Should the government send illegal asylum seekers to Rwanda?

Illegal immigrants should not be allowed in the UK but they should be given the choice of wether they want to return to their own country or Rwanda

Asylum seekers should be supported to find somewhere safe to stay whether inside or outside of the UK.

Yes, but only if it is a safe place where individuals can live in freedom and have the chance to develop.

Although, The Rwanda plan is expensive and inefficient, i don't want asylum seekers here as the UK is full

Yes if they do not want to be returned to their own country. So long as it’s the relocation is still a safe option and the cost of doing so is less than keeping them in the UK

Boarders should controlled and immigrants should be screen for their criminal background and then decided to be sent there

I don't think Rwanda is the right answer but don't think we she let them stay here either

I don't know how big the government think great Britain is, but in this current time it is full of immigrants that seem to get better treatment than our own.

It makes no sense to send immigrants from one overpopulated country to another that is also struggling. We also funded the build of houses and most likely be paying Rwanda something for the deal. Just enact tougher immigration policies. Only offer asylum for very specific reasons e.g. women and children fleeing taliban rule etc.

This Policy is not effective due to the United Kingdom being bound the the ECHR. We need to replace this with a British Bill of Human Rights and cut economic benefits to migrants which will deter them from coming here in the first place. Illegal Asylum Seekers should then be deported back to their country of origin.

No, we should leave the ECHR, make our own human rights bill, and deport them. Rwanda was too expensive and would only work to an extent.

Send them back to the last country they came from and give them a proper chance to apply to come legally

If they can be identified, they should be returned to their own country. If not then they should be sent to a country accepting migrants or a country deemed safe by the Supreme Court

Not Rwanda, as it was considered unsafe, but I am open to using third countries to process asylum claims

We should work with Europe to process and return people to their own country unless they can prove their lives are being threatened and then we should work with Europe to intergrate them.

They should send them back to their home country aslong as their life is assessed to not be in danger

If the government can prove they will be treated as if they were living in the UK with access to all human rights

No, but the government should look for a more reliable, consistent and less expensive way of removing illegal immigrants.

I believe that illegal migration is an instant refusal and should be detained and removed. Apply through legal means only. Taxpayers should not have to pay for any of this.

No, it is too expensive - however if no other cheaper and equally effective alternatives are found, then yes

If they have no identification with them then yes; however, support should be given to those waiting to claim asylum in foreign countries.

Yes but once they're granted refugee status they should be allowed back into the UK if they wish unless they committed a violent crime.

I believe sending them to Rwanda is wrong when there is a war in Rwanda so possibly another, safer alternative.

Why there in particular? Wouldn't it be better to send them somewhere that's at least tangentially related to where they're from (except if they're from West Africa)?

No, 'my idea would be more expensive, but would mean they never set foot on British mainland soil. Transport them directly from the English Channel to Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel, where there is already a boat jetty. There we should build a temporary secure holding and processing facility and a 13,000 foot runway capable of handling the jets that would take them on to Ascension Island for permanent internment, or until they ask to return to their homeland. I'd say this prospect would lead to the boat migrants disappearing almost overnight. There is no danger of any of them escaping into the community. They never set foot on the mainland.' - @LeighQuilter

No, but they should be returned to their home country or back to the country they were last in before the UK

They should be sent back to where they came from if their country is safe, there should be a separate plan created for people fleeing war-struck and/or unsafe countries.

A lot illegal immigrants are coming from France. If they came from there they can go back. If it is someone coming from an unsafe country then they should be provided support and then sent to a different country they can reside as we currently do not have the sources to support all of them.

Illegal migrants shouldn’t be allowed to enter at all, not bothered where they end up as long as it is not here

The country of which the immigrants are deported to does not matter, any country in their original continent will do.

If there is a better and cheaper way like boats of our shores to house them then we should do that first before considering Rwanda

They should be sent back to the country they came from within a month of illegal entry into our country

Use much stricter immigration policies and not allowing them into the UK in the first place by protecting our borders

No, there should be systems in place already to stop illegal immigrants pentrating our borders. Send them to their home.

It isn't clear what the best action plan is for illegal asylum seekers, but it is an issue that needs sorting. I just don't believe that sending them to Rwanda makes the most sense?!

I think the government does need to deter the amount of asylum sleekers that come over but I don't think Rwanda is the way.

Yes and No, wherever is cheaper. But we need to fix the problem and find those responsible sending families on unsafe crossings to avoid deaths out at sea or in shipping containers.

Yes, providing it is recognised as a safe country for the asylum seeker, and not because a bill says that is the case

No, illegal asylum seekers should be deported back to their country of origin or assisted with becoming legal

The should imprision all illegal migrants on arrival but open more legal routes for genuine asylum seekers and refugees.

There should be stricter controls over illegal asylum seekers and better understanding as to why they are seeking asylum. If just for health and benefits then they should be sent back to their home nation but it needs to be managed better.

No they should be turned away at the border and not be a burden on the tax payer by sending them to Rwanda which costs a fortune

There should be an agreement between countries in order to offer a spread over the different territories for the illegal asylum seekers to go to

Not necessarily Rwanda, but if people have illegally entered the county and have no right to remain then we should be able to deliver to a safe space

A temporary ban is needed until we have caught up as a nation with the levels of migration into the country over the last 20 years.

Back to their home country. It’s unfair for them to have to learn new cultures and languages. The problems they are leaving will only be created in Rwanda and perhaps rwandap dont want them.

