Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

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.

Just call me Mystic Meg.

Maudi

Official Statistics
Weekly number of migrants detected in small boats - 18 to 24 April 2022
Published 25 April 2022

Deterrent seems to be working.

So how's that deterrent working for you now Maudi?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-61298895

Families in war torn countries club together to provide money for one of their young, healthy, competent young men to make the perilous journey to Europe, including the UK. That’s one of the reason refugees and asylum seekers who arrive by dangerous boats, are young men

I am strongly against taking in economic migrants unless they have skills to contribute that cannot be found among our own population. From the moment they step into this country these people are parasiting upon an inadequate infrastructure to which they have contributed nothing. They are taken in and given a medical examination, housed and provided with pocket money. When was the last time you were able to stroll in to see your GP? Do you get free housing and free meals?

Some of them have even had the cheek to stage a protest march because the wifi and food did not suit them. They did this at the height of the lockdown at a time when British born people would have risked arrest.

Those that are allowed to stay should pay an extra level of taxation for the first 10 years and have a lower level of access to resources such as housing, education and health services.

For once it looks as though Farage was spot on - apparently several hundred crossed the channel today.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-61293693
I wonder if the poor souls realised their fate?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-61293693

But former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage told GB News: There are some saying Rwanda is working, it's a success because virtually no migrants have come now for the last six or seven days. Believe you me, I know this subject.

Doesn't he just "know this subject"! He seems obsessed with it.

Maybe the Coastguard could give him a job and he could do something useful for a change... he has those binoculars glued to his eyes most of the time. I think it's unhealthy. He's made his point, we've all heard it. Probably time to let it go. Asylum seekers are a tragedy and a problem, but they and it is here to stay - for many countries. A co-ordinated effort by affected nations to deal realistically with the issue is what's needed... maybe a 'summit' of world leaders. This one-man-band crusade by Farage is not going to help anyone or deal pragmatically with the problem.

White wave ????

Private Eye.

Like I said when you posted this on another thread...

I find myself in the unpleasant situation of agreeing with Nigel Farage.

But former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage told GB News: There are some saying Rwanda is working, it's a success because virtually no migrants have come now for the last six or seven days. Believe you me, I know this subject.

That is nothing to do with the prospect of being shipped off to Rwanda. It's because there has been a persistent, strong, north-easterly wind in the English Channel. When it gets calm again, the boats will continue to come.

Official Statistics
Weekly number of migrants detected in small boats - 18 to 24 April 2022
Published 25 April 2022

Deterrent seems to be working.

It certainly was an interesting article and your quoted paragraphs show the complete contrast to the opening sentence.

"Britain was one of the first countries to ratify the Refugee Convention of 1951, which spelled out countries' obligations to protect fugitives from persecution who had arrived in their territories and not return them to danger."

I have said before but this shows it far too well - we have remembered very little of the truths our country learned during the last war.

You have also sent me scurrying off to look at my now "on-line", as well as physical, local library.

Thanks for flagging that DaisyAnne.

People can read the article free of charge on a library app if their county library has a subscription.

This was the part that struck me most:

The much greater danger is that the plan works. If Britain manages to send thousands of asylum-seekers to Africa, others are likely to get the message and not try to come to Britain at all. Few refugees would find Rwanda congenial. Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, calls it “that dynamic country” and “one of the safest...in the world”; his home secretary, Priti Patel, says it has “many, many interests in common” with Britain. Such praise is overblown. Rwanda may be orderly, but it is also extremely poor and has one of Africa’s scariest, most repressive governments. Britain has accurately criticised its human-rights violations in the past, although it may refrain from now on. Dealing with an autocrat messes with your moral compass.

If asylum-seekers steer clear of Britain, other rich democracies will surely wonder why they should adhere strictly to decades-old conventions. They too are likely to start cutting deals to offload their asylum-seekers onto poorer countries, no matter how autocratic. The world will stumble towards a new system for processing refugees, in which money buys immunity from claims. The countries most able to accommodate desperate people will end up doing even less than they do today.

Money buys immunity - an interesting phrase for our current government in all kinds of contexts.

So I ask again. Why Rwanda?

This is one paragraph from a much longer article in this weeks Economist. It is hardly a "left-wing" publication. If you have access the article is headed "Somebody else's problem". I would have added a question mark to that.

If the Conservatives pull this off, it will be a perilous new step for the world's refugee system. Britain is not trying to process asylum claimants offshore, as Australia did when it interned boat people in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Nor is it trying to push asylum-seekers back to the country they arrived from, as America has done since covid-19 hit (although it will soon relent) and as the European Union has done with Syrians who cross from Turkey to Greece. Britain proposes to send people 6,500km away, regardless of where they came from.

