Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

Iam64

Katie59

One of the real problems will be allegations that deported migrants have been abused and mistreated in Rwanda, the news hounds will be all over that.

Migrants will deliberately cause problems just to get the news attention.

Of all the unpleasant posts, this one stood out for me.
It seems to me inevitable that asylum seekers will be ‘abused and mistreated in Rwanda. Institutions are rife with abuse. Rwanda doesn’t have a good human rights record
Still, why should we worry? We can simply dismiss any complaints as from folks ‘deliberately causing problems just to get the news attention’

My reaction, too. A horrible comment. Comments on The Express’s Facebook page are pretty awful, too. But strangely enough ( I know, I’m nosey) some of the profiles of people making the nastiest comments are full of animal rescue charities. Not sure why the Express pops up on my Facebook page but it’s a bit of an eye opener.

Another example of this government flinging money at a mess for other people to clean up. If we are so full up/ can’t afford anything/ want to save lives why are we sending these people to a country which is more densely populated than the U.K./ is poorer/ has a terrible human rights record? The hypocrisy and downright racism is appalling. No, - I don’t think we should just open our borders - we should work together with other countries to smash the criminal gangs , set up centres in Europe where people can be properly screened, spend more public money on our woeful public services for all citizens, help genuine refugees into employment, etc etc . I believe this horrible scheme won’t get off the ground - it will appeal to the ukippy type racists amongst us, of which there are unfortunately quite a few. Let’s hope those “lefty” lawyers - you know people with education, humanity and intelligence- challenge it all the way.

MayBee I've noticed a correlation between racists on social media who claim to support animal rescue charities. I thought I was imagining it. Weird!

There's a lot of fake accounts on Facebook that pretend to be concerned about animal rights and post about it, but it's only a way of drawing people in and exposing them to the far right stuff. Britain First were past masters at it. They exploit anger about veterans rights and grooming gangs too.

Not sure why the Express pops up on my Facebook page but it’s a bit of an eye opener.

The Express page will pop up more often the more you engage with it. Reading the stories it posts, then even getting as far as reading the comments and so on, the algorithm thinks you are really interested so keeps showing you the Express page. You can always hide it, if you are seeing it too often.

grannyactivist a heartwarming post that I have just come across. Human kindness in spades and such uplifting sentiments to read in the midst of all this negativity. Thank you for sharing it with us.
I hope your recovery continues.

Iam64

Katie59

One of the real problems will be allegations that deported migrants have been abused and mistreated in Rwanda, the news hounds will be all over that.

Migrants will deliberately cause problems just to get the news attention.

Of all the unpleasant posts, this one stood out for me.
It seems to me inevitable that asylum seekers will be ‘abused and mistreated in Rwanda. Institutions are rife with abuse. Rwanda doesn’t have a good human rights record
Still, why should we worry? We can simply dismiss any complaints as from folks ‘deliberately causing problems just to get the news attention’

Wether we like it or not the media gets manipulated to suit the cause and it will be in the interests of the migrants to portray Rwanda as evil and cruel. Many/most of the migrants are economic migrants, the are manipulating the asylum system for their own reasons.

Compared with its other countries Rwanda is on a par with China, political opposition is not tolerated, it’s neighbours in Burundi and DRC are very politically unstable, Muslim extremism is active in some areas too. If there was not strong government it would be all to easy to descend into genocide again

No they don’t have the same freedoms we have and the police are likely to be very heavy handed, so I don’t think the Rwanda scheme will last very long.

When asked, people who think we should take everyone in if they opened their homes to them, is usually, I live in a tiny one bedroom flat. Why do they travel through safe countries to come here? That’s what needs changing, they have to realise that paying people smugglers doesn’t work. if you fear for your life you stop where it’s safe, not make that crossing. All that money to the French, what a waste, pass the problem on.

I don't think anyone has said we should take everyone in. I think people are saying we should treat people like human beings until we know if they have the right to stay here.

Very different things.

One of the words I've come to hate most on t' Internet is "vile": usually used to describe someone who's pushed in in a queue or dropped a fàg packet - huge over reaction, and a word I'd never use lightly or loosely.

I can find no other word for this plan. Utterly Vile.

My only hope is that, Jim Hacker style, the Prime Minister is proposing something so outrageous that when he launches the Actual, slightly less outrageous plan he's had all along, people will be so relieved that they'll go for it.

The only people profiting at the moment with the dinghy crossings costing upto £3000 a person are the people smugglers (I bet they don't want this money making racket to end its big business) and the so called human rights lawyers who are lining their pockets with tax payers money curtesy of the ridiculous legal aid scheme which is hopefully being reformed. Genuine asylum seekers will be able to stay but hopefully this scheme (if it actually takes off) will put the economic migrants off. Yes I expect lots of people would like to start a new life elsewhere but you have to go through the system not just pay and jump the queue.

A poster up thread mentioned the death sentence, yes I think for certain crimes, child killers, terrorism it should be reinstated.

