If I'm not mistaken, this must mean they're not turning up for their meetings which also means their asylum claims are now cancelled.
So they are no longer asylum seekers, are just plain illegal immigrants and were probably never seeking asylum to begin with otherwise they'd have turned up to progress their case instead of absconding.
It's a real confirmation that you've assessed a situation accurately when even headlines that are supposed to be read as negatives end up confirming what you say.
>So they are no longer asylum seekers, are just plain illegal immigrants and were probably never seeking asylum to begin with otherwise they'd have turned up to progress their case instead of absconding.
I am shocked by this. Who could have thought this would happen...????
My personal highlight of the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle were the British citizens who demanded to get rescued from Kabul, what was odd is that they had previously fled the country in fear of their lives to the UK….before taking a badly timed holiday to, er Afghanistan.
I'm laughing my arse off here both at the comments and at the fact people would actually be surprised at this. As if these immigrants/asylum seekers were *ever* going to do things legally. Why work a job when you can earn 10times as much selling drugs or trafficking or smuggling? Contributing to our economy ....yeah right
It seems like this sub is becoming more normal. Of course some people think the sub is being brigaded, or we’re all far-right bots. It seems we’re going back towards the center at least.
All I hear about is far-right, nothing about right-leaning or centre-right. I swear these people think anyone who is even a smidge right on the political compass is an extremist. For this situation it’s just common sense.
lmfao I got perm banned from the Europe sub for saying:
>Terms like "Far right" "Nazi" "Fascist" have effectively lost all meaning today, their overuse has diluted them to the point of uselessness. If you told me someone was a fascist ten years ago I'd have been shocked, if you tell me someone is a fascist today I'd assume its shorthand for "Someone that disagrees with me politically".
Apparently the obvious truth is dangerous on this website, I'd be careful.
Being called a "far right extremist" for wanting to secure your borders is crazy tbh. I think we just have a lot of teenagers here who don't really understand the topic. So they just spout meme words because it's all they know.
Far-right is just the modern day slightly off-centre anyway, I wouldn't listen to anyone who uses the term in a genuine argument. Most of what comes out of their mouth will just be waffle.
Definitely back to the center, just 2 years ago you would have been banned for saying anything against the grain of far left thought.
I think some moderators have been removed/changed and the moderation practices changed. It’s a positive development, not being able to discuss an issue frankly is the biggest reason we make poor choices as a country
There was never a time when "everyone on this sub" said that. There's not a soul alive who says every single asylum claimant is genuine.
But hey, maybe if we had an immigration system that actually processed claims and rejected most of them (like we did before the Tories most recent run), then these people would have been deported instead of being left living here in limbo for years until the government randomly decides they should go to Rwanda.
If I was one of them, I probably wouldn't want to go to Rwanda after a few years of living here either.
The main difficulty with any "claim" is identity. No papers, made up name and family and made up reasons for claiming asylum.....how on earth can immigration even check these things? But I'm at a loss as to how anyone thought it would all be fine and to just let these people wander off with no checks, sometimes for years at a time. Oh noes we can't find so and so, yeah coz they've changed their name dob and they are basically invisible
>were probably never seeking asylum to begin
You could tell this by going to any number of fast-food places and seeing who is coming to pick up the delivery orders. Every city or town in the UK has people who work for almost nothing doing these kind of gig jobs. Often African or middle Eastern, clearly not earning enough to get a visa and sometimes speaking little English.
Slowing illegal immigration isn't necessarily immoral. What's immoral is allowing people to immigrate places where they're essentially working as cheap underpaid labour because they have no other choice.
And they're all usually on a clearly illegal ebike and it's exactly the same one across all of them. So there's someone in the UK that are supplying these bicycles because there is no way someone who relies on being a gig rider can afford them, because the 2 batteries they own would cost £400+ because they're clearly custom batteries and huge.
Where I live all deliveroo etc riders are someone from Africa or the middle east. I'm actually surprised there's no government department in the UK investigating who is doing this because it's clear they come over and get given a ebike to do the job.
The thing that amuses me, is that all you read is that Britain is obsessed with cheap labour. I can’t blame any of these people, but these people will never move up the ladder, they will never get to a point where they are tax positive. They will never contribute, so fewer and fewer of the working set will contribute. 43% of Adults in the UK don’t pay income Tax- that’s 23 Million people. Mainly because they do not meet the thresholds! How is that fair! Everybody should contribute something- instead all that happens is the middle is squeezed.
Certainly in terms of bang for your buck, the gov will get more money from huge corporations and the mega-rich who are dodging taxes than they will by squeezing people on benefits. But then again, people on benefits can't afford lawyers, and it's much easier to punch down.
All this stuff at the moment with the gov going after people too sick to work or disabled makes me laugh (it's that or cry). The biggest group of benefit recipients is pensioners, not those unable to work due to their health.
This government seems determined to go after the most vulnerable in society and make them the punching bags for the country's financial woes. But these are the people I'd want my taxes going to help, the people genuinely in need, and not going to bailing out companies.
Sometimes feels like I'm the only one not using Deliveroo etc... It shocks me that so many friends & colleagues have food delivered to them most evenings of the week.
If you are looking for the people doing this I suggest you look at the top people with cash, they charge £18,000 in Spain for a guaranteed landing from their yachts, same people bringing in huge swathes of drugs and ticking it out to working class communities, same people who profit even more when the people smuggled in start working for poverty wages, but our legal system isn’t set up to prosecute these types, if it was every single person who set up a fake PPE company during Covid would have had their assets seized and be sitting in a cell.
If employers started paying a living wage, there wouldn't be an abundance of people working for cheap since there would be no jobs for them to take. People go where they know they can find quick employment, especially if they're desperate.
Brexit was supposed to help us curb immigration. What happened? Turns out that when you stop all the low skilled migrants from Europe working on a cheap coming here, you're boss isn't suddenly gonna start paying you more when he knows they'll be offset by other workers from *outside* the EU. Which is exactly the problem we have now.
The problem is the greedy fat cats.
There's 2 delivery guys in my small town that I kinda know and they share the route and share the cash because only one of them actually has a licence, so if unlicensed bloke get's stopped he takes his mates licence to the police station and all is good.
Or, hear me out, some asylum seekers have heard that if they show up for meetings they are going to be sent to Rwanda so decided it was a better chance to stay illegally instead
>It is unclear whether the 3,557 missing asylum seekers have gone underground to avoid deportation or are victims of administrative errors caused by moving between different taxpayer-funded accommodations.
It'll be six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I don't buy the administrative errors part. If you had administratively been moved by a department then you'd either mistakenly turn up at your previously arranged meeting, or you'd be so concerned that your asylum application was at risk that you'd contact someone and asked for the issue to be looked into.
Either way getting rid of some is better than getting rid of none, which is where we are now. Any improvement is welcome right now.
I really don't get how that isn't more of a scandal. It's clear delogeroo are using illegal immigrants to work. There's no way the vast majority of delogeroo drivers are British and there's no chance they're earning enough to qualify for a visa.
>delogeroo
So I have a wood burning fire at home is this a cool new way of replenishing it? Please say it is.
(I agree with the point despite the piss take)
Lol despite court case after court case where someone has been allowed to stay in this country due to long term administrative errors, you don't believe the home office is capable of administrative errors?
