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.

@SpringViolet Read the Supreme Court verdict and read the Institute for Government summary about why the Rwanda policy is not legal. The court doesn’t accept that Rwanda is safe for refugees. I have a hunch they know more than you.

Why don't they return the boat people to France where they came from. If they want to apply for asylum in the UK they can do it remotely when they're in France.

I agree with the Rwanda plan. We need to exit the ECHR and legislate to make it possible

I think that was proposed by the French. Presumably we would pay for it. The UK is funding a detention centre in France, so this is perhaps where the policy will go. Set yourself in a boat and end up being flown to Rwanda, or try applying for UK asylum in France.

And leave
The Convention against Torture
The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
..

And undo the Good Friday Agreement in the process

They can't apply for asylum in the UK from France

Well maybe we should allow them to apply for asylum from France?

Why should France take them? They're not french any more than they're English, and we know it's a myth that they're supposed to stop in the first safe country they come to.

That's funny, he calls himself a socialist and doesn't look much like a communist unless you're using a US republican definition, in which case Tony Blair is probably one too.

I think anyone fighting to legislate blocking the ECHR and HRA forgets that it can be the start of a very slippery slope. That doesn't just have impacts on immigration, it has impacts potentially, for everyone. If you trust the government blindly (and I really don't know why anyone with half a functioning brain would with this one), then fine. But I don't.

Nobody is ready to have the conversation about digital privacy laws aka encryption either and how the government want a back door into everyone's messaging. It's being pushed under the save the children guise but ask any non governmental cyber security professional and they'll tell you why that's a really bad idea.

Anywho.

You'd ruin the Good Friday Agreement. That won't be fun for anyone.

Let's be honest the reason they want to do this is because they know they won't win the next election unless the rac!st hard r!ghts come out in droves to vote and support them.

Cameron is an attempt to get the centrists back on board.

We're coming up to an election. Nothing being done right now is being done for any other reason than what it brings to their election campaign.

Maybe the government should look at why these people are coming here, where they are coming from, what they are fleeing? And perhaps look at tackling the root cause.

There's also the elephant in the room of the huge amount of sexual offences committed by migrants from misogynistic cultures. In France, asylum seekers make up between 1-2% of the population yet account for nearly 20% of 'serious sex crimes' including rape.

Look what happened in Germany on NYE 2016. 1200 sexual assaults in one evening which the authorities tried to sweep under the carpet and the woke refuse to acknowledge. These mass sexual assaults are common in middle eastern countries - google Lara Logan's experience in Egypt.

So you want to give up your right to life, freedom from torture, the prohibition of slavery and forced labour, your right to a fair trial, your right to privacy and family life, your right to marry, the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of discrimination?

You can give those rights up if you want but I’m going to fight to keep my rights.

We were discussing breaking the law, and Rishi, Boris and a host of other Tory MPs have been found to have broken the law whilst they have been in office.

But Jeremy Corbyn has not.

Fortunately there will be a general election along soon where there will be an opportunity to vote for change.

Good to know you support breaking the law.

On Sunak, his emergency bill that will say Rwanda is a safe country, doesn't make it a safe country.

How sending 100 migrants to Rwanda is going to get over 100k folk out of Hotels is mystery to me.

The Tories aren't interested in ending migration, they have trebled net migration over the last few years to over 600k per year, by allowing those on student and work visas to bring in all their family members, few if any countries do this, so why is Sunak?

No swept anything under the carpet, it was very widely reported.

Perhaps you can tell me what religious background numerous Met police officers are from?

Can you back up those statistics? or is it your opinion?

I think it's a case of pick your migration.

20,000 asylum seekers
600,000 legal migration

And a government that is doing trade deals that involve visa access to Britain.

You can expect these figures to go up, not down.

I hate this racist trope that immigrants are sex offenders. The problem isn't immigrants. It's a minority of men. Plenty of white British men do vile things to women, plenty are involved in organised sex crime.

But in any case, sounds to me like that poster is saying its OK for Rwandans to have that problem exported to them.

so are you suggesting the current system works better?

@youngones1 I appreciate the thread has moved on a lot. But no, clearly it isn’t working and the government have run the ability to process claims and make decisions into the ground.

My question we more because I was interested in knowing whether statements you make as facts were actually opinions, or evidence based.

Not much point in discussing anything with someone who doesn’t understand the difference.

I can't help but wondering if the proportion of sex offenders is higher amoung Tory MPs.

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.

It proves that 86% of those processed have been found to be entitled in law to asylum.

Though I'm a little surprised that @Clavinova wanted to draw attention to the Tory government's inefficiency in processing asylum claims.

And the Rwanda plan self-evidently isn't it, given the costs involved, the fact that Rwanda would only be taking a tiny number of refugees, and we would be accepting Rwandan immigration as a quid pro quo.

Much of that £3 billion a year is accommodation fees which wouldn't be necessary with an efficient asylum processing system. It would also make sense to allow asylum seekers to work so that they can contribute to our economy.

They can't. There is no mechanism that allows them to do this.

Why would we exit something that Churchill took so much trouble to set up, just so that we could send 200 people to Rwanda?

Do you really think that would be worth losing your right to life, freedom, work, an education, to own property, a fair trial, equality, family life?

We probably should. For some reason the likes of Braverman, Patel, Sunak and Johnson have consistently been resistant to that. Probably because they have realised that that would cut down the boat traffic at a stroke, would mean that they would have to allow safe passage to successful asylum seekers, and would deprive them of their dog-whistle.