Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE UK HOME Secretary has said she is “pushing ahead” with plans to send migrants to Rwanda after more than 900 crossed the Channel in four days.
Priti Patel said work was taking place “right now” with the East African nation’s government as the two countries roll out the deportation policy.
It comes as 907 people arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel between Saturday and Tuesday.
According to the Home Office, Patel discussed progress on the agreement in a meeting with Rwandan foreign minister Vincent Biruta, before the pair travel to Geneva tomorrow for meetings with the UN’s refugee agency the UNHCR and other bodies.
Patel said: “We are pushing ahead with delivering this world-leading plan which epitomises the kind of international approach that is required to tackle an international challenge like the migration crisis.
“I look forward to meeting UNHCR representatives with Minister Biruta this week, as we continue the vital conversation on illegal migration and the importance of global cooperation.”
Since the start of this year, 8,697 people have reached the UK after navigating busy shipping lanes from France in small boats, according to analysis of Government data by the PA news agency.
This is now more than the number recorded throughout the whole of 2020 (8,466), official Home Office figures show.
There were 285 people who made the crossing in seven boats on Tuesday, and 19 in one boat on Monday, 436 in nine boats on Sunday and 167 in 13 boats on Saturday, according to Ministry of Defence (MoD) figures.
Asked what she was doing now to curb Channel crossings while work on the Rwanda deal takes place, Ms Patel told the PA news agency: “These crossings are dangerous, put together by people smugglers who are just exploiting people that think that they can come to our country through these dangerous routes, and the point about the migration and economic development partnership that we have with Rwanda is actually about removing those who come to our country illegally and have no basis to be in our country.
“That work is taking place right now. Our discussions with my counterparts in the government in Rwanda are taking place right now in terms of our removal plans. We are operationalising that work right now, as the British public would expect, post the announcement of our plan last month.”
Speaking during a visit to a London fire station, Patel added: “But I think there is a really important message here from our Government that we will simply not tolerate people smugglers, the criminality that takes place, and do not forget as well in the last fortnight Parliament has passed the Nationality and Borders Act, as it now is, which has focused predominantly on going after the people smugglers, making sure that our legal processes absolutely go after those smugglers, but actually enable us as a Government and a country to remove those individuals with no legal basis to be in our country to a third country.”
Meanwhile Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton Kevin Hollinrake urged Boris Johnson to stop plans for an asylum processing centre in his constituency.
Raising the issue during Prime Minister’s Questions, Hollinrake said the plan will “devastate the community” in Linton-on-Ouse, with residents not feeling “safe to leave their homes alone”.
Johnson told the backbencher he heard his concerns “loud and clear” and there will be “further meetings” between him and the Home Office about what can be done.
It comes after North Yorkshire councillors said the Government department intends to move 60 asylum seekers into a disused RAF base by the end of the month, despite opposition from locals.
Hambleton District Council, which is seeking a judicial review of the plans, said it has asked ministers to pause the proposal “immediately”.
You are not an asylum seeker if you cross from France or another European country which is safe in order to reach the UK. That is not a reasonable asylum process. That is economic migration. Asylum is granted to keep people safe from war, from death. You should not get your choice of “venue”. No country should have to take in an endless stream of migrants. The problems of African nations are UNSOLVABLE via migration. Why? Because over a billion people may want to migrate. That is not feasible.
If the UK can work with the Rwandan government to prove a place where the asylum seekers are safe then what’s the issue? Genuine asylum is for safety not a pick and choose exercise in moving wherever you want.
People are dying crossing the sea, and that needs to stop. This is a good deterrent.
@v39e84kK: correct well said
@v39e84kK: Maybe if Britain gave even a small part of what they plundered from these African countries back, there would be no “economic migrants”.
@v39e84kK: no one wants to go to Rwanda
@Genera L Consensus: Yes, that’s the point. Asylum is not about what you want, it’s supposed to be a matter of survival. I’d say no one will be dying on the sea trying to get to the UK and then to Rwanda. So this policy will save lives.
