Criminalisation of refugees

Analysis of Home Office data suggests that 9,000 people who are accepted under current rules, may no longer be given safety in the UK after today's legislation was passed
Amnesty International called the bill 'legislative vandalism '
Freedom from Torture described the plans as 'dripping with cruelty '
Withholding visas from ordinary citizens of countries, not deemed by Patel, to be cooperating with her perception of dealing with asylum seekers seems extraordinarily spiteful and vindictive
I am ashamed for her and the MP'S who voted this disgrace of a bill through
How incredibly sad this is

I do find Priti Patel’s apparent lack of empathy for those fleeing persecution especially headscratching given that her own parents arrived in the UK as refugees from ethnic persecution in Uganda under Idi Amin.

Maybe I am overly sentimental, but I believe that if I had grown up in family with such a powerful story, such a visceral experience of having to flee from harm like that, I feel I could put myself in the shoes of those doing the same.

Whatever rules the government chooses to make about qualification for asylum status, they must be enforced humanely. I don’t think a lot of the current proposals being floated - this Ascension Island business especially - are humane, and that really troubles me.

Why Rwanda?

I do find Priti Patel’s apparent lack of empathy for those fleeing persecution especially headscratching given that her own parents arrived in the UK as refugees from ethnic persecution in Uganda under Idi Amin.

Yes, I find it incomprehensible too, muffinthemoo.

I don't think that Patel's parents did 'flee persecution' I understand that they left Uganda well before Amin threw out the Asian population.

According to her Wikipedia entry her parents came to the UK 'in the 1960s (no precise date given). Amin threw out the Ugandan Asians in 1972.

She was born in the UK in 1971. No personal experience of being a refugee.

I don't know exactly what she is trying to achieve. She is certainly destroying our reputation as a warm an welcoming nation. I don't recall hostility in the past to refugees; the welcome for the Vietnamese Boat People, and the Ugandan Asians showed us at our best. Patel demeans us.

I didn't realise that is untrue, MaizieD, as the story still persists.

muffinthemoo

I do find Priti Patel’s apparent lack of empathy for those fleeing persecution especially headscratching given that her own parents arrived in the UK as refugees from ethnic persecution in Uganda under Idi Amin.

Maybe I am overly sentimental, but I believe that if I had grown up in family with such a powerful story, such a visceral experience of having to flee from harm like that, I feel I could put myself in the shoes of those doing the same.

Whatever rules the government chooses to make about qualification for asylum status, they must be enforced humanely. I don’t think a lot of the current proposals being floated - this Ascension Island business especially - are humane, and that really troubles me.

Patel's parents arrived in late 1960s, Amin came to power (and ejected Asians with just the clothes they were wearing) in 1971.
I appreciate that Uganda was undoubtedly racist pre-1971.

Has anybody told Rwanda about this plan?

I don't know whether Patel knows this, but the world's changed in the 100 years since the British wanted to establish a Jewish homeland in British East Africa.

It is a disgraceful thing to be doing and will totally wreck what is left of Britain’s reputation abroad. During and after the war we welcomed people such as Polish who had fled persecution and we opened our arms to Hungarians when they had a revolution. Not to do that now I find abhorrent. I cannot understand how a person in her position can be so callous to others. Many people who came to Britain seeking asylum have repaid the country many times over by the work and effort they have given.

Our Judicial system (never mind that of the EU) is actually turning against PP and our Government, Good!

You have 14 days to bring back deported asylum seeker, judge tells Priti Patel

High Court orders the return to the UK of Sudanese man, who claims he was removed due to an ‘illegal and secret’ Home Office policy (from The Telegraph).

Many people who came to Britain seeking asylum have repaid the country many times over by the work and effort they have given.

Indeed, Welshwife. And here is the story of one of them:

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/hassan-akkad-for-someone-from-syria-the-creeping-authoritarianism-is-vivid-in-britain?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Thing is when Priti Patels parents came here it wasn't just her dad looking for work though was it

Maizie I withdraw what I said about Amin in that case. I thought I remembered Patel saying her parents had been forced out of Uganda and I did find a speech of hers saying that (see www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretary-priti-patel-speech-on-immigration ) but I don't know how I got the idea they were asylum seekers. I'm afraid that must have been something I picked up somewhere and never properly fact checked!

Why are we going to send people to Rwanda? I don’t understand what people seeking asylum here in the UK have got to do with Rwanda. Apologies if I’m being thick. I just don’t understand.

The Law Society thinks this is a breach of Asylum Law.
Our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention still pertain but we seem to be disinterested.

It's a sad, sad day for those of us in the UK with a shred of compassion.

maddyone - Rwanda is apparently under consideration as a possible place to take our "potential" refugees. No connection (obviously) but clearly it's thought they will cooperate for a price.

I expect the thought is we will forget about people if they aren't here in the UK.

Can this callous government get any worse? It would he better to allow applications before people arrive here instead of making people criminals. Then it would be good if we could actually keep up with the applications so honest people in dire need get support and those not entitled to refugee status are dealt with fairly, humanely and swiftly.

What a mess. I am so ashamed.

Authoritarian with facist tendencies.

There are two groups of people coming into the UK illegally, refugees and migrants. The circumstances of each group are very different. There are, however, correct procedures in place for both groups to APPLY to come into the UK, and any that do not follow the procedures should be classed as criminals. If they do not follow our legal routes to get here, what is the chance of them following our laws after they arrive?

Neither refugees nor migrants are necessarily in the UK illegally. I'm not sure what the difference is anyway.

How can people in war torn countries where they are not able to live in a permanent place and have no IT ability or equipment apply for asylum? Most of them need to ‘escape’ and cannot do it openly. Refugees and asylum seekers are not illegal when they are fleeing war zones etc.
It has also to be said that the French are not dealing sympathetically with the people camping in the Calais area. The CRS frequently destroy the camps and all the possessions of these people even if the weather is freezing cold or in the middle of rainstorms.
Britain is becoming a nation of anti everyone except those who have money no matter where or how it was obtained.

growstuff

Neither refugees nor migrants are necessarily in the UK illegally. I'm not sure what the difference is anyway.

Refugees cannot return home, migrants can. Our first priority should be to genuine refugees and not economic migrants, this is where the problem is, economic migrants who cannot apply legally, jumping in with genuine refugees.

That's not a legal definition of refugees or migrants.

Nancat stated that both are illegal. they're not.

Nancat I think you might be surprised to discover that you are wrong about refugees, illegality, and how refugee status is obtained.

Here's a link to the Refugee Council which has a really clear explanation about the situation:

www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/

Hope this helps.

Lin52

growstuff

Neither refugees nor migrants are necessarily in the UK illegally. I'm not sure what the difference is anyway.

Refugees cannot return home, migrants can. Our first priority should be to genuine refugees and not economic migrants, this is where the problem is, economic migrants who cannot apply legally, jumping in with genuine refugees.

So you treat them all like vermin as a deterrent? Just in case a few non refugees (who can be legally identified and deported) slip into the country?

I sometimes wonder how far posters would go in that experiment where participants thought they were administering electric shocks to a person.

Thank you for the explanation NotSpaghetti. If I understand it correctly then, the migrants will be offered money to be taken to Rwanda? Why would Rwanda even want them? Migrants should be assessed when they arrive here and either given leave to remain, or returned to their country of origin. Actually I thought that is what already happened. Who on earth thought up such a daft idea as sending people to Rwanda?