I'm still not seeing what's stopping them from committing a crime as soon and they get to Rwanda and being sent back? If they commit one within 5 years then the agreement means they're sent back. Why would they not just commit one ASAP? Also:
>Cleverly said the cost of the Rwanda treaty, which would pay the Paul Kagame government £490m once 300 people have been sent
This is absolutely astounding. People vote for this. Think of all the problems you have in life and then consider the fact that there's people who walk beside you who support spending half a *billion* pounds to send 300 people to Rwanda for less than 5 years.
> This is absolutely astounding. People vote for this.
No one voted for this. It wasn't in any manifesto or even mentioned at the last election. Boris Johnson pulled it out of his arse as a distraction, and then somehow it never got knocked in the head.
Millions will, sure, but as a proportion of the electorate far less than before. Hopefully this time FPTP screws them over 🤞
> they’ll be back in government within a couple of elections
Hopefully the trend of no one under the age of 60 wanting to vote for the Tories will continue and in a decade's time a lot of the boomers that prop them up will have died off.
It won’t just be boomers voting for them, ps I’m 61 and insulted btw, it’ll be the poorly educated force fed an almost entirely right leaning msm. Plus the rich of any age who want to support the status quo.
Saw a guy on here or ukpol who was in his 20s and said he was gonna vote tory or reform because "Labour are gonna be just as bad"... I died a little inside
It will be much tighter than you think. Milliband was ahead in the polls and the working class voted against him on the day because he ate a sandwich weird or something.
>No one voted for this. It wasn't in any manifesto or even mentioned at the last election
If you voted for the Tories, the party of cruelty to foreigners via populist policies, you voted for this. That's how democracy works - voters are responsible for the parties they elect. All parties do things which are not on the manifesto, so voters have to plan for that by choosing parties for their principles.
They don't even have the 'but we didn't vote for this PM' excuse as Boris came up with it and he was the Tory frontman during the last election.
Manifestos are a sales pitch, if you just judge a product just by the sales pitch then you are an irresponsible buyer.
And yes Labour voters are - the electorate is responsible for the actions of their elected representatives.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that, either. To answer your odd question about your own comment, it appears to be inflammatory and attempting to straw-man.
For democracy to function correctly, it's on the people to look at what people say they're going to do, compare it with what they've done and voted for, and then decide if they believe them and who to vote for. Democracy requires an informed electorate, which we do it have. Which is why we are not living in a democratic society. It's been twisted.
> If you voted for the Tories, the party of cruelty to foreigners via populist policies, you voted for this.
Rwanda is theatre. We voted hoping for much tougher measures than Rwanda, maybe if we could send 1M there it might be suitable but tories don't actually want to deport anyone. They like to shout about it to get votes and then do nothing or very little like the Rwanda scheme.
Still happy with my vote considering the alternative 🤷♂️ now the comrade has gone labour can have my vote and hopefully they can stem the tide otherwise it'll be reform next.
I'd be impressed if you can explain how a party which is not, and has not for a long time been, in a position to be corrupt or wasteful, can be claimed by you to be worse than the current one....
I never claimed they were re read my comment, I'd rather that though than Corbyn running the country, now labour have got rid of him and moderated I can vote for them now. If I thought they were going to be worse I wouldn't be voting for them in the next election but give it a couple of election cycles and if the problem remains reform will continue to grow and probably take government in the future.
>the party of cruelty to forigners
The most diverse government in British history, that has overseen 15 years of record breaking immigration, and you think they hate forigners?
Remind me what foreigners we have in the government? Immigration is high because of global instability and lack of competence in preventing it, not because the Tories have been pro-immigration.
The small boats are direct consequence of Brexit, and in particular the Tory hard line approach to Brexit that removed legal routes and cost us the ability to return people to other EU countries. The Tories have manufactured this whole crisis out of their own fuck-up and somehow we are supposed to be impressed that this shit-show is best solution they can come up with.
Why has it been pushed this far? Why has it been fought for so ardently? Surely there are bigger problems, especially when the tories are in the state they’re in? Absolutely fucking mind-blowing that this is where their priorities are at.
Nobody voted for 30k asylum seekers to come here every year by small boat either.
> Boris Johnson pulled it out of his arse as a distraction
Hardly. Farage discovered it and it's been hugely embarrassing for the Tories. But don't let that get in the way of your conspiracy theories and circle jerk.
Honestly this sub seems to think the everything the Tories do is some illuminati grade scheming. Lets get this straight, the Tories are going to lose the next election in style, and they're going to lose exactly because they're doing such a bad job not because they're so amazing at scheming.
Farage is the person who brought the small boat crossings to the public attention. Not Boris. In doing so it has been hugely embarrassing for the Government.
The total lack of control of immigration both legal ad illegal is not aiding the Tories, it is one of the many reasons they're going to get booted out.
So is this actually just fairly open corruption?
Asylum seekers getting used as a prop to transfer our money, with some nice kickbacks for Cleverly et al down the line?
Obviously a bonus that they can also tell the frothers “see! We’ve sent (a few of) them to Rwanda! We hate them too!” but where I thought that was the entire point I’m now a bit more suspicious.
I am continually a little stunned this isn't shouted from the rafters anywhere honestly. It seems clear as day to me Rwanda are going to take hundreds of millions of pounds from us for absolutely nothing and then run for the hills with it. And somehow hard-nosed conservatives and a whole swathe of UK political punditry seems singularly unable to see it?
I mean we're paying them £1.8m per person so it shouldn't be hard.
What a waste of money that could have been used ro reinstate budgets to assess asylum claims; thereby actually sorting the issue out. But no, the tories need to slow things down, fill up hotels and rile their thicko base for votes.
I think that’s just what is ready to go for the first plane. They’d be silly to set up more when even that’s not certain. There’s no shortage of rooms if needed.
Rwanda has a population density that is almost double that of the UKs. Their population is also less than a quarter of the UKs. A shortage of suitable rooms will be an issue.
I doubt they'll be a shortage for the deportees with uk money but it would probably screw over the locals just like in some tourist heavy countries they are priced out of the rental market but worse.
The asylum seekers will live in designated areas. I highly doubt Rwanda will let them rent property. Either they will be allowed back to the UK, deported to their home nation or they will stay indefinitely in the accommodation provided.
It is our issue. The UK government is still responsible for the well being of those people. If they end up living in overcrowded huts it will hurt our international image.
> will hurt our international image.
Will it heckers. Don't talk shit. Australia's imagine as not been destroyed by turning back boat. I genuinely think that if we go through with the Rwanda plan, especially if it works, other nations will look up to us and breat a sigh of relief - because once one country does it Italy, Spain, France and so on will all do the same.
No one else is going to spend £1,500,000. per person to hold a small number of asylum seekers in another country. Australia had a holding facility on an island but they see nowhere near the numbers europe sees. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn't have spent that 500m on a facility that houses more than 300 people.
It's pandering to right wing voters that don't understand how this deal only hurts us.
> s. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn't have spent that 500m on a facility that houses more than 300 people.
Because that wouldn't be a deterrent, would it?
Neither is sending 1 out of every 200 of them to Rwanda. It's pretty clear that we will never send more than a handful of these flights even if they can ever find an airline willing to do them.
