UK Rwanda asylum plan against international law, says UN refugee agency

13 comments
  1. The U.N. doesn’t solve problems, just tells people how they’re doing something wrong. Worthless organization

  2. What the UN ignores is that these migrants were in France which is a perfectly safe country. That they chose to not claim asylum in a modern democratic EU nation and instead give money to criminal gangs to cross the channel and enter the UK, then at that point those rights should be removed.

    I still remain very disappointed that there isn’t more of an effort by the charities representing these migrants to stop them using the criminal gangs and instead claim asylum where they are. At least then they would be safe and have access to housing & food.

  3. The UN just wants open borders for Europe. You don’t see the UN telling rich gulf states to open up more for refugees.

  4. This logic assumes that the people coming over on crowded rafts and the back of lorries from the European Union are actual refugees.
    What are these men fleeing in France and Belgium exactly? Is there a war there? Perhaps an oppressive dictatorship? If they have some other motivation for coming to the UK, they should immigrate by legal means, if they qualify. Not hiring human traffickers to smuggle them across the border.

    If this whole Rwanda thing actually happens though, I’d be surprised because it is controversial and it would have to get past parliament and the courts. I’ll believe it when I see it.

  5. How many safe countries have they passed through to try and make an illegal crossing into the UK? How is settling them in a safe country a violation of international law? Just a joke.

  6. Even if you say, the refugees have no right to asylum – that does not mean that it is okay to deport them into a autocratic country which does not respect human rights like Rwanda and allow that country to make all the decisions about them. The UK is responsible for all the abuse the refugees suffer by Rwandan authorities.

  7. Just a reminder that “international law” is a misleading expression, since a “law”, as it’s commonly understood, implies an sovereign enforcing authority, and no such supernational authority exists. Sovereignty belongs to the states, not the UN.

Leave a Reply