The Rwanda Project...

Post Reply New Topic

If a person comes to the UK seeking asylum and their application gets rejected why then would they get flown off to Rwanda. I can perfectly understand it if they were originally from Rwanda but if our government rejects the application on the grounds that they are not at any kind of risk in the country where they came from then why are they wasting so much money and time sending them to Rwanda. This makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Seems a bit random to me too. Better to turn back the boats mid channel before they enter British waters and force them to go back to France imo. Their asylum claims should be processed in France as well.

I also don't agree with British tax payers money being used to put these people in hotels when we have a housing crisis and British people forced to live on the streets.

In Australia asylum seekers are put on offshore detention. The cost of offshore detention is so great that its often cheaper to detail/house asylum seekers in hotels on the mainland.

Rwanda is a lovely place, especially the weather. If the government would also give them something to eat, I wouldn't be too bothered. Doesn't mean I'm much impressed by the British government in general, at least Truss is gone.

BTW Rwanda was a Belgian possession, not British. Uganda was British.

Yeah

We've actually processed people from Rwanda who have sought asylum in the passed as well.

If I travelled to America via an illegal route and wanted asylum and they would of course reject my application based on me coming from England. Would the US government put me on a plane back to the UK or would they send me to a completely different country altogether?

If you arrived by air, then you'd have a tourist visa (I don't know the rules for UK) and you'd overstay it. Unlikely they'd deport you. You could probably stay indefinitely, but if you left then you'd not be let back in.

If you successfully crossed on foot (from Mexico in this case) then you would probably be detained. Depending on the mood of the government at that time, you might be sent back across or you might be released. In that case, you would I guess be pending an asylum hearing, which might happen eventually.

I don't think a person is supposed to apply for asylum after overstaying a tourist visa, but they could try.

The Rwanda project doesn't actually quite work like this. The truly gross part of it is that they don't even get their applications processed here. That's what's being outsourced, the processing.

So by the time anyone has even considered whether they have a legitimate claim to asylum, they're already in Rwanda.

Unfortunately, this experiment is being closely watched and we could well see a world very soon where wealthy countries selling their international obligations on is a commonplace thing.

Yep. Officially, anyone who arrives outside of schemes like the ones for Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong, will have their claim automatically shoved off onto Rwanda rather than properly considered in the UK.

Did they ever consider a British possession, such as the Falklands, or St. Helena, or maybe one of the Caribbean islands (if you still have some territory there)?

There was talk of using Ascension Island at one point iirc, but it's all just nonsense designed to placate the right wing press by sounding tough.

They could have processing centres in France if they would grow up and talk to the EU about it, open up a legal route for genuine asylum seekers to get here and the small boats issue goes away.

I didn't even know this

.

Insane

The only way I can get into America would be via Russia by rowing boat I think because of my criminal record