Sending U.K. refugees to Rawanda

They’re going there to be processed . Now, let me think….what does that remind me of . What on earth has my country turned into..

Can you imagine what the world must be thinking of our country right now?

The term used was ‘asylum seekers’, not ‘refugees.

The Refugee Council have criticised the policy which is where I took my thread title from Calendargirl.

Just going by what I read on the BBC News site Esspee

It was talking about single men arriving on Channel crossings.

‘Refugees’ implies women, children, families.

Regardless of the terminology used, it still doesn't make it right.

Simon Hart MP on Sky news has just discussed this with Kate Burley. It appears that only men will be transported to Rwanda. So the women and children will still be vulnerable to being transported ( and God knows what else) by the traffickers. It seems that people are not just going to Rwanda for processing, but to live in Rwanda full stop. Rwanda has in the recent past been guilty of human rights atrocities. I despair.

And Australia have done something similar- it has not been a success and they are trying to wind it up.

Have you seen over the last 20 years, the people living in squalour in high rise flats, no lifts, water running through the ceilings, private rents are rat and pest infested and how many of the homeless on our streets. Young people unable to get a mortgage, not earning enough and rental costs too high. It is expected we will have 1000 people seeking refuge here every day soon, coming in via unscrupulous provoke smugglers, that's apart from the people from Ukraine. Please if anyone can, tell me where they will go, who will fund this? We can't afford any more rise in income tax etc. Energy prices through the roof, the country is struggling. No one wants to turn away anyone in need but it is impossible to house and feed them. People born and bred here can't manage, they resort to food banks though working. If anyone feels very strongly then house a family, although it may be cramped it's better than turning them away and you will genuinely be able to say, I feel bad about what's happening and this is my contribution. Would love to know how anyone can sort this out please.

Officially asylum seekers, many are in reality economic migrants that have destroyed their nationality and with no state to return to cannot be deported. Rwanda is currently one of the few stable safe African states and if the UK pays enough may take some deportees, internally I can’t see it being popular and any payment is likely to go straight into the pockets of the elite.
The genocide in Rwanda is still in everyones mind the current government is seen as very authoritarian and opposition is being suppressed.

I don’t think it is a good idea.

This is wrong and I can’t see how this will work.
It’s supposed to act as a deterrent to people getting on the boats-but if you have travelled that far, you aren’t going to believe you’ll be shipped off to Rwanda until you get here. Even without Rwanda’s human rights record it seems wrong.

I’m not saying they should stay in Germany or France, both much bigger countries, but why risk your life and your family’s life to come to the UK?
Easy to say we should stop it, but who on GN a workable answer to the problem. I certainly don’t.

The workable solution is to process arrivals in this country quickly, deport those who have no valid right to be here and welcome the rest.

It's really not that hard, although Patel and the rest would like you to think it is.

It’s shameful
What kind of government could even contemplate a policy like this.

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.

We aren’t ‘ full’ .

Who is going to care for them in Rawanda? Feed them, medical assistance? What about children?

This has all the makings of utter barbarity, but then we have form don’t we?

Rwanda

I live London/North Kent borders, and these economic migrants, generally young men, coming over the Channel daily, are a big problem.

Many hotels are just used for housing them now, to the point that holidaymakers are having their holidays cancelled.

We have Afghans, and their families, that we invited over after the fall of Kabul, still holed up in one room, along with newer (and some older) arrivals.

There is such a dire shortage of affordable housing down here, that we are having to send local homeless families to the North of England, miles away from any support.

We have, rightly, invited the genuine refugees over from Ukraine, with UK families guaranteeing to house them for 3 months.

But, what happens after that? This conflict is liable to go on a lot longer - where do we put those refugees next?

Soneone, in government, needs to come up with some sort of workable plan.

We need to build affordable, social housing and it must remain housing association/council property. It must be excluded from the daft right to buy scheme

So these asylum seekers are to be encouraged to make a life in Rwanda. I wonder if there will be a gate to walk through when they arrive with "Work Will Free You" over the top? I assume "making a new life" means they will be put to work. It is to be a one way ticket. Even if they are granted asylum they will have to stay there.

Maybe says "What on earth has my country turned into.." I think we have seen this elsewhere and we know just what they are doing.

For those who think this is not a problem I would guess you are also the ones who find it hard to understand why other countries haven't understood what their govenment has done and have refused to believe what they are told by others.

I agree about processing more quickly. Processing anything is incredibly slow as I know to my cost.

What is a valid right to be here?
I know what it says on line, but is it like insurance, where if you use the right words, your claim is more likely to be successful?

Do you have a maximum number who would be granted access?

My biggest query is, Deport them back to where?

Knowing they would be deported, would they not dispose of their passports (if they had one)?

Surely this is illegal.
It is certainly immoral.
I cannot believe we are such an unfeeling and twisted nation.
I am both deeply saddened and angry about this.
Shame on us.

I live London/North Kent borders, and these economic migrants, generally young men, coming over the Channel daily, are a big problem. *DiamondLily^ Thu 14-Apr-22 08:09:28

It was a "big problem" for Johnson to work with the controls he impossed on all of us for Covid. So he simply broke the law. He is doing that again. And that's okay with you?

We're going to have another one of these threads, aren't we?

Economic migrants, genuine refugees, stay in the safe country, the country's full...

Now "locals aren't getting their holidays".

We're going to hell in a handcart.

This country is getting worse and worse. I absolutely hate it.

What about international law?

Mollygo

I agree about processing more quickly. Processing anything is incredibly slow as I know to my cost.

What is a valid right to be here?
I know what it says on line, but is it like insurance, where if you use the right words, your claim is more likely to be successful?

Do you have a maximum number who would be granted access?

My biggest query is, Deport them back to where?

Knowing they would be deported, would they not dispose of their passports (if they had one)?

I don't know because I don't set the immigration policy. But other countries manage.

But much easier for our shower of idiot politicians to send them packing to a country far away.

It's shameful. Shameful.