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?
There have been rules in place about all this sort of stuff for decades. That pretty much the whole world adheres to. Except for a few 3rd World countries. Some tinpot dictators. And, now, the UK.
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?
There have been rules in place about all this sort of stuff for decades. That pretty much the whole world adheres to. Except for a few 3rd World countries. Some tinpot dictators. And, now, the UK.
Home Office warned against sending migrants to Rwanda - over concerns refugees recruited into army The Home Office was warned against sending migrants to Rwanda over concerns that refugees were being recruited to fight in the country's army abroad, court documents have revealed.
The documents, submitted as part of a court case against the Rwanda policy, brought by Care4Calais among others, lay out some of the concerns over the policy.
The submission claims: "On 10 February 2021, the UK High Commissioner to Rwanda indicated that Rwanda should not be pursued as an option for the planned migration policy for various reasons, including that Rwanda: (i) 'has been accused of recruiting refugees to conduct armed operations in neighbouring countries'."
It goes on: "On 26 May 2021, an internal email within the Foreign Office indicated that the foreign secretary had commented that “[t]he exam question should be whether, with financial support, the host country could get up to ECHR standards (not UK standards), rather than looking at their current HR standards."
Concerns continued right up until the policy was announced this year.
Rwanda was reportedly given £120m as part of the scheme.
The submission from Care4Calais said: "In a document that appears to be dated 12 April 2022 (i.e. just one day before the Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') was signed),a detailed internal memo analysing (inter alia) the propriety of the policy concluded that '[t]he nature of the relationship and therefore the type of agreement as unenforceable, consisting in part of upfront payments, mean fraud risk is very high'."
This same document said: "There is limited evidence about whether these proposals will be a sufficient deterrent for those seeking to enter the UK illegally."
Paul O'Connor, the head of bargaining at the Public and Commercial Services union - another one of the claimants, said: "The documents before the court indicate that the home secretary is well aware of human rights violations in Rwanda.
"They also indicate that the government is prepared to dampen down its criticisms of those violations in order to preserve this policy.
"Given the home secretary's legal obligations to ensure that refugees are only removed to safe countries, this is a breath-taking disclosure."
The Home Office has been approached for a comment.
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?
There have been rules in place about all this sort of stuff for decades. That pretty much the whole world adheres to. Except for a few 3rd World countries. Some tinpot dictators. And, now, the UK.
First jet deporting migrants to Rwanda could be delayed until NEXT YEAR after hearing is put back over human rights concerns
A number of charities, a trade union, and individual migrants who crossed the Channel by dinghy or hidden in lorries, are contesting the policy of deporting 'irregular' refugees to Rwanda.
I'd send MORE migrants to Africa if I win keys to No 10, says Liz Truss: Tory leadership favourite promises to expand refugee policy and protect the UK's borders
Liz Truss (left) today vows to implement a hard line on immigration if she wins the keys to No 10 - including extending the scheme under which migrants who cross the Channel in small boats are sent to Rwanda (right: migrants who were scheduled to fly to Rwanda). The Foreign Secretary uses an interview with The Mail on Sunday to try to cement her early lead over Rishi Sunak by promising to increase frontline border staff by 20 per cent, and by striking Rwanda-style deals with more countries. Her pledges came as Mr Sunak - who has denied claims he tried to block the controversial policy while in Cabinet -yesterday set out his own plan to tackle immigration, which he promised would be one of 'five major emergency responses' he would enact during his first 100 days as Prime Minister.
This sending people to Rwanda is rubbish. On so many levels. 1 of which is anti- everything the Tory Party stands for.
These are (mostly) economic migrants. People who have paid large amounts of money to come here to seek a new life.
We should not be shuffling these people off, at enormous expense, to force them to apply to live in a country where they don't want to be.
Simple question-can we make a profit out of these people? Do they have skills we need? To fill jobs we can't fill? If the answer is yes, then let them in.
