Rwanda and asylum seekers

[jeremyp]

Sorry, but words fail me

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114

Somebody must have thought this idea up and then decided to propose it as a serious solution. We need to find that person and send them to Rwanda.

[Aruntraveller]

Indeed.

I sent a birthday wish to a friend this morning and she then asked about the sea prompted by a photo of big waves I'd sent her (that's another story in itself). Anyhow, I told her it was like a mill pond this morning. Adding,  Just right for people to come over in dinghies before being booked on a flight to Rwanda. It's surprising, sometimes you find yourself typing a sentence that previously you would not have thought possible.

I understand Ms Patel is going to Rwanda to launch this piece of shit initiative. Perhaps they could keep her.

[jeremyp]

Indeed.

I sent a birthday wish to a friend this morning and she then asked about the sea prompted by a photo of big waves I'd sent her (that's another story in itself). Anyhow, I told her it was like a mill pond this morning. Adding,  Just right for people to come over in dinghies before being booked on a flight to Rwanda. It's surprising, sometimes you find yourself typing a sentence that previously you would not have thought possible.

I understand Ms Patel is going to Rwanda to launch this piece of shit initiative. Perhaps they could keep her.

And if they think it's going to stop people from coming, they are sadly mistaken. I watched an episode of Saving Lives at Sea the other day in which the Newhaven lifeboat was called out to a RIB in the middle of the Channel that had been spotted by a passenger ferry and was grossly overloaded with dozens of prospective illegal immigrants including young children. It was heartbreaking but also thought provoking. If they're prepared to put up with two days in the English Channel in an open boat, it must be really bad where they are coming from. The only way to stop people from trying to come here is to make the places where they live better places to live.

[Aruntraveller]

And, of course, we send them to a country that we have recently criticised for human rights abuses:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rwanda-asylum-deal-home-office-uk-b2058273.html

[Udayana]

It's obviously bonkers and unworkable, just another of those dog-whistles that have been lying around for years.

[Aruntraveller]

.....

[Spud]

It's obviously bonkers and unworkable, just another of those dog-whistles that have been lying around for years.

If I understand 'dog-whistles' correctly, was it wrong to increase security at Calais, for example?

Can we assume for the sake of argument that the destination is safe and enables people to make a good life.

I remember the violence a lot of immigrants used trying to get on lorries at Calais. I think because they are now risking their lives on the flimsy boats, not being able to get on lorries, people are now more sympathetic to them than they were when they were assaulting lorry drivers.

But they aren't just risking their lives, they are risking the lives of the others on the boats, which are overloaded and therefore more dangerous. I think there needs to be a strong deterrent to this; bearing in mind the word 'strong', what other options are there than deportation?

Given that France will not as far as I know take them back if they make it to English waters, there needs to be an alternative destination. What if Rwanda is the only place that is willing to do this? Is it the long distance that makes people react against the idea?

The migrants have spent thousands on the boat ride and will lose that money. Perhaps they will be given some kind of allowance to start them off? That would make things easier for them.

If the scheme makes some of the migrants think twice, could that help from a safety perspective?

[Aruntraveller]

This gives some context Spud:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-asylum-plan-human-rights-b2099573.html

The key takeaway is this para:

Rwanda signed a similar agreement with Israel between 2014 and 2017 that was not a success, with almost all of the 4,000 detainees sent there swiftly leaving the country to undertake the perilous journey to Europe, some of whom are understood to have fallen prey to traffickers en route, notably in Libya.

So in short, doesn't work and makes the plight of those involved worse. Man's inhumanity to man writ large.

[Spud]

Interesting, Trent - so the government basically copied Israel.

[SteveH]

Interesting, Trent - so the government basically copied Israel.

Well, they're heartless bastards, if that's what you mean.
Thankfully, the ECHR has stepped in, a bit belatedly perhaps, and the flight will not now go ahead.