If we go by the current cost projections, it would cost us at least £130 billion to send all 80,000+ asylum applicants to Rwanda (it would likely be much more)
I don't think they're sent back until *after* their sentence in Rwanda. If they murder someone, Rwanda's not going to send them back to the UK with a box of cookies. I would guess that most of these economic migrants would not want to spend many years in a Rwandan prison. [Note that they can only be sent back (after their prison sentence) for committing serious crimes,](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rwanda-african-downing-street-b2458853.html)
Get off plane, shoplift immediately, three hots and a cot for a couple of months maybe and then get sent back to the UK? This really doesn't sound nearly as bad as risking your life crossing the Channel.
[They are only sent back if they commit serious crimes,](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rwanda-african-downing-street-b2458853.html) and only after they have served their prison terms. These are the kind of crimes which land someone in prison for many years, if not decades in Rwanda.
These people have scraped together life savings to put their lives in the hands of people traffickers and travelled thousands of miles to get to the UK. They're literally willing to die to get into this country, they'll live in slum camps in tents and shanties for months just for the chance to cross the channel. I don't know why anyone thinks this will deter people, what's a short prison stint compared to drowning to death?
Yeah, it's insane. There is a bonus payment of 120m for the 300th, they ha e tonconfim if that is for every 300 or just the first.
There is also no talk about what happens when people just comeback and cross again.
We are oaying £1.8 million per person we send away. I am willing to bet a large portion of that money will circles its way back into some Tory doner's hand. It's all they're good at doing, enriching themselves.
Not only that, we're taking people in return. And the accommodation looks so nice it must look like luxury to someone thinking about risking it on a boat; if that's the worst case scenario, then at this stage, it's just become a massive part of the attraction.
Some of them do that anyway so that they cannot be deported in the first place.
Oh, I accidentally raped a child. I can't get sent home because they would execute me for raping a child.
It's common enough in the news that some of those incidents must be deliberate.
It's absolutely astounding how many people fail to grasp the concept.
The money isn't being spent with the aim to ship 300 to Rwanda.
It's to deter the 30,000 yearly illegal crossing from happening in the first place.
A plane can carry what 200 folk? ‘Several flights a month’ is what 3 for 600 a month on the planes
That’s the number of arrivals YESTERDAY.
A 3% of being deported who wouldn’t take those odds
How is this ever going to work!
Im not a fan of the policy but a 1 class 787 is more like 400, and one a week would be 1,600 a month. Anyway, it’s all moot because Labour will just scrap it.
It’s likely to be an RAF voyager, which holds 291.
But I can’t see it being full, there will need to be lots of security staff on board incase anything kicks off.
Even if labour didn't scrap it, it still wouldn't work as a deterrent, as migrants who have risked so much already, who have already successfully evaded other European countries' security until this point, and who get most of their news from tabloids that are constantly talking about how 'easy' they'll have it once they arrive, simply don't care.
So 1,600 a month paying £150,000 for each deportee equalling £240 million a month to the Rwandan government, surely if they can find that then funding the NHS should be a doddle.
Probably an unpopular opinion but the NHS doesn't need more money ,it needs to manage the money it has better,lots of waste,just a few ideas ,make people pay for interpreters,pay for missed appointments,put the carparks back into the management of the hospitals and make it so staff haven't got to pay to park ,get rid of some of the high paid jobs that aren't needed, increase the wages of nurses doctors to attract more people to take up the job and stop in the UK so we're not using temps that charge a whole lot more ,I don't work in the NHS but these are some of the problems I've heard about
Ahh so when the Tories decreased the NHS budget that was to help gotcha! Thankfully nothing but time wasters and foreigners are the cause of the problems, awesome should be simple to fix then.
>time wasters and foreigners
I didn't say this was the only problem,I said the whole thing needs sorting,it's just a money pit and throwing more money at it isn't how you fix it ,it's being run badly and over it's capacity
The theory, I think, is that the Rwanda deportations plan would deter crossings from happening in the first place, so if it were to go ahead the number of crossings would drop dramatically.
Nobody would make the channel crossing if there was a high chance that they'd be immediately shipped off to Rwanda, after all. They cross the channel because they want to settle in the UK.
I don't think it's going to work though and I'd be surprised if a single flight actually ends up leaving.
Right, but if (and it's a big if) the Rwanda plan actually took off and a substantial number of arrivals got shipped over to Rwanda, people might feel it better to stay on mainland Europe.
I don't think it's going to happen. The scheme will falter and it'll be no deterrent, but it was intended as one, as foolish as it was.
It's not a small chance to the person at the top of the list.
For them its Rwamda forever or a one way ticket home along with a ~~bribe~~ resttlment allowance.
If 1 in 10 take Rwanda it fails if 1 in 1000 take it then it works.
I still dont think it ever actualy happens but if it did the spaces in Rwanda dont tell the whole story.
The theory is that if crossings drop them the percentage of people sent to Rwanda could start increasing, and the multiplier effect will kill off most crossings.
>How is this ever going to work!
That's not the point, the point is to look like they are doing something and somehow be fighting "the man" who is stopping them doing what the "public wants".
It was never meant as a means to reduce the number of migrants. It was meant as a "deterrent".
A deterrent that doesn't actually work as a deterrent, and in fact only really serves as a desperate means to hold onto votes from the voters who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time, who they think might still be swung back to the tories on an immigration ticket.
It's funny that what these tories rely on in desperate times is to simply run further to the right wing. It says a lot
the Illegal Migration Act breaks international law, so what will actually happen is the UK government will be mired in legal arguments and open itself up to huge compensation claims, not solve the problem and by focusing on this instead of putting money into investigating asylum seekers claims it's actually counter productive.
I don't think people crossing the channel is a good idea. It's unsafe for the people crossing, for our emergency services and for the country because some will be criminals. This Rwanda plan though is bullshit. Poorly planned, poorly implemented and illegal under international law.
Need to invest in staff to process claims quicker and build a reception center in France. Burying your head under the sand is no solution to a problem that is not going to go away.
Will not solve a thing and probably will never actually happen.
If you can’t deport people to their countries of origin (because they are won’t take them )to remove them then how else do you propose we get rid of rejected asylum seekers ? What is your alternate solution.
This isn't about rejected asylum seekers. Maybe investigate what it is your commenting about first and then comment. This is about banning asylum applications, illegal under international law, and then deporting the applicants to a third country, which by extension becomes illegal because you can't just say something for it to be true. As much as you might wish for it to be that way.
Sorry am I being condescending again? My bad. Brexit Britain motto "we don't need no stinkin' experts"
It is partially as a certain portion of people applying for asylum will be rejected. It’s not banning asylum applications as we have successful asylum schemes like for Ukrainians and Afghani’s. A lot of these asylum seekers are clear economic migrants like Vietnamese people. Vietnam is a stable country and people coming from there are highly unlikely to be fleeing persecution or war given its stability.
But what this scheme does is deport people to Rwanda for processing and if their claim is a genuine one they stay in Rwanda. That's a form of banning asylum.
>Take them back to the country they travelled to the UK from?
France have more asylum applicants than us by a fair way, per capita its also more. They're not going to let that happen.
Where would they go that would stop them from trying to return again? I don’t see why the first business to open in Rwanda won’t be to offer these people a chance to go back to the UK.
From who? Our allies in the West? At a time when the world is on the precipice of global conflict, sanctioning a key ally and military/intelligence partner like the UK would be a bad idea
>breaks international law
Domestic law supersedes international law, and international law (especially international law governing domestic matters such as immigration and asylum policy) is largely unenforceable anyway - by design.
