"The obvious solution" would be a violation of UK treaty obligations to not return asylum seekers with a genuine need of protection. Which given a high proporti

"The obvious solution" would be a violation of UK treaty obligations to not return asylum seekers with a genuine need of protection. Which given a high proportion have their asylum claims granted is a significant portion of them. Once they are processed, those whose claims are denied can be returned to their home country. But Rwanda is theatre. It costs more than processing them in the UK, and the number of people sent there will be a few hours worth of UK net migration. The entire scheme exists for the government to be able to telegraph to their most anti-immigration supporters that they're doing something. What isn't the point.