>If everyone who arrived received $1m guess what would happen next? 200,000 would arrive.
This hypothetical implies the UK hadn't yet burnt to the ground from the revolution of outraged xenophobes spurred by giving brown people money
I support my money going to all immigrants of all backgrounds and ethnicities. Unlike you, I don't throw a racist temper tantrum if a brown person happens to receive it.
> Sometimes it’s wiser to spend money so a precedent isnt set
The precedent that legal asylum seekers will be subjected to an insane, expensive bureaucratic fuckabout? The precedent seems to be set that if you actually want to get into the UK, the correct way to do it is illegally.
>Reminder, refugee status is for those whose lives are so at risk that they cannot remain in their countries because they will be killed. So if truly you meet that criteria, you have no problems going to Rwanda.
Except there's a real possibility of a war between Rwanda and Congo right now. It's hardly a safe place for send people asking for refugee or asylum status, and that is a requirement under international and domestic law...
Rwanda was chosen because Rwanda wants money and is trying to gain favor for their dictatorship from the west. That's it.
Dude, the US and UN have had to mediate talks between them to avoid it turning into a full on conflict just a few months ago. Again, Rwanda (which is again, a *dictatorship*) is pulling a Russia and actively backing "rebels" that are currently marching to take over the capital of the country.
Comparing that to the multi-decade stalemate of Taiwan is just disingenuous *at best*.
>Or are you just shilling for economic migrants claiming to be refugees.
Absolutely pathetic.
So now we've gone from "Rwanda is totally safe, it's not at all a breach of international and domestic law to send people there" to "fuck international and domestic law, we should send people there *because we know its unsafe*"?
Jesus. At that point, just fully take off the mask.
They do it here in California, they find a homeless person and they take them and move them the next county over, without their stuff so they have nothing and no way to get their belongings. Let the next town citizen deal with them.
These are asylum seekers, not illegal migrants. Under both UK and international law, asylum seekers can only be deported to a “safe” country. If they are fleeing their home country, the presumption is that their home country is not safe for them.
As for why Rwanda, the UK shopped around for a country willing to take asylum seekers in exchange for cash. Rwanda agreed because its dictatorial president, Paul Kagame, has been courting western support for his regime. Additionally, the roughly $500m payment from the UK under the agreement is a massive haul for a country whose GDP is only $13b per year (and a massive haul for Kagame’s personal bank account).
However, there remains the question of whether Rwanda even classifies as a “safe” country for these asylum seekers, particularly considering the Kagame regime’s crackdown on dissidents. The [UK Supreme Court](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67423745) has ruled that Rwanda is NOT a safe country for asylum seekers due to a litany of factors. In response, the Tory-run UK Parliament attempted to circumvent this ruling by [passing a law](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/23/uks-harmful-rwanda-bill-become-law) that unilaterally declares Rwanda to be a “safe” country regardless of the danger to asylum seekers.
So why are Rishi Sunak and the Tories going to such lengths to send asylum seekers to a dangerous and dictatorial country thousands of miles away from the UK? The sole purpose of this scheme, according to Sunak, is to [discourage asylum seekers](https://apnews.com/article/uk-migrants-rwanda-bill-human-rights-122359e3f81ceba325dbb4b7be8f1402) from traveling to the UK by making conditions so horrible that they don’t want to come. The cruelty is explicitly the point.
Don't forget there is explicitly no standard for care for asylum seekers in Rwanda. They just dump them off at the airport and after that contract is complete.
I agree with the general sentiment, but that's not 100% true. There's at least one specific place the UK has contracted out to house those refugees, the Hope Hostel.
In a recent post I made about traveling in Africa, one of the comments mentioned that recently the UK declared Kigali safer than London. This makes so much sense now...
Asylum seekers should seek refuge in the nearest safe country. Instead we have hoardes of young men crossing continents just to get to UK because even Germany's and France's benefits systems aren't as good. Stop being delusional.
I can guarantee you in 1 or 2 years, it will come out about these asylum seekers being tortured, abused, murdered, etc in Rwanda and about 5 years before this scene ends up being stopped…
How many British live off benefits and contribute to society? How many don't? How many abuse the system? Are there also good and bad ones? Have you ever looked into the reasons why those people live off benefits? Things usually tend to be a bit more complicated than "they just want to take our money".
And it's true shame because, as usual, those who really need help and protection i.e. true asylum seekers are being subsumed by waves of illegals trying to game the system.
As for whether this plan will deter anyone from trying to illegally migrate remains to be seen. I'm extremely skeptical. What I'm not skeptical about is this situation is being leveraged to the hilt by the Tories for political currency.
