One way ticket to Rwanda - the right thing to do or not?

UK to give asylum seekers one-way ticket to Rwanda

Some asylum seekers who arrive in the UK on small boats across the Channel will be given a one-way ticket to Rwanda, under new government plans.

Home Secretary Priti Patel is in the African nation to sign a deal for a £120m trial involving mostly single men arriving in Britain via crossings.

BBC home editor Mark Easton said ministers face significant legal hurdles and substantial costs.

Refugee organisations have criticised the plans as cruel and urged a rethink.

Labour said the plan was "unworkable, unethical and extortionate" - the Lib Dems said it would be expensive and ineffective.

Precise details of the plan are yet to be confirmed, but, reporting from Rwanda, Mark Easton said the trial would be restricted to mostly single men the British authorities believe are inadmissible.

Under the proposal, Rwanda would take responsibility for them, put them through an asylum process, and at the end of that process, if they are successful, they will have long-term accommodation in Rwanda.

The Rwandan government said migrants will be "entitled to full protection under Rwandan law, equal access to employment, and enrolment in healthcare and social care services".

The UK Home Office believes existing asylum law will be enough to implement the plan, but questions remain about the legality of the scheme.

Opponents have also said the annual cost of the full scheme would be far higher than the initial £120m payment.

Wales Secretary Simon Hart said the plan was about ensuring the government can "more fairly distinguish between asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants".

Around three quarters of people who apply for asylum in the UK are granted the status.

Mr Hart said the full detail of the scheme will be released later on Thursday, but added the underlying motivation for the plan was breaking the business model of criminal gangs who put people in small boats to cross the Channel.

In a speech in Kent, Mr Johnson will argue that action is needed to stop "vile people smugglers" turning the ocean into a "watery graveyard".

Last year, 28,526 people are known to have crossed in small boats, up from 8,404 in 2020.

Around 600 people made the crossing on Wednesday, and Mr Johnson will say the figure could reach 1,000 a day within weeks.

"We cannot sustain a parallel illegal system," he will say. "Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not."

The prime minister will also announce plans to hand operational control of the Channel to the navy, break the business model of people-smuggling gangs, and deter people from risking the crossing.

The measures are part of the government's long-term plan to "take back control of illegal immigration" after Brexit, Mr Johnson will say.

While the number of people crossing the Channel in boats has increased, last year saw fewer people using other routes - such as by lorry - in part because of increased security at the Port of Calais.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114

Eventually, it will cut asylum seekers' desire to come to the UK and as a by-product, diminish the market for people smugglers as it says on the tin. The ethical angle is obvious to anyone so whilst we're abandoning our ethics and international respect, why stop there?
Instead of wasting money on an expensive and overworked prison system, couldn't they just do another deal with Rwanda? Pay those parking fines or your feet won't touch the ground before you land in Kigali pal. It's a British tradition anyway except we used to send them to Australia.
That said it will be a sad day when Rwanda starts whupping us at cricket.
Then we could alleviate the burden of pensions so that instead of giving old people money we could offer them the Rwandan sunshine retirement home experience The possibilities are endless if you have no moral fibre.

Sky news live report from Rwanda this morning inquired into where the asylum seekers would be accommodated when they arrive and government officials took them to a showcase block of flats on the edge of Kigali - which TBH looked very nice and could accommodate around 30 families.

Upon further inquiry they discovered that the Rwandan government hadn't actually done a deal with the developer to buy or rent the property and that accommodation for any more people hadn't been built - or even approved for building as yet.

It looks like that at this point, there is no place to house asylum seekers whist they are being "processed".

Meanwhile, our government is refusing to say how much the programme will cost with rumours rife that it could be £1 million per asylum seeker. Currently 37000 asylum seekers are being kept in the UK in private sector hotels at a total cost of around £5 million a day.

Interesting article here -

UK asylum deal: Is Rwanda a land of safety or fear?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-61111915

Absolute complete waste of time and money for the number expected to be sent there. Why the politicians believe this will stem the flow is beyond me as the chances of you being one of the 100 must be less than a lottery win. If they arrive without papers just send them back to France just like would happen if I arrived without my papers. Time to get tough with France but as a start, stop any payments of benefits immediately. We have enough closed RAF/Army camps to contain them in for now rather than expensive hotels. Time this government got real and stopped cow towing to the wokeists.

Another interest article - might make 63 reappraise his views perhaps?

