To not have realised that the government is NOT planning offshore refugee processing

[PurpleParrotfish]

They want to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, full stop.
Probably my fault for not paying careful enough attention to the news, but a lot of the discussion about this has been based on this misunderstanding.
If anyone makes it to the UK to claim asylum, risking their life to do so in a small boat, the UK will immediately deport them to Rwanda, a country we accept refugees FROM (it can be very dangerous for gay men and lesbians).
Those found to have a genuine refugee claim, maybe who even have family in the UK still won’t be allowed back here.

What did you misunderstand about this?
Agree it is awful

I think a lot of people assumed that if someones asylum claim was upheld they would be returned to the UK

Yes, exactly, what FiveNineFive said. I thought it would be like Australia and Nauru (which is bad enough!).

YANBU, the government announced it in a deceptive way, and most reasonable people would never imagine this is what they're intending!

This will never get off the ground. It's a dead cat to distract from the Partygate fines, nothing more. The HO evidently knew nothing about this a little over a week ago, and yet stick Darth Patel on a plane to Rwanda and suddenly it's legit?

No way this has been run past the Attorney General. It's also another instance of a policy announcement while Parliament is on a break.

As vile as this government is, this is an exercise in deflection and distraction. We have Tory MP's telling us what a wonderful place Rwanda is, and at the same time the government claiming the prospect of being sent there is going to act as a deterrent to migrants?

Even when they are lying through their teeth and trying yet again to sell the public a pile of nonsense they can't even get their story straight and consistent.

It’s foul and yes, I think most people assumed that there’s a filtering / processing way to get into the UK with a valid claim

This is never going to happen.

But the idea is popular with large sections of the electorate - both conservative and labour - especially in poor northern towns where experience of low skilled immigration differs from that of southerners.

Government can claim they have a solution and blame lily livered liberals for scuppering it with legal challenges. Red wall vote reinforced. Win win.

I thought it was a late April fools joke as I couldn't understand how it could be true. Counting down to the next general election as I can't see how this is our future.

It is, I think, a necessary tactic to kill the trafficker/smuggler business model stone dead. It's distasteful and odious if applied to vulnerable people, but I would like to hear alternative ideas from the left that can't be reduced to "let everyone come".

It is only going to be used for economic migrants who do not have a visa - i.e. hopeful illegal immigrants. It is not going to be used for genuine refugees.

These are the people who are attempting to enter the country illegally. We are not going to stop accepting legitimate refugees from war zones

@Tippexy

It is only going to be used for economic migrants who do not have a visa - i.e. hopeful illegal immigrants. It is not going to be used for genuine refugees.

Just an FYI

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

It tells you the statistics of people we grant asylum to.

We grant a lot of people asylum - so I guess they must have a valid reason for us to do that.

Priti Patel has not said who it applies to.

Almost three quarters (72%) of the initial decisions in 2021 were grants (of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave), which is substantially higher than the previous years. For much of the past decade, around a third of initial decisions were grants. The grant rate in 2021 is the highest grant rate in over thirty years (since 82% in 1990).

The overall grant rate can vary for a number of reasons, including the protection needs of those who claim asylum in the UK, along with operational resourcing and policy decisions. Grant rates vary considerably by nationality as the protection needs of specific groups or individuals differ, usually depending on the situation in their home country.

Of nationalities that commonly claim asylum in the UK, Sudanese, Eritreans and Syrians typically have very high grant rates at initial decision (96%, 97% and 99% respectively), while nationals of India, for example, have low grant rates (5%; see Figure 3).

@XingMing

It is, I think, a necessary tactic to kill the trafficker/smuggler business model stone dead. It's distasteful and odious if applied to vulnerable people, but I would like to hear alternative ideas from the left that can't be reduced to "let everyone come".

It won't do a thing to disrupt the trafficker business. People will still want to come to the UK regardless, and the only people who will theoretically be sent to Rwanda are those who are already in the Channel or have successfully made it across.

@Tippexy

It is only going to be used for economic migrants who do not have a visa - i.e. hopeful illegal immigrants. It is not going to be used for genuine refugees.

you so realise that more than 60% of migrants crossing the channel are allowed to stay after claiming asylum?

It's apalling - as is the way the govt chose to announce the move day before the easter break, to avoid scrutiny or debate.
I don't know who is the lowest form of turd, Patel or Johnson.

It won't happen anyway, I wish the press had ignored it and refused to play the game. But yes the suggestion itself is sick

@FiveNineFive

I think a lot of people assumed that if someones asylum claim was upheld they would be returned to the UK

Yes, until this thread that was what I thought!

Don’t know why I’m surprised, I don’t think there’s a level Patel won’t sink to. Having just googled it, it seems the UN has said the British government would be breaking international law by doing this. Although again, not sure why I’m surprised that that isn’t seen as a barrier.

And today Jacob Rees Mogg is doing all the “He is Risen” bollocks.

Yes Jacob but if He turned up here as a refugee, you’d ship off to Rwanda wouldn’t you?

Yes I was aware of the plan…and it goes against everything we have signed up to.

It didn’t work for Australia and it won’t work here either.

It still amazes me that Turkey has nearly 4 million refugees in its country, mainly from Syria.

I wonder how we would react if Turkey decided to send those refugees to Rwanda?

Or another country in Africa?

A lot of the initial reporting suggested that - then more details came out and yes they planning to dump everyone there.

One of the interviewers was asking questions about Afghanistan interpreters who worked with us we failed to get out - they get here by under their own stream - and would this then happen to them - answer seemed to be a reluctant yes. Not sure if that's still the case as or if there's been changes since.

I've also heard reluctant acknowledgement that for some places there are no legal means to get here.

I'm not sure it will actually happen - we may be pouring money into something that has no chance of being allowed by our courts.

What is Rwanda getting out of this?

I think people forget that the situation is out of control and people smugglers are laughing all the way to the bank

At what point will people say enough is enough?

We are a small country and nearly broke I.e. Massive debts post CV19

The opposition moans but does not come up with possible options 😳

@SickAndTiredAgain

What is Rwanda getting out of this?

Money?

@FiveNineFive

I think a lot of people assumed that if someones asylum claim was upheld they would be returned to the UK

I had initially thought this and realised a few days ago that’s not the case.

What’s to stop every asylum seeker saying they’re gay and therefore can’t be sent there?

@SickAndTiredAgain

What is Rwanda getting out of this?

Money but also people. Apparently they have a shortage of working age men. Not sure if that’s related to massacring thousands of people not that long ago.

It's not exactly a new idea, the Blair Government proposed it as long ago as 2003. They didn't specify which country they had in mind, just that it would be outside Europe.