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.

Were you this upset when the EU were doing the same, or is that different?

If that was OK under international law, why wouldn’t this be?

Different culture to what though? Surely the UK is a different culture too.

One of the reasons people choose the UK is strong cultural links. I remember teaching a Botswanan man in a third country. And there was an art project with a rainbow. I said, "Richard of York..." and he said "gave battle in vain". When I looked confused he said, "colonialist education".

We still owe responsibility for the hangover of colonialism. All over Africa for a start.

I overall do not agree with sending these people to rawanda.
I also can understand the feelings that if you are genuinely fleeing in fear of your life you would be grateful to be in any safe country. You don't look at a world map and think of it like a pic n mix.
But I can understand also the desire to be with family or friends who are already established, hence maybe why some are desperate to come to the UK.
This afternoon on radio 4 they briefly reported on the three cases at the high court today.. One was said to be vietemenese... Forgive my ignorance but I was unaware of wars, refugee camps, torture etc in Vietnam currently?
The second claimed he had a sister in the UK and had health issues that required him to be given asylum. Reported as disproved in court.
So I am slightly mixed about this issue, genuine refugees we should accept, embrace, welcome

On that basis, the UK should never take any refugees whatsoever. Why? As it is, we take one of the smallest percentages in the west. There is no rule requiring refugees to stay in the first country they reach, that would mean that the neighbours of countries like Ukraine would be utterly overwhelmed. It makes sense to allow refugees to choose to join their relatives and friends or to go somewhere where their skills are needed. And, make no mistake, they are. We are desperately in need of immigrants just to keep the NHS going.

No, we don't want traffickers to continue to put people at risk. At one point Pritti Patel came up with what was, for once, a good idea for stopping this: she said she would arrange safe passage coupled with a fast but thorough process for considering asylum claims. But, naturally, she decided not to go ahead with the sensible idea, and instead opt for this inhumane piece of nonsense which is simply not going to work.

The really infuriating thing is that it's all blatantly been timed to happen before the by elections in the hope of appeasing the right wing and bringing them back into the fold. Forget humanity, forget British traditions of welcoming refugees, only votes and Boris' career matter!

Anything that puts even one person off getting involved with the horrific trade of ‘people smuggling’ is ok by me.

I think I love you Amaryllis.

Absolutely this!

It isn't possible to make an application from outside the UK.

Agreed. we are chaining foreign people up and transporting them between continents against their will for the sake of financial gain…

Hmm- what does that remind me of?!!

Anything? Anything?

no matter the expense or the vulnerable lives ruined

would you be ok if your life was ruined as an example to these traffickers - I think not

Terry spot on

It's a really quick Google. Really quick.

www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2022/03/24/free-vietnams-political-prisoners

They aren't illegal immigrants. They are refugees.

As a country, we under Churchill were highly instrumental in establishing the ECHR. It shows how very far we have fallen under Johnson that we are seriously talking about leaving. You do realise, don't you, that if we leave the ECHR, not only do we sabotage the remains of our elationship with the EU, we sabotage them with the US and the Commonwealth?

Good help Jewish children if people with this sort of outlook had been around at the time of Kindertransport.

Amazing how sneering wannabe "Christians" suddenly cast The Good Samaritan to one side whenever it suits their net curtain twitching Little Britain outlook on life.

In other terms this policy is referred to as extraordinary rendition.

This is exactly the point - you are not an immigration specialist

Just because you don’t understand something it does not make that person a liar…

refugees are fleeing persecution - that doesn’t necessarily need to mean a war. It could be being tortured for being a female or gay

as it happens Vietnam has 53 ethnic groups and there is some severe persecution arising between them

see this for info - there is one on most countries

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1053860/VNM_CPIN_Ethnic_and_religious_groups.pdf

So why not go for a policy of offering safe passage that will put most of them off and have the advantage of, erm, allowing refugees to travel safely?

There are not many on the first plane because we are a country of laws.

Claims are made that individual immigrants have some special circumstance and we allow them to stay long enough to present it. We bend over backwards to be fair even though we're pretty sure they are just stalling.

If we were the monsters people like to say we are there'd be 1000s of them in the cargo hold of a ship in chains.

These are the ones caught entering illegally. They didn't cross that way because they wanted a paddle. They could have turned up at a port, showed their passport and asked to apply for asylum, but they know they don't qualify so they sneak in and when caught throw their documents overboard.

Many of them miraculously become children once their papers are gone.

As others have pointed out elsewhere they have lost everything. Including in most cases their wives and children who they completely forgot to fetch with them.

Luckily they have their smart phones so they can call lawyers

If they don't want to go to Rwanda they don't have to. They can just stop in France and ask for asylum. It's not as though they are in any danger.

It's like ignorance whack-a-mole @Namechanger355

Loving your work.

You and me? No, we don’t. My family were being oppressed just as much as poor families all over the empire, being sent underground to die, or overseas to die in wars. I owe no-one anything for the sins of other people.

No, I got it right first time. If these people were genuine asylum seekers, they would have claimed asylum in the first safe country they landed in, typically Italy. If they found they didn’t like pasta then they could have claimed asylum in France.

These deportations are also excellent politics for the Tories. It’s a policy designed to drive yet another wedge between middle-class, Guardian reading Labour supporters and the white working class who used to be the party’s core vote.

@PlanetNormal, there is no rule requiring asylum seekers to apply in the first safe country they reach.

If that were the rule, we as an island nation would never take any refugees. And yet we have a very long, proud record of accepting them, and indeed our economy is heavily dependent on immigration and refugees.

For various reasons I've had more to do with the NHS than I want to over the last couple of years. It's become very obvious to me that the entire system would collapse without immigration. And that's just one industry amongst many in a very similar situation.

No you are wrong. There is no requirement to go to the first safe country

so people claiming asylum in the Uk are very much “asylum seekers”

i do find it interesting how people with very little knowledge about this stuff try to show quite frequently how little they actually know

It is a deterrent - no longer will you get picked up by the cost guard Uber service and taken into the country, you will be sent off to another safe place instead to be processed. These are not refugees escaping the war torn streets of Calais - Calais has problems but war is not one of them. These are economic migrants pure and simple. They should be applying for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in (probably long before arriving in France).

Look at the refugees fleeing Ukraine - mainly women and children - what's floating over from france? - young men.

When they start getting picked up from their boats and stuck straight on the next flight out there will be a damn sight fewer of them trying it.

@AmaryIlis

Skilled, qualified medical professionals who have applied to live & work in the U.K. legally ≠ economic migrants who have entered the U.K. illegally in dinghies and have no right to be here.

Stop conflating two completely different things.

Well I don't know what you have against Rwandans who are vulnerable with severe MH and physical problems or why you think there are so many of them.

I've seen several versions of this "taking more than we send". It seems to grow in the telling. It doesn't take a lot of thought to realise that this government wouldn't be doing this if the ones coming in were a significant number.

This is a Tory government. Have you met the Tories?

OMG, don’t let the actual facts get in the way! Spoilsport