Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

UK to give asylum seekers one-way ticket to Rwanda


Eldorado
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

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

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yep, I can see the posters now..... 'Rwanda.. Better than France:tu:

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a plan, but I bet that £120m ends up 'repatriating' just half a dozen men. :hmm:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for an aspect to its thinking in that - 

 - they looking for somewhere equivalent as to where they're from; just somewhere without war.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let's not kid ourselves, this just isn't going to happen is it.  We can't even deport known and convicted criminals back to places like Jamaica without some do-gooder t**t blocking the airport, not to mention all the scumbag lawyers rubbing their hands together dipping into the legal aid pot. 

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Let's not kid ourselves, this just isn't going to happen is it.  We can't even deport known and convicted criminals back to places like Jamaica without some do-gooder t**t blocking the airport, not to mention all the scumbag lawyers rubbing their hands together dipping into the legal aid pot. 

Hopefully the threat of it will be enough to sink the immigration gangs. 

The news seems to be getting widespread coverage across Europe this morning.

I dare say the French will be unchuffed at the idea as there will be a sudden increase of migrants, at least younger men which are a significant number of those on boats, without a destination and wondering about on their side of the channel.

It will also save paying France, Britain agreed to finance border security in France to the tune of 62.7m euros.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ethereal_scout said:

I'm for an aspect to its thinking in that - 

 - they looking for somewhere equivalent as to where they're from; just somewhere without war.

Not the economic migrants, for which there are many, who quite reasonably want a better life in general. 

Nice as it would be to have a bottomless pit of services and accommodation for migrants of all types it is not the case and some system of immigration control has to be used.  

In the meantime various do-gooders will insist we take more, and more quickly, while they will not suggest an immigration number that is reasonable or affordable. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah because European powers meddling with Africa has /never/ gone wrong or caused any problems...And where better then Rwanada to dump a bunch of ethnic groups that might not entirely get along. I'm sure they have more Hotels...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Yeah because European powers meddling with Africa has /never/ gone wrong or caused any problems...And where better then Rwanada to dump a bunch of ethnic groups that might not entirely get along. I'm sure they have more Hotels...

Think you'll find most of modern Africas problems are self inflicted, Zimbabwe being a prime example.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many issues with immigration it’s hard to know where to start.

Firstly, the trafficking gangs do need to be stopped, that must be a priority, is sending migrants to Rwanda the answer though?  Of course not, the gangs sell a ticket, and care little what awaits their punters, but the gangs sales pitch is to the desperate, and they are likely not going to be aware they would end up in Rwanda, and the gangs ain’t gonna tell em.

Secondly, the migrants are coming through Europe, France needs to get its house in order, The EU needs to sort its borders out, they may as well be giving trafficking gangs cash directly with how easy it is to exploit free movement.

Thirdly, I think with recent events as a nation we have some soul searching to do.  Why are citizens not opening their doors and providing spare rooms to all migrants fleeing wars, why just Ukraine?  The answer doesn’t have a nice taste, but I think it needs addressing head on.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2022 at 4:02 AM, Autochthon1990 said:

Yeah because European powers meddling with Africa has /never/ gone wrong or caused any problems...And where better then Rwanada to dump a bunch of ethnic groups that might not entirely get along. I'm sure they have more Hotels...

Quote

Why is Rwanda the new top destination for event hosting in Africa?

https://www.africanews.com/2022/03/23/why-is-rwanda-the-new-top-destination-for-event-hosting-in-africa/

What exactly are you saying about Rwanda?

Should I be taking the words Yolande Makolo at face value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rwanda plan will come to nothing, first because it is illegal to send someone to a country where they may suffer abuse, torture, rape, etc (The UN has said it breaches international law), and  secondly. it is up-popular with the general population and the Tory party itself:Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative chair of the defence select committee, accused Johnson of unveiling the plans (Rwanda) as part of a “massive distraction” from becoming the first prime minister to be found guilty of a criminal charge while in office.

It is to distract the population before the local elections from the fact that Johnson and a lot of his government broke their own law during lockdown and have failed on their repeated promises to stop illegal immigrants crosssing the Channel, and to give some red meat to the xenophobes who they need to keep in power. When it is shelved, they will blame the "loony Leftie lawyers" and "the snowflake wokes"- it is also in their interest to keep stoking the culture war. This government have achieved nothing, they have introduced no practical helpful policies on anything, they just destroy and trash everything in an effort to stay in power while they plunder tax-payers money for themselves and their cronies.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, The Silver Shroud said:

The Rwanda plan will come to nothing, first because it is illegal to send someone to a country where they may suffer abuse, torture, rape, etc (The UN has said it breaches international law), and  secondly. it is up-popular with the general population and the Tory party itself:Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative chair of the defence select committee, accused Johnson of unveiling the plans (Rwanda) as part of a “massive distraction” from becoming the first prime minister to be found guilty of a criminal charge while in office.

