Asylum Seekers to Rwanda - A Deterrent?

[MOIC]

Without peronalising and making this thread about the Home Secretary or the government, do you think the prospect of asylum seekers (single men only) who cross the channel via the human gang smugglers, knowing that they will be sent to Rwanda for processing, will act as a deterrent?

I'm sure 'humanitarian' lawyers will have a field day and are rubbing their hands with glee.

What are the pros and cons?

 

[Deleted member 335660]

My guess is they may not know about this diversion so will try and cross anyway as they are so desperate.

I am not sure there are any pros. I think the cons are it is going to cost more as no doubt we are paying Rwanda to do it. Secondly they may get through anyway as they might not be as particular in giving approval or declining. Finally it does not do our country’s reputation any good.

It may make us think twice about going to war in countries like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan but then as the second largest arms exporter, perhaps not.

 

[MOIC]

My guess is they may not know about this diversion so will try and cross anyway as they are so desperate.

The policy is supposed to start in 6 weeks time, which is probably sufficient time to make people who might be thinking of crossing to be aware of the new policy. Agree they are desperate, but risking your life (as well as women and children), might not be the best option.

I think the cons are it is going to cost more as no doubt we are paying Rwanda to do it.

I'm not sure the cost will be more long term, as the costs of housing asylum seekers for life is also not cheap. This policy is to act (supposedly) as a deterrent . . . . . . .whether it works or not, time will tell.

Finally it does not do our country’s reputation any good.

Agree, as long as the people judging are taking in their fair share of asylum seekers.

 

[Newchodge]

It is unlikely to happen. The costs are enormous it is almost certainly illegal in many ways and if people are prepared to rick dying to cross the channel why would this stop them?

 

[Fagin2021]

This topic provokes a wide range of emotions and solutions - from the 'blow 'em out the water' brigade to the 'welcome them in unlimited numbers' advocates.

I don't know the answer but I'm sure that shipping asylum seekers 4000 miles to a poor African country with a questionable human rights record would not be high on my list of possible solutions.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

The policy is supposed to start in 6 weeks time, which is probably sufficient time to make people who might be thinking of crossing to be aware of the new policy.

... because all of the people desperate enough to want to make the journey follow UK media......

 

[MOIC]

... because all of the people desperate enough to want to make the journey follow UK media......

Bad news travels fast!

 

[UkAppCoder]

I think it might act as a deterrent after they see a few flights. There is a big difference between the UK and Rwanda. Rwanda is not somewhere they want to be.

However, after a while, I think they will dream up other methods:

* The young men might team up with a woman and/or a minor.

* They might not phone the border force to be picked up in the channel. Instead they could complete the journey and simply land on a quite beach on the south coast. I doubt that the RN and border force would be able to catch all of them in the channel. I can imagine it becoming like a game of British Bulldogs like we used to play at school!

And of course it depends how it's implemented. Would they be securely imprisoned in the UK until they're flown out to Rwanda?

How easy would it be to escape from one of the holding camps in the Uk?

I could think of plenty of ways to get around these measures.

I think it would be more effective to take internal measures such as national ID cards, perhaps green cards similar to those in the US, heavy custodial sentences for anyone employing illegal immigrants, etc..

 

[MBE2017]

Will it make a difference? No.

Will these people get to hear about it in advance? Yes.

Most people in the West under estimate the lure of coming to countries such as the UK. We enjoy many things these people do not, peace, stability, safety, wealth, warmth, food, housing to name but a few. The UK has two particular extra draws, English is our native tongue and many around the world understand the advantages this confers on them, plus the UK public, despite what the press and left wing ideologues like to say, are amongst the most welcoming and intergrated people on the planet.

Their friends who have made the journey already will have rung them and keep them updated, the people smuggling gangs will use such news to increase the costs and so on.

I do not know the answer either, I would prefer to deal with the decision making ourselves regarding asylum seekers and refugees. The whole process needs to be streamlined and sped up, and legal aid lawyers banned from the whole process, since they have been shown to coach their clients with no regard to the law and truth.

 

[Newchodge]

The whole process needs to be streamlined and sped up, and legal aid lawyers banned from the whole process, since they have been shown to coach their clients with no regard to the law and truth.

As it is a legal process it MUST involve lawyers. It is their job to explain the process and how to deal with it, much to the anger of this government. Bit like the police hating criminal defence lawyers - if lawyers do their job properly it forces the authorities to do their job properly as well.

