Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Suella Braverman/Rwanda abomination.

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1674524653539282945

It’s been almost four years since I left the UK and, despite being a bit of a politics junkie, I sometimes find it rather difficult to follow UK political news. Especially when a particular issue floods the media for a while, then completely vanishes, then comes back again in a flurry of media attention. So, I’m appealing to any and all politically savvy Brits on this site to help me out. Yes, I’m looking at you @Burnley123.

It's about the Suella Braverman/Rwanda abomination.

To our American friends that don’t know, Suella Braverman is a member of the Tory Party, is a second-generation immigrant (her parents are both from India, she was born in the UK) and, is the current Home Secretary. As such, one of her key responsibilities is immigration.

The “Rwanda abomination” that I refer to was first put forward in April 2022 by the then Home Secretary, Priti Patel. Who, yet again, is a second-generation immigrant of Indian descent (ie born in the UK but both her parents are from India, this time via Uganda).

A deal was made with the Rwanda government whereby illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees that had made their way into the UK, would be deported to Rwanda for processing, asylum and settlement. IF THEY QUALIFY. Qualify what exactly?

Rwanda, the country that had one of the worst genocides in modern history as recently as 1994. Rwanda, a country with a 45% poverty rate and an average life expectancy of 65.

So what is it that I need help with, I hear you ask.

No, it’s not; WTF is wrong with two successive Home Secretaries that are of Indian descent, are the offspring of immigrants, and have zero compassion and understanding about the plight of the people that could very well have been their bloody parents!

My question is this; have the Tories provided any kind of information to the general voting public which shows exactly what provisions have been put in place for the people that will be dumped in Rwanda?

Because these people have already been classified as “Illegals”, it is more than likely that they are currently languishing in various deportation centres. Which, in turn, means that they will arrive in Rwanda with nothing more than the clothes on their backs.

How the hell will these poor souls survive?
Is the British public aware?

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

SW-User

All just part of the abomination that is the current UK Government.

Richard65 · M

A Home Office economic assessment released Monday night revealed that the Rwanda plan, which was announced in spring 2022 but is yet to see a single flight take off amid legal challenge, will cost an estimated £169,000 per migrant. That's more than it costs to house them in the UK. It's estimated to cost the government £5.6 million per day to house migrants in British hotels.

Meanwhile, the government has “quietly handed” a £1.6 billion contract for its planned asylum-seeker housing barges to an Australian travel firm, Corporate Travel Management. The two-year deal will cover the Bibby Stockholm and two additional vessels announced by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak earlier this month, “as well as bridging accommodation and travel services”, the Home Office told the Independent news site.

The three-storey “floatel”, moored in the privately run Portland Harbour off Weymouth in Dorset, would be “significantly cheaper” than hotels, said the Home Office.

View 6 more replies »

Richard65 · M

@room101 I agree, it beggars belief. Whilst I appreciate we cannot just let everybody enter the country unchecked, it's 100% a Conservative Party failure after 13 years in power. Because they've wholly failed to invest in a suitable immigration system, they've resorted to the basest tactic of blaming the immigrants and vilifying them as "other" and potentially dangerous, in order to appeal to their racist core support. The language they use is simply a dog whistle to rally the worst examples of that bigoted core support. It's not enough that they deported the Windrush Generation, which is arguably the lowest point reached by the lowest politicians in the land.

Thank you for adding to the rich tapestry of culture immigrants have brought to our country 😊

Roundandroundwego · 61-69

@Richard65 prison for everyone. The Brits should be fine, there.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Richard65 The vast majority of my friends back in the UK are children of the Windrush Generation. My closest friend (he's from Trinidad, we've been friends since I was 16) told me that in the early 80's he received a letter from the Home Office telling him that he had to formerly apply for citizenship. He did so.

From what he told me, a number of our mutual friends didn't because they believed that they automatically became citizens either because of the Windrush migration plan or, because they were born in the UK.

