Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

Ah. Open borders Maudi? What fun.
Yet okay for those who shout from the sidelines in say sleepy pretty Devon villages, or maybe Anglesey or the Cotswolds.

Has anyone driven through Bradford of Birmingham lately? I was shocked.

They were discussing the cost to Australia of the scheme they implemented. Can't remember the exact figure but it was over 1million for each refugee. So anyone who imagines it will save money is mistaken it will cost more

But then guess what trisher? It stopped. No more trickling payments (like us) of £350 million a week. I checked. Shocking amount ... and no end in sight!

As I said earlier, if not this, then what??

Anyone find it ironic that PP whose parents left Africa as refugees is planning on sending some back there.

Urmstongran
So, Labour, the Church, The UN don’t like Boris’ proposals? Okay.
What DO they propose instead?

Open borders let them all in.

I'll be interested to hear what sit on the fence Starmer has to say.

They were discussing the cost to Australia of the scheme they implemented. Can't remember the exact figure but it was over 1million for each refugee. So anyone who imagines it will save money is mistaken it will cost more.

As for the asylum seekers on £40 a week. I met a woman the other week. She has a degree and speaks English very well. She spends her time doing voluntary work, because she is not allowed to work. She wants to get a job and pay taxes but it's forbidden.

Of course you may GSM. We all decide what we want on open forums, just as I had to impress on you when you asked for personal knowledge about me in the past.

I know my career fascinates you DA, but it's totally irrelevant to the thread and none of your business if I may say so politely. If you knew my name you would be able to find out, but we're all anonymous here.

You’re right of course Aveline but Oz got slated for Nauru. It was seen as a ‘deterrent’. Sending a message to say ‘you can’t just queue jump and rock up’.

Immigration is a toxic subject. Europe is destabilising. Look at the Paris suburbs. No wonder Le Pen is gaining traction on the issue (although Macron will still win. The French moan, demonstrate, burn tyres, then vote for the continuity candidate).

This from the Guardian - October 2020:

“For any offshore processing scheme to be lawful, the human rights and protection needs of all asylum seekers, refugees and migrants who encounter it must be respected. This includes procedures to identify – case by case – whether people will be at risk of persecution or other serious harm in the country where the centre is located (or in any other place to which that country might send them). This can be very time-consuming and resource-intensive. EU experience shows that it can take longer for a transfer decision to be made than for a substantive asylum claim to be considered.”

Fair point.
So WHY are our civil servants not dealing with issuing asylum claims MUCH faster?

The whole thing has become a joke. I think Boris is hoping the first Army plane over to Rwanda is reported upon extensively and that migrants in the UK text their mates saying ‘don’t bother’.

The French MUST know the people trafficker’s M.O. The dinghies have to be sourced from Belgium or wherever. It’s a complex and highly lucrative business operation making millions of euros for the awful cocky people who run it. They must be feeling pretty invincible, getting away with it month after prosperous month.

So, Labour, the Church, The UN don’t like Boris’ proposals? Okay.
What DO they propose instead?

Germanshepherdsmum

I think you know full well that I am not in that position DA but those who have to choose between heating and eating don’t exactly have much on which to subsist.
I can’t assist you with your question about the law - not my field.

Just out of interest what was "your field", out of interest? Always good to know who the experts are on here.

And people like GSM who I had thought a bit smarter than to be swept along by the right wing propaganda....has now swiftly moved the blame for people suffering during the cost of living crisis onto the shoulders of asylum seekers. Slam dunk! On Twitter, the general opinion is that the Rwanda camps wont happen but Johnson et al will use this to attack "left wing wokery" and the Daily Mail will feed its followers with headlines such as the "Enemies of the State" that we have seen before

I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly but did Australia not do something similar when they had, what I dimly remember as 'the boat people'? It was an attempt to stem the flow/make trafficking unattractive I think.

varian

The UN has declared that this proposal to deport refugees to Rwanda is a breach of international law

Yet Denmark is looking into it too?

And there you have it. Civil servants thinking they can pick and choose which policies they implement. The Home Secretary is often pilloried for not dealing with illegal immigration, but now we know why.