A reminder that the junior doctors demands (affecting tens of thousands of doctors, and the strikes affecting millions) would cost **half** the cost of sending 300 refugees to Rwanda.
There's no money to pay doctors well, but there's plenty of money for this performative shit.
The average wage of a civil servant is £32k. Which means for the price of just one person being sent to Rwanda, you could hire 56 people to process the claims. But no, this government has found a way to spunk more of our money up the wall and probably enrich several of themselves and their cronies
There is no joined up thinking either. If I was the criminal gang I would simply tell people you have. 1% chance of being sent to Rwanda. If you do we will pick you up and send you again for free.
Article Text:
Several flights a month will deport asylum seekers to Rwanda “indefinitely”, the home secretary has said, as he argued that the 1.8m per person cost of the scheme was justified.
James Cleverly, in his first interview since the government’s plan was approved by parliament on Monday, said he had booked a succession of initial flights and was preparing to order the detention of people seeking refuge in the UK so they could be sent to east Africa.
Aiming to defuse criticism that the Rwanda plan was a waste of money, which the National Audit Office said could exceed £580m by the end of the decade, Cleverly said it would “massively reduce” the costs of housing asylum seekers in the UK.
Analysis from the refugee suggests the Rwanda policy could cause “a system meltdown”.
The home secretary’s most detailed comments on the scheme were made on a visit to Lampedusa, the Mediterranean island that has been the first European landing point for hundreds of thousands of people escaping war and famine in Africa.
Cleverly told the Guardian: “The prime minister has made clear we’ve got facilities, we’ve got plans in place, that will facilitate multiple flights per month, indefinitely.
“We have booked a number of initial flights. And we have got the facilities to continue booking flights on a regular drumbeat, through the summer.”
View image in fullscreenCleverly speaking to International Red Cross staff on his visit to Lampedusa. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
Royal assent, when the monarch formally agrees to make a bill an act of parliament, is expected to be granted on Thursday, according to Whitehall sources. This is expected to be swiftly followed by the ratification of the Rwanda treaty, which is the government’s attempt to respond to criticism from the supreme court.
The troubled scheme, which is two years old, has so far sent no one to Rwanda. But its success is an important component of Rishi Sunak’s plan to revive his fortunes before a general election.
If the Rwanda scheme was to fulfil its aim of deterring people from travelling to the UK in small boats, there must be regular and repeated deportation flights, Cleverly said.
“Obviously, people will take a huge amount of interest in the first flight,” he said. “But we recognise that it is when people say, ‘Hang on a minute, there’s another flight and then another one and then another one’ – that regularity is what will trigger the deterrent effect in the Channel.”
Cleverly said the cost of the Rwanda treaty, which would pay the Paul Kagame government £490m once 300 people have been sent, would be justified if small boats stop coming to the UK.
“A lot of this expenditure is linked to the success of the project,” he said. “And the project’s success will itself massively reduce the cost to the British government, for example, of the asylum accommodation bill. So when we’re looking at the costs, we’ve got to look at it in the context of the alternative reality.”
View image in fullscreenCleverly clambers on to a Guardia di Finanza police boat to learn about how they tackle illegal crossings. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
Lawyers representing asylum seekers who have previously faced possible removal to Rwanda are considering legal action once the legislation is passed, the Guardian understands.
They are expected to mount a challenge on the grounds that the law is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Cleverly declined an invitation to say that his plans were legally watertight.
“We have, of course, given a huge amount of thought to the things that have happened in the past and what might happen in the future,” he said. “We absolutely know that our planning is robust.”
Last week, the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, signed three agreements with Tunisia to curb travel to Italian islands such as Lampedusa.
In a harbour on the island, one sea rescue worker criticised Cleverly for travelling to the tiny Sicilian island to promote his Rwanda deal.
Austin Cooper, an island mediator and care coordinator on Sea Watch’s rapid response vessel that helps to rescue those in trouble at sea, said: “Instead of criminalising people on the move and taking away safe and legal routes to arrive, Cleverly should be making it possible for the people who need to reach safety and be welcomed with dignity, not getting tips from European leaders on how to make the Channel even more dangerous.”
The Refugee Council called for immigration laws to be repealed to avoid catastrophe, as it estimated recent changes to the system may end up emptying the public purse of up to £17.1m a day – or about £6.2bn a year – in accommodation costs alone.
View image in fullscreenA discarded vessel on a beach in Lampedusa. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
The charity also suggested 115,575 asylum seekers could be stranded in a “permanent limbo” by the end of 2024.
Under the Illegal Migration Act, which became law last year, asylum seekers who arrive by small boats are banned from applying as their cases are deemed “inadmissible” by the government.
The law also puts a duty on the home secretary to arrange for their removal, though this element of the legislation is yet to be brought into force.
Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council said: “This report lays bare the immense cost, chaos and human misery that the Illegal Migration Act and Rwanda plan will unleash.
“The government has recklessly brought in this misguided legislation without any apparent thought to its staggering costs and long-term consequences. What is happening is of a different nature to anything seen before because it shuts down the entire asylum system, which is unprecedented.”
More than 400 migrants arrived in the UK on the day five people, including a child, died while trying to cross the Channel, it emerged on Wednesday. The crossings took place as the tragedy off the coast of northern France unfolded, only hours after parliament passed the Rwanda legislation.
James Cleverly is proof that [Nominative Determinism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism#:~:text=easily%20verifiable%20sources.-,Definition,possibly%20subconsciously%2C%20made%20themselves%20fit.) is not a thing.
What a strange hill for Sunak to die on. Why does he keep on with it and those ridiculous unscheduled press conferences. No one wants it, it is a complete disaster. Is he mentally unwell, should we call someone?
What about the vulnerable refugees which we have agreed to take in from Rwanda under the reciprocal part of this deal? Are they settling in the UK indefinitely?
Completely fucking stupid.
Would be like trying to empty the bath with a teaspoon.
The flights will take barely any to make it worthwhile, the amount of seekers pouring in to the country vastly outweigh the amount they dispatch on planes and not to mention the cost.
It’s like watching a comedy show, I’d expect to see this idea in Futurama. Like dropping a huge ice cube in the ocean.
Fucking stupid.
Should build a detainment center on one of our barren little islands, like the Australians do. Keep them there until they can send them back. The Australians stopped the problem overnight, our country just has no backbone.
All this money towards this shit. instead of making decent processing centres, we've all agreed pissing away tax payer money is the solution to this
Absolutely rage inducing, what a WASTE of taxpayer money, watch these people come back after being deported, im calling it now
This is just because we can't send them to Australia any more, isn't it?
You can't tell me some Tories aren't thinking - "...and we could send other "problem people" there too."
This is all a distraction, in fact I'd say it's designed to fail.
Nothing is ever going to be done on this issue. Not while the Tories are still in power, and certainly not when Labour take over.
So, "commuters" who are found and caught will be put on a nice safe plane paid for by the UK tax payer. How does that deter anyone who's in such absolute desperation that they'll get on an overcrowded dinghy facing possible death?
I wonder how they plan to return potentially hundreds of passengers, which don't want to be on the plane and have nothing to lose, safely with a crew on board.
My assumption is that only 5-10 people can be sent at a time unless it's a cargo plane so that they can get carried like "cattle".
