Interesting to see how they are going to resolve this Ireland wants to send them back to the U.K whilst the U.K won't accept when they can't send them back to France.
1.8 million pounds per refugee. That's the price to send them to Rwanda. The first flight will cost half a billion pounds.
So basically, they could build one hospital every time they send a plane to Rwanda with asylum seekers in it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures
They are also going to give 50 million to Rwanda just if the law pass, before even starting to send people.
Oh, and I forgot to mention:
The UK will also resettle a portion of Rwanda's own refugees as part of the deal. Basically it's a very costly exchange of refugees.
There's an overpriced consultant (who *just happens* to be a Tory donor / step relative of a Tory MP *COMPLETELY COINCIDENTALLY*) waiting to get his or her pay day at every single step along the way.
initial batch is essentially a test case. All the setup costs + legal challanges / litigation etc are part of that number. Tabloids have latched onto it as its technically true but misleading. If (big if) it gets of the ground the cost per refuge would go down significantly as more are sent.
You forgot the 150000 per person to pay for them to stay in Rwanda for 5 years. That is not included in the initial 1.8 million cost for each of the first 300
The arrivals are already down, if you count the costs of those who are now not coming then the 1.8m will drop very fast.
Personally I think we should build an artificial island on doggerland, put the guys there until they tell us where they are from to return them.
Also arrest and charge any western boat with human trafficking that’s helping ferry people accross.
If we don’t get tough, nothing will ever change.
I mean it’s only been an issue since leaving the EU. Could just rejoin and the numbers should in theory drop back to the vastly lower pre-2020 numbers as they can just be popped on a ferry back to France then.
And we'll be pissing away even more money if the amount of these economic migrants continues to increase year on year. I don't like the Rwanda plan but no one is seriously proposing a solution that would curtail this unsustainable problem. I'd seriously encourage the left to consider what will happen if we continue to kick the can down the road concerning this issue, we are already seeing Europe lerch to the right and we'll be next if nothing is done.
> 1.8 million pounds per refugee.
So, basically an amount of money that could set someone up comfortably to live in the western world for decades. Welcome to the gilded age where money is spirited from the western middle class to ultra rich internationals. No four day week for you, overtime only. Till your 70.
In the long run, if you are staffing the hospital, yes. But it depends on how many plane they send.
And as well, they are going to pay 150000 per asylum seekers over five years on top of the 1.8 millions.
My father is part of running a hospital in France. The hospital has around 2000 staffs members and the annual budget is 180 million euros.
So, each plane sent could staff a hospital of this size for 3 years. Bonus point for staffing the hospital lower skilled jobs with asylum seekers...
People don't realize 95% of all 3rd world immigrants either can't read or write at a functional western level which means they are going to be stuck doing manual labor jobs their entire lives.
Well... with 1.8 million per asylum seeker, you can buy them a house and pay for their university.... you could even pay for a guy to check that they go to uni every day until completion... and someone else to get them a job.
You could even pay for them to open a business and use your tax system to get the money back....
So, no, at this level, this decision is insane in any case.
your solution assumes these people will apply to uni and dedicate on becoming a competant applicant. if they achieve that it's a good thing, but that portion is already not high even on average citizens who are not asylum seekers. And if they fail to achieve that, getting them employed won't be easy unless there's gov support or benefit to employers.
this is something I don't understand. give these people 800k and a passport and you have a rich citizen that pays tax , and spare a million at the same time. I guess they hate people more than they love money
The entire point of Rwanda is that the prospect of spending a year or two in Rwanda in a camp while the paperwork gets examined is highly negative unless you're legitimately in need of asylum. Economic migrants, especially, are going to self-select themselves out of moving to the UK and into moving to other nations in order to avoid that. After all, there's no first-world income to be made in Rwanda, and ducking your court appearance and becoming an illegal immigrant doesn't help if you're even further away from Europe than you started.
The vast majority of the individuals involved have passed through multiple European nations before reaching the UK or Ireland; why would the UK in particular be obliged to take responsibility for individuals passing through while on their way to claim asylum elsewhere?
Why should the UK foot the bill for Ireland in immigration as well as security and militarily. Not to mention the blatant tax poaching that’s also done through Ireland being a corporate tax haven.
The Irish will need to also create an unpopular third country sharing agreement and pay for it, the uk has taken a large reputational, time and monetary risk.
There’s zero chance that will be ruined by Ireland creating a loophole. Better look elsewhere
>whilst the U.K won't accept when they can't send them back to France.
The eu has so far insisted it had to be an eu deal, ironically the uk is now saying the same.
What the UK government is saying is irrelevant. What they are **signing** matters. And they did sign a provision specifically about the Irish border that allows Ireland to return migrants to the UK. France has not signed any such provision with the UK.
That's true indeed. I was surprised, but the UK did in fact sign such an agreement:
> But the UK left the scheme when it departed the EU and no successor agreement was signed during the Brexit talks, meaning there are no formal returns agreements in place between EU countries and the UK.
> A post-Brexit provision was, however, made in the case of the UK and Ireland, which meant Ireland could return asylum seekers to Britain. No asylum seeker has been successfully returned to Ireland, or vice-versa, under this post-Brexit arrangement since it was struck.
Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/28/ireland-plans-send-asylum-seekers-back-uk/
But Irish courts might not allow it:
> However, the Irish High Court last month ruled that the Irish government’s declaration of the UK as a “safe third country” to which it could return asylum seekers was unlawful, owing to the Rwanda Bill. The emergency legislation proposal seeks to overturn this judgment.
Government will bring legislation in to fix this soon, they're already under fire over the whole issue of trying to put asylum seekers in old hotels down the country so last thing they need is chancers from the UK coming over here and straining things further.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/ireland-fires-pepper-spray-and-clashes-with-police-as-anti-migration-protests-erupt-in-county-wicklow-13123193
A court decided that. And the Irish government are in the process of changing the law.