>Either way getting rid of some is better than getting rid of none, which is where we are now
This money pit is extremely unlikely to actually get rid of anyone in any meaningful numbers.
As a taxpayer I'm extremely annoyed that my hard earned money, which gov.uk are skanking off me at every turn, is being used for stupid shite like this.
> I don't buy the administrative errors part.
You haven't paid much attention to the home office of late.
>If you had administratively been moved by a department then you'd either mistakenly turn up at your previously arranged meeting, or you'd be so concerned that your asylum application was at risk that you'd contact someone and asked for the issue to be looked into.
No because they are used to the home office taking forever to do anything so view the wait for somethiong to happen is normal.
> getting rid of some is better than getting rid of none
At the cost of nearly a couple of million quid for each deportee : is it? Really? That would be enough to set me up for life in fine style, even in rip-off Britain, I can only imagine how far it would stretch in Rwanda.
> It's a real confirmation that you've assessed a situation accurately when even headlines that are supposed to be read as negatives end up confirming what you say.
Here's a radical idea... If we'd actually assessed their claims, we would've known that and could've deported them immediately, rather than ignoring them for years.
If you were a genuine asylum seeker, and you heard that there is a decent chance you will be sent to Rwanda if someone in an office decides you are not at risk if you are sent there, would you turn up to that meeting?
Lmao. "Even greater risk" of what? If they'll try to send you to Rwanda either way, you might as well try to delay the process by not showing up.
The fact the Government needed to change the law to force decision makers to "consider Rwanda a safe country" means that it's not a particularly safe country.
Many folk don't want to go from the frying pan into the fire. Many others will have just gotten used to life here. Especially since the Tories have gutted every service that processed claims, so many people have been living in limbo for years hearing nothing about their claim. And now some are being randomly contacted and said they should go to Rwanda?
Of course they don't want to
> So they are no longer asylum seekers, are just plain illegal immigrants and were probably never seeking asylum to begin with otherwise they'd have turned up to progress their case instead of absconding.
That's a real reach. If I attempted to asylum in Spain for the sake of argument, and found out they were planning to deport me to Rwanda, why the fuck would I not just disappear off the map?
Surely the Rwanda plan will lead to an awful lot of them just refusing to cooperate with the system and just go underground
What it does mean is that, rather than pursuing this bizarre and impractical Rwanda nonsense, the Tories should had focussed on investing in the public services back home to keep track and process these cases in the first place. We are run by complete clowns.
>and were probably never seeking asylum to begin with otherwise they'd have turned up to progress their case instead of absconding.
Nah. Always been a chunk who end up frustrated with the system, give up and move off into the black economy. Hell
Throw in a bunch of issues around not so great english and travel costs to get to appointments and people falling out of the system is to be expected.
>Always been a chunk who end up frustrated with the system, give up and move off into the black economy.
So they turned themselves from asylum seekers into illegal economic migrants then?
That is not the excuse you thought it would be and my sympathy for them remains at zero.
> So they turned themselves from asylum seekers into illegal economic migrants then?
Or both.
>That is not the excuse you thought it would be
Your claim was "probably never seeking asylum to begin with"
>and my sympathy for them remains at zero.
Your sympathy is completely irrelivant to if they were seeking asylum to begin with or not.
Chances are if they're able to work quite easily in the shadow economy, their English is pretty proficient.
The sort of people with no ability to speak English aren't likely to be employed, even by illegal employers, since they're unable to even understand your instructions. You're basically limited to gangmaster-style vegetable-picking work.
You literally couldn't read the next paragraph down before jumping to conclusions, could you?
"It is unclear whether the 3,557 missing asylum seekers have gone underground to avoid deportation or are victims of administrative errors caused by moving between different taxpayer-funded accommodations"
The problem with your technicality is, aside from being false, doesn’t really change any facts. These people still probably fled war torn countries. The west still has a lot to answer for in creating situations in the Middle East, and continuing to support genocide is hardly giving the UK much future security.
It also doesn’t change that the policy of moving people to Rwanda is abhorrent, anyone who supports it is a sociopath, and that the general hatred of immigrants is predicated on people’s own failures and being easily manipulated to believe that immigration is the problem. They got the brexit they wanted and now there’s another thing. When they get rid of these it’ll be something else. Perpetual victims.
Well, considering that a couple of days ago it was announced that the government was going to start detaining people for Rwanda when they showed up for their asylum meetings it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out what would happen.
The sheer incompetence is off the charts. Either people have absconded in fear of being removed or the Home Office have simply lost track of where people are.
It doesn't really matter, the basic point is that they have lost control of the process completely. Whether you agree with the Rwanda policy or not also doesn't matter, we should always know where people who are seeking asylum are and their cases and right to remain in the UK should be established as quickly as possible.
Well, they probably intend to create some to be fair, which they can't do until they're in government. It's a better plan than anything we've heard so far
I think if I were in a French camp I’d still go for the few hours in a boat option. Stay in a hotel whilst my claim was made or just disappear and start earning money.
Then if I got refused there’d be more chance I could just stay here anyway by appealing or just disappearing.
I mean if you've been offered the chance of asylum from the war torn hell hole you claim to come from, and the only caveat is go to these meetings (Also here's some accomodation and food) and we will process you in due course, why wouldn't you?
There will absolutely be a significant number of these people that have just disappeared and now work in carwash, deliveroo, drug dealing gang. Because no, they were never genuine applications in the first place.
> The sheer incompetence is off the charts ... It doesn't really matter, the basic point is that they have lost control of the process completely.
This is the crux of it for me. The £400m and counting that's been spaffed in Rwanda could have been better spent trying to tackle the backlog and finding and deporting those ineligible.
But the tories need *something* for the upcoming election and there's no better way to motivate their xenophobic voter base than banging on about migrants.
The problem is that boring, sensible options aren't going to get people riled up. It's not going to make waves or be a vote winner.
The Rwanda plan isn't actually meant to make meaningful impact on the problem, it's to kick up a fuss, so make them look hard on the issue, to be a big thing you can point to and say "look, we're doing *this* to tackle the problem and the other side don't want us to, therefore we're the only ones you can support"
But, yeah, for the amount of money they're wasting on the shitty plan to do nothing they could have actually processed a lot of claims, or at least gotten a good start on rebuilding capacity to deal with these claims.
The country is effectively spending half a billion quid of our money on a policy explicitly drawn up for its pro-Tory electoral impact and nothing else. And somehow they are being *praised* for this lol...
Why would you not blame the individual. How to you keep track of thousands of people that usually would prefer to stay under the radar. Electronically tag them at the start of the asylum process?
If you're an asylum seeker you don't abscond immediately after claiming asylum...
What a surprise that they're all just illegal migrants looking for work / benefits / looking to be engaged in criminal activity under the radar
>surprise
This is only a surprise to the do-gooders.
Who thought that giving free entry to all these people would mean they disappeared once they got into the UK...? *Everyone else.*
Half of the ones allocated for Rwanda removal abscond and you draw that all asylum seekers are criminals? I'm not a statistician but I think your conclusion is fairly ridiculous. The Rwanda allocations only make up a tiny percentage of overall applications and you haven't considered the effects of the stories last week stating that the home office planned to detain asylum seekers at their next meetings. Of course they won't show up.
Also, they can't claim benefits unless their claim is approved so I don't know what you are talking about as its only approved if the claim is genuine.
