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 personally think Australia have got it right. They have plenty of legal routes to apply by (as is true in the UK) and get to know exactly who is coming in and out and get to pick the cream Of the crop of skills their country needs. Plenty of people are heading there - our doctors, nurses and police and I don’t blame them.

@Zonder They are pursuing this because it’s a vote winner in areas they need to hold seats in! Not where I live but other areas “borrowed” from Labour feel greatly threatened by such immigration. So it’s highly political.

@jgw1 We have empty homes because the state doesn’t take property away from owners. We are not communist.

The most important thing is to process arrivals quickly. Many are economic migrants but we need evidence to make much quicker decisions and that requires more staff.

Could you explain to us how an Afghan who worked as an interpreter for the British forces could apply via a safe route to come to the UK?

70% of initial asylum decisions made in the year to 2023 were granted protection in the UK. That proportion will probably rise on appeal.

So it is not true to say that many asylum seekers are economic migrants.

Because Saudi Arabia has such a stellar record on the treatment of foreign workers...

I assume the don't house UK expats on barges?

Safe routes, here is the former Home Secretary

https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-fails-to-explain-how-asylum-seekers-can-get-to-uk-safely-and-legally-12753780

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/afghan-citizens-resettlement-scheme

See here. But my point was less about afghans but more about the economic migrants who choose to come here illegally thus avoiding the relevant checks, requirement to be able to fund themselves without benefits etc

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/afghan-asylum-backlog-resettlement-home-office-b2398856.html

The government has been accused of failing vulnerable Afghans as figures show just 233 have been resettled in the UK this year under the flagship scheme.
The latest statistics come as it was confirmed Afghans were the most common nationality to arrive by Channel crossings in the first half of 2023.

What legal routes are there?

@jgw1 We have empty homes because the state doesn’t take property away from owners. We are not communist.

We have as many empty homes as we do because non-domiciled purchases are largely unrestricted. Qui bono?

This is correct.

We have empty homes because the state doesn’t take property away from owners. We are not communist

We have gazillions of empty places for sale, up and down the country, some in worse state than others, but they are houses that are already there.

Maybe all those hundreds of millions spent on the current Rwanda nonsense would surely be better spent on fixing those places?

What we have now is a pointless gimmick that costs a fortune and doesn’t actually work as the deterrent it’s supposed to be.

But it gets people angry, eh

If people buy property here legally, they own it and can keep it. It’s similar in nearly every other country. It matters not one jot whether they decide to live in the homes or not. They won’t be taken away or we sent out a message to the world that we are closed for business. We don’t live in a society or state that takes belongings away. Thank God.

@Pan2 Who are the nut job voters? The voters in the seats that have always been Tory? Or the new “Get Brexit Done” ones? I know where my money would be going. Look at who was really worried about jobs going because they were undercut. Plus the ones like Suella who want to hoist up the drawbridge.

We do have legal routes into this county or we would be even more seriously short of doctors, nurses and engineers. We do operate a system where we take qualified people from elsewhere. Of course we do. Thousands and thousands every year. The ones in boats wish to circumvent the system. They should, however, be evaluated as to their refugee status quickly. If 70% are approved, “many” are not @jgw1 . The bigger problem
is the waiting time.

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!

Yes. Terrible of them to come hoping for asylum from war, victimisation, threats to life. What are they thinking?

Shush. Don't you bring your logic in here.

Besides, I imagine they don't care.

Of course we should hang out a welcome sign for the boatloads of fighting age young men

Yes, because that is of course literally the only alternative to sending them to Rwanda.

@IrresponsiblyCertainAboutSexualDimorphism there are many - DH was a migrant here - we have spent 1000s and done the British test to secure his citizenship. We are now going back to his home country and are doing the same in reverse. Nearly a million people legally migrated here last year via the same or similar routes. I don’t agree with Rwanda - think it is a waste of time and money as they can’t make it work but I do think it needs to be addressed - what is happening is unsustainable and will only get worse.

Net migration last year was 600,000 of which 80,000 were asylum seekers. Most were on visas and so would not be subject to Rwanda scheme.

I think I read they are planning for max. 1000 a year so I cant see how its going to help reduce numbers

Many countries have quite strict rules around who can own property and as importantly have detailed registers of who owns them. The UK does not.

In order to secure a visa as for instance a doctor you need to complete a SELT before you make your visa application. How would someone living in Afganistan or Syria take such as SELT and then make the visa application from their home country?

Is now a good time to remind people of the fate of those on the the St Louis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

The refugees from Syria and Afghanistan need to be processed quickly. That’s the whole point. Process them in France? Or anywhere. Most highly educated people succeed for obvious reasons and they have money and the means to apply.

I agree too much fuss is made about taking in people from small boats but we need to stop them getting in the boats. Most immigrants are not refugees.

I think we are in agreement then that the UK desperately needs far more safe routes for refugees to make their way here and make asylum applications.

Thanks for posting that @DuncinToffee I remember at the time. Such a brilliant question from Tim Loughton. The recording should be played over and over.

And for the applications to be dealt with quickly so they can settle down and contribute quickly. Not being in hotels and other accommodation is required. If temp accommodation isn’t great, then it’s not for long.

Is your DH a refugee?