Word soon got around that they were wrong in their assumptions so they too went through the citizenship process.

The whole thing was disgraceful.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

No, it’s not; WTF is wrong with two successive Home Secretaries that are of Indian descent, are the offspring of immigrants, and have zero compassion and understanding about the plight of the people that could very well have been their bloody parents!

From a moral point of view: This is brazen hypocrisy and shows a complete lack of compassion and also a lack of solidarity with people who were in the same situation as your parents.

It only makes sense from the point of self-interest. As the British establishment cleaves further to the right on 'culture-war' issues, it needs politicians who are prepared to do nasty things. The Tories have no solutions to people's economic problems so their strategy is to double down on immigrant bashing in the hope that they can retain the loyalty of 'red-wall' voters. (northern working or lower-middle-class people who supported Brexit and voted Conservative in 2019).

To look 'serious about immigration' and 'populist,' the Tories need to go further before and break with international norms and international law. They don't actually want to reduce the immigration of skilled workers that the economy needs and their donors want so then they are left with beating down on the poor and the needy: People fleeing famines and war zones. This is nasty and (in?)arguably racist but they don't want to look that nasty or racist so they need a fig leaf.

This is where Braverman comes in. Her party and its supporters 'can't be racist' if this abhorrent policy is implemented by a person of colour. Braverman gets to be Home Secretary and have her family join the top tier of the British establishment whilst pulling up the drawbridge and stamping on the heads of others. Her party and its supporters get the cover of her identity.

My question is this; have the Tories provided any kind of information to the general voting public which shows exactly what provisions have been put in place for the people that will be dumped in Rwanda?

I doubt very much that they have. The policy is almost certainly in breach of international law so they will want to avoid details for that reason. Also, the whole point of this policy is that it is aimed at impressing people who don't care about the plight of refugees and don't see that as equal humans.

Thanks for the call-out btw.

View 3 more replies »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Rhode57 Sigh. 'Illegal' immigrants are people who stay in Britain but don't claim asylum or stay after their claim has been rejected. This policy is aimed at topping people trying to claim asylum legally.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Burnley123 Thank you mate. I knew that I could rely on you to tell it as it is.

Rhode57 · 56-60, M

@Burnley123 Yes but alot as the government have admitted dont claim assylum they just disappear and are often only found when immigration and the police etc raid foreign owned takeaways etc and find them working illegally .

Scribbles · 36-40, F

I remember when I first heard of this last year. Many Conservatives here in America applauded the idea, and felt validated to come up with schemes to strand or deport "illegal immigrants" here and scare people into not coming to America by allowing refugees to be subject to violence, suffering, and death rather then investing in creating a system that could process larger amounts of people...and investing in inrastructure that could meet the needs of new people and ...others like myself were shocked and angered.

I've followed it a bit because it's shady and dangerous AF and worried me. My first thought was that some shady person saw our title 42 and decided it would be a good idea to implement something similar and just as heinous over there. I can only assume the Tories out there are doing what the republicans do: double down on policies that make immigration even more dangerous, create fear mongering about refugees, that dehumanize and endanger groups that are already at risk...because creating more fear about something is easier then coming up with solutions.

It makes sense to invest in an immigration system that meets the needs of the immigrants entering the country. Just as the government at large is supposed to meet the needs of it's citizens. Immigrant or citizen makes no difference. Which is the point I try to make in my own country. It makes little sense to create an immigration system designed to have little to no accountability, responsibility, and little care about the life, human rights, and well-being of human beings. Much less actively work against their ability to be safe, to life, and to basic human rights.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Scribbles

".......create fear mongering about refugees, that dehumanize and endanger groups that are already at risk...because creating more fear about something is easier then coming up with solutions."

Yep, that's exactly what the Tories have been doing for as long as I can remember. They've just taken it to a whole new level of insanity over the last few years.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

In short, no. The policy is poorly thought out and relies upon the apathy of the British electorate. I'm not sure the PM is particularly comfortable with the 'small boats' strategy (the term is in itself deliberately dehumanising), but it has long since become Home Office orthodoxy and there us little serious attempt to provide a counter-argument.

