The new Rwanda Plan

I don’t understand why failed asylum seekers aren’t removed immediately following their failed application. I believe the acid attacker who eventually turned up in the Thames had several applications refused but was still here. His final application was granted on the grounds that he had converted to Christianity. If he had been removed straight away the woman so badly injured by him would not have suffered that terrible attack. His application was denied several times, becoming a Christian should have made no difference. Religion should be irrelevant. People have their applications denied for a reason. They are not eligible to stay here. Simple enough.
And since this government won’t remove them, there is absolutely no chance that Labour will. The situation will become worse, not better.

Freya5

Germanshepherdsmum

What would Starmer do with people whose asylum claims have been rejected? Let them roam the streets and work in the black economy or turn to crime?

You've said exactly what his government will do. Find it strange that France, the imam, and Germany, failed asylum seekers, can send people back quickly, yet we can't. I wonder why.

Can you explain what France and Germany actually do with failed asylum seekers Freya5, that’s what I’d like to know?

Germanshepherdsmum

What would Starmer do with people whose asylum claims have been rejected? Let them roam the streets and work in the black economy or turn to crime?

You've said exactly what his government will do. Find it strange that France, the imam, and Germany, failed asylum seekers, can send people back quickly, yet we can't. I wonder why.

Germanshepherdsmum

I think this is the best chance we have of getting rid of people who don’t qualify for asylum, unpalatable though it is. If they go voluntarily then there can be no complaint about their human rights. The sooner we get rid of this legislation the better.

You are so right, it is unpalatable, but I just don’t know what more we could do?

They come, we should process them far more swiftly, if not granted leave to remain they have to leave and go somewhere otherwise all that will happen is they will simply disappear into our black economy

What do other European countries do with this group, does anybody know? If I were Starmer now, I’d be looking to see if anywhere else has found a workable solution as a starting point.

What would Starmer do with people whose asylum claims have been rejected? Let them roam the streets and work in the black economy or turn to crime?

I doubt the new Rwanda pay them to go scheme will get off the runway as the Tories won't be in power by next year.

I still don’t get why, of all the places in the world, they would choose Rwanda. I didn’t think it was that stable as regards politics. Bizarre.

Casdon I didn’t think you did start the thread with an agenda so apologies if my posts came across as if I did think that.
I just think it’ll never happen so whether it’s a good or bad idea is irrelevant really. Sunak will keep making noises about it though because he wants to appeal to the red wall voters.

76% of asylum claims are successful.

A total of 49,862 people were granted protection in the year ending December 2023 as a result of an asylum claim, a 247% increase from the previous year when 14,370 people were granted. (Source Refugee Council).

Much of that is because the backlog is being cleared. Even Lee Anderson, who, on the rare occasions he bothered to turn up for Home Affairs Committee enquiries, admitted that the increased numbers are a result of backlog clearing. (He managed to miss most sessions even when the subject was Migration & Asylum, Channel Crossing or Human Trafficking. His inane questions when he did turn up demonstrated that he didn’t understand how the asylum system works.)

If 49,682 is 76% then that would mean 15,750 applications failed. Giving every one £3,000 would cost £47,250,000. There are around 50,000,000 adults in the UK. It would cost each of us £1 a year.

About 1,200 medically qualified refugees are recorded on the British Medical Association’s database. It is estimated that it costs around £25,000 to support a refugee doctor to practise in the UK. Training a new doctor is estimated to cost between £200,000 and £250,000. A saving to the UK of £270 million.

This doesn’t further the debate but it’s how I get things into perspective - by looking at the numbers.

And the UK only has 1% of all the 27 million refugees who have been forceably displaced around the world. As a nation we could do better. And before anyone tells me there is a housing crisis - in 2023 there were 261,189 long-term empty homes in the UK, enough to house every successful asylum seeker and over 200,000 other people. And before anyone tells me we don’t have enough schools and hospitals, that’s why we have a census, so that the government has numbers to forward plan.

That they don’t do this effectively is not the fault of people displaced by war, famine and oppressive regimes. Among those asylum seeker could be builders, teachers, doctors and nurses and all the other skills we need to build our economy and support an ageing population.