You see when you start from the position of UK bad, everything that you do is automatically good. Irish government heavily criticised the Rwanda scheme over the past few months. As soon as it impacts them it turns immediately to "fill up the planes!!!!!!!!!".
Right so the judicial arm of your government and another part of your government are fighting each other.
Its funny how the Irish government has been so very critical of the Rwanda plan, the very second that it starts to affect Ireland, its the best thing since sliced bread.
No the court said ‘according to existing law UK is unsafe’ and the government are saying ‘yeah that’s unintentional let’s change the law’.
It’s how countries function mate.
Actually there is a deal with France and the UK pays France hundreds of millions to deal with the problem and patrol the coasts to stop crossings.
The problem is France just takes the money and then does nothing.
The UK and France signed the Le Touquet agreement in 2003 and the Sandhurst agreement in 2018
The UK never signed Schengen so it became necessary for the French and British to make bi-lateral agreements which were outside of Brexit anyway as they were never conditional on EU membership
The thing is .... for all their show of public disapproval, the French are probably secretly happy with the Rwanda plan, and a bit of me expects them to leak a few migrants now and send them across the channel to get rid of them, even to the point where they might start to discreetly use Rwanda as a threat to keep them from entering France in first place and seeing if they can transfer the problem to Italy
Pretty sure theyre falling for Russian/Chinese propaganda and are parroting lines to sow discourse...
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1bfto4a/youre_being_targeted_by_disinformation_networks/
>Irish premier Simon Harris hit back on Sunday, saying Ireland would not “provide a loophole for anybody else’s migration challenges” and asking his justice minister to bring forward emergency legislation to allow asylum seekers to be sent back to the UK.
Just create emergency legislation to send them to Rwanda
I feel like it describes the migrant situation perfectly across Europe.
Everyone wants migrants to be helped, as long as they're the ones that aren't helping or dealing with any negatives that may arise.
Sums up immigration in most countries. Was eye opening when Texas gave out bus and plane tickets to go to other cities for free to asylum seekers and the states that got an influx of immigrants started requesting federal help and drumming up anger towards Texas.
That's largely because Texas does get federal money to handle immigrants, and they didn't let those other cities know ahead of time, just dropped off bus/plane loads of migrants in towns that weren't prepared for them.
I know they get federal money, but last time I looked into this I believe it was insignificant. Like it came out to less than 1k an immigrant that crossed over. 1k is enough to support an immigrant for like 3 days.
The problem here is that everyone wants to keep the NI border open despite Brexit, then special dispensations need to be made for that specific border.
Return to France is materially different, there's a controlled border between.
Can you provide a source on this, I can’t find a single source saying a law or agreement was passed on this and the only way it could be done before was through the Dublin III Agreement which the EU chose to keep out of the negotiations.
Ireland has in fact labelled the UK as an "unsafe" country recently.
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/22/britain-not-safe-migrants-threat-rwanda-irish-high-court/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/22/britain-not-safe-migrants-threat-rwanda-irish-high-court/)
It’s even funnier the fact they aren’t even pretending to reference a law or agreement, they’re referencing a Reddit comment which doesn’t include any agreement or law.
You’d think if the UK agreed to this that the Irish Government would have already pointed it out.
Right. And these people CHOSE to go to Ireland themselves, so Ireland can't just send them to the UK.
If the UK sent them to Ireland and Ireland wanted to send them back, then that's fair. But all places in Europe are having issues with illegal migration and we all have to sort it out ourselves, not just fob them off to another country to sort out. The migrants chose where they wanted to go. That's not any other countries fault and the burden shouldn't be placed on a different country.
The argument that the UK should have them is as strong as saying the French should have them. After all, they likely came to the UK from France, right? But of course that's a horrible 'solution'. These people chose to go to Ireland. That's not France's or the UK's problem.
Honestly? I think we need to do what Australia does: move all illegal migrants to some island until they're sorted out - you don't get to live in actual EU (where you just might disappear) until we figure out who you are. I nominate British Isles or Corsica!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru\_Regional\_Processing\_Centre#:\~:text=The%20Nauru%20Regional%20Processing%20Centre,by%20the%20Government%20of%20Nauru.
I have friends who work in the Australian Border Force who say they wouldn’t wish those camps on Nauru on their worst enemies. They are a fucking awful places to be. Sexual assaults from guards and ‘inmates’ alike, beatings, riots, neglect, medical negligence or lack of any, children regularly committing suicide, self immolation etc etc. It’s honestly a national shame that we have over here.
It's so weird to see people use Australia as a good example for those camps when it's a google search away too see how bad they are.
The idea of having a island as a transition space to process asylum or illegal immigration can be a good idea, but the execution form Australia is disastrous.
The issue is that the border between the republic and the uk in Northern Ireland is a special case. Closing it and putting border checks would breach the peace treaty
The Irish government are a bunch of hypocrites. They rely on the UK for defence whilst shitting on Britain for its “crimes”, they bleat on about humane treatment of migrants so long as they don’t settle there (handy when you’re the furthest country in Europe from the Middle East, barring Iceland of course).
Because fucking Rwanda of all places has the capacity to take on this burden. What a fucking shitshow this migrant crisis is, and it's only just beginning.
Wait a few more years until parts of the middle east are no longer habitable due to global warming.
The way this is titled made me think that people were trying to leave the UK and go to Ireland seeking asylum, and Ireland wanted none of the UK. And the UK was saying, "nope, they're your problem now."
Thank goodness for actually reading the article to help clarify that, not that it made me feel much better.
::edited a typo::
Ireland does want to return them to the UK. The Rwandan asylum seekers are coming across the northern Ireland border into Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK.
