One-way ticket to Rwanda for some UK asylum seekers

I’ll get my coat…

Anything to tackle the illegal migration across the channel needs to target the economics involved.
One of the major issues with this is that the migrants are effectively owned by gangs who supply illegal labour to unscrupulous businesses. This is where the money is to be made, not really in the facilitation of their crossing the channel itself.
The “fees” for facilitating transport from their original countries through Europe to the UK are usually on credit, even if people pay large amounts up front. The same gangs usually arrange room and board which adds to migrants’ debt. This debt is serviced by the gangs arranging work on the shadow economy which obviously the gangs get bungs from the unscrupulous employers too.
The UK is promoted as a destination of choice by these gangs as it provides a steady stream of labour and lucrative income. A lot of these gangs are headed by people outside of Europe and makes it near impossible to prosecute them. The only real way of stopping this flow of people is to make it less lucrative for the people facilitating the trade and profiting from it.
I wonder if by holding people who make it here somewhere like Rwanda, will that put off the gangs as it drastically reduces the opportunities for them to make money and therefore stop facilitating people risking everything to get here. It’s a big if though.
I understand why Rwanda wants to be part of it though; if those who end up there choose to take up the offer to settle rather than pursue their asylum claim, it would benefit them. Sub-Saharan countries are facing significant depopulation and need people to get their economies going. They would need to make conditions there more attractive there than to be in the UK but owned by gang masters.

All of this talk about illegal crossing of the channel. Could it be remembered that to come across the channel in a dangerous way is not illegal, if it is to claim asylum. This use of 'illegal' is wrong, If the asylum application is turned down then they can then be deported. The problem really seems to be that this government has not tried to sort out the application for asylum. The problem is that the government does not try to sort out a safe method to claim asylum. Most asylum seekers are granted asylum. Illegal immigration is when asylum is not asked for.

Rwanda (and Rwandan politicians in particular, no doubt) want to be part of it because they are paid for it.

StJayJay makes valid and important points, but I will say again: anyone who believes this policy is a serous attempt to clamp down on people-trafficking gangs, and not a dog-whistle signal to the Mail, Express, and their readers that the government is 'protecting out borders' particularly from poor BAME people, is being a little naive.

War Grade Vaux Stout said:

As a landlord you've taken in several refugees doubtless. How many to date old bean?

Click to expand...

Price of cheese? If we deport tories they can stay in the east wing of Lord Cuntswiches country pad, he won't be needing it anymore.

lancon said:

All of this talk about illegal crossing of the channel. Could it be remembered that to come across the channel in a dangerous way is not illegal, if it is to claim asylum. This use of 'illegal' is wrong, If the asylum application is turned down then they can then be deported. The problem really seems to be that this government has not tried to sort out the application for asylum. The problem is that the government does not try to sort out a safe method to claim asylum. Most asylum seekers are granted asylum. Illegal immigration is when asylum is not asked for.

Click to expand...

So there's hardly any illegal immigration? Using this definition of course?

moto748 said:

Rwanda (and Rwandan politicians in particular, no doubt) want to be part of it because they are paid for it.

StJayJay makes valid and important points, but I will say again: anyone who believes this policy is a serous attempt to clamp down on people-trafficking gangs, and not a dog-whistle signal to the Mail, Express, and their readers that the government is 'protecting out borders' particularly from poor BAME people, is being a little naive.

Click to expand...

Do the opposition parties have an alternative?

Hanglow said:

Price of cheese? If we deport tories they can stay in the east wing of Lord Cuntswiches country pad, he won't be needing it anymore.

Click to expand...

You have the moral high ground having taken in refugees to your spare rooms

War Grade Vaux Stout said:

So there's hardly any illegal immigration? Using this definition of course?

Click to expand...

I'll try again.
There may be illegal immigration but it is not illegal to cross the channel (by any means) and then claim asylum.

lancon said:

All of this talk about illegal crossing of the channel. Could it be remembered that to come across the channel in a dangerous way is not illegal, if it is to claim asylum.

Click to expand...

I get what you mean, the act of crossing the channel itself is not illegal (although the Home Office is trying to make it so, doubt it’s will happen). It is the entering of the UK without valid permission or correct visa/passport etc. which is illegal. There is a statutory defence linked to Article 31 if a person claiming asylum shows that not having the correct documents or false documents if they show trying to obtain or being in possession of them could pose a threat to them. A charity supporting people to make successful asylum applications distinguishes between legal and illegal entry into the UK but neither should be a barrier to seeking asylum.

lancon said:

The problem is that the government does not try to sort out a safe method to claim asylum.

Click to expand...

