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.

@Whiskyinajar it was extremely successful in Australia.

I feel so sorry for people desperate to come here. I wish I could bloody get out!!

Money initial payment of £120 million for pilot scheme they can invest in their economy and development.

Actually, @Whiskyinajar, it did work in Australia, and Australia now selects the migrants it wants.

Nobody is suggesting that all migration is bad, just that uncontrolled migration is a recipe for resentment. The outpouring of goodwill towards Ukrainian refugees is because the offer of refuge is limited to women and children, and because most will want to return to Ukraine when it is safe.

I don't understand. If you were an asylum seeker escaping either persecution or war and in fear for your life, why then go on to make the extremely dangerous journey across the Channel in a small boat? Surely you would claim asylum in the first safe country you came to, Europe for example? Why is GB safer than those countries? Can someone explain that to me because I'm dammed if I understand it.

Actually, @Whiskyinajar, it did work in Australia, and Australia now selects the migrants it wants.

If by worked do you mean the over 80% prevalence of mental health issues, self-harm, and suicide attempts amongst facility residents? The high instance rate of abuse? Staff demanding sexual favours from residents in exchange for basic rights such as access to showers as food? Children making up 18% of the population and those same children being the victim in over 51% of all sexual assault complaints? The facilities being described by doctors as "the worst they've ever seen" and universally condemned by humanitarian groups, human rights organisations, and the UN?

Rip roaring success.

@mumofone63, the UK is more attractive than other safe countries most of the EU because it doesn't have an identity card system requiring proof of identity and entitlements. And because English is the world's number one second language.

I have some genuine questions for the people who say “ we need safe legal routes to asylum in the UK so ppl dont need to come across the Channel”

1. bearing in mind the existing housing shortage and pressure on public services, do you think there should be any limit at all on immigration or should it be unlimited to anyone who wants or needs it?

2. if you do not think there should be unlimited immigration, what should the limit be? What should happen when we reach that limit?

3. if you think there should not be unlimited immigration, how do you stop those who do not qualify for “safe legal routes” ( or those who turn up after the limit has been reached) from attempting to cross the Channel in small boats with people smugglers?

I’ve been thinking. Anyone remember Boris’ “bus” stunt? “I like building model buses” or something to screw with a bus related scandal?

I’m wondering whether this entirely pointless Rwanda dead cat is doing double duty in burying something Rwanda
-related.

Not that I’m deeply suspicious of this cynical government or owt.

In a different sector, France can't offshore its remote data processing to India or the Philippines because French isn't a global second language, so there are fewer cheap offshoring options.

It's never going to happen. And I think the government knows this which is why Boris referenced lawyers in his speech. The second the government says to an asylum seeker "Right, you're off to Rwanda" the human rights lawyers will swoop in - rightfully - and tie the whole thing up in court until we get the Tories get their hands slapped by the Court of Human Rights (again). It's all pointless and expensive but the DM readers will get a super hard rage boner out of it all and call Boris their hero, which I suppose makes it all worth it.

@mumofone63

I don't understand. If you were an asylum seeker escaping either persecution or war and in fear for your life, why then go on to make the extremely dangerous journey across the Channel in a small boat? Surely you would claim asylum in the first safe country you came to, Europe for example? Why is GB safer than those countries? Can someone explain that to me because I'm dammed if I understand it.

If you speak English, or already have friends or family here, you are more likely to be able to settle in and find a job. French-speaking migrants (ie from Africa) tend to stay in France. Kurds and Syrians go to Germany. Italy gets the people crossing the Med from North Africa.

Honestly, if you were seeking asylum would you choose US/Canada/Aus/NZ, or Iceland, Finland, Italy, Israel?

I don't understand. If you were an asylum seeker escaping either persecution or war and in fear for your life, why then go on to make the extremely dangerous journey across the Channel in a small boat? Surely you would claim asylum in the first safe country you came to, Europe for example? Why is GB safer than those countries? Can someone explain that to me because I'm dammed if I understand it.

They might have family for friends here, or are making the journey with someone who does.

They might speak English and so would prefer to be in an English-speaking country.

They might have been told there is a job waiting for them.

They might have experienced racism or other discrimination in the first safe country they arrived in (e.g., homophobia).

