Forum Topic

Rwanda

I’ve just heard that it has been agreed that Rwanda will be allowed for immigrants- Wow - what next?  Are we in this country going to support this?  I am beginning to wish I didn’t live here...  I’m hoping more of us will be appalled.

Helen Bamberger ● 1371d79 Comments

We are supposed to be a caring country.

Helen Bamberger ● 1371d

Shades  of the Nazis wanting to send all the Jews of Eastern Europe to Madagascar in the early 1940s, until they realised they didn't have enough boats.

Roger Talbot ● 1371d

I think the initiative is designed to stop the people smugglers, if it stop people getting on boats across the dangerous channel it services it purpose. We can not have 10’s of thousands of people coming here illegally. We are struggling as a country and have zero infrastructure to handle such numbers, schools, NHS etc. if it stop the people smugglers that has to be a good thing. France is NOT a dangerous country, nor is anywhere in Europe including Albania. We need to manage our borders and are known to be a soft touch this might just change that perception.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1371d

Yes yes Roger I so agree - people don't remember or know the past - we need to help these people - just think if you were in this position having travelled so far in diar circumstances to find a safe place .

Helen Bamberger ● 1371d

They are in Europe so already in a safe place they don’t need to come to the UK illegally across the channel. There are legal schemes set up in co7nitres like Afghanistan. Albanians live in a safe country, sadly some people not all have another agenda, we need to stop/minimise illegal immigration.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1371d

Jayne I respect your views but please please look a bit deeper as to what is happening in our country -  are we really going to veer to such right wing views - I hope not. it's dangerous and not where we should be going.

Helen Bamberger ● 1371d

I am not right wing, I do however care deeply about our country and we must look after those who are already here through legal routes otherwise everyone suffers. There does need to be a proper legal route so that we can provide the support immigration requires. Sadly being a soft touch means some people like people smugglers will take advantage of vulnerable people, we must stop this criminal element. Sadly a deterrent appears to be the only option. People coming across the channel are already in a safe country they don’t need to cross the channel risking their life from unscrupulous criminals.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1371d

Ok Jayne - your views - definitely not mine !

Helen Bamberger ● 1371d

They do NOT come to the U.K. illegally - as there is no legal way to come here - then they cannot be illegal, as no law has been broken. Why we don't allow people to work while their cases are being sorted out is a mystery to me - after all we have lost so many workers that used to come here for work, and there are a lot of industries that are desperate for staff.

Vanessa Smith ● 1371d

Helen what’s your solution hopefully you at least agree we need to do something we can’t just have anyone who wants to come here enter illegally.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1371d

Yes the people who are making large sums in France is dispicable but Jayne these people have travelled so many many miles with children and their families- they need help - not shipped to Rwanda- would you like that if it happened to you.It's not the answer- Patel is completely wrong and brexit has most certainly not helped.As written in an earlier reply - this is how the history is repeating itself.

Helen Bamberger ● 1371d

And we need workers from abroad desperately

Helen Bamberger ● 1371d

Yes they do need help but they are in France and have travelled through other safe European countries, they are safe. The UK can no take everyone, we have a housing crisis, schools, NHS we are struggling to support those who come via legal routes they has to be some controls in place and some deterrents because not everyone coming is a genuine refugee, it does need to be managed and we must have a support structure, many don’t speak English. Yes we need skilled migration legally.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1371d

The Rwanda scheme includes two contradictory arguments..1. That it's a safe and pleasant place where asylum seekers will be well looked after and live a happy life..2. That it's such a horrible place that the thought of ending up there will dissuade any asylum seekers from crossing the Channel by boat.  As others have suggested, the best way of stopping this dangerous route is to provide a safe route, and then to check the validity of asylum seekers' claims quickly and efficiently.  Since Brexit, the Dublin Agreement about the first safe place no longer applies, so asylum seekers have every right to come to the UK if they want to.  We should feel proud that the UK is seen as such an attractive place for people under threat to come to, and we certainly need more people to work here and to contribute to our economy.  Just look back to the previous waves of immigrants who've come here and the contribution they've made.  Dominic Raab's family left Czechoslovakia in 1938, Braverman's family left Kenya in the 1960s, as did the Sunaks, as did Pritti Patel's from Uganda and the Kwartengs from Ghana.  They should all know better.

Peter Evans ● 1371d

Many do speak English and that is one reason why they want to come here: it would be easier to get a job, get their children's education off to a good start and make progress.  We need many more people employed to assess claims, combined with a ferry service to bring claimants over, obviating the need for small boats in the Channel.

