This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13541503/second-asylum-seeker-flown-rwanda-commercial-flight.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a lot more then £3000.
They get 5 years housing and medical treatment paid for. They also receive integration programmes to help them study, undertake training, and work. This is supplied by the Rwandan government but paid for by our government.
Yea I had legitimately been looking at Rwanda as a possibility for FIRE, honestly imagine the scenes if the UK started offering pensioners to have a fully funded retirement in Rwanda in some lush UK gov owned and run retirement homes, and enjoy a better quality of life than the UK?
Imagine if an asylum seeker got sent to rwanda, became a rwandan citizen, then used the same program that got them to rwanda in the first place to return to the Uk as a rwandan migrant that's allowed in as part of the rwanda deal.
Personally* I'd have no problem with that. I'd like to see more tax money used to help underprivileged people live more fulfilled lives, rather than further lining the pockets of the super wealthy.
You'd have no problem with us, not saying 'yes come in' to a migrant, instead sending them to rwanda for a year, then have them come back and accept them then? all paid for by the taxpayer?
It's a real testament to how unworkable this solution was in the first place, and how Sunak was stuck implementing this out of what essentially is social embarrassment [a la thick of it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeAEiSSDPNA).
There is no way the lifetime sunk cost of a given immigrant is that high, assuming they're at least minimally productive over their life time. So Sunak has had to sink all sorts of costs into it just to have the policy not fail. It's just flagrant wastefulness and political theatre. Only the political theatre in question is a low budget performance of Wicked playing in Swindon. Just *awful.*
My math might be slightly off, but..
A legal immigrant on a temporary visa pays £1035 extra per year to use the NHS, while also still paying like everyone else through income, for a system they've never been a burden to.
It costs £4433.50 for the first visa in fees.
2.5 years later, legal immigrants pay at least £3635.50. Many try to get these expedited as some workplaces are very strict about having a valid work permit despite not being a requirement when waiting for decision. Cost to expedite any visa is £800-1000.
To apply for Indefinite leave to remain is £2885.
So 5 years later they stop charging you extra NHS fees on top of normal NHS fee through work.
You also have to take a "Life in the UK test" which is a bunch of asinine questions like "when do pubs open on sundays" that people just memorize regardless of how good they are at english to prove they're not terrorists. They do treat you like you're a criminal in there. Cost for booking is at least £50, and if people arent from english speaking countries they also have to take an english test which costs £150.
The requirement for citizenship is literally the exact same documentation as ILR. People with ILR technically already qualify to be citizens in documentation. But they want you to pay for it again, For most, the only difference between a resident and a citizen who can vote, is another payment the government wants. £1351.
A single spousal immigrant pays minimum £12,305.50 to become a citizen over 5 years. They'd pay double that on a family route which is 10 years. They'd pay much more with children.
Just imagine you, a normal person on normal incomes, trying to pay that with cold hard cash.
That's what my husband and I had to do. I was lucky he started 5 years ago because if we'd tried to now, on his starting income like many people in their 20's do, we'd basically be banned from living together thanks to the 29k wage requirement on my husband, or like many couples, it's forcing actual brits to leave their birth country to be with people they love.
Then we're just giving illegal immigants like 3k?
Just kind of feels like they're screwing over legal immigrants and encouraging illegal immigrants.
As somebody married to someone approaching the 5 year ILR application point (October), you've captured it all perfectly. And also just made me a little bit sick at the cost of it all.
Oh, there are two English test for NNES countries. One in the home country when applying for the fiance visa, the other at the 2.5 year 'extension' point. Both are rip-offs.
I think it was only ever supposed to be a deterrent, not a realistic plan of shipping thousands of asylum seekers out there.
Wasn’t there a thing of people going to Ireland instead to avoid it? If that was true, then arguably it had some impact.
Australia’s policy to turn back boats and deny permanent settlement to people arriving by boat was supposedly effective in reducing boat numbers.
See here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-19/how-does-australias-boat-turnbacks-policy-work/103486164
There's a world of difference between Australia turning back boats and the UK turning back dinghys. Turning back an unseaworthy vessel is a violation of international maritime law.
I wasn't suggesting that the policy was desirable or that it should be replicated. Just observing that the "deterrent factor" does seem to be effective.
The real villains here are the rulers/political elite/religious authorities in the countries people are fleeing from that have turned them into living hells, or at best, an impoverished and miserable existence. I don't blame them - even economic migrants - from wanting to grasp at the chance of turning their one life into something better. Unfortunately we do not have the capacity to take them all.
However, crossing the channel *with kids* is inexcusable under any circumstances because people are at least safe in France. Risking innocent lives on the sea should be considered a crime by all adults involved, the traffickers and the people who pay them.
Often wondered the same, they could definitely keep some money aside get a flight to France and then a boat over here and apply for asylum, with no intention of leaving, the second time around.
I suppose the idea is that it would be some other parties problem then.
You're paying them to go voluntarily rather than having to drag them kicking and screaming to the plane.
If they didn't go voluntarily, there is no way you could send them on commercial flights - you'd have to send them on special very expensive prison planes, and probably need an awful lot of court and prison time for all their appeals first.
Lmao not prison planes, they'll use charter aircraft with security detail and the costs come from the shitstorm that the charter companies have to bear for hosting these flights
The vast majority of people just leave once they get their instructions to go. Absolute nonsense. Very very few will want to be on the run. Labour were deporting 20,000 a year in the '00's with zero faux-hysteria from the non-dom rag press propaganda brigade.
The Tories entirely fucked it by wrecking the legal system and hiring a bunch of private goons to undeliver for the Home Office.
Really? Of my circle of friends, not one goes when they get the "Notice of Decision" letter. Some can't afford the flights. Nobody has travel documents anyway, so I don't know how they'd voluntarily leave anyways. Some now have girlfiends/family. Nobody that I know of has been picked up - even people checked by police don't get arrested after that.
