Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

Migration, some fact and the shame It is worth quoting but I would want to quote it all.

PS. I mean I saved the official site, not whatever Patel and Johnson have claimed.

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 saved it because it wouldn't surprise me if it gets taken down. There have been government culls of web pages in the past.

I agree Growstuff having just looked.

It is a political statement using the Home Office site. Parliament has not even properly advised about it yet. We are one step closer to dictatorship it seems.

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

From House of Commons library.

Ailidh

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.

Mmm. I'm not sure it's that thought out Ailidh". I get the impression, and that is all it is, that Johnson didn't expect the backlash over the fines. He may even have expected them not to come out before the local elections.

That this has been hastily pulled forward is plain for all to see. The home office/government stirred up the racists and xenophobes but has so far not been able to show they are doing anything about the mythical part of their rant - not surprisingly. I think this is simply to cover the incompetence of those running the Home Office and to save Johnson's bacon.

He only ever had one thing going for him; he was meant to be an election winner - not a nice person, nobody's friend, not someone you could trust, just an election winner. That is all the Tories want - power. Preferably the sort of power that makes them individually richer. Johnson has been going downhill for some time and it looked as if they might have a bad local election. This is all about saving Johnson's skin - no matter who he sacrifices in the process.

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.

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.

These so called “ people” are human beings

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.