this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
22 points (95.8% liked)

UK Politics

3089 readers
49 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
22
UK Sends First Failed Asylum Seeker to Rwanda (www.improvethenews.org)
submitted 6 months ago by Emperor@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://fedinews.net/m/ImproveTheNews/t/6769

  • The UK government has reportedly paid a failed asylum seeker approximately £3K ($3.7K) to leave the country and relocate to Rwanda voluntarily. The Sun
  • The unnamed individual was flown to Kigali via a commercial airline on Monday as part of a voluntary scheme. This is the first time the UK has relocated a failed asylum seeker to a third country. Independent (LR: 2 CP: 3)
  • The news comes after the UK parliament passed the Safety of Rwanda Bill last week, enabling the deportation of asylum seekers — who have arrived illegally in the UK — to the East African country. Verity
  • Though the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Rwanda policy was unlawful, the UK government passed the bill declaring Rwanda a "safe third country" for asylum seekers. BBC News (a)
  • The UK Home Office has confirmed that the first set of illegal migrants intended to be removed to Rwanda have now been detained, with deportation flights expected to begin some time in the next nine weeks. GOV.UK
  • In 2023, over 29.4K people reportedly attempted to illegally enter the UK via small boats crossing the English Channel, down from a record high of nearly 45.8K in 2022. So far in 2024, nearly 6.3K have attempted to make the journey. BBC News (b)

Right narrative:

  • The voluntary deportation of a failed asylum seeker to Rwanda is a symbolic victory for the UK government. However, with pressure to fulfill the promise of ending the influx of illegal migration ramping up, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak must make sure that his forcible deportation policy begins to see similar success.
    SPECTATOR (UK) (LR: 5 CP: 5)

Left narrative:

  • The voluntary scheme is completely different from the controversial Rwanda plan. Despite the UK government's best attempts to portray the deportation as a victory, the reality of the expensive gimmick is clear. Paying asylum seekers £3K of taxpayers' money for leaving the country will neither stop the boats nor fix the UK's border crisis.
    HUFFINGTON POST (LR: 1 CP: 4)

Nerd narrative:

  • There's a 10% chance that the Conservative Party will form the first government after the next UK general election, according to the Metaculus prediction community.
    METACULUS (LR: 3 CP: 3)
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Guntrigger@sopuli.xyz 25 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  1. Be Rwandan
  2. Make your way to UK
  3. Claim asylum
  4. Get £3,000 and a free flight home
[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Alternative step 4: Gets granted asylum and is placed to live in Rochdale

  1. FFFFUUUUUUU
[–] Guntrigger@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 months ago

At that point you get on a dinghy to France.

[–] Devi@kbin.social 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And free rent and board for 5 years! That's brilliant. If I had no ties I'd be ringing Rishi up to go myself.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 4 points 6 months ago

Part 2 is the tough bit but if I was in a developing country and fancied writing a novel or two on the British government's money, with a tidy chunk of change at the end, it might be worth a go.

[–] FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If they were a failed asylum seeker why weren't they just deported back to their home country? Why pay them to leave us when they have no right to be here at all?

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 9 points 6 months ago

The more cynical take is that they've had him on ice so they can have very highly publicised roundup of immigrants then a deportation right before the council elections. However, that might give them too much credit for competence. It's more likely this is due to lack of investment in the immigration service, which has created a big backlog of claims to be processed. Of course, the cynical take on that is that the Tories have created a problem that they can use to their own ends ("it's not our fault this isn't working, blame the immigrants") and then they get to "solve" the problem they created just before an election so they can win some xenophobic/ignorant votes back from Reform.

Both those cynical takes can be true at the same time.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 6 months ago

They don't want you asking questions like that.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If the failed. Then the home iffice thinks it is safe for them to go home.

So why the hell are they wasting a freaking fortune sending them to Rwanda when. A flight home is cheaper. And dosent involve bribing rwanda to take them.

Or rewritting laws to claim rwanda is safe.

If it is not safe to send them home. The. The home office is openly lieing about them being failed asylum seekers.

And breakibg international law whe. They claim they entered illegally.

So why the fuck is the media letting them ger away with these bullshit claims.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's possible he destroyed his documents, so they don't know where "home" is for him.

Or his home country won't accept him back.

Or paying him £3k is cheaper than all the appeals he could mount.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 3 points 6 months ago

To claim asylum requires the person to ID there home and a reason they will be in danger.

So if he refused he was never an asylum seeker. So would have been cLled an illegal immigrant. Not exactly a title our gov avoids using.

If they refuse. Then buy law you area valud asylum seeker. Because if your home nation refuses to take you. You are proven not safe their. By international law.

So he is not failed and the UK is breaking international law. As is his home nation.

You forgot to add the £150k cost the UK pays Rwanda for each accepted deportation.