Flight to Rwanda

[lbab1702]

I’d love to get a flight to Rwanda. Beautiful country and people ( I’ve been there before) but I don’t understand why refugees to the U.K. should go there.

But, according to the government, when the asylum claims have been verified the people concerned will be brought back here. So how exactly will that save money?

And why do you assume that every asylum seeker will need support for their lifetimes?

Shoving single migrants in shitty B&Bs and hostels (which is what mostly happens) doesn't cost £12K for a "short time".

No problem with that, but it does rather negate the economic arguments that you are putting forward. And it's something they've kept very quiet about when publicising the policy to their followers - something tells me that those followers won't be quite so keen once the truth dawns.

And, you do have to wonder how come, if Rwanda is such a safe paradise, it can't cater for vulnerable refugees itself.

@AmaryIlis Literally no-one has called for open borders, but this always happens in the absence of a coherent argument, doesn’t it.

“I think the Rwanda plan is fiscally wasteful and morally repugnant.”

”Oh so you want open borders? You want all the immigrants here taking all our houses and money?”

”No, I actually called for safe routes and resettlement schemes upthread, which…”

”Ooooh so you want every tree in the country pulled up and replaced with an illegal economic migrant? That’s what you want? Parks over spilling with young foreign men with their feet just planted in the ground??”

“No, I was just pointing out the..”

”OOOoOOoHh so you want a young healthy fit male economic illegal migrant sellotaped to everyone’s face, sucking in their oxygen before it can even get into their good English lungs? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT!!”

Every time. 😁

(Also no one’s ever been able to explain to me how, if asylum seekers are all “fit young men in designer gear”, they’re also all stealing all the primary school places. Intriguing.)

But who realistically thinks it will be a deterrent? Traffickers dealing with desperate people will simply tell them that the policy won't apply to them, and once they're being flown out to Rwanda they're hardly in a position to complain.

Whereas if the Tories genuinely wanted to deter trafficking, they would set up safe passage and sensible systems for processing asylum claims. But they won't do that, because the Mail wouldn't like it, and because it doesn't enable them to divert attention from their manifold incompetence in virtually every area of government.

Yes, I have no issue with asylum seekers and most are a net benefit. But they do require state support at least initially that other immigrants do not get and this is only a problem because many people in the U.K. wrongly assume all immigrants have parity with British citizens, all immigrants can claim benefits, all immigrants can be housed by the council, all immigrants get to access the NHS for free, etc. This confusion leads to a lot of xenophobia and fruitless arguments.

Legal immigrants don’t get parity because the Gov requires immigrants to be self-sufficient if they are not asylum seekers. This is fair, but it’s not because legal immigrants are not British citizens, after all neither are the refugees seeking asylum. Yes many legal immigrants can and do return to their home country- students and expats notably. But many legal immigrants cannot and do not return to their home country, their reasons for leaving simply did not qualify for asylum (e.g. fleeing crime and gun violence). Other legal immigrants will not return to their home country because they’ve married a British citizen and decided to make the U.K. their home for life.

I'm baffled that you seem to think successful asylum seekers are on a par with non-refugee immigrants who are refused a visa

I don’t think they are on par with each other. Did you mean unsuccessful asylum seekers? If so, well then yes. Because if you’re an immigrant and your case doesn’t meet the requirements for asylum, you are then by definition and non-refugee immigrant. And refusing a visa to either one at that point is essentially the same thing. In other words, anyone who doesn’t meet the requirements for asylum is not owed a visa approval.

As ponted out on this thread, we do in fact accept over 80% of asylum claims. By definition we can't be the first safe country people reach, because we are an island. So fortunately we do seem to be abiding by our international law and treaty obligations at least to some extent.

So when the do gooders finally wake up and realise the true cost of the non deportation of these 'migrants' it will be too late. I suggest these so called virtue signallers give themselves a little slap and pull on their 'bigger picture' pants, oh ......and grow a backbone....

Yes.

That's what I said. Hence the fact that I didn't understand why @Freerangechildren thinks we are supporting every immigrant.

Not always. A large number of asylum seekers with passports simply pay for plane tickets with return and then turn themselves in at Heathrow or Gatwick Border Control. Some refugees with no passports buy a fake passport and do the same thing. It’s actually cheaper to do that than pay for a channel crossing. But as a refugee it’s not like there’s a price comparison website or anything you can go to to research your options.

The creation of safe passages is really about undocumented refugees- those who have no passport- and how to give them a valid way to get here without having to resort to human traffickers preying on these people and deliberately endangering their lives.

Yep. Was just chiming in agreeing with you. ;)

Why is doing good a bad thing?

If the people that the Home Office proposed to send to Rwanda are genuine asylum seekers, then according to them they will bring them back here. How does spending £24K+ shipping them off to Rwanda and then back again save any costs?