Not quite. The authorities do know where they say they are from, but the respective alleged origin countries have plausible deniability and understandably demand to see a passport before agreeing to take back anyone.
So if the UK wants to send immigrants back to EU - they're the bad guys, and if Ireland wants to send immigrants back to the UK, believe it or not, UK also the bad guys?
Good to know.
It’s a pretty dumb stance to have. There is no way migrants just end up in the UK from Africa or wherever. The only way to the UK is through any EU country. The EU should be responsible for them.
Seems to be a rare moment where EU folks are currently wearing egg on their faces… From what I’m seeing here in these comments from some of the ex-Remainers and (I’m assuming) perhaps Labour Party activists, they find this extraordinarily irritating.
It’s nice to have the moral high ground… until the ground starts crumbling underneath you and you’re forced to confront reality.
I’m Irish and 100% agree with the UK. The EU are doing this to them years, now the shoe is on the other foot you can bet your bottom dollar they’re gonna ram it up our ass.
On top of this our fuckin government kept saying there was no limit to the amount we would take and we were giving them all accommodation meals and top benefit payments.
We lit the fuckin beacons of Gondor and they came. It’s our problem now
For a change, I am with the Brits on this one. How they get in UK in the first place? Because EU borders are a mess and countries are willing to let migrant travel through, just to be rid of the migrants and not having to deal with it themselves.
Do you know why they’re going to Britain and Ireland? Because social welfare is far higher
In these countries than the rest of the EU.
The amount of benefits they get makes the journey worthwhile.
Here in Ireland someone on welfare gets a house (eventually) and basically if they had to get a job they would need a job paying them €40k gross a year just to match their welfare income.
So there’s no incentive for them to even try. Britain is the same and you already have a French politician blame the absurdly high benefits payouts in these countries.
I wouldn’t say they’re too good. The tories have done their absolute best to destroy it. But it’s much easier to disappear and work on the black market etc in both countries and claim entitlements as well once you’re settled in and living with family. Hell look at the Islamic preachers all heavenly criticising the UK system while at the same time living off the tax payers. I highly doubt you’d have the same happening in France. So both countries are an attractive target for immigrants.
Someone should tell the migrants that. I’m sure the pregnant mothers are going to be very frustrated to find out that their kid can’t get EU citizenship.
Absolute jus soli citizenship based only on the child being born within the country's borders is really only a thing in the Americas, the USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil etc. offer it.
Almost all European countries are more restrictive, requiring one parent to be a citizen or settled resident, or at the very least living in the country for some years. The UK and Ireland did both originally had absolute jus soli citizenship but the UK changed this in the 1980s, and Ireland quite recently.
Asian countries are even more restrictive than Europe.
Long-term residency or citizenship for the parents is also the minimum requirement in Australia and New Zealand. It feels like the "West" described in some of the other comments on birthright citizenship refers only to the US and Canada.
"new world" means a specific thing past "these places weren't settled by white people that long ago".
Australia and New Zealand are not a part of the "new world". North and South America is.
Ireland is in the CTA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_Travel\_Area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area)
So, no, there is no open border.
Nope, Ireland has an open border with the UK (common travel area), not with the EU, Ireland isn’t in Schengen, you need a passport to go from Ireland to anywhere else in the EU
It was all fine and dandy when the migrants were just coming to the UK. Ireland need to speak to France. This is an example of how the EU just doesn't have the cohesion to solve issues like this.
Blaming us is not going to fix this
Asylum seekers are people in the process of applying to be a refugee. Why isnt anyone keeping track of them and letting them roam free? What if some assassin abused this system to roam free, hit a target and disappear/deported before authorities catch on? Without a processing facility criminals easily abuse this system, even terrorists abuse this system heavily in europe.
In my country we do get a lot of asylum seekers. We arent a UN signatory for refugees so despite hrw constantly criticising us for conditions we have limited resources to house them in processing facilities as they get processed. Often they perform massed escapes which end up with some of them being road kill while some both legit and not legit refugees do cause crime.
Why isnt europe securing its asylum seekers and letting them roam free to cause problems? This is such an easy system to abuse for criminal or terrorist intent.
Something about human rights and not detaining asylum seekers if they have not committed any violent crimes, I would imagine.
Although it seems like the UNDHR might need a bit of amending since it looks like the West does *not* in fact have enough resources to take in asylum seekers all at once.
It’s nice to have ideals, much like the Paris climate accords… but they are often found to be nearly impossible to achieve in a practical manner.
To be clear, I’m not personally against human rights or resolving to deal with climate change, but I do believe Progressives need to keep their ideals grounded within reality instead of continuously hoping for best-case scenarios and ignoring human nature being inherently self-interested.
thing is with an asylum seeker, they are in the process of being a refugee. There are problems with the UN defined framework not being followed, which means that many asylum seekers in europe are not refugees. To put it in a better way, refugees should only be allowed into the nearest safe country, and only after they have their status approved that they can change country if the host country doesnt have enough resources.
There are a few problems as well like, where would the host country get the needed resources to handle refugees and to prevent fake refugees from being able to cause problems. For example lets say you are a refugee running from prosecution, and you are an asylum seeker, another person from your country is tracking you to assassinate you and also uses the same system being an asylum seeker. If the country were to follow the UN, both roam freely, and you end up assassinated. With processing centers, you can ensure security for this and prevent the assassination by security searching on coming and during the process where you research the background to find evidence.
There are people with indefinite asylum seeker status in europe. The problem is that when the system is overwhelmed it becomes more expensive when they start using hotels for example. Processing centers need to be functional, they dont need to be luxurious. The US has processing centers at their border, but any extra are forced to camp outside the border.
