Rwanda plan

[AdamRyan]

Was just reading Suella Bravermans thoughts on how to make the Rwanda plan work, which involve sending staff there to review claims and pulling out of all human rights and refugee conventions.

The plan has cost £140m to Rwanda so far, plus £££££ in legal fees and so far we've sent no-one and found out its illegal. I'm very baffled as to why the government are pursuing it, I keep hearing that "most people" support it. So I thought I'd ask:

IABU: It's a priority as it will deter immigration and the government should spend whatever money and time it takes to deliver this

IANBU: The government should focus time/money on other priorities instead.

Obviously the free movement in the EU question, and refugees, are totally differernt issues.

But I am not sure your personal enjoyment of EU free movement means it was a great idea. There is a reason traditionally the left rejected it, it's a capitalist's wet dream. The capitalist class has always wanted free movement, it goes right along with the global economy so they can move work to the cheapest workers, or move the cheapest workers to the work. It eats away very nicely at labour protections and support in terms of things like trades education.

It's very nice for the educated middle classes though who use it to their own personal economic and cultural advantage.

If the government had set up an efficient asylum processing system it could have massively cut that hotel cost years ago. It would have enabled us to deport people with no right to asylum whilst allowing those who do have a right to move into employment and paying for their own housing, in addition to becoming net contributors by paying tax.

But for some reason they would rather pay £7m a day and blame unspecified foreigners for their own incompetence.

You really need to do some research into how the appeal system works and into actual statistics. There is an awful lot of fiction in your post.

Well, yes, what @DuncinToffee posted does prove something. It proves that 86% of asylum claims are genuine. If you think otherwise, how about producing some clear proof yourself?

If true it only proves that 86% of asylum seekers managed to convince the courts to accept their application. As you know, many of these people are told what to say and often to discard their paperwork to give them a better chance of a successful application, it doesn't mean the outcome was correct.

@Passepartoute so naive

@Passepartoute so what do you think is inefficient about the £3 billion a year asylum system.

@TempestTost quite frankly your comments about Rwanda make you appear to be a racist. Just because the country is not in Europe doesn't mean they are all corrupt.

@Asiatoyork so are you suggesting the current system works better?

@youngones1

You found any evidence to back up your various claims yet?

I referred to EU free movement because the pp talked about it being a reason for Brexit so I assumed that was part of what she was referring to. I should have known better really - so many Brexit voters seemed to think it was going to stop all those Syrians moving over here.

It is far more than just the middle classes who benefit from freedom of movement of course - look at all the eastern European workers we had in our farms and in building.

Did you read the supreme court judgement? They don't stick their obligations regarding immigration in any case

Lol. The tories have no interest in "getting on with it".

This is a central component of their election campaign and one of the greatest dog whistles they have at their disposal.

They'll spend the next 12 months or so pushing the narrative that only they can sort illegal migration but only if they're re-elected. Then, should the worst come to past and that happens, they'll then do nothing for 3-4 years before starting to make some noises again. As they've done every election cycle since 2010.

The fact that you think it's a court process demonstrates how little you know about it.

Along with your other comments on this thread this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on your part.

70% of asylum claims are approved by the Home Office at the initial decision stage. No courts are ever involved in these cases.

As of June 2023, the total 'work in progress' asylum caseload consisted of 215,500 cases. Of these, 138,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision (i.e. waiting for the Home Office to look at their case), only 5,100 were awaiting the outcome of an appeal. A further 41,200 were awaiting removal having been refused asylum.

So clearly it's not the appeals that are clogging up the system, as you claimed earlier.

43% of those who appeal the initial decision have their cases allowed, demonstrating extremely poor initial decision-making by the Home Office and the validity of the appeals process.

What is?

Do you seriously believe it's efficient? It takes years to process claims, the tribunal service is slow despite the fact that they aren't using the judicial time available to them at full capacity, and that's before you get on to further delays caused by things like files getting lost. Spending money on it doesn't automatically mean it's efficient, rather the reverse.

Where on earth has @TempestTost or indeed anyone else suggested that all countries outside Europe are automatically corrupt? Since when did making a reference to known corruption make anyone a racist?

Passepartoute
Well, yes, what @ DuncinToffee posted does prove something. It proves that 86% of asylum claims are genuine

All it proves is that a 'small share' of the applications have been processed;

Ninety two percent of people arriving in small boat from 2018 to March 2023 claimed asylum; of the small share who had received a decision by March 2023, 86% received a grant of protection.

Zonder
It is far more than just the middle classes who benefit from freedom of movement of course - look at all the eastern European workers we had in our farms and in building.

Likewise, two-thirds of Big Issue sellers and twenty-five percent of London's rough sleepers are Eastern European. Apparently, if you sell the Big Issue you can register as self-employed and claim benefits.

jgw1
In the interests of factual accuracy I would like to point out firstly that all the countries [mentioned] take more refugees than the UK.

Poland (one of the three countries mentioned) is hosting over a million Ukrainian refugees but the grant of protection is time limited - three years I believe, although this may be extended.

Are you still in favour of this Rwanda plan?

AdamRyan
The Government have already spent £140m and that's without legal costs.

£120 million appears to be economic development aid;

https://www.devex.com/news/uk-to-fund-rwanda-economic-development-alongside-migrant-deportation-103049

Barely anyone is going to go there though. I think they are planning for 1000 a year

I wouldn't want to be shipped off to Rwanda - it would put me off!

DuncinToffee
Are you still in favour of this Rwanda plan?

I've never been in favour of the Rwanda plan. Saying that - I haven't come up with any alternative solutions either.

Really, you can't think of any alternative solutions to deporting refugees to Rwanda?

@Clavinova a big issue seller from an Eastern European country has targeted an elderly gentleman where I live and fleeced him of 100k whilst faking cancer. Last time I was dropping a food bank parcel to him she was screaming at my nearly 90 year old friend about wanting the new iPhone.

She has numerous convictions for fraud and pretending to be deaf, dumb and blind.

She and it makes my blood boil. They targeted him through the big issue.

This plan could actually work were it is not for the choice of Rwanda itself, because the evidence is clear that there is not an effective or fair asylum system.

If the UK Government chooses or strikes a treaty with another country, which does have an effective asylum system and is safe, then the policy would be lawful.

James Cleverly would be better off trying to find another jurisdiction. Sticking with Rwanda guarantees the policy won't work legally, and it's going to be expensive to do for no result.

Expect a treaty with extra special promises from Rwanda in asylum cases and appeals to the UK as we carry on with this mess of diminishing returns,