The Home Office and UK government policy concerning asylum seekers/Rwanda deportations

[MickiQ]

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[teqniq]

PR1Berske Wrong thread?

 

[PR1Berske]

PR1Berske Wrong thread?

Think so! Well, it could be cross-posted; I'll quote tweet it into Keir Starmer is Up

 

[teqniq]

And the whole ghastly shitshow continues....:

Rwanda plan is ‘political gimmick that won’t work’

 

[MickiQ]

The Rwandans must think we're daft, we keep sending them money but no refugees. This is not going anywhere is it? It's just political posturing in the run up to a GE.

 

[Rob Ray]

If they abandon it the story becomes "£140m flushed" rather than "Tories battle against bureaucrats."

 

[teqniq]

They've paid the Rwandans 15 million to sign this new treaty:

 

[Rob Ray]

Sorry, £155m.

An amount which if simply handed out to Britain's 3,000 rough sleepers would have given each person approx £51,700

 

[MickiQ]

Sorry, £155m.

An amount which if simply handed out to Britain's 3,000 rough sleepers would have given each person approx £51,700

I was going to say it could have been used to build homes but of course it in fact as just not in this country.

 

[teqniq]

FFS: I really hope this all blows up in their faces:

 

[steveo87]

FFS: I really hope this all blows up in their faces:

They can't arbitrarily dictate who or where a 'safe' country will be, they need to go through the courts - who have already dictated that Rwanda isn't safe.

It's full on, and massively deranged, late stage Torism.

 

[teqniq]

You could not make this shit up. Hint, yes it does break international law:



Here is why:

 

[mojo pixy]

Rwanda, home of extrajudicial murder and politically-motivated 'disappearances', telling the UK to keep it legal

 

[BusLanes]

You could not make this shit up. Hint, yes it does break international law:

View attachment 403257

Here is why:

View attachment 403258

Absolutely crazy

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[Raheem]

You could not make this shit up. Hint, yes it does break international law:

View attachment 403257

Here is why:

View attachment 403258

From ruling the waves to losing the diplomatic moral high ground to Rwanda.

Edit: And paying a nine-figure sum for the privilege.

 

[BusLanes]

It's such a mad combination of fucking mental policy and inept political handling.

No one seriously thinks deporting a small number of refugees to Rwanda in anyway impacts the numbers of refugees seeking to move to the UK yet the Conservatives are staking their government and our reputation on it anyway.

But when they do this even Rwanda dunks on them in public.

 

[NoXion]

Good to see that Rwanda are putting their foot down on this matter. I know they're most likely not doing it out of any kind of principle, but they're inconveniencing this shithouse government we're lumbered with.

 

[spitfire]

Taking a punt on this one as I’m off out.

Jenrick.

 

[Bingoman]

According to rumours swirling around Westminster Jernick has resigned but not confirmed as of yet?

 

[agricola]

According to rumours swirling around Westminster Jernick has resigned but not confirmed as of yet?

has gone apparently

 

[teqniq]

Yup, and good riddance:

Robert Jenrick quits as immigration minister after new Rwanda bill announced, Home Office minister tells LBC

Robert Jenrick has quit as immigration minister after Rishi Sunak announced new emergency Rwanda legislation.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[Bingoman]

has gone apparently

It's not looking good for Sunak now

 

[agricola]

It's not looking good for Sunak now

That is no doubt the received wisdom, but I am not sure at all - the only reason he was persisting with this Rwanda nonsense was to appease them, so if they block it when it comes to a vote (or even just threaten to) he can just bin it off entirely.

 

[ddraig]

ah, it's not that bad there!

"I think it's come to the point where we have to sort this out," says Vince, a former parish councillor and Conservative supporter.
"You can't keep talking about something without acting on it. You have to go one way or the other and we've gone too far with it to go back. It would show a weakness now to go back.
"Rwanda's not a bad place, we're not sending them to a prison, they're being looked after. It's not a bad thing, it's just distant."

Is the Rwanda policy a vote winner? One High Street has its say

People along one High Street in Swindon give their views on the government's Rwanda policy.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[BristolEcho]

ah, it's not that bad there!

Is the Rwanda policy a vote winner? One High Street has its say

People along one High Street in Swindon give their views on the government's Rwanda policy.

www.bbc.co.uk

I didn't read all of that and this isn't even related to the topic, but this:

""If you look on there," says Vince Ayris, lifting down a large artillery shell casing engraved with 400 names, "you can see the name of every British soldier killed in Afghanistan."

Over the din of the shoe repair and key cutting machines, the 61-year-old recounts how he delicately etched one of these shiny casings for each of the bereaved families who saw their military relative come home in a coffin."

Sounds fucking gross to be honest.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If you read that properly you’ll see Vince has no idea as to how the Rwanda policy works, he thinks that people will be sent there for processing, has no clue that once processed and found to be actual refugees that they will have to stay in Rwanda forever, he, like most people think they will be sent back to the U.K.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Heh, seems the treaty they signed does allow refugees a route to live in the U.K.; if once sent to Rwanda they commit a crime for which they receive a sentence of five years or more, then Rwanda will expel them and send them to live in the U.K.

Satire is dead.