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.

Numbers went UP when they introduced off shore processing.

The numbers dropped when they began pushbacks. (not practical in the Channel for a multitude of reasons.)

In 2013 the year after offshore processing was introduced by Australia the numbers of small boats arrivals grew from 17,206 to 20, 587 a record high.

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

So 80% say let's focus on other priorities. I guess it's not the big vote winner the Tories are hoping for!

Just to add that the Rwanda plan is not off shore processing.

The plan was to allow Rwanda to decide whether or not an asylum claim was valid.

The claim would be decided in Rwanda and successful claimants would remain in Rwanda.

They would not then be returned to the UK as some people appear to have believed.

There are British territories that could be used, or islands such as some of the Orkney or Shetland islands.

So 80% say let's focus on other priorities. I guess it's not the big vote winner the Tories are hoping for!
I read the poll as the Rwanda scheme not being prioritised. I do prioritise spending to deter illegal, unsafe immigration.

Please tell me you don't mean that about Orkney and Shetland?

I thought the "target the boat manufacturers" post couldn't be topped but here we are

Oh,perhaps we could inter them like the POWs and foreign nationals in the Isle of Man in WW2 . I heard Anthrax Isle is available.

Very soon Europe would implement Rwanda or something similar. I wonder is the U.K. is going to stay behind an implode? If you want your services working start by cutting users coming here plus the expenses they are incurring to begin with. Hotels bills are unsustainable but yeah everyone who mentions this is racist.

It's a bribe to the Rwandan government. Most of which I'm sure has already been pocketed by certain individuals there.

So sort out the asylum claim backlog instead

Sending 200 refugees to Rwanda is not reducing hotel bill by much

Did it?! It really depends on how you measure success, I suppose. Here's a book which takes a good look at the conditions and treatment of asylum seekers in Australian detention centres in Nauru: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/21468747

There is one part of the government's pronoucements this week that really confuses me. The suggestion seems to be to have a legally binding treaty with Rwanda to solve the issues that the Supreme Court raised. A new international law that would apply to the UK and Rwanda. Simaltaneously the government wants to unilaterally withdraw from a range of international laws. What is to stop Rwanda simply ignoring the international law with the UK in the same way that the UK wants to ignore international laws?

This is very ignorant, have you ever been? People assume all of Africa is ravaged by famine and people are living in huts- not the case at all. The court denied it because they've been open about not following a fair process for claims and have said they'd exclude certain people regardless; I guess something addressed by sending staff over. I don't think it's a good idea, plenty of other countries do similar without the same criticism though.

Ah look, turkeys voting for Christmas.

Of course we should hang out a welcome sign for the boatloads of fighting age young men who arrive on our beaches and give them free movement no matter who they are (which we won’t know anyway).

Why bother with asylum claims, just let them do what they want.

The absolute inhumanity of giving them free accommodation, food, medical care and education in a safe sunny country instead of rainy old Britain. Heart bleeds and all that.

Genuine refugees would just be happy to be safe having treked over war torn Europe.

I presume you are arguing for the UK to withdraw from the UN refugee convention?

Well yes. I often wonder what those who are so horrified by “The Rwanda Plan” think should actually be done? I read the other day that numbers equate to five cities the size of Birmingham. Clearly we have not built five more cities the size of Birmingham complete with hospitals, schools, housing etc and as ever it’s the working class who shoulder that burden. What do we do? Just keep letting everyone come forever? And why is it “racist” to ask such questions?

Note I think Rwanda is unworkable and not the solution though I suspect in a few years most European counties will have implemented something of the kind and somehow that will be declared to be working just fine.

@Starsalign ,

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Would you want to live in Rwanda, a country with a GDP per capita of $80 and a ‘Freedom’ score of 22/100?

If Rwanda is such a safe country, then why does the UK accept Rwandan refugees and grants them asylum?

From the judgment

Reading the decision, President of the Supreme Court Robert Reed said Rwanda had a history of misunderstanding its obligations toward refugees and couldn’t be relied on to keep its promise not to mistreat asylum-seekers.

He cited the country’s poor human rights record, including enforced disappearances and torture, and said Rwanda practiced “refoulement” – sending migrants back to unsafe home countries.

The judges concluded there were “substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum-seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.”
“In that event, genuine refugees will face a real risk of ill-treatment in circumstances where they should not have been returned at all,” they said.

It's completely unreasonable to spend £140 Million and counting to send 200 people to Rwanda so £700,000 per person. This government are just throwing money away. It would probably cost a lot less money and time to actually process these claimant's with actual yes or no as to whether or not they have a claim to stay.

While at the same time not having the money to repair/rebuild schools and hospitals for example.

Whaaaaat? No NHS? No free money to send home? No decent housing paid for by our government? Why, indeed?
Well, they don't, and that's wherein the rub lies!
I don't want to be nasty and say they shouldn't come here, but if/when they do they should not expect to be given everything they demand!
We have our own people to look after, first and foremost, and if our army barracks were good enough to house our soldiers then they're bloody well good enough to house refugees!!
If barges are good enough to house workers abroad, like in Saudi Arabia, then they're bloody well good enough to house them!
And if they don't like it, well, there's always Rwanda!!!

Birmingham has a population of about 860,000. What equates to a 4.3million people?

Given there are over a million empty homes in the UK why do we need barges to house anybody?