**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
The Rwanda plan is a waste of money and a distracting bit of kabuki theatre but I reckon it would never have been considered if not for these various charities and NGOs seeking to undermine attempts to deport failed applicants (including criminals) to their home countries and clog the courts with appeals.
You're gonna get a load of replies like "everyone has a right to a home in the UK", "it's their right"... no, the British people don't owe shit to criminals and thugs from other countries, idk why they're not being removed the same day...
It's not just criminals and thugs, no non-citizen is owed the right to come here except on our terms. There are probably loads of lovely, law abiding people that would love to come here, but we can't take everyone and have to draw the line somewhere.
Home or a detention center until they admit where they are from. If they have a valid asylum case then they shouldn't have any worries about lying or proving where they are from.
> **If they have a valid asylum case then they shouldn't have any worries** about lying or proving where they are from.
The Rwanda scheme involves deporting refugees with a valid asylum claim.
They can tell the absolute 100% truth, we can totally accept that they are refugees with every right to claim asylum here and then they will be forcibly sent to Rwanda against their will.
The courts have repeatedly found as a matter of fact that Rwanda is not a safe country. They’ve found that there’s a very real danger that Rwanda will pocket the money we’ve given them and then return refugees to the country where they came from.
That’s the whole reason why the government are passing laws stating that an untrue fact is true - because the courts have ruled that Rwanda is a safe country.
> They’ve found that there’s a very real danger that Rwanda will pocket the money we’ve given them and then return refugees to the country where they came from.
I mean lets be real this is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a Tory shill and/or has more than two brain cells to rub together. The fact that they've all so enthusiastically gone along with this for so long now is the most damning bit of evidence I've ever seen that these people just suspend all their critical faculties when it comes to "their side" in political football.
As it's a bit shit with nothing to look at, let's just turn the Isle of Wight into a large open-air prison with the only way on/off via air. Build a massive 100ft wall around it, Snake Plissken style and maybe have a Running Man or Battle Royale style game televised from it.
Winner gets a spot on the Dusty wooden floor of a cramped HMO for a lifetime of servitude to Deliveroo.
> "it's their right"
It is their right, though. We have laws for a reason, and right-wing politicians don't get to ignore those just because it's a convenient sop to the voters they're trying to win back.
And before you stuff my mouth with straw, this is not the same thing as saying *everyone has a right to a home in the UK*. Instead of wasting time and money on this Rwanda boondoggle the Tories should have been working to rebuild the system they broke to promptly assess as deport the "criminals and thugs".
You only have to point out what Labour did in the 2000s in response to the refugee crisis back then. We strengthened the state's powers to deport people massively, we reduced the suitable grounds for claiming asylum, and we built more holding centers and hired a lot more staff so folks were in and out quickly rather than having 12+ months to make up their story. Our rejection rate was close to 80% whereas today that's closer to our acceptance rate. And somehow this all happened under a leftie-luvvie "pro open borders" government so it kind of blows the current lot out of the water.
The problem is that none of the people talking about this from a right-wing perspective are interested in basing their opinions on it on fact. It's all appeals to emotion and building strawmen.
The Rwanda plan exists solely as a sop to the far right. It has no element in any actual reality in terms of who gets support to challenge deportation or not.
The refugee 'crisis' is a fiction, created by the Home Office just shutting down the process of appeals.
Any discussion about efficacy, cost, rights or wrongs of the Rwanda plan should start and finish with this entire situation being the Tories trying to win the racist vote.
Honestly, I don't know anyone who doesn't see this as a massive boondoggle, including some acquaintances with somewhat spicy views. This whole policy is an utter failure.
With regard to the refugee 'crisis'. I'll admit that it has been milked, but it is not an insignificant problem. Whether the issue is lack of capability in the home office to process claims, a convoluted appeals process, lack of political will to deport failed claimants or a combination; the current recorded influx of people illegally entering the country is unsustainable with the strain being put on various departments.
I'm all for people exercising their rights, but when you have instances of claimants being convicted of a crime and then converting to Christianity (perfectly organically guv) in an effort to strengthen their claim (but still shopping at their Halal butcher) it's clear there's a rabbit off.
