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.

Those of you would wonder if really the UK is anti migration might want to look at Rob Ford on Twitter which suggests this is, at least in the U.K., a bigger issue for the right wing of the country than the general population.

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1727688636559241362?refsrc=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1727688636559241362%7Ctwgr%5E6e2befb2933d00d96df9f1ac1f07406e2a17ac81%7Ctwcon%5Es11&refurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Flive%2F2023%2Fnov%2F23%2Fjeremy-hunt-autumn-statement-rishi-sunak-conservatives-tax-cuts-uk-politics-latest-updates

I can see the trend

Good

Anyone arguing for faster processing or that other streamlined routes are possible at this point will have to concede it’s a pipe dream sooner or later

Maybe later if it’s just reinforcing views on here

Sooner it they notice world events

Exactly, nobody is calling for uncontrolled migration or open borders.

Wanting legal safe routes and not breaking national and international laws to deport a small number of asylum seekers is not that much to ask for.

International co-operation should be a starting point to tackle the flow of immigration.

@AdamRyan I think Rwanda is the response to the assumption of much more migration coming our way. Plus the way of many countries. It’s more a way of saying we are closed for business. That we choose who we want. It’s not about a solution for current numbers. This issue won’t go away under Labour.

GB News is a right wing minority side show. We need to keep it that way.

That's a really interesting twitter thread bomb

Africa is the continent that's going yo be worst affected by climate change. I think its highly likely Rwanda will either not be in a position to be able to take migrants as they deal with the effects, or will be overwhelmed by migrants from nearby countries.
Plus taking >1% of asylum seekers and 0.001% of migrants doesn't say "we are closed for business". I don't know what it does say maybe in the words of James Cleverly, we are batshit

To put small boats in perspective, the Office for National Statistics 1.18 million people migrated to the UK for long-term stays in the year to June

40,386 of those people crossed the English Channel on small boats.

That's 3%.

Yes it’s angst over a small minority. You have to factor in the feelings of arrivals areas though and the right wing media. They are, of course, not the only ones waiting to be processed. Rwanda is not just for people arriving on boats.

Rwanda is not just for people arriving on boats

I don't quite understand what you mean, what other groups are included in the Rwanda scheme?

This was on another thread, and sums up what I meant when I said post war set up would strain, and likely break

In an interview with the Financial Times, Barnier said:
“For 30 or 40 years, there’s a kind of interpretation that is always in favour of the migrants . . . We have to rewrite something in the [EU] treaties or in the [European Convention of Human Rights]. We have to create a constitutional shield [allowing national law to take precedence], and to ask the French people to decide.

The EU today is no longer the EU that the UK left. We have begun to draw the lessons of Brexit.”

He blamed the European Court of Justice for policies that limit states’ freedom in the name of national security and seemingly reflected Sunak’s stance on the ECHR, claiming current policies have been written in favour of migrants.

And as I said on the other thread, you need to read the article, not some right-wing nutter's edited highlights.

For example "the lessons of Brexit” he refers to is that the EU needs to confront populism, not that they need to follow our (bad) example.

Can you share it?

It sounds interesting

We have to rewrite something in the [EU] treaties or in the [European Convention of Human Rights]. We have to create a constitutional shield [allowing national law to take precedence], and to ask the French people to decide

This part which is a quote in particular

The point about the areas of arrival ought not to be dismissed. Councils do not receive very much additional funding to handle the challenges related to asylum and indeed councils have to cut services given the current policies of this government.

Open an Incognito/Private tab in your browser and Google the article title "Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier: ‘The EU is not the same one the UK left’" - you can then read the full article.

Doesn't matter what you do with the ECHR, the migrants crossing the Med don't care, once in Europe, it is almost impossible to return, whatever the laws, they don't come from countries where it is safe to return too, even if possible... and as the SC said, it was English common law that was as much a factor.

You have to deal with the failed states in N.Africa and issues driving trafficking.

@DuncinToffee This is from The Law Society. All failed asylum seekers could have been deported there. They don’t just arrive on boats.

Attached

@bombastix Im sure the councils, in particular Kent and other local councils, are hugely inconvenienced. I’ve no doubt residents are not happy.

@TizerorFizz for example Kent's social service budget.
I must admit I don't understand why children are not seen as vulnerable and taken into care in France? Why they are allowed to be unaccompanied minors until they arrive here?

I misunderstood you, yes they can arrive by other means as well

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/

Who can be sent to Rwanda?The government’s guidance states (p. 12) that asylum applicants may be eligible for removal to Rwanda if the government determines that they were previously present in or had a connection to another country in which they could have claimed asylum, if their “journey to the UK can be described as having been dangerous”, and if they travelled on or after 1 January 2022. It states that a “dangerous journey is one able or likely to cause harm or injury. For example, this would include those that travel via small boat, or clandestinely in lorries.”

Well it hardly matters now does it? We await a revised definition of “safe”. That will be challenged too I would expect.

Yes it does make you wonder

How many are unaccompanied minors?