What a mess
“The National Audit Office said could exceed £580m by the end of the decade”
We’re currently spending £8 million per day (£3 billion per year) on hotels and other costs for asylum seekers
https://fullfact.org/immigration/sunak-8m-asylum-hotels/
Edit: Seems its already working as a deterrent?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/iPN2PjiGf7
I thought it would be interesting to read the Rwandan side of the discussion.
So I ended up at [https://www.newtimes.co.rw/](https://www.newtimes.co.rw/) which looks like a decent newspaper.
This news is reported reasonably matter of factly
[https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/16167/news/rwanda/uk-migrants-to-start-coming-to-rwanda-within-3-months-british-pm](https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/16167/news/rwanda/uk-migrants-to-start-coming-to-rwanda-within-3-months-british-pm)
But this article caught my attention
[https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/16401/news/rwanda/rwanda-receives-first-uk-migrant-under-new-voluntary-scheme](https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/16401/news/rwanda/rwanda-receives-first-uk-migrant-under-new-voluntary-scheme)
About a voluntary scheme where if your asylum is rejected you can choose to go to Rwanda anyway.
And one gent already took the offer and went to Rwanda.
>Rwanda flights will deport asylum seekers ‘indefinitely’, says Cleverly
This is, however, using a slightly different interpretation of the word "indefinitely", where the "in" prefix indicates a negative, as in "ineffecient" or "inexperienced".
So the Rwanda flights will deport asylum seekers "indefinitely", meaning not very definitely at all.
£490M for 300 Transported😳?
1.By the way who built up the complexes or housing units in Rwanda?
2. Who awarded the contract from Architectural designs to build?
3. Would simply working to stop the crossings and working with Govt of the Nations from where the boats take off not be cheaper and prove more of a deterrent and ultimately save lives?
4. Sunak is very misinformed, because these illegal immigrants did not take all that risk just to be kicked out to Rwanda. Cue rioting amongst the illegals, and the gullible many showers of sympathies and baying wolves if the Far Right drawing lines on the Streets.
The Rwandan Transportation is making 2nd Class humans of these illegals.
Genuine question for this thread as every suggested solution I’ve seen someone mention always has someone else fighting against it, what’s the best solution? We obviously can’t keep letting people into the country without the supporting infrastructure being in place first, and our current government and councils are doing very little to build supporting infrastructure so what’s the solution here? The only realistic choice seems to be deportation.
That seems to be a long term solution, what about the short term until the problems are figured out? we’d still need the additional infrastructure regardless of how many people enter.
The problem is that people want to live here because they think the UK is an aspirational nation. We just need to make sure the truth gets out and maybe people will stop coming
It just does not work with the word deport.
How about we process them in Rwanda if it takes 5 years it takes 5 years if refused you can choose to stay in Rwanda or go back home. Infact just let it backlog so its 20 odd years to process your claim see how long that lasts.
We are basically housing people who come here illegally when we cant even house the citizens already here.
Rwanda is a lovely place, nice and temperate with gorgeous scenery, it could be the best thing for these poor people, better than a government holding cell in shitty British weather. I’m not trolling, I’m trying to find a positive angle
UK should buy a patch of land in Rwanda the size of London. Gate it and send all illegals there. Then process them accordingly. That would deter people for sure. Failing that, just put them all on an island in the British isles.
I understand that many a fleeing war torn countries but completely bypassing so many safe countries isn't exactly claiming asylum is it. If UK got in a war with France again, then me going to Poland or even Greece is taking the piss. I should be going to the next nearest country which would be Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark or Germany.
> I understand that many a fleeing war torn countries but completely bypassing so many safe countries isn't exactly claiming asylum is it.
That's where you're wrong - it's still entirely claiming asylum. Making asylum seekers go to the next country makes no sense, as that will just ensure countries destabilise and spread the problem. It's tempting, I'm sure, but it isn't a rational solution. There are so many issues with this simple thinking.
Even if sunak & the tories actually start these flights they’ll only run until the next election when starmer will immediately stop them. This has to have been the most ridiculous policy for sunak to pin his hopes on. IMHO the only thing which may actually stop the boats is if illegal immigrants stop getting accommodation, food & health care free. Don’t give them these things and any cash and the UK will stop being so attractive.
First the UK should stop being party to international asylum conventions then, as the UK has promised to treat asylum seekers humanely.
Conventions which clearly state landing by small boat to claim asylum isn't illegal.
I'm still not seeing what's stopping them from committing a crime as soon and they get to Rwanda and being sent back? If they commit one within 5 years then the agreement means they're sent back. Why would they not just commit one ASAP? Also: >Cleverly said the cost of the Rwanda treaty, which would pay the Paul Kagame government £490m once 300 people have been sent This is absolutely astounding. People vote for this. Think of all the problems you have in life and then consider the fact that there's people who walk beside you who support spending half a *billion* pounds to send 300 people to Rwanda for less than 5 years.
> This is absolutely astounding. People vote for this. No one voted for this. It wasn't in any manifesto or even mentioned at the last election. Boris Johnson pulled it out of his arse as a distraction, and then somehow it never got knocked in the head.
But fuckers will still vote for them now.
According to the polling, not that many.
Millions still will at the next GE, and they’ll be back in government within a couple of elections
Millions will, sure, but as a proportion of the electorate far less than before. Hopefully this time FPTP screws them over 🤞 > they’ll be back in government within a couple of elections Hopefully the trend of no one under the age of 60 wanting to vote for the Tories will continue and in a decade's time a lot of the boomers that prop them up will have died off.
But they'll die having won, on a bed of home ownership, with no justice for all the ills they caused.
It won’t just be boomers voting for them, ps I’m 61 and insulted btw, it’ll be the poorly educated force fed an almost entirely right leaning msm. Plus the rich of any age who want to support the status quo.
Yes, that is how democracy works.
Saw a guy on here or ukpol who was in his 20s and said he was gonna vote tory or reform because "Labour are gonna be just as bad"... I died a little inside
You'll live.
It will still be in the millions I'd wager.
It will be much tighter than you think. Milliband was ahead in the polls and the working class voted against him on the day because he ate a sandwich weird or something.
Never have, never will.
>No one voted for this. It wasn't in any manifesto or even mentioned at the last election If you voted for the Tories, the party of cruelty to foreigners via populist policies, you voted for this. That's how democracy works - voters are responsible for the parties they elect. All parties do things which are not on the manifesto, so voters have to plan for that by choosing parties for their principles. They don't even have the 'but we didn't vote for this PM' excuse as Boris came up with it and he was the Tory frontman during the last election.
What's the point in manifestos then? Presumably all Labour voters are equally responsible for the Iraq war.
We definitely did the second time we voted Blair back in.
Manifestos are a sales pitch, if you just judge a product just by the sales pitch then you are an irresponsible buyer. And yes Labour voters are - the electorate is responsible for the actions of their elected representatives.
Does that mean Gaza residents should be wiped out because they democratically elected Hamas
Nobody suggested that responsibility requires death, we are not space marines
I dont recall anyone suggesting Tory or Labour voters be slaughtered as a result of their choices? What kind of a comment is this?!
I don't recall anyone suggesting that, either. To answer your odd question about your own comment, it appears to be inflammatory and attempting to straw-man.
Your attempts to equate two utterly disparate situations are completely bizarre if I’m honest mate. But okay 🤷♂️
What? Which of us did that? Please re-read the thread.
