Reader calls Rwanda ‘ridiculous plan with no legal basis’

timeTwo years on, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson’s plan for Rwanda remains stalled in parliament.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and House of Lords clash over amendments – but independent Readers largely agreed that the program should be scrapped entirely.

The immigration policy, first proposed in April 2022, would see asylum seekers transferred to Rwanda for processing and resettlement.

However, legal challenges have so far prevented anyone from being sent to the East African country.

Following a back-and-forth discussion of the plans for Rwanda, we ask whether you think they are the best way to deal with the challenges facing the UK asylum system.

The vast majority of readers are eager to see the plans scrapped, calling them “ridiculous”, an “expensive totem” and “yet another Brexit failure”.

The comments came as the United Nations Human Rights Committee urged Britain on Thursday to abandon the controversial bill. The committee said it is calling on the UK government to withdraw the bill and repeal it if it is passed.

This is what you have to say:

‘ridiculous plan’

This is a ridiculous plan without any legal basis or justification, created by a morally bankrupt government whose sole purpose is to further divide society. Iain Banks pointed this out in his last interview 11 years ago.

“I wouldn’t miss the opportunity to wait for the next financial disaster because we haven’t solved the root causes of the last financial disaster. Nor would I be disappointed if I didn’t experience the consequences of the proto-fascism that is now on the rise. This It’s a complete idiot, a completely wrong response, unbelievable. I mean, your society is broken, so who do we blame? Do we blame the rich and powerful people who caused this? No , let’s blame the people who don’t have power, don’t have money and these immigrants who don’t even have the right to vote, yeah, it must be their fault.”

week block

“Spent a lot of money with no results”

This is a stupid plan dreamed up by right-wing fools, costing a fortune and getting nowhere.

There is a critical shortage of workers in the UK’s healthcare and agricultural sectors, plus a huge skills shortage caused by years of government neglect and a huge gap in apprenticeships, with many other skills needed.

Rather than spending millions on reckless deportation schemes, wouldn’t it be better to educate and train people and give them the opportunity to earn money, pay taxes and pay National Insurance, all things the UK needs?

Yes, there has to be a limit and a level of tolerance, but let’s catch some of these people. Isn’t America founded on immigration?

swordfish

“Send them over on the ferry”

The best way to deal with small boats is for the government to ship them by ferry at the same price as the traffickers, and use the revenue to process claims on board and provide temporary accommodation so there is no added cost to taxpayers.

For a fee of £5,000 they can stay in a hotel for at least a few days while the claim is processed and, if necessary, deported.

Efficient processing systems need to be developed to ensure effective throughput.

free

‘Hate is rampant’

Taxpayer money wasted on this ridiculous farce that could have been used to recruit more staff to clear the backlog. However, the foolish Cruella was blinded by their hatred.

Galileo 666

‘Another Brexit failure’

Rwanda’s “plan” has been on hold for months. The only reason this zombie fiasco is still going on is that it serves as a balm to the Tory right and distracts from the Home Office’s poor performance in failing to process applications.

In a sense, this is another failure of Brexit. Currently, the need to expand the civil service cannot cope with the increased burden on the bureaucracy, which is a direct consequence of the exodus of administrative staff in Brussels.

No one except the most deluded optimists among the Tory fruit-cycling wing had the slightest doubt about the likelihood of any plane leaving the tarmac.

It is a national scandal that so much public money is being wasted on such absurd populist appeals.

PinkoRadical

“A government that cannot afford to lose”

Just looking at the whole Rwanda affair from start to finish, what struck me was that at every intersection, every pressure point, every juncture there was a new revelation that never felt British. It never felt like something we would do in recent history. We’ve transported people in the past, whether prisoners or orphans, but now?

Regardless, we had to make a lot of compromises to get this policy close to completion.

