International UK Plan to Settle Asylum Seekers in Rwanda Comes Under Fire

[Orgasmo]

Well Rwanda is now a safe country and one of the most vibrant economies in Africa. That should provide enough safe haven for refugees to settle in. Of course, it's gonna suck for asylum shoppers.

London, United Kingdom – The British government has been accused of trading people like commodities after it unveiled a controversial plan to send asylum seekers on a one-way ticket 6,000km (3,700 miles) away to Rwanda. In a speech on Thursday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said anyone who has entered the United Kingdom irregularly since the start of the year “may” be relocated to the country in central-east Africa.

According to the plan, the British government would screen asylum seekers after arriving and provide their personal information to the Rwandan officials before they are transported to Kigali. The Rwandan government would deal with the asylum process and, if they are successful, asylum seekers will settle in the country. Some details are still a bit murky but all refugees arriving in the UK in boats will be sent to Rwanda. If their application is successful, they will not be given refugee status in the UK but will be granted asylum by Rwanda. Those unsuccessful could be deported back to their country of origin, or another country where they have a right to reside.

Hence, if the proposal is implemented, those fleeing Iraq, Syria, Eritrea or Sudan will most likely be transported to Rwanda even before making an asylum claim – which would eventually lead to a drastic decline in asylum applications.

‘Inhumane’: UK plan to send refugees to Rwanda sparks criticism | Refugees News | Al Jazeera

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Good on the UK(and Australia, Denmark, Israel, etc)

 

[M3t4tr0n]

What is Rwanda getting out of it? Are they looking to boost the population or is the UK providing a incentive of sorts?

 

[Mr Holmes]

The economic migrants aren't going to be happy with this one.

 

[uppercutbus]

any conservative thing being telegraphed with "plans to" "may" "considering". . . is sus.

Some things come to mind that happened not too far back. They tried to deport actual criminals (with violent criminal history) who had no citizenship and legally could be sent back to Jamaica and that was blocked amongst other examples I vaguely remember.

 

[12ga.]

That's one way to stop "asylum" lol.

I think Oz does same thing with another place. Froze indoneasia immigration like 100%. Seems Indoneasia wasnt so bad after all.

I think 99% of asylum claims are really economic migration because I could live anywhere in the world almost safly. Cheap labor Wall Street and chamber of commerce won't you tell you that.

 

[Deorum]

any conservative thing being telegraphed with "plans to" "may" "considering". . . is sus.

Some things come to mind that happened not too far back. They tried to deport actual criminals (with violent criminal history) who had no citizenship and legally could be sent back to Jamaica and that was blocked amongst other examples I vaguely remember.

The UK "Conservatives" have been in power since 2010.

They're Shit. <45>

 

[ElKarlo]

That's one way to stop "asylum" lol.

I think Oz does same thing with another place. Froze indoneasia immigration like 100%. Seems Indoneasia wasnt so bad after all.

I think 99% of asylum claims are really economic migration because I could live anywhere in the world almost safly. Cheap labor Wall Street and chamber of commerce won't you tell you that.

They clearly outed themselves out as such. It’s basically economic almost every single time. They are trying to add global warming to the list of those seeking sanctuary

 

[PrinceOfPain]

It's a pretty good plan all-in-all. Rwanda gets a bit of dosh for housing people temporarily, the UK gets to dissuade chancers, and refugees still get to be appropriately processed.

It's probably safer in Rwanda than in the US, and If you're against this, you're probably stuck in 1995 with an outdated impression of the country - or, for some sicko reason, you just want to flood your country with ill-intentioned illegals.

 

[KnightTemplar]

What is Rwanda getting out of it? Are they looking to boost the population or is the UK providing a incentive of sorts?

UK Government is paying them to take and house asylum seekers.

 

[ElKarlo]

It's a pretty good plan all-in-all. Rwanda gets a bit of dosh for housing people temporarily, the UK gets to dissuade chancers, and refugees still get to be appropriately processed.

It's probably safer in Rwanda than in the US, and If you're against this, you're probably stuck in 1995 with an outdated impression of the country - or, for some sicko reason, you just want to flood your country with ill-intentioned illegals.

Yeah Rwanda has really pulled off a Singapore. It has a great growth rate and a lot of stability. Like I said Singapore was a race riot plagued island with kidnapping being endemic.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

The government should buy a hotel to house the refugees for their resettlement. Then rename the hotel to something very original to represent their new lives. A name such as Hotel Rwanda or something unique like that

 

[Orgasmo]

Yeah Rwanda has really pulled off a Singapore. It has a great growth rate and a lot of stability. Like I said Singapore was a race riot plagued island with kidnapping being endemic.

It's amazing what a nation can do in 20 years when they stop fighting each other over identity and get their shit together.

 

[ElKarlo]

It's amazing what a nation can do in 20 years when they stop fighting each other over identity and get their shit together.

Yeah. When your leadership is trying to better your whole society, it really does a lot

 

[Fugazy]

Sounds like a good idea

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Yeah. When your leadership is trying to better your whole society, it really does a lot

Rwanda is actually doing well but they GDP per capita is still 900 bucks and most importantly they are landlocked, unlike Singapore.

 

[ElKarlo]

Rwanda is actually doing well but they GDP per capita is still 900 bucks and most importantly they are landlocked, unlike Singapore.

It’s still a a massive increase to what they had before. I meant Singapore as in a semi authoritative state that focused on building the nation instead of repression

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

It’s still a a massive increase to what they had before. I meant Singapore as in a semi authoritative state that focused on building the nation instead of repression

Next move would be to open a path through the Congo to the ocean. In earlier times, before international law and all that I think Paul Kagame could easily become the King of Africa.

 

[ElKarlo]

Next move would be to open a path through the Congo to the ocean. In earlier times, before international law and all that I think Paul Kagame could easily become the King of Africa.

The African Union signed a free trade deal a few years ago. They have access to ports without tariffs now. Now need for anything else save for some infrastructure investment

 

[Dalarna3]

It must be the end of the world if the UK is being based.