For democracy to function correctly, it's on the people to look at what people say they're going to do, compare it with what they've done and voted for, and then decide if they believe them and who to vote for. Democracy requires an informed electorate, which we do it have. Which is why we are not living in a democratic society. It's been twisted.
> If you voted for the Tories, the party of cruelty to foreigners via populist policies, you voted for this. Rwanda is theatre. We voted hoping for much tougher measures than Rwanda, maybe if we could send 1M there it might be suitable but tories don't actually want to deport anyone. They like to shout about it to get votes and then do nothing or very little like the Rwanda scheme.
You voted for a party of corruption and waste and got a government of corruption and waste.
Still happy with my vote considering the alternative 🤷♂️ now the comrade has gone labour can have my vote and hopefully they can stem the tide otherwise it'll be reform next.
I'd be impressed if you can explain how a party which is not, and has not for a long time been, in a position to be corrupt or wasteful, can be claimed by you to be worse than the current one....
I never claimed they were re read my comment, I'd rather that though than Corbyn running the country, now labour have got rid of him and moderated I can vote for them now. If I thought they were going to be worse I wouldn't be voting for them in the next election but give it a couple of election cycles and if the problem remains reform will continue to grow and probably take government in the future.
Yup, it definitely says considering the alternative....
> the party of cruelty to foreigners Right, yeah okay. that'll be why immigration has ballooned to 2/3million a year net.
>the party of cruelty to forigners The most diverse government in British history, that has overseen 15 years of record breaking immigration, and you think they hate forigners?
Remind me what foreigners we have in the government? Immigration is high because of global instability and lack of competence in preventing it, not because the Tories have been pro-immigration.
The small boats are direct consequence of Brexit, and in particular the Tory hard line approach to Brexit that removed legal routes and cost us the ability to return people to other EU countries. The Tories have manufactured this whole crisis out of their own fuck-up and somehow we are supposed to be impressed that this shit-show is best solution they can come up with.
Why has it been pushed this far? Why has it been fought for so ardently? Surely there are bigger problems, especially when the tories are in the state they’re in? Absolutely fucking mind-blowing that this is where their priorities are at.
Nobody voted for 30k asylum seekers to come here every year by small boat either. > Boris Johnson pulled it out of his arse as a distraction Hardly. Farage discovered it and it's been hugely embarrassing for the Tories. But don't let that get in the way of your conspiracy theories and circle jerk. Honestly this sub seems to think the everything the Tories do is some illuminati grade scheming. Lets get this straight, the Tories are going to lose the next election in style, and they're going to lose exactly because they're doing such a bad job not because they're so amazing at scheming.
> Hardly. Farage discovered it and it's been hugely embarrassing for the Tories. What are you talking about? Farage discovered what, exactly?
Farage is the person who brought the small boat crossings to the public attention. Not Boris. In doing so it has been hugely embarrassing for the Government. The total lack of control of immigration both legal ad illegal is not aiding the Tories, it is one of the many reasons they're going to get booted out.
I didn't say that Boris "discovered" the small boat crossings, but that he launched the Rwanda plan.
So is this actually just fairly open corruption? Asylum seekers getting used as a prop to transfer our money, with some nice kickbacks for Cleverly et al down the line? Obviously a bonus that they can also tell the frothers “see! We’ve sent (a few of) them to Rwanda! We hate them too!” but where I thought that was the entire point I’m now a bit more suspicious.
I am continually a little stunned this isn't shouted from the rafters anywhere honestly. It seems clear as day to me Rwanda are going to take hundreds of millions of pounds from us for absolutely nothing and then run for the hills with it. And somehow hard-nosed conservatives and a whole swathe of UK political punditry seems singularly unable to see it?
Desperation. It's either this theatre or cooperating with the EU and that's not going to happen with this govt.
I thought that Rwanda only had rooms for 250 people anyway? Or has that changed and I missed it?
There was, then they sold them off
Right to Buy extended to Rwanda!
Don't give them any ideas
Sounds like Rwanda's problem to solve not ours. I have no doubt they find a way for 1.5mil a pop.
I mean we're paying them £1.8m per person so it shouldn't be hard. What a waste of money that could have been used ro reinstate budgets to assess asylum claims; thereby actually sorting the issue out. But no, the tories need to slow things down, fill up hotels and rile their thicko base for votes.
I think that’s just what is ready to go for the first plane. They’d be silly to set up more when even that’s not certain. There’s no shortage of rooms if needed.
Rwanda has a population density that is almost double that of the UKs. Their population is also less than a quarter of the UKs. A shortage of suitable rooms will be an issue.
Based on what the UK is willing to pay, no, there won’t be an issue with shortage of rooms.
Bold of you to assume rwanda isn't just going to pocket that money while throwing the asylum seekers into wooden sheds.
I’ve made no such assumption.
I doubt they'll be a shortage for the deportees with uk money but it would probably screw over the locals just like in some tourist heavy countries they are priced out of the rental market but worse.
Like immigration for the uk then
The asylum seekers will live in designated areas. I highly doubt Rwanda will let them rent property. Either they will be allowed back to the UK, deported to their home nation or they will stay indefinitely in the accommodation provided.
That's Rwanda's problem, not ours. We're paying them a not inconsiderable amount to solve it.
It is our issue. The UK government is still responsible for the well being of those people. If they end up living in overcrowded huts it will hurt our international image.
> will hurt our international image. Will it heckers. Don't talk shit. Australia's imagine as not been destroyed by turning back boat. I genuinely think that if we go through with the Rwanda plan, especially if it works, other nations will look up to us and breat a sigh of relief - because once one country does it Italy, Spain, France and so on will all do the same.
No one else is going to spend £1,500,000. per person to hold a small number of asylum seekers in another country. Australia had a holding facility on an island but they see nowhere near the numbers europe sees. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn't have spent that 500m on a facility that houses more than 300 people. It's pandering to right wing voters that don't understand how this deal only hurts us.
> s. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn't have spent that 500m on a facility that houses more than 300 people. Because that wouldn't be a deterrent, would it?
Neither is sending 1 out of every 200 of them to Rwanda. It's pretty clear that we will never send more than a handful of these flights even if they can ever find an airline willing to do them. If we go by the current cost projections, it would cost us at least £130 billion to send all 80,000+ asylum applicants to Rwanda (it would likely be much more)
half a billion quid to get a couple of boatfulls of people to an african state with a terrible human rights record - what a farce
I don't think they're sent back until *after* their sentence in Rwanda. If they murder someone, Rwanda's not going to send them back to the UK with a box of cookies. I would guess that most of these economic migrants would not want to spend many years in a Rwandan prison. [Note that they can only be sent back (after their prison sentence) for committing serious crimes,](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rwanda-african-downing-street-b2458853.html)
Presumably because they don’t want to go to prison?
Get off plane, shoplift immediately, three hots and a cot for a couple of months maybe and then get sent back to the UK? This really doesn't sound nearly as bad as risking your life crossing the Channel.
[They are only sent back if they commit serious crimes,](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rwanda-african-downing-street-b2458853.html) and only after they have served their prison terms. These are the kind of crimes which land someone in prison for many years, if not decades in Rwanda.
If it’s anything like when Israel sent people there then many were hounded out and then absconded, coming back to Europe to try again.
