WTAF? Asylum seekers to be detained across the UK in shock Rwanda operation

[Tenmus]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/28/home-office-to-detain-asylum-seekers-across-uk-in-shock-rwanda-operation

"The Home Office will launch a surprise operation to detain asylum seekers across the UK on Monday in preparation for deportation to Rwanda, weeks earlier than expected, the Guardian understands.
Officials plan to hold refugees who turn up for routine meetings at immigration service offices and will also pick people up nationwide in a two-week exercise.

They will be immediately transferred to detention centres, which have already been prepared for the operation, and held to be put on later flights to Rwanda. Others identified for these flights are already being held."

I am actually shocked by this. A cruel, inhumane action with terrible optics and a colossal waste of money.

Do you seriously believe the Rwanda nonsense will work?

We could offer safe routes from France, Spain etc.

Of course it is, and a much more sensible one. Sunak et al claim that the Rwanda plan is in part aimed at stopping people putting themselves in danger. If they have safe routes, the market for illegal boats would be slashed at a stroke. Couple that with an efficient asylum processing system which means that non-genuine asylum seekers know that they will be dealt with and sent back quickly to their country of origin, and you have an infinitely more effective deterrent than the tiny possibility that you might be one of the 300 the UK tries (and probably fails) to deport to Rwanda.

Why the hell all these people think the grass is greener here is beyond me. Real asylum seekers and economic migrants are welcome. Freeloaders can do one for me. The issue is climate change will cause more mass migration.

Rwanda is a deterent. I hate the idea, I think we'd be better to send them home, store their electronic image in our IT system so if they come back we know and can charge them to be sent back home. But we have Rwanda. I've no idea how much it's costing us, but deterrents don't work unless they are implemented consistently.

The issue is how many via safe routes?

Can you meet the high number of applications? Or if you limit it in some way people still pay traffickers

Where do you get the idea that legal challenges have now been exhausted? This legislation is so ludicrous that it is crying out to be challenged, and self-evidently that hasn't happened yet as it's only just been passed.

Whilst decent people want the boats to stop, if only for the safety of the people using them, it is perfectly clear that the majority of UK population don't support this as a means of doing so. You only have to look at the Tories' polling figures to work that out.

There are two categories of people coming to the UK, that is asylum seekers and economic migrants. The first group should of course be treated fairly and compassionately, even though they travel through other safe countries to get here. The second group are choosing to come to a country where they know they will be accommodated, given benefits and can easily disappear into the black economy, with zero chance of being deported. I agree with the Rwanda plan in principle, as I believe a majority do, but it's like Brexit, in that only those who oppose it feel they can speak out in real life. I wonder if those who object think we should all be able to force our way in to other countries of our choice, bypassing their laws and requirements to live there at taxpayers' vast expense?

Foreign office advice on Rwanda:

Only limited medical facilities are available in Rwanda. If you have a serious accident or illness, you may need to be evacuated by air ambulance to Kenya or South Africa.

I wonder if we're going to pay for those air ambulances?

Plus some pretty serious warnings about the Congo and Burundi borders.

But it's absolutely safe, of course.

Go on then, I'll bite. This is exclusively about asylum seekers, not the far greater number of legal migrants? And the aim is to allow in genuine refugees but prevent unsafe routes such as small boats? Here is what I would do.

Proper reception centres for asylum seekers. I'm not talking about cramming desperate people onto prison ships, or detaining them, but decent self-catering accommodation with a hub at the centre for English lessons, legal visits, housing advisors, medical provision, education and so on. Such reception centres not to be mandatory (some will prefer to stay with family for example) but available. And staffed, properly, with staff fully trained on the risk of re-trafficking and alert to the risks of young people going missing. Electronic tags for adults where this is considered necessary.

Decisions to be made within weeks, not years. Immigration officers to be well paid and well educated, with some trained in particular asylum producing countries so that they don't write fatuous nonsense in the decision letter.

Where decisions are positive, refugees can remain in the reception accommodation for up to 2-4 weeks while arrangements are made to transition into the community, with the assistance of social workers, employment teams, housing and benefits advisors, so that they can move seamlessly into the community and either start working or continue learning English and volunteering (or similar). Refugee children automatically to have an EHCP.

Where decisions are negative, the individual gets a tag. Automatic legal aid, good quality advisors who will be realistic with them about prospects of success, Tribunal hearing pretty quickly. If the appeal is successful, then as above with the positive decision. But everyone comes back to court for their decision - just as we bring people back to crown courts for sentencing, we don't just write them a letter saying please go to prison.

If the appeal is dismissed, they are then detained straight from court while further appeal rights are dealt with, if they are subsequently successful then they leave detention, and if not then they are returned to their home country. Enforcement to be conducted primarily by specialist social workers and police, until immigration officers can be trained to behave decently.

