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.

@DuncinToffee doesn't prove anything!

@jgw1 we already charge much higher stamp duty for foreign buyers, as you know.

@jgw1 I don't think I mentioned the government, just how things probably work right now in our £3 billion a year asylum gravy train. The cost of Rwanda is a drop in the ocean. People smugglers tell the refugees what they need to say to get residency, the judges and lawyers make a fortune from the endless appeals, the hotels make a fortune from the government contracts etc.

Judges get a salary!!! Most applicants get legal aid. This frequently does not cover the work required by lawyers. It’s not a lucrative area of work.

It gives them a livelihood, legal aid by the UK tax payer, then they have free use of the NHS. At least in Rwanda they aren't clogging up the NHS and making our waiting times even worse.

It is a policy decision of the government to spend so much on hotels and poor decision making. They could easily decide tomorrow to speed up the process and reduce the costs.

2% of the purchace price is not exactly a huge amount of tax.

Why not also charge overseas owners an increased amount of council tax?

I was not commenting on the policy. It’s illeagal so that’s it at the moment. The idea that judges and solicitors rake it in on these cases is ludicrous. Yes, the taxpayer pays legal aid. Most lawyers don’t want legal aid cases. They don’t pay. It’s one of the issues we have with pushing cases through.

@jgw1 I doubt it, they would get embroiled in a legal quagmire if they tried to change it.

That £3 billion a year has to go somewhere, and I'm sure the judges and lawyers and all the other associated legal staff take a good chunk, then there are all the legal costs of objecting and defending the Rwanda plan, that boat, it's a complete gravy train, no wonder no one wants to change the system, they are making a fortune from it!

well, where is your evidence to supprt your statement?

I work with a number of "fighting age young men" who arrived via boats. They were younger than 12 when they left home. Because that's the age to be forcibly recruited as 'soldiers' with every possibility they will be used as fodder in shootouts. Are they not genuine refugees?

Is it not genuine to want to go to a country where you might actually know someone who's already made it there from your community? Where there's a good reputation for education and general quality of life and healthcare? If we were in crisis tomorrow @WilmaWonka and you had to put your life savings together to get your young children out alone, would you be happy enough for someone to pick Rwanda for them, or would you want them to go somewhere that has an established community from your area who would look after them or a decent family reunification process meaning you might actually be able to join them? Or would you want them to stay in a refugee camp, to never be able to study or work? To receive inadequate healthcare in inadequate accommodation? Would you just be grateful for that long term?

That's why most people want to come here. You don't know very many refugees or asylum seekers in real life do you? It shows.

Excellent post!

@Lavender14 the way you talk about our healthcare system is as if we have doctors waiting around with nothing to do.

And funny a lot of the young refugees I work with want to go or have gone on to study medicine... its almost like we need more healthcare providers isn't it.

The government and their minions and ex minions are very ill informed, because nobody cares about immigration, or only a few

Laura Kuenssberg: Reshuffle deals drama but voters more worried about wallets www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67462636

It's just a straw man, creating a problem and making a big deal about how only you can solve it, whilst utterly failing to solve the real problems people care about.

Such a tiny number would end up in Rwanda, the chances are so low it will not deter many. If any. Like penalties ate so low for some crimes it is not a deterrent. Then sometimes people will do things, no matter how high the potential risk, be they do not believe they will get caught.

So how will it actually change anything other than a tiny drop in the ocean?

Is it like the covid gravy train, the Bibby Stockholm gravy train or the HS2 gravy train?

Don't think we need to look at Oz as a good example of how to treat asylum seekers!
The Brit Govt has already sent £140 million to Rwanda without even finding out if the deportation/transfer scheme was legal, or even checking how people would be treated if they were sent there! It's a bloody scandal like everything this government has turned their hands to!

The first thing they should remove is the right of appeal, surely one court case is quite enough, although the whole legal industry that has built up around this matter will push back big time because their livelihood will be at stake.

Will the loss of right to appeal apply to you as well?

Or do you advocate that only certain people lose this right?

You know what I love about this. It's that only domestic law will be changed.

But that means you have a great precedent to change it for everyone. All you then need is a government prepared to abuse its citizens and ignore human rights conventions or exclude it and most of us are screwed. You'd have to be on the right side of a politician than a judge.

If anyone here is keen for a politician to be in charge of your freedom raise your hand.

The rest of us shall build a raft and claim asylum in France.

I think we should apply it to asylum seekers to reduce the backlog and burden on the tax payer.

After all if they get rejected they can always hop over to France and have a go there.