The first safe country might still be too close to where they are fleeing from, people in stressful situation don't always make rational choices or decisions.

The people smugglers might have told them that they are to work off their debt and they're being sent to Britain to do so (nail bars and hand car washes are two such business that are often fronts employing people trafficked by smugglers).

There are a million reasons, none of which are worthy of being deported to Rwanda - a country with numerous documented human right abuses and no health service - to live in a government facility.

@GreenLunchBox

I feel so sorry for people desperate to come here. I wish I could bloody get out!!

You and me both.

@Hospedia, all sensible reasons for choosing the UK as a destination. But you give no reason why we are obliged to accept the migrants who have 'chosen' to honor the UK with their presence. Where do you propose to accommodate new arrivals? My county already has more families seeking affordable accommodation than is available to rent.

@Hospedia, so to the extent those conditions were caused by the treatment experienced as refugees, the obvious response is that they would have done better to stay put and improve the conditions locally, using their energy at home. But no, most would have seen their overseas future through rose-tinted lenses and bought the dream of a better life.

The better life is the one we create for ourselves, at home, with our own customs and the reason that people move is because of criminal/tribal/despotic rulers -- who are rarely the product of colonial or imperial legacy.

[quote XingMing]@Hospedia, all sensible reasons for choosing the UK as a destination. But you give no reason why we are obliged to accept the migrants who have 'chosen' to honor the UK with their presence. Where do you propose to accommodate new arrivals? My county already has more families seeking affordable accommodation than is available to rent.[/quote]
The U.K. hosts less than 1% of the worlds refugees and displaced people.
Turkey hosts nearly 4 million refugees.
Lebanon is about the size of Wales and hosts about 1.5 million
Columbia currently hosts 1.7 million

About 80% of refugees stay in the local region.

A tiny, tiny minority reach the worlds 5th richest nation and people bleat that we don't have the resources to help those few (relatively) who come to us for refuge and sanctuary.

Makes me weep.

@GatoradeMeBitch

It's never going to happen. And I think the government knows this which is why Boris referenced lawyers in his speech. The second the government says to an asylum seeker "Right, you're off to Rwanda" the human rights lawyers will swoop in - rightfully - and tie the whole thing up in court until we get the Tories get their hands slapped by the Court of Human Rights (again). It's all pointless and expensive but the DM readers will get a super hard rage boner out of it all and call Boris their hero, which I suppose makes it all worth it.

We can't even get convicted rapists on a plane back to their country of birth without m'learned friend intervening.

@Edmontosaurus

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.

This is it in a nutshell.

Facts and figures for this interested

www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html

www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html

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

82 million displaced people in the world.
The U.K. offered protection to almost 14, 750 of those 82 million in 2021.

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

Given the UK asylum system tests people's claims of being gay so rigorously that some gay asylum seekers have felt it necessary to film themselves having sex with other men in order to be believed, I don't think that would be an easy option.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24479812

@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.

But the process for determining if someone is a genuine refugee is the asylum process.

These people will be sent to Rwanda without going through that process, so they will have no chance to demonstrate that they are genuine refugees.

[quote XingMing]@Hospedia, all sensible reasons for choosing the UK as a destination. But you give no reason why we are obliged to accept the migrants who have 'chosen' to honor the UK with their presence. Where do you propose to accommodate new arrivals? My county already has more families seeking affordable accommodation than is available to rent.[/quote]
Lebanon: 6.8 million population, GDP per capita $5000, 1.5 million refugees

UK: 67 million population, GDP per capita $40,000, 135,000 refugees

Just admit you don't want people fleeing from war to have somewhere safe to live. It's as simple as that. Don't pretend we couldn't accommodate them if we wanted to.

I assumed exactly the same thing and was horrified to find out I was wrong. The policy sounds unworkable anyway as asylum seekers will be ‘encouraged’ to settle there which makes it sound like they can’t enforce it. Who in their right mind is going to do that rather than insist on coming back to the U.K.

It’s not supposed to be a workable policy anyway, it’s a massive dead cat to distract from partygate.

It was very much brushed over they'd send them to a third country if their claim was successful.

I didn't cotton on at first.

They focussed very much on the word "processing". Made out they'd go their first processing - which is actually true (shocking from this government!).
However you're right once processed there is no return