Rwanda

In this morning’s interview on the Today programme Liz Truss was insistent that the flight to Rwanda would go ahead even though possibly as few as seven refugees will be on board (of whom three or four are appealing) and, it was hinted, even if none are on board.

So it seems possible that the net result of the flight will be a plane load of vulnerable Rwandan refugees arriving here.

These are desperate people, wherever they originated, who surely deserve better than being used as pawns in a political game. The claim that this scheme has been devised for the safety of refugees and to deter smugglers is absolute hypocrisy.

Bizarre

A good word for it.

I said illogical but it's worse than that, although I can see no logic in it whatsoever.

I know a plane is not a railway cattle truck. However, I cannot clear my mind of the fact, that this attempts the mass transportation of people against their will to an insecure destination for processing.

I can't bear the fact that it is our government that is doing this. Russia is transporting people out of Ukraine into Russia against their will. Why is what we are doing any more moral?

I cannot understand why the U.K. (and other countries) cannot have outreach posts in refugee camps.

This would enable desperate people to apply for asylum/refuge in the Country they feel most akin to, totally cutting out the heinous cruel people trafficker from the get go.

This could stop folks feeling the need to destroy their identity papers along with any qualification papers, they could be allowed to work and therefore pay taxes.

Bizarre, isn't it, GG13?

Fly one plane load out and return with another plane load.

Why don't we just establish safe routes to the UK, employ more staff to process their asylum applications and deport the ones who fail the process?

And let them work in the meantime.

We do actually need the skills that many asylum seekers can offer.

I shudder when I read a headline which says:

Truss claims near empty flight to Rwanda for asylum seekers is still "value for money."

Treating people like cattle. This is a woman in the running to be the next Prime Minister. These are very frightening times.

I honestly cannot get my head around us flying refugees to Rwanda and then accepting Rwandan refugees.

I have given my head a good wobble and it is still confused.

Riverwalk

Swapping refugees is extraordinary - thought I'd imagined/misheard that yesterday but it seems not.

Now that really is trading in human beings... swapping one cargo for another.

This ?

Just what I was about to say

Swapping refugees is extraordinary - thought I'd imagined/misheard that yesterday but it seems not.

Now that really is trading in human beings... swapping one cargo for another.

Jo Maugham

If you want a definition of "trading in human misery" what about "buying votes with performative cruelty to the most vulnerable people on earth"?

Grandmabatty

Some people's heads on this thread are going to explode when they discover that in exchange for the few desperate refugees being sent from UK to Rwanda, we are taking over 60 people/refugees from Rwanda. It's apparently part of the 'deal'.

Yes. Where are those poor souls going? Are they from North Africa?

Can anyone tell me the sort of physical constraints those poor souls are going to have to endure?

Grandmabatty

Some people's heads on this thread are going to explode when they discover that in exchange for the few desperate refugees being sent from UK to Rwanda, we are taking over 60 people/refugees from Rwanda. It's apparently part of the 'deal'.

Yes, apparently, we have agreed to take some "vulnerable" people from Rwanda, in exchange.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10726955/Britain-vulnerable-refugees-Rwanda-Priti-Patels-migrants-shake-up.html

MaizieD

^Sile Reynolds, head of asylum advocacy at Freedom from Torture, told Byline Times: “The Emergency Transit Mechanism is an urgent humanitarian evacuation programme, designed to move vulnerable and traumatised refugees from a situation of immediate danger, to a temporary transit location in Rwanda before they are ultimately resettled in Europe or North America.^

Unforunately, judging by the Telegraph article, the Rwanda camp isn't really a 'temporary' location, is it. I'm struggling to find anything good to say about this scheme. Apart from the fact that it is grounded in good intentions, not malicious
appeal to racist Brexit supporters.

Yes that is right, none of it is right or humane.

The whole point is that we know that the asylum seekers are going to get more and more.

Climate change is going to be a huge driver. The human population is going to have to get to grip with this.

Some people's heads on this thread are going to explode when they discover that in exchange for the few desperate refugees being sent from UK to Rwanda, we are taking over 60 people/refugees from Rwanda. It's apparently part of the 'deal'.

Well said, Volver
This scheme is cruel . The smugglers could be defeated if there were proper routes for immigrants .
We are very short of workers in many sectors and are allowing extra visas for foreign workers in agriculture. Why couldn't these desperate people be allowed to work after training if necessary.
It couldn't be that this policy is all part of shoring up Big Dog could it ? That it is all about winning support in certain sectors ?

Re the UNHCR, they have made numerous statements about the UK scheme and they are universally negative.

It risks the arbitrary denial of access to asylum and lacks realistic durable solutions for the refugees affected.

Re hearts posted here:

Sue Perkins. Who Do Think You Are. Lithuanian ancestry. Family members persecuted by Nazis for not being "Aryan enough". An aunt executed under Nazi eugenics program because she was deaf and had learning difficulties.

