UN - Condemns the U.K. plan to resettle some illegal migrants in Rwanda, whilst erm… resettling vulnerable migrants in … Rwanda 🤡
You do realise these are 2 totally different things, right?
In 1, people who are applying to be in the UK are not processed, not examined on their merits, not returned from whence they came, but transported 4,000 miles away and, without their consent, forcibly processed to become Rwandan citizens
In the other, people who are at risk in Libya are being temporarily relocated to Rwanda for their own protection while a longer-term solution is sought.
The key issue in the UK is not sending people to Rwanda.
It is both refusing to process them here (or asking Rwanda to process a UK application on our behalf), forcing them (regardless of consent) to be people trafficked to Rwanda, and not giving them the option to be repatriated to their homeland.
Unlimited mass immigration? (where are they going to live?) Get the French to do more? (unlikely).
Seems every "solution" creates more problems.
The seemingly obvious starting point is to have resources abroad to allow people to apply for asylum without having to be physically present in the UK.
Having some kind of set up in the Calais area would also make sense, so people are processed (or otherwise) before deciding to cross the water.
What is the aim of the Government though? Is it to detract from their shortcomings by having the average man/woman on the street blaming a penniless brown person from Syria for their country's problems rather than pointing their finger in the direction of the utter dregs in charge of this nation? Dog whistling, if you will.
Sadly, this works all too well, with many people all too eager to lap up what The Mail/Express/Farage/UKIP etc etc tell them.
We currently have an employment deficit in the UK. There are many vacancies for generally low paid/low skilled jobs (wonder why.....what a roaring success Brexit has been) Why not allow asylum seekers to work whilst their applications are being processed? Let them do some work, earn a bit of money and contribute to society, instead of housing them in generally poor accommodation/conditions and giving them a token £40 a week to survive off.
The whole system is flawed though, from top to bottom. And yet some people think the solution is to traffic human beings off to Rwanda. The only people who should be on a plane to middle Africa, and never to be seen again, is these odious Tories currently in power.
Edit to add that the NHS sure could do with some more workers too.
Unlimited mass immigration? (where are they going to live?) Get the French to do more? (unlikely).
Seems every "solution" creates more problems.
The seemingly obvious starting point is to have resources abroad to allow people to apply for asylum without having to be physically present in the UK.
Having some kind of set up in the Calais area would also make sense, so people are processed or otherwise being deciding to cross the water.
What is the aim of the Government though? Is it to detract from their shortcomings by having the average man/woman on the street blaming a penniless brown person from Syria for their country's problems rather than pointing their finger in the direction of the utter dregs in charge of this nation? Dog whistling, if you will.
Sadly, this works all too well, with many people all too eager to lap up what The Mail/Express/Farage/UKIP etc etc tell them.
We currently have an employment deficit in the UK. There are many vacancies for generally low paid/low skilled jobs (wonder why.....what a roaring success Brexit has been) Why not allow asylum seekers to work whilst their applications are being processed? Let them do some work, earn a bit of money and contribute to society, instead of housing them in generally poor accommodation/conditions and giving them a token £40 a week to survive off.
The whole system is flawed though, from top to bottom. And yet some people think the solution is to traffic human beings off to Rwanda. The only people who should be on a plane to middle Africa, and never to be seen again, is these odious Tories currently in power.
Edit to add that the NHS sure could do with some more workers too.
I don't often agree with you but on this occasion I do on several of your points but not all. Why mention 'Brown People' surely all people throughout the world deserve the same recognition. Why are people not mentioning China,Saudi Arabia,Syria,Yemen,Sudan,Egypt,Iran,Somalia,Burundi & Venezuela etc and that's not even mentioning the child slaves in certain parts of Africa who are currently mining Cobalt for $3 a day. Small-scale mining in the DRC involves people of all ages, including children, obligated to work under harsh conditions. Of the 255,000 Congolese mining for cobalt, 40,000 are children, some as young as six years.
Firstly, it is important to recognise that the ECHR has nothing whatsoever to do with the workings of the EU.
The European Court of Human Rights has certain powers in relation to the Laws of all signatories. It is totally different to the European Court, which is an EU body. So, as an example, the ECHR has 47 members (including, for example, the UK and Russia), whereas the European Court has 27 members.