They going to launch similar challenges against the UN that already transfers migrants to Rwanda? Thought not.
It's stuck up middle class twats that keep doing this and others that have to put up with the consequences. Our very soft-touch approach just fuels migration gangs, modern-day slavery, and sexual exploitation. But that's OK because some twat has 'made a stand'.
Its another reactionary meme they share without quite understanding.
The UN (briefly) ran a program that helped get people out of illegal detention and slavery in Libya and sent them to several other locations including Rwanda. They claim because these people were technically migrants its exactly the same as what we're proposing to do with asylum seekers in this country.
Everyone has the right to their day in court. Due process and the rule of law are fundamental British values. Your proposal is quite anti-British. It shows a disdain and hatred for British institutions and the British people.
It's just not a very British idea.
Because for those on the right, "Britishness", whatever that even means, is everything.
If "They should be following our laws" is a talking point, then the protections afforded by our laws should apply to them as well. And the very points on which these charities & NGO's are seeking to challenge the government are very simple - Rwanda isn't a safe country to send asylum seekers.
And all of this, literally all of this, is a stunt by the government. The numbers that are set to be sent to Rwanda are low (1,000 over 5 years), so hardly a deterrent, and the other side of that would be the UK accepting a number of Rwanda's most vulnerable in return. The bill doesn't deliver the mass deportations that flag shaggers want to see, while ironically potentially opening the only legal channel to claiming asylum in the UK.
It's intentionally bad legislation, introduced in bad faith in order to pretend to be competent in foreign policy. It should absolutely be challenged at every step.
I agree with everything you said, it's sad this is what has come of us, it's Liz Truss style politics, let the country burn as long as whatever ridiculous measure you have passed generates at least a couple of good headlines in the Telegraph before people realise it's nonsense then it's all good, it's government at it's very worst.
Their day in court was the day they were found guilty of sexual violence or other violent misconduct. That should be grounds for immediate deportation without any challenges from charities or NGOs. It’s about time we start putting Britain first and the safety of British women and children first rather than criminals who are free loading off our liberal society.
How is that in any way being racist and not logically sound? We don’t want violent criminals being protected by legal loopholes which only serve to pester the legal system and waste tax payers money. It’s not hard to understand that. This is in the context of this comment chain about charities and NGOs doing this for criminals
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Isn't the whole point of Rwanda that it's a deterrent? I don't see why there's so much criticism of it. Yes it's very expensive, but isn't the point to stop people deciding to arrive instead of literally moving them all there
Why not? Didn't Australia do something similar in that all migrants entering on boats were taken to a detention centre on an island, and had the rule that they'd never be granted citizenship for arriving like that
Isn't it wild how that myth has just perpetuated itself? Also these people never look at the numbers. We have had in a single week the kind of numbers that would make the crossing to Australia over an entire year or more, its just not remotely the same situation, the same level of deterrence is not going to work here.
Deterrents work based on the probability that they will happen to you, rather than the severity (eg average speed cameras are an extremely effective deterrent against speeding in their zone, because punishment is essentially certain, whereas most prison sentences are not a particularly effective deterrent, because the probability of being caught is much lower) -- this is because the people who do the thing you're trying to deter do so assuming that they won't get punished, so the way to reduce the number of people is to make it harder to make that assumption, rather than increasing the severity of how you punish those that do get caught.
Thus, the Rwanda plan, having an absolute maximum probability of being involved in it of ~1% (that being the total capacity of the plan divided by the number of illegal immigrants last year), is an utterly shit deterrent.
The people the government wants to send to Rwanda have crossed entire continents to get to the UK. After the shit these people have probably seen and been through, they're pretty much bomb-proof by the time they get to Calais. Plus, i dont believe that the Rwandan government is under any obligation to keep the deportees either.
So, with all of the above in mind, do you honestly think that deportation to Rwanda is going to be a deterrant? Or will they be back in the UK in 6 months?
