Well, this is one for the books.
The UK is paying Rwanda, a country the UK itself has criticised for its lack of human rights, 250 million pounds and a further 150.000 pounds per refugee, to accept asylum seekers who “illegally” enter Britain.

It will cost the British tax payer 63.000 pounds per refugee more than keeping the refugee in Britain.

It’s obviously a scheme that’s going to be short-lived, but do you think it’s acceptable?

Is it morally okay to send asylum seekers to third countries to be processed and live (they can’t return to Britain)?

And if so, is changing the law to make said third-party country “a safe country” in anyway acceptable?

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866

In November 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful.
It said genuine refugees would be at risk of being returned to their home countries, where they could face harm.
This breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR.

After the Supreme Court ruled that the scheme was unlawful, the government introduced a bill to make clear in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country.

The legislation - which was finally approved on 22 April after intense political wrangling - orders the courts to ignore key sections of the Human Rights Act.
It also compels the courts to disregard other British laws or international rules - such as the international Refugee Convention - which would block deportations to Rwanda.
The UK government also signed a new migration treaty with Rwanda, which Home Secretary James Cleverly said guarantees that anyone sent there would not risk being returned to their home country.

@shavixmir said
Well, this is one for the books.
The UK is paying Rwanda, a country the UK itself has criticised for its lack of human rights, 250 million pounds and a further 150.000 pounds per refugee, to accept asylum seekers who “illegally” enter Britain.

It will cost the British tax payer 63.000 pounds per refugee more than keeping the refugee in Britain.

It’s obviously a schem ...[text shortened]... said guarantees that anyone sent there would not risk being returned to their home country.[/quote]

@shavixmir said
Is it morally okay to send asylum seekers to third countries to be processed and live (they can’t return to Britain)?

@divegeester said
On this point; why is it every EU country of which they have travelled to and have applied for asylum in, has rejected them?

@shavixmir said
That would be one country within the Schengen arrangement will have rejected them.
And that, I presume, will be on an individual basis.

Sending them to Rwanda???

@shavixmir said
That would be one country within the Schengen arrangement will have rejected them.
And that, I presume, will be on an individual basis.

@kevcvs57 said
Seeing boatload after boatload of mainly young men tromping up the beach is disconcerting but so I seeing the plight of where these people are coming from such as Sudan, Afghanistan and the Middle East

@shavixmir said
Well, this is one for the books.
The UK is paying Rwanda, a country the UK itself has criticised for its lack of human rights, 250 million pounds and a further 150.000 pounds per refugee, to accept asylum seekers who “illegally” enter Britain.

It will cost the British tax payer 63.000 pounds per refugee more than keeping the refugee in Britain.

It’s obviously a schem ...[text shortened]... said guarantees that anyone sent there would not risk being returned to their home country.[/quote]

@kevcvs57 said
It’s funny not funny that the government claims it is perfectly fine to find yourself in Rwanda as an asylum seeker whilst the stated purpose of sending them their at great expense per head is to act as a deterrent to the boats.
Seeing boatload after boatload of mainly young men tromping up the beach is disconcerting but so I seeing the plight of where these people are coming from such as Sudan, Afghanistan and the Middle East

@suzianne said
If this is true, it is just like Texas governor Abbott and Florida governor DeSantis sending immigrants to blue states.

Actually, thinking about it, it does seem far worse. At least Rwanda gets paid to put them up, not like they will, of course.

@divegeester said
Denmark and Australia already have similar deportation policies in place. And they have worked, at least for Australia. However getting to AUZ is more difficult in the first place.

@wajoma said
Yep, Aus was sending the boat people to Manus Island where conditions were so bad people asked to go home again.

@shavixmir said
Well, this is one for the books.
The UK is paying Rwanda, a country the UK itself has criticised for its lack of human rights, 250 million pounds and a further 150.000 pounds per refugee, to accept asylum seekers who “illegally” enter Britain.

It will cost the British tax payer 63.000 pounds per refugee more than keeping the refugee in Britain.

It’s obviously a schem ...[text shortened]... said guarantees that anyone sent there would not risk being returned to their home country.[/quote]

@divegeester said
Why only one?
Why don’t they settle in ANY of the EU countries?
How can they be “refugees” when they are coming from EU countries?
Why is the UK so much more attractive than EU countries that they risk their lives to get here?
Why should the UK take hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants whom the EU won’t take?

Etc etc …

@rajk999 said
Large scale illegal immigration should be stopped dead in its tracts. I can understand a few people being persecuted and need to leave the country. Hundreds or thousands or millions ... NFW... Stop them. Send them back. Investige why this is happening. Offer some help. Eg there is a ruthless government maybe Islamic Extremists took over the country and killing nonMuslim ...[text shortened]... nd help set up a democratic government.

You cannot destroy your house and then come live in mine.