It’s so fucking stupid and insulting it makes my brain ache.
Gonna save tax payer funds by spending more tax payer funds than were already being spent.
Are we entirely sure the current government isn’t just the Sandford Neighbourhood Watch with too much money and power?
Our treatment of Ukrainian refugees vs African & Middle Eastern refugees has been truly eye opening. It’s hard not to conclude that we judge the value of a person’s life on where they come from.
And another point, I thought the Conservative party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility? This sounds like a huge waste of money. And needless back and forth flights.
This will cost (at least) –
Flying out to Rwanda, building facilities in Rwanda, bribing Rwanda to take refugees.
I guess if they get leave to stay in the UK they will be left to their own devices to get back here.
I’m all for it if Priti Patel goes and processes every application herself and promises not to come back until the job is done.
Oh would you look at that well timed dead cat that has just been thrown on the table
Bojo: “Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.”
Regardless of what you think about this policy, that statement right there is causing me a bit of a headache. Be awestruck by our “infinite compassion” as these soldiers march you onto a plane and send you off to a Rwandan processing facility.
I need to get a job in govt. Imagine how fast I would rise just by suggesting “hey, send them to Lagos in Nigeria. It’s only 3000 miles as opposed to 6000 to Rwanda, that’s 50% less what a saving”
How much CO2 will be emitted by flying these people at least 8,000 miles round trip?
How much will it cost to fly these people out to Rwanda and back?
Will the UK guarantee the human rights of the people living in these camps to UK standards?
Will the people living in these camps have access to legal representation?
Will they have any way of appealing being deported to these camps?
Why is the UK happy to give money directly to a government known for serious human rights abuses in exchange for hosting these camps?
Will this policy even get through the Commons or the Lords or stand up in the courts?
Is this a deliberate ploy to look like doing something when you’re not and want to move the attention on from PartyGate? (I can actually answer this one – Yes.)
Does this apply to Ukrainian refugees? Or just.. *other* ones?
Given that the majority of people crossing the channel **are** genuine asylum seekers, what is the moral justification that makes you somehow not a complete monster by sending people halfway around the world to to have their asylum claim processed, and then flown back when their claim is ultimately successful.
No, you just want to appear cruel and inhumane to as many people as possible, genuine or not, to win a few votes and buy a few more months in a job nobody other than your current boss would ever give you, Priti.
I found out that there is a system within the EU called the ‘Dublin system’, under which refugees can be sent back to their point of entry to the EU to have their asylum claims processed. Imagine if the UK was able to do that..
This is just unspeakably cruel. This country is becoming a dystopian nightmare.
>CON +4
This sub is very detatched from the current British zeitgeist. This will be an incredibly popular policy.
It’s probably easier to build concentration camps in Rwanda without pesky protestors.
Nothing more than yet another dead cat on the table to make us forget about lockdown fines.
Not a single plane will take off unless they want to shackle asylum seekers and get them on board bound and blind with the associated pictures certain to appear on front pages
Just ‘feels’ like herding cattle but with humans. Hot take time, this will cost more and not reduce suffering.
Or we could just build a processing centre in Calais.
Because we won’t let people claim asylum through our embassies, which is why they are crossing the Channel in the first place.
I can see numbers trying to cross the channel reducing drastically when they find out Rwanda will be the end of the line.
thats a lot of money, that could help those needing food banks.
So the illegal crossers will still cross avoid detection where as the asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda. Got it.
I’ve got a kid in Africa that I feed, that I clothe, that I school, that I inoculate for 75 cents a day. Which is practically nothing compared to what it cost to send him there.
I’ve heard there’s at least one very welcoming hotel there.
This is actually a good idea to deter people smugglers.
This feels like another classic Tory big headlines, little follow through announcement. They know it will get shot down because it’s a stupid idea but it rules up their base.
#
Are people going to apply for UK asylum in Rwanda or the UK? If they are coming to the UK then it doesn’t stop people coming over in boats. Think back to all the headlines about Ukrainian refugees, would Tory voters be happy sending those to Rwanda whilst we think about their claims?
BBC reports that, contrary to the initial plans to process people in Rwanda for their move to the UK, they will be processed by Rwanda to stay in Rwanda!
So they changed their plans to even less humane now, by giving people a one way ticket to Rwanda, a country that has been critisized by the UK itself for their poor human rights track record as recently as last year.
Just more evidence that Priti Patel is a fucking psychopath. Vile woman.
Saw this come on this morning and assume NewsThump or The Onion were front page news.
I mean, if they *really* are concerned about channel crossing then why not accept asylum applications at Embassies or Consulates? Plenty of other countries do.
I know there’s the whole “but but but….. illegal migrants” – approximately 2/3rds who cross the Channel are given refugee status.
There you go, easy isn’t it? Allow Asylum applications in Lille, Channel crossings stop over night.