If this plan does take off I hope it’s a lot better than what these poor souls are suffering with the support of the eu.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/20/migrants-detained-in-libya-for-profit-leaked-eu-report-reveals

Most people who are leaving their home countries don’t want to come to the UK (look at the figures for the rest of Europe for confirmation), but those that do either have relatives or friends here, know at least some English, and/or believe that our human rights legislation will provide them a safe haven from the harm they have experienced or anticipate if they remain in their country of origin.

Those ‘pull’ factors will remain and so the people smugglers will continue to ply their ugly trade - what care they if their ‘cargo’ is then sent off elsewhere? But if the British government implements the plan announced yesterday then as a country we will actually have become the paymasters for people trafficking. We will have become the very thing we find immoral when others do it.

And although it’s been a success in taking the heat off the PM for misleading Parliament and trashing the Nolan Principles, it only serves to demean his office further and I have no doubt that history will judge his actions severely.

07:57MerylStreep The reduction in migration has instead been celebrated in Brussels, with the number of people arriving in Italy from Libya dropping from more than 107,000 in 2017 to about 13,000 in 2018, and to just 1,100 by August this year. The Libyan coastguard is said to have intercepted 5,280 people as of August 2019.

Like it or not it has reduced the number of migrants.

homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/factsheet-migration-and-economic-development-partnership/

We could just shoot them. That would reduce the numbers of migrants.

Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. If you illegally or irregularly enter the UK via a safe country in which you could have claimed asylum, you are not seeking refuge from imminent peril as is the intended purpose of the asylum system but are picking the UK as a preferred destination over others. (copied from home office media)

Ah, the Home Office. Bastion of truth and reason.

Zonne

Esspee

Is this Boris’s latest attempt to divert us all from dwelling on the fact that he repeatedly lied to parliament?

I think it’s partly that, but even more a dogwhistle to the basest and/or racist of their supporters, to shore up the Tory vote at the local elections.

And it’s evidently working.

What makes you believe it's working Zonne. The polls are not saying that. Those who find the odd Neo-Nazi pleasant company are shouting very loudly but that does not give them an extra vote. It will sway some; I have no doubt but figures would help us understand what is happening.

Hello grannyactivist. Thanks for recording the experience of some of the asylum seekers you supported.
By the way Maudi, access to the UK asylum system is based on need. It isn’t working well. It’s too slow, doesn’t support or follow people well.
This country takes less refugees than say France or Germany. It’s the expectation that people stay in the first safe country they land i that’s wrong. Take that away and the disgusting, racist, unChristian attitudes shown by a small number of posters would take a knock.

Maudi

Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. If you illegally or irregularly enter the UK via a safe country in which you could have claimed asylum, you are not seeking refuge from imminent peril as is the intended purpose of the asylum system but are picking the UK as a preferred destination over others. (copied from home office media)

I am trying to track this specific quote down. It seems to be quoting, not from the Home Office officially but from Patel and Johnson. The law doesn't seem to define "irregular entry". Perhaps you could give a link.

Katie59

Iam64

Katie59

One of the real problems will be allegations that deported migrants have been abused and mistreated in Rwanda, the news hounds will be all over that.

Migrants will deliberately cause problems just to get the news attention.

Of all the unpleasant posts, this one stood out for me.
It seems to me inevitable that asylum seekers will be ‘abused and mistreated in Rwanda. Institutions are rife with abuse. Rwanda doesn’t have a good human rights record
Still, why should we worry? We can simply dismiss any complaints as from folks ‘deliberately causing problems just to get the news attention’

Wether we like it or not the media gets manipulated to suit the cause and it will be in the interests of the migrants to portray Rwanda as evil and cruel. Many/most of the migrants are economic migrants, the are manipulating the asylum system for their own reasons.

Compared with its other countries Rwanda is on a par with China, political opposition is not tolerated, it’s neighbours in Burundi and DRC are very politically unstable, Muslim extremism is active in some areas too. If there was not strong government it would be all to easy to descend into genocide again

No they don’t have the same freedoms we have and the police are likely to be very heavy handed, so I don’t think the Rwanda scheme will last very long.

Where is your evidence that most migrants are "economic" migrants?

These so called “ people” are human beings

Maudi

Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. If you illegally or irregularly enter the UK via a safe country in which you could have claimed asylum, you are not seeking refuge from imminent peril as is the intended purpose of the asylum system but are picking the UK as a preferred destination over others. (copied from home office media)

Where is your source that migrants should be seeking refuge from imminent peril and this is the intended purpose of the asylum system? If the Home Office is claiming that, it's contravening international law. There is nothing about claiming asylum in a previous country.

DaisyAnne

Maudi

Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. If you illegally or irregularly enter the UK via a safe country in which you could have claimed asylum, you are not seeking refuge from imminent peril as is the intended purpose of the asylum system but are picking the UK as a preferred destination over others. (copied from home office media)

I am trying to track this specific quote down. It seems to be quoting, not from the Home Office officially but from Patel and Johnson. The law doesn't seem to define "irregular entry". Perhaps you could give a link.

This is the official guidance on asylum:

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01403/SN01403.pdf

Wherever that claim came from, it wasn't Parliament or the UN Convention & Protocol.