UKH

...needs to be stopped because the UK will have a responsibility to take vulnerable people from  Rwanda.

This is yet another example where journalism has failed to report what is in plain sight.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-...

16 Resettlement of vulnerable Refugees

16.1 The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.

It is extraordinary that this has not been picked up.

The vulnerable Rwandan refugees are outlined in this UNHCR report:

https://reporting.unhcr.org/document/1273

I'm certain that made the news when the 'plan' was announced.

It was regularly picked up in the more in depth news outlets. It probably doesn't get much mainstream concern as most such news outlets have the attention span of a gnat and because it's only a consequence if this nasty legal fantasy of a policy somehow becomes reality by legal changes that have no place in a civilised western country.

This point was actually raised by Kier Starmer during prime ministers questions today funnily enough. The wisdom of spending millions of pounds to send  a maximum of 100 people to Rwanda and then receive 100 people in return does seem slightly dubious!

So far the score on travel to Rwanda on this issue is Home Secretaries 3 Refugees 0 and so it will remain before the next election on the refugee side without draconian legal change, as the treaty, although providing stronger protection on refoulement, won't prevent legal challenges, where the clock will run out.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/supreme-court-rwanda-rish...

So, what would your answer be to stopping illegal emigrants in boats? Or would you welcome them and offer support?

I think the government are scratching around for an answer. If a couple of planes took the illegals straight to Rwanda would you pay 3k to get in a rubber boat?

By illegal immigrants do you mean asylum seekers?

Small boat arrivals account for a very small proportion of net migration. Stopping the boats would make little meaningful difference to migration figures.

You do mean immigrants, not emigrants?

The government know fine well what the answer is, but it doesn't play well to their target audience. The problem is rounding up the illegals (those that have not presented themselves to the authorities with in the specified time period). If you mean those arriving by boat (not in itself illegal) then the easiest way to "stop the boats" is to provide safe, "normal" methods of getting to the uk, then processing applications in a reasonably timely fashion, and deporting those who do not fit reasonable criteria. Just like how it was done before the government needed a scapegoat........

Rwanda will not stop the rubber boats. Sending a couple of hundred over there (actually a swap for the same number of migrants already in Rwanda) isnt going to deter any of the 40k+ attempting channel crossings. The odds of not being deported / transported to Rwanda are still pretty good, and if you are prepared to gamble on the journey here, then the very minor chance of being sent to Rwanda isnt going to alter your thinking much.

Ferrari was questioning Philps about it on LBC this morning.

Philps said it would only be a handful but refused to give a figure.

This often isn't possible.

If they are undocumented they will claim they are from a country that do not allow forced returns, or countries that demand documents to be returned effectively making them unreturnable.

It will only be a handful if we only send a handful, if indeed anyone is ever sent? If we send 100 then we get 100 back. Don't suppose Philps wanted to say that though.

No I mean the people coming here in boats and either being put in a hotel at my expense or adding to the 17,000 disapeared. 

90% of people coming over in small boats are applying for asylum and fleeing conflict. This is entirely within their rights.

The government mismanagement of housing asylum seekers is not the fault of the asylum seekers themselves, but a government that would rather throw money at hotels than build affordable housing.

Or processing demands for asylum quickly, as in the past.

Rwanda is not an answer and was never meant to be, it was cooked up as a diversionary tactic to placate the red meat voters. Dominic Cummings admitted as much last week. And yes I know, Dominic Cummings! But some of what he says is undoubtedly true.

The boat crossings do need to be stopped. Ordinary people are paying huge amounts of money and having their lives endangered by greedy and ruthless criminal gangs. 

The agreement to return Albanians (Albania appears to be a reasonably safe country) has helped, but other sensible humane solutions are required. 

Immigration by conventional means is an entirely different issue, the two are often conflated.

I agree the small boat crossings are not a good thing as they needlessly endanger the lives of asylum seekers and as you say funnel money to gangs.

The response to this however is not to blame the asylum seekers, but instead to offer some level of alternative (not necessarily crossings just something that removes the need for small boats) that is more desirable.

Mine would be to process asylum seekers in Calais. Anyone crossing the channel on a lilo gets sent back to Calais for processing. I reckon it would reduced small boat crossings to near 0 for a tithe of the cost of sending a few to Rwanda, and getting a few back from there

Let's just hope that you never need escape persecution, torture and death because of your politics/ethnicity/sexuality, though given another Tory administration I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

To answer your question, what to do about the Channel crossings: the current strategy seems to be to punish asylum seekers to 'destroy the business model' of the traffickers. I would respectfully suggest that collaborating with French authorities to attack the traffickers directly might be more cost effective and humane. Oh and look: from this week's Private Eye: payments to Rwanda [by you, don't forget] £140 million, with no tangible benefit at all. Payments to France : £63 million, resulting in 25% reduction in small boat arrivals, approx 8,200 people.