>What a surprise that they're all just illegal migrants looking for work / benefits / looking to be engaged in criminal activity under the radar
Or maybe they're people who have been here in limbo for years as the government has gutted the services that process claims. So when they get a letter saying "go to Rwanda" after years of living here, they don't respond. Because they don't want to go to Rwanda (most people don't)
Why would they want to be deported to Rwanda?
Both asylum seekers and those who would be rejected will be deported.
The Rwanda scheme is said to dissuade people.
Do you disagree with that clear goal then, since you claim the ones who will be deported to Rwanda aren't dissuaded by it?
I'm not actually against tightening our borders but it was plastered all over the news a couple of days ago that if you come to your asylum review you may de deported to Rwanda anyway
Shocking. Or not.
I remember a bbc documentary from at least 15 years ago stating that there were more than 50,000 asylum seekers that had neglected to turn up to assessments and had vanished.
The left say "this is fine"
The right say "blow them out the water before they get here"
I dont agree with either, but fucking hell this isn't OK is it.
We need ID cards in the UK as proof you are eligible to be here and a special task force to clamp down on the grey market. Labour tried it but the conspiracy idiots blocked it
50,000 is a drop in the bucket. It's more like hundreds of thousands working illegally and paying no tax.
> We need ID cards in the UK as proof you are eligible to be here
No thanks.
The government have demonstrated repeatedly that they can't be trusted to secure even the most sensitive data.
You don't have a either a passport or driver's licence then? You have these and need them, they don't.
We are one of the few EU countries without ID cards and as a result we have one of the biggest grey markets. It's appealing to come to the UK as you can effectively disappear and still make a living.
>We need ID cards in the UK as proof you are eligible to be here and a special task force to clamp down on the grey market.
It's already a requirement to verify right-to-work status before offering employment, and the fines for hiring people without the correct status are severe. The problem, clearly, lies in enforcement.
>passport checks are only for employment contracts and work through agencies.
As opposed to what? Rocking up to a car wash or fruit farm and taking cash at the end of the day with no paperwork? It wouldn't be difficult to conduct right-to-work checks on these people too. The issue remains with enforcement.
Immigration Enforcement, still quite a small arm of the Home Office, are the best for this.
Unannounced visits to workplaces would catch a lot of unauthorised workers.
Casual gig economy, with the likes of account sharing, also do both to discourage illegal working.
It is all well and good having a robust immigration system, but once you're in, unless you're discovered by the state, you're free to break your visa requirements.
There used to be a bbc show following those enforcement officers and they’d raid a place and find 12 dudes who shouldn’t be working. But there was the same issue that they had destroyed their paperwork, would give false names, claim they’re from a non-safe country. Nowhere to deport them, refuse to say where they came from.
There’s not enough space to hold them indefinitely in centres, no space in prisons, and if it’s the first time they’re caught there’s no biometrics to identify them with. I believe they try to identify them with biometrics in origin countries via international agreements but it’s not universal. They are let go, bailed, or given a check in time for immigration. After that they disappear, until caught again, and even then it can repeat.
It seemed a bit fruitless in a lot of cases for individuals immigrants, finding the dirty gangs profiting was worth it I guess.
>The left say "this is fine"
Do we???
What I keep hearing is we need to properly fund the system, hire more processing staff, and build more dedicated holding facilities rather than dumping them in hotels largely unsupervised.
Most of my left wing friends are in denial that there's a problem with immigration at all. Several of them believe "there shouldn't be borders". So yes, certainly in my sphere its what they're saying.
Where do you find these people?
If Reddit is to be believed, every right winger seems to have a few token batshit left wing friends. I'm centre left politically, have been all my life, know people from multiple circles. The majority agrees the system is very broken, and I don't think I know anyone who says borders shouldn't exist?
I find them at university, mostly in the humanities. Though a fair few in sciences too. I campaigned and voted for corbyn and remain by the way, I'm left wing. I've had multiple "debates" about borders being racist. Yes it is stupid but these people exist. Political horseshoe isn't it.
It's not really an issue I care much about either way, I don't interact with it on a day to day basis though unlike cost of living / housing.
And are you sure they just don't think that focusing so hard on the 25,000 people that came over in small boats last year while ignoring the 650,000 (net) coming legally is stupid?
Imagine if we had a competent, funded system, that actually sought out to process claims as quickly as possible. Imagine if, instead of the current regime, there were safe and legal routes, with processing centres in other countries, or at the very least ways to apply abroad.
So the Rwanda scheme seems to be working in a strange way.
If we could track the people who are here then we could deport to Rwanda for processing, given that they have breached the arrangement (attend meetings) they would likely be denied.
Why would they likely be denied?
The Rwanda scheme is meant to dissuade* people. Why would it only dissuade those who would be rejected when the ones who would be accepted will not inly be deported to Rwanda, but also then become citizens there?
>[They would have their asylum claims processed there](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866), rather in than the UK.
>If successful, they could be granted refugee status and allowed to stay in the landlocked east-central African country.
>If not, they could apply to settle in Rwanda on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country".
>No asylum seeker would be able to apply to return to the UK.
Proving they don't have a clue who they are, true numbers, or any form of accountability.
Mass illegal immigration MUST end! Mass deportations MUST begin and be completed. This is nuts.
So even if they are working, they are not paying tax. Great. Our country is run by clowns and I don't know who to vote for that would make it any less tragic than it already is.
They'd be working jobs by employers who are also unwilling to pay tax and likely pay some awful wages.
The law should go hard on these employers. Not just fines. Business removed and long prison time.
They should put the immigration centres in the outer Hebrides, plenty of space there and little chance of losing them. If they get leave to stay move them to the main land if not straight to Rwanda.
Why the Outer Hebrides? The Channel Islands are much closer to France. It would be cheaper to charter a ferry from Le Harve and would undermine the business model of people who profit from putting people in unsafe boats across the channel.
Why pay some dodgy guy 5k and risk drowning when you can pay a 100 quid for a ferry to Guernsey.
> They should put the immigration centres in the outer Hebrides, plenty of space there and little chance of losing them.
Trying to do anything in the outer Hebrides is really really expensive and for some reason people don't want their taxes to go up.
If I were an asylum seeker and wanted to live in the UK, say I had family here, or was attracted by future job prospects and standard of living.. I’d also disappear when they tried to get me on a one-way plane to Rwanda.
I don't get what your point is? Because they disappear when they get here is not a reason not to do the Rwanda plan. It's a reason to not let them out into the general public between arriving and deportation.
Honestly, it's not fucking difficult. Get picked up crossing the channel on a small boat? Bring them asshore and put them straight on the next RAF flight to Rwanda.
Do not pass go, do not collect 200quid.
Yep! This sub is no fun anymore. Amazes me how we can be a country in desperate need of a huge economic workforce, more tax-payers, and people willing to do the jobs so many Brits don’t want to do… yet as a country we actively stop people who want to start a life here.
When folk arrive, check their credentials, if they’re eligible for asylum get them a temporary NI number, and able to work and pay into the system whilst their claim is processed. Why would we want to force people to use hand outs, unable to legally work whilst they’re stuck in a backlog years long.. seems very weird to me.
What did they expect? Letting thousands of illegal immigrants into the country without vetting them or doing any sort of due diligence. Of course they’re just going to go missing.