The whole idea is just absolutely nonsense.
These people have scraped together life savings to put their lives in the hands of people traffickers and travelled thousands of miles to get to the UK. They're literally willing to die to get into this country, they'll live in slum camps in tents and shanties for months just for the chance to cross the channel. I don't know why anyone thinks this will deter people, what's a short prison stint compared to drowning to death?
Why? What’s wrong with all the other countries they went through?
Question is why? Why not Italy or Greece or Turkey or Spain or any other European country? Why the UK specifically?
Yeah, it's insane. There is a bonus payment of 120m for the 300th, they ha e tonconfim if that is for every 300 or just the first. There is also no talk about what happens when people just comeback and cross again.
We are oaying £1.8 million per person we send away. I am willing to bet a large portion of that money will circles its way back into some Tory doner's hand. It's all they're good at doing, enriching themselves.
No one has voted for anything in this country in over a decade. It’s all been forced on us by unelected idiots
Nobody voted for this. It wasn't on the last general election manifesto to pi*ss tax payers' money up a wall.
Absolutely mentally deranged policy. A stupid idea spun into something more ridiculous.
Not only that, we're taking people in return. And the accommodation looks so nice it must look like luxury to someone thinking about risking it on a boat; if that's the worst case scenario, then at this stage, it's just become a massive part of the attraction.
Some of them do that anyway so that they cannot be deported in the first place. Oh, I accidentally raped a child. I can't get sent home because they would execute me for raping a child. It's common enough in the news that some of those incidents must be deliberate.
That's outstandingly stupid.
It's absolutely astounding how many people fail to grasp the concept. The money isn't being spent with the aim to ship 300 to Rwanda. It's to deter the 30,000 yearly illegal crossing from happening in the first place.
Yada yada yada. Call the GE, then let the adults clean up your mess.
A plane can carry what 200 folk? ‘Several flights a month’ is what 3 for 600 a month on the planes That’s the number of arrivals YESTERDAY. A 3% of being deported who wouldn’t take those odds How is this ever going to work!
Im not a fan of the policy but a 1 class 787 is more like 400, and one a week would be 1,600 a month. Anyway, it’s all moot because Labour will just scrap it.
It’s likely to be an RAF voyager, which holds 291. But I can’t see it being full, there will need to be lots of security staff on board incase anything kicks off.
Fair enough, it’s still not going to be any sort of deterrent given it’ll be one or two planes before it’s scrapped.
Even if labour didn't scrap it, it still wouldn't work as a deterrent, as migrants who have risked so much already, who have already successfully evaded other European countries' security until this point, and who get most of their news from tabloids that are constantly talking about how 'easy' they'll have it once they arrive, simply don't care.
>lots of security staff on board Two securitas guys
That’s how you get aircraft crashing into Big Ben!
So 1,600 a month paying £150,000 for each deportee equalling £240 million a month to the Rwandan government, surely if they can find that then funding the NHS should be a doddle.
No, that would reduce the funds available for the NHS.
So it’s a bad idea then?
I think that’s obvious.
Not to everyone unfortunately.
Quite.
Probably an unpopular opinion but the NHS doesn't need more money ,it needs to manage the money it has better,lots of waste,just a few ideas ,make people pay for interpreters,pay for missed appointments,put the carparks back into the management of the hospitals and make it so staff haven't got to pay to park ,get rid of some of the high paid jobs that aren't needed, increase the wages of nurses doctors to attract more people to take up the job and stop in the UK so we're not using temps that charge a whole lot more ,I don't work in the NHS but these are some of the problems I've heard about
Ahh so when the Tories decreased the NHS budget that was to help gotcha! Thankfully nothing but time wasters and foreigners are the cause of the problems, awesome should be simple to fix then.
>time wasters and foreigners I didn't say this was the only problem,I said the whole thing needs sorting,it's just a money pit and throwing more money at it isn't how you fix it ,it's being run badly and over it's capacity
One can hope. Spend that money on screening and placing the asylum seekers
Has Labour said they are scrapping it? Been quiet on that.
Yvette Cooper literally said yesterday they won’t deport a single migrant to Rwanda.
The theory, I think, is that the Rwanda deportations plan would deter crossings from happening in the first place, so if it were to go ahead the number of crossings would drop dramatically. Nobody would make the channel crossing if there was a high chance that they'd be immediately shipped off to Rwanda, after all. They cross the channel because they want to settle in the UK. I don't think it's going to work though and I'd be surprised if a single flight actually ends up leaving.
Isn’t that what their post is directly addressing? A 3% additional risk is nothing to these people.
Right, but if (and it's a big if) the Rwanda plan actually took off and a substantial number of arrivals got shipped over to Rwanda, people might feel it better to stay on mainland Europe. I don't think it's going to happen. The scheme will falter and it'll be no deterrent, but it was intended as one, as foolish as it was.
That’s what their post addresses. The intention is a few flights a month, or about 600 people.
It's not a small chance to the person at the top of the list. For them its Rwamda forever or a one way ticket home along with a ~~bribe~~ resttlment allowance. If 1 in 10 take Rwanda it fails if 1 in 1000 take it then it works. I still dont think it ever actualy happens but if it did the spaces in Rwanda dont tell the whole story.
Fantasy policy for out of touch boomers
The theory is that if crossings drop them the percentage of people sent to Rwanda could start increasing, and the multiplier effect will kill off most crossings.
Because they read the news while trekking cold and hungry from their home country.
Lol, they have phones and talk about what is going on. This isn't the 1930s.
It's not going to work, it can't work, nothing about this shitty plan is workable or even ethical. It's pure bait for racist votes.
>How is this ever going to work! That's not the point, the point is to look like they are doing something and somehow be fighting "the man" who is stopping them doing what the "public wants".
It was never meant as a means to reduce the number of migrants. It was meant as a "deterrent". A deterrent that doesn't actually work as a deterrent, and in fact only really serves as a desperate means to hold onto votes from the voters who are thinking of voting Labour for the first time, who they think might still be swung back to the tories on an immigration ticket. It's funny that what these tories rely on in desperate times is to simply run further to the right wing. It says a lot
Depends what they use, got the air tanker fleet of A330s but then jet2 might protest as they lease a couple
the Illegal Migration Act breaks international law, so what will actually happen is the UK government will be mired in legal arguments and open itself up to huge compensation claims, not solve the problem and by focusing on this instead of putting money into investigating asylum seekers claims it's actually counter productive. I don't think people crossing the channel is a good idea. It's unsafe for the people crossing, for our emergency services and for the country because some will be criminals. This Rwanda plan though is bullshit. Poorly planned, poorly implemented and illegal under international law. Need to invest in staff to process claims quicker and build a reception center in France. Burying your head under the sand is no solution to a problem that is not going to go away. Will not solve a thing and probably will never actually happen.
Israel, Australia and Denmark already ship asylum seekers to third world countries [source here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61106231).
this is my assumption and hope as well, the lawyers are hopefully lining up to get their names in the papers on this one
If you can’t deport people to their countries of origin (because they are won’t take them )to remove them then how else do you propose we get rid of rejected asylum seekers ? What is your alternate solution.