Of course the authorities have never disregarded the law and truth. Windrush and the illegal forced deportation of British citrizens is the first that springs to mind.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

and legal aid lawyers banned from the whole process, since they have been shown to coach their clients with no regard to the law and truth.

What lawyers should be allowed? Ones provided by charities? Or pro bono lawyers – would they be ok?

Or is this just a random statement, with no authority to support it?


Karl Limpert

 

[Deleted member 335660]

The policy is supposed to start in 6 weeks time, which is probably sufficient time to make people who might be thinking of crossing to be aware of the new policy. Agree they are desperate, but risking your life (as well as women and children), might not be the best option.

Yes I daresay they read The Daily Mail whilst waiting Clearly if they had another option they would not have been risking their lives in the first place. I would prefer my chances of crossing the channel than being shipped to Rwanda.

 

[Deleted member 335660]

The policy is supposed to start in 6 weeks time, which is probably sufficient time to make people who might be thinking of crossing to be aware of the new policy. Agree they are desperate, but risking your life (as well as women and children), might not be the best option.



I'm not sure the cost will be more long term, as the costs of housing asylum seekers for life is also not cheap. This policy is to act (supposedly) as a deterrent . . . . . . .whether it works or not, time will tell.



Agree, as long as the people judging are taking in their fair share of asylum seekers.

Why would the Government being housing the asylum seekers for life. I think you will find that most Asylum seekers get a job and make a life for themselves. According to the last statistics I saw the people that came to UK and did not work were those from the former Commonwealth with a British Passport (70% did not work).

 

[Deleted member 335660]

Agree, as long as the people judging are taking in their fair share of asylum seekers.

I accept this is 2015 but it was the facts back in the post referendum days and doubt if much has changed. About 95% of these people were accepted in EU countries and the rest wanted to come to UK because they had family or friends or spoke English better than other languages.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mUhN7LkTQIF-dGlcoFWLxgf9LtSeG_Q8/view?usp=sharing/ICODE]

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Clearly if they had another option they would not have been risking their lives in the first place.

The only argument that the gov’t & others make that has any semblance of truth is that these asylum seekers do have other options. But they’re not obliged to adopt them – under international law, they’re free to seek asylum wherever they care to apply, not necessarily the first safe country they arrive in.

The UK could once have returned them to other countries, such as France,
under the Dublin Convention, but the UK decided it didn’t like these arrangements.


Karl Limpert

 

[bodgitt&scarperLTD]

Yes I daresay they read The Daily Mail whilst waiting Clearly if they had another option they would not have been risking their lives in the first place. I would prefer my chances of crossing the channel than being shipped to Rwanda.

They have plenty of other options- they are in no danger in France, so they could stay there. Or any one of the multitude of safe countries that they crossed to reach France.

 

[Newchodge]

They have plenty of other options- they are in no danger in France, so they could stay there. Or any one of the multitude of safe countries that they crossed to reach France.

They could, but under international law it is their choice where they seek asylum. Why the HELL anyone would want to come to this country at the moment is beyond me, but they have that right and I believe that legal rights should be upheld.

 

[MOIC]

I think you will find that most Asylum seekers get a job and make a life for themselves.

Fair comment.

In Feb 2022, the total daily cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels is £4.7 million — equivalent to £1.7 billion a year. The Home Office said it was costing £3.5 million per day to house about 25,000 asylum seekers in hotels.

Not cheap and has to be paid for by the tax payer.

This is before a decision on their status has been made . . . . . .which takes months.

 

[MOIC]

They could, but under international law it is their choice where they seek asylum. Why the HELL anyone would want to come to this country at the moment is beyond me, but they have that right and I believe that legal rights should be upheld.

Let's get it straight.

We're talking about illegal asylum seekers who are crossing the channel.

Totally agree that if they apply (legally) via the normal channels, then their application should be processed at the country they choose.

Illegal v legal . . . .is that a debating point?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Illegal v legal . . . .is that a debating point?

Definitely a debating point: what makes them illegal asylum seekers, apart from rhetoric? What laws makes it illegal to be an asylum seeker?

Totally agree that if they apply (legally) via the normal channels, then their application should be processed at the country they choose.

What options would these be?


Karl Limpert

 

[UkAppCoder]

Definitely a debating point: what makes them illegal asylum seekers, apart from rhetoric? What laws makes it illegal to be an asylum seeker?

But are they not illegal immigrants? Perhaps this is what MyOfficeInChina means.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

But are they not illegal immigrants? Perhaps this is what MyOfficeInChina means.

"Immigrants" or "asylum seekers" have very different meanings. Which is it?