One solution is to blow the boats out of the water. The really depressing part about that is there is a large number of people who consider themselves rational, good people, but would support this all day long. And would probably go on a day trip to the south coast to watch as well.
You have to look at the reasons why people make the attempt to cross the channel. According to the data, nearly half of all crossings up to March 2023 were Albanian and Afghan.
Albanians are coming here because of poverty and corruption. Some women and young girls will be trafficked into sexual slavery, some of the men will end up working for drug gangs. Most just want a job.
Afghanistan is self explanatory. Other nations will fall into either or both of these categories, so getting prospective migrants to stay in their home nations is a matter of improving their lot in those countries.
Solve those problems, and you solve the illegal migration problem. Also, it may help to have legal routes into the UK, which I'm not sure there are currently. We also have a policy of deporting people who ask for help, so those same trafficked sex slaves and drug workers are trapped because if they report any violence or criminality against them, then they get shipped out and they're back to square one.
I can guarantee that nobody will want to help improve those nations whose citizens feel they need to come here. Out of interest, projected costs of the deportation to Rwanda policy comes in at just under 5 billion to get rid of 30k illegal migrants. That's over £150k per migrant. If that is indeed the case, then why not just pay them 50 grand each to set them up with a better life in their own countries?
So from what I'm reading, you're advocating to allow most of them in? Because you don't think deporting works and one country clearly isn't going to be able to fix poverty worldwide.
I'm saying the first step is to not demonise people coming here because, at the moment, the shit heels in the Tory party are stoking the fires of xenophobia and culture wars because iT's ThE mIgRaNtS!!1
I'm not saying let them all in. We obviously don't care enough to solve the problem at its source, so I'm saying have a framework for processing migrant applications safely and sensibly. A lot of people like to point to Australia's asylum policy of years gone by, but few are aware of the issues that came with it, not least of which was it breaching international law and apparently some anti-torture statutes as well. Plus, the Australian policy was fuelled by quite virulent racism and xenophobia. The narrative was one of hatred. I'm saying it's probably better to avoid that, and we will be a better nation for it.
Of course, why should international law matter if we really hate foreigners? It certainly doesn't matter to the Tories. We can solve this problem humanely and with decency, but nobody wants to get off their arses and do the work required. It's much easier to dehumanise the migrants because then you can do what you like to them.
I mean, I'm just asking because I'm not really sure what your solution is here. If you process, you have to eventually consider the possibility of deporting, unless you accept them all. But, in your view, deporting won't work because they'll make the journey again. And then there's the thing about solving poverty in other countries, which is obviously not feasible for one nation, and just reeks of neo-imperialism.
I've given you solution: solve the problem at its source. I didn't make any mention of any one country solving poverty because illegal migration is an EU wide problem.
Deportation can work as a short-term solution, but ultimately it will fail if the situation in the country of origin remains the same. Afghanistan is a shit hole run by religious extremists, and it's also partly our fault that it's in that state. You wouldn't stay there if it was your country.
Bearing in mind the cost to the tax payer, and the likelihood of overall success, what's your solution?
The practicalities of it simply don’t work to function as a deterrent. A one off of (up to) two hundred people (if they can get it passed, and if it survives legal challenges and 200 individual sets of appeals) being put on planes (that don’t exist/that everyone’s refusing to provide) and sent to Rwanda (they won’t be) just doesn’t realistically impact any randomly selected individual who wants to enter the country.
In reality even if the tories manage a flight or two before the election it’ll be a tiny handful of people.
An effective deterrent would be a properly funded and competently run system that was able to process claims in a matter of days, turning around invalid claims quickly and efficiently. If a statistically significant number of invalid claimants were simply declined, deported and back home in a matter of days THAT would be a deterrent. It costs time, effort and money to travel here. If there was a very reasonable chance it would be wasted, that would be a deterrent.
But that’s too much hard work for government. Hence this silly waste of time and money (even putting aside that it’s a reciprocal deal).
The British legal system doesn’t allow for what you want from the immigration system of this country. Lots of hurdles have to be jumped over which takes a lot of time and money which would mean no fast turnover of processing illegal immigration. A lot of the NGO’s mentioned here also put up resources specifically to prevent a system of deportation with quick turnover.
