A key plank in Britain's plan to send migrants to Rwanda is set to become law

[Social Media]

 

The British government's plan to send some asylum-seekers to Rwanda is poised to advance as a key aspect of a bill expected to become law this week. Here's what you need to know about the situation:

 

Overview:

• The plan aims to address unauthorized migration to the U.K., with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak emphasizing the need to "stop the boats."
• It involves sending asylum-seekers who arrive via small boats across the English Channel to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently.
• The plan has faced legal challenges, including a U.K. Supreme Court ruling that deemed Rwanda an unsafe destination for asylum-seekers.

 

Recent Developments:

• The proposed legislation, known as the Safety of Rwanda Bill, is set to pass Parliament after overcoming attempts to dilute its provisions in the House of Lords.
• Despite resistance, including amendments seeking to ensure compliance with international law, the bill is expected to proceed largely unchanged.
• Once enacted, the bill would facilitate deportations to Rwanda, though legal appeals by affected individuals could delay implementation.

 

Criticisms and Opposition:

• Critics, including human rights groups, refugee charities, and legal experts, have raised concerns about the plan's legality and ethical implications.
• Some argue that Rwanda is not a safe destination for asylum-seekers due to reported human rights abuses and restrictions on freedom.
• The Labour Party, the main opposition, opposes the Rwanda plan, calling it unworkable and advocating for alternative approaches to address unauthorized migration.

 

Future Prospects:

• The bill's passage into law could lead to the resumption of deportation flights to Rwanda, but legal challenges and procedural delays may prolong the process.
• Meanwhile, ongoing efforts to address unauthorized migration may involve exploring similar agreements with other countries, although specifics remain unclear.

 

As the legislative process unfolds and debates continue, the fate of the Rwanda plan and its implications for migration policy in the U.K. remain subjects of considerable debate and scrutiny.

 

17.04.24

Source

 

[retarius]

I've followed this story for what seems like an age on the Guardian and BBC. What is Rishi thinking? According to the Guardian, that is a very biased left wing newspaper, Rishi has spent already some 400m pounds, and yesterday agreed to give Kagame another 50 million if the legislation is approved. Apparently putting up each deportee costs over 1 million pounds. The legislation sounds like a waste of time to deport a maximum of 200 illegals a year, out the the net hundreds of thousands that come to Britain.

[Foxx]

The "key plank in Britain" is Sunak and his Tory chums.

 

(Just to explain for those of you not having been blessed to be born British, "plank" is a British slang term for someone whose mental capacity is similar in aptitude to a piece of wood.)

[Purdey]

Perhaps a bit more analysis about why migrants pass through most of the EU to cross over into the UK is justified. Why are countries like France not the first choice? Why is it the UK is soo attractive? 

[Red Forever]

7 hours ago, retarius said:

I've followed this story for what seems like an age on the Guardian and BBC. What is Rishi thinking? According to the Guardian, that is a very biased left wing newspaper, Rishi has spent already some 400m pounds, and yesterday agreed to give Kagame another 50 million if the legislation is approved. Apparently putting up each deportee costs over 1 million pounds. The legislation sounds like a waste of time to deport a maximum of 200 illegals a year, out the the net hundreds of thousands that come to Britain.

Give me one, just one example that the Guardian "is a very biased left wing newspaper" please.

[john donson]

why not

 

sink all boats with illegals, well, you can pick them up first...

 

find the owners and impound everything they own and jail them or split with origin departure country

 

send illegals to such a place as rwanda or where ever by boat

 

why would it cost even a million baht (pound?) per illegal ?

 

make the illegal work off the involved costs, call it slave labor or whatever

 

at least it would send some signals

 

how come the filthy rich arab oil states does not either take them or pay their part in all this?

[transam]

13 minutes ago, Red Forever said:

Give me one, just one example that the Guardian "is a very biased left wing newspaper" please.