For reference, most asylum seekers are recognised & accepted as such.


[and there's use of the link option that I've been looking for recently...]



Karl Limpert

 

[UkAppCoder]

"Immigrants" or "asylum seekers" have very different meanings. Which is it?


For reference, most asylum seekers are recognised & accepted as such.


[and there's use of the link option that I've been looking for recently...]



Karl Limpert

I can understand why someone arriving directly from a non-safe country should be permitted to claim asylum, but I can't understand why someone arriving illegally from a safe country should be allowed to claim asylum.

In my opinion, they should be deported to the country whence they came, and seek to return via legal means by, for example, applying for a visa - like everyone has to!

Employment Law Clinic:
what makes them illegal asylum seekers, apart from rhetoric? What laws makes it illegal to be an asylum seeker?

Of course it is not illegal to seek asylum, but they broke the law in order to be in a position to claim asylum!

So, according to your logic, we have law-breakers claiming asylum. Is this wise?

Perhaps we could invite Vladimir Putin to make his way over here and claim asylum!

 

[Newchodge]

Let's get it straight.

We're talking about illegal asylum seekers who are crossing the channel.

Totally agree that if they apply (legally) via the normal channels, then their application should be processed at the country they choose.

Illegal v legal . . . .is that a debating point?

You REALLY don't understamd do you. You cannot claim asylum in the UK unless you are in the UK. Currently there are no legal routes for those who wish to claim asylum to enter the UK. Therefore every asylum seeker is, by definition, an illegal immigrant.

I can understand why someone arriving directly from a non-safe country should be permitted to claim asylum, but I can't understand why someone arriving illegally from a safe country should be allowed to claim asylum.

In my opinion, they should be deported to the country whence they came, and seek to return via legal means by, for example, applying for a visa - like everyone has to!

We are an island. The only way to arrive directly from a non-safe country would be by air. Airlines are fined thousands of pounds if they bring in someone without a visa.

Applying for a visa : 'you have just left war torn' Yemen and you would like a visa to enter the UK. What is the purpose of your visit?' 'To apply for asylum' 'No. Next'

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

In my opinion, they should be deported to the country whence they came, and seek to return via legal means by, for example, applying for a visa - like everyone has to!

Returning asylum seekers to another country whence they came used to be an option for the UK, but we decided we didn't like that arrangement, so we left it.

Can't deny a democracy its decision-making rights.


p.s. what legal means are there for an asylum seeker? You mention visas, but that's not an option for asylum seekers.


Karl Limpert

 

[UkAppCoder]

Applying for a visa : 'you have just left war torn' Yemen and you would like a visa to enter the UK. What is the purpose of your visit?' 'To apply for asylum' 'No. Next'

Which kind of answers Bodgitt&Scarper's question, don't you think?!

The first thing to do should be to get legal. That is, apply for asylum in the first safe country you find yourself in, then apply for a visa to go wherever you want!

 

[Newchodge]

Which kind of answers Bodgitt&Scarper's question, don't you think?!

The first thing to do should be to get legal. That is, apply for asylum in the first safe country you find yourself in, then apply for a visa to go wherever you want!

International law says otherwise. Presumablt what you actually mean is they should go anywhere except to the UK, a country that already takes far fewer asylum seekers than most European countries. Makes me feel ashamed.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The first thing to do should be to get legal. That is, apply for asylum in the first safe country you find yourself in, then apply for a visa to go wherever you want!

Why should they?

And please don't offer a reason why you think they should, but legally or otherwise why they should - it's their choice where they claim asylum, just as it was our choice, as the UK, to decide no-longer to part of the EU, which included the option to return asylum seekers to the first safe country they passed through.



Karl Limpert

 

[Deleted member 335660]

The only argument that the gov’t & others make that has any semblance of truth is that these asylum seekers do have other options. But they’re not obliged to adopt them – under international law, they’re free to seek asylum wherever they care to apply, not necessarily the first safe country they arrive in.

The UK could once have returned them to other countries, such as France,
under the Dublin Convention, but the UK decided it didn’t like these arrangements.


Karl Limpert

Yes they do have options and they choose the UK.

If you had the choice of going to a country that spoke a language you understood or going to one you did not understand, what would you do?

If you had friends in one country, but not the other, what would you do?

If your house had been bombed by the UK and you thought they had tried saving your country and thought they were friendly to you, where would you go?

Apparently the Government has been suggesting they are economic refugees, but research suggests they are not.

 

[Ian J]

Definitely a debating point: what makes them illegal asylum seekers, apart from rhetoric? What laws makes it illegal to be an asylum seeker?