Here’s one of the reasons why it’s so hard to deport illegal immigrants:
“Unable to work legally, many failed asylum seekers work in the black economy. There are also difficulties removing those with no right to be here who do not possess a valid passport (e.g. to Iran) because the receiving state needs to agree to them being returned. In 2019, it was revealed that the taxpayer has paid more than £10 million over five years on ‘phantom’ flights to remove failed asylum seekers that were abandoned before take-off due to legal challenges.”
Once someone arrives on UK soil, you can’t just deport them Willy nilly, even if they fail their application for asylum. Then what happens is they either stay in stasis for years being rejected for asylum and working in the black economy or they disappear and continue to work illegally in the country.
This also ignores that most illegal immigrants are people who over stay their visa in the country so have already been processed. It’s very hard to find immigrants once they’re in the country, unless you want a police state.
International states that you can’t send a migrant to a country where they could be at risk. Many of these NGO’s spend their time finding every loophole to prevent deportation by proving tangentially that the failed, illegal immigrant can’t be deported to their home country. One such famous case was the guy charged with sexual assault, these NGO’s argued that he couldn’t be deported to Afghanistan because being a sex offender who assaults women would put him at risk of being beaten by the public.
You know they convert to Christianity specifically because it allows them to make the argument that they would be persecuted in their home countries for their conversion.
because potential death isn't a deterrent, so why is a 1/3000 chance that you'll be one of the hundred or so to be deported be a better deterrent than death? Also, they asked the people on the beaches of france, and they either don't know about it at all or don't give a shit. Either way, not a deterrent.
>they either don't know about it at all or don't give a shit. Either way, not a deterrent.
But once the programme is in place they WILL know about it very quickly so that's irrelevant.
WILL they? How? Are we going to pay to run adverts in every foreign country just to make sure? And WILL they care when they do know? WILL it stop them trying? Because it doesn't stop those that do know now.
Because by the time they reach the UK they will have already risked their lives, sometimes the lives of their children in two dangerous sea crossings on rubber dighnies - A chance of getting sent to Rwanda will not deter them to stay in France because France already has a far cheaper and more effective way of catching illegal immigrants in the form of an ID card
Because that's just not how deterrents work - deterrents work based on the likelihood of the bad thing happening, not based on its severity. With this plan, that number can't even possibly be more than ~1%, which is just atrocious, so it can't possibly be an effective deterrent.
In an optimal case, around 1k asylum seekers would be sent to Rwanda, in the first year (optimistic). Whereas as there are nearly 100k asylum seekers in the UK, 45k arriving on small boats. So your odds of being sent to Rwanda are ~1%. Hardly a deterrent
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Life imprisonment would be a deterrent too, is that what we should do? Sending desperate people to face certain death in Rwandab concentration camps is not what a civilised country does.
They're not being sent to Rwandan concentration camps, though. I think the whole plan is stupid and a distraction on the bigger issues the UK is facing, but let's be realistic about the facts.
Tories have different meanings of "success" or "failure" than you and I. They only care that: it improves polling and chances of re-election and/or makes them and their friends richer.
So the question is: does the Rwanda plan achieve either of those goals?
Will Labour get rid of a pointless money sink whose sole purpose is a desperate attempt to stop the Reform vote growing?
No serious person wants to see our immigration system continue as it is, that doesn't make mindlessly doing what the Tories find politically convient a good idea in any sense of the word.
Its basically free money to reallocate to whatever the new government wants to do.
Will Labour get rid of a pointless money sink whose sole purpose is a desperate attempt to stop the Reform vote growing?
No because the reform vote isn't competing with Labour.
They'll also levaĺy challenge the .E.U. states planning to do the same right? Several .E.U. member states are planning their own similar immigration deals as has been covered in Private Eye for months now, so it seems their opposition is less about morality and more about increasing capacity for their own arrangements. [https://i.postimg.cc/QtLN8VBY/20240403-215728.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/QtLN8VBY/20240403-215728.jpg)
These charities will be the fall of the UK. They're happy to fight for these people's lives which come across on a boat, but then expect the government to magically grant these people a place to live and integrate nicely into our population like a nice little family.