Former miner, Lee Anderson desperately wanted Labour Party nomination when former Ashfield Labour MP Gloria de Peino stepped down but was by rejected by constituency party for sexist and racist behaviour (given an ASBO for latter). Flipped by Tories in 2019 with buckets of cash from Tory donors, regular payments from whom he still receives on top up his MPs salary. Now enjoying a six figure income while telling poor people they can make meals for 30p. A lout who would say anything to cling to his seat.

This is Anderson on the campaign trail in 2019 exposed for who is is by Michael Crick. Current Leader of the House Mark Spencer is on record saying some of the 2019 red wall intake was poor. Anderson is very nasty example of this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LmS9CzAY_s

He also hit the headlines after George Floyd was killed. He said he wouldn't support the England football team and would boycott Euro 2000 because the players were supporting anti-racism by taking the knee. It's clear where Anderson stands on matters of race.

If you go on the UNHCR website they appear to be taking people away from the camps for resettlement:

For UNHCR, resettlement to third countries for those refugees who have been in Rwanda for many years is seen as the most protective and pragmatic step through which to bring an end to the protracted situation of Congolese refugees in Rwanda, over 90% of whom originate from conflict zones in the DRC. In March 2012, resettlement was entrenched within the operation as a core activity targeting the refugees in a protracted caseload. Over 46,000 refugees in Rwanda live in a protracted situation, having being in the camps for up to 20 years.

So they are working to support refugees in getting out of the camps where they are potentiallyin limbo for 20 years. As someone else said, the escape from Libya seems to be a different scheme and many of these people are ultimately resettled into the EU.

The UK scheme is a no-hope of settlement in the UK scenario and is another altogether different scheme.

Basically we have apples, oranges and pears here. Let's try not to muddle them up.

Transportation against their will of people en masse has never been moral, has it?

From what I read the EU scheme is backed by the UN and is entirely different to Patel's scheme. Which isn't backed by the UN.

But my earlier comment still stands. Some countries just shoot people they don't want in their country. Or put them in concentration camps. If Patel suggested that, would we say its OK because other people do it?

We have to take action that is moral, not just because someone else does it. But as a country we seem to have forgotten what "moral" is.

I have just skimmed several articles on EU/Rwanda/UNHCR the EU has been giving money to this project (€10.3. million 2019) I assume they would not give money to a scheme they didn’t support.

I will read some more later, when The Imp is asleep.

I am not knocking the EU just curious to anything regarding refugees, as I would love to see a worldwide solution to what is an ever increasing human crisis.

Sile Reynolds, head of asylum advocacy at Freedom from Torture, told Byline Times: “The Emergency Transit Mechanism is an urgent humanitarian evacuation programme, designed to move vulnerable and traumatised refugees from a situation of immediate danger, to a temporary transit location in Rwanda before they are ultimately resettled in Europe or North America.

Unforunately, judging by the Telegraph article, the Rwanda camp isn't really a 'temporary' location, is it. I'm struggling to find anything good to say about this scheme. Apart from the fact that it is grounded in good intentions, not malicious
appeal to racist Brexit supporters.

GrannyGravy13

Not a good look for the EU to support this either, as we keep being reminded it’s all about ^the optics^

The EU don't support anything like it at all. That's just Patel and her gang trying to pretend that what they are doing is just the same as everybody else.

Sile Reynolds, head of asylum advocacy at Freedom from Torture, told Byline Times: “The Emergency Transit Mechanism is an urgent humanitarian evacuation programme, designed to move vulnerable and traumatised refugees from a situation of immediate danger, to a temporary transit location in Rwanda before they are ultimately resettled in Europe or North America.

“It could not be more different to the UK’s Rwanda scheme which moves refugees from a place of safety to one of danger and insecurity. This is nothing more than a cynical and cack-handed attempt to distract critics from the brutality and unfairness of the Rwanda scheme.”

bylinetimes.com/2022/05/23/doubts-cast-over-home-secretarys-claim-that-eu-has-resettled-refugees-in-rwanda/

(I know that you don't support then scheme GG13)

Maudi

Some just can't help themselves with the name calling can they just proves my point.

Saying someone is a fascist is not name-calling - well no more than saying they are a conservative, socialist, or liberal. It describes what their thinking is based on Maudi.

On the other hand, saying someone is "an illegal" is name-calling as there is no such thing. No one is an illegal person; actions are illegal, not people. Crossing the channel to claim asylum is not an illegal action.

MaizieD

Reading the Telegraph article leaves me with the impression that the reporter is distinctly underwhelmed by the experience of the refugees in the UNCHR camp. One might even go so far as to say 'critical of'.

Which is odd if it's now cheering on Patel's nasty scheme.

The reporter on ITV news this morning was definitely not cheering either scheme.