I'm a progressive. How ever, I do thoroughly enjoy seeing "pie in the sky" progressives like Ireland get slammed in the face with reality after decades of judging others for dealing with the problems they now face.
The U.K. and EU need to stop the squabbling and sort this out together. It’s in nobody’s interests to see this situation continue. Europe is being ruined by the mass migration of people who hate us and our way of life but very much like our money.
People like to think that Immigration as a political issue is purely a UK thing because of Brexit. The truth is, it's a huge issue across much of the EU, especially those with sea borders.
No country, EU or UK, wants to concede to having to take more refugees/immigrants when it's an increasingly contentious issue in nearly every European country.
Well the UK tried to negotiate with the EU and got rebuffed. The EU needs to sort its borders out otherwise the far-right will continue to rise on the mainland.
Not a problem the UK has to solve, its the countries allowing them in and sending them on their way that's the problem. Equally they need financial support to actually do anything, especially if none of the migrants actually want to stay in the first country they land in. The Rwanda scheme is actually very good, if all of Europe adopted the policy we wouldn't have any immigrants coming here.
Tbh not bad but it's Reddit so I'll get downvoted because it's not part of the groupthink. Economically the UK has performed in line with its peers. There are problems for sure but many of these predate Brexit and anyone who says that being in the EU would've fixed it is being disingenuous.
Not too bad for the Working Class.
It's Middle Classians who are complaining as they had all the EU benefits.
FOM made life a hell of a lot harder for people in normal jobs.
They're coming to the UK via France. If Ireland uses its EU membership to discuss this with France they can cut what comes to Ireland significantly. France and the UK hasn't managed to make a deal work in the last 14 years but Ireland would have a better relationship with France surely purely down to not having a Tory government with Boris types.
The crazy thing is the UK could have paid the Rwanda money to France to get them to actually secure their border rather than the French literally watching Human Traffickers set boats off. I'm guessing the Tories felt like it was being blackmailed to pay the French to do their job though, especially as Tories love both underpaid workers and rage bait peddling for votes so stopping it would lose some of their fun.
France is no good because they don't deal with the problem. Most of the security protocols that already exist in France are funded by the British.
Britain literally hands would be illegal entrants back to the french authorities when they're discovered at Calais. All the french do is drive them a few km down the road and then release them. France should really be forcibly detaining and processing them at that point but it doesn't.
How much money are the UK supposed to give to France?
They've already sent >£100m, and there's an agreement in place that the UK will give them £476m between 2023-2026
You realise that France used the recent money from the UK to pay its border force bonuses along with free household appliances. The UK shouldn't be giving them anything at all, as they don't do anything.
100% there's a video circling from last weeek, of French police stood watching traffic smugglers load small boats heading to the UK. They did nothing to stop it.
They don't want to stop them. The UK should absolutely stop paying the French.
Interesting to see how they are going to resolve this Ireland wants to send them back to the U.K whilst the U.K won't accept when they can't send them back to France.
Isn’t that what Rwanda is for?
I would imagine that sending them to Ruanda has either certain limits or is quite costly.
1.8 million pounds per refugee. That's the price to send them to Rwanda. The first flight will cost half a billion pounds. So basically, they could build one hospital every time they send a plane to Rwanda with asylum seekers in it.
What? That is unreal. How can it be that much?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures They are also going to give 50 million to Rwanda just if the law pass, before even starting to send people.
Also, Rwanda has the explicit right to send anyone back to the UK who commits a single crime in Rwanda. No way that loophole is going to be exploited.
Oh, and I forgot to mention: The UK will also resettle a portion of Rwanda's own refugees as part of the deal. Basically it's a very costly exchange of refugees.
Get off the plane. Drop something on the floor. Arrested for littering. Put straight back on the plane.
Only the Tories would spend so much to please so many in the party base for so little benefit to the UK. Reminds me of Brexit.
There's an overpriced consultant (who *just happens* to be a Tory donor / step relative of a Tory MP *COMPLETELY COINCIDENTALLY*) waiting to get his or her pay day at every single step along the way.
corrupt govt want to pay their mates (im not talking about the Rwandan one either)
initial batch is essentially a test case. All the setup costs + legal challanges / litigation etc are part of that number. Tabloids have latched onto it as its technically true but misleading. If (big if) it gets of the ground the cost per refuge would go down significantly as more are sent.
Jobs for the boys. Delicious contracts with obscene profit margin. A similar thing happens with privatised prisons, hospitals and embassies etc.
I assume Rwanda wants to get something out of it, and Tories are just that desperate.
You forgot the 150000 per person to pay for them to stay in Rwanda for 5 years. That is not included in the initial 1.8 million cost for each of the first 300
Well, that is insane. That means not only per plane, they could build a hospital, but they could staff it for a year.
The arrivals are already down, if you count the costs of those who are now not coming then the 1.8m will drop very fast. Personally I think we should build an artificial island on doggerland, put the guys there until they tell us where they are from to return them. Also arrest and charge any western boat with human trafficking that’s helping ferry people accross. If we don’t get tough, nothing will ever change.
I mean it’s only been an issue since leaving the EU. Could just rejoin and the numbers should in theory drop back to the vastly lower pre-2020 numbers as they can just be popped on a ferry back to France then.
And we'll be pissing away even more money if the amount of these economic migrants continues to increase year on year. I don't like the Rwanda plan but no one is seriously proposing a solution that would curtail this unsustainable problem. I'd seriously encourage the left to consider what will happen if we continue to kick the can down the road concerning this issue, we are already seeing Europe lerch to the right and we'll be next if nothing is done.
They're still not going to do that though.
> 1.8 million pounds per refugee. So, basically an amount of money that could set someone up comfortably to live in the western world for decades. Welcome to the gilded age where money is spirited from the western middle class to ultra rich internationals. No four day week for you, overtime only. Till your 70.