They are illegal immigrants and not illegal asylum seekers

 

[Ian J]

Could we also send Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil protesters to Rwanda too

 

[MOIC]

The inadmissibility rules​

In January 2021, the UK government introduced new rules through which they can decide that an asylum claim is “inadmissible”, meaning it won’t be considered in the UK. These rules replace the Dublin Regulations, which no longer operate in the UK after Brexit.

If the Home Office think that you travelled through a “safe country” on your way to the UK, they can decide to investigate whether your claim should be treated as inadmissible. While your claim is being considered under these rules, your asylum claim will not move forward in the UK.

 

[UkAppCoder]

Newchodge said:
Presumably what you actually mean is they should go anywhere except to the UK ...

That's not really fair. I have no problem with genuine refugees, which is the case for the likes of Ukrainian refugees, and I welcome as many as we can possibly accommodate.

As I understand it, about 85% of these so called refugees coming from France are actually fit and strong young men and are not fleeing from danger. They are coming here for an easier life, which does not meet our conditions for asylum.

If they are fleeing from danger, then they would not leave their families behind. They would stay and fight for their country, or face the music if they've done something wrong, and not leave their loved ones behind to suffer.

 

[Newchodge]

As I understand it, about 85% of these so called refugees coming from France are actually fit and strong young men and are not fleeing from danger. They are coming here for an easier life, which does not meet our conditions for asylum.

If they are fleeing from danger, then they would not leave their families behind. They would stay and fight for their country, or face the music if they've done something wrong, and not leave their loved ones behind to suffer.

That is certainly the story spin by te Daily Mail. What makes you think it is true?

 

[UkAppCoder]

That is certainly the story spin by te Daily Mail. What makes you think it is true?

I don't read newspapers. I don't have the time. I watch Sky News and GBNews mainly, and discuss with family and friends.

But what makes you think the Daily Mail is telling lies? Sure, there's spin and bias everywhere, and the worst offenders from what I can see are the likes of the BBC and Sky news, and other left wing media.

Not saying the right is much better, but at least they seem to be more impartial. Overall, I try to be as objective as I possibly can, and in my opinion, using some common sense in order to identify what makes sense is sensible.

 

[Newchodge]

The inadmissibility rules​

In January 2021, the UK government introduced new rules through which they can decide that an asylum claim is “inadmissible”, meaning it won’t be considered in the UK. These rules replace the Dublin Regulations, which no longer operate in the UK after Brexit.

If the Home Office think that you travelled through a “safe country” on your way to the UK, they can decide to investigate whether your claim should be treated as inadmissible. While your claim is being considered under these rules, your asylum claim will not move forward in the UK.

I think that is one of the laws passed by this government that is incompatible with International law which, in this type of situation, would take precedence over UK law. The fact we think we cannot consider a claim because we think they should have claimed eslewhere does not mean that other country has a legal obligation to take them.

 

[Newchodge]

I don't read newspapers. I don't have the time. I watch Sky News and GBNews mainly, and discuss with family and friends.

But what makes you think the Daily Mail is telling lies? Sure, there's spin and bias everywhere, and the worst offenders from what I can see are the likes of the BBC and Sky news, and other left wing media.

Not saying the right is much better, but at least they seem to be less impartial. Overall, I try to be as objective as I possibly can, and in my opinion, using some common sense in order to identify what makes sense is sensible.

That must take the award for the funniest post ever found on UKBF. Congratulations. I am however, pleased to see that you think that the right is less impartial.?
??

 

[MOIC]

The fact we think we cannot consider a claim because we think they should have claimed eslewhere does not mean that other country has a legal obligation to take them.

Rwanda has accepted the obligation to take them . . . . . apparently.

 

[UkAppCoder]

That must take the award for the funniest post ever found on UKBF. Congratulations. I am however, pleased to see that you think that the right is less impartial.?
??

Oh well, at least I managed to amuse you! But I'm sure you knew what I meant, and I'm sure everyone else managed to use their common sense in order to comprehend the context and deduce what I meant!

 

[Picture Bute]

I don't read newspapers. I don't have the time. I watch Sky News and GBNews mainly, and discuss with family and friends.

But what makes you think the Daily Mail is telling lies? Sure, there's spin and bias everywhere, and the worst offenders from what I can see are the likes of the BBC and Sky news, and other left wing media.

Not saying the right is much better, but at least they seem to be more impartial. Overall, I try to be as objective as I possibly can, and in my opinion, using some common sense in order to identify what makes sense is sensible.

??