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.

@forinborin That depends on your metric of reasonably successful…

“Asylum seekers resettled in Rwanda under EU scheme abandoned to poverty.
Refugees tell the Telegraph there is not enough food, housing, medical services and other basic necessities. Asylum seekers in Rwanda have said they have been left in a “traumatising” poverty-stricken limbo for years, barely able to afford clothes and constantly in fear of the country’s brutal security forces, an investigation by The Telegraph has found.”

Local people are also not convinced:

“Ordinary Rwandans say they're not sure where the UK's refugees and migrants will live. Rwanda is slightly bigger than Wales, with a population more than four times the size. About 70 per cent of the country's 13m people are subsistence farmers and almost every scrap of land is lived on, cultivated or used to graze animals.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/asylum-seekers-resettled-rwanda-eu-scheme-abandoned-poverty/

Priti vile Patel fights on she says in a statement

This is down to the European Court of Human Rights. BJ wants to pull out of ECHR. The last country to do that was Russia
That tells you all you need to know

No, they don’t wander about aimlessly. You should be careful about calling someone ignorant when you so obviously have gaps in your own knowledge. How asylum applications work/worked in the EU. Once a refugee had an accepted asylum claim in any EU country, freedom of movement applies and they can go anywhere in the Schengen area of the EU plus whichever EU nations had opted in.

The reason why we had boat crossings before Brexit is because the U.K. opted out of EU freedom of movement for all noncitizens of the EU. So a 3rd country refugee would have to become a citizen of an EU country before they could move here under EU freedom of movement.

The irony is of course, that the EU was blamed for the channel boat crossings but really it was UKs sovereign law all along and it is still is the issue causing the channel boat crossings.

To everyone saying the idea is ‘processing’ in Rwanda - it’s not. The plan is to forcibly resettle people. They can be found to have a valid asylum claim and can still never return to the UK but instead be forced to remain in Rwanda.
They are not being processed and then returning if their claim is successful.
The policy is to send people to a country they have no connection with and try to force them to live there forever.

Delighted to hear that the flight will not be leaving. Nobody left on it!

She-devil Priti Patel is "very surprised" which reminded me of He-devil Boris Johnson being "very surprised" to get a Partygate Fixed Penalty Notice. It is a shame for both of them, isn't it?

God, this is odious. Immigrants only become properly British if they adopt your approved political beliefs?
just no

By successful, I mean it has been monitored by UNHCR and other major players are participating in it - EU, Canada for example. So it is not like Britain's own evil invention.

I personally am struggling to understand why Ukrainian refugees aren't being sent to Rwanda. I have no idea what separates Ukrainian refugees and African, Middle eastern refugees."

Maybe they presumed an African person is going to be more at home in an African country than a Ukrainian person is.

no, not really. I can think of nothing more likely to help their prospects of winning the next election.

You don't answer about any ties here. What about the one about to be shipped to Rwanda with family in Carlisle?
Thank god the plane has been halted.

Thank God it's been cancelled. Wish those asylum seekers a peaceful evening and some compassion. Those fleeing Ukraine seem to be "in favour" whilst others are deemed less deserving. My heart goes out to those looking for a safer, more stable life. But for the grace of God.......

Do tell me in which part of Africa are Vietnam and Syria located? Please use maps to demonstrate your answer.

@TruthHertz the majority of the asylum seekers aren't coming from African countries

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.

It's so tiring when people with such strong views don't have a clue what they're talking about. You can only apply for asylum when on British soil. This is such a basic fact that so many people fail to grasp. If you can't retain this pretty simple level of detail I can't imagine the rest of your knowledge on the subject strays much beyond the content of the comment pieces in the Daily Mail.

I wouldn't say the Ukrainian men are exactly 'swinging their dicks'. It must be horrific for the vast majority of men (statistically non violent) to take up arms without prior experience and face the very real possibility of slowly bleeding out in a ditch with their limbs blown off or a bullet lodged in their gut. Defo better to be a woman and be able to get the fuck out of Dodge!

But I agree it's defo a different scenario to the majority of refugees who are statistically 75% young men and absolutely rocketing in their numbers in the last two years.

For those with immediate family here, the U.K. has a free family reunion visa that can be applied for while outside the U.K.

“allows a spouse or partner and children under the age of 18 of those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK to reunite with them here, providing they formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country of origin or habitual residence.”..
”Family reunion applications can be made from abroad by making an entry clearance application or from within the UK.”
”There is no fee payable for a Refugee Family Reunion application.”