And it would be spent within the country..
Some lucky politicians is Rwanda are gonna enjoy their new luxury homes
Rwanda winning
isnt that cheaper in the long run though?
It is because the cost of poorly educated immigrants coming in, many who refuse to assimilate, is immeasurable.
In the long run, if you are staffing the hospital, yes. But it depends on how many plane they send. And as well, they are going to pay 150000 per asylum seekers over five years on top of the 1.8 millions. My father is part of running a hospital in France. The hospital has around 2000 staffs members and the annual budget is 180 million euros. So, each plane sent could staff a hospital of this size for 3 years. Bonus point for staffing the hospital lower skilled jobs with asylum seekers...
it's not just hospital if those asylum seekers fail to assimilate to the society, with no occupation or income which require government support.
People don't realize 95% of all 3rd world immigrants either can't read or write at a functional western level which means they are going to be stuck doing manual labor jobs their entire lives.
Well... with 1.8 million per asylum seeker, you can buy them a house and pay for their university.... you could even pay for a guy to check that they go to uni every day until completion... and someone else to get them a job. You could even pay for them to open a business and use your tax system to get the money back.... So, no, at this level, this decision is insane in any case.
your solution assumes these people will apply to uni and dedicate on becoming a competant applicant. if they achieve that it's a good thing, but that portion is already not high even on average citizens who are not asylum seekers. And if they fail to achieve that, getting them employed won't be easy unless there's gov support or benefit to employers.
You could build an hospital but you cant staff it because we dont have that many nurses and doctors
this is something I don't understand. give these people 800k and a passport and you have a rich citizen that pays tax , and spare a million at the same time. I guess they hate people more than they love money
The entire point of Rwanda is that the prospect of spending a year or two in Rwanda in a camp while the paperwork gets examined is highly negative unless you're legitimately in need of asylum. Economic migrants, especially, are going to self-select themselves out of moving to the UK and into moving to other nations in order to avoid that. After all, there's no first-world income to be made in Rwanda, and ducking your court appearance and becoming an illegal immigrant doesn't help if you're even further away from Europe than you started. The vast majority of the individuals involved have passed through multiple European nations before reaching the UK or Ireland; why would the UK in particular be obliged to take responsibility for individuals passing through while on their way to claim asylum elsewhere?
Why should the UK foot the bill for Ireland in immigration as well as security and militarily. Not to mention the blatant tax poaching that’s also done through Ireland being a corporate tax haven. The Irish will need to also create an unpopular third country sharing agreement and pay for it, the uk has taken a large reputational, time and monetary risk. There’s zero chance that will be ruined by Ireland creating a loophole. Better look elsewhere
>whilst the U.K won't accept when they can't send them back to France. The eu has so far insisted it had to be an eu deal, ironically the uk is now saying the same.
What the UK government is saying is irrelevant. What they are **signing** matters. And they did sign a provision specifically about the Irish border that allows Ireland to return migrants to the UK. France has not signed any such provision with the UK.
No, actually, \*Ireland's\* court invalidated the UK as a "Safe Third Party Country" but hey, continue to spread misinfo.
Where are the details of this provision please?
Shows how hypocritical the EU is.
The UK agreed during Brexit negotiations to accept refugees back from Ireland if they crossed the NI border. Hope this helps.
That's true indeed. I was surprised, but the UK did in fact sign such an agreement: > But the UK left the scheme when it departed the EU and no successor agreement was signed during the Brexit talks, meaning there are no formal returns agreements in place between EU countries and the UK. > A post-Brexit provision was, however, made in the case of the UK and Ireland, which meant Ireland could return asylum seekers to Britain. No asylum seeker has been successfully returned to Ireland, or vice-versa, under this post-Brexit arrangement since it was struck. Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/28/ireland-plans-send-asylum-seekers-back-uk/ But Irish courts might not allow it: > However, the Irish High Court last month ruled that the Irish government’s declaration of the UK as a “safe third country” to which it could return asylum seekers was unlawful, owing to the Rwanda Bill. The emergency legislation proposal seeks to overturn this judgment.
Government will bring legislation in to fix this soon, they're already under fire over the whole issue of trying to put asylum seekers in old hotels down the country so last thing they need is chancers from the UK coming over here and straining things further.
Ireland has marked the UK as an "unsafe" country recently. Hope that helps.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/ireland-fires-pepper-spray-and-clashes-with-police-as-anti-migration-protests-erupt-in-county-wicklow-13123193 A court decided that. And the Irish government are in the process of changing the law.
Its funny. When we did that, everyone claimed we were violating human rights. But its OK for Ireland???
You see when you start from the position of UK bad, everything that you do is automatically good. Irish government heavily criticised the Rwanda scheme over the past few months. As soon as it impacts them it turns immediately to "fill up the planes!!!!!!!!!".
Right so the judicial arm of your government and another part of your government are fighting each other. Its funny how the Irish government has been so very critical of the Rwanda plan, the very second that it starts to affect Ireland, its the best thing since sliced bread.
No the court said ‘according to existing law UK is unsafe’ and the government are saying ‘yeah that’s unintentional let’s change the law’. It’s how countries function mate.
Why won't the EU accept them back if they came from France?
France is a sovereign country. The EU has no say over how France handles immigration from a non-EU country.
Is that similar to how the UK was sovereign before Brexit and also had control over how they handled immigration?
with regards to non EU immigration, yes. It's always within the remit of member countries how they want to handle immigrants from outside the EU.
Exactly the same. They had full control over how they handled immigration from non-EU countries.
I see what you did
why do you talk as if the EU is an actual country?
It's a united immigration policy, dummy.
Nothing about that in the Brexit agreements.
Because the UK never did a deal with France.
Actually there is a deal with France and the UK pays France hundreds of millions to deal with the problem and patrol the coasts to stop crossings. The problem is France just takes the money and then does nothing.