Rwanda asylum seekers: What does the UK's deal mean?

There was only muted applause from a handful of officials as the politicians shook hands in the Kigali Conference Centre, smiling awkwardly for the cameras.

But Home Secretary Priti Patel hailed the Rwandan deal as a world first, a major milestone. And it is. Potentially.

Some nations have attempted to outsource their asylum processing offshore. But no country has ever tried to export its asylum responsibilities before.

What the deal envisages is an end to the system of protection for those fleeing war and persecution that Britain signed up to more than 70 years ago.

Instead of claiming asylum when they arrive in Britain, those fleeing persecution or war will have to find a legal and safe route to the UK or, for most, face being packed off to Africa. There are currently very few such routes and none available to the citizens of countries that make up the bulk of those granted refugee status in Britain.

What is an asylum seeker form Iraq or Iran, say, supposed to do? They are faced with Catch 22. They can only claim asylum to Britain on British soil. But in reaching the UK, they make themselves inadmissible for asylum.

Which other countries send asylum seekers overseas?
UK criticised over 'cruel' Rwanda asylum plan
Land of safety - or fear? Why Rwanda divides opinion
For the home secretary and the prime minister, that appears to be the long-term aim: to stop all asylum seekers from coming to Britain. Instead, we are promised a network of safe routes from UN-run refugee camps.

As things stand, the UK is a passive recipient of those asking for sanctuary. The government has no control over who the asylum seekers are. The new plan would mean politicians could pick and choose.

"It's a striking fact that around seven out of 10 of those arriving in small boats last year were men under 40, paying people smugglers to queue jump and taking up our capacity to help genuine women and child refugees," was how the prime minister put it.

Boris Johnson knew what buttons he was pressing when he said: "We can't ask the British taxpayer to write a blank cheque to cover the costs of anyone who might want to come and live here."

There is concern the UK is being taken for a ride by people simply seeking a better life.

He conflated the thousands of people risking their lives to reach the Kent coast in small boats with "economic migrants taking advantage of the asylum system".

The problem with this argument is that a substantial majority of those who cross the channel are subsequently granted refugee status by the UK government. Home Office officials decide they do indeed have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin.

It was noticeable how upbeat the home secretary was as she jetted to Kigali to sign on the dotted line.

Priti Patel has faced a great deal of criticism in recent weeks, often from MPs on her own side. But she sees the Rwandan deal, nine months in the making, as an opportunity to defeat the "evil people smugglers" whose activities in the Channel are so humiliating for a government that promised to take back control of Britain's borders.

I sense this home secretary relishes the opportunity of a battle against "the naysayers", her "political opponents" who "condemn everything" without a plan of their own, and the asylum "lawyers who are fleecing the British taxpayer".

That is an argument that would play well with her core support, burnish her Brexit credentials, and helpfully change the conversation from visa delays and "partygate".

One can see, then, why the UK government would want this deal, but what about the Rwandans? Are they happy about it?

We don't know all the details of the arrangement, but there is an initial £120m for educational projects and other money to assist with processing sent by the UK.

Rwandan ministers believe the arrival of motivated migrants will help boost their economy and the deal itself will encourage further investment.

But one wonders what the ordinary Rwandan will think of a rich European country sending its problem to a small African state.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61114542

For me I thing the following taken from the article above is the nub of this issue...

"The problem with this argument is that a substantial majority of those who cross the channel are subsequently granted refugee status by the UK government. Home Office officials decide they do indeed have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin".

I don't think anyone objects to our country giving safe refuge to anyone who truly needs it - but why are migrants illegally entering the UK from another country (France) who does provide them with safety???

France - and Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece and a whole list of other EU countries where the migrants travel through first - are country's that are safe and willingly give asylum - so why do people want to pass though their boarders and illegally enter the UK to claim asylum?

If those crossing the channel illegally know they will be whisked away to Rwanda to live in safety then maybe they will start to think France, Germany, Italy, etc aren't that bad to seek asylum in after all - and let us face it they have always been safe places to seek their asylum.

These illegal asylum seekers are clearly coming to the UK for reasons other than safety - they have been in safe countries before they even get to ours - and leave one by paying people traffickers to enter ours illegally!

Now it would seem they will get their safety in Rwanda if they don't wish to come to our country by legal means.