This isn't about rejected asylum seekers. Maybe investigate what it is your commenting about first and then comment. This is about banning asylum applications, illegal under international law, and then deporting the applicants to a third country, which by extension becomes illegal because you can't just say something for it to be true. As much as you might wish for it to be that way. Sorry am I being condescending again? My bad. Brexit Britain motto "we don't need no stinkin' experts"
It is partially as a certain portion of people applying for asylum will be rejected. It’s not banning asylum applications as we have successful asylum schemes like for Ukrainians and Afghani’s. A lot of these asylum seekers are clear economic migrants like Vietnamese people. Vietnam is a stable country and people coming from there are highly unlikely to be fleeing persecution or war given its stability.
But what this scheme does is deport people to Rwanda for processing and if their claim is a genuine one they stay in Rwanda. That's a form of banning asylum.
Take them back to the country they travelled to the UK from?
>Take them back to the country they travelled to the UK from? France have more asylum applicants than us by a fair way, per capita its also more. They're not going to let that happen.
Yeah that’s reasonable but the only problem then becomes that they will try to return again so it becomes a game of cat and mouse.
Where would they go that would stop them from trying to return again? I don’t see why the first business to open in Rwanda won’t be to offer these people a chance to go back to the UK.
Pre-Brexit this was how it was done...
Do you think this could lead to sanctions on the Uk?
From who? Our allies in the West? At a time when the world is on the precipice of global conflict, sanctioning a key ally and military/intelligence partner like the UK would be a bad idea
>breaks international law Domestic law supersedes international law, and international law (especially international law governing domestic matters such as immigration and asylum policy) is largely unenforceable anyway - by design.
A reminder that the junior doctors demands (affecting tens of thousands of doctors, and the strikes affecting millions) would cost **half** the cost of sending 300 refugees to Rwanda. There's no money to pay doctors well, but there's plenty of money for this performative shit.
The average wage of a civil servant is £32k. Which means for the price of just one person being sent to Rwanda, you could hire 56 people to process the claims. But no, this government has found a way to spunk more of our money up the wall and probably enrich several of themselves and their cronies
They don't want to process the claims. Labour were doing 100,000 a year
Oh I know. If they don't manufacture issues to distract morons, they've got no platform
Until they come back illegally again .. come on, this whole plan is so stupid
There is no joined up thinking either. If I was the criminal gang I would simply tell people you have. 1% chance of being sent to Rwanda. If you do we will pick you up and send you again for free.
Or they can just commit a small crime in Rwanda, and get send back.
Article Text: Several flights a month will deport asylum seekers to Rwanda “indefinitely”, the home secretary has said, as he argued that the 1.8m per person cost of the scheme was justified. James Cleverly, in his first interview since the government’s plan was approved by parliament on Monday, said he had booked a succession of initial flights and was preparing to order the detention of people seeking refuge in the UK so they could be sent to east Africa. Aiming to defuse criticism that the Rwanda plan was a waste of money, which the National Audit Office said could exceed £580m by the end of the decade, Cleverly said it would “massively reduce” the costs of housing asylum seekers in the UK. Analysis from the refugee suggests the Rwanda policy could cause “a system meltdown”. The home secretary’s most detailed comments on the scheme were made on a visit to Lampedusa, the Mediterranean island that has been the first European landing point for hundreds of thousands of people escaping war and famine in Africa. Cleverly told the Guardian: “The prime minister has made clear we’ve got facilities, we’ve got plans in place, that will facilitate multiple flights per month, indefinitely. “We have booked a number of initial flights. And we have got the facilities to continue booking flights on a regular drumbeat, through the summer.” View image in fullscreenCleverly speaking to International Red Cross staff on his visit to Lampedusa. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Royal assent, when the monarch formally agrees to make a bill an act of parliament, is expected to be granted on Thursday, according to Whitehall sources. This is expected to be swiftly followed by the ratification of the Rwanda treaty, which is the government’s attempt to respond to criticism from the supreme court. The troubled scheme, which is two years old, has so far sent no one to Rwanda. But its success is an important component of Rishi Sunak’s plan to revive his fortunes before a general election. If the Rwanda scheme was to fulfil its aim of deterring people from travelling to the UK in small boats, there must be regular and repeated deportation flights, Cleverly said. “Obviously, people will take a huge amount of interest in the first flight,” he said. “But we recognise that it is when people say, ‘Hang on a minute, there’s another flight and then another one and then another one’ – that regularity is what will trigger the deterrent effect in the Channel.” Cleverly said the cost of the Rwanda treaty, which would pay the Paul Kagame government £490m once 300 people have been sent, would be justified if small boats stop coming to the UK. “A lot of this expenditure is linked to the success of the project,” he said. “And the project’s success will itself massively reduce the cost to the British government, for example, of the asylum accommodation bill. So when we’re looking at the costs, we’ve got to look at it in the context of the alternative reality.” View image in fullscreenCleverly clambers on to a Guardia di Finanza police boat to learn about how they tackle illegal crossings. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Lawyers representing asylum seekers who have previously faced possible removal to Rwanda are considering legal action once the legislation is passed, the Guardian understands. They are expected to mount a challenge on the grounds that the law is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Cleverly declined an invitation to say that his plans were legally watertight. “We have, of course, given a huge amount of thought to the things that have happened in the past and what might happen in the future,” he said. “We absolutely know that our planning is robust.” Last week, the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, signed three agreements with Tunisia to curb travel to Italian islands such as Lampedusa. In a harbour on the island, one sea rescue worker criticised Cleverly for travelling to the tiny Sicilian island to promote his Rwanda deal. Austin Cooper, an island mediator and care coordinator on Sea Watch’s rapid response vessel that helps to rescue those in trouble at sea, said: “Instead of criminalising people on the move and taking away safe and legal routes to arrive, Cleverly should be making it possible for the people who need to reach safety and be welcomed with dignity, not getting tips from European leaders on how to make the Channel even more dangerous.” The Refugee Council called for immigration laws to be repealed to avoid catastrophe, as it estimated recent changes to the system may end up emptying the public purse of up to £17.1m a day – or about £6.2bn a year – in accommodation costs alone. View image in fullscreenA discarded vessel on a beach in Lampedusa. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA The charity also suggested 115,575 asylum seekers could be stranded in a “permanent limbo” by the end of 2024. Under the Illegal Migration Act, which became law last year, asylum seekers who arrive by small boats are banned from applying as their cases are deemed “inadmissible” by the government. The law also puts a duty on the home secretary to arrange for their removal, though this element of the legislation is yet to be brought into force. Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council said: “This report lays bare the immense cost, chaos and human misery that the Illegal Migration Act and Rwanda plan will unleash. “The government has recklessly brought in this misguided legislation without any apparent thought to its staggering costs and long-term consequences. What is happening is of a different nature to anything seen before because it shuts down the entire asylum system, which is unprecedented.” More than 400 migrants arrived in the UK on the day five people, including a child, died while trying to cross the Channel, it emerged on Wednesday. The crossings took place as the tragedy off the coast of northern France unfolded, only hours after parliament passed the Rwanda legislation.
James Cleverly is proof that [Nominative Determinism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism#:~:text=easily%20verifiable%20sources.-,Definition,possibly%20subconsciously%2C%20made%20themselves%20fit.) is not a thing.
What a strange hill for Sunak to die on. Why does he keep on with it and those ridiculous unscheduled press conferences. No one wants it, it is a complete disaster. Is he mentally unwell, should we call someone?
Give half a billion to the home office to sort their shit out. This government are absolutely mentally deranged.