Vivienne Cox ● 1371d

Leaving aside the morality of it, it's such a bizarre scheme. I used to write fiction and if I'd put this in a novel, editors would have told me it was too ridiculous and implausible.Rwanda are only willing/able to accept a couple of hundred asylum seekers and the cost per head to us UK taxpayers is HUGE.

Susan Kelly ● 1371d

I personally know 2 young teacher in London schools and they say 60% of kids don’t speak English well and both say it holds the other kids back and makes their classes much more challenging. So people, must come via legal routes not illegal. Our system is not able to process people here at any great speed so we must have some deterrent. Many illegal immigrants disappear we have no tracking system so we have no idea where they are, that isn’t good for this country. People don’t want to got to Rwanda so they will not try to come here illegally. Sadly we need a deterrent. Europe is safe there is no need to come illegally to the UK.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1371d

Better send those Ukrainian kids home then, holding back our children eh?!

John Hall ● 1371d

"I am not right wing"Lol. This policy is entirely performative and it's only practical use at this late stage of the Conservative government is to flush out racists.

Paul Campbell ● 1371d

Oh please you obviously don’t care about the crisis we already have and no they are not Ukrainians that’s was a dreadful swipe. I find it incredible that people do not want our borders protected and that we know who is in this country.  Albanians are not refugees and we can not take everyone who wants to live here. At least I care about the vulnerable in this country & there are far too many.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1371d

It's a curious paradox that heartless oeople most readily accuse others of not caring.

Robert Fish ● 1371d

Whatever you think of it,several other countries inside and outside the EU,have similar schemes and have had for a number of years.Clearly something should be done to clear the backlog of applications that we have,and this is supposed to deter the more spurious claimants,nearly always young healthy men.As far as I know,the facilities in Rwanda can only cater for 200 people, so how effective it will turn out to be is yet to be seen.

Keith Iddon ● 1370d

John Crace's article in the Guardian is very good today.The result isn't as straight forward as the impression of newspaper headline may sound. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/19/asylum-seekers-rwanda-uk-plan-legal-high-court

Philippa Bond ● 1370d

Interesting that there doesn't seem to be much airtime given to the reporting of that court case following which the Home Secretary has been ordered to raise the subsistence amount (lower than benefits) being paid to asylum seekers  (who are not allowed to work even though we have a shortage of workers).  Officials apparently advised her in August that the amount needed to be updated and have repeated the advice several times subsequently but it has been ignored hence the court case.

Philippa Bond ● 1370d

The Dublin Agreement. So glad you mentioned it. People dont realise how important that was but WE wanted out of it. Still we took back control, not sure of what, but people tell me we did.

Nicholas Beard ● 1370d

Rwanda can take only 200? So why bother sending them at all? Is this all a concocted fuss trumped up by a no-ideas failing Government to divert everyone's attention away from the mess they have made of everything else?

Roger Talbot ● 1370d

A very good question, Roger.

Robert Fish ● 1370d

Apparently the UK Govt has already paid Rwanda £120 million.

Philippa Bond ● 1370d

Excuse my language - bloody hell Phillipa- outrageous

Helen Bamberger ● 1370d

Just look how this money could have been spent -

Helen Bamberger ● 1370d

£600,000 per refugee who could (but hasn't yet) been deported to Rwanda (plus all the costs of getting them there)?This tells you everything you need to know.  The Rwanda scheme is not about finding a rational solution.It is about headlines.  This government knows it is dead in the water.  It has failed on every measurable level. On, frankly, everything.  Can anyone name one single important policy area where the Government has been successful, or made a situation better? This policy is just populist rabble rousing to try to stay in power.  But 90% of the UK population are against it.But it seems that a few on here have bitten.

T P Howell ● 1370d

I think it is more about deterrent, we need something we should just deport them back to their country if it is safe like Albanian. Others should be processed quickly.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1369d

Sadly the Rwanda project will ultimately fail.Every conceived court, right up to the holy ECHR will be sought on appeal to fight against the mass exodus of foreign nationals failing to seek asylum over here.If all else fails, and as a last resort the lefty lawyers will utilise the Modern Slavery Act (co-founded by Theresa May in 2015- she really is becoming a jinx to the Tory party and in my view, to the country as a whole) to prevent their clients returning to their homelands.The government must somehow persuade the French to collaborate with us in preventing the channel crossings, and returning those which get through.No easy task.

Denis I. Fox ● 1369d

Goiod luck with that one.

Keith Iddon ● 1369d

Suella Bravermann.This is your time.