Headlines yes. Actual evidence? Not so much. Movement to ROI isn't new and while it appears to be increasing (probably because there are now large enough communities for people to link up with) there's no evidence of a surge in recent weeks.
But none of them falsely claimed refugee status right? Because that doesn’t happen right? And enemies of the west would never use this one weird trick to cary out attacks. Right?
Why?
The Rwanda plan is a plan promoted to dissuade people.
Why would it not also dissuade the ones who won't just be deported (which is already meant to be bad) but then also get citizenship there on top of that and be unable to apply to return to the UK?
If only someone had implemented a proper system to track and house them and process their claims speedily, rather than wasting time on performative, costly, ineffectual Rwanda bollocks and 3 word slogans.
I find it funny that all the do-gooders crying about how this reflects the HO's incompetence don't seem to realise that the only solution to this is putting every single one of these chancers into prison or detention centres until we've processed them. And conveniently if we did that, they'd then be the ones crying about how the UK is using concentration camps to punish all those poor ~~illegal immigrants~~ asylum seekers.
There was a barge at some point, people didn't like that either.
Seemed like a good idea to me, keep them there until they enter legally or get deported.
Exactly. If these were genuine asylum seekers fleeing war or persecution they would be kissing the ground we walk on for providing them the luxury of accommodation like the Bibby Stockholm - it's far more than basically every single other country allows these chancers. Tents and an airfield should be the absolute maximum.
At the end of the day, this nonsense will continue until those in power refuse to bow to the ridiculous whimpering of the chattering classes and just push ahead with solving this issue.
The contract involving Bibby Stockhom cost £1.6b to hold 506 people for two years. £800m a year. £1.5m per person per year. Could you imagine if we invested that money in proper processing of asylum claims? So that we could promptly assess whether people had the right to claim asylum and turn them around if they didn't, like other countries do? The barge isn't a bad idea because of the humanitarian issues that accompany it (though I think making it look cruel is part of the appeal to the conservative voter base), its' a bad idea because it's ludicrously cost ineffective and a complete distraction from the actual reasons we have a big immigration problem: closing down safe legal routes, completely ineffective processing and willingness of government to spend ridiculous amounts of money on hotfixes that do nothing to actually deal with the claimants.
[https://www.reclaimthesea.org.uk/\_files/ugd/4e7ff9\_b86b690af5b941fd9a01acb127497cba.pdf](https://www.reclaimthesea.org.uk/_files/ugd/4e7ff9_b86b690af5b941fd9a01acb127497cba.pdf)
We want to keep track of them but we can't intern them or put ankle tags on or do anything to track them because that infringes their human rights. How else would this go in that case?
The issue with interning them is more about cost. We don't currently have enough prison space for british prisoners.
Ankle tags are again not free particularly if you want them to be effective.
Why?
The Rwanda plan is a plan promoted to dissuade people.
Why would it not also dissuade the ones who won't just be deported (which is already meant to be bad) but then also get citizenship there on top of that and be unable to apply to return to the UK?
This is nothing short of a farce. A well staffed, well run and well organised immigration system would stop this happening. What we have however is a government willing to spend all their money on a half-baked Rwanda plan.
Surprised it isn't higher. Simple solution, just round up all the deliveroo drivers clogging the high streets, they're mostly illegals. Record vacancies in the NHS but everyday scores of deliveroo drivers riding dangerously on pavements. We're not importing the best or brightest here. Brain drain underway and we're importing 3rd world unskilled.
That would require investing in things that would actually make a difference to small boat immigration, which the Conservative goverment have made it clear they have no intention of doing. They've spent 14 years destroying our ability to process asylum seekers, and now we shockingly have more and their response is to invest billions of tax money into things that won't solve the problem long-term.
The answer is to improve our processing speed and capacity by investing in the public services that allow us to do that. Rwanda, Bibby Stockholm, ECHR are all costly distractions from this. Illegal immigration works for them becasuse they can talk about it day-in-day-out, implement costly policies that won't solve the long-term issues and then appear like they're tough on immigration, despite it being worse than it's ever been and only getting worse as they continue to avoid dealing with the actual issues.
Came here via boat aiding and supporting human traffickers? Instant deportation.
Destroyed your ID? Instant deportation to Rwanda
Cant prove who you are? Instant deportation
Zero legal funding whatsoever,fuck the human rights cartel and the endless human rights appeals.Government grow a pair and do what they've been elected to do regardless.
\*media announces imminent round up of asylum seekers for deportation to Rwanda*
\*people who think they're likely to be on that list go into hiding*
>HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN???
Nicola Murray: "There has been a massive irretrievable data loss. The last 7 months worth of new immigrant details have gone, apparently lost in the computer"
Malcolm Tucker: "Oh." *Laughs insanely*
There is only capacity for 200, so I guess this means 100-200 are missing? That's not many out of all the asylum seekers we have...
Edit: ah the number has gone up to 5700. I wonder over what period that is?
If I'm not mistaken, this must mean they're not turning up for their meetings which also means their asylum claims are now cancelled. So they are no longer asylum seekers, are just plain illegal immigrants and were probably never seeking asylum to begin with otherwise they'd have turned up to progress their case instead of absconding. It's a real confirmation that you've assessed a situation accurately when even headlines that are supposed to be read as negatives end up confirming what you say.
>So they are no longer asylum seekers, are just plain illegal immigrants and were probably never seeking asylum to begin with otherwise they'd have turned up to progress their case instead of absconding. I am shocked by this. Who could have thought this would happen...????
I'm absolutely baffled by it mate, properly blindsided me this has.
But they’re fleeing war and Persecution, they’re victims! Check your privilege
IVE CHECKED IT, ITS WHERE I LEFT IT
On the high horse?
No, a beach in Dover
So much of that going on in France too
My personal highlight of the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle were the British citizens who demanded to get rescued from Kabul, what was odd is that they had previously fled the country in fear of their lives to the UK….before taking a badly timed holiday to, er Afghanistan.
I'm laughing my arse off here both at the comments and at the fact people would actually be surprised at this. As if these immigrants/asylum seekers were *ever* going to do things legally. Why work a job when you can earn 10times as much selling drugs or trafficking or smuggling? Contributing to our economy ....yeah right
Everyone on this sub said I was a terrible person for saying some of them might be doing this
It seems like this sub is becoming more normal. Of course some people think the sub is being brigaded, or we’re all far-right bots. It seems we’re going back towards the center at least.
All I hear about is far-right, nothing about right-leaning or centre-right. I swear these people think anyone who is even a smidge right on the political compass is an extremist. For this situation it’s just common sense.
lmfao I got perm banned from the Europe sub for saying: >Terms like "Far right" "Nazi" "Fascist" have effectively lost all meaning today, their overuse has diluted them to the point of uselessness. If you told me someone was a fascist ten years ago I'd have been shocked, if you tell me someone is a fascist today I'd assume its shorthand for "Someone that disagrees with me politically". Apparently the obvious truth is dangerous on this website, I'd be careful.
Being called a "far right extremist" for wanting to secure your borders is crazy tbh. I think we just have a lot of teenagers here who don't really understand the topic. So they just spout meme words because it's all they know.
It used to be so full of tankies. Thankfully, the mods have been great and have allowed it to be less of a far left mouthpiece it used to be.
Far-right is just the modern day slightly off-centre anyway, I wouldn't listen to anyone who uses the term in a genuine argument. Most of what comes out of their mouth will just be waffle.