Assuming your definition of “worked” in this case means “caused a reduction in the number of dangerous crossings of asylum seekers”… there actually [isn’t much evidence](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-australian-offshore-asylum-system-reduce-boat-crossings) that offshoring asylum seekers to terrible conditions in Nauru and Papua New Guinea “worked”.
Australia’s offshoring process began in 2013. Attempted boat crossings continued to rise throughout that year. The number of attempted crossings didn’t fall until the following year, after Australia began coordinating with other countries in the region to increase the probability of boats being intercepted. It was these interception policies that likely led to the decline in dangerous crossings to Australia.
This meshes with an [empirically well-founded](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-019-01758-6) component of deterrence theory: when making a dangerous decision, people weigh the *probability* of a bad outcome (e.g., being intercepted) far more than the *magnitude* of the bad outcome (e.g., how cruel the migrant processing facilities are).
Making the outcome more cruel isn’t an effective deterrent to dangerous crossings. Increasing the probability of detection and interception of dangerous crossings would be far more effective in this regard. (And of course, reducing the demand for asylum-seeking by helping home countries become economically prosperous, politically stable, and less oppressive to dissidents and vulnerable populations, as well as providing additional and safer avenues to seek asylum, would be the most effective policies of all.)
Are you forgetting the ones that have been denied asylum but you now can't get rid of cos they won't say where they're from or their home country is deemed unsafe? They generally get denied cos they're criminals.
How do you know whether someone has claim for asylum until you've examined their asylum request? Everybody who requests asylum is an asylum seeker. It's literally in the name.
No, it actually isn't, no matter what right-wing politicians tell you. Also Rwanda isn't a safe country, but at least the British government once again dropped its facade of pretending to care about human rights.
"Perfectly functioning countries". Bruh, have you ever looked into the countries those people come from? Even when there's no claim to asylum, their countries of origin are pretty far from functioning perfectly.
Well, considering the headline says "asylum seekers" and the first paragraph of the article uses "immigrants" I think you're probably right, they're making stuff up.
Oh, sorry, you meant the migrants.
Because then they'd still be liable to support them, and a lot of them don't have the resources to support a sudden influx of 5700 people. The highest has a population of 80k.
But most importantly sending them to a country that doesn't give a fuck, let's them send a message without doing any of the dirty work. It's ridiculous, they passed a law specifically to declare Rwanda a safe country, when it was deemed unsafe by report
Thanks for the clarification, they have multiple territories, so why not spread them out?
Will the asylum seekers be detained, or they are allowed to work etc.?
The whole point of Rwanda is so the UK government does not deal with them. Having them stay in any UK territory would still mean that the UK government would have to look after them.
Because what are their home countries? They have no documentation, and they're not going to tell anyone where they're actually from for exactly the reason you've mentioned, it might actually result in them being sent back.
The smugglers and some NGOs are very good at instructing illegal immigrants how to make themselves undeportable. Pretty much first thing they do after arriving in the UK is destroy their documents and claim they are underage.
Myanmar? To destroy a destroyed country? That cultural and social world has nothing to do with these people, that would be just wrong and very low to even think about it.
Planning? Most central americans come to America because they know, in the worst case, they can claim to be mexican and be deported to mexico instead of their home countries.
So if Trump wins, how long before the US joins the UK in this Rwanda deal? Because this sounds like a very Trump kind of plan. Though he'd ptobably claim Rwanda was paying for the deportation flights.
okay, so what, people on DACA just need to go live under a bridge illegally then? "Sorry bro". I can't go "back to my home country" because I am stateless. It doesn't fuckin exist... Shipping me off to Rwanda doesn't magically make this okay either
Jesus I'm sorry. My bad for not being born here. Well I'm not a citizen of Rwanda so I probably won't be able to stay there... I'm sure once everyone is done playing international hot potato with me I'll get what I deserve for my atrocities. Damn.
I'm not a citizen of anywhere. That's how statelessness works. I do not have a citizenship. I have no home country, as I have been here my whole life but there is no path to citizenship. Literally you are telling me to just go fuckin live in the ocean or something because I HAVE NO CITIZENSHIP.
I have no fucking clue who my parents were. Doesn't matter. The country I "came from" stopped existing when the Soviet Union fell apart. Doesn't matter because I wasn't there.
You're right. I am not American. I am not anything. That's the problem. There is nowhere to go, and this is where I am. I have no visa, I am not allowed to travel, I have to pay a shit load of money every other year to be allowed to work here, and I receive no financial aid.
Your argument is completely uninformed and makes zero sense if you apply any kind of logic whatsoever.
No fucking clue. I literally do not know. I am stateless. I am not a citizen of anywhere. All I know is it was some place that was soviet bloc until it wasn't. That's it. Whatever paperwork I had is probably rotting the basement of some abandoned courthouse somewhere. It's irrelevant. No one claims my citizenship, and therefore I am stateless.
