Home Sec off to Rwanda .....

These are the figures per 10,000 population. Many countries which have smaller populations have welcomed far more refugees. UK had 13 per 10,000.

Relative to the population, in 2022, the highest number of first time asylum applications was lodged in:
Cyprus (2,386 per 100,000 inhabitants)
Austria (1,223)
Luxembourg (373)

It is interesting to note that according to a recent survey the happiest people in Europe are those living in Austria.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-happiness-index-austria-poland-eurostat-b2461264.html

varian

In 2022, there were around 13 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 22 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 19th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/

For starters two of the main European countries, France and Germany are bigger than ours.
They all want to congregate in London, which is piling on the numbers already living there 9,648,000.
Something needs to be done.
Stop paying France for doing nothing.
Stop this Rwandan nonsense more money for nothing.
Use the money to employ more staff, get on top of backlog, speed up deportations . Do Australia and return boats, Stop all new immigration until all sorted.

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m not in the least surprised. We are far too soft. Remember the uproar after Jenrick ordered the ‘welcome’ murals to be removed?

Murals for children. What a nasty, petty thing it was, and the spiteful removal of murals is hardly going to be a deterrent for the dreadful people smugglers, is it? So, yes, I remember the uproar because I was part of it.

In 2022, there were around 13 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 22 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 19th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m not in the least surprised. We are far too soft. Remember the uproar after Jenrick ordered the ‘welcome’ murals to be removed?

The guy who bought my late Mum’s house works for Border Force out of Kent and he has some stories to tell too!!

I’m not in the least surprised. We are far too soft. Remember the uproar after Jenrick ordered the ‘welcome’ murals to be removed?

The former Chief Immigration Officer of Border Force was on TV last night and he said it is NOT boots on the ground they need but they need to be allowed to get on with the work they have to do. He said whatever they try to do they are stopped.
This is against Human Rights, that is against Human Rights. Planes are stopped on the tarmac, barge accommodation is said to be unsafe, even some hotels are not good enough.

He said France, for example do not follow the rules but we do. The French just go ahead and do what they want.

People with no papers cannot prove that they have the qualifications they claim to have, and even if they could do so a ‘qualified health professional’ could not be employed as such without undertaking further exams and training here. Likewise HGV drivers etc. They can’t have their application approved one day and start work the next. And who will pay for the further training and exams and feed and house them until - if ever - they are employable?

If the £umpteen millions so far spent on this Rwanda farce had been spent on recruiting and training immigration officers to process the backlog of asylum claims, how long ago would the backlog have been completely cleared so that any new claims were dealt with immediately?

If that had happened any spurious claims could have meant expulsion from the UK, whilst the vast majority of asylum claimants, who are genuine refugees, could have been granted leave to remain, allowed to work and support themselves, whilst no longer needing to be housed in hotels,

They could be contributing to the UK economy. Those who are qualified health professionals could have been working in the NHS, those who are HGV drivers could have driving lorries, those who are skilled builders could have been building houses, those with care giving experience could have been giving much needed care to UK citizens in need of care and those who are willing to do agricultural work could have been picking the fruit and vegetables which have rotted in our fields.

We must ask why this has not happened.

Is it possibly because it was seen to suit the populist propaganda of the right-wing press for the Tory Party to be seen as battling the so-called "illegal immigrants"?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656f51d30f12ef07a53e0295/UK-Rwanda_MEDP_-_English_-_Formatted__5_Dec_23__-_UK_VERSION.pdf

MayBee70

Why can’t the government just admit that it was a stupid idea and a terrible and expensive mistake. But instead they have to keep throwing the taxpayers money at it in an attempt to save face.

Have you ever heard the Tories do this???!!!

So Rwanda gets millions of pounds, the right to deny people asylum there and the right to send their own people to the uk.. does the government really think this is a good deal!!!

Do you think that the US, a Caribbean island or France would want to accept the unidentified people coming here in boats? Of course the intention is to deter the boat people. Rwanda doesn’t have to be pleasant, simply safe.

If the government want to have an agreement with another country or place why not have one with California, or a beautiful Caribbean Island, or somewhere in the south of France?

Because they are nice places to be - which leads to the conclusion that Rwanda is not. The government therefore are fully aware it is not, but are trying to convince us that it is. You can't create a deterrent using a decent country, so by definition Rwanda is not decent.

Why can’t the government just admit that it was a stupid idea and a terrible and expensive mistake. But instead they have to keep throwing the taxpayers money at it in an attempt to save face.

I don't understand that the arrangement means we also accept people from Rwanda to the UK ?

This about sums it all up: facebook.com/reel/1347073279268528

I have always wondered why they chose Rwanda in particular. It seems very strange and not a country I would equate with peace and harmony.

Yes, MayBee70, but we will have to build homes for the people Rwanda will send to us.
Curiouser and curiouser.

At least some people who actually live in Rwanda will eventually get homes out of it paid for by us.

Meanwhile back at home - NHS in dire straits, homelessness and poverty.
But wait, we’ve a magic money tree to pay the Rwandan government.
I despair, once again!

And Cleverly once described the Rwanda scheme as batsh#t. What a difference having a ministerial post makes!

I thought Cleverly said no cash had changed hands for the new Treaty. I must have mis-heard.

Only another £million with a possible further 50 to come!

Just think what this money (mine and yours) could have been spent on.

How many refugees have been flown to Rwanda? None as far as I know.

It is total insanity.

This smacks of desperation. We know Suella Braverman had a dream. Now James Cleverly has gone to tell Rwanda to become a safe country so we can send our unwanted immigrants there. Perhaps he has the magic wand.