But 99% of them won’t go to Rwanda will they Sluffy? Only 100 initially according to the accommodation available so what fear of being sent there do the majority have? Unless they are all sent there for processing I just don’t see the point in this. Once the first 100 have been packed off that’s it isn’t it? I can’t see any way this will dissuade the financial migrants, because let’s be honest here, that’s what the majority really are. It really isn’t a surprise that the vast majority achieve asylum because mention the likes of Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan and of course the lawyers will make a case for it being unsafe to send them back. That’s exactly the problem, we’re just a soft touch with a Civil Service full of wokes. The whole of Western Europe is being suckered into accepting these people who’ve run away instead of staying and fighting for their country. Look at Ukraine, they aren’t running away are they, they’re staying to fight for their country and to change it. I know you can says it’s easy to say that but difficult to do with the despots in charge but unless they do it will never improve. Instead of opening our arms and encouraging them to come here, we should be investing in camps on their borders from which they can live safely and return when necessary. By all means have a method of applying to come to Europe from there, again just like in Poland and Rumania for Ukrainians but let’s do it properly and spare refugees the cost and danger of making the trip to Europe. We have brought this on ourselves, firstly through Blair’s phoney wars and secondly by encouraging them here as the idiot woman in Germany did. Unless we stem this the flood will only grow until someone has the balls to stand up and make it stop. Maybe that is Priti but not with just this arrangement.

The threat of being sent to Rwanda is a deterrent that will make the idea of coming to the UK less attractive, but the realities of the cost and logistics of the programme render it impotent.

The Israelis struck a similar deal with the Rwandan dictatorship years ago and very few asylum seekers ended up staying in Rwanda. check this. for example

This is all about appearing to deliver on promises for electoral purposes.

Seems to me that from reading the article you linked to that Israel achieved what it set out to do namely the refugees from Africa that had headed to Israel certainly didn't try to go back there again (headed to Europe instead) and no doubt word got back to other intended refugees to Israel not to bother in future.

I would imagine that is exactly what the government intends by doing this for the UK.

I doubt anyone (the UK government, the refugees or the Rwanda government - or even the Israeli government in respect of the article) really expect anyone sent there to set up home there (after all these refugees we sent there have already travelled through numerous 'safe' countries to get to the UK in the first place) but rather send the message out that if they seek refugee status in the EU they stay in the EU but if they seek it in the UK they will end up in Rwanda - and clearly they won't want that.

As for the cost, I'm sure it won't be value for money that we end up sending refugees there (if we actually do this) but rather it will end up saving us considerably more by stemming the future flow of refugees to the country - in other words 'costs' now, 'savings' later.

As the scheme get's widely known about then less people will try to illegally enter the UK and the numbers (and costs) of sending those to Rwanda will considerably drop.

The bottom line in all this is that the refugees are traveling to the UK illegally from safe country's (France  and before France, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc) - so clearly their true aim isn't getting to the UK for their safety is it - I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.

I'm a lefty.
And in some ways this isn't a bad idea.

Political gains aside. You could simplyfy the sceme to this. 

"Britain to set up free safe zone abroad for anyone escaping persecution or war"

Isn't that a good thing to do for people? Whilst also injecting money into a country that needs it? And they have loads of space.

Surely better to go and build a life there and build an infrastructure and work than come to the UK and spend years being passed around hotels, hostels and tiny flats without the right to earn money?

What am I missing that makes this a good idea? Unless I’ve got this wrong, there are only places for 100 refugees initially with accommodation being boosted to 300, but we don’t know how long that will take. There are about 600-800 migrants a day coming across at the moment so how can it possibly be a deterrent? Please tell me if I’ve got this wrong, otherwise it just seems to be too small a number to be worth doing.

Whitesince63 wrote:What am I missing that makes this a good idea? Unless I’ve got this wrong, there are only places for 100 refugees initially with accommodation being boosted to 300, but we don’t know how long that will take. There are about 600-800 migrants a day coming across at the moment so how can it possibly be a deterrent? Please tell me if I’ve got this wrong, otherwise it just seems to be too small a number to be worth doing.

You may be right on the current details but I suspect that's just the start.

Once the scheme gets really going (if it gets off the ground with all the legal challenges that will no doubt be brought to stop it) I would imagine there will be substantially more that are put on a plane to Rwanda - potentially thousands.