Denis I. Fox ● 1369d

Jayne, it is the asylum seeker who decides what their safe country is. That is the law. The UK is 17th in the list of preferred countries for asylum seekers so we are evidently not the soft touch you claim. The UK has no safe legal routes for asylum seekers - this is easily solvable but the government prefers not to establish them. One wonders why.

Stewart Jones ● 1367d

The Rwanda scheme is just window dressing to appease the mob and pretend to be seen as doing "something". We have paid £120m UPFRONT for a scheme which, if it were to start, will allow only 200 migrants to be resettled in the country. That's £600k per person, plus obviously there'll be running costs of £12k per year per migrant. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/22/rwanda-can-hold-just-200-channel-migrants-cant-stop-returning/Bottom line = Priti Patel and her even worse successor decided to conflate a problem out of proportion (look at the amount of migrants taken in by Turkey, Poland, Greece, Italy, Germany or, further away, by poorer countries like Uganda/Bangladesh/Pakistan and compare them with our numbers), drive the system into disarray on purpose to aggravate the problem and then pour £120 MILLION pound into a drain for nothing. Effectively we've been taken for a ride by Rwanda and kudos to them for swindling the morons in power of that amount, wish I had their guts. And meanwhile, here in Chiswick, there's people who look at - again, £120m - wasted and don't bat an eyelid, but somehow a cycle lane is a dangerous waste of money that should never have been allowed.

Francis Sheehan ● 1367d

The issue is that the cycle lane is dangerous, badly designed, wrong location  and given the small numbers using it a waste of money.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1367d

There is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration and it’s the illegal immigration that needs sorting. Illegal immigration should be deported back to eithe their own safe country life Albania or to the nearest safe country they went through. Rwanda was clearly designed to be a deterrent to discourage illegal immigration. I have no idea what it costs the British tax payer to support illegal immigrants but I am guessing a lot. It is a given that applications needs to be dealt with efficiently and quickly, apparently the army and volunteers are doing a better job than border control staff on strike says it all 😂😂😂😂

Jayne Thorburn ● 1367d

I often found myself wondering aloud how on Earth populists and snake-oil sellers manage to rise to the top and swindle so many voters. Reading your posts kind of gives an answer, Jayne.

Francis Sheehan ● 1367d

One of the most interesting of all these answers  was written by Roger on the third answer  in this thread .  is this what is happening in our country - perhaps Patel should enjoy moving to Rwanda for a few years ? I honestly cannot understand what is going on with our governments behaviour .

Helen Bamberger ● 1367d

?? Odd response let just agree we have different viewpoints merry Christmas

Jayne Thorburn ● 1367d

"We have paid £120m UPFRONT for a scheme which, if it were to start, will allow only 200 migrants to be resettled in the country"That is actually reported in the wrong wayThey have got accomodation ready for 200. That was in responce to those who were initially going to fill those beds. More occomodation would be available to scale upSo to headline only 200 spaces and give the impression no more could be taken is not correctI believe the 200 would not have been scaled up as it was a ploy to try and stop certain people coming and nothing else.A tactic you could say

Julian Pavey ● 1367d

How does one get on the list?.Or to whom do you have to contact.?

James Dow ● 1367d

They are successful because they have no shame in garnering support by appealing to the selfishness of voters, and even to their worst instincts. On Rwanda, as the Guardian so aptly put it today, "the government is attempting to sell performative cruelty to migrants as a form of humanitarian intervention". The pitiful truth is that cruelty to migrants both sells newspapers and buys votes.As for the ridiculous argument that there is no hostility to immigration per se, but rather just "illegal" immigration, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how any foreigner, other than in a privileged category, can arrive here by "legal" means. The government has made it impossible.

Robert Fish ● 1366d

'As for the ridiculous argument that there is no hostility to immigration per se, but rather just "illegal" immigration, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how any foreigner, other than in a privileged category, can arrive here by "legal" means. The government has made it impossible.'That's the question Cruella Braverman was asked by Tory M.P. Tim Loughton at a recent select committee - and she couldn't answer him, in spite of turning quite desperately to two of her acolytes for help. There is NO legal method - therefore there are NO 'illegal immigrants' you cannot break a law that does not exist.

Vanessa Smith ● 1366d

"There is NO legal method - therefore there are NO 'illegal immigrants' you cannot break a law that does not exist." I think you need to review exactly what you have said No legal method does not mean someone turning up on a beach without any documentation is not entering illegaly

Julian Pavey ● 1366d

Turning up on a beach, with or without documentation, may be irregular, but it is not an illegal entry, if the migrant seeks asylum. For many asylum seekers it is the only route available to them.