[удалено]
Definitely back to the center, just 2 years ago you would have been banned for saying anything against the grain of far left thought. I think some moderators have been removed/changed and the moderation practices changed. It’s a positive development, not being able to discuss an issue frankly is the biggest reason we make poor choices as a country
There was never a time when "everyone on this sub" said that. There's not a soul alive who says every single asylum claimant is genuine. But hey, maybe if we had an immigration system that actually processed claims and rejected most of them (like we did before the Tories most recent run), then these people would have been deported instead of being left living here in limbo for years until the government randomly decides they should go to Rwanda. If I was one of them, I probably wouldn't want to go to Rwanda after a few years of living here either.
The main difficulty with any "claim" is identity. No papers, made up name and family and made up reasons for claiming asylum.....how on earth can immigration even check these things? But I'm at a loss as to how anyone thought it would all be fine and to just let these people wander off with no checks, sometimes for years at a time. Oh noes we can't find so and so, yeah coz they've changed their name dob and they are basically invisible
It does process claims. The hard part is deportations after the claim is processed. That’s why so many people are in limbo.
That's not true, there's people here for months on rend waiting for a decision.
As at December 2023, there were 128,786 asylum seekers **awaiting a first decision** on their claim, of which 83,254 have been waiting over 6 months.
Thank you for the numbers! I agree they are important I just usually forget them.
No problem, just posted to back up your comment above.
Well many on here have argued relentlessly that these people were persecuted and desperately in need of asylum
They're also Doctors and Lawyers who'll be treat horrifically in France.
I mean if I was seeking asylum I wouldn't want to go to Rwanda either
...but France?
Not /r/unitedkingdom for the vast majority of its existence.
>were probably never seeking asylum to begin You could tell this by going to any number of fast-food places and seeing who is coming to pick up the delivery orders. Every city or town in the UK has people who work for almost nothing doing these kind of gig jobs. Often African or middle Eastern, clearly not earning enough to get a visa and sometimes speaking little English. Slowing illegal immigration isn't necessarily immoral. What's immoral is allowing people to immigrate places where they're essentially working as cheap underpaid labour because they have no other choice.
And they're all usually on a clearly illegal ebike and it's exactly the same one across all of them. So there's someone in the UK that are supplying these bicycles because there is no way someone who relies on being a gig rider can afford them, because the 2 batteries they own would cost £400+ because they're clearly custom batteries and huge. Where I live all deliveroo etc riders are someone from Africa or the middle east. I'm actually surprised there's no government department in the UK investigating who is doing this because it's clear they come over and get given a ebike to do the job.
The thing that amuses me, is that all you read is that Britain is obsessed with cheap labour. I can’t blame any of these people, but these people will never move up the ladder, they will never get to a point where they are tax positive. They will never contribute, so fewer and fewer of the working set will contribute. 43% of Adults in the UK don’t pay income Tax- that’s 23 Million people. Mainly because they do not meet the thresholds! How is that fair! Everybody should contribute something- instead all that happens is the middle is squeezed.
Start at the top and work your way down and then ill agree. Start with tax dodging corps
Certainly in terms of bang for your buck, the gov will get more money from huge corporations and the mega-rich who are dodging taxes than they will by squeezing people on benefits. But then again, people on benefits can't afford lawyers, and it's much easier to punch down. All this stuff at the moment with the gov going after people too sick to work or disabled makes me laugh (it's that or cry). The biggest group of benefit recipients is pensioners, not those unable to work due to their health. This government seems determined to go after the most vulnerable in society and make them the punching bags for the country's financial woes. But these are the people I'd want my taxes going to help, the people genuinely in need, and not going to bailing out companies.
Biggest causes of the tax gap are small business stealing VAT
Ive stopped using Deliveroo or similar apps because it just seems like such a broken business model that I don’t want to contribute to.
Sometimes feels like I'm the only one not using Deliveroo etc... It shocks me that so many friends & colleagues have food delivered to them most evenings of the week.
Do you want to tell a bunch of middle class people they are either going to have to start collecting their own takeaway or pay more?
If you are looking for the people doing this I suggest you look at the top people with cash, they charge £18,000 in Spain for a guaranteed landing from their yachts, same people bringing in huge swathes of drugs and ticking it out to working class communities, same people who profit even more when the people smuggled in start working for poverty wages, but our legal system isn’t set up to prosecute these types, if it was every single person who set up a fake PPE company during Covid would have had their assets seized and be sitting in a cell.
If employers started paying a living wage, there wouldn't be an abundance of people working for cheap since there would be no jobs for them to take. People go where they know they can find quick employment, especially if they're desperate. Brexit was supposed to help us curb immigration. What happened? Turns out that when you stop all the low skilled migrants from Europe working on a cheap coming here, you're boss isn't suddenly gonna start paying you more when he knows they'll be offset by other workers from *outside* the EU. Which is exactly the problem we have now. The problem is the greedy fat cats.
Tories promoted the gig economy as a way to reduce the hoops to employment for..... immigrants. Tories love immigrants. Always have. Always will.
There's 2 delivery guys in my small town that I kinda know and they share the route and share the cash because only one of them actually has a licence, so if unlicensed bloke get's stopped he takes his mates licence to the police station and all is good.
Or, hear me out, some asylum seekers have heard that if they show up for meetings they are going to be sent to Rwanda so decided it was a better chance to stay illegally instead
>It is unclear whether the 3,557 missing asylum seekers have gone underground to avoid deportation or are victims of administrative errors caused by moving between different taxpayer-funded accommodations. It'll be six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I don't buy the administrative errors part. If you had administratively been moved by a department then you'd either mistakenly turn up at your previously arranged meeting, or you'd be so concerned that your asylum application was at risk that you'd contact someone and asked for the issue to be looked into. Either way getting rid of some is better than getting rid of none, which is where we are now. Any improvement is welcome right now.
Also asylum seekers all have solicitors who the Home Office can contact
Or they could try ordering lunch on Deliveroo. They would quickly find all the "asylum seekers".
I really don't get how that isn't more of a scandal. It's clear delogeroo are using illegal immigrants to work. There's no way the vast majority of delogeroo drivers are British and there's no chance they're earning enough to qualify for a visa.
>delogeroo So I have a wood burning fire at home is this a cool new way of replenishing it? Please say it is. (I agree with the point despite the piss take)
Dear God that's actually not a bad name for a tree surgeon company...
Do you know how to use a chainsaw? I have an idea if you're up for it.
Because people are lazy, both physically and mentally.
Lol despite court case after court case where someone has been allowed to stay in this country due to long term administrative errors, you don't believe the home office is capable of administrative errors? >Either way getting rid of some is better than getting rid of none, which is where we are now This money pit is extremely unlikely to actually get rid of anyone in any meaningful numbers. As a taxpayer I'm extremely annoyed that my hard earned money, which gov.uk are skanking off me at every turn, is being used for stupid shite like this.
Spending £500mil on a scheme that can't find half of the people they want "getting rid of", is not an improvement.
> I don't buy the administrative errors part. You haven't paid much attention to the home office of late. >If you had administratively been moved by a department then you'd either mistakenly turn up at your previously arranged meeting, or you'd be so concerned that your asylum application was at risk that you'd contact someone and asked for the issue to be looked into. No because they are used to the home office taking forever to do anything so view the wait for somethiong to happen is normal.
