Flight to Rwanda

[lbab1702]

I’d love to get a flight to Rwanda. Beautiful country and people ( I’ve been there before) but I don’t understand why refugees to the U.K. should go there.

Agree it is a beautiful country - but I chose to go there. These people did not and it is abhorrent that we are doing this. It honestly makes me ashamed to be British. And please don't come at me with the 'we're full' argument, it's bollocks.

The people traffickers are part of organised crime, prostitution, drug smuggling and so on. The people coming here are mostly economic migrants. those who aren't will I hope, be processed property in Rwanda.

My humanitarian side says let them stay but my commonsense asks why don't they stay in any of the european countries they pass through if they are fleeing persecution? Are they also persecuted in france or italy? If they are fleeing war torn countries where do they get the £thousands to pay the traffickers? Do I really want traffickers to continue to put these people at risk in the channel while increasing the criminal activities?

It seems wrong to ship them to another continent, but its also wrong to encourage illegal activity.

Fucking ridiculous.

They are preparing to fly a whole plane all the way to Rwanda and back with six migrants on board. SIX!

I think it immoral to outsource / externalise our processing services.

It feels wrong to ship them to another continent. Possibly a different culture and a less develop country without a good infrastructure to cope with immigration.

Well, the plan seems to have hit a snag

No doubt there will be lots of rage from Brexiters.

Who do not know that the ECHR isn't an EU organisation.

I for one think this policy is inhumane and I hope it is found to be illegal under international law. Hey, this government seems keen on breaking international law, so they should be happy, right?

Its ridiculous, a 'deterrent' costing the tax payer how much??
So we have a plane with capacity of 200+, and start off with 31 passengers.. after individual cases are heard we are now flying 7 people to Rwanda.
Illegal traffickers and migrants very likely to still risk it i would say!

Migration is a global problem, our solution? wash our hands of the problem..

Its certainly not immoral to outsource the the processing service. Rwanda have presumably agreed to this arrangement and find it financially beneficial.

No one has yet to come up with a good explanation for why true refugees fleeing for their lives would not claim asylum in the numerous safe counties they pass through instead of continuing on to get to the UK.
That's because most are economic migrants and they know they won't meet the criteria if they applied for come to the UK legally so they try and get here illegally. It has to stop.

It’s awful on every level. The flight is now down to 6 and I hope the others can be given permission to remain in the same way for their cases to be heard properly.

I am seriously concerned about your lack of knowledge on this.

No. They're not being 'processed'. They go there for good. 4 have family here, one has an uncle in Carlisle, 3 have been tortured, 1 from Syria did not want to sign up to the murderous police force. They have been picked to appease those who are fed up with brown people
Nothing to do with ppl smugglers, Calais has offered centres over there to deal with this, we haven't taken it up

The government doesn’t actually think it’ll work, it’s just red meant for its xenophobic voters who are getting increasingly annoyed that Brexit hasn’t turned the uk into a utopia yet.

I totally oppose the policy of removing people seeking refuge here to Rwanda, but even if I didn’t, in the current climate crisis, flying a plane to another continent with 7 people on is unjustifiable.

How do you feel about the fact that 10 Rwandans who are vulnerable with severe MH and physical problems return for every 1 that goes out?
That's the deal. Well hidden though

@1000yellowdaisies by your logic the UK would never take any asylum seekers, because being an island surrounded by safe countries on the other side of the water, it could legitimately deny all responsibility.

Not a very moral or humane position, that.

What’s this about?

It's out there. Just

The arrangement with Rwanda is reciprocal. They take one asylum seekers from the UK and in return we will take 10 Rwandan's who, for whatever reason, cannot continue to live in Rwanda.

I think its mad that its Rwanda.

But I don't think having an uncle in Carlisle should give you the right to choose to settle in the UK as an economic migrant.

I've got an uncle in NYC, a cousin in Australia, I'm not expecting to be welcomed to go & live there as a result.

You're right, we are surrounded by safe counties so technically there is no justification for asylum seekers to travel here dangerously and unnecessarily.
The UK should take a share of refugees from countries in crisis but in a systematic way, as it has done for Ukraine.

No course you wouldn't 🤔

If you were fleeing war, torture, obligatory enlistment ...you wouldn't...yeah course not

So many people lost their lives trying to cross channel in inflatable boats. They could just as easily stop in a safe country they pass through Italy, France etc and make their application to come to UK from a safe place. Instead they choose to pay human traffickers to ride on the inflatable boats. As they refuse to act rationally one can only assume it is because they know they don't meet criteria for legal entry.

Here is an explanation - they don't want to, they want to come to the UK.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to seek asylum here?
And the vast majority of people who have crossed the channel have been granted asylum, so not economic migrants after all.

France is a safe country, if you were a genuine refugee you would just claim asylum in the first safe place. France would fit the bill.

O, and also, there is NO WAY to request asylum in the UK from outside of the UK (other than the v limited Ukraine scheme), so coming illegally is the only option.

Absolutely this ☝️ We could process the applications in France etc. our Government chooses not to and instead to play to the racist quarter of their voters. Asylum seekers are not illegal despite the common view. Their asylum applications should be properly assessed. As for the argument that they should remain in the first safe country they reach. That is all well and fine, but having family in the UK and being able to speak English, but not French, Italian or German are excellent reasons to apply for asylum here. Put yourself in their shoes!

To claim asylum in the UK you must physically be in the UK. Perhaps if the UK government was to change that rule and allow people to begin the application process from whichever country they're already in then those desperate people wouldn't need to risk their lives via an inflatable boat on the Channel.