Asylum seekers to the UK sent to Rwanda

[Dodie66]

What do you think about the governments plan to send all asylum seekers that come to the UK to Rwanda to be processed. I think this is inhumane. A lot of them have come from places like Syria, Iran etc and travelled across the channel with all the associated risks only to be sent 6000 mile to be processed. What about the cost to do this? I think it’s a big mistake

It’s such an odd policy and reminds me of when they sent those with leprosy to some island.

Tbh I think France aren’t doing enough either.

@bhooks

A lot of people on this thread should watch this and reflect on why they are so willing to believe false narratives peddling by proven liars with no morals and no regards for the law.

Well worth watching. Thanks for posting. Very revealing statistic from that video, U.K. has taken in 0.2% of the world’s refugees. As Hasan in the video says there is no refugee crisis in the U.K. Vulnerable people fleeing from persecution, war or famine are being used as political scapegoats by those in power here.

As for the problem of the vulnerability of people on the move to people-trafficking and risk of drowning in the English Channel, there should instead be an increase in legal pathways to the UK for those seeking asylum.

@Fupoffyagrasshole

If the British ever have to leave and become refugees nobody will take you in I guess though 🤷‍♀️

The reality is we should be in "credit" for decades to come given the level of support and contributions we've made over the years. But we already know that we're a soft choice and noone reciprocates when we have needs. So really we won't be any worse off, in fact better off!

@ChoiceMummy

Perhaps you live in a parrallel universe. We have left people behind to die in Afghanistan after they helped the British army. I am not sure how you think we are in credit?

The UK is not really a soft touch, we take fewer refugees than similar nations.

When people post this stuff, I am never sure if it is a deliberate lie or just ignorance, but certainly you do not have your facts straight.

the immoral argument is subjective as is the nature of the term immoral

Whether something affecting a human is immoral is not really subjective, unless you redefine a human. If you redefine a human, then you are a monster.

If a human is a human, then this approach is immoral, there is no getting around it.

There have always been people who are fine with immorality, who will tolerate torture, abuse, and in this case deportation, but that does not make what they will tolerate any less wrong.

This policy is wrong, and the people who support it are wrong.

It sounds like the government are paying Rwanda to agree to an impractical, expensive scheme that will be quietly abandoned in a few weeks.

You’d expect that of Johnson, but I’d have expected the British public to be less gullible by now.

The UK is not really a soft touch, we take fewer refugees than similar nations.

Yes, the U.K. relies very, very heavily on the first safe country concept and expects other countries to bear the brunt. Presumably we are waiting to do our bit when France, Holland, Ireland and Scandinavia are invaded.

The Ukrainian situation brings home the realities of refugees - even though it shouldn't do, but conflicts across the world aren't shown daily on our TV channels.

I wonder how the British media would react if Ukraine did fall and there were countless Ukrainian soldiers fleeing the country - and we sent them to Rwanda instead to build a new life?

@cakeorwine

The Ukrainian situation brings home the realities of refugees - even though it shouldn't do, but conflicts across the world aren't shown daily on our TV channels.

I wonder how the British media would react if Ukraine did fall and there were countless Ukrainian soldiers fleeing the country - and we sent them to Rwanda instead to build a new life?

I don't this should be viewed as any different to if it was Afghanis being moved to Rwanda.

Though the situation for approved refugees is not what Rwanda is about. Rwanda is specifically about single males that enter the UK illegally via the water.

MidnightMeltdown

I think it's a good idea. These people infuriate me. Most of them are not genuine refugees, they are economic migrants. Believe me, I have family who live on the Kent coast and this is right on their doorstep. Asylum should not be granted to anyone who crosses the channel illegally.“

“These people”?

You’re all heart, aren’t you? They’re human beings, like you.

I cannot see why people get so annoyed about what they term 'economic migrants'. The country has an aging population and if these are economic migrants they are going to be young and fit. Exactly what the country needs. What is wrong with people wanting to come to a country, find work, pay their taxes and better themselves?