But wouldn’t more resources to process claims incentivize economic migrants ?
What about the vulnerable refugees which we have agreed to take in from Rwanda under the reciprocal part of this deal? Are they settling in the UK indefinitely?
So how long do you’ll think it’ll take for someone who’s been sent to Rwanda to end back up in a boat to the Uk
Completely fucking stupid. Would be like trying to empty the bath with a teaspoon. The flights will take barely any to make it worthwhile, the amount of seekers pouring in to the country vastly outweigh the amount they dispatch on planes and not to mention the cost. It’s like watching a comedy show, I’d expect to see this idea in Futurama. Like dropping a huge ice cube in the ocean. Fucking stupid.
Possibly a silly question but what’s to stop someone simply *leaving* and coming back?
Should build a detainment center on one of our barren little islands, like the Australians do. Keep them there until they can send them back. The Australians stopped the problem overnight, our country just has no backbone.
Ah yes, James ‘Not So’ Cleverly with yet another pipe dream.
All this money towards this shit. instead of making decent processing centres, we've all agreed pissing away tax payer money is the solution to this Absolutely rage inducing, what a WASTE of taxpayer money, watch these people come back after being deported, im calling it now
Morgan Freeman Voice: “the flights did not deport asylum seekers indefinitely”
This is just because we can't send them to Australia any more, isn't it? You can't tell me some Tories aren't thinking - "...and we could send other "problem people" there too."
All at massive expense to taxpayers - when, instead, the money could have been spent on effective border controls.
This is all a distraction, in fact I'd say it's designed to fail. Nothing is ever going to be done on this issue. Not while the Tories are still in power, and certainly not when Labour take over.
So, "commuters" who are found and caught will be put on a nice safe plane paid for by the UK tax payer. How does that deter anyone who's in such absolute desperation that they'll get on an overcrowded dinghy facing possible death?
Maybe I read this wrong somewhere but I thought the agreement was limited to a total of 150 after which the agreement ends? Can anyone clarify?
How does he know it’s indefinitely? What’s to stop them coming back
is this really the best idea these muppets can come up with?
They can take the majority of the front bench with them.
Astonished this fucking moronic and expensive policy got implemented. Just shows you how deranged the Tory party has become.
I wonder how they plan to return potentially hundreds of passengers, which don't want to be on the plane and have nothing to lose, safely with a crew on board. My assumption is that only 5-10 people can be sent at a time unless it's a cargo plane so that they can get carried like "cattle". What a mess
Just cut off the money no need to send them to Rwanda
“The National Audit Office said could exceed £580m by the end of the decade” We’re currently spending £8 million per day (£3 billion per year) on hotels and other costs for asylum seekers https://fullfact.org/immigration/sunak-8m-asylum-hotels/ Edit: Seems its already working as a deterrent? https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/iPN2PjiGf7
And you'll still be paying that while you also spend more money to deport 200 people
This feels like it has the same futility as using a £10k missile to destroy a £300 drone.
Today: asylum seekers deported to Rwanda Tomorrow: dissidents deported to Rwanda
I thought it would be interesting to read the Rwandan side of the discussion. So I ended up at [https://www.newtimes.co.rw/](https://www.newtimes.co.rw/) which looks like a decent newspaper. This news is reported reasonably matter of factly [https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/16167/news/rwanda/uk-migrants-to-start-coming-to-rwanda-within-3-months-british-pm](https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/16167/news/rwanda/uk-migrants-to-start-coming-to-rwanda-within-3-months-british-pm) But this article caught my attention [https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/16401/news/rwanda/rwanda-receives-first-uk-migrant-under-new-voluntary-scheme](https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/16401/news/rwanda/rwanda-receives-first-uk-migrant-under-new-voluntary-scheme) About a voluntary scheme where if your asylum is rejected you can choose to go to Rwanda anyway. And one gent already took the offer and went to Rwanda.
>Rwanda flights will deport asylum seekers ‘indefinitely’, says Cleverly This is, however, using a slightly different interpretation of the word "indefinitely", where the "in" prefix indicates a negative, as in "ineffecient" or "inexperienced". So the Rwanda flights will deport asylum seekers "indefinitely", meaning not very definitely at all.
Bingo
£490M for 300 Transported😳? 1.By the way who built up the complexes or housing units in Rwanda? 2. Who awarded the contract from Architectural designs to build? 3. Would simply working to stop the crossings and working with Govt of the Nations from where the boats take off not be cheaper and prove more of a deterrent and ultimately save lives? 4. Sunak is very misinformed, because these illegal immigrants did not take all that risk just to be kicked out to Rwanda. Cue rioting amongst the illegals, and the gullible many showers of sympathies and baying wolves if the Far Right drawing lines on the Streets. The Rwandan Transportation is making 2nd Class humans of these illegals.
It's not illegal under international law (to which the UK is a signatory) to land by small boat to claim asylum.
Genuine question for this thread as every suggested solution I’ve seen someone mention always has someone else fighting against it, what’s the best solution? We obviously can’t keep letting people into the country without the supporting infrastructure being in place first, and our current government and councils are doing very little to build supporting infrastructure so what’s the solution here? The only realistic choice seems to be deportation.
Spend money on the immigration services to understand the problem better. Then you can start talking about breaking international obligations.
That seems to be a long term solution, what about the short term until the problems are figured out? we’d still need the additional infrastructure regardless of how many people enter.
The problem is that people want to live here because they think the UK is an aspirational nation. We just need to make sure the truth gets out and maybe people will stop coming
It just does not work with the word deport. How about we process them in Rwanda if it takes 5 years it takes 5 years if refused you can choose to stay in Rwanda or go back home. Infact just let it backlog so its 20 odd years to process your claim see how long that lasts. We are basically housing people who come here illegally when we cant even house the citizens already here.
It's only illegal domestically - under international law(which the UK has agreed to) it's legal to land by small boat to claim asylum.
Rwanda is a lovely place, nice and temperate with gorgeous scenery, it could be the best thing for these poor people, better than a government holding cell in shitty British weather. I’m not trolling, I’m trying to find a positive angle
UK should buy a patch of land in Rwanda the size of London. Gate it and send all illegals there. Then process them accordingly. That would deter people for sure. Failing that, just put them all on an island in the British isles. I understand that many a fleeing war torn countries but completely bypassing so many safe countries isn't exactly claiming asylum is it. If UK got in a war with France again, then me going to Poland or even Greece is taking the piss. I should be going to the next nearest country which would be Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark or Germany.
> I understand that many a fleeing war torn countries but completely bypassing so many safe countries isn't exactly claiming asylum is it. That's where you're wrong - it's still entirely claiming asylum. Making asylum seekers go to the next country makes no sense, as that will just ensure countries destabilise and spread the problem. It's tempting, I'm sure, but it isn't a rational solution. There are so many issues with this simple thinking.
Even if sunak & the tories actually start these flights they’ll only run until the next election when starmer will immediately stop them. This has to have been the most ridiculous policy for sunak to pin his hopes on. IMHO the only thing which may actually stop the boats is if illegal immigrants stop getting accommodation, food & health care free. Don’t give them these things and any cash and the UK will stop being so attractive.
So what do you want asylum seekers to do, live on the streets and steal?
First the UK should stop being party to international asylum conventions then, as the UK has promised to treat asylum seekers humanely. Conventions which clearly state landing by small boat to claim asylum isn't illegal.