Cummings was right re The Civil Service.

09:34DaisyAnne

You are doing it now mentioning Germany and the Jews, this situation is nothing like that. The economic fit young men arriving in dinghies after pushing themselves to the front of the queue by paying the people smuggler gangs 3000 pounds or more to get here aren't fleeing wars or bombing they just fancy living in the UK, sod the poor buggers who can't pay, the genuine refugees, never mind the women and children they are leaving behind in supposed war torn countries, only a coward would leave their women and children and save themselves in my opinion. Some people must be very naive. Yes by all means welcome genuine refugees like the Ukrainian women and children who have left their men in Ukraine fighting for their country, I salute these men.

I think you know full well that I am not in that position DA but those who have to choose between heating and eating don’t exactly have much on which to subsist.
I can’t assist you with your question about the law - not my field.

If you are in that position or know someone who is GSM I would be happy to try and help with claiming benefits. There are also many wonderful and knowledgeable people on the Pensions and Benefits Advice Forum

Personally, with no means of cooking and often having to be out of their accommodation all day, I think food would take up a great deal of the £40.85. I doubt many if any would choose to swap with them.

It would be interesting to have your take on the law and how Patel has had to over-ride her Civil Servants and go with no costings in this case.

Germanshepherdsmum

I expect a lot of people would be pleased to have £40.85 a week after paying for their housing and fuel.

Your point?

The UN has declared that this proposal to deport refugees to Rwanda is a breach of international law

I expect a lot of people would be pleased to have £40.85 a week after paying for their housing and fuel.

Maudi

It will be popular with the Red Wall who lent their vote to Boris to get Brexit done (they wanted to control our borders) it will be popular in towns awash with fit young economic migrants lounging in 4 star hotels while some locals are struggling on benefits and food banks.

I wonder what sitting on the fence Starmer will say.

It takes more information for someone to believe something they don't want to believe than something they do. Hopefully, more information will be made available about this illegal, uncosted, barbaric step the government is proposing to take.

I appreciate that standing up for the truth in this case challenges the personal beliefs, group identity or perceived moral values of the groups you describe as being prepared to back the government. By drawing a picture of towns awash with fit young economic migrants lounging in 4 Star hotels you declare your bias very loudly.

If you are talking about asylum seekers, they are not allowed, by this government, to work until their application is processed. Asylum Seekers may not earn. Asylum Seekers are given a small subsistence allowance of £40.85 a week. Deliberately or because of government incompetence, being at the application stage can be stretched out for months or even years. This treatment has raised human rights issues against the government. It is part of the deliberate moves to create a Home Office Hostile Environment.

If they turn out to be economic migrants then it is the fault of government processes if they are still waiting to either be allowed to come here to work or sent home.

I'm sure you believe that your description, of this mythical group, is based on fact. The German population in the 1930s was also unethically manipulated by similar propaganda and repeated tropes. In that case, instead of asylum seekers, they attacked the Jews. The part of the population that responded may have been already culturally biased against the Jews. However, the increase in hate speech, the attacks, and all we know that came after that, were government-driven.

This latest change in how we process asylum seekers - a very select group of asylum seekers - is being used for the same purpose.

I am very aware that we all, me included, have an inbuilt bias. If you can give me facts to back your post, I am happy to listen.

Daisymae

So the whole plan is half baked, illegal and widely condemned. Sounds perfect. If you are trying to deflect attention.......

Yes but the charade went as far as flying Patel all the way to Rwanda and signing some document - so god knows.

So the whole plan is half baked, illegal and widely condemned. Sounds perfect. If you are trying to deflect attention.......

That is why she issued a Ministerial Directive

Whitewavemark2

Michael Rosen ????
@MichaelRosenYes
·
1h
It emerged on the News last night that Priti Patel had not priced the Rwandan experiment, no one has checked the legality of it, or the practicality of it, no one can say what would happen if people refused to be transported to Rwanda...

She won’t have priced it etc, because civil servants won’t break the law.

DaisyAnne @ 13.49 yesterday - I speak of pieces by reporters on television news which would stand the test for use as evidence in an English court. Not opinion or hearsay.