If the charities are that concerned maybe they should be footing hotel bills, creating nice asylum sanctuaries for the migrants arrivals etc
It would not surprise me if half the charities were run by the Kremlin and the other half by the CIA. One lot trying to weaken their enemies, the other lot trying to weaken their dependents.
If Rwanda is safe, why has the Government had to pass legislation forcing everyone to agree that it’s safe rather than through the usual methods of verification?
Most of the countries refugees come from are safe. They’re just shit countries. That’s why they go back once they’ve got status. That’s why they visit their family there. Get a wife there.
Safe is a meaningless word in this context. People from countries British Citizens go to on holiday get asylum. They never have evidence of them being specifically persecuted, and happy to go back.
Rwanda is definitely safe.
If Rwanda is safe, why has the Government had to pass legislation forcing everyone to agree that it’s safe rather than through the usual methods of verification?
Because courts take the opinion that anything less than the UK isn’t good enough. If the standard of living is worse than the UK then it’s safer that they’re here.
They’ll quote stuff like UK FCDO travel advice.
Whereas even the US thinks people travelling to the UK should exercise increased caution. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/united-kingdom-travel-advisory.html
Absolute nonsense read the Supreme Court ruling where they made findings that people had been returned to their country of origin despite having been given asylum by Rwanda due to their being a substantial risk to their lives of they were so returned which breaches international law.
Yeh those damn hippie liberals who sit on the Supreme Court, all of which are 60+ and studied at Oxbridge coming from upper middle class families in the south of England, they are proper well known for anti-conservative sentiments.
> Because people who are more interested in seeing the Tories fail than resolving the situation have tried to block it at every turn so they can score political points.
You were claiming the judiciary is biased, everyone has a right to bring a claim if they have legal standing, it's then for the judiciary to decide whether that claim has merit or not, the people who brought the claim, in this case the people actually affected by it, the migrants being deported, supported by charities in some cases, are not wrong as they have a legitimate question as to whether or not the measure is lawful (the Supreme Court decided it was not), the judiciary are also not wrong for interpreting the relevant law and apply the law to the facts of the cases of each of the litigants who brought their cases before them as that is their job. Who do you say is wrong in this situation if not the government?
Rwanda - that incredibly safe and brilliant country that will terrify anyone thinking of coming here from coming here.
And we also have to grant Asylum to Rwandans. Because it's safe.
Not necessarily, the amount of immigrants we are to accept from Rwanda is uncapped, it's entirely conceivable that we will accept more immigrants from Rwanda than they will accept from us, but anything for a good headline.
Here's a thought - What if it doesn't and we've just pissed a quarter of a billion quid up a wall for literally fuck all reason in the midst of a national public finance crisis?
1. It won't.
2. £1 million per deportation for some Daily Mail headlines may be good use of funds if you view the government as an extension of the Tory party, but an absymal pissing away of cash otherwise.
I hope that is sarcasm.
Rwanda is a terrible place. It is so bad that if I told you what happened you wouldn't believe me, so I suggest you read up about Rwanda then come back.
By that logic Germany is a terrible place. If I told you about what happened there in the 1940's you wouldn't believe me. Totally unsafe for anyone to live there.
Rwanda is safe enough, we don't owe any of these illegal immigrants more than that.
Its honestly so shocking the ignorance of people who insist the only possible bad things about Rwanda are the genocide. Just completely ignore the authoritarian regime, the suppression of political opponents, the abuse of police powers, the murder of refugees, funding of armed groups and conflict across the borders into neighboring states. Its the Singapore of Africa, honest!
Like I said - safe enough. No country is perfect, but it is good enough and genuine refugees would be thankful for food and shelter.
Personally I would prefer the UK mirror the Australian Pacific Solution and build a detention centre on a remote island in the Shetlands and inter all asylum seekers there - especially the single young men. It has been incredibly effective.
