UK considers sending asylum seekers to Rwanda — UK migrant policy thread

[Jadz]

Yes it's also there to act as a deterrent but this is just abhorrent way of doing it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Priti came up with this idea. She's beyond evil. I'll never understand how someone who was born in Uganda, where she was made to flee as a refugee can end up to be an enemy of refugees/migrants.

Priti Pathetic is the type of Tory other Tory voters love - many Indians and Pakistanis voted for Brexit, voted for the Tory Party in the 2016 election. She represents a sizeable chunk of sub-Continentals who actually hate their own people and do not want anymore of 'them' in Britain.

There are also many indigenous British people who are believe 'this is a tiny Island' and cannot accommodate more refugees - corporate media, propaganda arm of the State, conceals the fact that millions of refugees actually do settle in countries closest to the ones they are fleeing from, for instance, Pakistan, Iran have been hosting millions of Afghan refugees, Turkey has millions of Syrian refugees, Jordan is full of Palestinian refugees and so on.

The 'let's dump single male (brown/black) refugees in Rwanda' proposal is in stark contrast to the same Tory regime that is inviting British people to open up their homes and welcome Ukrainian refugees - with promises of financial assistance to encourage (bribe?) people to accept. This proves there is an agenda at play here - would Russian-speaking peoples from the Donbass fleeing 8 years of Ukrainian military bombardment be welcome in Britain as refugees? I don't think so.

Ultimately, the British voted for Tories and so the British must bear the consequences of their decision. Priti Pathetic, Boris Johnson, millionaire-billionaire Rishi Sunak, morally vacant Sajid Javid, thick-and-dumb Liz Truss, etc., are exactly what the people of this (once) great nation deserve.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes it's also there to act as a deterrent but this is just abhorrent way of doing it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Priti came up with this idea. She's beyond evil. I'll never understand how someone who was born in Uganda, where she was made to flee as a refugee can end up to be an enemy of refugees/migrants.

I sometimes feel she isnt human, she doesnt have a smile at all and you feel she is cooking up more nasty stuff to implement.

Rwanda seems to be turning into some sort of prison nation for refugees. It has around 6/7 prison camps with around 150,000 holed up. I have no doubt the refugees are also being tortured, treated brutally.

I wonder if she will send Ukranian refugees or to be blunt white , blue eyed, blonde haired. I wouldnt want them being sent because they are from Europe but I feel while the anti-Russian sentiment is rife, they will not be sent.

The biggest irony is UK invaded, colonsied a large part of the world.

 

[Jadz]

I sometimes feel she isnt human, she doesnt have a smile at all and you feel she is cooking up more nasty stuff to implement.

Rwanda seems to be turning into some sort of prison nation for refugees. It has around 6/7 prison camps with around 150,000 holed up. I have no doubt the refugees are also being tortured, treated brutally.

I wonder if she will send Ukranian refugees or to be blunt white , blue eyed, blonde haired. I wouldnt want them being sent because they are from Europe but I feel while the anti-Russian sentiment is rife, they will not be sent.

The biggest irony is UK invaded, colonsied a large part of the world.

Brother, when Tories are in trouble they use diversions to distract the masses - Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak were fined by the Met Police for 'breaking Covid rules' (in other words, breaking their own laws) whilst the tenth wife of BJ (or whatever number she may be, I have lost count) was also subject to a fine imposed by the Police.

How coincidental, then, for Priti Pathetic and law-breaking Boris Johnson to throw refugees and Rwanda into the mix to confuse the British and delight a great portion of their far-right support base.

Make no mistake, this is nothing but the usual anti-brown/black/Muslim immigrant, asylum seeker, refugee propaganda.

 

[topspin]

Priti Patel is where the line is drawn for me with the current government.

Her and Jacob Rees Mogg seem to be genuinely nasty pieces of work, really quite cynical and vindictive people who are borderline sociopaths.

Sajid Javid, Rishi Sunak, Kwasi Kwarteng and even prize weirdo Michael Gove are not great by any measure — but they do not seem particularly “evil” or “twisted”.

There are perhaps a couple of half decent blokes in the Cabinet who are essentially getting on with their day jobs: Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps.

Boris himself is more enigmatic and difficult to classify because he is so duplicitous, but he is certainly the clown at the centre of the piece & all roads ultimately lead back to him.

I used to be fooled by his mannerisms and gentle nature but when I read about what he said about the victims of the Grenfell Tower and you look at how he's voted against pro-welfare policies, I have to agree he's not a decent guy.

Sajid Javed in particular is actually alright for a Tory. His handling of Shamima Begum case was shameful and it must have been humiliating how the Tories used him to expel her to somewhat "soften the blow" as they say.

Agree with your assessment of Gove and Boris. Rishi Sunak seems to be the most competent of the lot. I would like to see him takeover as the leader of the party.

 

[topspin]

Priti Pathetic is the type of Tory other Tory voters love - many Indians and Pakistanis voted for Brexit, voted for the Tory Party in the 2016 election. She represents a sizeable chunk of sub-Continentals who actually hate their own people and do not want anymore of 'them' in Britain.

There are also many indigenous British people who are believe 'this is a tiny Island' and cannot accommodate more refugees - corporate media, propaganda arm of the State, conceals the fact that millions of refugees actually do settle in countries closest to the ones they are fleeing from, for instance, Pakistan, Iran have been hosting millions of Afghan refugees, Turkey has millions of Syrian refugees, Jordan is full of Palestinian refugees and so on.

The 'let's dump single male (brown/black) refugees in Rwanda' proposal is in stark contrast to the same Tory regime that is inviting British people to open up their homes and welcome Ukrainian refugees - with promises of financial assistance to encourage (bribe?) people to accept. This proves there is an agenda at play here - would Russian-speaking peoples from the Donbass fleeing 8 years of Ukrainian military bombardment be welcome in Britain as refugees? I don't think so.

Ultimately, the British voted for Tories and so the British must bear the consequences of their decision. Priti Pathetic, Boris Johnson, millionaire-billionaire Rishi Sunak, morally vacant Sajid Javid, thick-and-dumb Liz Truss, etc., are exactly what the people of this (once) great nation deserve.

The disparity on how Ukrainian refugees are treated compared black/brown skinned (particularly Muslims) is abhorrent to say the least.

I agree with your point on Priti, she's just like those who hates her own. I know she was born in Uganda but she's Indian origin and there's no doubt she hates brown people.

The problem we have here is the Labour government look very incompetent as well. I don't rate Keith Starmer and the fact that the deputy leader left school at age 16, pregnant with no qualifications is a turn off for many voters.

 

[topspin]

I sometimes feel she isnt human, she doesnt have a smile at all and you feel she is cooking up more nasty stuff to implement.

Rwanda seems to be turning into some sort of prison nation for refugees. It has around 6/7 prison camps with around 150,000 holed up. I have no doubt the refugees are also being tortured, treated brutally.

I wonder if she will send Ukranian refugees or to be blunt white , blue eyed, blonde haired. I wouldnt want them being sent because they are from Europe but I feel while the anti-Russian sentiment is rife, they will not be sent.

The biggest irony is UK invaded, colonsied a large part of the world.

I'm sure she has plenty of smiles for Boris and her right wing friends.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes it's also there to act as a deterrent but this is just abhorrent way of doing it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Priti came up with this idea. She's beyond evil. I'll never understand how someone who was born in Uganda, where she was made to flee as a refugee can end up to be an enemy of refugees/migrants.

She's not a native Brit, so how would she understand the mind of one? Her job is to serve true Brits who are born and bred in this land. In that regard she is doing her job.

 

[topspin]

She's not a native Brit, so how would she understand the mind of one? Her job is to serve true Brits who are born and bred in this land. In that regard she is doing her job.

By watching Eastenders perhaps?

 

[Technics 1210]

Priti Pathetic is the type of Tory other Tory voters love - many Indians and Pakistanis voted for Brexit, voted for the Tory Party in the 2016 election. She represents a sizeable chunk of sub-Continentals who actually hate their own people and do not want anymore of 'them' in Britain.

There are also many indigenous British people who are believe 'this is a tiny Island' and cannot accommodate more refugees - corporate media, propaganda arm of the State, conceals the fact that millions of refugees actually do settle in countries closest to the ones they are fleeing from, for instance, Pakistan, Iran have been hosting millions of Afghan refugees, Turkey has millions of Syrian refugees, Jordan is full of Palestinian refugees and so on.