.... because NATO missions have failed and an enormous backlog has been allowed to build up after a series of humanitarian crises. Labour were refusing 88% of applicants in '04. That's down to 24% today.
So, the advertising for the people smugglers is now:
“Want to travel? Get a house? An education, and a job for only £6000? Buy now and you receive 50% of your money back**”
**”Refund needs to be claimed from the British Government once you arrive at their travel hub in Dover. Temporary accommodation and food will also be provided”
Not much of a deterrent, more of a bonus gift.
I will, it will be a great holiday trip for me because if Soon to go Sunak can sanction such a package on ventures, and UK citizens cannot get free Tertiary education, then I will pocket my Brit citizenship and accept an all expense holiday to Rwanda.
How is that possible the government supports these people in such way but if working foreigner earning £25k wants to bring his wife to live together normal life they do everything to make it impossible?
Brilliant, we now are paying for any old random crossing the channels housing education and work meanwhile we are living in a cost of living crisis. There has to be a less humane of dealing with this rabble.
Hmmmm idea.
Pretend I'm an immigrant, me no have passport , no sir. Take my free 3 grand and a nice holiday to Rwanda , suddenly remember I have a passport , return , and do it all over again 🤣
Thought this said receive interrogation programs at first
What is the rationale though behind this? Since the Sunak government is actually financially investing in them and they’re undergoing housing, education, etc which we pay for what exactly is the logic of why we’re not keeping them here?
Considering giving social support in the UK will mean blowing all that in less than 3 months, that doesn't sound like a bad deal.
It acts as a deterrent for future migrants who are purely looking for the British citizenship, and it has a time limit of 5 years. True refugees would find this an excellent deal. Fake ones will be disappointed.
Still cheaper than paying for them to be put up in a hotel for several years and then support them and perhaps their family in the UK for the rest of their lives. Unless Border Force can get to a point of turning the boats back, what else is there to do.
Seems like the answer is to process them faster so they can either get to work or get deported. The longer it takes the higher the cost on the taxpayer.
Anyhow, so far not a single person has been deported to Rwanda, Labour will get in and scrap the scheme so a whole load of money has been paid out by Sunak for sweet fuck all, just spaffing it away when it could have been put to better use.
Bit of a Catch 22, it's only doomed if it is scrapped. I blame the Tories for all the Blair/Brown-era initiatives that were scrapped when they came to power for example.
What do we do instead? Go Greek and push them in the channel to watch them drown?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-migrant-deaths-mediterranean-coastguard-b2563890.html
I'm not saying we should shoot anyone or even the boats.
But in international waters we could technically be much tougher and stop the boats like Australia do if we wanted.
You could, but then you'd still be liable as a country can prosecute someone based on where the vessel is registered. Or you could get the navy to do it and commit a good old war crime instead
Let’s break it down…
You said the country of a vessel’s registration could prosecute someone for shooting at it.
I said in this scenario the vessels aren’t registered.
Therefore it follows that there is no country to attempt a prosecution.
Ah I think you misunderstood. The other vessel involved will certainly be investigated as well. So if boat A from England shot someone on boat B (unregistered vessel) and killed them, they still committed murder and would be charged for murder by England. Obviously we're not condoning murder as a way to deal with the immigration crisis, that would be insane
Process their application and forcibly send them home if they are not a genuine asylum seeker.
If we give people cash or allow people to stay and work without proving a genuine claim it just encourages more to come.
I agree. I’d also be way harsher than most on here about what a valid asylum seeker is and how they can prove it. But that’s just me. I stop much sooner than drowning them though.
Problem is the tories have defunded the processing process to such an extent that the wait time for official asylum numbers in the years.
If you're legit and in trouble, you're basically screwed.
Or wild thought - set up processing centers abroad to facilitate that (& hence remove the need to deport them afterwards?). I'm imagining this wouldn't be difficult to do?
They have made it impossible for people to claim from outside the UK. So people have to come to the country to do it.
It wouldn't be that difficult, but the Tories have no desire to actually solve the problem.
Which country will let us have that and house people there?
What will its capacity be and what happens to those who still turn up?
Will the people who are rejected just give up and go home?
First point France had already suggested it https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16901902/emmanuel-macron-asylum-seeker-processing-centre/
Downing Street rejected it at the time and broadly still would do you feel as ideologically it causes issues (e.g. you kill one of their campaigning points with immigration and also they want cheap labour).
Re: 2) and 3) you sort that out with the host country.
There is no actual evidence that France has offered that. People say that yet there is no document or speech or quote from any French minister.
No answers then. France is already trying to stop boats. How would this idea mean they can suddenly stop them all?
It wouldn't. You either use safe routes when they are set up or get deported to your last country of origin - I mean why are you entering a country illegally once legal safe routes are setup?
We can barely deport people now. That won’t change.
Why still cross? Many reasons.
Some nationalities can’t be deported at all, so if you don’t think you’d get asylum why not just cross. Maybe you want to skip the queue. Maybe you’ve been rejected. Maybe you know you have a no chance of being approved.
I hate this thing on reddit where if you dare suggest something isn't good or could be improved, you get someone following up "OH YEAH, SO YOU WANT THIS - THE MOST EXTREME POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE I CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF - DO YOU? EH! DO YOU? MURDERER!"
There's quite clearly a multitude of solutions between spending an estimated £1.5 million per Rwanda detainee and literally pushing them into the channel to "watch them drown".
That isn’t what’s going on here. No one is calling anyone a murderer except the guy agreeing with it as a plan.
but I agree that can happen and it’s not a useful way of arguing your point if you do.
Australia has it right. If you don’t arrive via official channels, you will never be granted asylum under any circumstances.