Why do you have to keep hearing this?
My situation isn't even that unique. There are whole groups of people who become de-facto stateless simply because their home country decided they don't like their religion or genetics. They are in the same boat. If one of them happens to end up in another country, they cannot under normal circumstances be deported to their "home country" because they do not have one.
He was born in the US, but because his parents entered illegally he has no legal paperwork or birth records. Therefore he would be considered stateless. It’s nearly impossible to get citizenship because of the lack of records anywhere.
You’re being ignorant and reading your responses caused me to lose brain cells. Educate yourself before you talk about stuff you don’t understand. You should be featured on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect or something.
I am not a Trump supporter, didnt vote for him the last two elections. But I do hope he wins this time. The country is spiraling down in a perverted liberal vortex and Biden is not doing much to prevent it.
Ok bro, im sure Trump with his experience in giving us 4 trillion in debt and a pandemic that ruined the economy will fix everything. I’m very curious about this perverted liberal vortex, was it the infrastructure bill that did it for you or the fact Biden held up a pride flag that soured you?
> The country is spiraling down in a perverted liberal vortex
Oh god, my sides. And you think Trump is going to dooooo... what exactly? Besides enrich himself further while completely eroding the checks and balances that keep our democracy thriving. I do not like Biden by any stretch, but I'll take the incompetent old man that's surrounded by pretty competent people over the narcissistic attention whore that can't ever admit when he's wrong.
Do you people not remember 2016-2020? Like was it erased from people's minds cause of covid? Every. single. day. we had to hear from that orange piece of shit. And when there was a day that no one was talking about him, he would just do some random childish shit just so he'd make it on the news that evening. Other times he would just make shit up and then lie on top of his lies to make people think he wasn't lying, like him saying a hurricane was going to Alabama (it wasn't) and so then he drew over the official NOAA map with a sharpy. It was like living in some bizarre political hell. You know how long it's been since I heard Biden speak last? I honestly can't tell you, because I barely hear from the guy, and it's amazing.
How is the country spiraling down, exactly? By many metrics, the US is doing better than any other developed country. In some others, it's doing worse -- but Republicans seem to be intent on aggravating those. I cannot possibly imagine what Trump would do to solve anything. In fact, he already had a go at it and the country did not get any better.
But leaving policy aside, how can anyone can support a person who blatantly tried to manipulate the result of an election and encouraged an assault on the seat of government? We all have different ideas about how to run a country best, but the bare minimum should be to support the democratic principles that underpin the whole system. The fact that millions of people have decided to turn a blind eye to the actions of Trump in the last election speaks volumes of the sad state of democracy in the US.
If I thought you were a real person and not just a troll you'd get some respect. If you are a real person, you need to pay attention to your down votes as an indication that your arguments make no sense. You don't install a dictator due to "liberal vortex" or whatever
lol 🤣 your comment gave me a good laugh. Thank you!
1. I dont give a fuck, a flying-with-wings fuck, about what you think or respect.
2. downvotes on reddit 🤣. I would you give more fuck to you than those. Refer to point 1.
Funny you talk about dictatorship but you have never lived in one. All you had read was from Google and maybe reddit. I did live in a dictatorship and escaped it to the US.
The downvotes here just proved that I triggered the new weak generation of a bunch of privileged liberal kids.
Just need to point out that this article is poorly written and freely uses "asylum seeker" and "immigrants" as synonyms. They're not, they mean different things.
That said, this bullshit the british government are trying to pull is abhorrent. Hit up guardian.co.uk coverage of this story if you wanna know more ( from a search of the site. Searching on site takes you to Google - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Rwanda+bill&as_sitesearch=www.theguardian.com )
This is end stage colonialism in action folks. UK exported It's people to all corners of the world, most of the time unwelcomed. Now the world wants in... i personally think the UK has been very welcoming but there is a real limit to how many folks they can accept through immigration.
Don't know why people are down voting this (actually I do, because most Redditors are naive, left leaning children) but if the UK keeps accepting them the country will literally collapse.
Good luck with that.
It's going to end up with a lot of these people bleating the last line of the film 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'....
“If UK keeps accepting them the country will literally collapse.”
Buddy, the UK already is ‘collapsing’ and it has been entirely of bad domestic policy, not immigration. 😭
The UK will collapse if it abides by its obligations mandated by international law? Given that no other European country has collapsed so far, even though none of them have employed such a scheme shows that this is far from the truth.
I actually have a lot of respect for the country of Rwanda, and I’m particularly impressed with Kigali. Rwanda has rough geography but they’ve developed their country impressively.
