Gransnet forums

News & politics

The new Rwanda Plan

(107 Posts)
Casdon Wed 13-Mar-24 13:05:47

news.sky.com/story/migrants-refused-asylum-in-the-uk-to-be-offered-thousands-of-pounds-to-move-to-rwanda-report-13093684
The government is proposing to offer failed asylum seekers £3000 if they agree to go to Rwanda. I don’t get it, because won’t offering money to go to another country encourage more ineligible people rather than less to come to the UK knowing they will be relocated, with £3k to start a new life, ultimately anywhere they choose?

maddyone Wed 13-Mar-24 13:07:22

It won’t happen anyway.

Germanshepherdsmum Wed 13-Mar-24 13:09:49

I don’t get it. If someone is refused asylum, presumably they will usually have come here via France. If they can’t be sent back to their country of origin why not send them back to France?

Urmstongran Wed 13-Mar-24 13:09:54

It sounds crazy Casdon. Or desperate. Who thinks up these schemes? Ten year olds?

Germanshepherdsmum Wed 13-Mar-24 13:23:51

I guess the problem is that if someone has been refused asylum you have to do something to get them out of the country but why not make it compulsory? Why try to bribe them with money? Perhaps it’s the wretched human rights thing again, making it difficult to forcibly remove someone to their country of origin.

TinSoldier Wed 13-Mar-24 13:54:36

I suggest people read this.

freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

There is no legal obilgation for somone to stay in the first safe country they reach - else why aren’t all Ukranian refugees in Poland and Moldova?

Under the Dublin System:

[While] There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. But as a matter of administration, one EU country can send the asylum seeker back to another EU country under this system.

There used to over a thousand of these “Dublin removals” every year from the United Kingdom …

I have to smile when I read these things, about all the fervent Brexiteers who thought that leaving the EU would solve the issue of migration. Had the UK remained in the EU then it would still be part of the Dublin system.

Freya5 Wed 13-Mar-24 13:59:09

TinSoldier

I suggest people read this.

freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

There is no legal obilgation for somone to stay in the first safe country they reach - else why aren’t all Ukranian refugees in Poland and Moldova?

Under the Dublin System:

[While] There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. But as a matter of administration, one EU country can send the asylum seeker back to another EU country under this system.

There used to over a thousand of these “Dublin removals” every year from the United Kingdom …

I have to smile when I read these things, about all the fervent Brexiteers who thought that leaving the EU would solve the issue of migration. Had the UK remained in the EU then it would still be part of the Dublin system.

I suggest we all know this. Failed asylum seekers need to be deported , funny how Germany can send people back to their home countries,but we seem unable to do so.

pably15 Wed 13-Mar-24 14:06:18

if they have been refused asylum, they should be sent back to where they came from...not bribed to go , this country is a joke
we have given money to France to stop the small boats ...hasn't worked, just a couple of weeks ago a small boat with imigrants was in danger just a couple of miles off the French coast, instead of taking them back to France they were escorted to Britain

Casdon Wed 13-Mar-24 14:06:21

I knew that was the case, and it says in the article I posted that it would be voluntary, so from that I took it that people could take the money and accept the fight to Rwanda without precondition, and then go on to wherever they choose. If that is the case I just don’t see any advantages, I must be missing something.

Casdon Wed 13-Mar-24 14:07:13

Casdon

I knew that was the case, and it says in the article I posted that it would be voluntary, so from that I took it that people could take the money and accept the fight to Rwanda without precondition, and then go on to wherever they choose. If that is the case I just don’t see any advantages, I must be missing something.

Sorry, that was for TinSoldier.

MaizieD Wed 13-Mar-24 14:17:12

^ If that is the case I just don’t see any advantages, I must be missing something.^

Ah, but the government will be able to point to a plane carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda. Success!

And, of course failed asylum seekers can be sent back to their country of origin. If that isn't happening it's just more Home Office incompetence...

It strikes me, though, that the bribe might be offered to pre-empt an appeal against their case for asylum having failed.