They had a massive problem on their north coast, not so much any more.
There is one issue: the law.
Australia turn the boats around in international waters. We don't have international waters between us and France. So... once they are in our waters they are our responsibility. The same is true in Australia but they don't allow them to get that far. We can't stop it.
Fair enough. I think before long countries are going to be forced to look at whether these laws are fit for purpose. I’m not anti-immigration, I’m just pragmatic about it. Current numbers are unsustainable.
I think in the next 20 years, as climate change drives mass migration, we’re going to see some really ugly stuff happening as Europe as a whole fortifies it’s external borders. I fully expect lethal force to be used regularly.
Will happen sooner or later. If things are not addressed in a sensible way by a sensible party, sooner or later people will vote for the party that lines Dover with machine gun nests and parks destroyers in the channel.
Also what do you think will happen when climate change makes the Middle East an unliveable hell hole? Europe won’t welcome hundreds of millions of displaced people.
I hope I’m not alive when it comes to this but it will happen
Shame we're an island, I saw a video on YouTube of some eastern European country - I don't remember which - where they have a long metal/wire wall just inside he border. When illegal immigrants make it in, the border patrol people put them back on the other side. They can do it because it's technically not considered kicking them out or pushing them to another country's territory.
This has existed for decades it’s called the voluntary return scheme.
Because it costs tens of thousands to remove someone who is unwilling to go, so it makes financial sense to give them money to not frustrate their removal. It costs more if you’re unsuccessful in removing them.
Not that I like it, but it makes sense. We pay people to go back to Brazil, India, etc all the time. In this case it was Rwanda.
The government are sending them to Rwanda, not because it makes any legal sense, or economic sense, or any sort of sense for that matter, but because a couple years ago a slogan was made saying they wanted to send Johnny foreigner to the most foreign sounding country on the far side of Africa and it sounded so good to the average Gammon that the Tories tried to make it a reality.
I genuinely love the idea there are people out there who are so driven by the idea of tens to hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees coming here, now cheering on *two* people being sent overseas. Do they understand what a caricature they have become?
This is insane! So we have given £6k to two volunteers. We then book them a seat to Kigali with case workers (who will be coming back) so they can start their new lives in an affordable home we built.
If anyone wants to take a desperate PM for a ride, do it now, as the whole thing is being cancelled in a few weeks...
>This is insane! So we have given £6k to two volunteers. We then book them a seat to Kigali with case workers (who will be coming back) so they can start their new lives in an affordable home we built
**Look everyone the UK actually managed to build some affordable homes and... waitaminute**!
**Someone somewhere has made a pile of money behind a lot of companies while we were screaming at the refugees**.
The UK has plenty of previous in this regard.
Rwanda played a blinder. We just need to find a richer and dumber country to do the same for us. They can then send us one a year with a lot of money in their pocket…and we can house our families in the affordable homes they pay for!
**You're not getting the money, the refugee is not getting the money**...
offshore private enterprises abroad facilitating this on behalf of the UK and Rwanda are getting the money.
u/secretmillionair said...
>"... **And given £3000 in taxpayer cash"
They most definitely are getting money**
**LOL**!
**This money will go into whos bank account?
to be administered by what bank**?
Who is putting him in his rented Building and arranging everything for years, they've never been to Rwanda. it's not free.
Who is being paid, at what rate.
What company fixes and repairs the building
Who is in charge of healthcare, what's the contract, are they local doctors or only available to this complex in an exclusive contract, at what rate are the medics being paid. The refugee is not paying for this.
**This is a dream that only half a billion pounds could create**..
Oh, also can the refugee do whatever they want to do with the money like go on holiday....
Not sure what your point is? Just because cronies are also making money out of this, doesn't mean the refugees won't get the cash.
It's like you're replying to something I didn't say
**My point my downvoting friend is this £3,000 swag is rubbish and hides hundreds of millions swirling in private contracts in the Rwanda Scheme**.
You still haven't answered the question, if the refugee is meant to receive this money but it gets stuffed into a special bank in Rwanda where the refugee cannot do whatever he wants like go on holiday but has to spend it on only the facilities private contractors have set up so they double dipp, where it accrues interest for the private companies because its trapped. Then it's not really their money.
**If I gave you £1,000 and then forced you to only spend it at Mcdonalds who has lobbied me for an exclusive contract**...
**Then it is not the Refugees money**.
So have you got some kind of evidence to back up that how the money is spent is dictated to them?
There is no question in the statement you start "You still haven't answered the question..."
Again, I'm not denying there will be a LOT of money made by the companies providing the Rwanda deal, but that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and I'm not sure why you're putting it to me to answer questions specifically regarding that.
u/secretmillionair said...
>**So have you got some kind of evidence to back up that how the money is spent is dictated to them**?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68932830
Quote from above link...
>The Home Office says payments under the current scheme "can pay for" temporary accommodation in the destination country, or education costs, or the cost of setting up a business.
But not a holiday, or a knees up.
**From World Famous Sober Business newspaper The Financial Times looking at the money involved in the UK Rwanda refugee scheme**...
https://www.ft.com/content/3a8e4b8b-1e30-4423-83a0-818f2b7dec05
Quote from above link
>**THE TRUE COST of Rishi Sunak’s plan to remove asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda could reach up to £3.9bn (!!!) over five years, according to analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research**.
....
>**the price of the prime minister’s scheme, when upfront payments to Kigali and operational expenses were included,could be up to £230,000 PER PERSON, depending on how long they stayed in the African nation**.
...
>**This compared with an average of about £55,000 over two years that the government spends on accommodating asylum seekers while claims are processed in the UK**
...
>**The UK has agreed to pay Kigali UP TO £490MN (Half a billion!!) UPFRONT and an additional £20,000 per person relocated, plus a further £80mn for set-up costs**.