Now, where should we be spending your money?

Its being reported he has told the 1922 committee the reason the UK hasnt gone for breaking international law is the Rwandans said they wouldnt sign a treaty if we did.

If true how on earth could he come out with that. The only reason we arent breaking the law is because another government actually has some standards.

It's pretty bad when a country considered unsafe to deport to, has more morals than the tory cabinet. Sunak's honest politics! 

I can't see it ever stopping but improved cooperative policing with France should help reduce the scale.

Plus, as other have said, allow external applications for asylum with the capacity to handle that (it all worked OK until fairly recently),  so fewer asylum seekers need to take that risk. Also as others have said, we desperately need more social housing, and not just for immigrants either, so Labour plans to change planning regs and build more is a 'win all round'.

I'd support victims of criminal gangs in any circumstances. If they are seeking asylum and meet the criteria, then welcome them. If not, send them back if it's safe, and if that's not possible, still provide support . As for the hotel problem, process faster and let them work until processed... both meaning they won't need paid accommodation as much.

You assume Rwanda is a real disincentive but there is zero clear evidence of that being significant. The traffickers have a massive incentive to lie to them about any risks and overstate gains for their transport service.

Overall the legal immigration numbers are way larger than those on the boats and most legal immigrants benefit the UK economy a lot more than they cost us. As for the 'number issue' it's again more about the way our government count stupidly and incentivise stupidly (and demonise them for political gain, then 'get bitten on the arse' when it goes wrong). In particular, all overseas students significantly benefit our economy and a big majority return home afterwards, so they shouldn't be included in the numbers; unless legally getting a job afterwards (and only at that point).

In the vast majority of cases (86%), the person arriving on a small boat applies for asylum and has it granted. After it is granted, they can start to get work and pay for their own accommodation, the first problem you are highlighting is caused almost entirely by the government's asylum evaluation system progressing slightly slower than plate tectonics. If applications were processed in a reasonable timeframe, the number of people who cannot leave or work and must be supported by the government would be drastically reduced.

I don't know over what time that "17 000 disappeared" is measured or what exactly "disappeared" means there but I think it's important to look at that number in context - every year there is a net migration into the UK somewhere in the 300 000 to 600 000 people range and this is into a population of 65 000 000 or so. Obviously it's not great to just have 17 000 people vanish and presumably become undocumented folk who end up working illegally, but it's a pretty small number.

Thought experiment for you: If the small boats magically stopped tomorrow, do you think you would have to pay less tax? Assuming you agree with my assessment and think the answer is "no", it should hopefully reduce that feeling you have that the asylum seekers are somehow being put up at hotels by you personally.

Another thought experiment: Do you think drunk drivers who crash and are horribly maimed should be treated at _your_ expense? If we want to stop this happening because of how terrible it is, maybe we should just ban alcohol?

There are lots of things in this world that we might not like very much and while we should always be searching for ways to effect change and not simply accepting these things as immutable, it is also important to realise that most of them are incredibly complex social issues and do not have simple solutions (or certainly not ones we would be willing to accept as a society, I'm sure deploying the royal navy with orders to shoot to kill would cut boat numbers to zero pretty quickly after word got out but I'm hoping there will be a change of government before the Tories try to roll that one out).

Imagine if there was a large multi country organisation that enabled you to send people arriving in small boats back to France. Hypothetically, lets call this mechanism the "Dublin Treaty".  

Nah, never going to happen 🙄

Indeed, although the reality of the Dublin agreement was that it didn't work as well as it was thought to do. Only 209 people were ever removed from Britain under the agreement. Mind you that's 209 more than have or will be sent to Rwanda.

Just noticed that Robert Jenrick has resigned as the new immigration/Rwanda policy is not nasty enough for his liking.

Simply because we refused to utilise it as much as other nations.

There's a rumour they insisted on decorating their hostels in bright, welcoming colours..........

Most refugees arriving in the UK don’t arrive in boats. Our shit and racist government pushes this lie to ‘sucker-in’ gullible people like you. But, ironically, a large % arriving in boats are from places like Afghanistan, and we owe it to them coz we’ve helped fvck up their country. They’re in  hotels coz our incompetent government has not addressed the refugee issue, creating a huuuge backlog of unprocessed claims. Be nice to move them in to houses rather than hotels, either as asylum seekers or as refugees. But guess what?  Our shit government has consistently done feck all to address the housing crisis, making everyone suffer (ie both refugees and UK homeless people).  

