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.

@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.

The notion of the DM readers with super hard rage boners is quite terrifying, but also very funny.

Where do you propose to accommodate new arrivals?

I'd rather they were accommodated humanely in the UK instead of thr government implementing a plan so shit that even the Nazis rejected it, a plan that involves human fucking beings being shipped to a country known for its human rights abuses where they may as well be handed directly over to people traffickers as this plan is such a boon for them.

@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".

Its not a left right issue, its a right/wrong or workable/unworkable if you like.

So what Israel found was that the migrants sent to Rwanda, disappeared into the hands of people traffickers and ended up back in Europe, well those that didn't die did.

In the case of the UK, we have said this new policy will apply to men, so the people traffickers will move onto to Women, putting them at risk of the traffickers and of course sexual abuse... and yet you on the right are all ok with this.

France takes 3 x as many migrants as we do, even inc the channel crossing one's, bigger country but the costs to house, educate employment etc is the same.

This situation is one of our own making, pre Brexit, very few tried to sail across the channel, why? because eco migrants could be sent back to Europe, our choice to do or not, was immaterial, we could.

This policy is also a distraction from the 2.8 to 5m HK Chinese BJ has invited in, by changing the law.

In the case of the UK, we have said this new policy will apply to men, so the people traffickers will move onto to Women, putting them at risk of the traffickers and of course sexual abuse... and yet you on the right are all ok with this

They haven't said exclusively men, they've said "mostly" men. That "mostly" gives them wiggle room to send women and accompanied children if they so choose.

And you're right. Instead of the men coming first so they can settle and then send for the women and children (who would apply on the basis that they have a family member in the country), the women and children will come first and the people traffickers will play on that so the boats will become filled with mainly women and children. I wonder how many people will still support the policy when small children and their mothers start washing up on the beaches.

And it galls that government had the nerve to mention cabinet members descended from refugees and migrants in their statement on this when, under current government rules, those people wouldn't have gotten into the country and under this new policy would probably find themselves in Rwanda instead.

There are a million reasons, none of which are worthy of being deported to Rwanda - a country with ... no health service

I'm not sure if I agree with the government's proposal or not (I haven't made up my mind yet) but Rwanda's healthcare provision gets some pretty good reviews here:

World Health Organization December 2019

Rwanda: the beacon of Universal Health Coverage in Africa.

www.afro.who.int/news/rwanda-beacon-universal-health-coverage-africa

European Commission April 2020

Rwanda’s health sector has been a great African success story, with integrated services in health facilities, and subsidised premiums and co-payments of health insurance for over two million of the poorest Rwandans. Over 90% of Rwandans are covered by the national scheme, making it one of the few developing countries in the world that has successfully achieved universal healthcare.

ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/stories/supporting-health-systems-across-africa_en

If you were to calculate the figures by population size and density, the UK may take what you view as a miniscule share, but there are nearly 70million people on a smallish island here, already fairly tightly packed in if you want to allow some space for agriculture and food security. France (for a local example) has four times the landmass of the UK, with a similar sized population at much lower density rates, a comparable standard of living, education, health and income, and an equally liberal outlook.

I think we should help women and children fleeing conflict zones with refuge, but rather than men fleeing, they should be working to change opinions democratically in their home countries so they can live the life they want, rather than opting into a comfier, wealthier version of their homeland. If that means they have to stay and fight for regime change, so be it. We had our civil war in 1642, and established an increasingly democratic state from then, accumulated over nearly 400 years.

From the Foreign Office information page on Rwanda:

Only limited medical facilities are available in Rwanda. In the event of serious accident or illness evacuation by air ambulance to Kenya or South Africa may be required.

@Postcardsender

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?

why would safe legal routes increase the number of asylum seekers? I don’t think anyone proposing safe routes is proposing unlimited immigration. That would be bonkers. I’ve seen that mentioned a few times now that safe routes/resettlement = unlimited immigration. Where is that lie coming from?

Safe routes can actually help control numbers arriving in the UK, if that’s what the government wants. The numbers that arrive by boat crossings are unpredictable and uncontrollable. So I’d have to ask why the government prefers the second method and not the first, if they really are “strong on immigration”.

2. someone who gets paid a lot more than me will have to make that decision

3. I don’t think that’s possible, but safe routes would hugely reduce the need, and as a consequence reduce human trafficking and people smuggling.

We had our civil war in 1642, and established an increasingly democratic state from then, accumulated over nearly 400 years

Who's "we"? I, personally, was not around in 1642 and can't say I did much work towards democracy in the intervening 400 years either.

@XingMing I do understand the sentiment behind your thoughts, but in certain countries the men are targeted, which is why they’re leaving. Take Eritrea for e.g. Life is awful for most except the richest in Eritrea, but men leave more often than women as women face the huge risk of sexual violence, rape and trafficking on the journey. Men are also forced into “conscription” which is not far of life long slavery.

“Eritrea’s government is extraordinarily repressive, subjecting its population to widespread forced labor and conscription, imposing restrictions on freedom of expression, opinion, and faith, and restricting independent scrutiny by international monitors. As a one-man dictatorship under President Isaias Afewerki, Eritrea has no legislature, no independent civil society organizations or media outlets, and no independent judiciary. Elections have never been held in the country since it gained independence in 1993, and the government has never implemented the 1997 constitution guaranteeing civil rights and limiting executive power.”

www.hrw.org/africa/eritrea

Because of the enforced conscription of men:

“Many children are brought up without their fathers because their fathers are tied up in conscription for life,” she says. “The whole family unit is completely broken. You see all the unaccompanied children leaving because they don’t want to have a miserable life like their fathers and brothers, so what do they do? They run away. Everybody is running away.”

amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/21/escaping-eritrea-migrant-if-i-die-at-sea-at-least-i-wont-be-tortured

How can they change this system from the inside?

