Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

Chestnut

If anyone can suggest a better way of dealing with 65,000 people arriving in boats this year, often with no passports, then send your answers on a postcard. Oh, and next year and the year after too.

The £1 billion question.

I think it must start with aid/help on the ground, preferably not through corrupt regimes in the Countries they are fleeing from…

If anyone can suggest a better way of dealing with 65,000 people arriving in boats this year, often with no passports, then send your answers on a postcard. Oh, and next year and the year after too.

Thank you for that information GillT57 I was unaware.

Seems a bit head in the sand by this U.K. Government, hopefully the next cohort think differently.

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

I must admit to being very puzzled about this entire thing.

I feel that something has to be done regarding the people traffickers taking these desperate folks money and shoving them off into the channel in unsafe boats. I do not think this will make much if any difference.

Surely it’s time for the U.K. to have an office/officials in Calais?

Why would France agree to that? It did, when the UK was in the EU.

We have an Embassy in Paris, with some negotiations I see no reason why a sub-Embassy couldn’t be set up in Calais just to deal with those seeking asylum in U.K.

I am trying to think outside of the box, as all I see on any threads regarding asylum seekers is how wrong things currently are with no positive suggestions to ease the situation.

Germanshepherdsmum

Some of the people coming over in boats are known to have destroyed their ID papers. Not all but some. How would having officials in Calais prevent that and is there a good reason why someone would destroy their papers and seek to come here under the radar? Some boats land in deserted areas and the passengers disperse but some are found by police later. That sort of action does not signal good intent to me.

In 2020, the UK granted asylum to just over 6,000 Eritreans, who are not allowed passports until they have completed compulsory military service, which is often until they are in their 40s. Therefore, if somebody is being persecuted, they have to get hold of false documents to travel. Another reason asylum seekers sometimes don't have paperwork is because it's confiscated by people smugglers, who can then sell it to others.

GrannyGravy13

I must admit to being very puzzled about this entire thing.

I feel that something has to be done regarding the people traffickers taking these desperate folks money and shoving them off into the channel in unsafe boats. I do not think this will make much if any difference.

Surely it’s time for the U.K. to have an office/officials in Calais?

Macron suggested a joint office in Calais where asylum seekers could apply through official channels and thus put less people into rubber dinghies. The British government refused.

growstuff

I agree DaisyAnne. He's opening up all the wounds which won the referendum and hoping he's on to a winner again.

Well let's face it, stirring up racism and fear of others is the only bit of the Brexit plan that is left. The economic results, which were predicted by many and could have been anticipated by anyone with GCSE economics are an absolute disaster. The last weapon is to feed the racists what they want and sadly,as we have read on GN, a lot of people are lapping it up

volver

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.

Yes that was a common tactic during the mass disinformation campaign run pre Brexit. A friend of mine, a keen supporter of animal charities, was duped and was sharing heartbreaking stories of abandoned puppies but also Britain First lies. I pointed it out and she was horrified.

GrannyGravy13

I must admit to being very puzzled about this entire thing.

I feel that something has to be done regarding the people traffickers taking these desperate folks money and shoving them off into the channel in unsafe boats. I do not think this will make much if any difference.

Surely it’s time for the U.K. to have an office/officials in Calais?

Why would France agree to that? It did, when the UK was in the EU.

Just on Sky News - their reporter who is in Rwanda has just said that the building they keep showing on the news that the asylum seekers will be housed in (to be fair, it looks decent, new and clean) is not yet owned by the Rwandan Government (it's still in private ownership) and there are no details of when the further 2 buildings to be provided on the compound will be completed. What's the bet that they are not going to be housed in this nice block of flats, but something far worse?

Some of the people coming over in boats are known to have destroyed their ID papers. Not all but some. How would having officials in Calais prevent that and is there a good reason why someone would destroy their papers and seek to come here under the radar? Some boats land in deserted areas and the passengers disperse but some are found by police later. That sort of action does not signal good intent to me.

Published by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office:

UN Human Rights Council: Universal Periodic Review Adoption – Rwanda

The UK's International Ambassador for Human Rights, Rita French, delivered this statement during the Universal Periodic Review Adoption for Rwanda.

Thank you, Madam President.
The United Kingdom welcomes Rwanda’s engagement with the UPR, including collaboration between the Government and civil society on human rights. The UK reiterates its commitment to work constructively with Rwanda to support UPR implementation.
The UK is pleased that Rwanda fully supports our recommendation to protect and enable journalists to work freely, without fear of retribution, and ensure that State authorities comply with the access to information law. This is an important step to promote freedom of speech, including allowing space for critical voices.
We regret that Rwanda did not support our recommendation, which was also made by other States, to conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.
We welcome that Rwanda accepted recommendations from other countries on combatting human trafficking, but we were disappointed that Rwanda did not support the UK recommendation to screen, identify and provide support to trafficking victims, including those held in Government transit centres. In recognising the progress made by Rwanda, the UK encourages Rwanda to submit an optional mid-term report to provide an update on implementation of recommendations, between reviews.

