Rwanda isn’t a war zone. So you wonder if they will choose a war zone
10 years ago Nick Griffin would have been booed out of the Question Time studio for even suggesting this, and this is not just the political mainstream but it is policy that has been passed by an establishment party.
Just let that sink in.
> All of those who face being sent to Rwanda have had their asylum claims deemed ‘inadmissible’ by the Home Office because of their method of reaching the UK – generally crossing the Channel in a dinghy.
>
> The letter adds: “There is no right of appeal against the decision to treat your asylum claim as inadmissible.”
What is the current legal route for claimants to come to the UK?
Can they change their minds and go back to France?
Here’s a question, why Rwanda of all places?
So do I understand correctly that there is a war zone in France?
Not asylum seekers, economic migrants.
If they were genuinely fleeing a war torn regime in africa, the middle east and now eastern europe – you would claim asylum in the first safe country to do so, not border hop thousands of miles then pay smugglers thousands to risk your life in a commonly fatal boat trip across the channel.
I don’t think this solution is by any means perfect, but i don’t see a diplomatic solution with neighbouring countries having any success and the intent will hamper human trafficking to a degree. The rwanda centre provides safety and security from persecution whilst their application is assessed, which is exactly what they are claiming to need having fled death & destruction. Longer term policies could have a better positive outcome for everyone but it will take decades to achieve.
What if they are fleeing the well documented abuse and oppression in Rwanda?
They haven’t been fleeing warzones, they’ve been fleeing France. If they don’t want to go to Rwanda, then they can stay in France.
9 comments
Rwanda isn’t a war zone. So you wonder if they will choose a war zone
10 years ago Nick Griffin would have been booed out of the Question Time studio for even suggesting this, and this is not just the political mainstream but it is policy that has been passed by an establishment party.
Just let that sink in.
> All of those who face being sent to Rwanda have had their asylum claims deemed ‘inadmissible’ by the Home Office because of their method of reaching the UK – generally crossing the Channel in a dinghy.
>
> The letter adds: “There is no right of appeal against the decision to treat your asylum claim as inadmissible.”
What is the current legal route for claimants to come to the UK?
Can they change their minds and go back to France?
Here’s a question, why Rwanda of all places?
So do I understand correctly that there is a war zone in France?
Not asylum seekers, economic migrants.
If they were genuinely fleeing a war torn regime in africa, the middle east and now eastern europe – you would claim asylum in the first safe country to do so, not border hop thousands of miles then pay smugglers thousands to risk your life in a commonly fatal boat trip across the channel.
I don’t think this solution is by any means perfect, but i don’t see a diplomatic solution with neighbouring countries having any success and the intent will hamper human trafficking to a degree. The rwanda centre provides safety and security from persecution whilst their application is assessed, which is exactly what they are claiming to need having fled death & destruction. Longer term policies could have a better positive outcome for everyone but it will take decades to achieve.
What if they are fleeing the well documented abuse and oppression in Rwanda?
They haven’t been fleeing warzones, they’ve been fleeing France. If they don’t want to go to Rwanda, then they can stay in France.