Not you, nor me because I'm only 65, but as a state. Most modern western states have had civil wars to establish the freedoms we enjoy as by right now. France in 1789, Italy and Germany only became nations in the 19th century. Much of the world has yet to pass the same thresholds to universal suffrage, established property rights and legal franchise yet the model appeals to most sensible fair-minded people the world over, and why wouldn't it? Of course I understand that if you are rich enough or young enough or sufficiently aggressive, you might try to force your way into a better world.

I think an interesting point is in relation to the OP and opinion polls on this.

There have been 2 opinion polls on this with contradicting results. Naturally, the media have only reported generally on the poll that they agree with.

I would imagine that the contradicting result suggests that the public don't know as much about the details - which could explain the contradictory results.

I wonder how much people actually know about the situation in countries where people are fleeing from. the number of refugees in the world, the number in different countries and the number who we agree to accept for asylum and the resigns why.

Would knowing these facts affect people's views?

Hospedia
From the Foreign Office information page on Rwanda

Also states:
According to Rwandan law, any person on Rwandan territory must have health insurance.

In your previous post you said Rwanda has no health service.

From the WHO link:
For each Rwandan, Universal Health Coverage (UHC) means that all people have access to the health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. It includes the full range of essential health services, from health promotion to prevention, treatment and care to minimize out of pocket payment. Those who can afford the Mutuelle will pay for it and those who can’t, will receive financial support from the government. The “Mutuelle de Santé” is a national pride that empowers everybody.

Vaccination is the epitome of Universal Coverage (UHC) in Rwanda.
Another accomplishment in the country: vaccination. The country has a 93% vaccination coverage rate.

Are the WHO and the European Commission lying?

Let's hope LGBT people fleeing persecution don't get sent to Rwanda

www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/rwanda/local-laws-and-customs

LGBT issues
Homosexuality is not illegal in Rwanda but remains frowned on by many. LGBT individuals can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities. There are no specific anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT individuals. See our information and advice page for the LGBT community before you travel.

It's not about race or religion. It's the reasons for the English Civil War which is glossed over in school history. The argument that the monarch ruled by Divine Right and had absolute power versus the view that the monarch ruled with the consent of elected representatives of the people. Leave aside that only men who owned property could vote until 1832, and that women did not get the vote until 1930. Or the American Civil War. People took sides, and most agree that the resulting societies are better places as a result. Freer, kinder, more open and inclusive than what preceded them. even if it is imperfect. Nobody intelligent wants to go back to those days, but it seems (IMO) that it's not a phase that can just be skipped over.

@XingMing how can Eritreans overthrow their government or start a civil war in the situation I outlined above re Eritrea?

@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.

Sure.

People who originally came to the UK to seek asylum made up an estimated 0.6% of the UK's total resident population in 2019. COVID-19 substantially reduced asylum seeking in the UK in 2020, and prevented almost all refugee resettlement.

We really do not have a large number of refugees here.

On average 0.95% of the uk population die each year.

That is for Eritreans to work out, surely? How did the Parliamentarians in 1642 decide that they would rebel against King Charles 1 without the Internet? More people wanted something better than the status quo, and felt strongly enough to fight their brothers and cousins for what they thought was fairer?

I haven't formed a set opinion on this yet - and indeed had to rub my eyes and drink more coffee to ensure I had heard it right.

An important point for me is that any 'illegal migrants' seeking Asylum who are 'offshored' for processing in Rwanda still have the chance to be granted 'legal entry' to the UK once all their info/case has been presented. I've searched for any confirmations either way on this but have yet to find that specific info.

Personally I think the whole thing has just been created as a vehicle to get rid of the human rights act and out of ECHR.

@TheHateIsNotGood

I haven't formed a set opinion on this yet - and indeed had to rub my eyes and drink more coffee to ensure I had heard it right.

An important point for me is that any 'illegal migrants' seeking Asylum who are 'offshored' for processing in Rwanda still have the chance to be granted 'legal entry' to the UK once all their info/case has been presented. I've searched for any confirmations either way on this but have yet to find that specific info.

You need the memorandum of understanding

www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r

I can't see much about the chance to get back to the UK

Firmly on the Parliament side in the English Civil War personally. If that matters.

I wasn’t aware that people were under enforced conscription under King Charles 1, so not the most comparable situation.

If your argument is just that people need to “try harder” to not be forcibly conscripted then, sorry that’s a fairy tale. And as for protesting and trying to fix things from the inside:

“A prominent group of fifteen Eritreans, called the G-15, including three cabinet members, were arrested in September 2001 after publishing an open letter to the government and President Isaias Afewerki calling for democratic dialogue. This group and thousands of others who were alleged to be affiliated with them are imprisoned without legal charges, hearing, trial and judgment.”

Thousands imprisoned for asking for democratic dialogue. That’s what they’re up against.

Hopefully for Eritreans, leaving the country will give them the freedom, headspace and means to return and overthrow the dictatorship. Already the number of refugees arriving in Europe has raised awareness of the situation in their country, which will also help.

Bit two faced of mumsnet- rushing to take in Ukrainian refugees, less so for Syrians.
The public, even the left wingers, don’t really want migrants of black or Middle Eastern ethnicity- no one cares - but I doubt anyone will actually be sent.