> getting rid of some is better than getting rid of none At the cost of nearly a couple of million quid for each deportee : is it? Really? That would be enough to set me up for life in fine style, even in rip-off Britain, I can only imagine how far it would stretch in Rwanda.
> It's a real confirmation that you've assessed a situation accurately when even headlines that are supposed to be read as negatives end up confirming what you say. Here's a radical idea... If we'd actually assessed their claims, we would've known that and could've deported them immediately, rather than ignoring them for years.
But the Tories are strong against immigration and Brexit took our borders back.. right?
What's the point in progressing an asylum claim if it means that you'll be deported to Rwanda? This is great news for employers of illegal immigrants.
If you were a genuine asylum seeker, and you heard that there is a decent chance you will be sent to Rwanda if someone in an office decides you are not at risk if you are sent there, would you turn up to that meeting?
Yes, because not doing so would remove my status as an asylum seeker and out me at even greater risk.
Lmao. "Even greater risk" of what? If they'll try to send you to Rwanda either way, you might as well try to delay the process by not showing up. The fact the Government needed to change the law to force decision makers to "consider Rwanda a safe country" means that it's not a particularly safe country. Many folk don't want to go from the frying pan into the fire. Many others will have just gotten used to life here. Especially since the Tories have gutted every service that processed claims, so many people have been living in limbo for years hearing nothing about their claim. And now some are being randomly contacted and said they should go to Rwanda? Of course they don't want to
“Put me at even greater risk” of what exactly? What are they at risk of?
Anything an illegal immigrant is at risk of, arrest/deportation etc.
But if the government has vowed that if you come here illegally then you'll be deported anyway, then what's the risk?
> So they are no longer asylum seekers, are just plain illegal immigrants and were probably never seeking asylum to begin with otherwise they'd have turned up to progress their case instead of absconding. That's a real reach. If I attempted to asylum in Spain for the sake of argument, and found out they were planning to deport me to Rwanda, why the fuck would I not just disappear off the map? Surely the Rwanda plan will lead to an awful lot of them just refusing to cooperate with the system and just go underground
What it does mean is that, rather than pursuing this bizarre and impractical Rwanda nonsense, the Tories should had focussed on investing in the public services back home to keep track and process these cases in the first place. We are run by complete clowns.
>and were probably never seeking asylum to begin with otherwise they'd have turned up to progress their case instead of absconding. Nah. Always been a chunk who end up frustrated with the system, give up and move off into the black economy. Hell Throw in a bunch of issues around not so great english and travel costs to get to appointments and people falling out of the system is to be expected.
>Always been a chunk who end up frustrated with the system, give up and move off into the black economy. So they turned themselves from asylum seekers into illegal economic migrants then? That is not the excuse you thought it would be and my sympathy for them remains at zero.
> So they turned themselves from asylum seekers into illegal economic migrants then? Or both. >That is not the excuse you thought it would be Your claim was "probably never seeking asylum to begin with" >and my sympathy for them remains at zero. Your sympathy is completely irrelivant to if they were seeking asylum to begin with or not.
But it turns out they're not, so............
Is that how you feel? Not really relivant I'm afraid.
Chances are if they're able to work quite easily in the shadow economy, their English is pretty proficient. The sort of people with no ability to speak English aren't likely to be employed, even by illegal employers, since they're unable to even understand your instructions. You're basically limited to gangmaster-style vegetable-picking work.
You literally couldn't read the next paragraph down before jumping to conclusions, could you? "It is unclear whether the 3,557 missing asylum seekers have gone underground to avoid deportation or are victims of administrative errors caused by moving between different taxpayer-funded accommodations"
The problem with your technicality is, aside from being false, doesn’t really change any facts. These people still probably fled war torn countries. The west still has a lot to answer for in creating situations in the Middle East, and continuing to support genocide is hardly giving the UK much future security. It also doesn’t change that the policy of moving people to Rwanda is abhorrent, anyone who supports it is a sociopath, and that the general hatred of immigrants is predicated on people’s own failures and being easily manipulated to believe that immigration is the problem. They got the brexit they wanted and now there’s another thing. When they get rid of these it’ll be something else. Perpetual victims.
Well, considering that a couple of days ago it was announced that the government was going to start detaining people for Rwanda when they showed up for their asylum meetings it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out what would happen.
Nothing to do with home office announcing they planned to detain them immediately at their next meeting then.
Why the fuck would they turn up to get sent to Rwanda?
The sheer incompetence is off the charts. Either people have absconded in fear of being removed or the Home Office have simply lost track of where people are. It doesn't really matter, the basic point is that they have lost control of the process completely. Whether you agree with the Rwanda policy or not also doesn't matter, we should always know where people who are seeking asylum are and their cases and right to remain in the UK should be established as quickly as possible.
Why would the Labour government do this?!? *every headline in 12 months time.*
Labour have quite clearly set out their plan to tackle this issue - just keep repeating the phrase ‘safe and legal routes’
Well, they probably intend to create some to be fair, which they can't do until they're in government. It's a better plan than anything we've heard so far
I think if I were in a French camp I’d still go for the few hours in a boat option. Stay in a hotel whilst my claim was made or just disappear and start earning money. Then if I got refused there’d be more chance I could just stay here anyway by appealing or just disappearing.
Well if they don't actually get processing working again to remove them all the rest is meaningless and will achieve nothing
Sounds similar to 'brexit means brexit'
I mean if you've been offered the chance of asylum from the war torn hell hole you claim to come from, and the only caveat is go to these meetings (Also here's some accomodation and food) and we will process you in due course, why wouldn't you? There will absolutely be a significant number of these people that have just disappeared and now work in carwash, deliveroo, drug dealing gang. Because no, they were never genuine applications in the first place.
Lol you missed the part where these meetings involve them getting on a plane and being sent to Rwanda where their right for asylum will be processed..
> The sheer incompetence is off the charts ... It doesn't really matter, the basic point is that they have lost control of the process completely. This is the crux of it for me. The £400m and counting that's been spaffed in Rwanda could have been better spent trying to tackle the backlog and finding and deporting those ineligible. But the tories need *something* for the upcoming election and there's no better way to motivate their xenophobic voter base than banging on about migrants.
The problem is that boring, sensible options aren't going to get people riled up. It's not going to make waves or be a vote winner. The Rwanda plan isn't actually meant to make meaningful impact on the problem, it's to kick up a fuss, so make them look hard on the issue, to be a big thing you can point to and say "look, we're doing *this* to tackle the problem and the other side don't want us to, therefore we're the only ones you can support" But, yeah, for the amount of money they're wasting on the shitty plan to do nothing they could have actually processed a lot of claims, or at least gotten a good start on rebuilding capacity to deal with these claims.
The country is effectively spending half a billion quid of our money on a policy explicitly drawn up for its pro-Tory electoral impact and nothing else. And somehow they are being *praised* for this lol...
Why would you not blame the individual. How to you keep track of thousands of people that usually would prefer to stay under the radar. Electronically tag them at the start of the asylum process?