[Spud]

Well, they're heartless bastards, if that's what you mean.
Thankfully, the ECHR has stepped in, a bit belatedly perhaps, and the flight will not now go ahead.

Because it may be that the scheme is illegal, which is to be decided in the near future.
Maybe the UK should concentrate on improving its relationship with the EU, like by rejoining... The problem won't be fixed without catching the traffickers, who are on their side of the channel.

[Gordon]

I'd love to see the background information that supports the assertion that sending people to Rwanda will disrupt the 'business model' of those arranging the cross-channel transport of refugees: as far as I can see that claim is just assertion.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently there are strong mumblings in some Tory MPs about getting rid of the bishops from the HoL due to their opposition to this.

[Udayana]

If I understand 'dog-whistles' correctly, was it wrong to increase security at Calais, for example?

I can't see anything wrong with increasing security - as it made it safer for everyone.

By "dog-whistle" I mean a proposal made to invoke a basic, unconsidered, response to gain support on an issue. The first reaction of most people when it is suggested that their lives are being threatened by newcomers is to demand that the incomers be removed or just go elsewhere - regardless of the actual pros and cons. Many issues re-occur over the long term, and the civil servants have a portfolio of plans previously formulated to deal with them - they offer a choice to politicians newly in power - although most of them have previously been rejected as unworkable. "Ship them elsewhere" was one that came up many times under New Labour although they eventually went for DNA-database/ID cards - then for the "hostile environment" when that flopped. 

Can we assume for the sake of argument that the destination is safe and enables people to make a good life.

I remember the violence a lot of immigrants used trying to get on lorries at Calais. I think because they are now risking their lives on the flimsy boats, not being able to get on lorries, people are now more sympathetic to them than they were when they were assaulting lorry drivers.

But they aren't just risking their lives, they are risking the lives of the others on the boats, which are overloaded and therefore more dangerous. I think there needs to be a strong deterrent to this; bearing in mind the word 'strong', what other options are there than deportation?

The boats are certainly dangerous, but people may choose the danger if no safer routes are available. The answer is to provide reasonable routes for asylum seekers to make their cases. Ukrainian refugees are not resorting to inflatables - despite the absolute shambles of a system that has been set up for them to get here. 

Given that France will not as far as I know take them back if they make it to English waters, there needs to be an alternative destination. What if Rwanda is the only place that is willing to do this? Is it the long distance that makes people react against the idea?

Why should France take them back? They don't want to be in France: why does there need to be an alternative destination? France has sensibly offered setting up a processing centre in Calais - but the UK won't take that up.

The migrants have spent thousands on the boat ride and will lose that money. Perhaps they will be given some kind of allowance to start them off? That would make things easier for them.

If the scheme makes some of the migrants think twice, could that help from a safety perspective?

Again, this unworkable - for those willing to risk their lives to join families in the UK they will use whatever resources they have to leave Rwanda and try again - possibly involving even more dangerous crossings.

[Udayana]

Interesting, Trent - so the government basically copied Israel.

The Israeli scheme didn't work as the refugees just left.

You could also compare against the Polish/German Madagascar Plan to ship off the Jewish population prior to the war and "Final solution":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

[Spud]

Thanks Udayana,
I know a Nigerian lady who has two sisters and a brother in the UK and has done two degree courses here. She tried to get an innovator visa to stay on, but her idea was rejected. She then resorted to overstaying, and trying to find someone to marry her and get her a spouse visa (I was the third guy she tried). I was advised to inform the home office that I was dating her, in order to cover myself. Not wanting to do this I waited for a while but her situation was quite dire: she could not work nor rent without a visa. So I decided to tell the home office. They were very unthreatening but firm that she should return and reapply from her home.
I probably should have been quicker to realise what was happening, but you know how it is when you want a relationship to work out.
Anyway, she went back and is now living with her mother, we're still in touch as friends. There isn't much hope of her getting a visa. I felt a bit used, so I didn't feel she was the one, in the end.
The system seems very cruel though, she has to see her siblings successfully settled here but live in poverty in Lagos.
I guess my point is that she had a safe home she could return to, and so did not qualify for asylum.
It seems very unfair. But if it was relaxed I suspect half the world would want to live here. So I'm not sure if the concept of reasonable routes for asylum seekers to make their case is realistic? 

