Thread: Plans to send some asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda

So, the UK plans to send some/many asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda.

UK Rwanda asylum plan against international law, says UN refugee agency - BBC News

Is it a good idea or not?

have you developed a stutter Dave

Originally Posted by malmomike77

have you developed a stutter Dave

No, I don't think I've ever done a poll here before ... a learning experience.

Poll is open for 2 months

Is anonymous

Have to say, it's a little strange to be sending them to a country that has almost double the population density.

I don't think it's ethically correct and question the legality of such an enterprise.

Anyone know how much this is going to cost the UK?

Most of them are economic migrants, if they were that desperate they'd claim asylum in the first EU country they arrived in. France and the EU in general seem happy to let the trafficking gangs operate on EU territory.

I was listening to that cvnt David Lammy on yet another BBC radio discussion with yet another handpicked audience of bleeding heart lefties cheering his every word. God i loath him and the BBC that has become a socialist mouthpiece - i have no problem with genuine asylum seekers but Lammy and the other lefties that largely made up the panel have no answer to the migrant problem, the cost to the UK or the impact they will have on the already stretched social services and local council infra. Its always the same with Labour, they have all the ideas and no way to pay for them or ways to mitigate their impact on the existing population.

The ultimate question is where does this end? and not just for the UK. The Third world/ME coughing out kids with no way to provide for them and the so called first world countries like the UK who are up to the eyes in debt expected to take them in.

It's also unethical the way the UK admits refugees. They don't need visas, family, or host, to be accepted into the UK. A travel document should be granted to them on arrival.

Asylum seekers are also not illegal immigrants. They are not criminals and should not be treated as such.

Rwanda indeed, should send Priti Patel there for good!

Originally Posted by Troy

Anyone know how much this is going to cost the UK?

Literally nobody has costed it, and personally I don't think it will happen.

It's just a diversion while the country waits to find out how many crimes its PM has committed.

I read that the British government would contribute an initial 120 million pounds. I'd say it was open ended after that - if it ever actually flies.

The way I see it, claiming asylum is when you get to the first safe country after fleeing your own, unsafe country.

Therefor, claiming asylum in the UK should not even exist. Unless you're maybe from Republic of Ireland and shit goes bad.

Iceland, perhaps?

^ There is no obligation for a refugee or asylum seeker to remain in the first safe country they travel under UN law.

Ok, I thought otherwise, but when they are willing to embark on a journey through the whole of mainland Europe to get to UK to exploit the system, it's time to review the strictness of your immigration/refugee/asylum laws.

Thus, they proceed to the richest country. I am rather sick of illegal immigrants and their advocates using us as if we have some sort of 'duty of care' to these people. We don't.
They leave their home country and break the laws of another sovereign nation by entering illegally, so have no right to cherry pick where they are placed. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

The way I see it, claiming asylum is when you get to the first safe country after fleeing your own, unsafe country.

Therefor, claiming asylum in the UK should not even exist. Unless you're maybe from Republic of Ireland and shit goes bad.

Iceland, perhaps?

There is something called air travel. It has been around for a while now. Some people fly to the UK and claim asylum on arrival at the airport.

I doubt the world can ever agree enough to designate some remote island to send all asylum seekers to, while their applications are being processed. Then, if successful, their destination would be allocated by lottery. But that would be nice.

Originally Posted by sabang

Thus, they proceed to the richest country.

"...the vast majority of asylum seekers and refugees are actually hosted in developing countries."

Originally Posted by sabang

I am rather sick of illegal immigrants and their advocates using us as if we have some sort of 'duty of care' to these people. We don't.
They leave their home country and break the laws of another sovereign nation by entering illegally, so have no right to cherry pick where they are placed. It's that simple.

"...usually only a small proportion of asylum applicants in Australia arrive by boat—most arrive by air with a valid visa and then go on to pursue asylum claims."


Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts?

– Parliament of Australia

I think they are only planning to send the stinky single males, so darkest Africa would seem a more than befitting destination.

Long overdue that a clearly advertised distinction was made between males and females when it comes to asylum policy.

Males can jump in teh fuckin sea and drown or be fucked off pronto to darkest Rwanda.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Literally nobody has costed it, and personally I don't think it will happen.

I'm not sure it will happen either since it is not just unethical and uneconomical, there is no government data to support the theory that single males on boats are economic migrants. In fact, the majority have their asylum status accepted.

This isn't a policy to send those that have failed to obtain asylum, it is a policy to outsource the processing of asylum seekers. It is shifting the UK responsibility for these asylum seekers to a third nation, which is of questionable legality anyway. The UK are washing their hands of their responsibility to these people, something that everyone should be ashamed of.

If this policy gets off the ground it will be a multi billion pound disaster.

^ all good Troy and like so many others who are outraged by this. but what is your solution to the ever increasing numbers being bred like locusts in the Africa & ME - you can moan all you like but someone has to pay for and meet the needs of these people and generally it ain't the people who are moaning about the Govts approach to this. The problem is the root cause and the solution ain't housing all the disaffected in countries thousands of miles from their source.

Your beloved EU is allowing the traffickers to operate with impunity and quite frankly is as ineffectual in dealing with them as they are in dealing with any internal issues. Being uncharitable i would even say they are encouraging them to punish the UK, but off course like Micron and his hate for the UK that's unthinkable.

So i ask again Troy what are you suggesting as the solution, or are you another David Lammy.

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

Safe to say, the majority find their way to France and then travel illegally to England.

Less than 8% of migrants to the UK take this route.

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

Safe to say, the majority find their way to France and then travel illegally to England. That means that France is not doing it's part and at very least, they should be sent directly back to France with a fucking branding for future reference.

Did the Daily Mail tell you that?

Where do you think the vast majority of asylum seekers go? Name a country . . . any country . . . and it's not the UK by a country mile

Originally Posted by cyrille

Less than 8% of migrants to the UK take this route.

Care to elaborate?

I had a look...

From January to September 2020, 98% of the people who arrived in the UK by crossing the English Channel in small boats claimed asylum, but the majority of asylum seekers did not arrive by small boat

The Home Office does not routinely publish breakdowns of asylum claims by claimants’ method of arrival in the UK. However, a government official stated that in 2020 up to September, of the roughly 5,000 people who had made it to the UK by small boat, 98% claimed asylum (for more information on small boat arrivals see The Migration Observatory commentary, Migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats: What do we know?).
The Home Office stated in its New Plan for Immigration that in the whole of 2020 around 8,500 people crossed the English Channel in small boats (Home Office, 2021, p. 5). If we assume that 98% of these claimed asylum, they would make up just under a quarter of all people seeking asylum in 2020. It also stated that in the year ending September 2019, 62% of asylum claims were made by those who entered the UK without authorisation, including those who entered by small boat, lorry, or without visas (Home Office, 2021, p. 8). It is not clear how the remaining 38% arrived in the UK, but this may include people who arrived on a visa not designed for claiming asylum, or people who were already in the UK when conditions in their country of origin deteriorated.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Did the Daily Mail tell you that?

Where do you think the vast majority of asylum seekers go? Name a country . . . any country . . . and it's not the UK by a country mile

I'm referring to ones that do go to UK.

Cyrille got it.