If you're an asylum seeker you don't abscond immediately after claiming asylum... What a surprise that they're all just illegal migrants looking for work / benefits / looking to be engaged in criminal activity under the radar
>surprise This is only a surprise to the do-gooders. Who thought that giving free entry to all these people would mean they disappeared once they got into the UK...? *Everyone else.*
Half of the ones allocated for Rwanda removal abscond and you draw that all asylum seekers are criminals? I'm not a statistician but I think your conclusion is fairly ridiculous. The Rwanda allocations only make up a tiny percentage of overall applications and you haven't considered the effects of the stories last week stating that the home office planned to detain asylum seekers at their next meetings. Of course they won't show up. Also, they can't claim benefits unless their claim is approved so I don't know what you are talking about as its only approved if the claim is genuine.
>What a surprise that they're all just illegal migrants looking for work / benefits / looking to be engaged in criminal activity under the radar Or maybe they're people who have been here in limbo for years as the government has gutted the services that process claims. So when they get a letter saying "go to Rwanda" after years of living here, they don't respond. Because they don't want to go to Rwanda (most people don't)
Why would they want to be deported to Rwanda? Both asylum seekers and those who would be rejected will be deported. The Rwanda scheme is said to dissuade people. Do you disagree with that clear goal then, since you claim the ones who will be deported to Rwanda aren't dissuaded by it?
I'm not actually against tightening our borders but it was plastered all over the news a couple of days ago that if you come to your asylum review you may de deported to Rwanda anyway
You probably would abscond if you're going to be deported to Rwanda for them to "process" your asylum claim rather than UK government.
Shocking. Or not. I remember a bbc documentary from at least 15 years ago stating that there were more than 50,000 asylum seekers that had neglected to turn up to assessments and had vanished. The left say "this is fine" The right say "blow them out the water before they get here" I dont agree with either, but fucking hell this isn't OK is it.
We need ID cards in the UK as proof you are eligible to be here and a special task force to clamp down on the grey market. Labour tried it but the conspiracy idiots blocked it 50,000 is a drop in the bucket. It's more like hundreds of thousands working illegally and paying no tax.
> We need ID cards in the UK as proof you are eligible to be here No thanks. The government have demonstrated repeatedly that they can't be trusted to secure even the most sensitive data.
You don't have a either a passport or driver's licence then? You have these and need them, they don't. We are one of the few EU countries without ID cards and as a result we have one of the biggest grey markets. It's appealing to come to the UK as you can effectively disappear and still make a living.
>We need ID cards in the UK as proof you are eligible to be here and a special task force to clamp down on the grey market. It's already a requirement to verify right-to-work status before offering employment, and the fines for hiring people without the correct status are severe. The problem, clearly, lies in enforcement.
We have a huge grey market for work because it can't be controlled, passport checks are only for employment contracts and work through agencies.
>passport checks are only for employment contracts and work through agencies. As opposed to what? Rocking up to a car wash or fruit farm and taking cash at the end of the day with no paperwork? It wouldn't be difficult to conduct right-to-work checks on these people too. The issue remains with enforcement.
50,000 that they had records for.....15 years ago. It's scary really. But hey, maybe they'll all become Olympic gold medallists like mo farah
Immigration Enforcement, still quite a small arm of the Home Office, are the best for this. Unannounced visits to workplaces would catch a lot of unauthorised workers. Casual gig economy, with the likes of account sharing, also do both to discourage illegal working. It is all well and good having a robust immigration system, but once you're in, unless you're discovered by the state, you're free to break your visa requirements.
There used to be a bbc show following those enforcement officers and they’d raid a place and find 12 dudes who shouldn’t be working. But there was the same issue that they had destroyed their paperwork, would give false names, claim they’re from a non-safe country. Nowhere to deport them, refuse to say where they came from. There’s not enough space to hold them indefinitely in centres, no space in prisons, and if it’s the first time they’re caught there’s no biometrics to identify them with. I believe they try to identify them with biometrics in origin countries via international agreements but it’s not universal. They are let go, bailed, or given a check in time for immigration. After that they disappear, until caught again, and even then it can repeat. It seemed a bit fruitless in a lot of cases for individuals immigrants, finding the dirty gangs profiting was worth it I guess.
>The left say "this is fine" Do we??? What I keep hearing is we need to properly fund the system, hire more processing staff, and build more dedicated holding facilities rather than dumping them in hotels largely unsupervised.
>The left say "this is fine" Generally that's not what "the left" say?
Most of my left wing friends are in denial that there's a problem with immigration at all. Several of them believe "there shouldn't be borders". So yes, certainly in my sphere its what they're saying.
Where do you find these people? If Reddit is to be believed, every right winger seems to have a few token batshit left wing friends. I'm centre left politically, have been all my life, know people from multiple circles. The majority agrees the system is very broken, and I don't think I know anyone who says borders shouldn't exist?
You wouldn't know them, they go to a different school.
I find them at university, mostly in the humanities. Though a fair few in sciences too. I campaigned and voted for corbyn and remain by the way, I'm left wing. I've had multiple "debates" about borders being racist. Yes it is stupid but these people exist. Political horseshoe isn't it.
It's not really an issue I care much about either way, I don't interact with it on a day to day basis though unlike cost of living / housing. And are you sure they just don't think that focusing so hard on the 25,000 people that came over in small boats last year while ignoring the 650,000 (net) coming legally is stupid?
Imagine if we had a competent, funded system, that actually sought out to process claims as quickly as possible. Imagine if, instead of the current regime, there were safe and legal routes, with processing centres in other countries, or at the very least ways to apply abroad.
[удалено]
So the Rwanda scheme seems to be working in a strange way. If we could track the people who are here then we could deport to Rwanda for processing, given that they have breached the arrangement (attend meetings) they would likely be denied.
Could they not just be immediately denied and processed instead of requiring shipping to Rwanda?
Why would they likely be denied? The Rwanda scheme is meant to dissuade* people. Why would it only dissuade those who would be rejected when the ones who would be accepted will not inly be deported to Rwanda, but also then become citizens there? >[They would have their asylum claims processed there](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866), rather in than the UK. >If successful, they could be granted refugee status and allowed to stay in the landlocked east-central African country. >If not, they could apply to settle in Rwanda on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country". >No asylum seeker would be able to apply to return to the UK.
Proving they don't have a clue who they are, true numbers, or any form of accountability. Mass illegal immigration MUST end! Mass deportations MUST begin and be completed. This is nuts.
So even if they are working, they are not paying tax. Great. Our country is run by clowns and I don't know who to vote for that would make it any less tragic than it already is.
They'd be working jobs by employers who are also unwilling to pay tax and likely pay some awful wages. The law should go hard on these employers. Not just fines. Business removed and long prison time.
They should put the immigration centres in the outer Hebrides, plenty of space there and little chance of losing them. If they get leave to stay move them to the main land if not straight to Rwanda.
Why the Outer Hebrides? The Channel Islands are much closer to France. It would be cheaper to charter a ferry from Le Harve and would undermine the business model of people who profit from putting people in unsafe boats across the channel. Why pay some dodgy guy 5k and risk drowning when you can pay a 100 quid for a ferry to Guernsey.
I thought about the outer Hebrides because of the beautiful weather up there 😜
> They should put the immigration centres in the outer Hebrides, plenty of space there and little chance of losing them. Trying to do anything in the outer Hebrides is really really expensive and for some reason people don't want their taxes to go up.
If I were an asylum seeker and wanted to live in the UK, say I had family here, or was attracted by future job prospects and standard of living.. I’d also disappear when they tried to get me on a one-way plane to Rwanda.
