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.

Why do you think the U.K. has a higher acceptance rate to the EU generally?

Have you been able to compare the process and questions asked?

I know from talking to asylum seekers that these are some of the things that are commonly considered when working out which safe country to apply for asylum in, yes.

I believe there’s also research to back this lived experience up.

Isn't the first question "Does the UK have a higher grant rate than the EU+ countries?"

Followed by "If so, why."

In respect of the first question there is a good chart taken from p31 this report: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf

As you can see, our grant rate per 10,000 population is unremarkable.

Sure, you might say, but what about the percentage of grants per number of decisions made - we have that too:

In 2023, the UK's total grant rate (covering asylum, humanitarian protection and discretionary leave) was 49,862 out of 74,172 decisions. That's a grant rate of 67%, refusal rate 33%, where the top nationalities were Afghanistan and Iran - both countries with high grant rates throughout Europe.

Data is also available for other EU countries, for example here https://euaa.europa.eu/publications/latest-asylum-trends-2023-annual-analysis

From that analysis we know that the EU+ recognition rate for Afghans is 61% - but, and it's a huge but, some countries also grant subsidiary protection, so not asylum but humanitarian protection. Germany granted only 46% asylum, but granted 48% subsidiary protection - so a total grant rate for Afghans of 94%. Switzerland granted 97% of Afghan applicants.

Moving away from nationality focus, you can also look at the most recent stats for the EU+ countries summarised here https://euaa.europa.eu/key-figures-international-protection-in-EU

Austria: 73% positive decisions (higher than us)
Belgium: 44% positive (lower than us)
Denmark: 50% (lower than us)
Estonia: 95% (a lot higher than us!)
Greece: 67% (exactly the same as us)
Netherlands: 64% (very similar to us)

So I don't think that you can support the proposition that the UK has a higher grant rate, much less attribute it to crafty applicants, gullible decision makers or woolly liberal judges.

Something else that emerges from the data though is the disparity in the grant rate to different nationalities, which might seem obvious but will have a marked effect on grant rates. From the Europa summary "Certain citizenships tend to lodge the vast majority of their applications in a single EU+ country. In February 2024, these included: Bangladeshis who lodged three-quarters of their applications in Italy; Ivorians who lodged more than half of their applications in France, Tunisians and Egyptians who lodged just under two-thirds of their applications in Italy, and Turks who lodged just under two-thirds of their applications in Germany."

Bangladesh for example has a 92.5% refusal rate, and if the majority of them are claiming in Italy, that is going to have an effect on Italy's grant rate.

As an aside, I was mildly surprised to see in the data that six UK nationals claimed asylum in Europe. None were successful.

It was the EU average I saw, which was lower at around 40%.

In summary the differing grant rate is due to differing rates of asylum country of origin - have I understood correctly?

Some have higher acceptance rates but it’s attached to country of origin levels

You have cleared up a question on it, it makes sense

Exactly that.

And to further my own procrastination I just entered all the EU+ data onto a spreadsheet, and the most recent average from all EU+ grant rates is 50.4% success rate. That ranges from Estonia with a whopping 96.9% grant rate down to Spain with a meagre 12.4%, which makes sense when you also see that their top nationalities seeking asylum in Spain are Venezuela, Colombia and Peru, all of which have poor success rates overall.

If you enter the UK's data as though we are still a member, it nudges the average across the EU up to 50.9%, so barely shifts it at all. There are 16 countries with a lower grant rate, 6 very similar to us, and 7 with a higher grant rate, so we are towards the generous end but not in the top ten.

And how do the home office find out if they've destroyed documents, if they've passed through safe countries or failed to claim asylum immediately on entry? If someone presents themselves just in the clothes they're stood up in, where do investigations even begin?

There was indeed a brutal genocide in Rwanda. I’m not sure it has really been addressed, as it may need time to be able to fully deal with what happened, and heal.

In the years afterwards, a family member of mine like there for a few years. Moved to another African country afterwards. However, he goes back on holiday to Rwanda. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the UK’s dealings with asylum seekers and migrants, I don’t think Rwanda itself is in turmoil.

Maybe someone who lives there currently might come along to give some insight to what it is like to live there.

I just want to thank you @Diggby for your detailed, informed and intelligent posts. I'm somewhat afraid that those posters who need to read them most, won't bother, though.

I volunteer and am a trustee with an organisation working with asylum seekers within and outside the detention estate. I hear the stories and talk with them. These actual human beings.
I find it positively distressing reading some of the posts on here, from people who have allowed the government and right wing media to feed them false information, and who seem to be able to completely de-humanise these vulnerable people.

I appreciate the break down and reasoning as I have asked before and no one had given much more than flack in return

My position is that people underestimate demand when they suggest safe routes or hubs

And this

It's absolutely arguable that the Refugee Convention was not designed for an age of accessible global travel

And I’d add climate pressure and trafficking business which makes huge profits

All sorts of ways. Tyrannical dictatorships often have mandatory ID cards, so if someone has lived and worked in that place prior to fleeing they must have had an identity document. If they left the country by plane then they must have had a passport whether or not it was their own. So the interviewing officer will explore what happened to these documents in fine detail, sometimes spending more time on questions about documents and journey to the UK than on the substantive claim. Quite often the individual will say outright that they used a false identity card or passport to leave their country and come to the UK, because they wouldn't otherwise have been able to leave as they were wanted as a political dissident or whatever - so the lack of document or use of a false one is an integral part of the claim. Others will explain that the people smugglers confiscated or destroyed the documents, again this will be significant to their claim.

Lots of people who leave on a false document will ask family members to post or email a copy of the genuine one once they are safely in the UK in order to prove their identity, because without it the HO may not accept even their name or nationality.

