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.

helloOP

The link also says;

“The new agreement will significantly increase the number of French gendarmes patrolling the beaches in northern France..."

Utterly Shameful.

Many of the young people that come here have had family members who were abandoned by the British and US in Afghanistan and then killed by the Taliban.

After a horrific journey to reach the UK, they currently undergo more trauma through the home office process. Now, the UK Government wishes to send them to Rawanda.

Honestly, it's sickening .

Actually this is a good point. I think the electorate will and are tuning it out. The dividend politically seems very obscure, given the cost and scale, but if the Conservatives destroy their credibility on the bill then this will have been for very little. All Labour have to do is sit back and watch.

@bombastix

I've definitely tuned out.
And I do agree with controlling our borders and stopping ruthless people smugglers... I can't believe this is the only bloody solution!!. I've definitely tuned out. I don't care any more it's an important issue but it's become an obsession when so many more critical things are happening to the people of the UK.

It's like labour and fox hunting.

I’m not sure people will get bored with migration issues given how they’ll increase not just here

It has just struck me that another good way of undercutting the people smugglers would be to provide alternative safer routes for asylum seekers to get to the UK to claim asylum.

I wonder why the government hasn't tried it already?

helloOP
I've already said we can't send back to war torn or places like Afghanistan or Iraq but India? really? a country we are trying to negotiate a FTA with, where the PM's wife resides (in terms of citizenship) & where we have v generous student and work visa schemes

We appear to have such a deal with India already -

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-take-back-illegal-migrants-uk-return-visas-young-workers-2021-05-04/

Maybe people are getting bored with immigrants and especially refugees being used as scapegoats.

Things have changed with India now the UK is seeking a trade deal.

Are pp for sending back arrivals from India?

As far as harsh measures go it’s the toughest and obviously works

Traffickers can’t sell anymore

I think it's that the rhetoric doesn't meet actual delivery. Even this bill won't do it. It looks really disconnected to say "stop the boats" (btw they should really not put that on the lectern) but btw it's maybe going to affect 300 people and only if we get it through.

@DuncinToffee I think even the most ardent Tory has worked out their attention is being guided by the media and the government to direct its anger in the wrong place.

Everything else is falling apart obviously (nhs for example)

I think the mistake that's made is that any Criticism of migration/ boats is framed as racism. I think if questions were met with meaningful answers instead of sound bites people's minds would be less likely to believe Everything they read or hear (this is just my opinion)

This is the huge political challenge now facing Rishi reverse midas Sunak.

A significant proportion of the population see his Stop the Boats rhetoric as callous, those people were perhaps unlikely to vote for his callous party anyway.

A chunk of people aren't much interested in Stop the Boats, prioritise other issues such as cost of living, but will have heard about immigration and may at one point gone, yeah the UK isn't quite what it was like 30 years ago.

Some people dislike foreigners and want them all sent home. They are presumably the audience that Rishi is playing to.

The trouble is that groups 2 and 3 are at some point going to start going, but you have been promising to stop the boats for years, and yet the numbers keep increasing. I fear for Reverse Midas man that point has been passed in many cases.

It’ll pick up as an issue across the EU

Our numbers are not going up in the same way atm

Any change in pressure downwards will be felt though as numbers go back up

It’s a direct correlation between how hard / easy it is to lower or higher numbers

A flash of inspiration has come to me on reading your post.

What needs to happen is support to remove the causes of migration, which by my reckoning are war, climate change and inequality.

If only there was a way of doing anything about any of those.

It’ll pick up as an issue across the EU

Belgium - although I think the courts have overturned this decision;
https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/02/belgiums-asylum-shelters-will-no-longer-take-in-single-men-in-order-to-make-room-for-famil

Ireland:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/06/ireland-offering-asylum-seekers-tents-housing-shortage-sleeping-rough

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2023/06/08/state-to-pay-15m-to-eu-amid-lack-of-space-for-asylum-seekers/

I understand that Sunak is close to achieving his pledge to remove the backlog of legacy asylum cases, which is of course excellent news for the people who claimed asylum in each of those cases. Nothing worse than uncertainty.

In additional good news which we should all be proud of 2023 is on course to be the year in which the largest ever number of asylum claims are granted.

I suppose it should be little surprise that the son of migrants who has himself been an economic migrant would be in favour of allowing those fleeing persecuation the change to start new lives in a safe country.

I despair of what the government has been doing for the last 13 years but being fair here, it’s not exactly their fault a doctor committed suicide.
They are not imprisoned on those boats.

There’s probably thousands of men claiming to be a doctor. How can they prove they are and not bogus ones with bogus qualifications?

Why wouldn’t a doctor claim asylum the correct way ? He wasn’t from a war torn country either.

Im not saying he wasn’t a proper doctor.

The Home office is dealing with something like 140 thousand claims.

Im sorry but I can’t blame the government personally responsible for that man’s death.

On a serious note how will Labour stop the boats?
All I hear Starmer say is they’ll go after the gangs.

Surely that’s been tried already ? Other than have the whole of the south coast flooded with a defence force, I can’t see how they can all be stopped.

In the interests of factual accuracy I would like to point out that there is only one way to claim asylum.
What one does is presents oneself in ones chosen safe country to the authorities and asks for asylum.
So logically it is not possible the claim asylum in a correct or incorrect way.

The vast majority of immigration here is legal I understand that.
Why have the government allowed numbers like 700 thousand in though?

They have the gall to blame Labour for their term in officer but immigration was nothing compared to this.

In the interests of factual accuracy I would like to point out that claiming asylum is legal.

Ok fair point , but in that case why didn’t he apply to the UK NHS to come to work here as a doctor?
Theres a procedure to go through , it’s all available on a quick search. Identity and qualifications are checked and training is required to meet the NHS standards.
Why didn’t the doctor go through the correct channels ?

The person who died was not a doctor. There has been some confusion over who it was who died and he was wrongly identified.

Perhaps you could help by providing a link to where in his home country (from which he would have had to apply for a visa) he could have taken the mandatory SELT?