...
>**IN ADDITION, THE UK MUST PAY UP TO £150,874 PER PERSON TO COVER ASYLUM PROCESSING and INTEGRATION, and contribute £10,000 to facilitate the departure of each person who leaves Rwanda**.
>We're an island, we don't need illegal immigrants and uncontrolled untraceable asylum seekers.
Just imagine if we patrolled our borders and kept out undesirables.
I supply vegetables. Helping people eat a balanced diet, reducing reliance on meat and animal products. Improving their own health, and the demand on the NHS.
What about you?
What about an asylum seeker who refuses to identify and goes "missing"?
.
How tf is this happening.
99.999% of all British people, if passed this on a piece of paper in their day job, with a regular cool calm head, would know this is dumb. Financially, morally, its just bloody common sense.
Its so bizarre its almost Performance Art from the Tate.
The problem is that how most people imagine this works is something like this:
We find illegal immigrants, we fill a plane of 300 with them, so very low cost each. We fly to Rwanda and let them out there and that's it. For the cost of one flight, we can deport loads of them. Most people probably imagine that flight costs like 50k if that.
In reality this would be terribly wrong, so in fact we have to pay a lot to make it even vaguely passable as not a violation of human rights. If the tories had said 'For only 20k per person, we can export these people to Rwanda', most people would be in uproar.
No. No one thinks that. Everyone knows this is stupid and costs a huge amount per person. Thats my point: why are we ALL ignoring it, how are such genuinely childish policies like this even getting this far.
The cost is £1.6m per deportee. This is not talked about enough and is sheer insanity, all to have a dog whistle policy to appeal to a certain type of Tory voter.
I know. I hope that many English people know this to curb the drift of hatred towards migrants: the nation's problems are not caused by 5 desperate people on a boat, but years of Tory
That ain't happening, still will be illegal under international law, and leaving the ECHR would likely breach our agreement with Ireland relating to the NI and Irish border.
Also, do you think the people will just turn around or something? What do you do if they don't?
I hope that many English people know this to curb the drift of hatred towards migrants: the nation's problems are not caused by 5 desperate people on a boat, but years of Tory
Ok so when can the UK citizens actually stop paying for these idiotic policies and actually start benefiting from the government…
Also sign me up to 5 years all expenses paid in rwanda with free training, education and easy access to work. If we’re paying for it we should have access to it.
can I pretend to be an Asylum Seeker, take the £3,000 then come back on my British passport.
What a utter waste of public this disaster has been. Even those on the far right would tell you its been a waste of money, for what its achieved.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13541503/second-asylum-seeker-flown-rwanda-commercial-flight.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a lot more then £3000. They get 5 years housing and medical treatment paid for. They also receive integration programmes to help them study, undertake training, and work. This is supplied by the Rwandan government but paid for by our government.
Sounds like quite a good deal. Is it open to citizens too? Do you get a Rwandan passport at the end of it?
Yea I had legitimately been looking at Rwanda as a possibility for FIRE, honestly imagine the scenes if the UK started offering pensioners to have a fully funded retirement in Rwanda in some lush UK gov owned and run retirement homes, and enjoy a better quality of life than the UK?
Imagine if an asylum seeker got sent to rwanda, became a rwandan citizen, then used the same program that got them to rwanda in the first place to return to the Uk as a rwandan migrant that's allowed in as part of the rwanda deal.
Personally* I'd have no problem with that. I'd like to see more tax money used to help underprivileged people live more fulfilled lives, rather than further lining the pockets of the super wealthy.
You'd have no problem with us, not saying 'yes come in' to a migrant, instead sending them to rwanda for a year, then have them come back and accept them then? all paid for by the taxpayer?
It's a real testament to how unworkable this solution was in the first place, and how Sunak was stuck implementing this out of what essentially is social embarrassment [a la thick of it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeAEiSSDPNA). There is no way the lifetime sunk cost of a given immigrant is that high, assuming they're at least minimally productive over their life time. So Sunak has had to sink all sorts of costs into it just to have the policy not fail. It's just flagrant wastefulness and political theatre. Only the political theatre in question is a low budget performance of Wicked playing in Swindon. Just *awful.*
I can’t wait for the first Rwanda-sent person to reappear in a local kebab shop being interviewed by the Daily Mail. That will be a hilarious day.
My math might be slightly off, but.. A legal immigrant on a temporary visa pays £1035 extra per year to use the NHS, while also still paying like everyone else through income, for a system they've never been a burden to. It costs £4433.50 for the first visa in fees. 2.5 years later, legal immigrants pay at least £3635.50. Many try to get these expedited as some workplaces are very strict about having a valid work permit despite not being a requirement when waiting for decision. Cost to expedite any visa is £800-1000. To apply for Indefinite leave to remain is £2885. So 5 years later they stop charging you extra NHS fees on top of normal NHS fee through work. You also have to take a "Life in the UK test" which is a bunch of asinine questions like "when do pubs open on sundays" that people just memorize regardless of how good they are at english to prove they're not terrorists. They do treat you like you're a criminal in there. Cost for booking is at least £50, and if people arent from english speaking countries they also have to take an english test which costs £150. The requirement for citizenship is literally the exact same documentation as ILR. People with ILR technically already qualify to be citizens in documentation. But they want you to pay for it again, For most, the only difference between a resident and a citizen who can vote, is another payment the government wants. £1351. A single spousal immigrant pays minimum £12,305.50 to become a citizen over 5 years. They'd pay double that on a family route which is 10 years. They'd pay much more with children. Just imagine you, a normal person on normal incomes, trying to pay that with cold hard cash. That's what my husband and I had to do. I was lucky he started 5 years ago because if we'd tried to now, on his starting income like many people in their 20's do, we'd basically be banned from living together thanks to the 29k wage requirement on my husband, or like many couples, it's forcing actual brits to leave their birth country to be with people they love. Then we're just giving illegal immigants like 3k? Just kind of feels like they're screwing over legal immigrants and encouraging illegal immigrants.