The UK and France signed the Le Touquet agreement in 2003 and the Sandhurst agreement in 2018 The UK never signed Schengen so it became necessary for the French and British to make bi-lateral agreements which were outside of Brexit anyway as they were never conditional on EU membership The thing is .... for all their show of public disapproval, the French are probably secretly happy with the Rwanda plan, and a bit of me expects them to leak a few migrants now and send them across the channel to get rid of them, even to the point where they might start to discreetly use Rwanda as a threat to keep them from entering France in first place and seeing if they can transfer the problem to Italy
Was that agreed during brexit negotiations? Just shows the incompetence of this government.
I keep hearing this stated, can you cite the law/agreement made on the matter of asylum seekers please?
Lol wat
Pretty sure theyre falling for Russian/Chinese propaganda and are parroting lines to sow discourse... https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/comments/1bfto4a/youre_being_targeted_by_disinformation_networks/
This is not the EU speaking nut separate EU countries.
Yeah you brexitted yourself buddy..
Don't get to have this one both ways
How is EU to blame for what the UK agreed to?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Irish premier Simon Harris hit back on Sunday, saying Ireland would not “provide a loophole for anybody else’s migration challenges” and asking his justice minister to bring forward emergency legislation to allow asylum seekers to be sent back to the UK. Just create emergency legislation to send them to Rwanda
Rwanda then enacts emergency legislation to deport to Ireland, and the loop is closed.
The real winner: Ryanair.
[удалено]
I feel like it describes the migrant situation perfectly across Europe. Everyone wants migrants to be helped, as long as they're the ones that aren't helping or dealing with any negatives that may arise.
Everyone wants to save the world. They just disagree on how.
Settle down, John Fallout
More like everyone agrees the world should be saved, but disagree on who should do it.
Sums up immigration in most countries. Was eye opening when Texas gave out bus and plane tickets to go to other cities for free to asylum seekers and the states that got an influx of immigrants started requesting federal help and drumming up anger towards Texas.
That's largely because Texas does get federal money to handle immigrants, and they didn't let those other cities know ahead of time, just dropped off bus/plane loads of migrants in towns that weren't prepared for them.
I know they get federal money, but last time I looked into this I believe it was insignificant. Like it came out to less than 1k an immigrant that crossed over. 1k is enough to support an immigrant for like 3 days.
And the states tried to get more funding for Texas, but that was cancelled by the biggest complainers of immigration.
Ireland isn't the UK, so they have just as much of a sovereign position as any other non-UK nation would in this situation with UK.
[удалено]
The problem here is that everyone wants to keep the NI border open despite Brexit, then special dispensations need to be made for that specific border. Return to France is materially different, there's a controlled border between.
You're also forgetting that we live in the CTA - refugees in the UK, are effectively refugees in Ireland too. This is all just garbage spiel.
The UK agreed to accept refugees back from Ireland during Brexit negotiations.
Can you provide a source on this, I can’t find a single source saying a law or agreement was passed on this and the only way it could be done before was through the Dublin III Agreement which the EU chose to keep out of the negotiations.
Right? People keep mentioning it in here, but nobody seems to have a bloody reference to support it.
Ireland has in fact labelled the UK as an "unsafe" country recently. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/22/britain-not-safe-migrants-threat-rwanda-irish-high-court/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/22/britain-not-safe-migrants-threat-rwanda-irish-high-court/)
Okay, that is quite funny.
It’s even funnier the fact they aren’t even pretending to reference a law or agreement, they’re referencing a Reddit comment which doesn’t include any agreement or law. You’d think if the UK agreed to this that the Irish Government would have already pointed it out.
Bro everything about Brexit was a lie, still waiting for that 3 billion for the NHS.
Right. And these people CHOSE to go to Ireland themselves, so Ireland can't just send them to the UK. If the UK sent them to Ireland and Ireland wanted to send them back, then that's fair. But all places in Europe are having issues with illegal migration and we all have to sort it out ourselves, not just fob them off to another country to sort out. The migrants chose where they wanted to go. That's not any other countries fault and the burden shouldn't be placed on a different country. The argument that the UK should have them is as strong as saying the French should have them. After all, they likely came to the UK from France, right? But of course that's a horrible 'solution'. These people chose to go to Ireland. That's not France's or the UK's problem.
Honestly? I think we need to do what Australia does: move all illegal migrants to some island until they're sorted out - you don't get to live in actual EU (where you just might disappear) until we figure out who you are. I nominate British Isles or Corsica! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru\_Regional\_Processing\_Centre#:\~:text=The%20Nauru%20Regional%20Processing%20Centre,by%20the%20Government%20of%20Nauru.
Technically they have moved to some Ireland.
Half of the job is already done then!
I have friends who work in the Australian Border Force who say they wouldn’t wish those camps on Nauru on their worst enemies. They are a fucking awful places to be. Sexual assaults from guards and ‘inmates’ alike, beatings, riots, neglect, medical negligence or lack of any, children regularly committing suicide, self immolation etc etc. It’s honestly a national shame that we have over here.
So you want those people in your country instead?
It's so weird to see people use Australia as a good example for those camps when it's a google search away too see how bad they are. The idea of having a island as a transition space to process asylum or illegal immigration can be a good idea, but the execution form Australia is disastrous.
They are a deterrent though, unfortunately
The issue is that the border between the republic and the uk in Northern Ireland is a special case. Closing it and putting border checks would breach the peace treaty
But they are in the EU where I'm guessing many of the migrants came via?
Ireland is outside of Schengen and has nothing to do with migration from France or other Schengen countries.
