The new Rwanda Plan

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

Even you don’t believe such hyperbole!

You know exactly whatLabour are planning to do - it doesn’t need repeating.

If someone won’t leave voluntarily they would have to be forcibly removed. Cue accusations of assault and a mob of human rights lawyers. Starmer was a human rights lawyer - he isn’t going to stop this nonsense.

One extra bit of information I gleaned this week, is amongst other stuff - meeting head of civil servant departments etc. Labour are well on the way establishing links with Brussels which could include re-establishing the Dublin agreement.

Remember that immigration only got totally out of control when we left the union.

Casdon

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?

www.dw.com/en/germany-unveils-law-for-faster-migrant-returns/a-67595132

That doesn’t explain how the German government will actually make failed asylum seekers leave the country - what if they physically resist?

2023
320,000 were issued with residency
170,000 were deported in France
According to google

A couple of years ago I was on a long distance bus when at one pause the Gendarmes got on checked everyone's I.D. and took off 3 people all young black males.
It was so upsetting to witness. Haven't taken a bus since