> Four Rwandans were granted refugee status in the UK over “well-founded” fears of persecution at the same time as the government was arguing in court and parliament that the east African country was a safe place to send asylum seekers.
> One of the Rwandans was granted asylum by the Home Office on 12 October, the day after the government concluded a case in the supreme court arguing the country was safe.
> The refugee was a supporter of an opposition party led by Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who is campaigning for justice for colleagues who have been killed or disappeared. The Rwandan also witnessed alleged atrocities committed by president Paul Kagame’s forces in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
> He and his wife were granted asylum with the Home Office stating in a letter: “We accept that you have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore cannot return to your country Rwanda, and we have recognised that you are a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention.”
This is surely the nail in the coffin for the Rwanda policy
The Tories ~~Tory’s~~ being disingenuous about immigration? Colour me utterly unsurprised.
Can we send the Tory party to Rwanda and then see how safe it is for them?
Weird. I didn’t know countries were either safe for everyone or safe for no-one?
This is what worries me about the rwanda deal as long as a whole other things that go with it. The main one that worries me…
How many people of rwanda will come here?
Which was reported at the time, yet the government chose to ignore criticism and claimed that Rwanda was safe because the civil war was over, ignoring the fact that both Hutu and Tutsi people have claimed asylum for fear of persecution. Those who support this policy are not concerned with human rights though, they just want asylum seekers out of the UK by any means necessary.
[removed]
Doesn’t the agreement include taking people at risk from Rwanda anyway
What’s even funnier is the Rwandan deal includes us taking Rwandan refugees in place of us giving them some of ours (this is the part the Tory party leave out when trying to get public support for the deal).
So, how can a country be safe for refugees and not at the same time?
This story highlights to me everything I’ve always thought about Tories. They’re absolutely clueless.
Bunch of f*cking clowns. Armando Iannucci himself would be proud of this story line
11 comments
> Four Rwandans were granted refugee status in the UK over “well-founded” fears of persecution at the same time as the government was arguing in court and parliament that the east African country was a safe place to send asylum seekers.
> One of the Rwandans was granted asylum by the Home Office on 12 October, the day after the government concluded a case in the supreme court arguing the country was safe.
> The refugee was a supporter of an opposition party led by Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who is campaigning for justice for colleagues who have been killed or disappeared. The Rwandan also witnessed alleged atrocities committed by president Paul Kagame’s forces in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
> He and his wife were granted asylum with the Home Office stating in a letter: “We accept that you have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore cannot return to your country Rwanda, and we have recognised that you are a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention.”
This is surely the nail in the coffin for the Rwanda policy
The Tories ~~Tory’s~~ being disingenuous about immigration? Colour me utterly unsurprised.
Can we send the Tory party to Rwanda and then see how safe it is for them?
Weird. I didn’t know countries were either safe for everyone or safe for no-one?
This is what worries me about the rwanda deal as long as a whole other things that go with it. The main one that worries me…
How many people of rwanda will come here?
Which was reported at the time, yet the government chose to ignore criticism and claimed that Rwanda was safe because the civil war was over, ignoring the fact that both Hutu and Tutsi people have claimed asylum for fear of persecution. Those who support this policy are not concerned with human rights though, they just want asylum seekers out of the UK by any means necessary.
[removed]
Doesn’t the agreement include taking people at risk from Rwanda anyway
What’s even funnier is the Rwandan deal includes us taking Rwandan refugees in place of us giving them some of ours (this is the part the Tory party leave out when trying to get public support for the deal).
So, how can a country be safe for refugees and not at the same time?
This story highlights to me everything I’ve always thought about Tories. They’re absolutely clueless.
Bunch of f*cking clowns. Armando Iannucci himself would be proud of this story line