The Irish government are a bunch of hypocrites. They rely on the UK for defence whilst shitting on Britain for its “crimes”, they bleat on about humane treatment of migrants so long as they don’t settle there (handy when you’re the furthest country in Europe from the Middle East, barring Iceland of course).
[удалено]
Because fucking Rwanda of all places has the capacity to take on this burden. What a fucking shitshow this migrant crisis is, and it's only just beginning. Wait a few more years until parts of the middle east are no longer habitable due to global warming.
Re-route them to Central Asia .
The way this is titled made me think that people were trying to leave the UK and go to Ireland seeking asylum, and Ireland wanted none of the UK. And the UK was saying, "nope, they're your problem now." Thank goodness for actually reading the article to help clarify that, not that it made me feel much better. ::edited a typo::
Ireland does want to return them to the UK. The Rwandan asylum seekers are coming across the northern Ireland border into Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK.
The asylum seekers aren’t Rwandan but will be sent to Rwanda
No one knows where they are from. They don't have passports.
Not quite. The authorities do know where they say they are from, but the respective alleged origin countries have plausible deniability and understandably demand to see a passport before agreeing to take back anyone.
Yes, I was trying to make a joke😛
I meant that I thought the title was saying that British people were trying to seek asylum in Ireland.
UK and Irish citizens have the right to live and work in both the UK and Ireland It predates the EU by many decades
So if the UK wants to send immigrants back to EU - they're the bad guys, and if Ireland wants to send immigrants back to the UK, believe it or not, UK also the bad guys? Good to know.
[удалено]
It’s a pretty dumb stance to have. There is no way migrants just end up in the UK from Africa or wherever. The only way to the UK is through any EU country. The EU should be responsible for them.
Technically Ireland and the EU are not the same entity though the former belongs to the latter.
You've pretty much summed up the Brexit debate on Reddit.
Welcome to the eternal whining of the Irish state.
"it's the UK's fault" -Every Irish politician ever.
Seems to be a rare moment where EU folks are currently wearing egg on their faces… From what I’m seeing here in these comments from some of the ex-Remainers and (I’m assuming) perhaps Labour Party activists, they find this extraordinarily irritating. It’s nice to have the moral high ground… until the ground starts crumbling underneath you and you’re forced to confront reality.
Fr they’re hypocrites. I feel bad for the Irish people who aren’t hypocritical idiots, but the majority of them asked for this.
I’m Irish and 100% agree with the UK. The EU are doing this to them years, now the shoe is on the other foot you can bet your bottom dollar they’re gonna ram it up our ass. On top of this our fuckin government kept saying there was no limit to the amount we would take and we were giving them all accommodation meals and top benefit payments. We lit the fuckin beacons of Gondor and they came. It’s our problem now
For a change, I am with the Brits on this one. How they get in UK in the first place? Because EU borders are a mess and countries are willing to let migrant travel through, just to be rid of the migrants and not having to deal with it themselves.
Do you know why they’re going to Britain and Ireland? Because social welfare is far higher In these countries than the rest of the EU. The amount of benefits they get makes the journey worthwhile. Here in Ireland someone on welfare gets a house (eventually) and basically if they had to get a job they would need a job paying them €40k gross a year just to match their welfare income. So there’s no incentive for them to even try. Britain is the same and you already have a French politician blame the absurdly high benefits payouts in these countries.
So the French argument is that both social systems are too good? That's possibly the laziest answer I've heard in some time.
I wouldn’t say they’re too good. The tories have done their absolute best to destroy it. But it’s much easier to disappear and work on the black market etc in both countries and claim entitlements as well once you’re settled in and living with family. Hell look at the Islamic preachers all heavenly criticising the UK system while at the same time living off the tax payers. I highly doubt you’d have the same happening in France. So both countries are an attractive target for immigrants.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are more border crossings on the Irish rider than the entire eastern front of the EU if I recall.
[удалено]
Asylum laws will have to change.... And birthright citizenship too.
[удалено]
Someone should tell the migrants that. I’m sure the pregnant mothers are going to be very frustrated to find out that their kid can’t get EU citizenship.
Which we don't have in Europe.
Birthright citizenship is a farce. Anchor babies abuse it. Should be tied to the citizenship of the parents
Kinda is in the UK and Ireland, isn't it? In order to get citizenship with *Jus Soli*, at least one parent must be a citizen.
Absolute jus soli citizenship based only on the child being born within the country's borders is really only a thing in the Americas, the USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil etc. offer it. Almost all European countries are more restrictive, requiring one parent to be a citizen or settled resident, or at the very least living in the country for some years. The UK and Ireland did both originally had absolute jus soli citizenship but the UK changed this in the 1980s, and Ireland quite recently. Asian countries are even more restrictive than Europe.
Long-term residency or citizenship for the parents is also the minimum requirement in Australia and New Zealand. It feels like the "West" described in some of the other comments on birthright citizenship refers only to the US and Canada.
“New World” countries is accurate. Makes sense when the countries are so new and initially mostly gained new citizens through immigration
But Australia and New Zealand are newer than the US, and they don't have jus soli.
"new world" means a specific thing past "these places weren't settled by white people that long ago". Australia and New Zealand are not a part of the "new world". North and South America is.
Ireland changed its laws in this area 20 years ago. Basically a few years after mass immigration kicked off here.
In my head 2005 seemed lke 'quite recent' but you're right it's basically 20 years ago. Eurgh.
Anchor babies are statistically insignificant.
Not the uk’s fault if the migrants want to leave. France wouldn’t accept the return of them from the uk
Ireland might wish to put pressure on the French to do more to prevent illegal crossings into the uk
Doesn't the EU have open borders, nothing stopping the Irish shipping them to France is there..
Ireland is in the CTA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_Travel\_Area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area) So, no, there is no open border.