If they aren't genuine, the Home Office should be establishing that fact quickly and efficiently and sending them back to their own countries, thus saving themselves the £12K and the costs of supporting them here.

In the meantime, we take Rwanda's vulnerable refugees as part of the agreement and spend a hell of a lot more on their care, because they are people who will need expensive health care and education support and are considerably less likely to become economically independent.

So what exactly do you claim is the "true cost" of not deporting a few people to Rwanda?

I suggest these so called virtue signallers give themselves a little slap and pull on their 'bigger picture' pants, oh ......and grow a backbone....

None of which would make the Rwanda plan a good idea, because its pants, bigger picture or not.

I understand your point but such migrants are not controllable and are likely to go off radar very quickly getting into illegal means of being able to 'live' here.
The message we need to give those who indulge in illegal schemes stands to be as important as the financial costs implicated in this plan imo.

Late like 11pm or 3am? Might have to schedule in a post-dinner nap if it’s the latter.

@Bunsandtophats That’s why safe routes and resettlement schemes win here as you know who is coming and where they’re arriving, and no-one goes off the radar. And, bonus, it doesn’t involve punishing anyone.

Thank you for your voluntary work @saraclara

If you care about migration so deeply you should be furious that the government has come up with such a crap solution to it. Why not direct your deep well of venom against them?

Just come back from a major district hospital, the place is packed with the white British elderly and the only "migrants" were in the ranks of the staff.

Quite incredible its ok to take in the extremely vulnerable/sick (obviously not enough here in the UK?) but the "young, fit and able" should be sent to Africa, against their will, 3 guards to every migrant, some chained to seats, its quite honestly something from 1930s Germany.

These are the very people we need in our economy, across so many sectors, from skilled to lower skilled manual work.

"If you care about migration so deeply you should be furious that the government has come up with such a crap solution to it. "

A crap AND expensive solution.

It's not going to save money. It's not going to lead to better public services.

It's so expensive Patel had to issue a Ministerial Direction to push it through.

The High Court won't finalise its judgement til July but they are planning another flight before then!

Another £500,000 spaffed away on showboating.

Well this has turned into a one woman show Amaryllis

Further upthread someone mentioned that we need lots of help in the NHS, well we won't find that arriving on the beaches of the UK will we!
A medic is able to apply for a visa and can work here legally, they don't need to pay traffickers and trek across three countries, and that is largely the point. We need professionals across the board, and this is why I approve of the 1.3 million visas.
What we don't need is more young men arriving here to try and ride the system. Many of whom we see in the courts very quickly. Driving without insurance, dealing drugs etc etc and are not always detained when it becomes apparent they are here illegally, very often they are given bail and disappear instantly.

You say that people are self-sufficient but that is not true - no one is ever turned away from A&E, an ambulance will never refuse an injured person or from the doctors - they can complete a form to say they are here on holiday. We have free hostels for homeless people, and plenty of food available in shelters across the country. Clothes banks etc. There are millions of car washes and other jobs that pay cash in hand, it is easy enough to fly under the radar when you are young and nimble. So self sufficient is an interesting word. I might also add that we would not stop a sectioning either for poor mental health due to status and many of the people living in the shadows simply look for the first opportunity to become legit which is not as hard as it sounds.

14,000 people that are approved for state help I assume desperately need it, but I imagine there is plenty of room for dishonesty.

Do most of the people against this policy believe that something should be done about the crossings/migrants in general (but are not sure what) but just don't like the policy?

Or do you believe the borders should be more open with more legal routes in some vain hope the smugglers will stop? In which case how on earth do we fund and support the millions of applicants that we would surely have if we were to change our policies when we still have so many families in bed sits?

Or do you just hate the tories and whatever they come up with good or bad will be demolished for political reasons?

Or all three?!

The safe resettlement schemes as you call them would be overloaded and overwhelmed within hours, and how on earth would you choose from the many tens of millions that would immediately apply? It is totally unworkable, and the smugglers would carry on merrily because we couldn't possibly offer everyone a home here!

beware I am honestly staggered that you can not see the massive problems with your plan.

If the people that the Home Office proposed to send to Rwanda are genuine asylum seekers, then according to them they will bring them back here. How does spending £24K+ shipping them off to Rwanda and then back again save any costs?

Because this isn't the plan. Even for genuine asylum seekers, this is a 1-way ticket - they will be given asylum IN RWANDA and will have no right to come to the UK.

@Freerangechildren I’m “staggered” that you’ve tagged me there, I haven’t replied to you in hours.

You’ve made some very strange assumptions about resettlement schemes there. Have you considered looking into how they actually work or do you just want to keep making things up?

Case in point - we have a resettlement scheme with Afghanistan. Have we been overwhelmed with millions of people from Afghanistan?

No. Do carry on though, you seem like you’re having a lovely time.