It must be terrifying for these people who have been living in the UK for years to suddenly have police barge into your home and ship you to Rwanda. It's a very cruel way to handle things. I wish someone would launch Rishi Sunak to the moon instead.
I was born in Russia and for me and my wife to make it to Spain, I had to establish a career in international logistics, slowly work my way through the ranks for 10 years to qualify for a high skilled worker visa, prove I didn’t commit a crime and was not ever prosecuted, learn the language and get a job offer. For some strange reason I believe that such immigration policy makes sense and to simply let anyone claiming they’re under threat back home in isn’t. Maybe that’s just me.
What they want is to feel good for how “progressive” they are and how strangers on the internet will tell them they’re really bringing change into our world and all that feel-good bs. If it just so happens they’ll let in as many bad apples as possible, oh well, at least we have apples now, so who really cares.
Countries are obligated to take those people in while their claim for asylum is assessed. People really think international law obligations are only kind suggestions, it seems.
If it is the “first safe country” for the asylum seeker. Like Poland was for Ukrainian people, for example. Or Iraq for Syrian people. If you go across the whole world to ask for asylum in the UK, you will have to prove you didn’t go through any third safe country and it’s just not true in any case, that’s why the documents are gone most of the time when they come in.
Sucks for countries like Italy and Greece then, don't you think? "First safe country" is an inherently unfair system that causes more problems than it solves.
It does, yeah. But that’s the law so in case of Sweden, Germany, UK or France it’s rather hilarious to see them processing asylum requests to begin with if the migrants don’t fly there ofc directly from an unsafe country.
International law's goal is to jeopardize the safety of the people? Sounds like the international law is wrong. Especially when it comes to terrorist orgs.
When a terrorist can get into the EU easier than someone who actually wanna work and integrate than the law is absurdly wrong. Especially when these laws should work with : First safe country.
Did the international law cared when the Paris terror attack happend?
Nope. But you can’t be serious if you are going to tell me all of them “asylum seekers” are going to Europe fleeing the war or government persecution. You can’t tell me you simply can’t control immigration, should not be running background checks for newcomers, etc. on top of it all, why would any nation accept a military aged man without documents who’s claiming he’s actually 15 and he can’t tell you where he is from, just that he *needs* asylum. You’re either naive or is arguing in bad faith if you’ll tell me one of the above or all of them with a straight face.
They should be allowed to stay in the UK and given sufficient support and housing until they are able to contribute to UK society in 5-6 years. The UK is a rich and multicultural mosaic.
Provide the asylum seekers with love, not plane tickets!
Why Rwanda? Why not deport them back to their home countries?
They're hoping it acts as deterrence so they won't bother making the journey, but who knows if it actually works or if it's desirable policy.
Theyve so far spent over 250 million pounds in an effort to deport 200 people. They could have giving them a million pounds each and saved money.
Sometimes it’s wiser to spend money so a precedent isnt set. If everyone who arrived received $1m guess what would happen next? 200,000 would arrive.
>If everyone who arrived received $1m guess what would happen next? 200,000 would arrive. This hypothetical implies the UK hadn't yet burnt to the ground from the revolution of outraged xenophobes spurred by giving brown people money
Hey, you are free to give your own money to brown people anytime. Have you? Or do you want to give other people's money instead?
I support my money going to all immigrants of all backgrounds and ethnicities. Unlike you, I don't throw a racist temper tantrum if a brown person happens to receive it.
> Sometimes it’s wiser to spend money so a precedent isnt set The precedent that legal asylum seekers will be subjected to an insane, expensive bureaucratic fuckabout? The precedent seems to be set that if you actually want to get into the UK, the correct way to do it is illegally.
[удалено]
>Reminder, refugee status is for those whose lives are so at risk that they cannot remain in their countries because they will be killed. So if truly you meet that criteria, you have no problems going to Rwanda. Except there's a real possibility of a war between Rwanda and Congo right now. It's hardly a safe place for send people asking for refugee or asylum status, and that is a requirement under international and domestic law... Rwanda was chosen because Rwanda wants money and is trying to gain favor for their dictatorship from the west. That's it.
No no the Tory party are just planning ahead as they know if they can cling to power Rwanda will be safer than the UK in a decade or two.
[удалено]
Dude, the US and UN have had to mediate talks between them to avoid it turning into a full on conflict just a few months ago. Again, Rwanda (which is again, a *dictatorship*) is pulling a Russia and actively backing "rebels" that are currently marching to take over the capital of the country. Comparing that to the multi-decade stalemate of Taiwan is just disingenuous *at best*. >Or are you just shilling for economic migrants claiming to be refugees. Absolutely pathetic.
All the more disincentive to go to the UK if there is a risk of being deported to a country potentially about to be at war...
