Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

While there are some awful dehumanising comments on this thread it's such a relief to see the support shown other human beings

Unpopular opinion I know but we can’t possibly keep on allowing huge numbers of illegal immigrants into the country.

Callistemon21 has just answered your question GSM

It is the history of all time that economic migrants will take any work and then work their way up via hard work and education - sometimes across generations. If people are poor, disenchanted by the system, unable to work and have no occupation then things go wrong and I guess that's what you witness in your town.

You must admit that if these guys could work it would solve many of our country's current problems.

The government's minister for refugees said just a week ago there was "no possibility" of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda, it has emerged.

Lord Harrington's comments came just seven days before Boris Johnson announces plans to send refugees seeking asylum to an offshore processing centre in the landlocked African country.

Asked on 5 of April whether he could justify such ameasure, the Home Office minister said he was not aware of any such plan.

"We haven't sent any refugees to Rwanda... is that a rumour?" he said when asked about the possibility of the policy during an appearance on LBC Radio.

When it was put to Lord Harrington that the policy might be applied to people crossing the Channel on small boats, he said: "If it's happening in the Home Office on the same corridor that I'm in, they haven't told me about it. But we're having difficulty enough getting them from Ukraine to our country – there's no possibility of sending them to Rwanda."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-refugees-migrants-boris-johnson-lord-harrington-b2057819.html

Callistemon21

We do have a lot of job vacancies so yes, people should be processed more quickly.

One thing about economic migrants is that they will be keen to work. Some may have qualifications from their home countries but I know for a fact that it's not so easy for someone from another country to just walk into a job in the NHS (they may need additional qualifications and language skills) and that's right in some cases.
However, just because someone has good qualifications doesn't mean they won't be willing to take on lower paid jobs in the meantime if given the chance.

Lots of the care staff we employ for my dd's service are trained nurses in Africa. They work in social care here whilst topping up their qualifications to nurse in the NHS at some point. It works very well. At the moment I have two trained nurses, someone who was a healthcare manager so is at university a couple of days a week and one girl (who isn't African but isn't British, who is going into medicine) It works well for us and will work well for others when they are all UK qualified. These are all female economic migrants. I doubt this is is unique to our care service.

Emigrating to better your circumstances is common. How many people took themselves off to America in 20th century from UK seeking a better life? I am guessing that some of our MPs and ministers are the children of people who came here for a better life.

I do not blame these economic migrants, although it is clear that those fleeing war and persecution will be further up the list.

It is the word genuine that troubles me - I am sure that everyone seeking to come to UK has a genuine reason.

But the solution to the debacle in the channel is not to send them off to Rwanda - I cannot begin to imagine how anyone might come up with such a barmy and inhuman scheme.

£120 million could be used to speed up the processing.

Rosalyn69

Unpopular opinion I know but we can’t possibly keep on allowing huge numbers of illegal immigrants into the country.

But we are prepared to send them to Rwanda which is a small country and the most densely populated country in sub-Saharan Africa.

This smacks of Nazism and the Madagascar Plan.

One wonders why and how Rwanda had been chosen:

Already densely populated
History of genocide
A mostly rural population
Economy primarily subsistence farming
Little opportunity for economic advancement
Not enough water
Not enough food
Poor sanitation
Low life expectancy
High rate of communicable diseases
Poor record on human rights

You have to be desperate to take the risks these migrants do. Priti Patel thinks that migrants may think twice before crossing the Channel if they think they may end up in Rwanda. Double standards of the most heinous kind. What if the UK had taken this approach when her own family came to the UK from Uganda and became prosperous as a result? What a despicable woman she is.

a great many of the young men arriving here via the Channel (*6000 yesterday*)

That's not true, is it?

I'll be charitable and say that you made a mistake.

JaneJudge yes, we have a relative who had to do the same.

volver I think it’s a typo as the BBC said 600 migrants arrived by boat into the U.K. yesterday.

Heard on BBC news this morning.

There is £1.4 billion allocated to this scheme, apparently.

The reason that asylum seekers are still languishing in hotels, for months and years, is the the Home Office is incredibly inefficient and slow when it comes to processing their applications (and let's not forget that 82% of asylum applications are granted, so stop it with this nonsense about 'economic migrants' and 'illegals' and any other nasty fascist trope).

Additionally, the asylum seekers aren't permitted to work while waiting for their application to be processed. They have no option but to be depending on the meagre crumbs they are offered.

In view of this, it might be a better option to spend the £1.4 billion on the Home Office. Shaking up it's processes, better staff training, employing more staff etc.

But, as this government works on pandering to xenophobia and racism, because, sadly, there are lots of votes to be gained from xenophobes and racists, reforming the Home Office isn't going to happen.

It says 600

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

MaizieD I would be all for spending £1.4 billion on shaking up the Home Office.

Yesterday I spent a lot of time thinking how people who describe themselves as having a Christian faith can support the lies and cruel policies of this government. This Rwanda concept has made me question this even more today.

All faiths from Humanist to Hindu (that's you isn't it Pritti) set great store by the importance of kindness to others from any country, especially those in need.

I have no faith but for anyone interested here's what the Bible says about immigrants. Hard to tally with some opinons on here.

“When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:33-34).

So these victims arrive in Rwanda.

Will we be providing them with any money, suitable clothing?
Advise about health?

Will they all be receiving appropriate vaccines?

volver

My prediction - it won't happen.

They are getting close to the end of the parliamentary session and there are lots of amendments to the bill. They also have to get it through the Lords, and so they could run out of time.

Then they will say that they tried to do something about immigration but the toxic wokeflakes prevented them

You heard it here first.

It will certainly get the votes in the local elections. One reason why it has happened now, I would guess.

I have just listening to Johnson's speech on this. Talk about "forked" tongue. No doubt a journalist somewhere will go through it forensically but facts, as always, will make no difference to the irrational denialists.

I've got past the "I could weep" stage. I do weep.

Yes good idea if we can stop illegal immigrants getting into rickety unsafe boats and paying a fortune to traffickers. But is this the best answer? I’m going to read up on it and find out more.

From the BBC

"Last year, the UK government itself expressed concern over "continued restrictions to civil and political rights and media freedom" in Rwanda at the United Nations, calling for independent investigations into "allegations of extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture"."

I’ve been listening too and fully support what he’s trying to do - stop the people smugglers and provide only a safe and legal route into the UK with those who are genuine refugees and asylum seekers at the front of the queue.
Btw apologies if I misheard 600 as 6000 but it’s still a heck of a lot of smuggled people in one day and that has to end. Nobody seems to have produced any other ideas in all the time this been happening.

Maudi

No problem if they are genuine asylum seekers they will be allowed to stay in the UK if they are not genuine I don't particularly care what happens to them. I just hope that word will get around that the UK is now not a soft touch and you can't bypass the system and pay money to a smuggler gang to get here.

These men and they will only be men, are not going to be allowed to come back here from Rwanda - a place famous for genocide. If they are found to be genuine they will be "helped to settle" in Rwanda. It's a one-way ticket. They are a new generation that will learn what "Arbeit macht frei" or "Work sets you free" means.

It has zero to do with the cost as it is going to cost much much more following this fascist policy than if we acted as a civilised nation and dealt with these asylum seekers in the proper manner.

I live in the north west. Our hotel chains are housing young male middle eastern men. There have been local schoolgirls aged 12 + harassed on their way home from school by groups of these young men.

They are not all asylum seekers wwm. A great many are economic migrants who have no qualifications to enable them to work here and don’t speak English. Do you have an alternative method of stopping people smugglers whilst providing a safe route for people who are fleeing war and persecution rather than just seeing us as a soft touch?