ago when the tories were all supporting LePen in the French elections and going on how great they were and had the same ideas than them etc…?
Did no one then realised that LePen is the far right and therefore it means that Tories are now a far right party?

Are you all just realising that?

Fwiw the idea of sending people to Rwanda is not new. Patel tried a few different countries before. Maybe she found one now that would agree for money, who knows.
Why sending people to Rwanda is less acceptable then sending to Cyprus, whatever isolated island in the Atlantic etc… I’m nit sure though. The aim and the result is the same.

theDudesmummy · 14/04/2022 12:18

@OctopusSay many of them have relatives in the UK. So it could be the difference between living an undignified homeless existence in a camp in Calais or sleeping on your cousins's sofa in Birmingham. I know which I would choose.

Fulmine · 14/04/2022 12:19

@Unphased

Fulmine Yes, set up in Rwanda
How exactly does an appeal system set up in Rwanda work, then, @Unphased? Shall we massively increase legal aid so that appellants' lawyers can access them in Rwanda and go there for appeal hearings? Are we going to send Immigration Judges over to Rwanda? If or when the appeals go in the appellants' favour, how do we enforce them if, for instance, Rwanda doesn't get around to sending them back to the UK?
DowningStreetParty · 14/04/2022 12:20

It’s a completely bizarre and vastly more expensive way of dealing with the issues and it looks like a huge cynical distraction ploy from our shameful lawbreaking PM Boris Johnson. Who should have resigned yesterday.

Soffit · 14/04/2022 12:20

@MarriedThreeChildren

Do you remember 5 years ago when the tories were all supporting LePen in the French elections and going on how great they were and had the same ideas than them etc…? Did no one then realised that LePen is the far right and therefore it means that Tories are now a far right party?

Are you all just realising that?

Fwiw the idea of sending people to Rwanda is not new. Patel tried a few different countries before. Maybe she found one now that would agree for money, who knows.
Why sending people to Rwanda is less acceptable then sending to Cyprus, whatever isolated island in the Atlantic etc… I’m nit sure though. The aim and the result is the same.

Not really. Racism in France is on a completely different level. Our left is probably equivalent to their moderate right. There is a reason why the migrants are passionately against it.
OctopusSay · 14/04/2022 12:20

[quote theDudesmummy]@OctopusSay many of them have relatives in the UK. So it could be the difference between living an undignified homeless existence in a camp in Calais or sleeping on your cousins's sofa in Birmingham. I know which I would choose.[/quote]
Yes, as I said, I understand why they'd prefer to come here, but their situation, once in Europe, is surely no longer one of sheer total desperation where facing death in the Channel is their only option?

MarriedThreeChildren · 14/04/2022 12:21

The whole point of asylums seekers is that
1- they do t have a visa
2- they will come into the country illegally.
3- they are escaping war or death (eg being homosexual in Afghanistan)

That’s what an asylum seeker is. That’s the definition and they have a special status under international law. Saying that those people should have a visa before coming is simply laughable.

Toddlerteaplease · 14/04/2022 12:21

I suppose for the genuine people it's better than risking your like in a tiny boat. But other than that it seems a pretty stupid idea.

AlexaShutUp · 14/04/2022 12:22

@OctopusSay, you are wrong, I'm afraid. I have worked in this area.

Asylum seekers are still waiting for their claims to be evaluated. If they are granted asylum, they then get refugee status.

Fulmine · 14/04/2022 12:23

@Georgeskitchen

If anyone has actually read the article properly it tells you that this is not women and children but single men coming across illegally in boats, mostly economic migrants who if applying legally wouldn't qualify. I don't see a problem with this as many other countries in the world adopt this approach. So as much as some of you would love to believe that this country doesn't rescue the vulnerable fleeing war zones, actually, they do
Being a single male doesn't automatically make anyone an illegal migrant. There's nothing saying how exactly they can come up with a reliable way of weeding out those who are coming illegally from those who are coming legally - other than allowing a full review and appeal system before they contemplate sending anyone to Rwanda. And if you do that, it makes the whole scheme utterly pointless anyway.
OctopusSay · 14/04/2022 12:23

And they're only in camps in Calais because they're trying to get to UK. There are other options.

I mean the whole thing is hideous, I just can't understand the argument that they have no choice about taking such risks in the channel.

Soffit · 14/04/2022 12:24

Our whole system is skewed against any immigration scheme (viable or otherwise) from properly getting off the ground. Until the 'oppression Olympics' is directly addressed, then the migrants can be confidently assured that they will win the game without trying.

theDudesmummy · 14/04/2022 12:24

I dont know much about living in France, the benefits and suppoprt systems there etc, but I do know that it is widely accepted that the general politicak and social environment is to the right of the UK (well, at the moment, UK is trying to catch up clearly) and racism is rife. So I am sure that plays a part in people's decisions. Also the greater usefulness of learning English rather than French.

People also always underestimate risks and think they will be one of the (majority) who "make it" across.

OctopusSay · 14/04/2022 12:26

Yes, but most of them haven't arrived in France. They're only there because of their attempts to get to UK

Again, I understand that as a preference, but not why it should be so strong as to risk life for it.

pussycatunpickingcrossesagain · 14/04/2022 12:27

I honestly had to go into the kitchen and check the date on the calendar...it's not the 1st. 🤯

Soffit · 14/04/2022 12:27

The ideological infection is not just a British problem, it has also been propagated all over the Third World.

The entire history of the world has been entirely reframed as the history of emancipation so nobody will blame the migrants for breaking through every border and barrier they want and relaying their heroic escape tales in 'safe spaces' to hyper-psychologized British aid workers where 'there's no moral judgment' and 'everyone's victimhood is valid'.
It is a foolproof way of destroying a civilization from within.

Swipe left for the next trending thread