The 'let's dump single male (brown/black) refugees in Rwanda' proposal is in stark contrast to the same Tory regime that is inviting British people to open up their homes and welcome Ukrainian refugees - with promises of financial assistance to encourage (bribe?) people to accept. This proves there is an agenda at play here - would Russian-speaking peoples from the Donbass fleeing 8 years of Ukrainian military bombardment be welcome in Britain as refugees? I don't think so.

Ultimately, the British voted for Tories and so the British must bear the consequences of their decision. Priti Pathetic, Boris Johnson, millionaire-billionaire Rishi Sunak, morally vacant Sajid Javid, thick-and-dumb Liz Truss, etc., are exactly what the people of this (once) great nation deserve.

Wrong. The majority of Asians voted for Brexit didn't vote because they hated browns, but because the EU membership was offering unfettered immigration from Europe. Put simply someone from the SC had to jump through hoops, pay for VISA application, pass exams etc while European 'whites' walked and settled in the UK - no questions asked. It was an unfair immigration policy. If you support the EU then you support an unjust immigration policy.

Now that UK is out of the EU, every citizen from abroad will be treated equally if they want to settle in the UK.

Oh for the record, there has always been a quota for non EU immigration before Brexit, this covered SC citizens, and has not changed since UK left the EU.

Don't confuse refugees with Immigration policy. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

By watching Eastenders perhaps?

How about hosting a brave Ukranian refugee at her own home, and letting him/her watch Eastenders instead to learn our wonderful language?

I say him/her quite deliberately because male refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and Africa are now being barred from landing on these shores as they are considered economic migrants. But females will still be allowed to brave the seas alone.

 

[irfan]

She's not a native Brit, so how would she understand the mind of one? Her job is to serve true Brits who are born and bred in this land. In that regard she is doing her job.

She's as much a native Brit as you are..from Wikipedia:

Patel was born on 29 March 1972 to Sushil and Anjana Patel in London.[3][4] Her paternal grandparents were born in Gujarat, India, before emigrating to Uganda, and running a convenience store in Kampala.[5] In the 1960s, her parents emigrated to the UK and settled in Hertfordshire.[6][7] They established a chain of newsagents in London and the South East of England.[8][9] She was raised in a Hindu household.[10][11] Her father Sushil was a UKIP candidate for Hertfordshire in 2013.[12]

Looks like her family left Uganda well before Idi Amin's expulsions; she is not only evil minded, she's also thick as mince with low intelligence - a lethal combination.

 

[IMMY69]

So her father was a UKIP member???
Why are so many Asians of that era so anti immigration?

 

[shaz619]

Yes it's also there to act as a deterrent but this is just abhorrent way of doing it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Priti came up with this idea. She's beyond evil. I'll never understand how someone who was born in Uganda, where she was made to flee as a refugee can end up to be an enemy of refugees/migrants.

Priti Pathetic is the type of Tory other Tory voters love - many Indians and Pakistanis voted for Brexit, voted for the Tory Party in the 2016 election. She represents a sizeable chunk of sub-Continentals who actually hate their own people and do not want anymore of 'them' in Britain.

There are also many indigenous British people who are believe 'this is a tiny Island' and cannot accommodate more refugees - corporate media, propaganda arm of the State, conceals the fact that millions of refugees actually do settle in countries closest to the ones they are fleeing from, for instance, Pakistan, Iran have been hosting millions of Afghan refugees, Turkey has millions of Syrian refugees, Jordan is full of Palestinian refugees and so on.

The 'let's dump single male (brown/black) refugees in Rwanda' proposal is in stark contrast to the same Tory regime that is inviting British people to open up their homes and welcome Ukrainian refugees - with promises of financial assistance to encourage (bribe?) people to accept. This proves there is an agenda at play here - would Russian-speaking peoples from the Donbass fleeing 8 years of Ukrainian military bombardment be welcome in Britain as refugees? I don't think so.

Ultimately, the British voted for Tories and so the British must bear the consequences of their decision. Priti Pathetic, Boris Johnson, millionaire-billionaire Rishi Sunak, morally vacant Sajid Javid, thick-and-dumb Liz Truss, etc., are exactly what the people of this (once) great nation deserve.

I’ve said this for a while and I think Jadz has hit the nail on the head there, there is a decent chunk of such people who despite their origins, soon develop a severe inferior complex which manifests externally in the form of self hatred. It’s not just asians but also some am close to including africans and afro-caribbean folk who were not born here, yet they vote Tory and a pattern begins to form.

 

[shaz619]

So her father was a UKIP member???
Why are so many Asians of that era so anti immigration?

Growing up in the third world and experiencing the poverty, corruption and nature of how certain people behave, their goal is to come here and seek a better life, system here is much better and easy to fall in love with and in between you look at what the British empire achieved in terms of damaging their psyche for generations, these people inherently feel less subconsciously and need to overcome this and unfortunately in many cases, it comes out in the worst ways possible. It does come down to an individual to and personality. However, for most of us who are born here we know we don’t need to bend backwards and disown our communities to do well, we can empower them and inspire instead, not all have the same view

 

[Jadz]

I’ve said this for a while and I think Jadz has hit the nail on the head there, there is a decent chunk of such people who despite their origins, soon develop a severe inferior complex which manifests externally in the form of self hatred. It’s not just asians but also some am close to including africans and afro-caribbean folk who were not born here, yet they vote Tory and a pattern begins to form.

You are right Brother. The type of Pakistanis and Indians you are referring to begin as Labour voters and then when they become successful in their careers, move into the middle classes and purchase large houses suddenly develop a disdain for their own compatriots and coreligionists - especially if they speak with an accent and/or are dark-skinned (many people from the sub-Continent are extremely racist) - they then start voting Tory because that is associated with aristocracy, wealth and position, Labour is associated with the poor, working classes.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Growing up in the third world and experiencing the poverty, corruption and nature of how certain people behave, their goal is to come here and seek a better life, system here is much better and easy to fall in love with and in between you look at what the British empire achieved in terms of damaging their psyche for generations, these people inherently feel less subconsciously and need to overcome this and unfortunately in many cases, it comes out in the worst ways possible. It does come down to an individual to and personality. However, for most of us who are born here we know we don’t need to bend backwards and disown our communities to do well, we can empower them and inspire instead, not all have the same view

That is also part of the British character, but Priti's parents are from a different background, and they reflect their own culture where bending and stretching is ingrained in ancient yogic traditions.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Patel is an evil one. Evil is a word branded about quite easily nowadays but she is the pure definition of the word.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Patel is an evil one. Evil is a word branded about quite easily nowadays but she is the pure definition of the word.

Subservient would be a more accurate characteristic. Her role is to speak on immigration, but we have no idea of how she views other topics in today's Britain.

 

[RexRex]

Why are so many Asians of that era so anti immigration?

Shouldn't she be labelled anti-refugee rather than anti-immigration ?

 

[MenInG]

The Home Secretary has issued a "ministerial direction" in relation to the Rwanda asylum plan, overruling concerns from her own civil servants, Sky News understands.

Ministerial directions are used when the top civil servant in a department has objected to the costs or feasibility of a spending plan.

A Home Office source said: "Home Office officials are clear that deterring illegal entry would create significant savings. However, such a deterrent effect cannot be quantified with certainty.

"It would be wrong to let a lack of precise modelling delay a policy aimed at reducing illegal migration, saving lives, and breaking the business model of the smuggling gangs."

The UK government is attempting to crack down on Channel crossings by small boats and as part of the plans, the Home Office has signed a deal with Rwanda to send migrants to the landlocked African country.

Skynews

 

[MenInG]

The government's plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda is an "egregious breach" of international and refugee law, the UN's refugee agency has warned.

Home Secretary Priti Patel this week signed a deal with the East African country to fly some people who illegally arrive in the UK there to seek asylum instead.

Gillian Triggs, assistant secretary-general at the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), described it as "unacceptable" and a "troubling development" during the Ukraine refugee crisis.

More than 10 million Ukrainians are thought to have fled their homes because of the war, the UN estimates, with more than 4 million leaving for neighbouring countries.

Ms Triggs, who is Australian, was asked about the similar offshore immigration system in her country.

"My point is, just as the Australian policy is an egregious breach of international law and refugee law and human rights law, so too is this proposal by the United Kingdom government," she told the BBC.

"It is very unusual, very few states have tried this, and the purpose is primarily deterrent - and it can be effective, I don't think we're denying that.

"But what we're saying at the UN refugee agency is that there are much more legally effective ways of achieving the same outcome."

