Should the government send illegal asylum seekers to Rwanda?

No just send them back to the country they came from

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.

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

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

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.

No, but there does need to have an effective deterrent on the illegal immigration such as passing back to other countries

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

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

Pick them up and process them outside of the country, if we have reached capacity, then simply turn them away and get another country to take them

Have discussions with other countries and spead out the population so that no one country is overwhelmed

Only if they are found to be doing illegal activities, or have committed illegal acts in their home country, such as murder, rape.

They should threaten and perhaps use this tactic once or twice to act as a deterrent however not to be use excessively

They should send them to their own countries no matter what we cannot dump people into other countries because we cannot deal with them we should be sending them back if we cannot deal with them

send them back to France we are paying them to stop and detain them not to hand them over to the royal navy

Depends on what they do in Rwanda, they should be looked into and potentially sent back to the country they came from as its not always due to country issues as such

Yes, but it is a badly thought through idea and the only reason it should continue is we have made a (wrongfully) large investment into facilitating it.

it doesn't have to be specifically Rwanda, they need a safe place to go which isn't here due to the own problems our country has to deal with like the cost of living crisis, they cant go back to where they came from because they were obviously trying to get away from something. no country is going to welcome them with open arms as every country is struggling with problems of their pwn and don't want to add more to it. where we can, we need to help the countries where they are coming from to make it a better place to live, going to be difficult but we need to help where we can to save lives of many people. it may almost be impossible but we need to try and find a way where we are able to help, but immigration into our country is not the answer.

Depends on what they come to the UK for. If they come to work, then let them. But if they come to seek free benefits and housing then yes, send them to Rwanda.

Why should those who lose their asylum cases be sent to Rwanda, when most of them aren't from Rwanda? There need to be more options.

Deported back to where they came from and if not then women and children should be held and processed and go through legal process to become a citizen. Young men ages 16-60 should be sent back to France or wherever they came over from.

Illegal asylum seekers should not remain in the UK beyond a defined grace period that allows a fair review process to be undertaken in a controlled environment.

Yes, but only some, especially those who have criminal background and originate from a country filled with terrorism and terrible record of human rights (No, if they are willing to adapt and contribute to British Society)

I believe there should have been stronger immigration to start with. However, sending a limited amount of people to a country far away will barely make a dent and therefore is inefficient and overly expensive and therefore not fit for purpose.

Illegal asylum seekers/ refugees/ migrants/ immigrants should be deported to an actual safe country. Rwanada is not a safe country for them

No, government should deport them to their country of origin regardless of any alleged unsafe conditions.

No, sending illegal asylum seekers to Rwanda raises significant ethical, legal, humanitarian, practical, and international concerns that outweigh potential benefits.

Yes if, it is a safe environment, or if we are that bothered about helping them we should get more involved with helping them clear up their own country first.

No, too expensive, but I would support this plan if it was significantly less costly. I would support an extradition plan if it was both cost-effective and to a country where the people will be safer than wherever they came from

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.

This is a complicated statement with many layers, this would require a deep delve and reviewing all options as opposed to a yes or no question.

Give asylum seekers the choice of Rwanda or the UK. If they choose the UK they should be background checked.

(a perspective I like) Asylum seekers should be supported to find somewhere safe to stay whether inside or outside of the UK.

They should live somewhere nearer their country of origin which shares their cultural values/languages etc and/or their governments supported to run their countries ethically.

Yes but with the stance of moving them into another safe state within Europe or chosen destination within 12months

Introduce Offshore processing centres similar to the Australian method, however Rwanda isn't the Country to cooperate and conduct this with.

No why is Rwanda a specific option for such as question. Illegal asylum seekers should be given the option to gain asylum legally, provided they be screened extensively.

Should stop perks and benefits for immigrants such as access to nhs, housing benefits to deter the want to come to the country

No, they should not be sent to rawanda as the reason why they are illegal. Asylum seekers is probably because of wars that the UK or directly involved in themselves or or arming them from behind closed doors as we are one of the biggest arms manufacturers and dealers in the world.

What we should be doing is incorporating them into entry-level healthcare jobs to support nurses or veterinarians or even hospitality

No, return them to their country of origin. If this cannot be established, send them to Rwanda or other country with which the uk has a deal.

Should be stronger resistance for them getting onto our shores in the first place. Illegal immigrants need vetting

Send them to last country came from and that country if they want to can send them to the country was before that

A better place for them if that means England then fine but they need to work like everyone and not get full benefits