It is to distract the population before the local elections from the fact that Johnson and a lot of his government broke their own law during lockdown and have failed on their repeated promises to stop illegal immigrants crosssing the Channel, and to give some red meat to the xenophobes who they need to keep in power. When it is shelved, they will blame the "loony Leftie lawyers" and "the snowflake wokes"- it is also in their interest to keep stoking the culture war. This government have achieved nothing, they have introduced no practical helpful policies on anything, they just destroy and trash everything in an effort to stay in power while they plunder tax-payers money for themselves and their cronies.

The UNHCR used to have FAQ that stated the asylum should only be granted to those that deserve it.  And you don't have to grant asylum to criminals and law breakers.  How would classify illegal immigration?

At any rate how would make a case for refoulement in a country that hosts an Emergency Transit Mechanism Centre and hundreds of thousands of prospective refugees?

Lucky for the Poms they are still mates with the Aussies.  Where else would you get ideas?

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The UNHCR used to have FAQ that stated the asylum should only be granted to those that deserve it.  And you don't have to grant asylum to criminals and law breakers.  How would classify illegal immigration?

At any rate how would make a case for refoulement in a country that hosts an Emergency Transit Mechanism Centre and hundreds of thousands of prospective refugees?

Lucky for the Poms they are still mates with the Aussies.  Where else would you get ideas?

And you don't have to grant asylum to criminals and law breakers.  How would classify illegal immigration? That Catch 22 is the beauty of UK immigration policy: make it impossible for someone to legally enter the country to try to claim asylum, and then classify them as illegals when they do enter the country. I don't support it, the only people I want to come to the UK is seasonal workers we need for our farming, fishing and industry. We have to find a solution, we had 8.5k crossing the channel in 2020, 30k in 2021, and we are predicted to have 60k this year. And presumably over 100k in 2023. I just think the Rwanda idea is a non-starter. If fact, I would be surprised if a single asylum seekers get sent to Rwanda. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if a multi-million pound contract is awarded to a private security firm to deal with the shambles- with connections to the government. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Silver Shroud said:

And you don't have to grant asylum to criminals and law breakers.  How would classify illegal immigration? That Catch 22 is the beauty of UK immigration policy: make it impossible for someone to legally enter the country to try to claim asylum, and then classify them as illegals when they do enter the country. I don't support it, the only people I want to come to the UK is seasonal workers we need for our farming, fishing and industry. We have to find a solution, we had 8.5k crossing the channel in 2020, 30k in 2021, and we are predicted to have 60k this year. And presumably over 100k in 2023. I just think the Rwanda idea is a non-starter. If fact, I would be surprised if a single asylum seekers get sent to Rwanda. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if a multi-million pound contract is awarded to a private security firm to deal with the shambles- with connections to the government. 

It may be crass, but for all intents and puposes the refugee processing centre of excellence is located in Rwanda.

I didn't think it was wise for Australia to encourage Nauru to ratify the Refugee Convention.  But, Rwanda is a signatory and maybe it demonstrates a precedent that processing country doesn't have to be the countru of settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea that this was hatched as a distraction to partygate is a non starter, how the government could implement a scheme between Boris finding out about his fine and when this was announced seems a bit of a stretch. :rolleyes:

It quite obviously took many months to sort and offshoring was in the press last year.

There also seems to be a bit of subconscious racism going on with those not liking Rwanda with the idea that anywhere in Africa is full of foreigners and so unsuitable to send folks from the UK as they are all criminals or otherwise unsavory characters. ;)

The sort of sweeping statement used against the idea by those not worried about detail only headlines. 

You would also think that as the UK pays a not inconsiderable sum for these services the Rwandans might be more likely to listen to the types of comments made by Boris previously over good practice. :tu:

Trade, as we have seen elsewhere, can provide additional leverage with political situations.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59997.jpg.df4d973a14bd3916c27a09e2c30453a4.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

59997.jpg.df4d973a14bd3916c27a09e2c30453a4.jpg

That made me laugh out loud! It is not often I agree with you, itsnotoutthere, but this is spot on! Compare with Ukraine, where the men are at home fighting for their country and facing death and torture if they are overwhelmed. And sending their women and children to seek refuge. Not paddling boats to safety. Dare I say, there is a difference between European cultural values and Middle Eastern cultural values?

Edited by The Silver Shroud
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ukraine may lead to a shake-up in the way the world looks at refugees.Obviously, women and children should be evacuated from war zones, but not young men. If your country and culture is being destroyed and you are faced with genocide, fight back. I know it takes courage, and I know I would not personally be as brave as the Ukrainians, but they are showing what should be done in conflict.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Who could go a day without Instagram or TikTok?  Got to keep up with the latest memes and trends.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Missed the point completely... again.  And stop using the word 'refugees'  Economic migrants. 

Suggest you type in 'Ukrainian refugees' in Google images, and then 'channel migrants' and try and spot the not so subtle difference. Or is the 'women and children first' just a European thing. 

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.