She referred to a similar abandoned plan by Israel to send Eritrean and Sudanese refugees to Rwanda, claiming they "simply left the country and started the process all over again".

Announcing the plan this week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he expected it to face legal challenges.

"We are confident that our new migration partnership is fully compliant with our international legal obligations, but nevertheless we expect this will be challenged in the courts," he said.

Ms Patel, who signed the £120m deal in Kigali on Thursday, claimed it will soon be used as a "blueprint" for other countries, primarily Denmark.

"There is no question now that the model we have put forward, I'm convinced is world class and a world first, and it will be used as a blueprint going forward, there's no doubt about that," she said.

Home Secretary overruled top civil servants' cost concerns

Questions have been raised about the cost of the scheme, which some have reported will be more expensive than "putting migrants up at the Ritz".

It emerged yesterday that Ms Patel issued a "ministerial direction" over the Rwanda plan, which means she overruled senior Home Office officials' financial objects to it.

Responding to the reports, a Home Office source told Sky News: "Home Office officials are clear that deterring illegal entry would create significant savings. However, such a deterrent effect cannot be quantified with certainty.

"It would be wrong to let a lack of precise modelling delay a policy aimed at reducing illegal migration, saving lives, and breaking the business model of the smuggling gangs."

The government claims the transfer of illegal migrants from the UK to Rwanda could start within weeks.

SKY

 

[MenInG]

The government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is "opposite the nature of God", the Archbishop of Canterbury will say.

Reverend Justin Welby will use his Easter Sunday sermon to criticise the government scheme that will see refugees who reach the UK through illegal routes deported to Rwanda.

He is expected to say that the policy is un-Christian and raises "serious ethical questions".

"The details are for politics," he will say. "The principle must stand the judgment of God, and it cannot.

"It cannot carry the weight of our national responsibility as a country formed by Christian values, because sub-contracting out our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well like Rwanda, is the opposite of the nature of God who himself took responsibility for our failures."

The archbishop's unexpected intervention comes after criticism for the scheme from Labour politicians, human rights groups and the United Nations.

SKY

 

[IMMY69]

Shouldn't she be labelled anti-refugee rather than anti-immigration ?

My post was about her father who was A UKIP member

 

[James]

My post was about her father who was A UKIP member

I understood when people joined the old school incarnation of the Conservative Party which stood for traditional social and family values, the preservation of institutions, moderation in international relations, and sensible economics.

To be honest, the supposed “Nasty Party” of the pre-Cameron years now feels exceedingly mild compared with today’s version.

Currently the Tory Party on an ideological and personnel level seems like an aggressive conflation of UKIP on Europe and immigration, the BNP on refugees, asylum seekers and deportations, and New Labour on law & order and foreign policy in a post-neocon environment; with some excessive and out-of-control money printing thrown into the mix.

Under Boris, they have become a chaotic and inconsistent clan of discriminatory, disastrous blaggers — so, moulded into his exact image.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is "opposite the nature of God", the Archbishop of Canterbury will say.

Reverend Justin Welby will use his Easter Sunday sermon to criticise the government scheme that will see refugees who reach the UK through illegal routes deported to Rwanda.

He is expected to say that the policy is un-Christian and raises "serious ethical questions".

"The details are for politics," he will say. "The principle must stand the judgment of God, and it cannot.

"It cannot carry the weight of our national responsibility as a country formed by Christian values, because sub-contracting out our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well like Rwanda, is the opposite of the nature of God who himself took responsibility for our failures."

The archbishop's unexpected intervention comes after criticism for the scheme from Labour politicians, human rights groups and the United Nations.

SKY

I don't think I've ever seen an archbishop make such a political speech. Usually they make speeches related to good manners/ethics more in the style of Maulana Tariq Jameel, than comment on current issues.

He is perhaps the most senior figure in the British state and to come out with something so critical of the government is very surprising.

 

[MenInG]

Priti Patel's top official told her it was "highly uncertain" that sending migrants to Rwanda would reduce attempts to cross the English Channel - the day before the policy was announced.

In a letter to the home secretary, dated Wednesday, Matthew Rycroft also said there was "uncertainty" over "value for money".

The permanent secretary at the Home Office said financial value was "dependent" on the policy being "effective as a deterrent".

Sky

 

[MenInG]

Home Secretary Priti Patel has defended the government's plan to send migrants to Rwanda, telling critics to come up with a better idea.

Writing a joint article in The Times with Rwanda's foreign minister Vincent Biruta, Ms Patel described her controversial plans as "bold and innovative".

Under the new scheme, approved refugees will have to stay in Rwanda, rather than return to the UK, and those who are rejected by the Rwandan government will be deported.

It will primarily be for adults but families could be sent there together in exceptional circumstances.

Home Secretary Priti Patel and Rwandan minister for foreign affairs and international co-operation, Vincent Biruta, signed a "world-first" migration and economic development partnership in the East African nation's capital city Kigali, on Thursday. Picture date: Thursday April 14, 2022.

The idea has been slammed by many, including the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who said it was "ungodly".

The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, used his Easter sermon to call it "depressing and distressing".

Speaking on Easter Sunday, Mr Welby raised concerns about the idea and said there were "serious ethical questions about sending asylum seekers overseas".

Rwanda asylum scheme: Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at government plans, saying they are ungodly

Syrian refugee who shot to fame as NHS cleaner says plans to send migrants to Rwanda are 'moral failure'

His thoughts were echoed by Mr Cottrell, who said the UK "can do better than this" and it is the people who exploit asylum seekers that the country needs to "crack down" on.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby leads the Easter Sung Eucharist at Canterbury Cathedral in Kent. Picture date: Sunday April 17, 2022.

First glimpse inside the centre that will house Channel migrants

In the joint article, Ms Patel and Mr Biruta said it is "surprising that those institutions that criticise the plans fail to offer their own solutions" to tackle small boat crossings in the Channel.

They continued to defend the scheme by saying: "It will disrupt the business model of organised crime gangs and deter migrants from putting their lives at risk."

Energy minister Greg Hands reiterated the government's challenge to those who are against the policy when he appeared on Sky News on Monday.

Mr Hands said: "What others - the critics of this plan - need to do is to show what their solution would be.

"We have a position now where last year 28,500 people crossed the channel illegally into this country - that compares with just 300 in 2018.

"A growing problem - we've taken a bold and innovative measure with this agreement with Rwanda to take action here and I think the British people are in support of that."

He denied the claim that Britain was outsourcing its responsibilties, saying it was "an agreement between two sovereign countries" and that Rwanda had a "very good track record on taking refugees".

Policy unlikely to achieve government's aims, says Tory MP

Conservative MPs have broadly backed the plans but they have been criticised by Labour politicians, human rights groups, and the United Nations.

Some Tory MPs suggested on Twitter that religious leaders should stay out of politics, saying the two archbishops had overstepped the mark.

Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested the Archbishop of Canterbury had misunderstood the aims of the policy and the government is "taking on a very difficult responsibility".

A view of facilities at Hope House, a hostel in Nyabugogo, the Gasabo district of the capital city Kigali, in Rwanda. Plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda from the UK are anticipated to initially see them taken to Hope House. Picture date: Thursday April 14, 2022.

However, former minister Andrew Mitchell, who serves as an MP for Sutton Coldfield, said although he had "enormous sympathy" for the government, the policy was unlikely to achieve its aims.

"What I'm worried about with the Rwanda policy is it won't achieve what they are after, it's also likely to be horrendously expensive, and we have to have a great care at this time for taxpayers' money," he argued.

Mr Mitchell added the "danger" is that the UK will no longer be a "beacon in a terrible and difficult world" for those fleeing persecution to rely on to rescue them.

The first migrants are expected to be sent to Rwanda on a chartered flight in May, however, it could be delayed with the government anticipating legal challenges against the partnership.

SKY

 

[MenInG]

Home Secretary Priti Patel is making a statement in the Commons on her controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing.

She begins by reiterating the UK's past prowess in welcoming asylum seekers from Syria, Hong Kong, Afghanistan and, more recently, Ukraine.

"We cannot focus our support on those who need it most, or effectively control our borders without tackling illegal migration," she says, adding this is facilitated by criminals who profit from "human misery".

She adds we must "break their evil and lethal business model" by removing demand for their activities, which she said puts pressure on the UK's infrastructure.

Ms Patel goes on to say the cost of the asylum system is the "highest for two decades".

She insists that access to the UK's asylum system "should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers".

"There is a global migration crisis that demands innovative and international solutions," she says. "This government is taking firm action."