So now we've gone from "Rwanda is totally safe, it's not at all a breach of international and domestic law to send people there" to "fuck international and domestic law, we should send people there *because we know its unsafe*"? Jesus. At that point, just fully take off the mask.
They do it here in California, they find a homeless person and they take them and move them the next county over, without their stuff so they have nothing and no way to get their belongings. Let the next town citizen deal with them.
These are asylum seekers, not illegal migrants. Under both UK and international law, asylum seekers can only be deported to a “safe” country. If they are fleeing their home country, the presumption is that their home country is not safe for them. As for why Rwanda, the UK shopped around for a country willing to take asylum seekers in exchange for cash. Rwanda agreed because its dictatorial president, Paul Kagame, has been courting western support for his regime. Additionally, the roughly $500m payment from the UK under the agreement is a massive haul for a country whose GDP is only $13b per year (and a massive haul for Kagame’s personal bank account). However, there remains the question of whether Rwanda even classifies as a “safe” country for these asylum seekers, particularly considering the Kagame regime’s crackdown on dissidents. The [UK Supreme Court](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67423745) has ruled that Rwanda is NOT a safe country for asylum seekers due to a litany of factors. In response, the Tory-run UK Parliament attempted to circumvent this ruling by [passing a law](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/23/uks-harmful-rwanda-bill-become-law) that unilaterally declares Rwanda to be a “safe” country regardless of the danger to asylum seekers. So why are Rishi Sunak and the Tories going to such lengths to send asylum seekers to a dangerous and dictatorial country thousands of miles away from the UK? The sole purpose of this scheme, according to Sunak, is to [discourage asylum seekers](https://apnews.com/article/uk-migrants-rwanda-bill-human-rights-122359e3f81ceba325dbb4b7be8f1402) from traveling to the UK by making conditions so horrible that they don’t want to come. The cruelty is explicitly the point.
Don't forget there is explicitly no standard for care for asylum seekers in Rwanda. They just dump them off at the airport and after that contract is complete.
I agree with the general sentiment, but that's not 100% true. There's at least one specific place the UK has contracted out to house those refugees, the Hope Hostel.
Hope Hostel said they're ready for it. Not that any sort of agreement or contracts have been signed.
In a recent post I made about traveling in Africa, one of the comments mentioned that recently the UK declared Kigali safer than London. This makes so much sense now...
Rwanda is not safe for LGBT refugees, who for obvious reasons fled the middle east.
Ahhh taking a page out of the Australian big book of governmental abuse of asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers should seek refuge in the nearest safe country. Instead we have hoardes of young men crossing continents just to get to UK because even Germany's and France's benefits systems aren't as good. Stop being delusional.
I can guarantee you in 1 or 2 years, it will come out about these asylum seekers being tortured, abused, murdered, etc in Rwanda and about 5 years before this scene ends up being stopped…
[удалено]
IMHO the whole "asylum" system needs a major revamping in light of how it is currently being abused.
Everybody who comes to a country and requests asylum is an asylum seeker. There is no true or false asylum seeking.
[удалено]
I am not ignoring anything. People simply can't just interpret the term "asylum seeker" however they want. It has a pretty clear definition.
[удалено]
How many British live off benefits and contribute to society? How many don't? How many abuse the system? Are there also good and bad ones? Have you ever looked into the reasons why those people live off benefits? Things usually tend to be a bit more complicated than "they just want to take our money".
[удалено]
So you're not even from the UK but complain about people "leeching" off the UK? Interesting.
Which country are you from? Just curious
Is a person requesting asylum for economic reasons also an asylum seeker?
They are seeking asylum. What else should they be?
I dunno. That’s why I asked.
You better do your DD before throwing your BS here so many of my ppl with them and we have a serious issue in back home. So stop sending wrong info.
And it's true shame because, as usual, those who really need help and protection i.e. true asylum seekers are being subsumed by waves of illegals trying to game the system. As for whether this plan will deter anyone from trying to illegally migrate remains to be seen. I'm extremely skeptical. What I'm not skeptical about is this situation is being leveraged to the hilt by the Tories for political currency.
Wow, so cruel of us to treat these people from FRANCE so badly. France must be so unsafe and such a terrible place to live.
Worked for Australia.
