Just when you think this government can't get any worse - now they are going to send asylum seekers to Rwanda

[daimbarsatemydogsbone]

I didn't vote for this shower. The problem with people arriving (if they make it) in small boats needs addressing but AIBU that sending them on a one way trip to Rwanda isn't the answer?

@theDudesmummy

This from the Guardian feed: "Patel says people resettled in Rwanda will be given support for up to five years, covering training, accommodation and healthcare, so they can resettle and thrive".

So you are going to settle a group of people in an extremely poor country (most people under $2 a day) and provide them with all kinds of support that the local people there can't access? Like free accomodation and European standard healthcare? I wonder what the local people will make of the group? I can't see them being thrilled, well some criminals may be thrilled at the propect of exploiting such people. But are they really going just integrate into Rwandan society? What a stupid stupid stupid idea. Even for the Tories this is a new level of shit.

I assume that this will be asylum seekers of all races? I wonder if Patel can see any potential settlement problems there?

The Tories have time to try out another scheme that hey are trying something radical will please a lot voters why else do you think they are suggesting this

Isn't that obvious, @HRTQueen? They're suggesting it as a distraction from Johnson's and Sunak's criminal activities.

@Fulmine I would imagine most of the fascists Tories will just be imagining a nice set up of all brown people getting along together under a nice warm sun, and eating foreign stuff, being what they are used to. They are all pretty much the same aren't they? So onward and upward to the settled future of the traumatised 18-year old Syrian boy in totally unknown Rwanda. He'll fit right in.

But I misspeak of course, most don't really care enough to even bother imagining that. Out of sight out of mind. But there was someone upthread who mused something along the lines that surely it would be nicer to be in nice sunny Rwanda (must be a bit like a holiday camp in sunny Spain then?) that nasty cold Poland.

From Israel’s “voluntary resettlement scheme” to Rwanda:

“All interviewees testified that upon landing in Rwanda the travel document produced by Israel, the only identity document in their possession, was taken away. They were transferred to a guarded hotel and were prevented, under threat, from leaving. None of them were given the opportunity to apply for asylum. Lacking identity documents and exposed to robberies and threats they were forced to embark on dangerous journeys.”

“Their lack of identity documents exposed them to robberies, threats and arrest, leading them to embark on a dangerous journey that included passing through South Sudan, Sudan and Libya in search of protection. Throughout the journey, the interviewees were subjected to human trafficking, incarceration, the threat of forcible deportation to Eritrea, harsh conditions of starvation, violence, slavery in torture camps in Libya and a dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean Sea from Libya to Europe.”

“The testimonies here portray a clear picture: the promises made by Israel to those ‘voluntarily’ departing to Rwanda and Uganda, which included granting legal status and protection in Rwanda and Uganda, were not kept.”

www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2018/10/moving-under

I voted unreasonable because this idea has been kicking about for years in Conservative circles, along with leaving the Convention on Human Rights and privatising the lucrative aspects of the NHS.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised.

As for its legality, given that there will be reform of the HRA, I wouldn't hold your breath on that. The government is ready to be challenged on this, its said so, and it isn't worried because I imagine they will have significantly altered the law that applies during the progression of this policy. Governments can make law and this one is very active.

It's probably already been said, but this is like a story line from the imaginations of the writers of The Thick of It.

No doubt there'll soon be a scandal about how loads of refugees were abused and tortured in Rwanda. Their human rights record is terrible. They'd be trading one hellhole for another. When I thought tories couldn't get any worse.
Can we get priti & boris to go first to try out the system?! Just a backpack each and £20 cash should be plenty.

@BewareTheLibrarians Well absolutely. We know that. But most of the people cheering on this scheme don't have that level of information to draw on (and won't bother to find out). But those at the top do, they are no way ignorant of the Israel scheme and what happened. Nor are they, one assumes completely ignorant of what kind of a place Rwanda is and what its politics, institutions and social structures are like.

They just absolutely do not care.

Also it will be very popular with a lot of people (who will all be very quiet but they will certainly approve) - it has all the design of something that has really been put together to appeal to those who like expatriation but can't have that explicitly.

The policy is going to apply to male economic migrants only. That’s not “what I’m claiming.” It’s what is actually being reported. Read a news article, take it from the source rather than from a MN thread.

From The Times

Migrants who arrive in the UK will be assessed initially by Home Office officials to determine whether they are economic migrants or genuine asylum seekers who have fled persecution in their home countries. It is not yet known how long this process will take or how they will judge whether an individual is an economic migrant

That's not what the Home Office Minister interviewed at lunchtime was saying.

And it's baffling. Basically it's precisely the same process as they currently use to assess asylum seeking applications, so will have to have the same appeal rights and rights of judicial review built in. The only difference will be that, by nominating Rwanda, they are handing non-genuine asylum seekers a whole raft of strong new arguments based around Rwanda's appalling human rights record, the lack of any adequate health, social care or education infrastructure there, to say nothing of the proposals to chuck everyone into camps on arrival. If they ultimately lose out on the Rwanda argument, they are likely to opt for literally any other alternative and the whole circus will start again.

So what on earth is the point?

Nine in ten of the 28,526 migrants who crossed the Channel in small boats last year were male, according to official statistics. Seven in ten were single.