@Jim O’Sullivan: The British did a lot of bad things over the centuries. Does that mean there should be carte blanche for migrants to cross multiple countries to illegally enter the UK? No. I’m all for the UK and other colonial powers helping improve African countries, though it is probably too simplistic to say that a money drop will solve the problems as many nations have complete corruption whereby none of the money and help gets to the average citizen.
@v39e84kK: As they say, ignorance is bliss,
@v39e84kK: Incorrect. Under Int. law, which the UK isn’t keen on abiding by, you can claim asylum in any country you wish. No country should have to take in more than their fair share, nor should some get to avoid that especially when their actions are in a lot of cases why there are people fleeing war torn areas. The UK deal with Rwanda, a country they deemed last year to have a deplorable human rights record & a country they have accepted asylum seekers from, removes the right of anyone to claim asylum in the UK. People are dying trying to cross seas because to claim asylum in the UK you must do so in the UK. The solution to prevent people dying is to allow asylum claims at any UK embassy & they won’t have to risk their lives & prevents people being exploited by human traffickers.
@Stephen Byrne: No. That’s ridiculous, claim asylum in the nearest safe nation or it’s embassy. Choosing the nicest place is ridiculous, I don’t care if it’s international law, it’s ludicrous.
@v39e84kK: Clearly you don’t care about International law, just like the UK Gov, but it matters not whether you do are not, its what they signed up to. Why should say the neighbours of Iraq have to take asylum seekers from Iraq rather than those such as the UK who are responsible for creating the conditions that resulted in people fleeing in the first place?
@Stephen Byrne: — I’m glad someone pointed out the truth about the “first country” myth, but thanks to endless misinformation, mostly on social media, most people don’t know the truth and peddle their own version, as we see here. A lot of eejits will continue to believe something that isn’t true.
@Stephen Byrne: From what in Iraq are they fleeing from in 2022 exactly?
@v39e84kK: Did Asylum claims only begin in 2022? But since you asked the following report details what Iraqis are still experiencing. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/iraq
@v39e84kK: It isn’t international!
You have a right to claim asylum in any place you happen to be, but you don’t have a right to be facilitated in travelling from a safe point of departure to do so, and if you arrive from a safe point of departure you may be detained while your asylum claim is adjudicated. Moreover, there is no rule that makes offshore processing of asylum claims unlawful. The only rule is that you be kept safe while your claim is being assessed, and if it is found to lack credibility, that you not be deported to any place where you would risk persecution.
@v39e84kK: It isn’t international!
You have a right to claim asylum in any place you happen to be, but you don’t have a right to be facilitated in travelling from a safe point of departure to do so, and if you manage to arrive from a safe point of departure you may be detained while your asylum claim is adjudicated. Moreover, there is no rule that makes offshore processing of asylum claims unlawful. The only rule is that you be kept safe while your claim is being assessed, and if it is found to lack credibility, that you not be deported to any place where you would risk persecution.
In other words, what the British government is doing is lawful under international law. You have probably been misled by migrant NGOs that incorrectly try to assert that migrants have some right to be facilitated in travelling as they please to wherever they please.
@Jim O’Sullivan: Britain has been out of Africa a long time. Africa’s present problems are the fruit of corruption and mis-administration.
Pity, because it is a continent endowed with unequalled soil-fertility and natural resources.
The uk seems to has lost its way
@Brian Madden: why brilliant idea, hopefully it will stop people smuggling
Not sending Ukrainian migrants there though … wonder why ..?
@Ciaran: it very simple migrants are illegal not fleeing anything only economic, trying to take advantage of the system,
Ukraine people are fleeing a war torn country and are being welcomed by their European neighbours (even Britain) big difference, unfortunately they don’t have a choice I’m quite sure they would be perfectly happy to be in there own country with their family and friends not in a foreign country.
Don’t make silly nonsense comments
@Larry O Reilly: Racism, plain and simple.