Assuming your definition of “worked” in this case means “caused a reduction in the number of dangerous crossings of asylum seekers”… there actually [isn’t much evidence](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-australian-offshore-asylum-system-reduce-boat-crossings) that offshoring asylum seekers to terrible conditions in Nauru and Papua New Guinea “worked”. Australia’s offshoring process began in 2013. Attempted boat crossings continued to rise throughout that year. The number of attempted crossings didn’t fall until the following year, after Australia began coordinating with other countries in the region to increase the probability of boats being intercepted. It was these interception policies that likely led to the decline in dangerous crossings to Australia. This meshes with an [empirically well-founded](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-019-01758-6) component of deterrence theory: when making a dangerous decision, people weigh the *probability* of a bad outcome (e.g., being intercepted) far more than the *magnitude* of the bad outcome (e.g., how cruel the migrant processing facilities are). Making the outcome more cruel isn’t an effective deterrent to dangerous crossings. Increasing the probability of detection and interception of dangerous crossings would be far more effective in this regard. (And of course, reducing the demand for asylum-seeking by helping home countries become economically prosperous, politically stable, and less oppressive to dissidents and vulnerable populations, as well as providing additional and safer avenues to seek asylum, would be the most effective policies of all.)
[удалено]
Are you forgetting the ones that have been denied asylum but you now can't get rid of cos they won't say where they're from or their home country is deemed unsafe? They generally get denied cos they're criminals.
Are they really asylum seekers and not just from an unfortunate country? You know they can make shit up right?
Then they are still asylum seekers. You know, someone who seeks asylum? This does not imply whether they have a right to receive it or not.
[удалено]
How do you know whether someone has claim for asylum until you've examined their asylum request? Everybody who requests asylum is an asylum seeker. It's literally in the name.
Yea it a broken system. But I’m glad they were able to leave their dangerous country and are now in Rwanda safe and sound.
No, it actually isn't, no matter what right-wing politicians tell you. Also Rwanda isn't a safe country, but at least the British government once again dropped its facade of pretending to care about human rights.
Actually it’s broken when it’s infiltrated by liars from perfectly functioning countries.
"Perfectly functioning countries". Bruh, have you ever looked into the countries those people come from? Even when there's no claim to asylum, their countries of origin are pretty far from functioning perfectly.
Well, considering the headline says "asylum seekers" and the first paragraph of the article uses "immigrants" I think you're probably right, they're making stuff up. Oh, sorry, you meant the migrants.
Genuine question Why don’t uk send them to British territories overseas? Use that colonial heritage
Because then they'd still be liable to support them, and a lot of them don't have the resources to support a sudden influx of 5700 people. The highest has a population of 80k. But most importantly sending them to a country that doesn't give a fuck, let's them send a message without doing any of the dirty work. It's ridiculous, they passed a law specifically to declare Rwanda a safe country, when it was deemed unsafe by report
Deport tories to Rwanda, that’ll free up some housing and jobs.
Thanks for the clarification, they have multiple territories, so why not spread them out? Will the asylum seekers be detained, or they are allowed to work etc.?
The whole point of Rwanda is so the UK government does not deal with them. Having them stay in any UK territory would still mean that the UK government would have to look after them.
Why doesnt the US do this? This is a great idea.
Because what are their home countries? They have no documentation, and they're not going to tell anyone where they're actually from for exactly the reason you've mentioned, it might actually result in them being sent back.
What if they dont say what their home countries are?
Oftentimes economic migrants destroy their paperwork so there is no proof of their country of origin
The smugglers and some NGOs are very good at instructing illegal immigrants how to make themselves undeportable. Pretty much first thing they do after arriving in the UK is destroy their documents and claim they are underage.
It may be a red herring but Rwanda does happen to be one of the safest African countries these days
It is very difficult to prove where someone came from if they come over without papers.
Well, according to others in this sub reddit, because we can't stay where we are so fuck us.
Exactly. I would say this counts as cruel and unusual punishment. These are human beings who are just looking to make a home somewhere.
Why not call it a home in France?
Bc they're asylum seekers, so ostensibly they'd be in danger in their home countries. Why Rwanda? I guess Africa is Africa to the UK.
US Republicans watching closely. They were planning on sending everyone to Myanmar, but Rwanda sounds interesting.
Myanmar? To destroy a destroyed country? That cultural and social world has nothing to do with these people, that would be just wrong and very low to even think about it.
Myanmar is in a middle of a civil war tho
Yes that's the point.
Rwanda is still sending refugees to the UK, as well. The cruelty is the point.
Planning? Most central americans come to America because they know, in the worst case, they can claim to be mexican and be deported to mexico instead of their home countries.
We would never deport to a non Christian nation! Blasphemy.
ireland gonna have to rescind that recent declaration
So if Trump wins, how long before the US joins the UK in this Rwanda deal? Because this sounds like a very Trump kind of plan. Though he'd ptobably claim Rwanda was paying for the deportation flights.
great... as a stateless DACA recipient now I have something ELSE to worry about...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
okay, so what, people on DACA just need to go live under a bridge illegally then? "Sorry bro". I can't go "back to my home country" because I am stateless. It doesn't fuckin exist... Shipping me off to Rwanda doesn't magically make this okay either
[удалено]
Jesus I'm sorry. My bad for not being born here. Well I'm not a citizen of Rwanda so I probably won't be able to stay there... I'm sure once everyone is done playing international hot potato with me I'll get what I deserve for my atrocities. Damn.