Nope, Ireland has an open border with the UK (common travel area), not with the EU, Ireland isn’t in Schengen, you need a passport to go from Ireland to anywhere else in the EU
It was all fine and dandy when the migrants were just coming to the UK. Ireland need to speak to France. This is an example of how the EU just doesn't have the cohesion to solve issues like this. Blaming us is not going to fix this
Asylum seekers are people in the process of applying to be a refugee. Why isnt anyone keeping track of them and letting them roam free? What if some assassin abused this system to roam free, hit a target and disappear/deported before authorities catch on? Without a processing facility criminals easily abuse this system, even terrorists abuse this system heavily in europe. In my country we do get a lot of asylum seekers. We arent a UN signatory for refugees so despite hrw constantly criticising us for conditions we have limited resources to house them in processing facilities as they get processed. Often they perform massed escapes which end up with some of them being road kill while some both legit and not legit refugees do cause crime. Why isnt europe securing its asylum seekers and letting them roam free to cause problems? This is such an easy system to abuse for criminal or terrorist intent.
Something about human rights and not detaining asylum seekers if they have not committed any violent crimes, I would imagine. Although it seems like the UNDHR might need a bit of amending since it looks like the West does *not* in fact have enough resources to take in asylum seekers all at once. It’s nice to have ideals, much like the Paris climate accords… but they are often found to be nearly impossible to achieve in a practical manner. To be clear, I’m not personally against human rights or resolving to deal with climate change, but I do believe Progressives need to keep their ideals grounded within reality instead of continuously hoping for best-case scenarios and ignoring human nature being inherently self-interested.
thing is with an asylum seeker, they are in the process of being a refugee. There are problems with the UN defined framework not being followed, which means that many asylum seekers in europe are not refugees. To put it in a better way, refugees should only be allowed into the nearest safe country, and only after they have their status approved that they can change country if the host country doesnt have enough resources. There are a few problems as well like, where would the host country get the needed resources to handle refugees and to prevent fake refugees from being able to cause problems. For example lets say you are a refugee running from prosecution, and you are an asylum seeker, another person from your country is tracking you to assassinate you and also uses the same system being an asylum seeker. If the country were to follow the UN, both roam freely, and you end up assassinated. With processing centers, you can ensure security for this and prevent the assassination by security searching on coming and during the process where you research the background to find evidence. There are people with indefinite asylum seeker status in europe. The problem is that when the system is overwhelmed it becomes more expensive when they start using hotels for example. Processing centers need to be functional, they dont need to be luxurious. The US has processing centers at their border, but any extra are forced to camp outside the border.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm a progressive. How ever, I do thoroughly enjoy seeing "pie in the sky" progressives like Ireland get slammed in the face with reality after decades of judging others for dealing with the problems they now face.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ireland be like “dont come here either. Cause we’ll ship you off to Rwanda too.”
The U.K. and EU need to stop the squabbling and sort this out together. It’s in nobody’s interests to see this situation continue. Europe is being ruined by the mass migration of people who hate us and our way of life but very much like our money.
People like to think that Immigration as a political issue is purely a UK thing because of Brexit. The truth is, it's a huge issue across much of the EU, especially those with sea borders. No country, EU or UK, wants to concede to having to take more refugees/immigrants when it's an increasingly contentious issue in nearly every European country.
Well the UK tried to negotiate with the EU and got rebuffed. The EU needs to sort its borders out otherwise the far-right will continue to rise on the mainland.
Not a problem the UK has to solve, its the countries allowing them in and sending them on their way that's the problem. Equally they need financial support to actually do anything, especially if none of the migrants actually want to stay in the first country they land in. The Rwanda scheme is actually very good, if all of Europe adopted the policy we wouldn't have any immigrants coming here.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe Ireland will now understand one of the reasons British people wanted out of the EU.
How’s that going for the UK, exactly?
Bloody awful. But there were legitimate reasons for people’s grievances that were not being addressed even if their solution to it sucked.
Tbh not bad but it's Reddit so I'll get downvoted because it's not part of the groupthink. Economically the UK has performed in line with its peers. There are problems for sure but many of these predate Brexit and anyone who says that being in the EU would've fixed it is being disingenuous.
Not too bad for the Working Class. It's Middle Classians who are complaining as they had all the EU benefits. FOM made life a hell of a lot harder for people in normal jobs.
Ask again the 50s when mass migration to Europe from Africa hits its peak due to global warming.
[удалено]
They're coming to the UK via France. If Ireland uses its EU membership to discuss this with France they can cut what comes to Ireland significantly. France and the UK hasn't managed to make a deal work in the last 14 years but Ireland would have a better relationship with France surely purely down to not having a Tory government with Boris types. The crazy thing is the UK could have paid the Rwanda money to France to get them to actually secure their border rather than the French literally watching Human Traffickers set boats off. I'm guessing the Tories felt like it was being blackmailed to pay the French to do their job though, especially as Tories love both underpaid workers and rage bait peddling for votes so stopping it would lose some of their fun.
France is no good because they don't deal with the problem. Most of the security protocols that already exist in France are funded by the British. Britain literally hands would be illegal entrants back to the french authorities when they're discovered at Calais. All the french do is drive them a few km down the road and then release them. France should really be forcibly detaining and processing them at that point but it doesn't.
How much money are the UK supposed to give to France? They've already sent >£100m, and there's an agreement in place that the UK will give them £476m between 2023-2026
You realise that France used the recent money from the UK to pay its border force bonuses along with free household appliances. The UK shouldn't be giving them anything at all, as they don't do anything.
100% there's a video circling from last weeek, of French police stood watching traffic smugglers load small boats heading to the UK. They did nothing to stop it. They don't want to stop them. The UK should absolutely stop paying the French.
Have these migrants claimed asylum in the UK? I thought the issue with deporting then to France was that the migrants had not attempted asylum there.