I do however understand that people in Kent can be fed up with people landing on beaches because the legitimate routes of entry have been closed off.

Maybe if we call them expats...

Rwanda is specifically about single males that enter the UK illegally via the water

It's not clear on what the criteria are

This is what Patel said

"When a reporter asked what the criteria would be for relocation, Patel said "we are very clear that everyone who enters the UK illegally will be considered for resettlement and being brought over to Rwanda, I'm not going to divulge specific criteria for a number of reasons."

edition.cnn.com/2022/04/14/europe/uk-rwanda-migrant-deal-gbr-intl/index.html

The country has an aging population and if these are economic migrants they are going to be young and fit. Exactly what the country needs. What is wrong with people wanting to come to a country, find work, pay their taxes and better themselves?

Yes those pesky old people living too long eh. How can you be so sure that all these fit young men are all going to work ??

Because work pays better than benefits

How can you be so sure that all these fit young men are all going to work ??

Aw come on. They are not British, the British being a nation of idlers according to Ms Patel and others, so by definition they are going to work. (Taking work that we don't want to do while claiming benefits, yes, thought I had better get that in too.)

@ChoiceMummy
Though the situation for approved refugees is not what Rwanda is about. Rwanda is specifically about single males that enter the UK illegally via the water.

If you arrive on a boat from France - this is not illegal. The majority who arrive this way are granted the right to remain in the U.K.

@lollipoprainbow

The country has an aging population and if these are economic migrants they are going to be young and fit. Exactly what the country needs. What is wrong with people wanting to come to a country, find work, pay their taxes and better themselves?

Yes those pesky old people living too long eh. How can you be so sure that all these fit young men are all going to work ??

People are living longer.

Government policy needs to take an ageing population into account - through ensuring the NHS can cope as older people use a disproportionate amount of NHS resources, ensuring the social care system can cope and also ensuring that the money is there to support older people through taxes.

Like it or not, we need more young people in the UK to support an ageing population through economic growth.

Like it or not, we need more young people in the UK to support an ageing population through economic growth. This was part of the calculation Germany made when they took in 1m migrants in 2015 (I think it was 2015).

The UK economy is in something of a death spiral, and this problem has been made worse by Brexit. We are short of labour, labour grows the economy.

@ChoiceMummy Just to correct you here as it’s important that people know this - according to Home Office paperwork, it’s not just for single males - it’s for everyone except unaccompanied children. So single men, women (including pregnant women seemingly as they haven’t made that an exemption), and families including children.

It’s vital that people know what they’re supporting here.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]**@ChoiceMummy* Just to correct you here as it’s important that people know this - according to Home Office paperwork, it’s not just for single males - it’s for everyone except unaccompanied children. So single men, women (including pregnant women seemingly as they haven’t made that an exemption), and families including children.*

It’s vital that people know what they’re supporting here.[/quote]
I wonder what would happen in opinion polling if people were given more facts about the scheme?

@cakeorwine maybe people will still have the same opinion which is perfectly allowed no matter how much you or @BewareTheLibrarians keep going on about it and trying to change peoples minds. Just a thought.

Of course @lollipoprainbow you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. But I’m not sure why raising awareness of the parts of the plan that the government hasn’t made clear annoys you so much. I don’t think it’s ok for people to be misled, and I’m sure many others don’t either.

[quote lollipoprainbow]**@cakeorwine* maybe people will still have the same opinion which is perfectly allowed no matter how much you or @BewareTheLibrarians* keep going on about it and trying to change peoples minds. Just a thought. [/quote]
There are roughly 25% of the electorate who are absolute bastards, they support things that cost them money just for the sake of being harsh.

The other 75% are a sliding scale and many would not support this policy if the reality of the costs and unpleasantness were known to them.

Also I wouldn’t say that I’ve trying to change people’s minds. More like correct obvious mistruths so people can make a decision/have an opinion based on facts rather than hyperbole.