Ms Patel says that, at present, 53% of local authorities "do not accommodate asylum seekers under the dispersal system", adding: "It is simply unfair that a national burden should be felt disproportionately."

For the first time, Ms Patel says, the government is building "asylum reception centres" to end the practice of housing asylum seekers in "expensive hotels".

One in Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire will open shortly, she says.

The home secretary goes on to outline plans to send some of those who arrive in the UK illegally to Rwanda.

Ms Patel says everyone eligible to be relocated will be "screened and interviewed, including an age assessment." They will also have access to legal services, she says.

The home secretary then asserts that the permanent secretary did not oppose the plans or "assert that it is poor value for money".

Instead, Ms Patel claims he said "there is not currently sufficient evidence" to demonstrate value for money at present.

SKY

 

[MenInG]

Boris Johnson has hit back at Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby over his criticism of sending illegal migrants to Rwanda, claiming the top clergy should be condemning Vladimir Putin instead.

In an upbeat speech to Tory MPs after his partygate apology in the Commons, the prime minister said that while bishops attacked the Rwanda deal in their Easter sermons they had been silent about Putin.

Mr Johnson also hit out at Sir Keir Starmer, accusing him of "coarsening political debate" with his personal attacks on him in the Commons, after a Tory MP claimed the Labour leader had been "whipping up hysteria".

The PM's fightback - at a behind-closed-doors meeting - was in marked contrast to his more contrite tone in the Commons chamber and was delivered in his characteristic knockabout style.

During the meeting one Tory MP claimed partygate was "a wet blanket" and other MPs claimed it was not being raised by voters during campaigning for the local elections on 5 May.

Asked by Sky News as he arrived for the meeting flanked by cabinet ministers and Downing Street aides: "How's your mood, prime minister?" Mr Johnson replied: "Very good, thank you."

Climate change: World's Christian leaders release first joint statement demanding urgent action

He was then greeted by the ritual banging of desks - which lasted 30 seconds - as he entered the room and immediately launched an appeal for party unity and support as he battles against his critics.

According to a senior government source, Mr Johnson accused the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby of having "misconstrued" the policy of sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Sources close to the prime minister said he accused the archbishop of being "less vociferous" in his condemnation of President Putin than he was in his attack on the policy.

In his Easter Sunday sermon in Canterbury Cathedral, Mr Welby raised "serious ethical questions" about the policy and said it cannot "stand the judgment of God".

In the sermon, the archbishop said "sub-contracting out our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well, like Rwanda, is the opposite of the nature of God who himself took responsibility for our failures".

In a call to his MPs to stick with him, Mr Johnson began his remarks by telling them: "The UK public hates politicians talking about themselves. They want them to talk about their issues."

Praising cabinet colleagues, he said his embattled Chancellor Rishi Sunak was "doing an outstanding job" and asked them: "Who would you rather run the economy, Rishi or Rachel Reeves?"

And attacking Labour, Mr Johnson said many of the current shadow cabinet supported Jeremy Corbyn as leader, adding: "Where would he be on Ukraine?"

One person present said around 20 MPs asked questions during the meeting, of which only two were "sceptical" and both were known critics of the prime minister.

A source close to the PM claimed one Tory MP Jason McCartney, brought up Jo Cox's murder in June 2016 while he was attacking the Labour leader.

The source said: "He said Starmer was whipping up hysteria - to remind everyone two MPs were killed - there's potential here for visceral hatred.

"You saw a lot of that on the opposition benches today.

"The prime minister was more restrained in his response, but said there was a coarsening of debate that does our politics no favours."

Another Tory MP, Craig Whittaker, was cheered when he said partygate was "an incredibly wet blanket smothering all the good news".

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-jo...y-for-criticising-rwanda-asylum-plan-12594034

 

[James]

The Border Force has intercepted several groups of migrants in the English Channel.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it had detected seven boats carrying 254 migrants on Sunday. However, it said it did not believe any migrants arrived "on their own terms" in a small boat.
The government is addressing the issue by "cracking down on people smugglers", the MoD said.
It is believed to be the first time there have been crossings in 11 days.
Some commentators have suggested the prospect of asylum seekers getting sent to Rwanda was already acting as a deterrent - but the weather has been windy in the Channel for the past 11 days - which is likely to have had a greater effect.
Last month, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the MoD had taken command of the operational response to small boats crossings.
Responding to the latest interceptions, the MoD described the rise in "dangerous" crossings as unacceptable.
A spokesperson said: "Not only are they an overt abuse of our immigration laws but they also impact on the UK taxpayer, risk lives and our ability to help refugees come to the UK via safe and legal routes."
The decision follows a drastic rise in the number of small boat crossings, with more than 6,000 people have crossing so far this year.
The latest Home Office figures suggest 28,526 people made the crossing in 2021, up from 8,466 the year before.

BBC

 

[Maher96]

At least 350 migrants have been brought ashore from the English Channel in the past two days, according to witnesses and official figures.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it found seven boats carrying 254 migrants on Sunday - witnesses said about 100 migrants have arrived so far on Monday.
The government is addressing the issue by "cracking down on people smugglers", the MoD said.

It is believed to be the first time there have been crossings in 11 days.
Some commentators had suggested the prospect of asylum seekers getting sent to Rwanda was already acting as a deterrent.

However, others had pointed out that as the weather had been windy in the Channel for the past 11 days that might have had a greater effect.

The aid charity and campaign group Care4Calais, which works directly with migrants camped in northern France, said it had surveyed 60 of them over the Rwanda plans, and said 75% of those waiting to try to cross to England would not be deterred by it.

The group, which wants people to be able to claim asylum from outside the UK, said several were sceptical of the Rwanda plan ever being put into place.

Last month, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the MoD had taken command of the operational response to small boats crossings.

Responding to the latest interceptions, the MoD described the rise in "dangerous" crossings as unacceptable.

A spokesperson said: "Not only are they an overt abuse of our immigration laws but they also impact on the UK taxpayer, risk lives and our ability to help refugees come to the UK via safe and legal routes."

The decision follows a drastic rise in the number of small boat crossings, with more than 6,000 people have crossing so far this year.

The latest Home Office figures suggest 28,526 people made the crossing in 2021, up from 8,466 the year before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-61298895

 

[James]

<b>Priti Patel faces legal threat over Ukraine visa delays</b>

Home Secretary Priti Patel faces the threat of legal action over delays in the visa process for Ukraine refugees.
Groups representing Britons hoping to host Ukrainians plan to take the first step towards a class action case - and have employed a leading barrister.
Latest figures show that of the 86,100 people given Ukraine scheme visas, 27,100 have so far arrived in the UK.
The government said it had simplified the process and boosted staffing numbers for the scheme.
A spokesperson added it was "now processing visas as quickly as they come in - enabling thousands more Ukrainians to come through our uncapped routes".
More than 5.5 million people have fled Ukraine since Russia's invasion began on 24 February, according to the UN's refugee agency.

The groups Vigil for Visas and Taking Action Over the Homes for Ukraine Visa Delays said they had instructed Amanda Jones, an immigration and public law barrister, to explore a potential legal challenge against the Home Office.
Less than half of the people issued with visas under the Ukraine Family Scheme - which allows Ukrainians to join relatives already in the UK - have arrived, according to the latest Home Office figures.
The groups said that, "in many cases, people have either heard nothing or been informed that some family members have received visas whilst others remain 'under consideration'".
Katherine Klinger, from Vigil for Visas, has applied for a family of eight Ukrainians to stay with her in North London. Mrs Klinger told the BBC that the process has "just been a fiasco" and her experience urged her to take action.
"This will be a complicated action because it is challenging not only individual cases but the whole policy background, actions and inactions of the Home Office."
"We have been advised to take a sample of 10 but we could have up to 1000, or more. We've been advised to submit 10 case studies - and issue that as the pre-action protocol."
"If the Home Office does not get a grip on this urgent and potentially catastrophic situation, we will bring our action for judicial review and ask that it is considered urgently in light of the vulnerability of so many of the March Applicants."