Not surprising, really. Families often send ahead the person most likely to be able to fend for himself, get a job etc, which minimises the chances of the rest of the family being reliant on benefits if or when they join him.

I really struggle to see why it's so terrible to have a load of fit young men coming into the country anyway. We're constantly hearing about the difficulties of finding drivers to do deliveries, staff for hospitality venues, NHS staff etc etc - especially since Brexit. To say nothing of the jobs that British people apparently won't take, like vegetable and fruit picking, cleaning etc. Seems like the answer to a prayer, really.

@intwrferingma

It's probably already been said, but this is like a story line from the imaginations of the writers of The Thick of It.

Absolutely! Or, as I've said upthread, Yes Minister. I want to see the episode where Sir Humphrey is told to do this and plots to come up with the most blatantly unworkable scheme possible, only for Hacker to embrace it enthusiastically because the PM will welcome the distraction and he will never have to put it into operation.

@theDudesmummy Yep, it’s ignorance at one end of the scale and malice at the other.

So far the Lords has been holding back the worst Tory excesses when it comes to the nationality and borders bill, so let’s hope they don’t let this though easily as well, if it ever comes to that.

This government is the muppet show, but with a deeply unpleasant and immoral undertone. When I first read about this latest “policy,” I honestly thought it was the press exaggerating some nonsense just for a headline. Only to discover, it is actually true! I’m trying to imagine the meeting where this idea actually for signed off. Who the hell was in it and what were they all thinking?

Tbh though, I can imagine the response of some (most) Brexiteers .., “send em back where they came from.., that’ll learn em .., ra ra ra...” Yet this is the mentality that this govt are trying to appeal to. Most of them probably don’t know where Rwanda is. They probably think it’s next to Calais or something.

There is no way this policy will actually happen. Just imagine!

By the way, Britain is the laughing stock of the world with this joke if a govt and the dipstick Brexit voters. British society is broken.

[quote BewareTheLibrarians]From Israel’s “voluntary resettlement scheme” to Rwanda:

“All interviewees testified that upon landing in Rwanda the travel document produced by Israel, the only identity document in their possession, was taken away. They were transferred to a guarded hotel and were prevented, under threat, from leaving. None of them were given the opportunity to apply for asylum. Lacking identity documents and exposed to robberies and threats they were forced to embark on dangerous journeys.”

“Their lack of identity documents exposed them to robberies, threats and arrest, leading them to embark on a dangerous journey that included passing through South Sudan, Sudan and Libya in search of protection. Throughout the journey, the interviewees were subjected to human trafficking, incarceration, the threat of forcible deportation to Eritrea, harsh conditions of starvation, violence, slavery in torture camps in Libya and a dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean Sea from Libya to Europe.”

“The testimonies here portray a clear picture: the promises made by Israel to those ‘voluntarily’ departing to Rwanda and Uganda, which included granting legal status and protection in Rwanda and Uganda, were not kept.”

www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2018/10/moving-under[/quote]
Wow. I do hope news reporters are taking note of that one for the purpose of interviewing every spokesman the government put forward t support this scheme.

IF it goes ahead in any form and to any degree (and that is a big if) we will most certanly then see all of these:

Scandal of admin/management incompetance/nightmares, meaning that some of the "wrong" people are sent to Rwanda (including those who would have had a strong prima facie asylum claim from the outset). "Lessons will be learned" after a number of suicides/deaths of children/insert your own horror stories.

Scandal of promised support for the people in Rwanda not being provided/being stolen from them.

Scandal of abuse and torture by a medley of groups and people, some of whom will be UK-employed offcials/NGO workers and allsorts, others of who are the usual criminals/people smugglers/sex offenders and so on. No proper oversight of what's going on leads to a free-for-all.

Scandal of Tory arseholes gaining enormous financial gains from all aspectes of the situation.

Mark. My. Words.

My God. Unbelievable. We’re going backwards. They’ll be putting ‘Hard Work Leads to a Visa’ over the gates of the internment camps, if we’re not careful.

Rwanda is such an odd choice. We can’t just keep accepting immigrants, tho, where the heck are they going to live?

I see now that the UK is investing £120 million in developments in Rwanda to make this work. That A LOT of lucrative contracts for chums, by God! Bring on the cake in the tuppperware box and let's have a knees up.

Why do you think Rwanda said yes when everyone else said no to that stupid idea?

Of course it’s the money.
And the fact they are poor enough not to be too choosy

"Rwanda" hasn't said yes. A corrupt kleptocracy surrounding a dictator has. Most people there are too busy trying to survive on $2 a day. This is irrelevent to them.

@MarriedThreeChildren

Why do you think Rwanda said yes when everyone else said no to that stupid idea?

Of course it’s the money.
And the fact they are poor enough not to be too choosy

Denmark have a similar deal with Rwanda for the same reasons as the UK. Its not just us, but interestingly, Denmark have yet to send anyone to Rwanda.

Eight days ago the Refugee Minister was saying when interviewed that he knew nothing whatsoever of any plans for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. In fact, he said it just wasn't going to happen, given that they have enough problems getting refugees here from Ukraine.

So it's pretty clear the whole thing is just an attempt to divert attention from Johnson's criminality.

I actually did not know that about Denmark. I am pretty disgusted with that. But again, it probably will not happen.

@Fulmine yes that is really funny, almost like this headline-grabbing bullshit was just cooked up in the last couple of days...funny that....