They need to sort this out but this would only benefit those people whose primary driver for for reaching the UK is to seek asylum. Most people seeking to reach the UK are doing so for economic reasons. They want to work, send money back home to their families, not to claim benefits, free housing or any of those other anti immigrant BS tropes. For this group of people, claiming asylum is problematic, even if they may have legitimate reasons for doing so alongside the economic reasons, asylum is sought if they are intercepted on arrival or if caught later on. It’s hard to say how many that actually is. There are 30-odd thousand asylum applications a year but the nature of illegal or irregular immigration means that there are no stats, I’ve read estimates from 50-100,000 per year through all routes, including new arrivals and those who arrived legitimately but have overstayed visas. Andrew Jolly, a social work professor who campaigns to support people get better access to services suggested 87000 a year.

lancon said:

I'll try again.
There may be illegal immigration but it is not illegal to cross the channel (by any means) and then claim asylum.

Click to expand...

That's true. What is illegal is perjury before an Immigration court. No one objects to genuine asylum claimants. Unfortunately there are also documented cases of crib sheets being handed out by people traffickers to their customers to strengthen their some time bogus claims. It is very difficult to get to the truth when the facts of the case concern events that happened thousands of miles away with no witnesses to come to court and have their evidence tested. Few claims get rejected

moto748 said:

anyone who believes this policy is a serous attempt to clamp down on people-trafficking gangs, and not a dog-whistle signal to the Mail, Express, and their readers that the government is 'protecting out borders' particularly from poor BAME people, is being a little naive.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, it’s a blatant appeal to that sentiment, and the timing of it is totally cynical too. I’m still reserving judgement on in it though, I don’t want to dismiss any ideas just because I disagree with the motivation or politics of those peddling it.

War Grade Vaux Stout said:

That's true. What is illegal is perjury before an Immigration court. No one objects to genuine asylum claimants. Unfortunately there are also documented cases of crib sheets being handed out by people traffickers to their customers to strengthen their some time bogus claims. It is very difficult to get to the truth when the facts of the case concern events that happened thousands of miles away with no witnesses to come to court and have their evidence tested. Few claims get rejected

Click to expand...

So what are you on about then? These people are not "illegal" until they break the law. And then 28% (is the latest figure that) get refused and will then be deported. And while you may think 28% is a low number remember the tragedies around the world, Syria, Afghanistan and others that can be honestly seen as a reason for asylum. I couldn't find any documented cases of crib sheets, if you could help?

lancon said:

So what are you on about then? These people are not "illegal" until they break the law. And then 28% (is the latest figure that) get refused and will then be deported. And while you may think 28% is a low number remember the tragedies around the world, Syria, Afghanistan and others that can be honestly seen as a reason for asylum. I couldn't find any documented cases of crib sheets, if you could help?

Click to expand...

Not sure why you put that to me as I never claimed people are illegal? People aren't illegal but their actions and false testimony can amount to criminality. So 28% might get refused but that of course means 72% succeed and of those who don't how many of them appeal and are eventually granted leave to remain and of those who exhaust all avenues of appeal how many just disappear? There are specialist immigration law firms who boast a 98% success rate. It's big business, of course there are abuses. Look at the case of Zulfiqar Ali struck off for misconduct last year. There was an ITV documentary about bogus marriages which happen daily in many parts of the UK especially London. That will give you food for thought if you've yet to see it I recommend.

I have a love/hate refugee relationship
middle east refugees seem to be mostly male and young. I’m sure a figure of around 80% men was recently mentioned.
to me if you leave wife and kids behind you are as low as you can get imho
fast forward to Ukrainian war and they are practically all women and children because the men are fighting for their country. These are people who should be helped.
however checks should be made for security reasons. Anyone innocent would not have a problem with this

1, there should be a proper system to claim asylum before they set out.
2, a residential facility (no not a **** hole) should be available to ensure arrivals speak basic English (1) and are familiar with UK law and standards. They will struggle without english.

Next, other than those fleeing bombs and bullets the criteria should be will their presence in the UK be a benefit to UK citizens.
This allows targeted recruiting, nurses, drivers and so on.

Atb. Aamcle

(1) language might not be appropriate in emergency situations.

The BBC are on fine form this evening. This article (
BBC News - Prince Charles faces awkward trip after Rwanda row
Prince Charles faces awkward trip after Rwanda row) in
it's words is completely impartial and no doubt following all strict guidelines to not get involved in politics, no matter how much of a moron is in charge of this country.

... But what they can do is use a "stock photo" with a bland caption and let the reader full in the blanks of "here is what a statesman looks like sitting next to a cockwomble who can't operate an umbrella"

It's not the only thing he can't do. He can't run a country either.

When I see what is happening in Syria and Ukraine, where the devastation is appalling, I’m not in the least surprised that refugees seek to come to the UK!

If Sleaford ever gets bombed or attacked by artillery, I’ve warned No.1 son (who lives in Galashiels) to be prepared for his Mam and I taking up residence with him!

I am also reminded of a close relative who has inspired me all of my life!


Apparently, when WW1 was declared he was already in France and was present when the very first bullet was fired; and when the second bullet was fired he was sat at home in Derbyshire with a cup of tea in his hand!
:hat:

Crappyfish said:

It's not the only thing he can't do. He can't run a country either.

Click to expand...

Still only 7% between them why are Labour not miles ahead?

According to graph #2 it was more than 20% on 1/5/1997 when Blair won.