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.

Nope he is an economic migrant - like many on the boats

The number of asylum seekers who were not granted leave to remain in the UK in the last year, is smaller than the population of the UK's largest village.

Many, maybe, but definitely not most.

How can refugees get to Britain legally?

I just don't understand why they're treating this as an emergency, whilst ignoring the real emergencies we have to deal with like the NHS, the social care system, and above all the economy. They could have dealt with this a long time ago by putting in place an efficient asylum processing system combined with safe passage: the criminals offering boats would be out of business overnight. If the government really regarded this as an urgent problem, they would have started putting this in place on the day they came into power.

Yep works here. Should do something similar in the UK.

What would you do with all these foreign, poor young men?

If only we could do the same

Because they are claiming to stay in their own country would put their life at risk. In Rwanda they would be safe so no longer in fear for their lives so no longer need asylum.

No successful claims sent back to UK but unsuccessful ones stay in Rwanda. No one gets sent back to their country of origin.

The majority come from Albania. They are not at war.

It's a ridiculous idea, and nasty minded. I don't believe that migrants who come here are "given everything they demand!"

We've already tried punting our undesireables to the other side of the globe, and it didn't result in anything worthwhile.

You may or may not be interested in some facts.

Albanian small boat arrivals fell dramatically in late 2022 and early 2023 after a peak in the summer of 2022

In 2022, Albanians made up 18% of all asylum applicants

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/albanian-asylum-seekers-in-the-uk-and-eu-a-look-at-recent-data/#:~:text=Key%20points,in%20the%20summer%20of%202022.

The figure for 2022 accounted for 28% of arrivals in small boats, which is somewhat less than the one third suggested by the prime minister. from the BBC.

Similarly, whilst Albanian nationals currently form the largest number of those arriving by boat, the proportion does not any way near 80%, being closer to 32% (12,000 of 38,000 arrivals during 2022)[7].

It’s worth putting this all in proportion considering other arrivals of asylum seekers to the UK: according to Home Office statistics, irregular arrivals accounted for just 26% of overall arrivals of asylum seekers in the year 2022 to date, the same proportion as those arriving under the scheme for arrivals from Hong Kong, and significantly fewer than arrivals from Ukraine (at 48%).. Miclu.org

"No successful claims sent back to UK but unsuccessful ones stay in Rwanda. No one gets sent back to their country of origin."

Successful asylum claimants would NOT get sent to the UK.

That said Rwandan authorities don't appear to approve asylum claims anyway - which is partly why the SC found the plan deficient.

You're right.

People seeking asylum are not allowed to claim mainstream welfare benefits in the UK. In most cases, they are also banned from working. They can access support in the form of housing and basic living expenses while in the UK through the Home Office. This is usually known as ‘asylum support’, but you may also hear people refer to ‘section 95 support’, or ‘section 4 support’, which are different types of support available depending on people’s circumstances and the status of their asylum claim. This means that the majority of people seeking asylum in the UK end up living on £5.66 per day to cover almost all their needs, including food, clothing, transport and medicine. This places them more than 70% below the poverty line. Many are forced to make impossible decisions between feeding themselves or buying medicine for their families.

Why are these unfortunate people grouped together with 'undesirables', when the likelihood is that they are just people like ourselves, wanting to get on with their lives peaceably? There are more opportunities here than in places like Albania, which is the poorest country in Europe, there doesn't have to be a war for folk to want a better life abroad.

They are far from being given everything they want.

Rwanda is ranked as 140 in the 'poorest country in the world' list, with a huge number of the population living below the poverty line. Who would want to live there?

The British have always been very good at living abroad and generally done quite well.

We are a multicultural country, let's embrace it.

just don't understand why they're treating this as an emergency, whilst ignoring the real emergencies we have to deal with like the NHS, the social care system, and above all the economy. They could have dealt with this a long time ago by putting in place an efficient asylum processing system combined with safe passage: the criminals offering boats would be out of business overnight. If the government really regarded this as an urgent problem, they would have started putting this in place on the day they came into power
Because if they did something sensible and legal and humane then they wouldn't be able to continue on their slash and burn approach to the UK.

The right wing of the government want deregulation and to remove the rights of average citizens.

They're concerned with making a post-Brexit UK where their mates can do what they like, dump sewage in rivers, not have to offer employees decent working conditions, have people too poor to be able to recover from sickness, and they can run the country with as little legal oversight as possible, whilst clamping down on the right of people to protest and assemble.

That's why for years we've been hearing about how the public apparently don't want experts, the judiciary has been criticised for upholding law, and they're pushing culture wars. It's all smoke and mirrors.

We have been around this circle a few times on previous threads.
There are two answers depending on how I interpret the question
a) it is not illegal to cross the Channel in a boat of any size, and the method of entry for an asylum seeker is irrelevant to whether or not they can legally apply for asylum as is their transit through other countries

or b) if I interpret as why don't refugees apply for, eg the skilled worker visa, well the answer is that to apply one has to have completed an SELT. There are no SELT centres in many of the countries refugees come from for example Afganistan or Syria, so they can't apply for a skilled worker visa.

I take it you haven't read the Supreme Court judgement.

Here's a thing.

The government would love us to know that asylum seekers from Albania have dropped by 90% this year, and that overall small boat crossings are down about 1/3 (mostly due to the weather).

Given the figures in the pp post, doesn't that simply indicate that there are fewer Albanians seeking asylum which also explains the overall drop, and that applications from those from other countries is therefore similar to last year?

The details and figures don't really matter.

We don't have to justify or debate our position.

It's our country and we have the right to decide who comes here and who stays without discussion.

Governments across Europe have not respected this basic right of a nation. Its the equivalent of not listening when a woman says "no".
Then you end up with unnatural situations where traditionally ultra left countries (see scandinavia) swing right.

We have the right to say no to immigration and to have any policies necessary to ensure that right is maintained

In the interestss of factual accuracy I would like to point out that £5.66 a day is less than an asylum seeker who is single would recieve if they made their application in France. Clearly demonstrating that asylum seekers come to the UK due to our generous benefits system...

The UN uses Rwanda to send asylum seekers to, but obviously are far left lawyers don’t think it is OK for the UK to do the same. Outside of London people are furious about the dinghy invaders being dumped in their towns

You think the Supreme Court justices are far left? What evidence do you have to support this suggestion?

Would you care to explain why the monarch has chosen to appoint, on the advice of a series of Tory Prime Ministers, far left judges to the Supreme Court?

Rubbish. Once again, worth checking the facts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67431602.amp

Voluntary, plus only as an alternative to another country that is not safe.

This link is interesting, given that the Spectator is not exactly left wing.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dont-blame-lefty-lawyers-for-the-rwanda-debacle/