A couple who will be part of the action are Mo Gibson and Nichola Merrick - who both worked in a Citizens Advice bureau in Hastings, East Sussex, for 10 years.
"My wife and I have got decades of experience as a paid Citizens Advice managers," Mr Gibson said.
"We've dealt with some horrific, really difficult challenging cases at every level, dealing with all sorts of dark sides of humanity. But never have we been absolutely stumped by something like this in trying to help.
"It's destroying our morale, but it could easily put these people, and it has put them, in more danger."
Charities helping refugees in Ukraine and its neighbouring countries believe there is a gap between public sentiment towards helping those fleeing the war and the UK government's response so far.
An Ipsos opinion poll of over 1,000 UK adults found 51% think the government is offering too little humanitarian support to Ukraine.
Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said he wanted to see the UK follow its "European neighbours by doing much more for people who have literally lost everything".
"We need a different approach that is humane, fair and effective which ensures people who have lost everything are quickly given the protection and safety they desperately need in the UK," he added.
A government spokesperson said: "In response to Putin's barbaric invasion we launched one of the fastest and biggest visa schemes in UK history. Over 86,000 visas have been issued so Ukrainians can live and work in the UK.
"The changes the Home Office has made to streamline the visa system, including simplifying the forms and boosting staff numbers, are working and we are now processing visas as quickly as they come in - enabling thousands more Ukrainians to come through our uncapped routes."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61310346

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Last night we disrupted <a href="https://twitter.com/pritipatel?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pritipatel</a> because her <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rwandaplan?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Rwandaplan</a> is cruel, morally bankrupt & it will cost lives.<br><br>We demand the Government drops this widely condemned policy & provides support for people seeking safety. <br><br>No matter where we come from, we all deserve dignity & respect <a href="https://t.co/DQDzC2aMCB">pic.twitter.com/DQDzC2aMCB</a></p>— Green New Deal Rising (@GNDRising) <a href="https://twitter.com/GNDRising/status/1522902822475509760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

Priti Patel has said her plan to send migrants to Rwanda sends a "clear signal" that those who arrive illegally have no right to remain - but admitted it will "take time" to implement.

The plan has been described as "cruel and nasty" by charities and "opposite the nature of God" by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[MenInG]

The first group of illegal migrants will be told this week that they could be sent to Rwanda under the government's controversial new immigration plans.

Home Secretary Priti Patel signed a deal in the capital Kigali in April for some asylum seekers who have arrived in the UK illegally since January to be resettled in the east African country.

SKY

 

[silentkiller187]

Undocumented people who travel from Ukraine to the UK via Ireland could be considered for removal to Rwanda, a senior Home Office official has told MPs.

During the same select committee hearing, a minister refused to say under repeated questioning whether Ukrainians who arrive in the UK across the Channel by boat could also be sent to the central African country.

The exchanges occurred at the home affairs select committee where the minister, Tom Pursglove, was unable to point to any calculations that the government’s relocation policy would reduce the number of people arriving in the UK in small boats.

Some Conservative MPs have criticised Ireland’s decision to lift all restrictions for refugees fleeing war, claiming it would create a back door to the UK, leaving the country vulnerable to potential criminal elements.

It has been pointed out that the common travel area means that Ukrainians who do not pass British security checks or are left waiting for visas to arrive could simply reach the UK by travelling to Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic and then getting a ferry to the UK.

Stuart C McDonald, the SNP’s home affairs spokesperson and a committee member, asked Dan Hobbs, the director of asylum, protection and enforcement, about Ukrainians crossing into Northern Ireland from Ireland. “Are they within the scope of this policy or are they not?” he said.

Hobbs replied: “Depending on the individual circumstances they may not fall in the ‘inadmissibility’ criteria.”

McDonald said: “You are leaving open the possibility that you can cross from Dublin to Belfast and conceivably end up in Rwanda.”

Earlier, Diana Johnson, the chair of the committee, asked Pursglove if Ukrainians who travelled to the UK by small boat would be ruled “inadmissible” and therefore could be removed.

Pursglove, the minister for justice and tackling illegal migration, replied: “There is absolutely no reason why any Ukrainian should be getting into a small boat and paying a people smuggler to get into the UK.”

When asked what modelling was used to give the “evidence base for this decision”, the minister replied: “This is a new and untested policy at this point in time. I do think that in the fullness of time we will see this policy, as part of a wider package that we are introducing, really shift the dynamic.”

Johnson said that it sounded like modelling had not been carried out. Pursglove replied: “I would be delighted to hear an alternative.”

The two safe and legal routes under which Ukrainian refugees can enter the UK – the Ukraine family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme – have been beset by delays. The latest government data shows that 37,400 of 125,100 applicants have so far arrived in Britain.

Under the scheme announced last month by the home secretary, Priti Patel, the UK will pay for people seeking asylum who are deemed to have arrived “illegally” to be sent to Rwanda, where their claims will be processed.

In theory, they will be granted asylum or given refugee status in the country. Boris Johnson said “tens of thousands” of unlawful migrants would be removed to Rwanda.

Documents released by the government on Monday show that the Rwandan government has managed to process a maximum of 307 asylum cases in a single year since 2016.

Joanna Cherry, attending the session from the joint committee on human rights, asked Pursglove if he accepted reports by the US state department, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documenting “unlawful or arbitrary killings”, along with forced disappearances and torture by the Rwandan government.

Pursglove said that “overall Rwanda is a safe and secure country” to use for resettlement, arguing that there were “no systematic breaches” of human rights obligations in the east African country.

The government announced on Monday that the process of removing people to Rwanda would begin over the next few weeks.

Responding to the hearing, Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “This government has now openly acknowledged it is intent on treating any person fleeing war or oppression from around the world as a commodity to be shipped to Rwanda. This includes those fleeing the deadly conflicts in Ukraine and Afghanistan right now. It is appallingly cruel and will cause great human suffering.

“We urge the government to immediately rethink its plans and focus on operating an orderly, humane and fair asylum system.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...uk-via-ireland-may-be-sent-to-rwanda-mps-told

 

[Technics 1210]

I fully support this scheme. I want those corrupt and kniving wannabe refugees who play the system to enter the UK for a life paid for by the welfare system (while hiding their assets) to be sent to war zones like Rwanda. Said people include supporters of PDM.

Let em pick up soap.

 

[James]

<b>Ukrainian families in Livingston felt threatened over relocation</b>

A group of Ukrainian families in Scotland said they felt threatened with forced relocation when their hotel rooms were needed for new refugees.

The families, who were temporarily housed in a Livingston hotel, were given three hours to pack and get on a bus to Aberdeen.

The Scottish government said it was voluntary and no one was forced to go.

Supporters of those who stayed in West Lothian said translators should have been there to reduce confusion.

The temporary residents of the Livingston hotel were contacted on Friday asking if they would be willing to be moved to Aberdeen that day.

A number of rooms near Edinburgh Airport were required to accommodate late night arrivals also seeking refuge in Scotland from the Russian invasion in Ukraine.

However, some of the people felt they had no choice.

Local supporters intervened and were able to translate for some of the families before they left.

Viktoria, from Kyiv, has been in Livingston with her mother and two sons for three weeks and was delighted to be able to stay after starting to make new friends.

Speaking to BBC Scotland from a community event for refugees in Livingston, she said:

“We are very grateful for Scottish people and the government because it's very important what they do for the Ukrainians now.

"It's very difficult to move somewhere and start a new life again."

She added:

“My children have some new friends and they've started to adapt. For example, my oldest son, he is going to football and has new friends here.

"He tries to learn English with them and that is why it is very difficult for us to move to another place in Scotland.

“If it is possible, we want to stay in this region and maybe find a house for my family."

Rebecca Nicol, who has been volunteering to support families arriving in Livingston, said it had been a "confusing and worrying situation" for the families.

She went to the hotel after Viktoria called to say she would have to leave in two hours.

"The problem was that they never got enough time," Ms Nicol said. "They didn't have a translator with them. A lot of people don't speak English."

She said the stress for a group of people who have already been forced from their homes because of war could have been lessened if they had been given more notice about moving to Aberdeen.

They needed "time to think about it and someone to explain all the details to them properly", she added.

"I'm worried for [Viktoria] and the other Ukrainian families who are here because I want them to feel welcomed to this region and I want us to find host families for them so they can settle a little bit here and feel safe," Ms Nicol said.

A Scottish government spokesman said they were working with local government and the third sector to give new arrivals from the war a "warm Scots welcome", with temporary hotel accommodation, trauma support, translation, and a national matching service to identify longer-term accommodation.

"A small group of people from Ukraine volunteered to change hotels so that those arriving late at night at Edinburgh Airport could access accommodation close by, rather than having to travel to hotels further afield," he said.

"The resettlement team ensured everyone understood this was a voluntary arrangement and that rooms were available should they decide to stay."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-61626107

 

[MenInG]

The government said it will deport migrants to Rwanda in two weeks on 14 June.

