The Suella Braverman/Rwanda abomination.

room101 · 2023-07-01T11:13:54-05:00

Politics - The Suella Braverman/Rwanda abomination.... (74 replies).

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?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.

OldBrit · 61-69, M

@Richard65 what an utter shambles

room101 · 51-55, M

@Richard65 Thanks very much for the input.

I understand that money will be a factor in such strategies. But I believe that basic humanity, morality and simple ethics must go before all economic considerations.

Richard65 · M

@OldBrit The latest is that the UK government's plan to deport some asylum-seekers to Rwanda has been ruled unlawful. The Court of Appeal ruled on this on Thursday and it's a major blow to Tory ministers' controversial immigration policies that have been roundly condemned by humanitarian bodies. Apparently, the judges felt there was a possibility that the UK could deport someone to Rwanda only for Rwandan authorities to then deport them back to their original home country, so endangering their lives.

OldBrit · 61-69, M

@Richard65 irony that they named the bill the "Illegal immigration bill"

Richard65 · M

@room101 there's also an issue with the language being used by government ministers in reference to immigrants. Words like "swarm" and "invasion" have been used in public debates and at Prime minister's questions in Parliament. They also refer to "stopping the small boats crossing the Channel." Such terminology abstracts human beings into objects like "small boats", which reduces the impact of their actions. People rightly point out that they are stopping "people" or "human beings" or "men, women and children" from crossing the Channel. Words like "swarm" and "invasion" are terms usually used in reference to vermin and insects.

A Holocaust survivor asked Braverman to apologise for using the same terminology as Germany used in the 1930s to describe Jews and foreign immigrants, and Braverman publicly refused to apologise. These people are utterly despicable. Braverman herself stated that she gleefully "dreamed of deporting immigrants". That's the low moral level of such Tories.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Richard65 I saw the fiasco that occurred when Gary Lineker called them out for their language. I was very happy to see so many people (celebs and ordinary people alike) come to his defence.

I'm a first-generation immigrant myself. Born in a former British colony (Cyprus) and migrated to the UK when I was five. I just can't wrap my head around what motivates other immigrants (or the offspring of immigrants) to come up with plans like this and to use this kind of appalling language.

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.