For those who do not win but cannot be returned (some countries refuse returnees) they get 6 months leave at a time while arrangements are made. For families who lose, specialist social workers who help them to make arrangements for a safe return which might include looking at relocation in their country of origin or employability schemes.

Those who enter by small boat to get 3 months leave to remain pending their asylum decision if they are willing to give evidence about people smugglers. Eyewatering sentences for people smugglers, and no Prisoner Transfer Agreement available for anyone convicted of modern slavery offences.

Shit-hot information sharing about people smuggling and modern slavery with EU countries.

Obviously all of this would cost money, but clearly the govt have some down the back of the sofa as they found it for the hot mess that is the Rwanda scheme. The deterrent effect for small boats would be that the entire claim soup-to-nuts would take no more than six months, and there would be no post-Tribunal option of just fading quietly into the dark economy.

Well, no, by far the largest category of people coming to the UK is a third one, namely legal migrants, mostly coming here for economic reasons. They won't disappear into any black economy because they're here legally.

If by "economic migrants" you mean illegal migrants, no, they won't get accommodation and benefits. The clue's in the word "illegal". If you present yourself to a housing or benefits office and say "I'm an illegal migrant, give me some accommodation and money" the police or immigration authorities will be summoned and you will be detained before being deported back to your country of origin.

What would you do to distinguish between the two groups? Would you have to have a starting point of assuming everyone needs to be treated fairly and compassionately until they are shown to be in the second group?

I love the irony in your last sentence BTW since forcing our way in to other countries of our choice, bypassing their laws and requirements, pretty much sums up the Rwanda scheme. I don't think ordinary Rwandans were consulted about this. But if you're asking whether we should all be entitled to seek asylum in other Convention countries if we feared persecution in our own, without fear of penalties being imposed due to our unlawful presence on their territory - yes.

The Tories polling figures are so bad for a large variety of reasons, and I’m pretty sure it’s not because people actually object to the the Rwanda scheme. Most people in the UK want the government to stop the boats coming by whatever means possible. They’re costing us millions to process applications and keep them in accommodation whilst doing so. We would prefer money to be directed to helping people here already, who can’t get homes, can’t get seen by hospitals and GP’s and are struggling with the COL. The bottom line is, we don’t want them coming here, we cannot accommodate them. Simple.

Apparently there were 1.44 million people out of work Dec 2023 to Feb 2024.
Firstly that's not quite the same as the dramatic "millions"
Secondly - do you think someone is suited to care work just because they're unemployed? Not everyone has the skills or temperament

Very many do. Far more than make their way here.

I posted the graphs and 'league tables' of which countries take what numbers of asylum seekers. The UK isn't even in the top five of European countries, and worldwide it's way down... maybe 25th if I remember correctly?

The illegal migrants come in under the guise of ‘refugees’ obviously. The fact that they come through several safe countries to claim refugee status proves that they aren’t refugees. Refugees would escape the country where they allege they are being persecuted and would seek safety in the first country they reach.

I see people on benefits who would like to study but there are restrictions. Imo allowing someone to complete a 1 year access to nursing or teaching course so they can then go into those careers is a win. But it is difficult for those claiming benefits.

And they do! Have you seen the figures for turkey or Pakistan?

Also once granted refugee status they are treated as U.K. residents.

Asylum seekers are seeking asylum. There aren’t illegal asylum seekers as you can only claim asylum once in the U.K.

are you asking if failed asylum seekers are deported?

Um - yes, by the thousand - is that a serious question?

But not all. Why not? Why’s it okay for some to bypass the safe countries to come here? I’m not concerned with the ones who stop in Turkey or Pakistan. I’m concerned about the ones who continue through these countries to come to the UK.

Christ, they really are desperate for the UKIP/Britain First/Reform/Tommy Robinson loving twat-bag vote, aren't they?

How do you square that with the UNHCR's own guideline and the case of Adimi?

It’s a global issue. Asylum seekers should be accommodated across the world. Not just allow the burden to rest on those countries that border areas of conflict it happen to be on a route out.

And here we go. The usual insults trotted out when people have concerns about immigration. Apparently you think anyone with concerns must be a bigot. And by throwing that comment about, you’re trying close people down. Fortunately most of us see through it for what it is….

So if the geography was different, and we bordered a country that was haemorrhaging refugees who were flooding into this country by the hundreds of thousands would you think that was absolutely fine? Or would you be demanding that other countries help with the burden?

The reason that the UK has far fewer asylum seekers than France and Germany is that we have that stretch of water between us and continental Europe. If we swapped places geographically with France, and had to deal with the numbers there and the camps in Calais, you'd be screaming that other more fortunate countries, like the island of France, should be stepping up to take their share.

I hope if you ever need to leave your home to seek safey, that you get trapped there with no one to help you too.