@Jim O’Sullivan: is it? A lot if these people are from the middle East, they are not going to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other nearer countries for refuge, they are going to the most affluent and accommodating country thousands of miles away, supporting an infrastructure of people smugglers that earn a fortune doing so. Not agreeing or disagreeing with the UKs policy but the migrant issue is far from plain and simple.
@Garret Fawl: Economic Migration is not Asylum seeking. It’s very simple. It’s mind numbing to hear people blathering on about racism when this policy is spearheaded by a woman of Indian heritage. Next we’ll get the good old “would you deport all the illegal Irish in the US?” my answer is YES. They should not be overstaying visas etc.
@v39e84kK: Patel’s heritage doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t absolve her from being a nasty piece of work.
@A Well Known Comical Stereotype AKA PRGuy: But if she was white it would be a nice bonus for the critics to say it was even more racist!
@Larry O Reilly: what are you taking about ? You have Syrian refugees coming over as a result of war. Yemen refugees etc. Classic xenophobia of “ah they are trying to take advantage of the system”. .. grow up.
@Ciaran: The reason is that Ukrainians are manifestly fleeing a war in their own country across the nearest adjacent border, and Britain is taking these refugees as part of a NATO and EU agreement to give them sanctuary. Because they are obvious refugees it would be a waste of resources to force them to go through the asylum-assessment process.
On the other hand, people coming across the English Channel are not obviously refugees (over 80% are found by the asylum-assessment process not to be fleeing conflict or having any credible claim for asylum). Moreover, France is not an unsafe country for migrants, and they have no legal reason for trying to enter Britain from France.
That in a nutshell is the answer to your question.
@Jim O’Sullivan: FYI, I have explained the distinction for another commentator below.
Pity your only ploy is to call people who disagree with you names.
@Peter O’Muiri: Every thing you have said above is false. The UK are not taking refugees from Ukraine as part of any NATO or EU agreement. They are making Ukrainians go through a Visa process which looks very much like it was designed to ensure very few were allowed into the UK. This has been done by for eg a family of 5, mother & 4 kids apply then one kid is denied a visa thus the effect is none go to UK. As for your claim about Asylum claims in the UK, the UK gov has admitted that over 70% have been found to be genuine. Theres no obligation for asylum seekers to make a claim in France nor should they have to keep taking far more than the UK. The Rwanda deal means nobody can ever claim asylum in the UK but instead will be trafficked to Rwanda who the UK has accused of human rights abuses.
Would any civilized country send people to another country willing to take people being forcibly sent to it?
@Jim O’Sullivan: What sovereign nation would accept an endless stream of economic migrants sapping the resources of their citizens? Many. but none should.
@Jim O’Sullivan: Yes they would. People are removed to other countries under the “Dublin Convention” all the time.
The more pertinent question is “would any reasonable country continue to tolerate indefinitely migrants coming from a safe country trying to force entry into their country?”
@Peter O’Muiri: You seem to have no idea what the Dublin convention is Peter. First off the UK is not part of it. Secondly what it states is that as under International human rights laws, an asylum claim can be made in any EU country an Asylum seeker chooses too but if there claim is found not to be valid they can be returned to the first EU country they arrived in. So for example is someone left a non EU country and got to Greece and then travelled through a number of other EU members to get to the Netherlands and claimed asylum there but there claim was refused then the Netherlands can return that person to Greece.
Ireland needs to adopt the same principle , as opposed to having people outside the EU jumping from one European country to another , wanting to just get to Ireland for all the free pull factors .
One pull factor in particular is the new piece of ridiculous legislation , that entitles any Asylum seeker that enters our country , a free new house or an apartment within 4 months , where as an Irish citizen is usually on a housing waiting list for between 10 to 20 years.
This is absolutely outrageous , talking about causing future division and racism by this incompetent Government.
Note Irish people working hard abroad over the years, were never met at the ports of countries and given keys to free homes or for that matter financial benefits.
We in this country need to stop pandering to the EU , and elect a government that looks after it’s own people who are living on our streets and dying in tents, completely ignored for years.
Stop the sell out of this great country, before it’s to late.
We want our country back.
have your say