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.

Yes we had a civil war in 1642 which I know was centuries ago and things have been awful for the working classes who have been treated very badly

Dark satanic mills

This is never acknowledged

I think the people living here should have priority in housing which is affordable if they need it

We are constantly being told it is being built but what is the point of it is being given to people from abroad

what cannot continue?

If you mean the number of refugees reaching this country, then if we were taking our fair share, it would be far more. If you mean deaths in the channel, then we stop that by opening safe routes to apply from abroad and travel here.

I am not sure what you are saying cannot continue?

How about grant them asylum and allow them to work and pay tax? asylum seekers are people too, and will have a range of skills and knowledge between them. Some will be medical professionals, some teachers and some will be low skilled workers, all of which we are lacking right now.

And what about the other side to all this? What about the impact mass immigration has on local communities? The vast majority of 'asylum seekers' are undocumented young men. We have no idea who they are, where they've come from, or why they've left their home country. Where are their mothers and fathers and wives and sisters and children? Ordinary men, with families and jobs, don't just up and leave. In many cases, no doubt, these rootless young men have fled their home country because they're wanted by the police.

Take the recent case of Anicet Mayela, an illegal immigrant from the Congo. Anti-deportation campaigners fought for him to stay, and won. He's now in prison for raping a young girl. Those people who helped him, and who no doubt felt a nice, warm, tingly feeling of moral superiority while they did so, ought to be made to meet his victim.

People on here seem to think that asylum seekers are all poor, frightened little children with big brown eyes. The reality is often very different. My workplace overlooks a park. Every day I watch a group of so-called 'refugees' gather on the benches to play music and sell drugs. They certainly don't look "poor and frightened to me." On the contrary, they are arrogant and aggressive – and there I am, slogging my guts out in a job I hate to pay for them.

My voluntary work is with asylum seekers.

If UK asylum cases are heard in France, I suspect far fewer will risk the journey.

If their asylum claim has been rejected while in France, there's nothing to be gained by risking their life crossing the channel. With a rejected claim the government would be able to return them to their home country on arrival here.

At the moment it seems worth risking the crossing because they might be allowed to stay. But with an asylum rejection already in place, there's little realistic possibility of staying.

Of course some night still try, but I suspect most will not.

It's very strange that MSM hasn't mentioned this......no numbers wrt how many will be coming here in return. I wonder what the "this-is -a-fantastic-idea" brigade will feel when Rwanda decides to class it's "undesirables" as "vulnerable". I mean what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/06/16/rwanda-deal-will-mean-small-number-of-refugees-coming-to-britain-from-africa-government-admits

The solution is to reopen legal routes to claiming asylum and processing claims more quickly, i.e. having a basic level of competence in managing your own borders, like most countries do.

To be fair to this Government, they have never achieved a basic level of competence in any area, so why start now ?

The issue isn’t rejected claims it’s how many will apply and what proportion will you say yes to

If it’s a yes to everyone who meets the criteria how many would you expect? The need for asylum is incredibly high, especially when you remove risk from the journey

If there’s a limit in any way then there will still be people who meet the criteria who get a no, they still have reason to pay traffickers

A country without border control is not a country.
I feel most sorry for the people who have to go through the legal route for visas. Studying, working hard, paying a fortune for visas. The ones ‘fleeing’ from France not so much.
A recent survey showed 60% of young Pakistani men for example want to go abroad for work, a future. The numbers are too big. The vast majority are people who would never qualify for a visa. Poorly educated and with very different values.
The people who don’t want any form of effective control are always the ones who want generous social benefits. You can’t have both indefinitely.
Over half of one Albanian town came over on small boats. The associated criminality is a massive problem.

I’m not sure anyone who is seeing higher levels of trafficking will do this. It will be hard to not be overwhelmed

It’s electioneering and appealing to the Tory base. It’s all Rishi has left - he’s finished. So wrong on every level.

There may be no way in but small boats but still 46,000 people crossed the channel in 2022 according to The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. What do we do with 46,000 people every year? They are endangering themselves by crossing but we can't just have an open border so what's the answer? I'm not suggesting we are right to be sending them to Rwanda and 1% is a pointless drop in the ocean - but we can't pretend it's not a problem.

I've never voted Tory and I think they're doing a shit job at everything - but I don't think that Labour have any answers for handling this? They've talked about possibly processing immigrants abroad but they seem to have nothing concrete at all. It's even more of a problem because so many asylum seekers are young men from very different cultures where for example women maybe considered second class citizens. I wish one party would just put in place a proper long term plan.

Anyone who thinks this scheme will work is deluded IMO. After all if the risk of death doesn't act as a deterrent then I'm stumped to think how being sent to Rwanda would.

I was almost surprised you continued that sentence with "at the next election".

This is such a dreadful thing to do to people who are fleeing for their own safety. Don't puff about with any "oh they're just doing it to make money, they're not in danger." I would bet that there are a few chancers in the crowd. But people who are crammed willingly into little inflatables to cross the Med or the channel are not doing it to make a few quid, they know there's no alternative for themselves and their children.

We've got to remember that we are incredibly lucky to live in a safe country compared to one torn apart by war or run by people who hate women.

Same as happens when France doesn't I suppose but that wasn't my point, do you think the "Send them back to France" people will be keen on the "Send them back to UK" message?

I think people underestimate how many would apply when suggesting fast processing abroad

If they are asylum seekers, they haven't yet been refused permanent status, so I don't understand this? There is a process to go through, do they mean the ones who haven't been approved? Very confusing 😕 and harsh. Xx

I think you misunderstood what I was saying!! This god awful government, not immigrants, are whom I loathe...

Low skilled workers are paid a pittance. Nobody wants to do it because nobody can afford a living on the minimum wage anymore. If asylum seekers were allowed to work, more of these jobs would become low wage because they don’t h e the same cost of living expenses until their claim is decided. So wages would go down.

Deterrent I guess.

You only need to look at the way people acted during the covid lockdown to find the answer to that question.