The Home Office said it had begun issuing formal removal notices to migrants as the "final administrative step" in its partnership with the east African nation.

The home secretary said that there would still be attempts to delay the process.

Priti Patel said: "Our world-leading partnership with Rwanda is a key part of our strategy to overhaul the broken asylum system and break the evil people-smugglers' business model.

"Today's announcement is another critical step towards delivering that partnership and, while we know attempts will now be made to frustrate the process and delay removals, I will not be deterred and remain fully committed to delivering what the British public expect."

The Home Office said an initial group of migrants had started to receive formal letters telling them they are being sent to Rwanda to "rebuild their lives in safety".

It said the policy is designed to break people-smuggling networks and stem the flow of migrants across the Channel.

The Home Office did not say how many asylum seekers would be on the first deportation flight to Rwanda.

People who receive the letters can challenge them in court.

The government has said those sent to Rwanda will be given support, including up to five years of training to help with integration, accommodation, and healthcare.

The plan, announced in April, has drawn criticisms from MPs inside and outside the Tory party as well as from many charities.

UN officials have said the move would violate the international Refugee Convention.

Last year more than 28,000 migrants and refugees crossed from mainland Europe to the UK, mostly in small boats.

SKY

 

[MenInG]

Three of four asylum seekers fighting their deportation from the UK to Rwanda will not be sent to the African country, the Home Office has said.

The news came as part of written submissions by Home Office lawyers to the High Court ahead of a bid today to block a deportation flight to the African country under the government's controversial new asylum seeker removal policy.

SKY

 

[MenInG]

Five asylum seekers fighting their deportation from the UK to Rwanda will not be sent to the African country, the Home Office has said.

The news came as part of submissions by Home Office lawyers to the High Court on Friday as a bid began to block a deportation flight under the government's controversial new asylum seeker removal policy.

 

[Robert]

Illegal policy is illegal.

 

[Kroll]

Rwanda of all places, evokes memories of a truly horrific period in recent history.

 

[Kroll]

Rwanda asylum plan: UK court allows flight planned for Tuesday

A flight to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda next Tuesday has been allowed to go ahead by the High Court.

Campaigners failed in their legal bid to halt the removal, but the case will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Monday.

Under the policy, those entering the UK illegally will be flown to Rwanda to apply for asylum there.

About 31 people have been told they may be on the first flight to the east African nation.

The government hopes the scheme will discourage asylum seekers from crossing the English Channel, by making it clear many cases will now be dealt with by Rwanda.

There will be a full judicial review of the policy before the end of July, the court heard.

Home Office lawyers had told the court the plan must not be stopped by legal challenges because it was in the public interest, and also urged the judge to reject challenges on behalf of individual asylum seekers.

Campaigners had sought to block the flight from leaving, as well as individual people being placed on it.

Their lawyers raised concerns about shortcomings in the Rwanda asylum system and the possibility that people could be sent on to countries where they would be persecuted - a process known as refoulment.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Swift said: "I do not consider there is any evidence for the duration of the interim period that there will be ill-treatment, refoulement, or anything that gives rise to Article 3 treatment."

However, the judge granted the campaigners and migrants the right to appeal his decision and said the Court of Appeal would be able to hear their case on Monday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61763818

So asylum seekers are going to get dumped in Rwanda after all.

 

[topspin]

Priti Patel tries too hard.

Yes tries to hard to fit in. Vile Individual.

 

[topspin]

This was never meant to be practical, it was all about getting approval from the right-wing.

 

[Robert]

This was never meant to be practical, it was all about getting approval from the right-wing.

This.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes tries to hard to fit in. Vile Individual.

Patel visited Rwanda to check out the hostel where refugees would be housed. All refugees were told to leave the residence and sent out for the day so Priti could be shown around in comfort. They are treated as some sort of sub-human animals told to leave for the day.

Remember Patel is actually a tratior for meeting Israelis in secret, reason why she was sacked previously. Its no coincidence Rwanda to take refugees was an Israeli idea, inc sending Black Jews as they didnt fit into the Jewish state or their biblical estate agent.

 

[James]

Our current ruling class has some deeply sinister, corrupt and compromised people amongst its ranks, but Priti Patel may well be the worst of them all.

She is a proven persistent workplace bully who benefited from a series of internal cover ups.

Priti was also caught holding clandestine meetings in the Golan Heights but was fired by Theresa May before she could start illegally funnelling British government money into support for the IDF, an act which at the time was judged too dodgy and extreme for even the Tory Party.

A truly chilling woman.

 

[Kroll]

Yes tries to hard to fit in. Vile Individual.

Patel visited Rwanda to check out the hostel where refugees would be housed. All refugees were told to leave the residence and sent out for the day so Priti could be shown around in comfort. They are treated as some sort of sub-human animals told to leave for the day.

Remember Patel is actually a tratior for meeting Israelis in secret, reason why she was sacked previously. Its no coincidence Rwanda to take refugees was an Israeli idea, inc sending Black Jews as they didnt fit into the Jewish state or their biblical estate agent.

Our current ruling class has some deeply sinister, corrupt and compromised people amongst its ranks, but Priti Patel may well be the worst of them all.

She is a proven persistent workplace bully who benefited from a series of internal cover ups.

Priti was also caught holding clandestine meetings in the Golan Heights but was fired by Theresa May before she could start illegally funnelling British government money into support for the IDF, an act which at the time was judged too dodgy and extreme for even the Tory Party.

A truly chilling woman.

Sad excuse of a human being and disgrace to humanity.

 

[PakLFC]

Exactly how do we "process" an already afraid and vulnerable people?

 

[topspin]

Patel visited Rwanda to check out the hostel where refugees would be housed. All refugees were told to leave the residence and sent out for the day so Priti could be shown around in comfort. They are treated as some sort of sub-human animals told to leave for the day.

Remember Patel is actually a tratior for meeting Israelis in secret, reason why she was sacked previously. Its no coincidence Rwanda to take refugees was an Israeli idea, inc sending Black Jews as they didnt fit into the Jewish state or their biblical estate agent.

She should have been fired from working for the Tories ever again but I guess some powerful powerful with mpeny wouldn't have allowed that happen.

 

[MenInG]

Prince Charles is said to have privately called the UK government's plans to send some illegal migrants to Rwanda "appalling".

The first deportations under the contentious deal are expected to happen next week after the High Court ruled on Friday that a flight taking asylum seekers to the east African country can go ahead.

They will be the first migrants to be sent there to have their asylum claims processed since the government announced the policy in April.

A source heard the Prince of Wales expressing his opposition to the plans in a private conversation, according to The Times.

The prince, 73, is said to be particularly frustrated because he is due to represent the Queen at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in the Rwandan capital Kigali this month.

A spokesperson for the prince stopped short of denying reports that he is said to be privately "disappointed" by the strategy. Clarence House insisted he had not tried to influence the government.

A spokesperson said: "We would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with The Prince of Wales, except to restate that he remains politically neutral. Matters of policy are decisions for government."

A group of people thought to be migrants are brought in to Dungeness, Kent, onboard the RNLI Dungeness Lifeboat, following a small boat incident in the Channel. Picture date: Tuesday May 17, 2022.

The judge at the High Court refused to grant an injunction sought by campaigners to block the one-way flight to Rwanda next Tuesday.

The campaign groups said they would appeal against the decision on Monday.

More than 30 people who arrived in the UK illegally are due to be on the plane to Rwanda the following day. The Home Office is set to schedule more flights this year.

Lawyers for nearly 100 migrants had submitted legal challenges asking to stay. Activists said the government's policy was "not safe" and vowed to keep fighting, claiming that "forcibly deporting people... could profoundly harm their mental health and future".

The Home Office argues the policy will deter people from making dangerous Channel crossings from France in flimsy small boats run by smugglers. Officials believe the removal plan is in the public interest and must not be stopped.

Welcoming the court ruling, Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted: "We cannot allow people traffickers to put lives at risk and our world leading partnership will help break the business model of these ruthless criminals."

Home Secretary Priti Patel said: "We will not be deterred in breaking the deadly people smuggling trade and ultimately saving lives."

She also insisted Rwanda is a "safe country and has previously been recognised for providing a safe haven for refugees".

Up to 130 people have been notified they could be removed.

Two campaign groups - Detention Action and Care4Calais - joined the PCS Union and four individual asylum seekers in bringing legal action against the Home Office.

The judge, Jonathan Swift, ruled against the claim, saying: "There is a material public interest in the home secretary being able to implement immigration decisions."