Robert Fish ● 1366d

Under international law, everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum-seeker. Once here, an asylum-seeker begins the legal process of being accepted as a refugee. People who don't qualify won't receive refugee status and can be deported. The best way to deal with this situation is to process asylum seekers' claims quickly and efficiently so their status is resolved, not to make them cross the Channel in rubber dinghies and then stack them up in detention centres for months on end. One can't help thing that our government is doing the latter intentionally to sustain an image of 'foreign invading hoards' for political purposes.

Peter Evans ● 1366d

'No legal method does not mean someone turning up on a beach without any documentation is not entering illegaly'It means they are asylum seekers - they left their home country quite likely fleeing absolutely terrified, so really no surprise that they didn't have time to faff around locating paperwork they might need.

Vanessa Smith ● 1366d

Yes it is Unless your planning to leave at some stage They are entering without leave so "constitutes illegal entry as defined by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended by the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act)"

Julian Pavey ● 1366d

Should just add that the claim for asylum comes after. But you do enter illegally which is my point that because no legal route exists does not remove entering as not illegal.You enter illegally,claim asylum and your are granted Right to Remain until the process of your claim for asylum is resolved.

Julian Pavey ● 1366d

And don't forget there are special visas for foreigners who pay enough money - so you can't just make the excuse that the country is full and then keep on accepting people on those visas!

Philippa Bond ● 1366d

Its is full as far as beds for people with no money is concerned.

Julian Pavey ● 1366d

Well, since you seem to have become a barrack-room lawyer as well as an amateur economist, perhaps you might care to advise us about the relevance of Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention in this context. Perhaps you consider that all conventions, protocols, etc which override UK law should be ignored as derogations from the Holy Grail of UK sovereignty.

Robert Fish ● 1366d

Im neither and neither are you Bye

Julian Pavey ● 1366d

YOU TUBE provides an insight into local entertainment....it lightens the toxic nature of discussions.

Jim Lawes ● 1366d

So why do we allow see so many empty flats?  Why are we allowing so many homes that are too expensive for people who need homes to buy and rent?

Philippa Bond ● 1363d

It’s called democracy

Jayne Thorburn ● 1363d

No you are wrong it is called neoliberalism and it is stealing our democracy.https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/

Philippa Bond ● 1363d

So countries where the government manages the housing market (e.g. by restricting multiple ownership or disincentivising through taxation) in a way to ensure that its citizens have access to  affordable housing are not democracies?That's a new one on me.18.5% of the housing stock (4.4 million homes) is now owned by private investors. Up by a third in 10 years.  More than half of private landlords own two or more investment properties. In the same period:• the amount of social / affordable housing has reduced.  • the UK population has increased marginally by about 6.3%.• the housing stock has increased by about 5.2%. • House prices have increased by two thirds.Shelter estimates 274,000 people in just England are homeless.  There are also an estimated 772,000 second homes in England.So the problem is not (just) that we do not have enough homes (which is not the main problem).  Is it that housing is no longer seen as satisfying a basic human need, but as an investment class.  Where's the "demoncracy" in that?And then we have the grotesque spectacle of our new Prime Minister – the man who is in the best position of all to end homelessness – taking part in a Christmas photo opportunity in a homeless shelter.

T P Howell ● 1359d

"Demoncracy". Intended or not, genius.

David Roberts ● 1359d

Not. So I disclaim the genius. But perhaps never a truer work said in error.

T P Howell ● 1359d

Surely not, Roger?

Brian Coyle ● 1358d

Philippa, rumour has it the flats are purchased as investments by those far away from UK it's  such a shame they are standing empty.

Janice Evans ● 1358d

Luxury flats purchased by wealthy overseas investors are but a small part of the housing problem. The far greater problem is the amount of former public housing stock now in the hands of private rentiers.

Robert Fish ● 1358d

Then why does every council in London go mob handed to the yearly property selling bun fight in Cannes to sell flats in new developments in their borough?

Keith Iddon ● 1358d

Regulations around landlords are getting so tight for some it is worth leaving their investment as an asset to sell at some point. The majority of landlords are decent and respect their tenants the regulations are getting tighter and tighter that will deter some home owners from renting there needs to be some balance otherwise the situation will get worse.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1357d

I’m not sure you can state as fact that the majority of landlords are decent. How do you know?

Stewart Jones ● 1357d

And if the regulations are getting tighter and tighter then that rests with the government. That’s democracy. You voted for it.