Having spent so much time, money and energy trying to get this through the House of Lords and the courts, I wonder if people would consider losing our cultural values ​​just to have people travel thousands of miles to appease racist idiots, which ultimately is worth it. Threatening to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights, breaching international law, trying to pass sham legislation to circumvent our own courts, is this who we think we are, or are we willing to be the ones pushing for a policy that doesn’t really suit us?

Our current government cannot afford to embarrass itself in front of the most unpopular people in our country. What a mess.

jim987

‘We’re not getting our fair share’

Putting aside the myriad of legal and moral considerations that go against Rwanda, consider the purported rationale with cold logic:

– We are full: No, we are not yet. We don’t get our fair share either.

– Stressed infrastructure (housing, schools, NHS etc): whose fault is this? Certainly not a few thousand refugees. There will be 1.2 million authorized migrants in 2023… we need and access via the points scheme… while the opposition has raised concerns about Channel crossings (2% of them) and potential Rwandan numbers (of which 0.1%) fuss. Why?

– Housing costs billions of pounds: Whose fault is it? The backlog of charges keeps growing. Who set it up? NAO data shows that: a) the cost in Rwanda will be higher than the cost of accommodation in a similar number of hotels; b) the associated costs of revamping Bibby, the airport, etc. are huge.

– Rwanda as a deterrent: There is no evidence of this. How can a scheme be a deterrent if it affects less than 10% of Channel migrants in the best/worst case scenario? Crossings are mainly affected by weather and vary greatly from year to year. 2022 was unusually high (~45k), but fell by half in 2023 due to channel conditions and French efforts. If this is a deterrent, what’s the point?

– Rwanda is safe: No, it is not. The opposition can legislate until they are blue in the face, black is white, up is down, but their spokesperson in HoL admitted that Rwanda is not safe now and will not be safe until the conditions in our treaty with them are secured satisfy. These conditions have not yet begun, let alone completed.

All in all, this proposal simply doesn’t hold water, does it? In fact, it might be the perfect vessel for crossing the English Channel.

Lysistra Tower 2

“Expensive Totem”

The Rwanda plan was just an expensive totem offered to voters on the pretense that the Conservatives were actually solving the immigration problem.

It won’t work, and if it does, it will have little or no impact on the overall numbers, but it will divert attention from more important factors, such as the number of foreign students coming to the country and the money they bring with them.

king of myth

“Culture War”

The easiest way to stop small boats is to create safe and legal routes to seek asylum in the UK. This will cut off human traffickers in one fell swoop and save many lives.

But this administration won’t do that because they need the boat as a visible tool in the culture war. In fact, the Conservatives are subsidizing people smugglers.

June 1963

‘The lines are blurring’

Stop the madness now!

I listened carefully to all the parliamentary debates in both the House and the Senate. The devil is in the details. The bill says Rwanda is safe and no matter what happens or will happen there in the future, no one – not even our Supreme Court – can say it is not safe. This sets a very dangerous precedent and feels like a very unpopular government saying “we know best”.

The program spends a variable amount of cash to make a variable number of moves. The government has the audacity to withhold predictions about these important figures from the public.

All of this flies in the face of that plan, before considering human rights abuses and neglect of our global responsibility to protect and provide safe haven to those legitimately fleeing war and persecution—regardless of how they arrive.

An efficient, fast assessment and removal system will be more of a deterrent and save hotels and dodgy barges a lot of money.

The government is specifically focused on blurring the lines between “legal” and “illegal” immigration. The former is the highest figure to date. They allow the public to compete with immigrants for scarce public amenities—doctors, dentists, housing, etc.—all of which the government itself creates.

I think all Conservative MPs who blindly follow the whip of the Commons in support of a failed government need to take a hard look at themselves.

totwalk

This article has been edited to reflect some comments.You can read the full discussion in the comments section Source article.

All you have to do is register, submit your question and register your details – and you can join the discussion. You can also register by clicking “Log In” in the upper right corner of the screen.

ensure you comply with our Community Guidelinescan be found here.Complete guide on how to leave a comment Click here.