A lot cheaper, a lot more humane but sadly just doesn’t cut it for the xenophobic Tory voter wing.
Ah I see we’re going back to the tried and tested immigration story as the current dead cat.
Honestly makes me sick, incredibly evil. Worst part is to only offer asylum in Rwanda.
ITT: people who don’t understand that “refugee” and “asylum seeker” are not synonymous, legally or otherwise.
All the criticism of Rwanda as a stick to beat Boris with is sad to see. I’ve spent time in almost every East African country (including almost a year in Rwanda) and Rwanda is by far the most well run and civilised. There’s even a joke amongst citizens of other East African countries where they ask to borrow Kigame for a year or so to sort their country out.
Yes, there is not question there are still issues and that Kigame has a track record of ‘disappearing enemies’ but what has happened in Rwanda over the last 25 years is nothing short of inspiring. As examples, see the improvements in literacy rates, the quality of their healthcare compared to neighbours, the policy of providing a cow to poor families, the cleanliness of the towns and cities (see Umuganda), the development of Kigali into a regional tech hub.
On the point of suppression of opposition, most of these opposition actively fund terrorist groups in Burundi and DRC. There is a difference between opposition and enemy. How would the U.K. react when somebody actively funds a terrorist organisation attacking their country (such as Rusesabagina)? Would we just sit by and let it happen or would we try to take down the person in question? Numerous wars in the Middle East comfortably answers that question. But when an African country does it it’s dodgy…
Criticise Boris and our govt all you want but I’d suggest scratching beneath the surface and the inflammatory western articles before making a judgement on what Rwanda is like. Western media for decades loves to paint a picture of all African leaders being ruthless despots and always takes the other side no matter what (see Ethiopian civil war for a very recent example, where the media overwhelmingly supported the TPLF even though they were clearly the aggressors).
I’ve never been to a country where a leader is as loved as Paul Kigame is. I’m sure all you clever people on here will say it’s because they’re ‘brainwashed’ or ‘stupid’ or ‘don’t know better’, but the people of Rwanda have overwhelmingly chosen Kigame as their leader and we should respect that. But oh, because he’s the president of an African country he’s a ‘tinpot dictator’ of a ‘banana republic’.
I feel many in the west actively want to see Africa suppressed and put down any successes as they don’t want the gravy train of exploitation to come shuddering to a halt.
Look at all the poor refugee women and kids on that boat, oh wait…
Another boatload of criminals and rapists coming to invade your neighbourhood.
33 comments
It’s so fucking stupid and insulting it makes my brain ache.
Gonna save tax payer funds by spending more tax payer funds than were already being spent.
Are we entirely sure the current government isn’t just the Sandford Neighbourhood Watch with too much money and power?
Our treatment of Ukrainian refugees vs African & Middle Eastern refugees has been truly eye opening. It’s hard not to conclude that we judge the value of a person’s life on where they come from.
And another point, I thought the Conservative party was supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility? This sounds like a huge waste of money. And needless back and forth flights.
This will cost (at least) –
Flying out to Rwanda, building facilities in Rwanda, bribing Rwanda to take refugees.
I guess if they get leave to stay in the UK they will be left to their own devices to get back here.
I’m all for it if Priti Patel goes and processes every application herself and promises not to come back until the job is done.
Oh would you look at that well timed dead cat that has just been thrown on the table
Bojo: “Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.”
Regardless of what you think about this policy, that statement right there is causing me a bit of a headache. Be awestruck by our “infinite compassion” as these soldiers march you onto a plane and send you off to a Rwandan processing facility.
I need to get a job in govt. Imagine how fast I would rise just by suggesting “hey, send them to Lagos in Nigeria. It’s only 3000 miles as opposed to 6000 to Rwanda, that’s 50% less what a saving”
How much CO2 will be emitted by flying these people at least 8,000 miles round trip?
How much will it cost to fly these people out to Rwanda and back?
Will the UK guarantee the human rights of the people living in these camps to UK standards?
Will the people living in these camps have access to legal representation?
Will they have any way of appealing being deported to these camps?
Why is the UK happy to give money directly to a government known for serious human rights abuses in exchange for hosting these camps?
Will this policy even get through the Commons or the Lords or stand up in the courts?
Is this a deliberate ploy to look like doing something when you’re not and want to move the attention on from PartyGate? (I can actually answer this one – Yes.)
Does this apply to Ukrainian refugees? Or just.. *other* ones?
Given that the majority of people crossing the channel **are** genuine asylum seekers, what is the moral justification that makes you somehow not a complete monster by sending people halfway around the world to to have their asylum claim processed, and then flown back when their claim is ultimately successful.
No, you just want to appear cruel and inhumane to as many people as possible, genuine or not, to win a few votes and buy a few more months in a job nobody other than your current boss would ever give you, Priti.
I found out that there is a system within the EU called the ‘Dublin system’, under which refugees can be sent back to their point of entry to the EU to have their asylum claims processed. Imagine if the UK was able to do that..
