Am I stupid or is this confusing? People who get sent to Rwanda, won’t be allowed to return, unless they commit a serious crime in Rwanda, and then they will be sent back to the UK after serving a prison sentence?
>Mr Philp told Sky News a provision in the treaty that “respects items in Rwandan law” means a “small number might be eligible to return to the UK”.
>But he said those who could be returned to the UK “are all people that would have been in the UK anyway, because by definition they’ve come to the UK, then we’ve sent them to Rwanda”.
What?
Also Rwanda can only take 100 at a time….what’s the point?
Help those that we can confirm are telling the truth. F#ck the liars off to Chernobyl.
Can someone explain to me the whole sending them to rowanda why there of all places? I’ve looked and I can’t find any concrete answers on this.
So let me get this straight. We are trying to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda. This may never happen but lets assume legally it does eventually
We send a few of them to Rwanda, in return we take some of their vulnerable refugees. Now if those we send break the law they get send back. So now we have some of those illegal immigrants back in the UK AND some of their immigrants. So this may not reduce net migration at all?
5 comments
Am I stupid or is this confusing? People who get sent to Rwanda, won’t be allowed to return, unless they commit a serious crime in Rwanda, and then they will be sent back to the UK after serving a prison sentence?
>Mr Philp told Sky News a provision in the treaty that “respects items in Rwandan law” means a “small number might be eligible to return to the UK”.
>But he said those who could be returned to the UK “are all people that would have been in the UK anyway, because by definition they’ve come to the UK, then we’ve sent them to Rwanda”.
What?
Also Rwanda can only take 100 at a time….what’s the point?
Help those that we can confirm are telling the truth. F#ck the liars off to Chernobyl.
Can someone explain to me the whole sending them to rowanda why there of all places? I’ve looked and I can’t find any concrete answers on this.
So let me get this straight. We are trying to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda. This may never happen but lets assume legally it does eventually
We send a few of them to Rwanda, in return we take some of their vulnerable refugees. Now if those we send break the law they get send back. So now we have some of those illegal immigrants back in the UK AND some of their immigrants. So this may not reduce net migration at all?
And to top it off we will give them £140 million