Gransnet forums

News & politics

Home Sec off to Rwanda .....

(32 Posts)
Luckygirl3 Tue 05-Dec-23 08:54:18

......... to sign a new treaty - and fork out another £140 million maybe?

How much better it would have been to have spent that money on the administration of the processing system for arriving refugees.

silverlining48 Tue 05-Dec-23 09:30:18

Not another one... ?
That’s 3 home secs but not a single asylum seeker to Rwanda.
Another Tory farce.

silverlining48 Tue 05-Dec-23 09:31:10

Agree with spending the money more wisely Lucky

Luckygirl3 Tue 05-Dec-23 10:05:43

It's a lot of money!! Think what could have been done with it!

Grantanow Tue 05-Dec-23 10:51:42

Another photo op for Jimmy Dimly?

maddyone Tue 05-Dec-23 10:55:09

I’m speechless!

pascal30 Tue 05-Dec-23 11:00:53

I wonder whether the Home Office have ever asked refugees if they'd like to go voluntarily to Rwanda with their families and offered them a realistic package of care there, so that they could build a safe new life.. it's the thought of shipping people off against their will that really upsets me.

Greta Tue 05-Dec-23 13:55:55

This smacks of desperation. We know Suella Braverman had a dream. Now James Cleverly has gone to tell Rwanda to become a safe country so we can send our unwanted immigrants there. Perhaps he has the magic wand.

Luckygirl3 Fri 08-Dec-23 09:46:36

Only another £million with a possible further 50 to come!

Just think what this money (mine and yours) could have been spent on.

How many refugees have been flown to Rwanda? None as far as I know.

It is total insanity.

Grantanow Fri 08-Dec-23 11:13:14

I thought Cleverly said no cash had changed hands for the new Treaty. I must have mis-heard.

MayBee70 Fri 08-Dec-23 11:17:26

And Cleverly once described the Rwanda scheme as batsh#t. What a difference having a ministerial post makes!

J52 Fri 08-Dec-23 11:48:56

Meanwhile back at home - NHS in dire straits, homelessness and poverty.
But wait, we’ve a magic money tree to pay the Rwandan government.
I despair, once again!

MayBee70 Fri 08-Dec-23 13:42:46

At least some people who actually live in Rwanda will eventually get homes out of it paid for by us.

Greta Fri 08-Dec-23 14:28:39

Yes, MayBee70, but we will have to build homes for the people Rwanda will send to us.
Curiouser and curiouser.

nanna8 Sat 09-Dec-23 02:18:23

I have always wondered why they chose Rwanda in particular. It seems very strange and not a country I would equate with peace and harmony.

Luckygirl3 Sat 09-Dec-23 10:51:14

This about sums it all up: facebook.com/reel/1347073279268528

mumofmadboys Sat 09-Dec-23 13:41:53

I don't understand that the arrangement means we also accept people from Rwanda to the UK ?

MayBee70 Sat 09-Dec-23 15:50:37

Why can’t the government just admit that it was a stupid idea and a terrible and expensive mistake. But instead they have to keep throwing the taxpayers money at it in an attempt to save face.

Luckygirl3 Sat 09-Dec-23 17:26:19

If the government want to have an agreement with another country or place why not have one with California, or a beautiful Caribbean Island, or somewhere in the south of France?

Because they are nice places to be - which leads to the conclusion that Rwanda is not. The government therefore are fully aware it is not, but are trying to convince us that it is. You can't create a deterrent using a decent country, so by definition Rwanda is not decent.

Germanshepherdsmum Sat 09-Dec-23 17:36:05

Do you think that the US, a Caribbean island or France would want to accept the unidentified people coming here in boats? Of course the intention is to deter the boat people. Rwanda doesn’t have to be pleasant, simply safe.

pascal30 Sat 09-Dec-23 17:39:23

So Rwanda gets millions of pounds, the right to deny people asylum there and the right to send their own people to the uk.. does the government really think this is a good deal!!!

DamaskRose Sat 09-Dec-23 17:43:13

MayBee70

Why can’t the government just admit that it was a stupid idea and a terrible and expensive mistake. But instead they have to keep throwing the taxpayers money at it in an attempt to save face.

Have you ever heard the Tories do this???!!!

Germanshepherdsmum Sat 09-Dec-23 17:51:06

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656f51d30f12ef07a53e0295/UK-Rwanda_MEDP_-_English_-_Formatted__5_Dec_23__-_UK_VERSION.pdf

varian Sat 09-Dec-23 18:04:24

If the £umpteen millions so far spent on this Rwanda farce had been spent on recruiting and training immigration officers to process the backlog of asylum claims, how long ago would the backlog have been completely cleared so that any new claims were dealt with immediately?

If that had happened any spurious claims could have meant expulsion from the UK, whilst the vast majority of asylum claimants, who are genuine refugees, could have been granted leave to remain, allowed to work and support themselves, whilst no longer needing to be housed in hotels,

They could be contributing to the UK economy. Those who are qualified health professionals could have been working in the NHS, those who are HGV drivers could have driving lorries, those who are skilled builders could have been building houses, those with care giving experience could have been giving much needed care to UK citizens in need of care and those who are willing to do agricultural work could have been picking the fruit and vegetables which have rotted in our fields.

We must ask why this has not happened.

Is it possibly because it was seen to suit the populist propaganda of the right-wing press for the Tory Party to be seen as battling the so-called "illegal immigrants"?

Germanshepherdsmum Sat 09-Dec-23 18:14:44

People with no papers cannot prove that they have the qualifications they claim to have, and even if they could do so a ‘qualified health professional’ could not be employed as such without undertaking further exams and training here. Likewise HGV drivers etc. They can’t have their application approved one day and start work the next. And who will pay for the further training and exams and feed and house them until - if ever - they are employable?