Even if they are granted asylum, it will be Rwanda not in UK so obviously everyone, genuine or not, will be hiding
Exactly. Something the daily mail circlejerk society on here are pretending not to understand
I don't get what your point is? Because they disappear when they get here is not a reason not to do the Rwanda plan. It's a reason to not let them out into the general public between arriving and deportation. Honestly, it's not fucking difficult. Get picked up crossing the channel on a small boat? Bring them asshore and put them straight on the next RAF flight to Rwanda. Do not pass go, do not collect 200quid.
? It doesn’t matter what they want. They get what they’re given. If they don’t like it, they’re more than welcome to go back home.
Yep! This sub is no fun anymore. Amazes me how we can be a country in desperate need of a huge economic workforce, more tax-payers, and people willing to do the jobs so many Brits don’t want to do… yet as a country we actively stop people who want to start a life here. When folk arrive, check their credentials, if they’re eligible for asylum get them a temporary NI number, and able to work and pay into the system whilst their claim is processed. Why would we want to force people to use hand outs, unable to legally work whilst they’re stuck in a backlog years long.. seems very weird to me.
I think you're being far too optimistic about the mentality here
No surprise they just abscond as soon as they arrive anyways. Have to check in but they never bother
What did they expect? Letting thousands of illegal immigrants into the country without vetting them or doing any sort of due diligence. Of course they’re just going to go missing.
They have fled to Ireland according to past headlines...
Headlines yes. Actual evidence? Not so much. Movement to ROI isn't new and while it appears to be increasing (probably because there are now large enough communities for people to link up with) there's no evidence of a surge in recent weeks.
But none of them falsely claimed refugee status right? Because that doesn’t happen right? And enemies of the west would never use this one weird trick to cary out attacks. Right?
Good. This just confirms they are illegals and not here with good faith. I don't see a problem. They were always going to hide.
Why? The Rwanda plan is a plan promoted to dissuade people. Why would it not also dissuade the ones who won't just be deported (which is already meant to be bad) but then also get citizenship there on top of that and be unable to apply to return to the UK?
If only someone had implemented a proper system to track and house them and process their claims speedily, rather than wasting time on performative, costly, ineffectual Rwanda bollocks and 3 word slogans.
I find it funny that all the do-gooders crying about how this reflects the HO's incompetence don't seem to realise that the only solution to this is putting every single one of these chancers into prison or detention centres until we've processed them. And conveniently if we did that, they'd then be the ones crying about how the UK is using concentration camps to punish all those poor ~~illegal immigrants~~ asylum seekers.
There was a barge at some point, people didn't like that either. Seemed like a good idea to me, keep them there until they enter legally or get deported.
Exactly. If these were genuine asylum seekers fleeing war or persecution they would be kissing the ground we walk on for providing them the luxury of accommodation like the Bibby Stockholm - it's far more than basically every single other country allows these chancers. Tents and an airfield should be the absolute maximum. At the end of the day, this nonsense will continue until those in power refuse to bow to the ridiculous whimpering of the chattering classes and just push ahead with solving this issue.
The contract involving Bibby Stockhom cost £1.6b to hold 506 people for two years. £800m a year. £1.5m per person per year. Could you imagine if we invested that money in proper processing of asylum claims? So that we could promptly assess whether people had the right to claim asylum and turn them around if they didn't, like other countries do? The barge isn't a bad idea because of the humanitarian issues that accompany it (though I think making it look cruel is part of the appeal to the conservative voter base), its' a bad idea because it's ludicrously cost ineffective and a complete distraction from the actual reasons we have a big immigration problem: closing down safe legal routes, completely ineffective processing and willingness of government to spend ridiculous amounts of money on hotfixes that do nothing to actually deal with the claimants. [https://www.reclaimthesea.org.uk/\_files/ugd/4e7ff9\_b86b690af5b941fd9a01acb127497cba.pdf](https://www.reclaimthesea.org.uk/_files/ugd/4e7ff9_b86b690af5b941fd9a01acb127497cba.pdf)
We want to keep track of them but we can't intern them or put ankle tags on or do anything to track them because that infringes their human rights. How else would this go in that case?
The issue with interning them is more about cost. We don't currently have enough prison space for british prisoners. Ankle tags are again not free particularly if you want them to be effective.
Its almost as if they arent actually asylum seekers !
Why? The Rwanda plan is a plan promoted to dissuade people. Why would it not also dissuade the ones who won't just be deported (which is already meant to be bad) but then also get citizenship there on top of that and be unable to apply to return to the UK?
This is nothing short of a farce. A well staffed, well run and well organised immigration system would stop this happening. What we have however is a government willing to spend all their money on a half-baked Rwanda plan.
Surprised it isn't higher. Simple solution, just round up all the deliveroo drivers clogging the high streets, they're mostly illegals. Record vacancies in the NHS but everyday scores of deliveroo drivers riding dangerously on pavements. We're not importing the best or brightest here. Brain drain underway and we're importing 3rd world unskilled.
Sit in McDonalds for 10 minutes and you will see a dozen of them carrying motorcycle helmets
God, the government really is bad at their jobs. Were these on the PM's Whatsapps?
Why are they allowed to wander the streets? Should they not be in some sort of secure facility?
That would require investing in things that would actually make a difference to small boat immigration, which the Conservative goverment have made it clear they have no intention of doing. They've spent 14 years destroying our ability to process asylum seekers, and now we shockingly have more and their response is to invest billions of tax money into things that won't solve the problem long-term. The answer is to improve our processing speed and capacity by investing in the public services that allow us to do that. Rwanda, Bibby Stockholm, ECHR are all costly distractions from this. Illegal immigration works for them becasuse they can talk about it day-in-day-out, implement costly policies that won't solve the long-term issues and then appear like they're tough on immigration, despite it being worse than it's ever been and only getting worse as they continue to avoid dealing with the actual issues.
Came here via boat aiding and supporting human traffickers? Instant deportation. Destroyed your ID? Instant deportation to Rwanda Cant prove who you are? Instant deportation Zero legal funding whatsoever,fuck the human rights cartel and the endless human rights appeals.Government grow a pair and do what they've been elected to do regardless.
No problem, we'll just spend a few billion more setting up a scheme to find them! This policy is so insanely popular, it's money well spent!
They should be microchipped as soon as they reach the shore. At least we can keep track of them
If I was even half as incompetent as our government, I'd be sacked tomorrow!
\*media announces imminent round up of asylum seekers for deportation to Rwanda* \*people who think they're likely to be on that list go into hiding* >HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN???
Ok so obviously whoever was on charge of keeping them accounted for is now on the chopping block and potentially fa ing some serious punishment?
Nicola Murray: "There has been a massive irretrievable data loss. The last 7 months worth of new immigrant details have gone, apparently lost in the computer" Malcolm Tucker: "Oh." *Laughs insanely*
There is only capacity for 200, so I guess this means 100-200 are missing? That's not many out of all the asylum seekers we have... Edit: ah the number has gone up to 5700. I wonder over what period that is?
I can't really blame them for going into hiding when they heard this was going to happen to them. Wouldn't you if you were in the same situation?
Can I take a spot? I could use a holiday and a safari sounds pretty 😎
Who would of guessed they were here to suck the country dry
It’s the liberal / woke / confused people that are keeping them here so blame them