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.

I don’t think that’ll be the case as they’re in a processing centre with security etc and we send back people to Albania now anyway

I don’t know about off shoring the legal challenge part. I had thought that would be a possible way to go for any country wanting to process somewhere else but idk why we will do that v Italy. Maybe they are anyway I haven’t read up much

That shows that the government has options that don't require breaking international law but they choose Rwanda as the hill to die on.

200 people, £140m minimum costs

200 people, £140m minimum costs
It is pretty stark, isn’t it?

I think the difference is one internal to government where the Home Office and the FCDO do not agree.

Albania is a safe country in general. Many of the other countries where there are asylum claimants are not. And there is some cross party consensus on Albania as a safe country. It is a signatory to the ECHR...

For example, Iran or Afghanistan may not be safe to remove someone too if their claim fails.

Also recommend the Migration Observatory at Oxford; very good stats and showing of trends.

I am still very suspicious of this policy but, and it is important to me that Braverman is not part of it. Her motivation seemed to be to leave the ECHR, and did not match the mischief she claimed she was trying to address.

See also her unhinged letter to Sunak. Whatever you think of him, that looked unstable on her part.

Everyone talking about Australia and defending its immigration systems needs to read about Nauru. Appalling treatment of people just stuck on an island in the middle of the sea. Lots attempting suicide when they’d previously had the drive and energy to get themselves and their families nearly to Australia.
The Rwanda plan is both “virtue signalling” if those virtues are being the current brand of Tory, and also a clear way out of the ECHR and other international commitments, but it’ll be democratic! I doubt it’s actually going to work for its stated purpose at all, but it’s strengthening the case among the Tory faithful for withdrawal from the ECHR, which as prospects go is a bit sickening.

Having a high acceptance rate of people fleeing persecution is certainly something that makes me proud to be British.

The people who are not accepted by Spain (very low rate) or Italy are by definition not fleeing persecution.

That’s why their claims fail.

By their definition, not necessarily by ours.

Well they’re not going to apply another country’s definition, although what is different is down to scrutiny as all countries are applying international law in their process

Overall EU average is lower for whatever reason

Makes me proud to be British that we are more welcoming than our neighbours to people fleeing persecution. If only everyone was as kind and generous as the British.

ok 😂 I’m glad you are proud.

You are not proud to be British?

I’m happy generally. You do you though flag waving or whatever.

Isn't it wonderful to leave in a land that is so generous to those in desperate need.

@jgw1 I… think you’re being sarcastic? Hard to tell with the autism and without the body language cues.

No sarcasm on this occassion. I have been reliably informed that the UK allows a much higher proportion of asylum seekers stay than some other European countries. Such generosity to those who are in a desperate situation is something to be proud of.

The overall acceptance rate is higher in U.K. v EU for asylum

But on tone I agree for pp, just skip

Ah, OK, that makes more sense. You are aware that the overall numbers are much lower than other countries, though? And that we aren’t “running out of space” but in fact have the resources, free space and quite frankly responsibility to allow those in desperate need in, in high numbers?

I am very well aware of that, although apparently it is communist to point out that there are by some estimates over a million empty homes in England alone.

Yes indeed, I am skipping around at the thought that the UK is in fact a kind and caring nation to be proud of.

It may or may not be, @jgw1 but as I’m not an American Republican, communist isn’t quite the dirty word it could be. Ideally those homes should be turned into maybe shared accommodation for asylum seekers, maybe the same for students, maybe refugees or council housing. I can’t bring myself to be proud of the reception we give asylum seekers though, or even economic migrants. You only have to read a paragraph about the conditions in which they end up getting detained before you’re cringing in shame.

Oh, I was called an American Republican for something I posted as well.

There is more that can be done once the UK has generously allowed so many of the asylum seekers who apply here to have sanctury in this country that is for sure.

My point was on the acceptance process rather than referring to these. Given that the same international law applies it would be interesting to see why eg Spain is low

When you say high numbers though do you mean higher than now? What are you thinking in terms of how many

Given the government was happy with over a million people moving to the UK in the last year, it suggests there is plenty of headroom (as they like to say) to accept more refugees.