HousePlantQueen Wed 13-Mar-24 14:21:37

pably15

if they have been refused asylum, they should be sent back to where they came from...not bribed to go , this country is a joke
we have given money to France to stop the small boats ...hasn't worked, just a couple of weeks ago a small boat with imigrants was in danger just a couple of miles off the French coast, instead of taking them back to France they were escorted to Britain

Not true

www.infomigrants.net/en/post/55290/france-stops-140-migrants-from-crossing-english-channel#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20about%2036%2C000%20people,at%20the%20pace%20they%20envisioned.

Irrespective of one's opinion on whether asylum seekers are 'illegal' or not, or what we should do/not do, please use facts.

Urmstongran Wed 13-Mar-24 14:25:17

Yes MaizieD I agree. Perhaps it works out cheaper in the long run to bung failed asylum seekers £3k than to continue to feed, house and provide medical care for them? And then on top pay barristers to see through their interminable challenges in Court.

I still fail to understand why we can’t just deport them? We seem pretty useless at using the powers we have! Other European countries seem to manage deportation far better than we do. I wonder why this is?

fancythat Wed 13-Mar-24 14:27:16

Everything seems like a red herring where asylum seekers are concerned.
Especially anything to do with Rwanda.

Is the real reason of everything, the Uk government is outwitted by lawyers. Yet again.
But just doesnt want it all to look like that?

Whitewavemark2 Wed 13-Mar-24 14:28:06

Israel gave up on exactly the same scheme because the asylum seekers took the money, flew to Rwanda, then promptly returned to Europe.

halfpint1 Wed 13-Mar-24 14:32:54

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t get it. If someone is refused asylum, presumably they will usually have come here via France. If they can’t be sent back to their country of origin why not send them back to France?

And then France can send them back to Italy and then back to Greece?

Germanshepherdsmum Wed 13-Mar-24 14:35:47

Maybe France will grant them asylum - but if they have been refused here it will have been for good reason. We can’t have people roaming the streets who have failed to pass the tests for asylum.

halfpint1 Wed 13-Mar-24 14:41:35

The European countries are inundated as
Well. It is naive to only rely on the British media to think othetwise

Magsymoo Wed 13-Mar-24 14:44:52

Apparently the reason they can’t be sent to their country of origin is if it is unsafe to do so. In which case they would probably win their asylum claim if they appealed anyway.
This is all nonsense anyway. It won’t happen. Sunak is desperate to get someone on a plane to Rwanda no matter what the cost to the taxpayer and our international reputation so that he can claim he has fulfilled one of his ‘pledges’ before the Election.

Germanshepherdsmum Wed 13-Mar-24 14:46:03

But what would you do halfpint, if asylum has been refused and the policy is not to return the person to their country of origin because it’s deemed dangerous? Just leave them roaming the streets here?

Cossy Wed 13-Mar-24 14:49:21

It’s utterly bonkers!!! We’ve paid millions - the only people to go have been two ministers, and sadly they had return tickets! Also since this failed scheme was set up we’ve accepted TEN Rwandan asylum seekers, now we are going to pay failed asylum seekers to go there? Sometimes I feel as if I’ve entered a parallel universe!

Chocolatelovinggran Wed 13-Mar-24 14:49:46

Surely the problem with the plan is exactly what WWM posted?
The money will be accepted and the asylum seekers simply return to Europe - as in Monopoly, where you collect cash for passing go. Why would they not?
How much has Rwanda had so far?

Cossy Wed 13-Mar-24 14:50:09

Germanshepherdsmum

Maybe France will grant them asylum - but if they have been refused here it will have been for good reason. We can’t have people roaming the streets who have failed to pass the tests for asylum.

Absolutely!

Casdon Wed 13-Mar-24 14:50:49

I still don’t understand what the deterrent is though Germanshepherdsmum. If they are given £3000 they could make their way from Rwanda across Europe, maybe settle in another European country if they are granted asylum there, which they probably wouldn’t be, or get on another boat and end up back in the UK and start the whole process again if that’s what they chose to do?

Casdon Wed 13-Mar-24 14:59:33

I’ve been thinking more about this. I’m no expert at all, but the government working with an aid agency to enable failed asylum seekers to build small businesses in countries who are willing to take them if they bring money into the country with them might be a more sustainable model that would give them a chance of building new lives instead of hoping for asylum somewhere in Europe?