The new Rwanda Plan

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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.

^ 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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?

It won’t happen anyway.