Yes the cost per head will be enormous but the cost to the taxpayers for giving the refugee's who illegally enter the UK would be vastly more in a lifetime of free health, education, housing and benefits for not only them but their whole family's who they then have a right to bring over once they have been granted indefinite leave to stay.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the refugees are entering the UK illegally from 'safe' countries - mainly France and nearly all would have travelled through other safe counties such as Spain, Italy Greece, etc - so they clearly are coming to the UK for other reasons other than to seek safety.

I don't know if anyone read the story of the 'undocumented' immigrant from Algeria who won some money on the lottery in Belgium but this sentence from the story just about sums it all up to me...

"The winner left Algeria four months ago, travelling by boat to Spain, according to Belgian media. From there he went on foot through Spain and France before reaching Belgium.

He had wanted to travel on to the United Kingdom, but now says he would prefer to remain in Belgium, and hopes to start a family".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61120574

Undocumented - from Algeria heading for the UK via Spain, France and Belgium!!!

Tell me he why he obviously didn't believe Spain, France nor Belgium were safe countries to claim 'documentation' for himself but the UK would be...!

Yeah right...!

Do you think he would have wanted to still come to the UK knowing if he got caught he'd end up in Rwanda?

I very much doubt he would - and this is what it is all about.

I think I get it now Sluffy that the plan is that all single young men will be transferred to Rwanda for processing, which as you say would be a deterrent. Great if it happens but I just don’t see it with all the legal challenges and human rights laws. Surely common sense says it would be much easier to agree a similar arrangement with France and process there. I know the French can be a pain but surely it’s in their interests as well to deter migrants from coming to France in the first place as the way in to the U.K. if we can return any that arrive illegally across the Channel back to France for processing and refuse entry for those without a genuine reason to come here, then surely it benefits both France and ourselves by stemming the tide? Once the French election is over maybe a more grown up conversation can be had to find a solution that suits both Parties?

I think you are being a little naive if you really think France is keen to take back refugees who have left France to come to the UK!

Why should they have to house, feed, educate, give medical and dental aid, provide benefits, etc, etc to them?

And even if they did what makes you think the refugees won't simply try to get to the UK again - it's a bit harder to do that from Rwanda than a hostel in Calais!

We've already seen French police watch people traffickers put refugees in boats to get to the UK...

French police 'stood by and watched' migrants hours before deadly Channel crossing



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/24/channel-migrant-smugglers-maximise-profits-bigger-boats-can/

...they aren't going to stop them leaving again even if we do return them back to France are they?

You may well be right that this plan to send them to Rwanda never gets off the ground but if it did I believe it would work - the migrants want to come to the UK for other than safety reasons - so if they know once they are caught - and many are - that they are sent to Rwanda then most will no longer bother trying.

Biggie wrote:I'm a lefty.
And in some ways this isn't a bad idea.

Political gains aside. You could simplyfy the sceme to this. 

"Britain to set up free safe zone abroad for anyone escaping persecution or war"

Isn't that a good thing to do for people? Whilst also injecting money into a country that needs it? And they have loads of space.

Surely better to go and build a life there and build an infrastructure and work than come to the UK and spend years being passed around hotels, hostels and tiny flats without the right to earn money?

Two things about this stick out.

Whilst the concept of a "free safe zone for anyone escaping persecution or war" is fair enough in principle - assuming that Rwanda or whoever actually had a place for them to stay and a means for them to survive economically i.e. work on arrival (which they don't) - the deal struck by our government appears to be absolutely appalling for British tax payers. If we end up paying for building infrastructure in Rwanda and then effectively paying benefits to get them to stay there (which is unlikely) it's going to cost us an absolute fortune when you add in the cost of processing and flights etc. This whole thing stinks like the "trade deals" that have been agreed such as the one with Australia which shafts British farmers - something that ticks a political box but when you dig into the details it's terrible for Britain.

Secondly we have a labour shortage here. If single men want to come to this country AND we are moving towards an Australian-style immigration policy why not just change the law so that immigrants will have no entitlement to benefits and must work in the fields, factories or warehouses in order to stay? Or if they have skills, find a suitable job for them.
If they contribute to the economy and pay taxes, great - we need them.

The fundamental problem is that currently - unlike Australia - we hand out benefits, accommodation and healthcare from day 1 which is a huge incentive to come here - and not to work.
Turn that on it's head and reward them with these things after they have paid tax and worked for say 3 or 5 years and we might get somewhere.

