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.

And the problem with this is....?

This...the reality of such schemes...

We were 'overwhelmed' because the government wasn't prepared despite the warnings, the Foreign Secretary was on the beach when Kabul fell ffs

@Freerangechildren Yes I’m well aware of the shitshow in Afghanistan caused by the sudden military pull out and the lack of time to organise schemes straight away.

However, the question I asked you is “are we currently overwhelmed with millions of refugees from Afghanistan now in the UK, because of resettlement schemes?” No, we’re not. You yourself posted the small figures of people settled by resettlement schemes upthread, where you also said you do support resettlement schemes.

And sorry, but you need more attention than I can possibly give you. I can’t understand how you’re supporting resettlement schemes on one page, and now attacking me for supporting them on another. It’s weird. Hope your covid gets better.

I was simply correcting the misinformation that has been shared multiple times by @AmaryIlis . May people do - wrongly - say this scheme is just about processing. indeed the government actively wants to mislead us by using this word.

It is instead about giving people, however deserving their case, a one way ticket to Somewhere Else.

If we consistently (ie not in response to an emergency, but all the time) ran a good, fair, fast and well-administered asylum process, which rapidly returned those who could not get asylum to their point of origin while quickly moving those who could get asylum into productive jobs, then shitshows like Afghanistan would be less likely to happen.

That evacuation was a problem because it was clear there was a very restricted timescale to get into a scheme that had no competence and no capacity. Citing it as a reason why a swift, high bar but fair and well-administered system run over the long term wouldn't work is unreasonable.

Do pp have an idea of numbers it would take in schemes to then get to no boat crossings?

Or almost if not entirely possible

At no point have I said I support settlement schemes set up worldwide beware
and you are being very disingenuous to suggest I have.

I support genuine asylum seekers if they are indeed genuine and enter through the correct channels, but I think setting up 'resettlement schemes' across the globe as you have suggested would be an unmitigated disaster, would do nothing to stop the people traffickers and leave many more families dislocated.

There is not a single party that support this idea because it would have zero support.

The point is that at the moment the only way to claim asylum in the UK is to come to the UK.

In the absence of legal routes to do this, boats are the only option.

If claiming asylum can be done straightforwardly elsewhere, with a quick judgement and then an efficient return to point of origin or legal safe passage to the UK, then it becomes reasonable to do everything possible to bar the passage of small boats and to make it very difficult for arrivals on such boats to claim asylum.

To cite a trivial example, because cigarettes can be legally bought from shops, it is reasonable to punish cigarette smuggling, and those who purchase smuggled cigarettes, severely.

Do pp have an idea of numbers it would take in schemes to then get to no boat crossings?

That is the million dollar question! Hundreds of millions perhaps tipping even higher. There will always be a failed asylum seekers somewhere that choose to press on anyway.

If claiming asylum can be done straightforwardly elsewhere, with a quick judgement

Good question, so where would that be? Because no country in the world is going to be happy with having Calais style camps housing tens of thousands in squalor are they. Perhaps we can suggest Rwanda as a new processing point? And save on the 12,000 air fare?

cant Many years ago the UK floated the idea of a processing centre in France, but it was scrapped by both countries because it would act as a magnet.

Because no country in the world is going to be happy with having Calais style camps housing tens of thousands in squalor are they.

Why should there be squalor if the process is efficient? It is the total failure of the current processes to act fast, fairly and decisively that CREATES squalor. Asylum offices at every embassy and every consulate would give 130+ points of application?

I don’t see what is so inhumane about it. Providing free, safe transport to a safe country able to take them? I don’t see the problem.

As always @MarshaBradyo has the million dollar question (that I never know the answer to!) 😉

i would imagine you’d have to risk assess places of known conflict and persecution, compare that with how many the UK can afford to support, and also what people themselves need. Some people will want to stay closer to home or go to other countries with ties.

I think the harder part is reducing boat crossings, and for that Libya really needs to be removed from the equation. The slavery camps there are awful, and it’s not just people smuggling (taking them where they want to go) there’s also the problem of trafficking (moving people against their will). Some of the group from yesterdays flight iirc were removed from the flight as there was evidence of modern slavery/having been trafficked.

Sorry for the usual random wall of text. Other posters will likely have better ideas though!

I will say though, given that safe routes and resettlement schemes prioritise women and children, it’s interesting to see how unpopular they are on here.

Asylum seekers don't tend to go off radar, because that would mean they couldn't claim asylum benefits, health care etc, and their claims wouldn't be processed. Illegal immigrants do tend to do that, but by definition they aren't the ones that the HO wants to ship off to Rwanda.

I would say every airport, and every port, could link through to this network too. I really do mean a very very highly distributed network with many hundreds, if not thousands, of access points, with links to a smaller number of co-ordinating hubs which here is no need to travel to in person but which maintains e.g. linguists, processes for accessing records etc etc

Because it’s not safe when you’re an asylum seeker.

“Asylum seekers resettled in Rwanda under EU scheme abandoned to poverty
Refugees tell the Telegraph there is not enough food, housing, medical services and other basic necessities

Asylum seekers in Rwanda have said they have been left in a “traumatising” poverty-stricken limbo for years, barely able to afford clothes and constantly in fear of the country’s brutal security forces, an investigation by The Telegraph has found.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/asylum-seekers-resettled-rwanda-eu-scheme-abandoned-poverty/

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!

Why not? Why can't a successful asylum seeker get jobs in admin, laundry, cleaning, clerical support etc? And indeed, why can't they qualify as health professionals?

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.

You can't get visas for lower level NHS jobs which are almost as desperately needed as professionals. Not least because the NHS pays too badly at that level.

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.

And many we don't. It's just a tad racist and sexist to assume that male asylum seekers are incipient criminals. The issue of whether then can be arrested and deported if the asylum claims is rejected can be sorted out by an efficient process for investigating asylum claims and adequate policing. Shipping off genuine asylum claimants to Rwanda on the off chance that they might include non-genuine claimants is manifestly not the answer.

Why should there be squalor if the process is efficient?

Because in the real world it takes time to assess people with interpreters, collect DNA, security checks completed and evidence compiled for the case, and then an appeal process which will of course be used.
Not to mention the enormous funding it would need to work at all, and how are you going to sell that to the taxpayer when the boats continue to sink in the channel, as they will, because not everyone will gain a home here and they will resort back to the smugglers?

The cost of setting up resettlement points in the thousands is making me wonder if you know the state of our finances?

It won't work. I am sorry I know it is not what you want to hear, and at least you are giving it a go at suggesting solutions cant and I give you total credit for that.

It is PERFECTLY safe in Rwanda, the guy that was interviewed said he was bored of playing football outside and the food was rubbish, if he were genuinely fleeing persecution and torture I don't suppose he would care very much about days playing football and eating African food! beware

I have just read your dp is a migrant, so now I know why you are fighting the cause on here so much. I am not sure how you think it will help this country to end up with even more people we can not house or feed.

Johnson’s second ethics advisor has quit, blowing what would have otherwise been a great anti-immigrant, anti-EU news day for his party and making him, somehow, look even worse.

Hey-ho.

It is an advisor not the Chancellor, I don't suppose he batted an eye lid! To be fair I am sure the BBC did their very best to broadcast it as much as possible to get the ECHR ballsup out of the news and the fact that the EU are 'suing' Great Britain apparently. So that is fun and lovely.