[Udayana]

...
I guess my point is that she had a safe home she could return to, and so did not qualify for asylum.
It seems very unfair. But if it was relaxed I suspect half the world would want to live here. So I'm not sure if the concept of reasonable routes for asylum seekers to make their case is realistic?

Of-course asylum is considered separately and differently to normal (ie. economic) migration. But I don't think either system in place in the UK is fit for purpose.

IMO, ideally, everyone could live wherever they liked - people just wouldn't emigrate to countries where they was not suitable employment or other sustainable resources available, except for other pressing reasons - why should they?  But there are many factors preventing this: Economic inequality, corruption, climate change, politics and just straightforward repression and exploitation - which leads to many people wanting to migrate to states that seem better off (at least for now). 

[Aruntraveller]

which leads to many people wanting to migrate to states that seem better off (at least for now).

Quite.

As ever the human race (at least in the West) is burying its head in the sand, or possibly up its own arse, by ignoring the future migrant crisis that will be triggered by the increasing pace of the climate crisis, which will make our current difficulties on this matter seem like a walk in the park.

[Spud]

Quite.

As ever the human race (at least in the West) is burying its head in the sand, or possibly up its own arse, by ignoring the future migrant crisis that will be triggered by the increasing pace of the climate crisis, which will make our current difficulties on this matter seem like a walk in the park.

It's not just the West. I watched a documentary on Baghdad, where the temperature today for example is 47 Celcius. As well as being a result of global climate change, this is a local problem caused by expansion of the city into the surrounding farmland, plus increased numbers of cars. The fumes released by the cars has caused the temperature of the region including the farms outside the city to increase so much that it's increasingly harder to grow crops. I think they were saying that this is all affecting local rainfall too, so that the river Tigris, already lower because of dams built North of Iraq, doesn't have enough water for irrigation of the crops.

[Aruntraveller]

REFUGEES - Brian Bilston

They have no need of our help
So do not tell me
These haggard faces could belong to you or me
Should life have dealt a different hand
We need to see them for who they really are
Chancers and scroungers
Layabouts and loungers
With bombs up their sleeves
Cut-throats and thieves
They are not
Welcome here
We should make them
Go back to where they came from
They cannot
Share our food
Share our homes
Share our countries
Instead let us
Build a wall to keep them out
It is not okay to say
These are people just like us
A place should only belong to those who are born there
Do not be so stupid to think that
The world can be looked at another way

(now read from bottom to top)

[Aruntraveller]

A little update on the Rwanda policy that both potential leaders are keen on keeping:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/rwanda-can-accommodate-just-200-channel-migrants-government-officials-say-330371/?

Why the heck aren't we spending that £600,000 per head in our own country?

This is economic incontinence.

[Roses]

It is sickening to think of any asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda. It is Johnson and his acolytes who should imprisoned there, never to return to the UK.

[Nearly Sane]

And it's a no from the Supreme Court

[SteveH]

You beat me to it. Details from the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/15/supreme-court-rejects-rishi-sunak-plan-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda

[Nearly Sane]

You beat me to it. Details from the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/15/supreme-court-rejects-rishi-sunak-plan-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda

It was always a shite plan. And in one day, Braverman's letter has been proved right in that he doesn't have a Plan B, shite or otherwise.

It was never going to solve the issue. It wasn't ever of sufficient size to really effect it even without the legal problems. It would hardly have filled half the back of a fag packet.

As a distraction, it constantly hasn't, and now makes them look weak, divided, and stupid.