We helped create the ECHR. We have belonged since its inception in 1950. 23 years before we joined the EU. And 2 years (and counting) since we left.
People make too much fuss about, for example, the Protocol and the GFA. But membership of the ECHR is very much an integral part of the GFA.
If we have processing centres abroad for the "penniless brown people from Syria" what do we do with the ones that fail the asylum process?
The rules are very simple. In that case, you arrange for them to be sent back to the place they came from.
Which, unless they came from Rwanda, is not Rwanda. Unless (as other countries have done) you can in some way incentivise them to agree to go to Rwanda instead. In your example, the answer is Syria.
Employ people in the NHS whilst their applications are being processed?
I would rather have qualified and properly vetted people thank you very much. A lot of these economic migrants have no ID when they arrive so we have no idea of their backgrounds.
If we have processing centres abroad for the "penniless brown people from Syria" what do we do with the ones that fail the asylum process?
The rules are very simple. In that case, you arrange for them to be sent back to the place they came from.
Which, unless they came from Rwanda, is not Rwanda. Unless (as other countries have done) you can in some way incentivise them to agree to go to Rwanda instead. In your example, the answer is Syria.
And if they have no ID and refuse to state where they're from?
Comments
In 1, people who are applying to be in the UK are not processed, not examined on their merits, not returned from whence they came, but transported 4,000 miles away and, without their consent, forcibly processed to become Rwandan citizens
In the other, people who are at risk in Libya are being temporarily relocated to Rwanda for their own protection while a longer-term solution is sought.
The key issue in the UK is not sending people to Rwanda.
It is both refusing to process them here (or asking Rwanda to process a UK application on our behalf), forcing them (regardless of consent) to be people trafficked to Rwanda, and not giving them the option to be repatriated to their homeland.
The things that every other country are doing.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/priti-patel-yvette-cooper-furious-130255594.html
Unlimited mass immigration? (where are they going to live?)
Get the French to do more? (unlikely).
Seems every "solution" creates more problems.
Having some kind of set up in the Calais area would also make sense, so people are processed (or otherwise) before deciding to cross the water.
What is the aim of the Government though?
Is it to detract from their shortcomings by having the average man/woman on the street blaming a penniless brown person from Syria for their country's problems rather than pointing their finger in the direction of the utter dregs in charge of this nation?
Dog whistling, if you will.
Sadly, this works all too well, with many people all too eager to lap up what The Mail/Express/Farage/UKIP etc etc tell them.
We currently have an employment deficit in the UK.
There are many vacancies for generally low paid/low skilled jobs (wonder why.....what a roaring success Brexit has been)
Why not allow asylum seekers to work whilst their applications are being processed?
Let them do some work, earn a bit of money and contribute to society, instead of housing them in generally poor accommodation/conditions and giving them a token £40 a week to survive off.
The whole system is flawed though, from top to bottom.
And yet some people think the solution is to traffic human beings off to Rwanda.
The only people who should be on a plane to middle Africa, and never to be seen again, is these odious Tories currently in power.
Edit to add that the NHS sure could do with some more workers too.
Firstly, it is important to recognise that the ECHR has nothing whatsoever to do with the workings of the EU.
The European Court of Human Rights has certain powers in relation to the Laws of all signatories. It is totally different to the European Court, which is an EU body. So, as an example, the ECHR has 47 members (including, for example, the UK and Russia), whereas the European Court has 27 members.
We helped create the ECHR. We have belonged since its inception in 1950. 23 years before we joined the EU. And 2 years (and counting) since we left.
People make too much fuss about, for example, the Protocol and the GFA. But membership of the ECHR is very much an integral part of the GFA.
As well as being regarded as a civilised country.
Which, unless they came from Rwanda, is not Rwanda. Unless (as other countries have done) you can in some way incentivise them to agree to go to Rwanda instead. In your example, the answer is Syria.
I would rather have qualified and properly vetted people thank you very much.
A lot of these economic migrants have no ID when they arrive so we have no idea of their backgrounds.
With an industrial-sized plan that the Gangs can only marvel at.
Until, of course, they remember that they profit from their criminal acts. Whereas we pay for the privilege.
Are we going to match the 100's of thousands that have already been trafficked here?
Don't forget that in this Rwanda deal we are obliged to take "vulnerable" Rwandans back here.