Maudi

I'm proud to be British, English actually and pleased that this scheme seems to be working.

I wasn't aware that the scheme had even started yet (and almost certainly never will).
Well, apart from the one of fooling gullible voters that things are in hand!

It's a bit like Brexit - no end of people interviewed at random for TV reports were convinced that from the day of the referendum, our country was suddenly free of anything 'European', be it workers or regulations, and were happy that things were better, when in reality not a single thing had changed at that time!

I see that Patel, has been accused of misleading parliament over the so called channel pushbacks.

Is there anything at all that we can trust this shower of a government with?

Patel connived to mislead, asylum seekers, parliament and the voter, in saying that those in little boats would be pushed back by the RN etc to France.

Absolutely not the case apparently. I suspect that she was told so in no uncertain terms by the RN, RNLI and others that this would be tantamount to not just acting unlawfully, but that they would be open to the accusation of murder on the high seas.

Patel tried to conceal the truth by so called public interest immunity.

The courts judged that this was not and never could be in the public interest to conceal what was the truth of the matter.

My question all the long has been: Why Rwanda? From the BBC three days ago:

Under the scheme - announced last week - people deemed to have entered the UK unlawfully will be flown to the African country, where they would be processed, and if successful, would have long-term accommodation in the African country.

Why would Rwanda need more young men? It already has one of the highest population rates in Africa. The population is young, with about two-fifths of the population under age 15 and another one-third between ages 15 and 29.

The population increase is greater than that of the global average. Average life expectancy is 50. Rates of HIV/AIDS are high. Malaria and tuberculosis are serious health concerns.

Almost three-fourths of the population is rural and lives in nuclear family compounds scattered on hillsides. The majority of the workforce is engaged in agricultural pursuits.

Patel wants to send young men to a country which I supect doesn't need them, where, if there is work at all, it will be in agriculture. Last month British newpapers were reporting that the DWP is to promote "career opportunities" in picking fruit and vegetables in an attempt to stop produce going unharvested on British farms

A friend reminded me of the Libyan scheme 12 years ago where Gaddafi claimed that Europe would turn "black" unless it was more rigorous in turning back immigrants.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11139345

www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/01/eu-muammar-gaddafi-immigration

Effectively, the governmentis saying we need more workers but not if your skin is black.

Maudi

Rubbish when you haven't got a solution mention......

Denmark are also in talks with Rwanda.

It's a deterrent to stop the smuggler gangs.

I would certainly not suggest a "Solution", Maudi. It seems you see this as a "final" one, to cure us of those seeking asylum. It's quite sickening.

Denmark may be "in talks" with Rwanda; they are also looking at allowing asylum seekers to work in Denmark while they wait for the various processes for granting/not granting asylum to be carried out.

If we did this and then issued Right to Stay status after say, eighteen months if the asylum process is incomplete, it would cure what is a "crisis" of our own making. That crisis is caused by a hostile environment in the Home Office and a country that cannot design fast and fair systems even when it is to save lives.

You offer no proof whatsoever that the "Final Solution of Rwanda" will stop the smugglers. Neither does this appalling government. Those advising them state positively it will not reach any such target.

I think it is fine to recognise, and to state, that the Rwanda plan is inhumane and ill behoves a civilized country, whilst at the same time having no instant solution to the problem. Not having an easy answer is no bar to stating that the government's plan is unacceptable.

Solutions have been "mentioned" ad nauseam, both here and in the press. But they are a bit more complicated than just "deport the folks we don't like" so they don't get much attention from the extremists, even though they are more likely to work.

Rubbish when you haven't got a solution mention......

Denmark are also in talks with Rwanda.

It's a deterrent to stop the smuggler gangs.

And we decry those who wanted to rid their country of Jews, or Palestinians, or any other identifiable group they can blame for not having reached the top of the tree.

I will always owe my allegiance to the UK but I certainly don't feel proud of the extremists we seem to have bred.

That's your problem not mine.

Maudi

I'm proud to be British, English actually and pleased that this scheme seems to be working.

Well I'm not.....

I'm proud to be British, English actually and pleased that this scheme seems to be working.

People scared to come here because they'll be sent somewhere to be beaten and killed.

Makes you proud to be British.

The dozen men mostly in their 20s and 30s have spent months waiting to cross but have now changed their mind. Seems Pritti Patel's scheme is having an effect and no one has been sent to Rwanda yet. So much for all the critics.