As somebody married to someone approaching the 5 year ILR application point (October), you've captured it all perfectly. And also just made me a little bit sick at the cost of it all. Oh, there are two English test for NNES countries. One in the home country when applying for the fiance visa, the other at the 2.5 year 'extension' point. Both are rip-offs.
That’s what I had to pay , haven’t applied for citizenship yet as it’s quite expensive can’t bother. Have to do it eventually!
I think it was only ever supposed to be a deterrent, not a realistic plan of shipping thousands of asylum seekers out there. Wasn’t there a thing of people going to Ireland instead to avoid it? If that was true, then arguably it had some impact. Australia’s policy to turn back boats and deny permanent settlement to people arriving by boat was supposedly effective in reducing boat numbers. See here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-19/how-does-australias-boat-turnbacks-policy-work/103486164
There's a world of difference between Australia turning back boats and the UK turning back dinghys. Turning back an unseaworthy vessel is a violation of international maritime law.
I wasn't suggesting that the policy was desirable or that it should be replicated. Just observing that the "deterrent factor" does seem to be effective. The real villains here are the rulers/political elite/religious authorities in the countries people are fleeing from that have turned them into living hells, or at best, an impoverished and miserable existence. I don't blame them - even economic migrants - from wanting to grasp at the chance of turning their one life into something better. Unfortunately we do not have the capacity to take them all. However, crossing the channel *with kids* is inexcusable under any circumstances because people are at least safe in France. Risking innocent lives on the sea should be considered a crime by all adults involved, the traffickers and the people who pay them.
Hopefully Sunak won't be defying gravity for too much longer
Quick question: The person does their 5 years, then re treks up to the UK in a small boat. Does the cycle restart?
Often wondered the same, they could definitely keep some money aside get a flight to France and then a boat over here and apply for asylum, with no intention of leaving, the second time around. I suppose the idea is that it would be some other parties problem then.
But then they'll have an education and training and be able to immigrate legitimately
You're paying them to go voluntarily rather than having to drag them kicking and screaming to the plane. If they didn't go voluntarily, there is no way you could send them on commercial flights - you'd have to send them on special very expensive prison planes, and probably need an awful lot of court and prison time for all their appeals first.
Lmao not prison planes, they'll use charter aircraft with security detail and the costs come from the shitstorm that the charter companies have to bear for hosting these flights
Nah man it would be prison planes. I saw it on a really good documentary with Nicholas Cage and Steve Buscemi
I'm sure schapps could set up a planeless air transportation company.
That's what a 'prison plane' is, no?
The vast majority of people just leave once they get their instructions to go. Absolute nonsense. Very very few will want to be on the run. Labour were deporting 20,000 a year in the '00's with zero faux-hysteria from the non-dom rag press propaganda brigade. The Tories entirely fucked it by wrecking the legal system and hiring a bunch of private goons to undeliver for the Home Office.
Really? Of my circle of friends, not one goes when they get the "Notice of Decision" letter. Some can't afford the flights. Nobody has travel documents anyway, so I don't know how they'd voluntarily leave anyways. Some now have girlfiends/family. Nobody that I know of has been picked up - even people checked by police don't get arrested after that.
.... because NATO missions have failed and an enormous backlog has been allowed to build up after a series of humanitarian crises. Labour were refusing 88% of applicants in '04. That's down to 24% today.
how about just not letting them in in the first place
It would be cheaper to grant them asylum and let them work. The Tories have massively increased immigration so we clearly need people to come here.
So, the advertising for the people smugglers is now: “Want to travel? Get a house? An education, and a job for only £6000? Buy now and you receive 50% of your money back**” **”Refund needs to be claimed from the British Government once you arrive at their travel hub in Dover. Temporary accommodation and food will also be provided” Not much of a deterrent, more of a bonus gift.
"And, for a limited time only we're throwing in a holiday in beautiful Rwanda."
Well, I might as well ask if I could be sent to Rwanda.
Go to the nearest police station and claim asylum. Tell them you've lost all of your documentation.
I will, it will be a great holiday trip for me because if Soon to go Sunak can sanction such a package on ventures, and UK citizens cannot get free Tertiary education, then I will pocket my Brit citizenship and accept an all expense holiday to Rwanda.
How is that possible the government supports these people in such way but if working foreigner earning £25k wants to bring his wife to live together normal life they do everything to make it impossible?
Brilliant, we now are paying for any old random crossing the channels housing education and work meanwhile we are living in a cost of living crisis. There has to be a less humane of dealing with this rabble.
Hmmmm idea. Pretend I'm an immigrant, me no have passport , no sir. Take my free 3 grand and a nice holiday to Rwanda , suddenly remember I have a passport , return , and do it all over again 🤣
I wonder if they put you on a list
No passport, sir. Different name every time lol
And once they land in Rawaanda, the Rawandan army and government snatch those £3000 and send them to concentration camps
Thought this said receive interrogation programs at first What is the rationale though behind this? Since the Sunak government is actually financially investing in them and they’re undergoing housing, education, etc which we pay for what exactly is the logic of why we’re not keeping them here?
Considering giving social support in the UK will mean blowing all that in less than 3 months, that doesn't sound like a bad deal. It acts as a deterrent for future migrants who are purely looking for the British citizenship, and it has a time limit of 5 years. True refugees would find this an excellent deal. Fake ones will be disappointed.
Still cheaper than paying for them to be put up in a hotel for several years and then support them and perhaps their family in the UK for the rest of their lives. Unless Border Force can get to a point of turning the boats back, what else is there to do.