Whether they've passed through safe countries will be obvious if they arrive by small boat, since you can't get here by small boat from an unsafe one. If they arrive by lorry it is likely they have (though they may or may not have known where they were) and if they arrive by plane we know where they've come from.

Whether they failed to claim asylum immediately on entry is self-evident. If they claim in country then they didn't claim immediately.

The HO will do biometrics (so if someone has already claimed in another country their fingerprints could be seen on Eurodac, the central database, to which we no longer have access due to Brexit - which means that we can no longer see if someone has claimed in France or Germany already for example). The individual is expected to fill out a reasonably long form giving the names, places of birth, dates of birth of their parents and siblings as well as spouse and any children, list the schools they have attended and between which dates etc. All of this can be used to establish their identity, and if they refuse then the claim is refused for non-compliance.

And as a final flourish from the Illegal Migration Act 2023, officers will have the power to seize smartphones from asylum seekers and examine them for any data which might show where they have been or who they are, particularly any travel history or Facebook accounts. This had been common practice anyway in 2020, but was held to be unlawful because the seizures were not done under statutory powers, had involved indiscriminate downloading of data, and the unlawful retention of phones for many many months which meant migrants weren't able to contact family or access crucial documentation. The govt has repaired this by giving officers the statutory powers that they previously lacked.

Thank you @saraclara!

Disgusting attitude towards people.

I agree with pp - something needs to be done. Do you want people traffickers to just continue to kill people in the channel?

This wouldn't stop that. This is treating people just as badly as the traffickers. These are people. Someone's child, someone's parent, someone's friend. We should treat people as we would like to be treated in the same situation. This is not it.

Honestly don’t be ridiculous. These are young men looking to make money in the main. Not seven year olds!!!

Where are we going to put them all??? Do you want to house them? Why haven’t you offered already? Have you seen the cost of accommodating the illegal exon migrants? It’s running to tens of millions now. It absolutely has to stop, and I support any deterrents whole heartedly. You have to provide an alternative solution if you can’t support the Rwanda plan. So what is it?

So what will Labour do instead to address this crisis? Nothing that’s what.

A 5 year old child was killed crossing last week. I would highly recommend The Swimmers on Netflix to anyone who thinks people don't justifiably flee countries on small boats.

As long as we continue to fund wars and live in a throwaway society damaging the planet, refugee numbers will continue to rise.

https://www.tatler.com/article/emily-thornberry-attacks-david-cameron-expensive-most-luxurious-private-jets-market-central-asia-trip and this is the kind of shit that causes our money problems.

The majority of the migrants are adult men. We can all dredge up examples of exceptions. Do you not think that is more of a reason to stop this racket - a child dying - not less??

Yes, and the solution is to provide safe ways to claim asylum, not remove all possible ways of trying to claim it.

How would that even work worldwide??!! It’s just bullshit that this could possibly work in any meaningful way.

I'm not the one sounding ridiculous. I'm also not the one believing the lies spread about people who are vulnerable. It is only by pure chance that one person is born on a particular piece of land rather than another. We are all the same, all just atoms and molecules.

Well said....something needs to be done this country is struggling

But they are NOT vulnerable! Most of them are healthy, young fit males. Why do you continue to insist they are all so desperate and needy with no options??? Even the tiniest amount of research and a cursory glance at the facts would tell you otherwise. It’s pathetic and you are going to ruin our country unless you bloody well wake up and smell the coffee.

'@Polishedshoesalways
I agree with pp - something needs to be done. Do you want people traffickers to just continue to kill people in the channel?'
@lovinglife57 ·
'Well said....something needs to be done this country is struggling'

Does anyone still really believe at this stage that the Rwanda scheme is:

• going to work
• will make any difference to the boat crossings?

If you look at it from a logical perspective it has already costs us millions with no results whatsoever and it will cost taxpayers £1.8m for each of the first 300 people the government deport (if they can find an airline stupid enough to take the contract...).

It is not acting as a deterrent either.

It is simply a complete waste of money to get headlines in the Mail and try to get a few more votes from a very specific (and unsavoury) group of people.

The money would have been better spent hiring enough staff to process claims quickly and working with the French to have a processing centre on their side of the Channel.

Then of course there are the justified ethical concerns of trying to send people to a country like Rwanda.

I really don't see how anyone with any common sense can support this batshit policy or think that it is the way to solve illegal immigration.

Not all of them are healthy, fit young males. However, it’s possible to be a healthy, fit young male and vulnerable. It’s a bit like when a missing child is found ‘safe and well’ - do people really think they’re absolutely fine and that’s the end of it? Of course not, it’s just a phrase used to indicate physically they appear not to be seriously injured or unwell. Sorry, but the people ruining the country are the government, not a poster trying to stand up for human rights.

I don’t know why you seem to have chosen this hill to die on, but a cursory glance at statistics isn’t going to give the information you need in a complex situation. Look for the reasons why it is young men making the journey and actually reaching Europe, including the UK. Not all of us want a country that no longer has empathy, not all of us want a country that focuses on making everyone else ‘the other. Some of us want our government held to account for what they have done to the country they are governing. That doesn’t involve passing blame onto a small and vulnerable group of people in our society in a propaganda headline style, it involves digging into the real reasons this government has failed to adequately provide its citizens with health care, housing, travel and support. It’s ultimately incredibly depressing to read views like yours on this thread, but I think before you call other posters pathetic, you really need to go and properly research and understand there are real people behind the data.

It's tricky. The Home Office do employ language experts who are reasonably good at telling where someone is from - they'll most likely be able to identify an Egyptian posing as a Syrian political refugee for example. Where it gets tricky is when you get, e.g. a Turkish Armenian pretending to be an Armenian national fleeing persecution in Armenia, despite never having set foot there.