Rwanda A Deterrent?

[Khandro]

Travel writer Mark Palmer writing in the Spectator says;

'The Supreme Court's ruling that sending migrants to a formerhostel in Kigali is illegal strikes another hammer blow to the government, not least because Rwanda gets to keep the £,140 million that set up the proposed deal in the first place. Never mind what happens now — and this story is far from over. 

                                                                                                     If I were a migrant about to take a small boat to Britain, the prospect of ending up here, where it's easier tostart a business than almost anywhere else in the world, would hardly be a deterrent. The facts are these: Rwanda was a broken country after the 1994 genocide. It had been one of the bloodiest of bloody killing fields, with up to one million people dead and a further two million displaced within 100 days —while the world watched in horror butdid nothing. And yet, approaching the 30th inglorious anniversary of that human tragedy, Rwanda is the country many neighbouring African nations look to as some sort of beacon.

It has one of the fastest-growing economiesin Africa; there is little crime; 92 per cent of the population has medical insurance (at around $8 a year) and the 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked it the fourth least corrupt country on the African continent behind the Seychelles, Botswana and Cabo Verde...'

 

[naomi24]

nicebloke, good idea.

[Old_Geezer]

I would doubt it. Rwanda is sending their citizens here, can't see anyone accepting paying Rwanda more on top for the upkeep of another nation's citizens.

[ichkeria]

Why would it be a deterrent? For one thing the chances of being one of the  handful who might be sent there are slim. Plainly deterrence though cannot be based on the unpleasantness of the destination, because the government has emphasised in its presentations to the Supreme Court what a good place it is 

[ichkeria]

Spare a thought for migrants in Karelia, Russia. Having been herded to the Finnish border in an attempt to flood that country with illegal migrants, they saw the Finns close their entire border. And now they've been shipped to the border with Ukraine and forced into the military ...

[ynnafymmi]

But what is their dole money like Khandro?As good as Britains?

[ynnafymmi]

@11.59.But one of the leading SNP mantras is"we welcome refugees,we welcome illegal migrants"...but when push comes to shove they seem to take cold feet.

[jourdain2]

I can't remember the exact date, perhaps 2006, but I was living in France  and there was  major upset and fear because the French suddenly said that foreigners would have to take out complete private Health Insurance and would not  be permitted to join their 'NI' system.  This applied to those, like me and every Brit I knew, who had all been paying properly into the URSSAF for years & were paying tax as well.

I could write a book about the panic (a friend of mine killed himself in despair) the meetings, the appeals. Eventually an amendment was made to the effect that if you could prove that you had been paying into the system for 5 years, you could stay in it....phew!  Those who had a couple of years to go had to go for private insurance for those years & would then be accepted.

We could introduce a similar system, I suppose.  It certainly stopped a lot of 'chancers' going to France from the UK.

[jourdain2]

^^^  Oops - I should have made it clear that this applied to ex-pats who were under official retirement age and not in French paid employment.  This swept in quite a few chambres d' hotes owners as well as those who had been invalided out  of, say teaching, with an early pension.  My friend had been a police sergeant - had to retire before 65 anyway andas it happened had a bad nervous breakdown so was invalided out.

[fender62]

why does france let thousands just wander into the country, then roam around ending up in calais or neat it, how come france is not rounding them up and deporting them, seems odd to have people just wandering around whom you know nothing about, could be mass murderers jihadists et etc.

[jourdain2]

I don't know the answer to that, Fender.  We, the respectable, home-owning people, were easy meat I suppose.  I'll email a friend in France to see if  she knows.

[New Judge]

“Imagine that you are planning to cross the channel in a small boat, and you knew that 1 in 1,000 might end up in Rwanda – would that thought make you decide to stay in France?”

Of course it wouldn’t, Hymie. But that’s how the scheme is sold – as a deterrent. It’s farcical. Rwanda is to process the asylum claims of those sent there (if any ever are) and if the applicants are  unsuccessful, they can only be returned to the UK – nowhere else. As well as that, the UK is to take asylum seekers from Rwanda that they cannot deal with – principally those with complex health or mental problems. Sounds like a good deal to me.

“You're plucking figures out of the air, Hymie.”

The air is not quite so thin as you might think, naomi. The scheme, as I understand it, has capacity for 500 people. Last year over 60,000 arrived by small boat. OK, it’s not one in 1,000, but its less than one in 100 – even if the scheme was running smoothly and not hampered by legal challenges.

“If the ultimate destination for those coming from France in boats was guaranteed to be a remote, cold, uninhabited Scottish Island pounded by the North Atlantic,…”

You have to be real, naomi. Can you really see the courts agreeing to that? These people moan because they have to sleep two to a room and with insufficient WiFi.

“why does france let thousands just wander into the country, then roam around ending up in calais or neat it,…”

One word – Schengen.

“…how come france is not rounding them up and deporting them,…”

Where to?

“….seems odd to have people just wandering around whom you know nothing about,”

It’s not odd. It’s bloody outrageous. And the same is happening here.

[fiveleaves]

The Rwanda is nothing but outright cruelty by our wicked immoral government. £240m so far. What an utter waste of money.

I have two hopes now. 1. The bill is heavily defeated in the Commons on Tuesday and 2. The Rwanda government scuppers the whole thing.

[New Judge]

"...and 2. The Rwanda government scuppers the whole thing.

Why on Earth should they do that? They've already trousered a quarter of a billion quid and are unlikely to have to do much for it.

[Hymie]

This whole Rwanda thing, looks to me like it is going to turn into Sunak’s 'Poll Tax', and bring him down.

[ichkeria]

I actually understand in fact why people like Braverman and Jenrick are cross about this. With the obvious difference that I don't think it was a goer from the start. NJ is right: it is now a farce. If it ever was a deterrent it isn't now. Sunak ploughs in with it regardless one suspects in the faint hope that should a plane ever take off for Kigali, it will perhaps save the election.

[Hymie]

The trick was to realise that there was precious little the government could do (except to process the asylum seekers expeditiously) and keep quiet about the numbers arriving; even pointing out what a good thing it is having all these extra skilled people in the country, working and paying tax.

 

But instead, the government shouted from the rooftops how terrible the immigration figures were, and made up a three word slogan – only then to realise there was BA they could do about it.

 

The Tories only have themselves to blame for whipping up hysteria on this issue, that they never had a credible plan to fix.

[nicebloke1]

I dont think they have a plan for anything. :0)

[tomus42]

//how about setting up a very basic camp on a remote and uninhabited Scottish island to send the boat people to the minute they arrive? //

The whole point of sending them to Rwanda is to keep them out of the UK even if they are successful in claiming asylum.

Remote Scottish Islands are in the UK.

[Khandro]

//Remote Scottish Islands are in the UK.//

 

Yes, but it's a bit chilly up there.

[jourdain2]

Actually, logically, what is wrong with using a couple of islands?  We have lots scattered around the UK.  It would not take forever to erect decent shelters with sanitation and supply them with energy, medical services and food etc..  People have been living with far less on these islands  for hundreds of years.

It would still a lot of fears amongst local populations and simplify the immigration process.

I can hear the howls of  outrage now, but why not? Really, why not?  The immigrants would be safe, housed, cared for and processed more simply.