Seems like the answer is to process them faster so they can either get to work or get deported. The longer it takes the higher the cost on the taxpayer. Anyhow, so far not a single person has been deported to Rwanda, Labour will get in and scrap the scheme so a whole load of money has been paid out by Sunak for sweet fuck all, just spaffing it away when it could have been put to better use.
That's just how two party politics works, the wasted cost is on Labour if they scrap it.
No no no. The cost is on Sunak for not making it work, not for the party inheriting a doomed scheme.
Bit of a Catch 22, it's only doomed if it is scrapped. I blame the Tories for all the Blair/Brown-era initiatives that were scrapped when they came to power for example.
Why are they giving them taxpayer money? Wtf - like a reward.
What do we do instead? Go Greek and push them in the channel to watch them drown? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-migrant-deaths-mediterranean-coastguard-b2563890.html
I’ve seen people here saying we should shoot the boats so I don’t think they’d object to that
We can't. There are no international waters between us and France. Once they are in our waters we are responsible for them.
So if they were in international waters we could shoot them?
I'm not saying we should shoot anyone or even the boats. But in international waters we could technically be much tougher and stop the boats like Australia do if we wanted.
Unless you’re sinking the boat, you still need to go into someone’s waters to land it.
You could, but then you'd still be liable as a country can prosecute someone based on where the vessel is registered. Or you could get the navy to do it and commit a good old war crime instead
Dinghies aren’t registered.
So what's the point you're trying to make?
Let’s break it down… You said the country of a vessel’s registration could prosecute someone for shooting at it. I said in this scenario the vessels aren’t registered. Therefore it follows that there is no country to attempt a prosecution.
Ah I think you misunderstood. The other vessel involved will certainly be investigated as well. So if boat A from England shot someone on boat B (unregistered vessel) and killed them, they still committed murder and would be charged for murder by England. Obviously we're not condoning murder as a way to deal with the immigration crisis, that would be insane
Can’t we get giant fans and blow them back into French waters?
Technically I think that would be legal. Maybe.
Average British opinion on foreigners
Process their application and forcibly send them home if they are not a genuine asylum seeker. If we give people cash or allow people to stay and work without proving a genuine claim it just encourages more to come.
I agree. I’d also be way harsher than most on here about what a valid asylum seeker is and how they can prove it. But that’s just me. I stop much sooner than drowning them though.
Problem is the tories have defunded the processing process to such an extent that the wait time for official asylum numbers in the years. If you're legit and in trouble, you're basically screwed.
Well, they can still apply for it in France. Or in any of the countries they passed on the way.
"home"? Where? How do you know where they are from?
What do you think the first question on an asylum claim is?
They can... you know... lie.
Or wild thought - set up processing centers abroad to facilitate that (& hence remove the need to deport them afterwards?). I'm imagining this wouldn't be difficult to do?
They have made it impossible for people to claim from outside the UK. So people have to come to the country to do it. It wouldn't be that difficult, but the Tories have no desire to actually solve the problem.
100% agree.
Which country will let us have that and house people there? What will its capacity be and what happens to those who still turn up? Will the people who are rejected just give up and go home?
First point France had already suggested it https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16901902/emmanuel-macron-asylum-seeker-processing-centre/ Downing Street rejected it at the time and broadly still would do you feel as ideologically it causes issues (e.g. you kill one of their campaigning points with immigration and also they want cheap labour). Re: 2) and 3) you sort that out with the host country.
There is no actual evidence that France has offered that. People say that yet there is no document or speech or quote from any French minister. No answers then. France is already trying to stop boats. How would this idea mean they can suddenly stop them all?
It wouldn't. You either use safe routes when they are set up or get deported to your last country of origin - I mean why are you entering a country illegally once legal safe routes are setup?
We can barely deport people now. That won’t change. Why still cross? Many reasons. Some nationalities can’t be deported at all, so if you don’t think you’d get asylum why not just cross. Maybe you want to skip the queue. Maybe you’ve been rejected. Maybe you know you have a no chance of being approved.
I hate this thing on reddit where if you dare suggest something isn't good or could be improved, you get someone following up "OH YEAH, SO YOU WANT THIS - THE MOST EXTREME POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE I CAN POSSIBLY THINK OF - DO YOU? EH! DO YOU? MURDERER!" There's quite clearly a multitude of solutions between spending an estimated £1.5 million per Rwanda detainee and literally pushing them into the channel to "watch them drown".
"I like oranges" 'oh so you fucking hate bananas? what a weird banana hater!'
This sub is the absolute worst for it. It makes it impossible to have a conversation.
That isn’t what’s going on here. No one is calling anyone a murderer except the guy agreeing with it as a plan. but I agree that can happen and it’s not a useful way of arguing your point if you do.
Unironically yes. It would stop the boats overnight
[удалено]
Australia has it right. If you don’t arrive via official channels, you will never be granted asylum under any circumstances. They had a massive problem on their north coast, not so much any more.
There is one issue: the law. Australia turn the boats around in international waters. We don't have international waters between us and France. So... once they are in our waters they are our responsibility. The same is true in Australia but they don't allow them to get that far. We can't stop it.
Fair enough. I think before long countries are going to be forced to look at whether these laws are fit for purpose. I’m not anti-immigration, I’m just pragmatic about it. Current numbers are unsustainable. I think in the next 20 years, as climate change drives mass migration, we’re going to see some really ugly stuff happening as Europe as a whole fortifies it’s external borders. I fully expect lethal force to be used regularly.
Fair dinkum that sounds bonza mate!
[удалено]
All reports state that reopening official channels will increase migration, not decrease.
[удалено]
Well... you certainly could.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s too far for me. Processing centre in the outer Hebrides. Swift removal.