Thank you.

Published 8 July 2021

I must admit to being very puzzled about this entire thing.

I feel that something has to be done regarding the people traffickers taking these desperate folks money and shoving them off into the channel in unsafe boats. I do not think this will make much if any difference.

Surely it’s time for the U.K. to have an office/officials in Calais?

Originally, I thought the idea was to "process" the immigrants in Rwanda, but GG13's link and the Home Office blog make it clear that the ide is that the people will be expected to stay in Rwanda, even if asylum is granted.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-200142-e6765eb4-a1a7-40be-840d-fb03cc696d36.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-233914-95de7c82-0531-47b5-893a-6ae1473a7a5f.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-760051-849fd99c-51f7-4459-9628-391fdd5291ef.png

I just had a look at Priti Patel’s Twitter account and found these so I thought I would share

Coastpath Fri 15-Apr-22 09:10:00
Try as I might I cannot understand the resistance to 'economic migrants'. I had to look that up - it means people seeking to improve one's standard of living apparently.

It's something I don't get either. The two countries the Johnson supporters seem to quote as wonderful are America and Australia, both countries built on economic migrants. It's very strange. Add to that the fact that most of the wealth in this country has been founded on economic migrants from this country making fortunes elsewhere and there seems to be no logic in it. But then, when was there?

Zonne

DaisyAnn in the YouGov poll, you can call up whether people support this despicable idea by their political affiliation.

yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2022/04/14/8bb29/1 - if that link doesn’t work, it shows 39% of Conservatives strongly support it, and 20% ‘tend to’.

And there’s some evidence in this thread…

I saw that when I quoted the YouGov poll earlier Zonne.

It may help them retain Red Wall seats where they were won on racism and fear of immigration in the first place (Brexit voters). However, that is not the overall picture. Overall he is not making headway, but rather the reverse.

This is a local election and people are beginning to feel the effect of cost of living rises, etc. We have a few weeks to go and these days a day or an hour is "a long time in politics." This may affect the far-right voter - the Faragista (about a third of the party possibly?) but overall, will "ship a migrant out" beat "I can't pay my bills".

As the government has cut what the Pensioners were entitled to (large Tory constituency at one point) and Working Benefits, Disabled Befits, etc., and overall that poll says they have lost ground, I don't think that poll can be said to show " it’s evidently working."

It does show he knows the target he needs to attract - ex Brexit voters in Red Wall seats - but at least some of those will have moved on (difficult to believe but it happens ) They have achieved "Brexit", probably feel a bit disappointed because their goal, never having been defined, cannot be achieved. Some will even be identifying their lost incomes directly to that so they will be looking at what the government and the Chancellor have done.

I don't think it is a done deal yet. Let's hope the trips to Rwanda aren't either.

volver

I think the problem is that some us are trying to argue from a position of law, and facts. Whereas some others are just reacting to what they've been told by vested interests and will never listen to the actual facts.

We're on a hiding to nothing.

And Johnson knows very well that there are people like that, who will repeat whatever nonsense he throws at them ... and vote for him because it's the nonsense they want to believe.

Maudi

08:37DaisyAnne

The link is on my 8.10 post

That's a Home Office blog. It's not the law or official guidance.

I would also like to add the number of positive asylum decisions granted per 10,000 population in 2020. The UK accepts far fewer asylum seekers than European neighbours of comparable size or (in some cases) smaller.

Try as I might I cannot understand the resistance to 'economic migrants'. I had to look that up - it means people seeking to improve one's standard of living apparently.

That's a good thing isn't it? It's what most of us have been doing all our lives and what we want for the next generations.

We have jobs that need doing - most vitally at this time of year the production of our food made all the more important by the chaos at Dover. Fit, healthy, young people want to come here to earn money. Why is there a problem?

The horror in Ukraine has taught us one thing above all others - that we all, however comfortable and 'civilised' our country appears, are only a few short hours away from being in a world we need to run from. A world where bombs are falling, children are being blown apart in their homes, girls and women raped, young men tied, tortured and killed, pets shot, homes destroyed. A world where there is no food, no water, no warm bed, where the hospital has been flattened and your mother lies dead under carpets in the back yard.

You would want to run too and you would keep running until you found a safe place. Not just any place but the best place, a place you like and where you speak the language, perhaps where you have family and friends. You would want to settle, use your skills and build a new, better life for your family. But even more than that, you would want to go home to the country you once knew and loved which doesn't exist any more.

08:37DaisyAnne

The link is on my 8.10 post

I think the problem is that some us are trying to argue from a position of law, and facts. Whereas some others are just reacting to what they've been told by vested interests and will never listen to the actual facts.

We're on a hiding to nothing.

Zonne

DaisyAnn in the YouGov poll, you can call up whether people support this despicable idea by their political affiliation.

yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2022/04/14/8bb29/1 - if that link doesn’t work, it shows 39% of Conservatives strongly support it, and 20% ‘tend to’.

And there’s some evidence in this thread…

Since the Conservative Party now incorporates UKIP, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

fact facts