The new Rwanda Plan

Wyllow3

"Britain can no longer return Channel migrants to France because of Brexit, Lord Cameron has indicated. The Foreign Secretary said a migrant returns agreement with France to help break up smuggling gangs and stop people making the perilous journey across the Channel was “simply not possible”.

source - Telegraph, 19 hours ago.

Why do we need an agreement? They pocket around £500m to stop the boats and aren't honouring that. All trying to enter illegally should be put straight onto a boat and back to France. That would be more of a deterrent than the Rwanda plan, again costing us millions and nobody has gone there yet. What a lame bunch we have in charge and have for many a year. David 'taking my ball home because I didn't get my own way' Cameron must love blaming Brexit for something.

"Britain can no longer return Channel migrants to France because of Brexit, Lord Cameron has indicated. The Foreign Secretary said a migrant returns agreement with France to help break up smuggling gangs and stop people making the perilous journey across the Channel was “simply not possible”.

source - Telegraph, 19 hours ago.

Station the navy in the channel and catch the people smugglers. Send them back to France . Not rocket science and the channel isn’t that big.

Which values? We all have very different ones, just read around GN.

Exactly Wyllow3! There are some posters on GN with whom I do NOT share values.

"......*who don’t share our values*."

Which values? We all have very different ones, just read around GN.

Why not just make it clear to these migrants that anyone turning up here illegally, either by boat or the back of a lorry will automatically be banned from seeking asylum?

If every European country adopted the same policy, migration should drastically slow down and then stop.

The European continent, including the UK, needs to face the fact that the continent is a very attractive proposition for potentially millions of people who wish to move, from countries like Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

With warmer summer weather and calmer sea conditions just around the corner, action is needed now.

The entire European culture is under threat from a flood of migrants who don’t share our values.

It is NET 200 as we will be taking asylum seekers fro Rwanda.

The whole business is a nonsense.

It’s capped Nicenanny3, to how many people this government can send there before they lose office. If it’s more than 300 I’d be surprised.

How many people can be relocated to Rwanda?
The arrangement to relocate individuals to Rwanda is uncapped. Rwanda has plans in place to scale up provision to take in as many relocated individuals as required. (from government website today)

As Rwanda are only taking 300 (and we're getting some of their refugees in exchange) your idea is just simplistic nonsense.

👏👏👏 MaizieD

Allsorts
Everyone thoroughly cheesed of with the floods of people coming here

You speak for everyone? You don’t speak for me, and there are not ‘floods’ of people coming here. Also, your argument makes very incoherent reading - punctuation might enable you to explain yourself better.

Let's start with quicker processing (including centres in Europe for asylum claims) and far more co-operation with European partners to tackle the people smugglers. Sending people to Rwanda I think was originally a quick fix attempt - that has turned out to be anything but.

We have to start somewhere MaizieD surely?

As with so many things the problem is having a government that tries to use simplistic solutions to what are very complicated problems and they don’t even try to get to the grass roots of the problems. Just try to put sticking plasters over the end results.

Urmstongran

MaizieD

A reminder.

If any asylum seekers are actually sent to Rwanda, if the full 300 are sent, each of those deported will have cost the UK £1.8million.

The 'threat' of being sent to Rwanda will never be a deterrent because the chance of being singled out to be sent off from the thousands already in the UK is minimal, and will become even more minimal as more asylum seekers arrive in small boats to swell the backlog...

Best practice of course would be to forget the backlog for now. Deal with them going forward. (Probably an amnesty anyway as most of them get to stay - unlike France who are much more robust in saying ‘non’). Instead apply new rules to every dinghy arrival of migrant. One night sleep, soup, sandwich, water and a blanket then next morning onto a plane to Rwanda.
Word would get round quickly enough. The migrants would ring their mates saying ‘don’t bother paying the smugglers all you get here is deportation the day after arrival’.

Now that WOULD be a deterrent.

As Rwanda are only taking 300 (and we're getting some of their refugees in exchange) your idea is just simplistic nonsense.

Urmstongran

MaizieD

A reminder.

If any asylum seekers are actually sent to Rwanda, if the full 300 are sent, each of those deported will have cost the UK £1.8million.

The 'threat' of being sent to Rwanda will never be a deterrent because the chance of being singled out to be sent off from the thousands already in the UK is minimal, and will become even more minimal as more asylum seekers arrive in small boats to swell the backlog...

Best practice of course would be to forget the backlog for now. Deal with them going forward. (Probably an amnesty anyway as most of them get to stay - unlike France who are much more robust in saying ‘non’). Instead apply new rules to every dinghy arrival of migrant. One night sleep, soup, sandwich, water and a blanket then next morning onto a plane to Rwanda.
Word would get round quickly enough. The migrants would ring their mates saying ‘don’t bother paying the smugglers all you get here is deportation the day after arrival’.