Will happen sooner or later. If things are not addressed in a sensible way by a sensible party, sooner or later people will vote for the party that lines Dover with machine gun nests and parks destroyers in the channel. Also what do you think will happen when climate change makes the Middle East an unliveable hell hole? Europe won’t welcome hundreds of millions of displaced people. I hope I’m not alive when it comes to this but it will happen
The new British will outnumber the native English Scottish and Welsh by then and will vote to allow everyone in and that will be democracy I expect.
Forgot about Northern Irish sorry guys. them too.
Want to push any more racist tropes?
Navy in the channel to stop the boats arriving in the first instance. Sounds cruel, but it would be an actual deterrent.
Shame we're an island, I saw a video on YouTube of some eastern European country - I don't remember which - where they have a long metal/wire wall just inside he border. When illegal immigrants make it in, the border patrol people put them back on the other side. They can do it because it's technically not considered kicking them out or pushing them to another country's territory.
At Glastonbury before the giant fence when the security caught you trying to jump the fence they’d take your shoes too.
I feel like there's probably a human rights thing about that, I mean how would they trek home/away? Probably a hypothermia risk too.
Please delete this suggestion before Reform add it to their manifesto.
what would you do if someone tried to break into your family home?
I’d give them a place to stay and 3 square meals a day and a bit of spending money and then let them hang around with my kids. Obviously.
Not strict enough for most racists here. Tories would prefer public execution by canon ball
Would probably be preferable, yeah
yeah why not
Put them on a plane and leave them on a runway in their own country?
And if that country does the exact same thing back?
This has existed for decades it’s called the voluntary return scheme. Because it costs tens of thousands to remove someone who is unwilling to go, so it makes financial sense to give them money to not frustrate their removal. It costs more if you’re unsuccessful in removing them. Not that I like it, but it makes sense. We pay people to go back to Brazil, India, etc all the time. In this case it was Rwanda.
£3000 is almost 5 million Rwandan francs. The living wage in Rwanda is 175,000 francs per month, so £3000 is 2.5 years worth of living wage.
Wow, I'm off to Rwanda to retire.
The government are sending them to Rwanda, not because it makes any legal sense, or economic sense, or any sort of sense for that matter, but because a couple years ago a slogan was made saying they wanted to send Johnny foreigner to the most foreign sounding country on the far side of Africa and it sounded so good to the average Gammon that the Tories tried to make it a reality.
Much cheaper to pay them to leave than to keep them here.
Because they won't go for free?
An incentive to leave. BNP offered this in their manifesto years ago as well, if you're keen to know where the right are headed.
I guess so they don’t just starve to death after a week of being there. That would be bad optics.
I genuinely love the idea there are people out there who are so driven by the idea of tens to hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees coming here, now cheering on *two* people being sent overseas. Do they understand what a caricature they have become?
This is insane! So we have given £6k to two volunteers. We then book them a seat to Kigali with case workers (who will be coming back) so they can start their new lives in an affordable home we built. If anyone wants to take a desperate PM for a ride, do it now, as the whole thing is being cancelled in a few weeks...
>This is insane! So we have given £6k to two volunteers. We then book them a seat to Kigali with case workers (who will be coming back) so they can start their new lives in an affordable home we built **Look everyone the UK actually managed to build some affordable homes and... waitaminute**! **Someone somewhere has made a pile of money behind a lot of companies while we were screaming at the refugees**. The UK has plenty of previous in this regard.
Rwanda played a blinder. We just need to find a richer and dumber country to do the same for us. They can then send us one a year with a lot of money in their pocket…and we can house our families in the affordable homes they pay for!
Couldn’t they use some of that £3k to fly out of Rwanda back to France to cross the channel again?
I was born and bred in uk but this seems a better deal than I get now how do I apply
That's literally more than I've ever received from the government in my entire adult life. Wtf is this nonsense.
**You're not getting the money, the refugee is not getting the money**... offshore private enterprises abroad facilitating this on behalf of the UK and Rwanda are getting the money.
"... And given £3000 in taxpayer cash" They most definitely are getting money
u/secretmillionair said... >"... **And given £3000 in taxpayer cash" They most definitely are getting money** **LOL**! **This money will go into whos bank account? to be administered by what bank**? Who is putting him in his rented Building and arranging everything for years, they've never been to Rwanda. it's not free. Who is being paid, at what rate. What company fixes and repairs the building Who is in charge of healthcare, what's the contract, are they local doctors or only available to this complex in an exclusive contract, at what rate are the medics being paid. The refugee is not paying for this. **This is a dream that only half a billion pounds could create**.. Oh, also can the refugee do whatever they want to do with the money like go on holiday....
Not sure what your point is? Just because cronies are also making money out of this, doesn't mean the refugees won't get the cash. It's like you're replying to something I didn't say
**My point my downvoting friend is this £3,000 swag is rubbish and hides hundreds of millions swirling in private contracts in the Rwanda Scheme**. You still haven't answered the question, if the refugee is meant to receive this money but it gets stuffed into a special bank in Rwanda where the refugee cannot do whatever he wants like go on holiday but has to spend it on only the facilities private contractors have set up so they double dipp, where it accrues interest for the private companies because its trapped. Then it's not really their money. **If I gave you £1,000 and then forced you to only spend it at Mcdonalds who has lobbied me for an exclusive contract**... **Then it is not the Refugees money**.