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/947066/family-reunion-guidance-v5.0ext.pdf

An uncle is not a spouse or a child, FFS.

And to get that visa you have to get to a British Embassy. Which is nigh on impossible in most war torn countries.

In a detention centre in this country, is an Afghan husband of a very pregnant wife. The British govt airlifted his wife and her father here, but he couldn't get to the flight in time. So he travelled overland to Calais and got here by boat to join his wife. But he was picked up in Dover and detained, and he's been told that he will be sent back. Without seeing his baby.

Tell me in what world that makes sense

@TruthHertz the higher number of young men arriving in the EU/UK is because the journey from the ME/east Africa is incredibly tough physically, plus very dangerous for women and children given the risks of trafficking and rape. Most women and children stay in refugee camps closer to their home country, while men do the harder physical journey. Men could also stay at those camps (and many do) but it’s difficult to find work/housing and the living conditions are crowded, good hygiene is hard, and most want to find stability for their family, which means going to where the work is whether that’s richer countries in the ME, or to Europe.

That’s why you see so many young men.

The Ukraine visa scheme means women and children can enter via plane, which is obviously more physically manageable. If only women and children from other areas had that option.

What you've described there is an economic migrant, not an asylum seeker.

I think a good compromise is to do something like the Ukraine scheme where those rabidly in favour of allowing as many economic migrants/ asylum seekers as we can into the country should be the ones who sponsor them and are responsible for them.

Well no, uncle is not immediate family. You said “You don’t answer about any ties here”. Immediate family = ties do they not? I don’t think any country allows visas for non immediate family so the UK isn’t odd by restricting family visas in such a way.

And, no you don’t have to get to a British Embassy to get a family reunion visa (except for N. Korea). It can be applied for online (which you would have seen if you’d read the link I posted). Or if you can’t get online, yes from a British embassy which would admittedly be difficult whilst in the war torn country, but not so much while sitting in France contemplating a channel crossing. Incidentally, most of the human traffickers are contacted and do business online via messaging apps. So generally, if you can find a trafficker to get across the channel, you can fill out a visa form online.

Did you not know about the family reunion visa? It’s a way to apply for asylum from outside the UK if you have immediate family already here. Incidentally, thats what the Afghan husband should have done to join his wife instead of paying human traffickers £££££££££ when he could have applied for free to join her here. They estimate human traffickers make £700k per boat. Once he’s sent back, he can apply. It’s harsh but my experience with the Home Office is they don’t care.

I do sympathise, my DH is an immigrant and we are facing the possibility of him being deported. Our landlord is evicting us and we haven’t found anywhere to go. If we end up going to the council for housing, myself and the DC are ok as we are British. But my DHs visa doesn’t allow recourse to public funds. Which means, he will be deported for visa violation if we apply for council housing/ I apply and sneak him in/ or if he goes homeless and sleeps on the streets in a tent.

It’s not easy for any immigrant. There are lots of laws that do not make sense. In some ways it’s strange to me which causes are taken up and which are ignored. I’m not in favour of the Rwanda thing, it was a stupid idea. But I am in favour of stopping the channel crossings.

To do that, the U.K. needs to expand its asylum visas so that people can apply from outside the U.K. It’s very simple. That’s what we should be protesting. 300 people a year drown in the channel.

Are people from the Middle East African now?

No women or children will be sent to Rwanda, and since Ukraine refugees are women and children, none will be sent there.

@80211g Yeah, I can see where I’ve confused you (and myself). I edited a chunk out of the middle comparing the two as it was stupidly long. Try again.

There are some areas/situations where men could stay in camps or nearby countries (large numbers of Syrian asylum seekers go to the UAE for eg). And there are some where that would be impossible due to religious or political persecution.

For many who leave conflicts in their country, surrounding countries will not be safe. Politically or religiously. As we’ve seen in earlier posts, some European countries will not be safe due to claims refused, housing refused and police violence.

Once asylum seekers reach a safe country and have their claim processed, then yes, they are allowed to work to support themselves and their families if they have them. That fact that someone works once their claim is accepted doesn’t mean that they were always an economic migrant.

a good compromise is to do something like the Ukraine scheme where those rabidly in favour of allowing as many economic migrants/ asylum seekers as we can into the country should be the ones who sponsor them and are responsible for them

Or we could let them get jobs, pay taxes, support themselves. Rabidly.

You also mentioned Africans. Read your own post quoted above.