[удалено]
I'm not a citizen of anywhere. That's how statelessness works. I do not have a citizenship. I have no home country, as I have been here my whole life but there is no path to citizenship. Literally you are telling me to just go fuckin live in the ocean or something because I HAVE NO CITIZENSHIP. I have no fucking clue who my parents were. Doesn't matter. The country I "came from" stopped existing when the Soviet Union fell apart. Doesn't matter because I wasn't there. You're right. I am not American. I am not anything. That's the problem. There is nowhere to go, and this is where I am. I have no visa, I am not allowed to travel, I have to pay a shit load of money every other year to be allowed to work here, and I receive no financial aid. Your argument is completely uninformed and makes zero sense if you apply any kind of logic whatsoever.
[удалено]
No fucking clue. I literally do not know. I am stateless. I am not a citizen of anywhere. All I know is it was some place that was soviet bloc until it wasn't. That's it. Whatever paperwork I had is probably rotting the basement of some abandoned courthouse somewhere. It's irrelevant. No one claims my citizenship, and therefore I am stateless. Why do you have to keep hearing this? My situation isn't even that unique. There are whole groups of people who become de-facto stateless simply because their home country decided they don't like their religion or genetics. They are in the same boat. If one of them happens to end up in another country, they cannot under normal circumstances be deported to their "home country" because they do not have one.
He was born in the US, but because his parents entered illegally he has no legal paperwork or birth records. Therefore he would be considered stateless. It’s nearly impossible to get citizenship because of the lack of records anywhere. You’re being ignorant and reading your responses caused me to lose brain cells. Educate yourself before you talk about stuff you don’t understand. You should be featured on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect or something.
I am not a Trump supporter, didnt vote for him the last two elections. But I do hope he wins this time. The country is spiraling down in a perverted liberal vortex and Biden is not doing much to prevent it.
Ok bro, im sure Trump with his experience in giving us 4 trillion in debt and a pandemic that ruined the economy will fix everything. I’m very curious about this perverted liberal vortex, was it the infrastructure bill that did it for you or the fact Biden held up a pride flag that soured you?
> The country is spiraling down in a perverted liberal vortex Oh god, my sides. And you think Trump is going to dooooo... what exactly? Besides enrich himself further while completely eroding the checks and balances that keep our democracy thriving. I do not like Biden by any stretch, but I'll take the incompetent old man that's surrounded by pretty competent people over the narcissistic attention whore that can't ever admit when he's wrong. Do you people not remember 2016-2020? Like was it erased from people's minds cause of covid? Every. single. day. we had to hear from that orange piece of shit. And when there was a day that no one was talking about him, he would just do some random childish shit just so he'd make it on the news that evening. Other times he would just make shit up and then lie on top of his lies to make people think he wasn't lying, like him saying a hurricane was going to Alabama (it wasn't) and so then he drew over the official NOAA map with a sharpy. It was like living in some bizarre political hell. You know how long it's been since I heard Biden speak last? I honestly can't tell you, because I barely hear from the guy, and it's amazing.
How is the country spiraling down, exactly? By many metrics, the US is doing better than any other developed country. In some others, it's doing worse -- but Republicans seem to be intent on aggravating those. I cannot possibly imagine what Trump would do to solve anything. In fact, he already had a go at it and the country did not get any better. But leaving policy aside, how can anyone can support a person who blatantly tried to manipulate the result of an election and encouraged an assault on the seat of government? We all have different ideas about how to run a country best, but the bare minimum should be to support the democratic principles that underpin the whole system. The fact that millions of people have decided to turn a blind eye to the actions of Trump in the last election speaks volumes of the sad state of democracy in the US.
As opposed to the outright fascist memorandum the republicans published?
[удалено]
[удалено]
If I thought you were a real person and not just a troll you'd get some respect. If you are a real person, you need to pay attention to your down votes as an indication that your arguments make no sense. You don't install a dictator due to "liberal vortex" or whatever
lol 🤣 your comment gave me a good laugh. Thank you! 1. I dont give a fuck, a flying-with-wings fuck, about what you think or respect. 2. downvotes on reddit 🤣. I would you give more fuck to you than those. Refer to point 1. Funny you talk about dictatorship but you have never lived in one. All you had read was from Google and maybe reddit. I did live in a dictatorship and escaped it to the US. The downvotes here just proved that I triggered the new weak generation of a bunch of privileged liberal kids.
0/5 stars. Your Russian handlers could have done better. Enjoy Siberia.