A "no cake until you've picked your vegetables" policy makes far more sense than this expensive showboating bollocks.

wanderlust wrote:Two things about this stick out.

Whilst the concept of a "free safe zone for anyone escaping persecution or war" is fair enough in principle - assuming that Rwanda or whoever actually had a place for them to stay and a means for them to survive economically i.e. work on arrival (which they don't) - the deal struck by our government appears to be absolutely appalling for British tax payers. If we end up paying for building infrastructure in Rwanda and then effectively paying benefits to get them to stay there (which is unlikely) it's going to cost us an absolute fortune when you add in the cost of processing and flights etc. This whole thing stinks like the "trade deals" that have been agreed such as the one with Australia which shafts British farmers - something that ticks a political box but when you dig into the details it's terrible for Britain.

Secondly we have a labour shortage here. If single men want to come to this country AND we are moving towards an Australian-style immigration policy why not just change the law so that immigrants will have no entitlement to benefits and must work in the fields, factories or warehouses in order to stay? Or if they have skills, find a suitable job for them.
If they contribute to the economy and pay taxes, great - we need them.

The fundamental problem is that currently - unlike Australia - we hand out benefits, accommodation and healthcare from day 1 which is a huge incentive to come here - and not to work.
Turn that on it's head and reward them with these things after they have paid tax and worked for say 3 or 5 years and we might get somewhere.

A "no cake until you've picked your vegetables" policy makes far more sense than this expensive showboating bollocks.

The government pays either way - they either pay to move refugees to Rwanda and pay for infra structure to help them arrive there - hostels, etc, or they pay for them to stop in the UK (and once they are allowed to stay, bring in their family - that's why most refugees to the UK are single men) and potentially end up paying for them and their families for a lifetime of housing, healthcare, education and benefits.

Which is more cost effective - a one off payment up front (plane ticket and building hostels), or a potential lifetime of costs for housing, education, healthcare, benefits for not only the refugee but also his immediate family who will follow them once he has obtained indefinite leave?

The greater total cost is obviously by keeping the in the UK.

Added to that the deterrent of sending refugees to Rwanda will eventually diminish the numbers of future refugees seeking 'safety' in the UK - continuing to do nothing and stay as we are is clearly attracting substantially more refugees arriving here year on year.


In respect of your second point you can't 'force' people to work.

What are you going to do if they don't?

Cease benefits so they starve, make them homeless because they have no money for the rent, stop healthcare because they aren't contributing to the NHS?

Refugees come here for their own reasons (clearly safety isn't one of them as clear demonstrated above in this thread) I suggest free housing and benefits is probably the biggest draw as we seem to be more generous than many of our European neighbours in this respect.

Have you visited some of these neighbouring country's recently because I have.  You see these refugees sleeping on the streets in vast numbers, begging, stealing, pickpocketing, roaming about in gangs.  Have you seen the number of armed police on the same streets making sure nothing bad kicks off?

If you think I making this up go see for yourself round places like Paris and Marseille, even at the entrance to Disneyland Paris!  I've seen the same in Amsterdam and Belgium too.

I don't begrudge anyone wanting to better themselves but illegally entering another country to become a parasite of it is not the way to do it.

I would suggest that many of these refugees have left their own country's were they were working on the land, I suggest the last thing they are looking to do is to come to the UK is to pick vegetables or work in the factories, they are coming because they think our streets are paved with gold and getting a free home, free education, free medical care and free benefits, then they are probable right with that belief too.

If they say they are only coming here for safety - and the do - then maybe they'd think differently then once they realise 'safety' in reaching the UK means living in Rwanda.

Do you think they would still be trying to get into the UK still - because I don't.

Sluffy wrote:

The government pays either way - they either pay to move refugees to Rwanda and pay for infra structure to help them arrive there - hostels, etc, or they pay for them to stop in the UK (and once they are allowed to stay, bring in their family - that's why most refugees to the UK are single men) and potentially end up paying for them and their families for a lifetime of housing, healthcare, education and benefits.

Stop right there!

What I actually wrote was that the law should be changed so that they would have ZERO benefits.

And as they would have "guest worker" status, they wouldn't be able to bring their families.

If they eventually earned citizenship by having worked and paid into the system for a number of years, fair enough. We just have to decide how much work and how many years and any other conditions we want to apply.

So no, the government doesn't "pay either way" - or rather we don't pay.