Those who are granted asylum in France receive documentation, I.D.
If you knew you were unlikely to legally obtain one, hmm next port of call would be a non I.D. country.

Germanshepherdsmum

Which higher court are you referring to fancythat? The House of Lords (not a court) is still debating the original Rwanda bill.

Chocolatelovinggran I disagree. We need to modify the human rights legislation to prevent abuse by asylum seekers.

I do agree, to an extent, but instead of the word “asylum seekers” I’d that changed to abuse by criminals, asylum seekers who’ve been refused leave to remain and failed one appeal. I do hope that our govt isn’t about to remove many of our good, protective things away from the HR Act. It is a worry to me!

maddyone

Whitewavemark2

Actually when you think about it, none of it is going to happen, during this governments lifetime.

That’s exactly what I said at the beginning of this thread.

I didn’t ask the question with any agenda, I just didn’t understand, but I must admit I don’t see that - if there are already failed asylum seekers here who have been through the appeal process, they are between a rock and a hard place, and may opt to take the money and go. There’s far more chance of that group being willing to do it than people who are still in process?

Whitewavemark2

Actually when you think about it, none of it is going to happen, during this governments lifetime.

That’s exactly what I said at the beginning of this thread.

I thought that the ECHR was an element in the Good Friday Agreement, so we can't break away from it...

It’s about people whose country of origin is considered too dangerous to send them back

Does that mean it's too dangerous for the UK to send them back, or too dangerous for the asylum seeker to go back too?

If it's the second, why wouldn't they have been granted asylum?

Is this the Court the UK was instrumental in setting up after WWII and that Churchill was a strong believer in?
What else do we want to remove ourselves from?
Lead by donkeys springs to mind.

I think this is the best chance we have of getting rid of people who don’t qualify for asylum, unpalatable though it is. If they go voluntarily then there can be no complaint about their human rights. The sooner we get rid of this legislation the better.

Okay, that makes sense. I wonder if there is a group of people already in the position of having failed asylum appeal who would volunteer to go to Rwanda if they get this payout, as possibly if they volunteer Human Rights legislation wouldn’t apply? It may be that the proposal has been put to failed asylum seekers or their representatives and is the amount they are prepared to leave for.
Does anybody know how much £3k is worth in Rwanda?

It’s about people whose country of origin is considered too dangerous to send them back there Casdon, and I suppose those who have no papers and refuse to disclose that country. This scheme wouldn’t operate until the appeals process had been exhausted, with the asylum seeker being denied asylum. That might be because they have committed crimes (think back to the Clapham attacker). How else do we remove people who have no right to remain here, given that we can’t do so forcibly? The sooner we remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the ECHR, the better. This has been talked about for years but hasn’t happened. I certainly wouldn’t expect Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, to do it.

Actually when you think about it, none of it is going to happen, during this governments lifetime.

MaizieD

I don't understand some of the posts on this thread.

If an asylum seeker has had their application turned down, and loses again on appeal, they can be returned to their country of origin.

(If their country of origin is not safe for them then their application won't have been turned down.)

So why would the government be paying anything to them to go to another country?

The original article says:
‘The new relocation scheme is designed to remove migrants who have no legal right to stay in the UK but cannot be returned to their home country.’
Not sure who exactly that means, maybe those who don’t disclose where they are from originally, or people who are stateless?

Germanshepherdsmum

You’re talking about the European Court of Human Rights fancythat. Not currently involved and as I have already said, we need to remove the UK from their jurisdiction.

If only we would be removed.
I would vote for that.

Germanshepherdsmum

You’re talking about the European Court of Human Rights fancythat. Not currently involved and as I have already said, we need to remove the UK from their jurisdiction.

Thankfully that isn't likely to happen.

(Removal from the ECHR, I mean)

I don't understand some of the posts on this thread.

If an asylum seeker has had their application turned down, and loses again on appeal, they can be returned to their country of origin.

(If their country of origin is not safe for them then their application won't have been turned down.)

So why would the government be paying anything to them to go to another country?