The Rwanda project was plain bonkers from the outset and will have to be abandoned as it is incompatible with international law . . at great cost to the taxpayer and with nothing to show for the political capital expended.

Kae20 · 56-60, FVIP

Yes this is a hot potato, firstly the anti Rwanda brigade should really take a though look at the positives the country has to offer.

In terms of economics Africa has a whole is on the rise has been for sometime . Where has in Europe unfortunately we in slow decline.

The refugees are being offered a lifeline , like no other yet are hell bound on staying in Britain ( Europe as a whole) risking their lives and costing Billions which should be spent on the homelessness crisis in our country .

When this debate first began to rage I took a closer look at Rawanda , fantastic year round climate , low inflation, high exchange rate to the GBP .

Modern infrastructure, steady economic growth, good housing, technolgical advancment. excellent medical care. Undersatuated jobs market. Fantastic entrepreneurial opportunities.

The UK government far from being the uncaring govt the press is painting them to be is offering stricken refugees a once in a lifetime opportunity to start again. With a financial settlement package to boot.

Left unchecked properganda is a dangerous machine.

My goodness these people need theirs banging together.

Talk about look a gift horse in the mouth.

I would have liked the ruling council to at the very least have voted with their feet by first visting the country on a fact finding business trip . . It would have been the correct and most sensible thing to do before voiding the scheme as unworkable.

Pay a handful of refugee familes to visit Rwanda 🇷🇼 for the a similar fact finding mission.

Documenting the positives has to offer. Taking sensible steps ..before trying to force bills through and chainng bewildered people to plane seats .

Would have made all the difference to scheme being weclomed as a inventive offering.

Instead it is yet another failed plan toward ending the refugee crisis. Aside from Rwanda I can see a myriad of humane alternatives to solving the crisis.
But then who wants to listen to safe & uncomplicated opinion.

Not the Conservative government it seems.

Rhode57 · 56-60, M

I have read most of the posts here and one point is totally missing . Nearly all the illegal immigrants are young men of fighting age fleeing because they dont want to fight for their home . I have no problem with legal immigration like ukrainians fleeing war but the men stayed behind to fight for their home respect to them all and even more respect for those who have paid the ultimate price . Women and kids should be protected but all the men young enough to fight send back . During the Rhodesian Terrorist war and thats what it was backed by Russia and communism we didnt run we stayed to fight with the whole world against us . The world was warned about the outcome and still were against us even when it all came true . Another point is they are crossing our borders illegally so why should we allow it . We have no idea who they are . They could be hardened criminals , rapists etc you dont know . This is why we have legal immigration so that people can be vetted . They should all be arrested the minute they land and put on a plane straight away back from whence they came and told apply legally or you are not welcome .

View 7 more replies »

Rhode57 · 56-60, M

@Richard65 At last a sensible argument . Your right our system is broken and our government dont seem to want to fix it but my argument is still valid . But yes our immigration system does need overhauling your very right about the tories as well .

HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F

@Rhode57 the same old "they didn't stay to fight for their country", yeah because Britain became an empire by staying within its borders. The Brits and a few other Europeans should be the last to say "stay in your country".

Rhode57 · 56-60, M

@HannibalAteMeOut BS .

Jungleman · M

my opinion is they should all be sent back to their country of origin, they are not welcome here, THIS (BRITAIN) ISN'T THEIR HOME!!!!!!

View 4 more replies »

Roundandroundwego · 61-69

@room101 that's okay you ignore everyone. Who's Burnley? What does that even mean? Lolz. Ignore us all.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Roundandroundwego Nope, only dipshit idiots.

Roundandroundwego · 61-69

@room101 we're dip shit idiots. Ignore the other seven billion shocked humans.