And whilst we're doing the accounting, what about the cost of crops being ploughed back into the ground, the resultant price increases for the public, the failed small businesses, the cost of paying the resultant unemployed benefits etc  and the other areas of the economy that are suffering because of the labour shortage?

Why should British people suffer the burden of all the costs of not creating a guest worker scheme?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

The government pays either way - they either pay to move refugees to Rwanda and pay for infra structure to help them arrive there - hostels, etc, or they pay for them to stop in the UK (and once they are allowed to stay, bring in their family - that's why most refugees to the UK are single men) and potentially end up paying for them and their families for a lifetime of housing, healthcare, education and benefits.

Stop right there!

What I actually wrote was that the law should be changed so that they would have ZERO benefits.

And as they would have "guest worker" status, they wouldn't be able to bring their families.

If they eventually earned citizenship by having worked and paid into the system for a number of years, fair enough. We just have to decide how much work and how many years and any other conditions we want to apply.

So no, the government doesn't "pay either way" - or rather we don't pay.

And whilst we're doing the accounting, what about the cost of crops being ploughed back into the ground, the resultant price increases for the public, the failed small businesses, the cost of paying the resultant unemployed benefits etc  and the other areas of the economy that are suffering because of the labour shortage?

Why should British people suffer the burden of all the costs of not creating a guest worker scheme?

???

How can they be classed as 'guest' 'workers' when they haven't been 'invited' and haven't come here to 'work'???

Even putting that to one side, you still can't make them work against their will - and you still have to feed, house and provide education and medical care them no matter what - even if they are denied benefits!

What do you propose we do with the growing thousands of illegal 'guest workers', who are entering the country in ever increasing multitudes of people year on year who we provide open ended free accommodation, food, health care, education, etc, to - and have quite rightly used their right not to 'compulsory' work???

You seem to be fixated that the answer to the problem is to turn them into some sort of 'forced labour' and have them work in the fields???

Real life doesn't work that way, these 'guest workers' of yours have a choice not to do that - what are you going to do then - or have you not thought of that...?

Clearly you haven't!

We still will have a massive ongoing burden on the British tax payers and still have no deterrent to any other 'guest workers' looking to illegally entering the country for free housing, food, education, medical facilities, etc, etc???

Oh and I nearly forgot - and for 'safety' reasons first and foremost obviously...

Yeah right!

wanderlust wrote:
Two things about this stick out.

Whilst the concept of a "free safe zone for anyone escaping persecution or war" is fair enough in principle - assuming that Rwanda or whoever actually had a place for them to stay and a means for them to survive economically i.e. work on arrival (which they don't) - the deal struck by our government appears to be absolutely appalling for British tax payers. If we end up paying for building infrastructure in Rwanda and then effectively paying benefits to get them to stay there (which is unlikely) it's going to cost us an absolute fortune when you add in the cost of processing and flights etc. This whole thing stinks like the "trade deals" that have been agreed such as the one with Australia which shafts British farmers - something that ticks a political box but when you dig into the details it's terrible for Britain.

Secondly we have a labour shortage here. If single men want to come to this country AND we are moving towards an Australian-style immigration policy why not just change the law so that immigrants will have no entitlement to benefits and must work in the fields, factories or warehouses in order to stay? Or if they have skills, find a suitable job for them.
If they contribute to the economy and pay taxes, great - we need them.

The fundamental problem is that currently - unlike Australia - we hand out benefits, accommodation and healthcare from day 1 which is a huge incentive to come here - and not to work.
Turn that on it's head and reward them with these things after they have paid tax and worked for say 3 or 5 years and we might get somewhere.

A "no cake until you've picked your vegetables" policy makes far more sense than this expensive showboating bollocks.

The problem is Lusty that you live in an idealistic world I’m afraid. Everything you say makes perfect sense and in that ideal world would work out fine. Sadly we don’t live in an ideal world and the majority of these young men coming here don’t want to work, at least not the work that you suggest needs doing like crop picking and similar low paid and also seasonal work. The vast majority coming across the Channel are economic migrants, people who have chosen to make this journey, not forced to. The problem is distinguishing between the two and that is where the Rwanda connection will succeed if implemented, by discouraging those looking for a hand out from coming here. It’s time Western Europe stopped this virtue signalling taking all comers and started to accept that with an estimated 18 million displaced people, we can’t take them all, or anywhere near it.