A cursory look at the donors to the tory party and also the profits being made by the large house building firms disagrees with the claim everyone is suffering.

Those who matter are doing rather well thank you very much.

Also, we have a ridiculous 2 tier refugee system. Those coming from Ukraine apply from their own country or elsewhere in Europe and then can have safe passage here. They are allowed to work straight away, so can be contributing straight away (obviously, not all are able to due to language barriers/ mental health trauma etc. But some really do work from the moment they arrive). These people are part of communities now, functioning normally in society like the rest of us. 

Then, those with brown skin, are made out to be feckless criminals and have to take dangerous crossings, locked up when they get here, not allowed to work etc etc. 

Talk about incompetent and feckless! They are a bunch of f***wits

You’re taking utter tosh. The govt has no answers whatsoever. They’ve no interest in finding a proper answer. It suits their agenda to allow chaos and encourage decisiveness. Ive met hundreds of people who’ve come over in boats. It’s costing way less than 3k. Would I come? Too right I would. They’re either genuine refugees fleeing for their lives or living in such dire poverty that the dream of a western lifestyle is very appealing. Do the maths. Rwanda could at the max process 1,000 claims a year, so chances of getting sent to Rwanda are small. And why would you make such a crazy journey from say Eritrea or Afghanistan and stop at Calais coz of some fake news (in their eyes) about Rwanda. 

Dublin agreement has never dealt with big numbers though, maybe a few thousand out of a country and a few thousand in (with a net gain/loss of about a thousand or so for many EU countries). 

I have posted this before and will post it again….

Look! Over there! It’s a man in a cap.

He’s come to the beach 

Armed with bigotry and binoculars

To scan the horizon for refugees.

Behind him is a county

Where millions live in poverty 

While the super rich avoid their tax 

Where people die from neglect 

As the Tories line the pockets of their friends.

But the map in the cap

Points out to sea....

Look! Over there! It’s a family in a dinghy!

They’re after your money 

They’re the ones to watch out for 

Behind him, the rich get ever richer 

As they raise a glass to the man in the cap 

And laugh at the people in poverty 

Who are shaking their fists at the sea. 

Pete Sinclair, August 2020

You’re right. ‘Returning’ (technically, it is rarely ‘deporting’ but our govt and journos like this phrase), refused asylum seekers to their country of origin is sooooo difficult.  Sorting travel documents, dealing with embassies, being 100% sure they will be treated safely, proving they are actually from country X…..  not happening in the vast majority of cases. I know of one person (out of probs it thousands) who has gone back home, and he returned voluntarily. 

It's being reported today that by next year the Rwanda plan will have cost £290 million! And that initially Rwanda aim to house 200 people a year. 

This is where our hard earned taxes go. 

As a plan the scheme was always an irrelevent swap of refugees, in terms of making no significant UK difference in terms of UK refugee numbers. It was set up as dog whistle politics (even knowing legal experts said it wouldn't work), to show voters with shitty morals the tory government is 'doing something'. Any actual disincentive is paltry to potential victims considering a boat trip. The drop they claim demonstrated the disincentive was working will be mainly be due to the Albanian deal (an actual different disincentive).

Because it was always incompatible with our law, the PM is now legally trying to define 'a cat as being a dog', yet UK legislation and a new treaty can't significantly change the real evidenced risks in Rwanda. Hence, Cruella is almost certainly correct that redefining cats won't work, so she wants to tear up our UK human rights legislation further.

It's tragic to see £290 million being 'flushed' in such times of desperate need, but the bigger financial worry is the current plans will cost our economy billions, even just for overseas students who go elsewhere, let alone the economic damage of enhancing severe labour shortages.

Thanks.  Incredible numbers.  Not surprising, still disappointing.

IIRC Rwanda had bed spaces in hostel type hotels for just over 200.  They estimated they could process 1,000 people a year, i.e. every 10 weeks they would process another 200 asylum seekers who would then leave the system.  I will wager my house that if they follow the relevant laws, this will not be achieved. Anyone who gets refused but then goes through an appeals process will take ages.  Or they could simply go through a rubber stamping exercise to get through the numbers Which in reality is what is happening in the UK right now - the HO is simply granting people refugee status from certain countries without any proper process, in a bid to get hotel numbers down but also in the realisation that returning 'refused' asylum seekers to their country of origin is extremely difficult, so they may as well let them stay in the UK coz they rarely go back.

I do wonder if with todays leaks  about the costs whether Sunak has politically destroyed her and stuck a knife in bravermans back. Very politically ruthless.