To their own countries, if their countries of origin don't negotiate then send them in every other country you please but not Britain

Illegal immigrants entry into the uk should be controlled by uk border force whether it be by boat or vehicle. Stop paying millions to France and pay our own people to control our borders.

We should not allow any person in to our country unless they have money, skills and a job to come to

Yes , Rwanda will help them and can help them better the the Uk however, immigrants they have chosen to come to us for help and we aren’t going to.

I just can't support this. But we must do something radical to stem flow of illegal crossings. Threat to social cohesion. I live in the poorest areas that are impacted.

No this is a ridiculous policy which is costing us hundreds of thousands of pounds. Working with EU to target the people smugglers should be a priority

A better system should be developed to vet individuals allowed into the country before allowing asylum

I don't have the right answer. They are illigal but maybe doing it out of desperation and fearful of life.

If it benefits the asylum seekers, the economy and the people of Rwanda then yes. But if it doesn't then no

Create a more efficient, less expensive screening process and send them to their own countries if they are deemed safe. Priority given to women and children.

Seek a other plans such as turning back the boats or sending them back to where they came from and working closer with countries they’re coming from.

More information on how immigrants would be supported would mean people are better informed as people are unaware of how rwanda has changed

Make sure all asylum seekers have a safe place to go that isn't inhumane and with family. It doesn't matter what country it is in just not the country they came from.

No - this is a preposterous idea. They should be returned to their home country for them to deal with.

No. I'm all for allowing people in for their safety but strictly review their status and their contributions to the nation (skills and language) on a regular basis (say every 5 years) to ensure for a integrated community.

The whole scenario of how many people are added to the UK population, and by what means needs debating. Rwanda is largely irrelevant.

We should stop government sending illegal asylum seekers to Rwanda, and spend the money instead on administrating these people; sending false asylum seekers home, and processing true asylum seekers, educating them so they can become useful British citizens

They shouldn’t send them strictly to Rwanda but send them wherever they can, whether that’s a safer place or back to where they came from

There needs to be a system where as soon as an illegal immigrant land in the UK they are track, an allowed to work in selected sectors until eligible if not, then they are subject to British legal system and any criminality found are rejected and place back in their place of birth origins, unless there are other options to provide them

Yes - I mean if leaving their country due to saftey etc then anywhere is better than where came from!? Its still help…

No, We shouldn’t have to fund this. Many immigrants flee war stricken areas but pass through numerous safe countries first as they don’t have the same benefits as the UK

It could work as a deterrent but I would need reassurance that people are kept with their families and treated with compassion.

if they are in no need for help then send them back, but if there lives are at risk then keep them over here and make them apply for asylum here when they are safe

There is usually a reason why people have come here - safety from their own country. We should offer help and aid but with the end goal of helping them relocate, this could be to anywhere in the world. But Gove them the option and work with them, treat them like humans.

If they are provided with all essential services and decent clean homes, health and education provision and they are willing to be there. They should be allowed to return to their own country at any time.

They should be returned to their own country or if unsafe given refuge in the uk (within agreed numbers) or returned to the closest safe country to their own country.

No just send them home, if a man can leave his wife n kids back in his homeland, he should go back to them. If he was a real father he wouldn’t leave them behind he would bring them with him.

Yes - it helps them not have to go back to war torn countries & set up new life elsewhere but doesnt create over population in uk

Not to Rwanda but should keep them in dormitories until processed. They should not have access to NHS, free housing or credit cards etc

The scheme is unsuccessful and expensive but we need some way of avoiding illegal immigrants and asylum seekers

No not specifically Rwanda, there are so many harmful camps - but illegal immigrants should not be allowed to simply stay

Why Rwanda? Send them back to where ever they tried to come from, and allow them to apply via the proper channels, we need immigration (as does every country at some point) but we don't need asylum seekers!

Only if there is a way to ensure their safety, and there is somewhere for them to seek refuge and be able to work.

Yes. Not ideal, but in the absence of an alternative wholesale asylum removal plan it should go ahead.

Not specifically sent to Rwanda, but should not be given access so easily to the UK along with access to British benefits

No, but illegal immigrants should have no access to the UK benefits/welfare system, and anyone who employs Illegal Immigrants should be prosecuted.

Asylum seekers are supposed to go to their nearest safe country. Most of the people who land up in the UK have travelled across many. Therefor I feel they should be sent back home as clearly they feel we are a soft touch

No but to their own country, what's problematic is that a lot of them are economically aged young men often with enough funds.to pay the traffickers. Real refugees hardly make it to the borders or able to flee real persecution. The girls, women and children the true vulnerable ones rarely make it on the boats. The country does not need illegal male migrants seeking to live off our system but I am happy for us to offer aid to those truly in need.

Yes but only those from African countries should be returned to Africa, but certainly not any Europeans. All boat people should be returned to the French coast where they set off from.

Spend more money on stopping them from needing or wanting to leave and or send them back to where they originated unless it is unsafe

No, this programme is too costly. Migrants with no leave to remain should be returned to their home country, or the first safe country they arrived in once they had left their home country.

No, illegal asylum seekers should be sent back to the nearest safe country to their country of origin.

Yes if they dont follow legal paths for immigration or refugee for processing with options for earning a place in UK by national service towards becoming citizens.

I have concerns about the amount of young males immigrants that have descened upon London and some of 5heir attitudes towards women