The Safety of Rwanda Act allow the British government to finally, after two years, enact its policy to permanently deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Some of the most vulnerable people in Britain will be rounded up, detained and then — in theory — flown some 4,000 miles to Rwanda’s capital, Kigali.
Nearly 30,000 people made small-boat journeys to Britain last year alone, and deaths have become more common. Five people, including a child, died making the crossing last week, hours after the bill passed.
The deal was condemned by human rights groups and the United Nations’ refugee agency, which urged both countries to rethink the plans, and then it was delayed by legal challenges.
It’s also not clear that Rwanda has the facilities to accommodate people at scale — 70 percent of the homes in a Kigali housing development the British government said was being prepared to accommodate deportees have reportedly been sold to local buyers.
@ScornfulZealousPatriot2wks2W
People who complain about the Rwanda policy will complain about any other policy for the simple reason that they don't really want the problem of illegal immigration solved, and they don't want it solved because they don't think it's a problem. And then, in a couple of days, we'll get another article about why the far right is rising in Europe
Countries have a right to decide who gets in (and yes, people do have a right to asylum but a) that right is being widely abused in order to prevent deportation of people who don't have the slightest chance of actually being granted asylum and b) there are dozens upon dozens of safe countries where people could seek asylum before reaching Britain, which is another sign that we are not really talking about asylum
I am a lifelong Democratic-ticket voter who is concerned about the growing immigration crisis in the US, which could lead to Trump's re-election.
All nations have requirements for, and limits on, who may become citizens and who may enter the country, and virtually all nations exclude those who are, or are likely to become, on the public dole, or who enter illegally.
@ScornfulZealousPatriot2wks2W
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants. They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the 15-20 million illegal immigrants already in the US, much less the billion or more foreigners who would like to come here.
@DoughnutBrianUnity2wks2W
Countries have borders. That's how the world works, and that's how it has been for a long time. Crossing borders without permission is not allowed. So if you want to visit another country be sure to get permission, by going to an approved crossing point and showing your passport.
Entering a country some other way does not automatically make you a refugee.
Why not stay in your countries and work to improve them? The answer is that an immigrant from a dirt poor country can make a lot of money here ($20/hr here in CA for fast food worker) and send significant amounts back to their home country.
Perhaps under Trump, the USA can explore a similar program with South American countries, such as Venezuela?
@JoyfulP4ndaVeteran2wks2W
As an outsider, this Rwanda bill seems sorely needed. Every time I go to London, I meet and see fewer and fewer indigenous British people. Apparently, they're now a minority in their own capital city!
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