And if the answer is no, then have the common decency to tell them no. Not ignore their applications, and pretend they really applied to live in Rwanda.
We have a simple choice. Be willing to do the dirty jobs that people in the UK feel are beneath them. Or allow people in who will.
Controlling our borders means making our own decisions. Not outsourcing it to Rwanda.
Comments
The Home Office was warned against sending migrants to Rwanda over concerns that refugees were being recruited to fight in the country's army abroad, court documents have revealed.
The documents, submitted as part of a court case against the Rwanda policy, brought by Care4Calais among others, lay out some of the concerns over the policy.
The submission claims: "On 10 February 2021, the UK High Commissioner to Rwanda indicated that Rwanda should not be pursued as an option for the planned migration policy for various reasons, including that Rwanda: (i) 'has been accused of recruiting refugees to conduct armed operations in neighbouring countries'."
It goes on: "On 26 May 2021, an internal email within the Foreign Office indicated that the foreign secretary had commented that “[t]he exam question should be whether, with financial support, the host country could get up to ECHR standards (not UK standards), rather than looking at their current HR standards."
Concerns continued right up until the policy was announced this year.
Rwanda was reportedly given £120m as part of the scheme.
The submission from Care4Calais said: "In a document that appears to be dated 12 April 2022 (i.e. just one day before the Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') was signed),a detailed internal memo analysing (inter alia) the propriety of the policy concluded that '[t]he nature of the relationship and therefore the type of agreement as unenforceable, consisting in part of upfront payments, mean fraud risk is very high'."
This same document said: "There is limited evidence about whether these proposals will be a sufficient deterrent for those seeking to enter the UK illegally."
Paul O'Connor, the head of bargaining at the Public and Commercial Services union - another one of the claimants, said: "The documents before the court indicate that the home secretary is well aware of human rights violations in Rwanda.
"They also indicate that the government is prepared to dampen down its criticisms of those violations in order to preserve this policy.
"Given the home secretary's legal obligations to ensure that refugees are only removed to safe countries, this is a breath-taking disclosure."
The Home Office has been approached for a comment.
A number of charities, a trade union, and individual migrants who crossed the Channel by dinghy or hidden in lorries, are contesting the policy of deporting 'irregular' refugees to Rwanda.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11033393/First-jet-deporting-migrants-Rwanda-delayed-year-human-rights-concerns.html
Liz Truss (left) today vows to implement a hard line on immigration if she wins the keys to No 10 - including extending the scheme under which migrants who cross the Channel in small boats are sent to Rwanda (right: migrants who were scheduled to fly to Rwanda). The Foreign Secretary uses an interview with The Mail on Sunday to try to cement her early lead over Rishi Sunak by promising to increase frontline border staff by 20 per cent, and by striking Rwanda-style deals with more countries. Her pledges came as Mr Sunak - who has denied claims he tried to block the controversial policy while in Cabinet -yesterday set out his own plan to tackle immigration, which he promised would be one of 'five major emergency responses' he would enact during his first 100 days as Prime Minister.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11042439/Id-send-migrants-Africa-says-Liz-Truss-promises-expand-refugee-policy.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/attorney-general-suella-braverman-contradicted-063108666.html
This sending people to Rwanda is rubbish. On so many levels. 1 of which is anti- everything the Tory Party stands for.
These are (mostly) economic migrants. People who have paid large amounts of money to come here to seek a new life.
We should not be shuffling these people off, at enormous expense, to force them to apply to live in a country where they don't want to be.
Simple question-can we make a profit out of these people? Do they have skills we need? To fill jobs we can't fill? If the answer is yes, then let them in.
And if the answer is no, then have the common decency to tell them no. Not ignore their applications, and pretend they really applied to live in Rwanda.
We have a simple choice. Be willing to do the dirty jobs that people in the UK feel are beneath them. Or allow people in who will.
Controlling our borders means making our own decisions. Not outsourcing it to Rwanda.