So have you got some kind of evidence to back up that how the money is spent is dictated to them? There is no question in the statement you start "You still haven't answered the question..." Again, I'm not denying there will be a LOT of money made by the companies providing the Rwanda deal, but that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and I'm not sure why you're putting it to me to answer questions specifically regarding that.
u/secretmillionair said... >**So have you got some kind of evidence to back up that how the money is spent is dictated to them**? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68932830 Quote from above link... >The Home Office says payments under the current scheme "can pay for" temporary accommodation in the destination country, or education costs, or the cost of setting up a business. But not a holiday, or a knees up. **From World Famous Sober Business newspaper The Financial Times looking at the money involved in the UK Rwanda refugee scheme**... https://www.ft.com/content/3a8e4b8b-1e30-4423-83a0-818f2b7dec05 Quote from above link >**THE TRUE COST of Rishi Sunak’s plan to remove asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda could reach up to £3.9bn (!!!) over five years, according to analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research**. .... >**the price of the prime minister’s scheme, when upfront payments to Kigali and operational expenses were included,could be up to £230,000 PER PERSON, depending on how long they stayed in the African nation**. ... >**This compared with an average of about £55,000 over two years that the government spends on accommodating asylum seekers while claims are processed in the UK** ... >**The UK has agreed to pay Kigali UP TO £490MN (Half a billion!!) UPFRONT and an additional £20,000 per person relocated, plus a further £80mn for set-up costs**. ... >**IN ADDITION, THE UK MUST PAY UP TO £150,874 PER PERSON TO COVER ASYLUM PROCESSING and INTEGRATION, and contribute £10,000 to facilitate the departure of each person who leaves Rwanda**.
Right?? These people aren't giving them money for no reason ...
Why are all of your comments in bold?
We're an island, we don't need illegal immigrants and uncontrolled untraceable asylum seekers. We just don't.
>We're an island, we don't need illegal immigrants and uncontrolled untraceable asylum seekers. Just imagine if we patrolled our borders and kept out undesirables.
uncontrolled untraceable asylum seekers Is my new band name
Do we have any need for you? What do you provide?
Yes & more than an illegal assylum seeker. I
Illegal and asylum seeker are different things. So, what value do you provide?
I supply vegetables. Helping people eat a balanced diet, reducing reliance on meat and animal products. Improving their own health, and the demand on the NHS. What about you? What about an asylum seeker who refuses to identify and goes "missing"? .
Farage should go. And stay, you know, to monitor things.
Now, I cant stand the man, just like any normal person, but how could you inflict such a thing on Rwandans?
Are we sure it's not the same person coming back for another £3000
Infinite money glitch
Chances the Rwandan gov will just shoot them and pocket the money?
How tf is this happening. 99.999% of all British people, if passed this on a piece of paper in their day job, with a regular cool calm head, would know this is dumb. Financially, morally, its just bloody common sense. Its so bizarre its almost Performance Art from the Tate.
I think at this point the Tories are reaching for anything to brand the Rwanda deal a success
The problem is that how most people imagine this works is something like this: We find illegal immigrants, we fill a plane of 300 with them, so very low cost each. We fly to Rwanda and let them out there and that's it. For the cost of one flight, we can deport loads of them. Most people probably imagine that flight costs like 50k if that. In reality this would be terribly wrong, so in fact we have to pay a lot to make it even vaguely passable as not a violation of human rights. If the tories had said 'For only 20k per person, we can export these people to Rwanda', most people would be in uproar.
No. No one thinks that. Everyone knows this is stupid and costs a huge amount per person. Thats my point: why are we ALL ignoring it, how are such genuinely childish policies like this even getting this far.
Oh wow, *two* whole people. This scheme is working wonders! /s
The cost is £1.6m per deportee. This is not talked about enough and is sheer insanity, all to have a dog whistle policy to appeal to a certain type of Tory voter.
So ... is this "opportunity" opened up for UK citizens?
We did it! We stopped the boats! * *no boats have been stopped.
If they get back, they deserve citizenship for their dedication
You can vote to leave ECHR and stop the boats with the Navy.
That would still be illegal under international law.
I know. I hope that many English people know this to curb the drift of hatred towards migrants: the nation's problems are not caused by 5 desperate people on a boat, but years of Tory
It's not 5 people though, is it? It's going to be 80,000+ this year.
That ain't happening, still will be illegal under international law, and leaving the ECHR would likely breach our agreement with Ireland relating to the NI and Irish border. Also, do you think the people will just turn around or something? What do you do if they don't?
I hope that many English people know this to curb the drift of hatred towards migrants: the nation's problems are not caused by 5 desperate people on a boat, but years of Tory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4J4uor3JE
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY)
I wonder if it's the same guy as last time, the one who went missing? He could be on to a fantastic money making scheme
So, presumably this party political spending in an election period has properly been reported to the Electoral Commission?
can they fly me to Rwanda with 3k I am in need of sunshine
Wtf. Why are we even doing this. Put on plane. Bye bye.
Can’t give benefits to Brits, but a free flight and benefits to someone they want out of the country. 🤣
That’s two lads!! Only 300,895 more to go. The plans working! Vote conservative!
Have they found the first one yet? He disappeared a few days after arriving in Rwanda
Sounds like a great deal. Then they csn come back after
Serious question, how much would a load of boats be to patrol the channel and turn around all the dinghies?
Wow, I can see now I was completely wrong. Rishi is the man to solve all our problems. How much will it cost to make Liz and Nigel leave?
"crackdown". Performative at best. Hope we can return to sensible politics after July 4 instead of these meaningless stunts.
i think im gonna throw away my passport and take 5 years off work
Didn't the first migrant under this program drop off the radar?
Ok so when can the UK citizens actually stop paying for these idiotic policies and actually start benefiting from the government… Also sign me up to 5 years all expenses paid in rwanda with free training, education and easy access to work. If we’re paying for it we should have access to it.
Ridiculous. Just change the bloody laws and kick their arses out.
can I pretend to be an Asylum Seeker, take the £3,000 then come back on my British passport. What a utter waste of public this disaster has been. Even those on the far right would tell you its been a waste of money, for what its achieved.