Now that WOULD be a deterrent.

From the BBC website
Previously released official figures suggested that removing each individual to a third country would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.
The prime minister previously claimed that the Rwanda plan would "literally save us billions in the long run", but did not explain the figures.
‘The UK's asylum system costs nearly £4bn a year, including about £8m a day on hotel accommodation.
Failure to process asylum claims efficiently "has led to unacceptable costs to the taxpayer", a report by MPs said in October 2023.’
I believe that, now the Rwanda bill has been passed we’ve had to pay Rwanda another huge sum of money, many millions.

MaizieD

A reminder.

If any asylum seekers are actually sent to Rwanda, if the full 300 are sent, each of those deported will have cost the UK £1.8million.

The 'threat' of being sent to Rwanda will never be a deterrent because the chance of being singled out to be sent off from the thousands already in the UK is minimal, and will become even more minimal as more asylum seekers arrive in small boats to swell the backlog...

Best practice of course would be to forget the backlog for now. Deal with them going forward. (Probably an amnesty anyway as most of them get to stay - unlike France who are much more robust in saying ‘non’). Instead apply new rules to every dinghy arrival of migrant. One night sleep, soup, sandwich, water and a blanket then next morning onto a plane to Rwanda.
Word would get round quickly enough. The migrants would ring their mates saying ‘don’t bother paying the smugglers all you get here is deportation the day after arrival’.

Now that WOULD be a deterrent.

Why don’t they just wreck the boats, let France pay us for every immigrant that comes illegally. It’s a joke, we pay them for what? It’s got to be proper route to get here or not at all. We cannot take any more. Everyone thoroughly cheesed of with the floods of people coming here, if you care take a family, this pathetic government how on earth will Rwanda work, so few people at the end of it, what a waste of millions, but has labour ever had a suggestion or view on anything or can they only ridicule, no wonder out of the last 100 plus years they have actually held power just over 30 years, it’s because really they don’t want the effort involved as then they have to make a decision before they clear the coffers out which they invariably do.Screaming Looney party could have done a better job. Does anyone vote for total apathy, spoil the paper or vote for the one that are marginally interested in our country although they are making a hash of it,

A reminder.

If any asylum seekers are actually sent to Rwanda, if the full 300 are sent, each of those deported will have cost the UK £1.8million.

The 'threat' of being sent to Rwanda will never be a deterrent because the chance of being singled out to be sent off from the thousands already in the UK is minimal, and will become even more minimal as more asylum seekers arrive in small boats to swell the backlog...

Nicenanny do you have no compassion for those refugees who have escaped wars?

"feeding them" Honestly ? How do you sleep at night.

Off the beach at Dover, onto a bus to the ROI border and, point them south. Why waste money building detention centres and feeding them?

Job done in 24hrs for the cost of a bus and ferry fare and, the ROI have helpfully declared the UK as an unsafe country and cannot therefore, legally send them back.

It’s hard not to be pleased…

Actually the ROI is having it hard. They weaponised a hard border (Brexit, the GFA etc) with NI. Now Varadkar (as was) is reaping what he sowed. Oh the irony. Be careful what you wish for comes to mind ….

In fact, why not set up immigrant camps in Northern Ireland? Austere places of wooden huts, only 5 easy walking miles from the ‘open border’ and into the Republic, the same English language and with no threat of being sent to Rwanda.

Surely the Irish government wouldn’t go back on having checks on the actual border, not after all of that Brexit nonsense they insisted upon?

growstuff

Caleo

Callistemon, I think that empowering women and girls is the best route. There are local people who travel around teaching birth control methods that men will tolerate, (I.e. not condoms) and teach marketable skills to women and girls.

Not in Afghanistan.

Only in countries that will allow it.
Yes, always a good idea to try and empower women and girls, but it has to be remembered that men are very much in charge in so many countries.

MayBee70

Caleo

Zakoumah66 wrote:
"In the minds and hearts of many the people are infact not even people. They are migrants/ scroungers/ small boats/ them/ they/ young men who leave their families. On and on it goes."

Demonising a group of people is the first step in getting rid of them. It happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany.

Badly needed is drama and reportage that shows that immigrants are human beings that have feelings like my own feelings. And bodies like my own body so that if you cut an immigrant they bleed just like me.

Years and Years ( what a brilliant series that was) highlighted the plight of people trying to get here in boats. From memory I think it also showed that you don’t just drown from falling into the water: you can drown by ingesting too much water whilst still on a boat. I think people choose to ignore just what many of these people are escaping from.

Another poster reposting a deleted one here.