The new Rwanda Plan

The same Kevin Hollinlake who has been doing the media rounds saying Frank Hester is both a racist and not a racist seems to think it will deter people from trying to come to the UK in the first place.

So I don't think anybody would try and come here just to get £3,000 to go to Rwanda.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68550404

I see what you are saying Casdon. The BBC article touches on this:

According to official statistics, 19,253 people were voluntarily removed from the UK last year. Of these, 3,319 received a "reintegration package" or flights paid by the Home Office - the highest number since 2010.

The Home Office says payments under the current scheme "can pay for" temporary accommodation in the destination country, or education costs, or the cost of setting up a business.

Responding to the government's latest announcement, Labour's shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said: "Even government ministers are finally recognising that their Rwanda scheme has no chance of succeeding, so they're resorting to paying people to go there instead."

He said Rwanda had "very limited capacity" for accepting people and that the government should "make clear how many people they expect to send on this basis, and what the cost will be.

So let’s be an illegal immigrant and the UK will give us £3000
Form an orderly queue Grans!

Germanshepherdsmum

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?

There are some in France who are being returned and there
are some roaming the streets and others who have asylum.
The problem is not just with the U.K. It is a constant talking
point here as well.

I don't understand . If someone's been refused asylum why do we need to pay them in order to get them to leave?

I think it’s down to human rights - forcibly getting them onto a plane would likely involve committing an assault. I can just see the human rights lawyers queuing up for business. The whole thing is ridiculous - these people are very aware of their rights and would be sure to cause a great fuss. So we end up bribing them to go quietly. If they have been refused asylum then as I have already said there’s a good reason for that.

I would imagine that the people smugglers, currently pocketing millions from the small boats, will simply expand their business to Rwanda and be waiting to collect the £3000 and send someone off on a longer more dangerous journey back here.
Maybe it's another example of inspiring private enterprise.

Fact is,,,mail online..French escort vessel picks up migrant dingy 2 miles from French coast then takes it across channel so that asylum seekers can be delivered to Dover, 12 days ago

Thank you GSM that makes sense in a nonsense kind of way.

Casdon please stand for election. Your idea sounds interesting.

The police use force all the time.
Security guards use force.
Courts must use force sometimes.

Human rights lawyers have different powers to "ordinary" lawyers?

Actually paying them to go is probably cheaper than paying the abominable human rights lawyers who would fight against forcible deportation at the taxpayer’s expense and have prison officers, Border Force officials etc charged with assault.

Oh a lot cheaper I should think GSM.

There is a higher court involved.

Sunak is making himself look very silly, trying to hide that. Or having silly ideas to try and get around it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13192731/Tories-deride-Rishi-Sunaks-plan-pay-Channel-migrants-3-000-Rwanda-ex-minister-saying-admission-deportation-scheme-failed-PM-faces-new-calls-Britain-quit-human-rights-rules-instead.html

We should all be very concerned about plans to dismiss human rights. Our children and grandchildren might be at risk.

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.

*Mr Sunak told Dame Andrea she was 'absolutely right that we must do everything we can to secure our borders and ensure that those who come here illegally do not have the ability to stay'.

'That's why our Rwanda scheme and legislation is so important and what I've said repeatedly and will happily say to her again is I will not let a foreign court block our ability to send people to Rwanda when the time comes,' he added.*

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/01/rishi-sunak-wont-allow-foreign-court-to-block-rwanda-plan

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.

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?

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)

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.

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?

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

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.

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?