Stewart Jones ● 1357d

There is talk of Council Tax being doubled for second homes.  Perhaps that will encourage the letting of those rather than leaving them empty.  What has happened about the promise of getting rid of Section 21 whereby rotten landlords can evict their tenants when they make any complaint including those about repairs that need to be made to a home?

Philippa Bond ● 1357d

Cannes?  Isn't it a junket to make it easier for party funders to find sites to develop?  The flats themselves are often marketed abroad only and not HERE at all - so despite the desperate need for homes HERE for people who are HERE they aren't helping to solve the housing crisis HERE NOW.There is still social housing being sold under Right to Buy and Councils are now  buying some of it back.  Councils all over have been trying to buy back and also to insulate what are often small groups of homes or terraces.  Unbroken terraces are obviously easier to renovate and also easier under one ownership and one management - as are blocks of flats.

Philippa Bond ● 1357d

One of the other problems with the Rwanda scheme is that it's not a deterrent: no-one who hasn't got here yet is likely to have heard of it. And if you were one of 40,000 people crossing in little boats, the thought of maybe 200 people being deported one day is unlikely to deter you anyhow.It's also eye-wateringly expensive, involves the UK accepting the re-settlement here of Rwanda's most hard-to-settle refugees and, if the Israeli experience of doing exactly the same thing a few years ago is a predictor, doomed to fail quite quickly.And that's apart from the sheer inhumanity of the plan and those who support it.People smuggling and trafficking are despicable trades but they are defeated not by making the journey harder but by having safe, legal routes. If Ukrainians and those from Hong Kong can apply online and be welcomed here, why can't people from Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea and the like?If crossing by little boat wasn't necessary for many nationalities (you don't see Ukrainians in the boats, ever) because there were alternatives, the smugglers would find their business model destroyed. We would be better off putting the money wasted on Rwanda into a working asylum system that didn't take over two years to get to substantive interview and three or more to a decision. And in allowing asylum-seekers to work, so they weren't dependant on paltry allowances fro the state while they wait for that decision.

Sara Nathan ● 1354d

The increase in asylum support is apparently being implemented this week: from £40 to £45 - which is still an astonishingly little amount to live on. It has to cover everything but inclusive rent: food; toiletries; bus; phone; clothes and shoes; STs. Home Office officials advised the Home Secretary months ago that it had to be increased but it took the High Court to enforce it. Which is not a great look for one of the great offices of state (and the one concerned with law enforcement at that.)Would be hard to live on that for a few weeks but can you imagine doing so for the up to two years it takes to get even an interview at the moment, let alone a decision.When we could let people work and support themselves.

Sara Nathan ● 1349d

We have huge shortages of workers in the NHS where a lot of our workers used to come from the EU.  Many of the seasonal workers who came to this country came from Ukraine but many of those were men who cannot leave Ukraine.Isn't there a problem with a promised and I believe existing Afghan scheme that Afghans cannot actually get onto?

Philippa Bond ● 1346d

You should contact Peter Mason at Ealing Council and ask him about Cannes. Or better still, Julian Bell who was a regular there and even touted Ealing via Zoom calls to overseas investors during lockdown. His hyperbole has to be heard to be believed - ‘Ealing is the most connected place in the universe’, ‘Ealing is in central London (!)’, ‘Ealing is considering a bud to host the Olympics’. Utter nonsense, all of it.Needless to say, being a stout Labour Council they have built zero council houses since 2010, despite having funding to do so, but instead believe in the so-called ‘affordable’ housing which is well beyond the means of those who need it. The amount of social housing has actually decreased in Ealing under Bell and Mason, much of it demolished for redevelopments like the South Acton estate with troublesome tenants shipped out.They haven’t been coerced into this, other than by their developer chums (whose extravagant largesse they enjoyed in Cannes - £50,000 for the 2019 Ealing cohort). Champagne socialists indeed!

Simon Hayes ● 1346d

This is a rather bizarre post, Simon.Besides the fact that there hasn't been a lot of activity in this thread for a few days, what's the relevance of accusing Ealing councillors of being 'champagne socialists' [sic] when talking about the senseless and stupid Rwanda policy?There's one party that has been in power for the last 10+ years and that ain't Labour.

Francis Sheehan ● 1346d

There is nothing 'bizarre' at all about Simon's post when viewed in the context of what else has been written on this thread.I couldn't agree more with what he says.

Keith Iddon ● 1346d

But it is bizarre when the last post on the thread was ten days ago and there are other threads debating the same issue.

Stewart Jones ● 1345d