Graeme McGregor, from Detention Action, told Sky News: "We are obviously disappointed by this initial decision from the High Court. We have been granted application to appeal and that appeal will be going ahead on Monday so we'll see what the outcome of that is.

"And we continue to be very concerned about the safety and welfare of those 30 or so people who are being threatened with being sent to Rwanda."

Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, said: "We are deeply concerned for the welfare of people who may be forcibly deported to Rwanda, a fate that could profoundly harm their mental health and future."

The court was told that the UN refugee agency had a number of concerns about the asylum process in Rwanda, including discriminatory access to asylum - including for LGBT people - a lack of legal representation and interpreters, and difficulties in appealing.

Why are migrants being sent to Rwanda and how will it work?

In the first stage of legal action, brought on Friday, Raza Husain QC, for the claimants, told the court: "The system is not safe. It is not that it is not safe after July, it is just not safe.

"You may be arbitrarily denied access to it. If you do get into it, there are concerns about the impartiality of the decision-making."

The Home Office has said five other people who were due to be deported will not be sent to Rwanda after they had their removal directions cancelled.

The court was also told that a second flight may be scheduled for Thursday, which the Home Office denied.

The High Court is due to hear a further challenge to the policy on Monday, brought by Asylum Aid, a refugee charity, and supported by fellow campaign group Freedom From Torture.

SKY

 

[Robert]

Our current ruling class has some deeply sinister, corrupt and compromised people amongst its ranks, but Priti Patel may well be the worst of them all.

She is a proven persistent workplace bully who benefited from a series of internal cover ups.

Priti was also caught holding clandestine meetings in the Golan Heights but was fired by Theresa May before she could start illegally funnelling British government money into support for the IDF, an act which at the time was judged too dodgy and extreme for even the Tory Party.

A truly chilling woman.

She has no regard for people. If the law did not constrain her I believe she would do something outright evil.

Terrifying that such a person could accede to high office in the United Kingdom. Slowly her ilk are turning us into an authoritarian kleptocracy like Putin’s Russia.

 

[James]

She has no regard for people. If the law did not constrain her I believe she would do something outright evil.

Terrifying that such a person could accede to high office in the United Kingdom. Slowly her ilk are turning us into an authoritarian kleptocracy like Putin’s Russia.

Patel’s chances depend on who takes over as PM.

Johnson won’t last much longer, certainly not until a General Election.

If he steps down and we get a Conservative leadership contest, looking at the current balance of opinion amongst their MPs from the secret ballot I think the Final Two would turn out to be a right-wing Continuity Johnson (Johnsonuity?) candidate, and then a more liberal moderate candidate.
It would then be up to Conservative Party members to select their preference.
(If this happens, perhaps we should all briefly join the ranks so we can influence the vote?)

Whereas if the change in PM were to come if/when the Labour Party comes back into government, Starmer / Rayner / Streeting etc would take over and we would have a fresh start — not saying it would be a perfect change (or even a good one) but surely would be better than what the Tory Party has become nowadays. (Soubry called them “Purple Momentum”.)

 

[James]

She has no regard for people. If the law did not constrain her I believe she would do something outright evil.

Terrifying that such a person could accede to high office in the United Kingdom. Slowly her ilk are turning us into an authoritarian kleptocracy like Putin’s Russia.

Didn’t Priti suggest we should starve Irish people in the ROI for retaliation over Varadkar/Brexit. Almost comical in its surrealism. Hideous woman

 

[Robert]

Didn’t Priti suggest we should starve Irish people in the ROI for retaliation over Varadkar/Brexit. Almost comical in its surrealism. Hideous woman

Dear Lord.

That's our Foreign Secretary. What must the Dail think? The EU? The American Irish lobby? Johnson's cabinet has trashed our reputation for moderate, measured competence.

 

[James]

Dear Lord.

That's our Foreign Secretary. What must the Dail think? The EU? The American Irish lobby? Johnson's cabinet has trashed our reputation for moderate, measured competence.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/p...it-leo-varadkar-home-secretary-warning-318794

Brexit has made so many people lose their minds.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Patel does things that appeal to people like my elder right wing colleagues when they are discussing politics over a fag break.

Complex brexit negotiations - lets starve them!

Too many criminals - Let's bring the death penalty!

Too much immigration - Send them to Africa!

 

[Technics 1210]

I for one support this policy 100%.

First and foremost, the majority who oppose this policy should first read it. This policy is all about deterrence, in particular human smugglers.

The majority of illegal refugees/asylum seekers are via human traffickers; this has to stop. Then you have the next bracket, via war torn countries such as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc. Also, this policy will deter the likes of PDM crooks and supporters wanting to flee Pakistan! No more fraudulent claims of political/religious asylum at the gates of Heathrow.

Here's an idea for Liberals out there, stand against war! Stop supporting NATO! Stop supporting the warmongering MSM narrative and you might, just might, see a reduction of refugees from war torn nations, nations which the UK have a hand in dropping bombs on innocent people.

Additional bonus information, this policy doesn't apply to approve refugee numbers, such as refugees from Ukraine, that are within government quotas. Read the policy.

If liberals really cared about refugees, then how many of you have housed refugees? Yes, a big fat ZERO!

If anyone wants to settle in the UK, then do so legally. Enough is enough, I am sick and tired of my tax contributions funding illegals.

No more freebies.

 

[Kroll]

Yes tries to hard to fit in. Vile Individual.

I thought Sajid Javid was bad with coconutism but she's a coconut extremist. There must be some sort of coconut secret society within the ranks of parliament.

 

[Robert]

Brexit has made so many people lose their minds.

Slowly, peoples’ minds are changing about that. Even some hardcore leavers are saying we should have stayed in the SM. Johnson’s bad deal has not been much scrutinised due to COVID and then Ukraine, but the evidence is stacking up and even the Tory tabloids are becoming critical.

 

[topspin]

I thought Sajid Javid was bad with coconutism but she's a coconut extremist. There must be some sort of coconut secret society within the ranks of parliament.

The worst thing about the Tories is they're using brown faced individuals to demonise people of colour whether it be migrants, Muslims, Windrush generation etc.

Remember Saj Javid was the one who announced that Shamima Begum would be stripped of her UK citizenship. I don't care about the girl and have no sympathy for her (as she joined ISIS) but the bottom line is why are our Desis in the Conservative party being indulged in these matters? Is it because they don't want to give this image of "if our coloured politicians agree it, we can't be racist".

I do think Saj is a relatively decent guy for a Tory but Priti Patel would bend over backwards to impress the right-wing, which is ironic as her family were kicked out of Uganda, so they had to come to the UK to seek asylum.

 

[Robert]

The worst thing about the Tories is they're using brown faced individuals to demonise people of colour whether it be migrants, Muslims, Windrush generation etc.

Remember Saj Javid was the one who announced that Shamima Begum would be stripped of her UK citizenship. I don't care about the girl and have no sympathy for her (as she joined ISIS) but the bottom line is why are our Desis in the Conservative party being indulged in these matters? Is it because they don't want to give this image of "if our coloured politicians agree it, we can't be racist".

I do think Saj is a relatively decent guy for a Tory but Priti Patel would bend over backwards to impress the right-wing, which is ironic as her family were kicked out of Uganda, so they had to come to the UK to seek asylum.

Of course it is.

The shameful thing is that the Tories are basically the BNP in nice suits fronted by desis now.

 

[James]

Slowly, peoples’ minds are changing about that. Even some hardcore leavers are saying we should have stayed in the SM. Johnson’s bad deal has not been much scrutinised due to COVID and then Ukraine, but the evidence is stacking up and even the Tory tabloids are becoming critical.

Yes,

Btw I’m talking about hardcore Remainers in some cases as well

 

[James]

The shameful thing is that the Tories are basically the BNP in nice suits fronted by desis now.

I think UKIP more than BNP is the accurate comparison.

The BNP advocated capital punishment and overseas island prisons, repatriation for immigrants and people of colour, Holocaust denial, repeal of the Firearms Act, opposing gender equality, and banning civil partnerships for LGBT people. The Conservative Party whilst increasingly losing its grip on reality has not gone this far down the rabbit hole yet.

The Tories now are closer to Faragism at the height of UKIP’s popularity i.e. increased isolationism from the EU, pro-US / pro-Anglosphere and pro-Israel, a suspicious view of Muslims, a strongly Eurosceptic points-based immigration system, and a Thatcherite economics which seeks to gradually shrink the British public sector: e.g. further privatisation of medicine, dentistry and the NHS, attempting to defund the BBC, anti trade unionism, greater business deregulation and diminishing protections for workers, etc.