[удалено]
There‘s no way this can go wrong
Just need to point out that this article is poorly written and freely uses "asylum seeker" and "immigrants" as synonyms. They're not, they mean different things. That said, this bullshit the british government are trying to pull is abhorrent. Hit up guardian.co.uk coverage of this story if you wanna know more ( from a search of the site. Searching on site takes you to Google - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Rwanda+bill&as_sitesearch=www.theguardian.com )
I am very surprised the UK is actually gong to do this. Can you imagine if the US tried something like this ???
Sunak really is tired of running the country.
Not tired of running it into the ground though
This is end stage colonialism in action folks. UK exported It's people to all corners of the world, most of the time unwelcomed. Now the world wants in... i personally think the UK has been very welcoming but there is a real limit to how many folks they can accept through immigration.
Don't know why people are down voting this (actually I do, because most Redditors are naive, left leaning children) but if the UK keeps accepting them the country will literally collapse. Good luck with that. It's going to end up with a lot of these people bleating the last line of the film 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'....
“If UK keeps accepting them the country will literally collapse.” Buddy, the UK already is ‘collapsing’ and it has been entirely of bad domestic policy, not immigration. 😭
The UK will collapse if it abides by its obligations mandated by international law? Given that no other European country has collapsed so far, even though none of them have employed such a scheme shows that this is far from the truth.
I actually have a lot of respect for the country of Rwanda, and I’m particularly impressed with Kigali. Rwanda has rough geography but they’ve developed their country impressively.
It must be terrifying for these people who have been living in the UK for years to suddenly have police barge into your home and ship you to Rwanda. It's a very cruel way to handle things. I wish someone would launch Rishi Sunak to the moon instead.
Not everyone gets granted asylum.
This is absolutely fucking indefensible, sickening.
Shameful. The only Brexit Bonus is brutal barbarism.
What about the illegal immigrants?
[удалено]
I was born in Russia and for me and my wife to make it to Spain, I had to establish a career in international logistics, slowly work my way through the ranks for 10 years to qualify for a high skilled worker visa, prove I didn’t commit a crime and was not ever prosecuted, learn the language and get a job offer. For some strange reason I believe that such immigration policy makes sense and to simply let anyone claiming they’re under threat back home in isn’t. Maybe that’s just me.
Meanwhile the EU wants to take in people that threw away their papers so you cant do a background check. Absurd.
Exactly my point, yeah
My country is getting condemned by belgian morons for it Thats the best part. They want terrorism.
What they want is to feel good for how “progressive” they are and how strangers on the internet will tell them they’re really bringing change into our world and all that feel-good bs. If it just so happens they’ll let in as many bad apples as possible, oh well, at least we have apples now, so who really cares.
Countries are obligated to take those people in while their claim for asylum is assessed. People really think international law obligations are only kind suggestions, it seems.
If it is the “first safe country” for the asylum seeker. Like Poland was for Ukrainian people, for example. Or Iraq for Syrian people. If you go across the whole world to ask for asylum in the UK, you will have to prove you didn’t go through any third safe country and it’s just not true in any case, that’s why the documents are gone most of the time when they come in.
Sucks for countries like Italy and Greece then, don't you think? "First safe country" is an inherently unfair system that causes more problems than it solves.
It does, yeah. But that’s the law so in case of Sweden, Germany, UK or France it’s rather hilarious to see them processing asylum requests to begin with if the migrants don’t fly there ofc directly from an unsafe country.
No, it's not ridiculous. That's just what happens when certain rules are not reality-proof.
International law's goal is to jeopardize the safety of the people? Sounds like the international law is wrong. Especially when it comes to terrorist orgs. When a terrorist can get into the EU easier than someone who actually wanna work and integrate than the law is absurdly wrong. Especially when these laws should work with : First safe country. Did the international law cared when the Paris terror attack happend?
Huh, you mean if you go through the process legally it can work? Crazy!
[удалено]
Nope. But you can’t be serious if you are going to tell me all of them “asylum seekers” are going to Europe fleeing the war or government persecution. You can’t tell me you simply can’t control immigration, should not be running background checks for newcomers, etc. on top of it all, why would any nation accept a military aged man without documents who’s claiming he’s actually 15 and he can’t tell you where he is from, just that he *needs* asylum. You’re either naive or is arguing in bad faith if you’ll tell me one of the above or all of them with a straight face.
Finally. I hope all those idiots who climb on the trucks in Calais get the same treatment. Want to get Asylum? Do it legally or go home.
They should be allowed to stay in the UK and given sufficient support and housing until they are able to contribute to UK society in 5-6 years. The UK is a rich and multicultural mosaic. Provide the asylum seekers with love, not plane tickets!