Rwanda Scheme Does Deter People Comming To Britain.......

[ToraToraTora]

Not my view, that of Iraqi people smugglers.....
https://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-policy-could-deter-migrants-heading-to-the-uk-people-smugglers-admit-12658288
Watch the interview.

[ToraToraTora]

so what's your explanation then ellipsis?

[Old_Geezer]

I've just had a brilliant idea, we can solve all car theft problems; the solution is in our own hands. What we do is change how we do things. Make it law that anyone is allowed to enter any vehicle they come across, drive it anywhere they like, snd leave it where convenient. Bingo ! No more car theft, no more car thieves.

[Old_Geezer]

They do so to get to the country they demand to impose themselves on regardless whether they have permisdion or not. 'Illegal economic migrant' is the best description of them regardless what excuse they want to claim. They are certainly not asylum seekers. They must consider the UK as economically preferable regardless of whether it is or isn't.

[Ellipsis]

> so what's your explanation then ellipsis?

That many of them are not economic migrants and their reasons for coming here are many and varied, a lot more complicated than the black-and-white picture that is painted by some people ...

[naomi24]

^That's known as a whitewash.

[Ellipsis]

> They must consider the UK as economically preferable regardless of whether it is or isn't.

Whatever fits your own narrative, don't worry about whether it's true or not ...

[Ellipsis]

Thanks, naomi, another helpful contribution from you, on top of:

* They’re economic migrants
* our benefits are easier - and quicker - to access - as is our health care

The fact is, they have to take longer, put their lives at risk and spend a lot of money to get here, which lays to rest the speed and economic arguments. And even if those arguments were true, we could do something about them a lot more easily and cheaply than coming up with a Rwanda policy.

[Khandro]

Ellipsis; //* Germany is more generous to migrants than the UK
* Germany takes in more migrants than the UK//

We are not talking about migrants we're talking about ILLEGAL migrants.
Germany has got 7 million Turkish migrants alone - all legal.
Those in my picture above in the Calais 'jungle' are all illegals, wanting to get out of those conditions to be put up by the Brits in hotels, fed ( I wish I'd bought shares in Domino Pizzas a few years ago!) & given spending money & not allowed to work (who wants to work?)

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, my explanation offers rather more than your //That many of them are not economic migrants and their reasons for coming here are many and varied, a lot more complicated than the black-and-white picture that is painted by some people ...//

As you said subsequently //Whatever fits your own narrative, don't worry about whether it's true or not ...//

[THECORBYLOON]

Do the stats support the claim the scheme is working?

[Gromit]

We know that crossings are double now, on what they were this time last year (when 29,000 arrived).

But we do not know if crossing would have been 100,000 without the Rwanda threat.

[Khandro]

//Do the stats support the claim the scheme is working?//

It's working for Israel, the people they send to Rwanda don't necessarily end up there , but they ain't in Israel; as I say, very Jewish!

[ToraToraTora]

Ellipsis: "The fact is, they have to take longer, put their lives at risk and spend a lot of money to get here, which lays to rest the speed and economic arguments. And even if those arguments were true, we could do something about them a lot more easily and cheaply than coming up with a Rwanda policy. " - so why do they do that rather than stay in the safe country they are already in? there must be a reason.

[ToraToraTora]

Ellipsis: "...And even if those arguments were true, we could do something about them a lot more easily and cheaply than coming up with a Rwanda policy." - Care to outline what we could do? Maybe the Home Sec hasn't thought of it.

[Khandro]

'Perusing newly published accounts by the Home Office, it was found that in May of this year some £5.6 million was spent on contracting out services to charity Migrant Help. It was part of more than £17 million spent in the first five months of 2022 alone.

Next to such expenditure, other purchases by the nation's hard-pressed Borders and Enforcement agency (UKBE) must seem trivial. Among them include £900 worth of wristbands 'for migrant use' in February, £1,500 in March to transfer migrants' misplaced property with them to 'various locations around the country' and £500 on seals in May for migrants' luggage at the Western Jet Foil processing plant in Dover. Other unusual items include the Home Office paying a £1,000 mooring fee for a seized boat that 'imported a number of migrants into Rye Harbour' and £960 on sunglasses for watch keepers and rhib drivers at sea. A tidy £5,000 was also spent on wet suits, thermals and oversized boots with £1,700 spent in April on Polaroid film to enrol 'arrivals.'

Given the urgency and cost of this crisis, you might hope that Home Office staff were at their desks night and day, trying to tackle this issue. Sadly not, it seems, as Jacob Rees-Mogg's latest civil service stats are out today. It appears that Priti Patel's charges prefer the Home to the Office, as just one in two staff were working in its 2 Marsham Street headquarters at the beginning of this month. It was the second worst performing department after the Foreign Office which, awkwardly, is also charged with resolving the crisis at an international level.'

Take your time, eh chaps? The Spectator

[Gromit]

// Of about 4,000 people estimated to have been deported by Israel to Rwanda and Uganda under a “voluntary departure” scheme between 2014 and 2017, almost all are thought to have left the country almost immediately, with many attempting to return to Europe via people-smuggling routes. //

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10718481/How-Rwandas-migrant-deal-ended-escapees-claims-slavery.html

[New Judge]

//…logically, why it would make no sense for an economic migrant to come to the UK rather than stop off earlier in their journey, at more generous countries that don't involve life-risking crossings//

They come here because, unlike most other European countries, they can claim reasonable benefits, have their medical and educational needs immediately fulfilled and can earn a decent living in the “black” economy. It's their "destination of choice." If they claim asylum at all, it is because, allegedly, they are fleeing danger and/or persecution. If that was the case they would be happy to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in (as A31 of the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees suggests). If, as you say, they are willing to face a perilous crossing and pay large sums for it, there is something in it for them over and above what they can secure in mainland Europe. The first thing that is in it for them is comfortable accommodation and immediate access to medical facilities if required. Far better than living in a tent in scrubland around Calais. If you still wonder why they head here, how many migrants do you see living in the woods under a piece of tarpaulin in the UK? How many do you see in France or Germany (see Khandro’s post). You've explained how much easier it would be for them to remain in Europe, so have a stab at explaining why they don't. It ain’t rocket science but if you think there are any other reasons do enlighten us.

//Couldn't we make our benefits and our healthcare slower to access, bringing them into line with other countries?//

No, because the handwringers (including many in the so-called Tory Party) won’t hear of it.

Don’t get me wrong, the Rwanda plan is a farce. If (a very big “if”) any are sent there the numbers will barely scratch the surface of the problem. It is not a deterrent because, as already demonstrated, the chances of any migrants being sent there are as close to zero as can be imagined. They have more chance of drowning making the crossing and since they are willing to take that risk, the tiny risk of being deported is but nothing.

As I keep repeating, once here the chances of any migrant being removed is absolutely minimal and even then there is nothing to prevent them repeating the process. The only way to deal with the problem is to forcibly prevent them from landing.

[Khandro]

Yes Gromit, like I said, they are no longer in Israel, clever or what? :0)

[Gromit]

// they are no longer in Israel, clever or what? //

Yep. They are in the UK.

[Old_Geezer]

But given that it's inevitably true, not doesn't come in to it.