This is just unspeakably cruel. This country is becoming a dystopian nightmare.
>CON +4
This sub is very detatched from the current British zeitgeist. This will be an incredibly popular policy.
It’s probably easier to build concentration camps in Rwanda without pesky protestors.
Nothing more than yet another dead cat on the table to make us forget about lockdown fines.
Not a single plane will take off unless they want to shackle asylum seekers and get them on board bound and blind with the associated pictures certain to appear on front pages
Just ‘feels’ like herding cattle but with humans. Hot take time, this will cost more and not reduce suffering.
Or we could just build a processing centre in Calais.
Because we won’t let people claim asylum through our embassies, which is why they are crossing the Channel in the first place.
I can see numbers trying to cross the channel reducing drastically when they find out Rwanda will be the end of the line.
thats a lot of money, that could help those needing food banks.
So the illegal crossers will still cross avoid detection where as the asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda. Got it.
I’ve got a kid in Africa that I feed, that I clothe, that I school, that I inoculate for 75 cents a day. Which is practically nothing compared to what it cost to send him there.
I’ve heard there’s at least one very welcoming hotel there.
This is actually a good idea to deter people smugglers.
This feels like another classic Tory big headlines, little follow through announcement. They know it will get shot down because it’s a stupid idea but it rules up their base.
#
Are people going to apply for UK asylum in Rwanda or the UK? If they are coming to the UK then it doesn’t stop people coming over in boats. Think back to all the headlines about Ukrainian refugees, would Tory voters be happy sending those to Rwanda whilst we think about their claims?
BBC reports that, contrary to the initial plans to process people in Rwanda for their move to the UK, they will be processed by Rwanda to stay in Rwanda!
So they changed their plans to even less humane now, by giving people a one way ticket to Rwanda, a country that has been critisized by the UK itself for their poor human rights track record as recently as last year.
Just more evidence that Priti Patel is a fucking psychopath. Vile woman.
Saw this come on this morning and assume NewsThump or The Onion were front page news.
I mean, if they *really* are concerned about channel crossing then why not accept asylum applications at Embassies or Consulates? Plenty of other countries do.
I know there’s the whole “but but but….. illegal migrants” – approximately 2/3rds who cross the Channel are given refugee status.
There you go, easy isn’t it? Allow Asylum applications in Lille, Channel crossings stop over night.
A lot cheaper, a lot more humane but sadly just doesn’t cut it for the xenophobic Tory voter wing.
Ah I see we’re going back to the tried and tested immigration story as the current dead cat.
Honestly makes me sick, incredibly evil. Worst part is to only offer asylum in Rwanda.
ITT: people who don’t understand that “refugee” and “asylum seeker” are not synonymous, legally or otherwise.
All the criticism of Rwanda as a stick to beat Boris with is sad to see. I’ve spent time in almost every East African country (including almost a year in Rwanda) and Rwanda is by far the most well run and civilised. There’s even a joke amongst citizens of other East African countries where they ask to borrow Kigame for a year or so to sort their country out.
Yes, there is not question there are still issues and that Kigame has a track record of ‘disappearing enemies’ but what has happened in Rwanda over the last 25 years is nothing short of inspiring. As examples, see the improvements in literacy rates, the quality of their healthcare compared to neighbours, the policy of providing a cow to poor families, the cleanliness of the towns and cities (see Umuganda), the development of Kigali into a regional tech hub.
On the point of suppression of opposition, most of these opposition actively fund terrorist groups in Burundi and DRC. There is a difference between opposition and enemy. How would the U.K. react when somebody actively funds a terrorist organisation attacking their country (such as Rusesabagina)? Would we just sit by and let it happen or would we try to take down the person in question? Numerous wars in the Middle East comfortably answers that question. But when an African country does it it’s dodgy…
Criticise Boris and our govt all you want but I’d suggest scratching beneath the surface and the inflammatory western articles before making a judgement on what Rwanda is like. Western media for decades loves to paint a picture of all African leaders being ruthless despots and always takes the other side no matter what (see Ethiopian civil war for a very recent example, where the media overwhelmingly supported the TPLF even though they were clearly the aggressors).
I’ve never been to a country where a leader is as loved as Paul Kigame is. I’m sure all you clever people on here will say it’s because they’re ‘brainwashed’ or ‘stupid’ or ‘don’t know better’, but the people of Rwanda have overwhelmingly chosen Kigame as their leader and we should respect that. But oh, because he’s the president of an African country he’s a ‘tinpot dictator’ of a ‘banana republic’.
I feel many in the west actively want to see Africa suppressed and put down any successes as they don’t want the gravy train of exploitation to come shuddering to a halt.
Look at all the poor refugee women and kids on that boat, oh wait…
Another boatload of criminals and rapists coming to invade your neighbourhood.