It's an anti-anything newspaper catering for the fruitcakes amongst us.......🤔

[Keeps]

1 hour ago, Red Forever said:

Give me one, just one example that the Guardian "is a very biased left wing newspaper" please.

Are you for real?

[CanadaSam]

A small step in the right direction albeit much too late IMO.

 

Via flights???  Put them on a decommissioned oil tanker with barely enough food & water for the journey, much cheaper than a million per illegal.

[simple1]

Usual cruel / moronic posts in this subject. An attempt to copy the Australia 'stop the boats' policy which cost a fortune per asylum seeker, the majority of whom were found to be legitimate and eventually resettled. One of the primary holding countries, PNG, eventually ruled via their Supreme Court the agreement was in fact contrary to international law. HMG appear to have gone totally over the top with wishing to enact law that deportees will be permanently relocated to Rwanda. Australian forced resettlement met with hostility in the recipient countries and deemed a failure.

 

The core issue is UN member countries refuse to accept and fund sufficient numbers thereby some countries currently housing refugees for twenty plus years e.g. Myanmar, Pakistan, Iran etc etc Often without access to education, sufficient healthcare and so on. A cruel world indeed which will please some members.

[Lancelot01]

5 hours ago, Purdey said:

Perhaps a bit more analysis about why migrants pass through most of the EU to cross over into the UK is justified. Why are countries like France not the first choice? Why is it the UK is soo attractive? 

Benefits. 

[RayC]

8 hours ago, Purdey said:

Perhaps a bit more analysis about why migrants pass through most of the EU to cross over into the UK is justified. Why are countries like France not the first choice? Why is it the UK is soo attractive? 

 

2 hours ago, Lancelot01 said:

Benefits. 

 

Any number of reasons but I'd suggest the main ones are (not in any particular order): 1) language: the refugee may speak English but not French, German, etc. 2) family and/or friends may already be resident in the UK 3) Anglophilia: Anything from believing that the UK will afford them more opportunities/ a better quality of life vis-a-vis other countries to some (family) connection through the colonial administration.

 

I doubt that benefits per sec have much to do with it as benefits are just as generous - if not more so - in many mainland European countries.

[tonbridgebrit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68833783

The above is from BBC News, came out about six hours ago.   "The proposed law is set to deliver the much-delayed plan to send some asylum seekers to the east African nation. The two Houses of Parliament have been in a protracted stand-off over the final wording of the bill. The legislation had been expected to clear its final stages on Wednesday, but another vote is now expected on Monday."

So, it's not certain to get through. I think all of us know that this whole Rwanda thing is not going to work. It's going to cost loads to deport each person. The Sunak government won't be in charge by Christmas or New Year. The chances of even one person being deported during Sunak's time are unlikely.

 

 

[Luuk Chaai]

On 4/17/2024 at 3:22 PM, john donson said:

why not

 

sink all boats with illegals, well, you can pick them up first...

 

find the owners and impound everything they own and jail them or split with origin departure country

 

send illegals to such a place as rwanda or where ever by boat

 

why would it cost even a million baht (pound?) per illegal ?

 

make the illegal work off the involved costs, call it slave labor or whatever

 

at least it would send some signals

 

how come the filthy rich arab oil states does not either take them or pay their part in all this?

 

or...    Team up with "Brandon"        and send them all to Antartica

[candide]

On 4/17/2024 at 8:56 PM, RayC said:

 

 

Any number of reasons but I'd suggest the main ones are (not in any particular order): 1) language: the refugee may speak English but not French, German, etc. 2) family and/or friends may already be resident in the UK 3) Anglophilia: Anything from believing that the UK will afford them more opportunities/ a better quality of life vis-a-vis other countries to some (family) connection through the colonial administration.

 

I doubt that benefits per sec have much to do with it as benefits are just as generous - if not more so - in many mainland European countries.

You can also add 4) a relatively low unemployment level, so better job opportunities.