Mindful · 56-60, F

Yes, I am a U.S. citizen but did hear about that on the news. It is happening around the world.

This is exactly how I feel about gun control in US

WTF is wrong with two successive Home Secretaries that are of Indian descent, are the offspring of immigrants, and have zero compassion and understanding about the plight of the people that could very well have been their bloody parents!

it could have been them, it could have been their children …

Entwistle · 56-60, M

I'd rather we spent that money housing people who come here seeking asylum.
I'd rather we allow them to work and fill up the many job vacancies.
Suella Braverman is a shit stain on humanity.

OldBrit · 61-69, M

They will be housed in a converted hotel I believe.

Point is Rwanda then process their asylum claim. If accepted they stay in Rwanda of rejected they are deported to home country.

I think that's the plan.

It'll never happen though looking how is going currently.

View 1 more replies »

OldBrit · 61-69, M

@room101 I assume they stay there. Honestly not paid too much attention. It's a ludicrous scheme currently deemed illegal by uk courts.

room101 · 51-55, M

@OldBrit From what I've read, the plan was originally deemed as legal by the British courts. It failed only on appeal.

I think that the European Court of Human Rights also stepped in. Which is why the first flights to Rwanda were stopped.

OldBrit · 61-69, M

@room101 it will go to Supreme Court. It's more the UNCHR they were part of the appeal.

kutee · T

indian people didnt come to uk as illegals, thats the difference they went through the correct channels, applied for visas in india at the british embassy, but the illegal boat people purposedly dont have papers or visas.

room101 · 51-55, M

@kutee In January 2020, I spent time at the "Refugee Jungle" in Dunkerque. I met with and spoke to a number of refugees. I also spoke to a number of the volunteers (from all over the UK and various other countries). Finally, I saw just how "safe" the French police are.

Do you have any idea what a war zone actually is? Yeah, just go to an embassy and get your papers. Which embassy would that be, the one that has been abandoned because it's in a friggin' war zone or the one that has been blown to bits?

Roundandroundwego · 61-69

@kutee apply for your freedom at the correct time and place? Get your rights if you qualify? Sounds like fascism with a corporate smile.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@kutee Not even the Home Office describes them as 'illegal' (the official term is 'irregular'). If the UK government chooses not to invest in consular support to help people from certain countries make timely asylum applications, then of course this is what will happen.

HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F

How did they come up with the idea of sending them to Rwanda of all places? Like what exactly is the history, is there more to it? Did Rwanda accept the deal because they will be receiving money?

View 6 more replies »

room101 · 51-55, M

@HannibalAteMeOut Yep, that's one of my biggest concerns. Rwanda doesn't exactly have a glowing track record on human rights and the treatment of the LGBTQ community.

I bet that a significant number of asylum seekers have left their home countries because they are gay and would be imprisoned (and a lot worse) if discovered. Given its stance on homosexuality, there's no way that Rwanda would treat them any better.

HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F

@room101 and the British government has thought it through...

room101 · 51-55, M

@HannibalAteMeOut The government that the UK has been blighted with for well over a decade has repeatedly shown itself as being incapable of thinking anything through.

Ryannnnnn · 31-35, M

I marched against that bs last year in my city.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Ryannnnnn Good for you mate. If I was still in the UK, I would have done the same.

kutee · T

yes your right, i think the boat illegals should be rescued and taken back to france right away, as france is safe country and part of the sacred EU,

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

room101 · 51-55, M

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow A Stockholm Syndrome indeed. One that the right wing are more than happy to manipulate and exploit.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F

@jshm2 yeah cause you're a great example... of a racist.

This message was deleted by its author.

View 3 more replies »

Roundandroundwego · 61-69

@room101 who? Answer what,! Lolz figging fascists.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Roundandroundwego Go take your meds arsehole. And lay off the booze. That's what's causing that "round and round" sensation that you're feeling.

Roundandroundwego · 61-69

@room101 who?

Add a comment...