But very right wing for sure.

 

[Robert]

Yes,

Btw I’m talking about hardcore Remainers in some cases as well

I'm as hardcore Remainer as they come, total zeal of the convert, and I'd be content with SM access. Perhaps we should have stayed there like Norway instead of signing up to Maastricht.

 

[MenInG]

Rwanda's government has asked for the scheme to send some illegal migrants to its country to be given "a chance", after Prince Charles is said to have privately called it "appalling".

Yolande Makolo, a spokesperson for the Kigali government, told Sky News the scheme is "well thought out" and it is the responsibility of governments of Africa to give people on the continent the chance to live "decent" lives, without the need to emigrate.

She said what was "appalling" was that migrants were risking "their lives crossing the ocean, trying to cross the desert", rather than being given the chance to have "dignified" lives in their home countries.

She refused to be drawn on whether the Prince of Wales had gone too far but said he would be welcomed, along with "all these guests that are coming to Kigali" when Charles represents the Queen at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in the Rwandan capital this month.

It comes after The Times cited a source who said they had heard Charles expressing his opposition to the plans in a private conversation.

The first deportations under the contentious deal are expected to happen next week after the High Court ruled on Friday that a flight taking asylum seekers to the east African country can go ahead.

They will be the first migrants to be sent there to have their asylum claims processed since the government announced the policy in April.

SKY

 

[James]

I'm as hardcore Remainer as they come, total zeal of the convert, and I'd be content with SM access. Perhaps we should have stayed there like Norway instead of signing up to Maastricht.

UK should join EFTA.

 

[Robert]

UK should join EFTA.

They won’t let us, as our economy is bigger that theirs combined. There will have to be some special deal with the EU.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The worst thing about the Tories is they're using brown faced individuals to demonise people of colour whether it be migrants, Muslims, Windrush generation etc.

Remember Saj Javid was the one who announced that Shamima Begum would be stripped of her UK citizenship. I don't care about the girl and have no sympathy for her (as she joined ISIS) but the bottom line is why are our Desis in the Conservative party being indulged in these matters? Is it because they don't want to give this image of "if our coloured politicians agree it, we can't be racist".

I do think Saj is a relatively decent guy for a Tory but Priti Patel would bend over backwards to impress the right-wing, which is ironic as her family were kicked out of Uganda, so they had to come to the UK to seek asylum.

Can I just ask you, why would anyone take you seriously when you have been criticising British people of Pakistani descent for being British, and at the same time using racist stereotypes to castigate actual Pakistanis as conspiracy theorists?

People like you blow with the wind. Most of this stuff about Sajid and Priti was pointed out long before if you'd bothered to take notice instead of dancing bhangra Bollywood dances on behalf of those who don't need message board minders.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I for one support this policy 100%.

First and foremost, the majority who oppose this policy should first read it. This policy is all about deterrence, in particular human smugglers.

The majority of illegal refugees/asylum seekers are via human traffickers; this has to stop. Then you have the next bracket, via war torn countries such as Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc. Also, this policy will deter the likes of PDM crooks and supporters wanting to flee Pakistan! No more fraudulent claims of political/religious asylum at the gates of Heathrow.

Here's an idea for Liberals out there, stand against war! Stop supporting NATO! Stop supporting the warmongering MSM narrative and you might, just might, see a reduction of refugees from war torn nations, nations which the UK have a hand in dropping bombs on innocent people.

Additional bonus information, this policy doesn't apply to approve refugee numbers, such as refugees from Ukraine, that are within government quotas. Read the policy.

If liberals really cared about refugees, then how many of you have housed refugees? Yes, a big fat ZERO!

If anyone wants to settle in the UK, then do so legally. Enough is enough, I am sick and tired of my tax contributions funding illegals.

No more freebies.

I have two issues with it.

1. Ukranians are not part of this. I arrived at BHX , a table was set up with 3 women and a banner for Ukranians. I asked if they are allowed to help Brits too, one woman laughed and answered my question. The rule must be for all not some.

2. Genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution or are targets will easily be found in Rwanda and killed.

Also if Britain claims it cares so much for Iraqis, Libyans etc , was willing to spend billions on bombs, it would only then makes sense they care enough to take those people in but Brit government never cared, it was for imperial reasons, never to save anyone.

But something does need to be done to stop people dying in the sea. This Rwanda policy wont stop them.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I have two issues with it.

1. Ukranians are not part of this. I arrived at BHX , a table was set up with 3 women and a banner for Ukranians. I asked if they are allowed to help Brits too, one woman laughed and answered my question. The rule must be for all not some.

2. Genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution or are targets will easily be found in Rwanda and killed.

Also if Britain claims it cares so much for Iraqis, Libyans etc , was willing to spend billions on bombs, it would only then makes sense they care enough to take those people in but Brit government never cared, it was for imperial reasons, never to save anyone.

But something does need to be done to stop people dying in the sea. This Rwanda policy wont stop them.

If they don't want to die in the sea they could always stay on land.

 

[Gilly]

2. Genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution or are targets will easily be found in Rwanda and killed.

Which countries will hunt down asylum seekers and kill them?.

 

[KingKhanWC]

If they don't want to die in the sea they could always stay on land.

These would be mixed messages. Let me give you an example.

David Cameron as PM was shouting from the rooftops, Gaddafi is evil, he is killing his people etc etc. UK with its heroic friends decided they love the Libyans so much , they will spend hundreds of millions in missiles, suppport terrorists to oust Gaddafi and save the people. Since then black men are being sold as slaves in the open in Libya. If one of those black 'slaves' ran free, he would want to get to UK right? The nation which wants to save him and other Libyans. So why would he stay on land as a slave when he can try to cross the sea to his saviours in God Save the Queen Land?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Which countries will hunt down asylum seekers and kill them?.

Any country or person who is targetting them.

Or maybe Great Rwanda itself where police shoot them dead?

"Rwandan authorities have failed to release their investigations of the fatal shooting of 12 refugees by police in western Rwanda on February 22, 2018,"

I hope the aborigines one day have power to send in illegal white immigrants and their offspring to Rwanda.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Any country or person who is targetting them.

Or maybe Great Rwanda itself where police shoot them dead?

"Rwandan authorities have failed to release their investigations of the fatal shooting of 12 refugees by police in western Rwanda on February 22, 2018,"

I hope the aborigines one day have power to send in illegal white immigrants and their offspring to Rwanda.

Whites have been living there for over 200 years. They are natives now. If you think they need to leave Australia, then a lot of people have to vacate the countries they currently reside in.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Whites have been living there for over 200 years. They are natives now. If you think they need to leave Australia, then a lot of people have to vacate the countries they currently reside in.

A in GCSE history I see.

I was being sarcastic to the poster. However the white race entered into the land illegally and immorally yet now we descendants wanting to ship anyone coming over in a legal way as a refugee to be shipped to an island in the middle of the pacific.

Australia also joined invading nations ie in Afghanistan, claiming it cared for Afghan women but dont care enough to allow them to settle in a huge area of land which they themselves stole.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

These would be mixed messages. Let me give you an example.

David Cameron as PM was shouting from the rooftops, Gaddafi is evil, he is killing his people etc etc. UK with its heroic friends decided they love the Libyans so much , they will spend hundreds of millions in missiles, suppport terrorists to oust Gaddafi and save the people. Since then black men are being sold as slaves in the open in Libya. If one of those black 'slaves' ran free, he would want to get to UK right? The nation which wants to save him and other Libyans. So why would he stay on land as a slave when he can try to cross the sea to his saviours in God Save the Queen Land?

These people are paying good money to get passage to the boats right? This is what we are being told anyway. Why not spend that money to improve your life at home?

 

[KingKhanWC]

These people are paying good money to get passage to the boats right? This is what we are being told anyway. Why not spend that money to improve your life at home?

The example I gave was of Libya, they arent paying anything much at all. You are confusing your Royal Famiys QE2 or some Yacht with a boat made out of wood.

So I ask again, why should a Libyan stay on land when he/she is suffering instead of coming to the land which cared for them so much, it spent millions bombing their country into freedom? Surely Brits even the Queen should embrace these people or have the Brits stopped caring?

Imo let millions in, the UK needs migrant workers, we have fruit farms which are struggling to attract workers. Even the Queen is looking for a housekeeper, although not willing to pay min wage, it will still help many people.