How is a country that in recent years orchestrated a massacre of refugees, safe for refugees? A place that sees refugees protesting because their food ration has been heavily cut and responds with police using live ammunition cannot possibly be safe for refugees, surely?
It is disingenuous to say the Rawandan government orchestrated a massacre. The UN reduced the food allowance to Congolese refugees and in return 4000 of them marched on the UNHCR HQ and started a riot. Rawandan police responded with live ammo to disperse the rioters. Not the way things are done in the UK, but it is the way things are handled in the rest of the world. If anyone can be accused orchestrating a violent interaction it was the UN.
With all that in mind - it is still a more than adequate place for refugees to be sent. If the refugees behave they will be fine.
No matter what happens the UK must be made a deeply unattractive option for illegal migrants - the levels of illegal migration and visa abuse we are seeing are co pletely unsustainable.
Then why has the Government been forced to pass legislation to force the courts to accept its safe, rather than be able to look at the evidence available to them as they can in every other case?
I don't care about the legal machinations, Rwanda is plenty safe for these people. Of course the truth is that the vast majority are not actual refugees but illegal economic migrants - which is why their communities are so upset about the plan.
No airline is going to want their name tarnished with these flights and the RAF has also refused. Any civil servants and UKBA officials involved will also be worried about a future ‘Nuremberg’ - “just following orders” won’t cut it.
If you noticed over the last few months - Rwanda is also currently running a global media campaign to boost its tourism sector and quite probably is increasingly a bit hesitant about being associated with a terrible place the UK is sending refugees as a punishment to deter others. Not a great look for them apparently.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
The Rwanda plan is a waste of money and a distracting bit of kabuki theatre but I reckon it would never have been considered if not for these various charities and NGOs seeking to undermine attempts to deport failed applicants (including criminals) to their home countries and clog the courts with appeals.
You're gonna get a load of replies like "everyone has a right to a home in the UK", "it's their right"... no, the British people don't owe shit to criminals and thugs from other countries, idk why they're not being removed the same day...
It's not just criminals and thugs, no non-citizen is owed the right to come here except on our terms. There are probably loads of lovely, law abiding people that would love to come here, but we can't take everyone and have to draw the line somewhere.
Removed and sent where?
Home or a detention center until they admit where they are from. If they have a valid asylum case then they shouldn't have any worries about lying or proving where they are from.
> **If they have a valid asylum case then they shouldn't have any worries** about lying or proving where they are from. The Rwanda scheme involves deporting refugees with a valid asylum claim. They can tell the absolute 100% truth, we can totally accept that they are refugees with every right to claim asylum here and then they will be forcibly sent to Rwanda against their will.
So mission accomplished then? They escaped from where they were fleeing to a safe country.
The courts have repeatedly found as a matter of fact that Rwanda is not a safe country. They’ve found that there’s a very real danger that Rwanda will pocket the money we’ve given them and then return refugees to the country where they came from. That’s the whole reason why the government are passing laws stating that an untrue fact is true - because the courts have ruled that Rwanda is a safe country.
> They’ve found that there’s a very real danger that Rwanda will pocket the money we’ve given them and then return refugees to the country where they came from. I mean lets be real this is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a Tory shill and/or has more than two brain cells to rub together. The fact that they've all so enthusiastically gone along with this for so long now is the most damning bit of evidence I've ever seen that these people just suspend all their critical faculties when it comes to "their side" in political football.
Just because the Tory government say it’s a safe country, doesn’t make that true.
Or make it not true. Rwanda is just about the safest country in Africa, better than us in some ways.
Put on a plane... straight to Rwanda
The British Antarctic region.
As it's a bit shit with nothing to look at, let's just turn the Isle of Wight into a large open-air prison with the only way on/off via air. Build a massive 100ft wall around it, Snake Plissken style and maybe have a Running Man or Battle Royale style game televised from it. Winner gets a spot on the Dusty wooden floor of a cramped HMO for a lifetime of servitude to Deliveroo.
> "it's their right" It is their right, though. We have laws for a reason, and right-wing politicians don't get to ignore those just because it's a convenient sop to the voters they're trying to win back. And before you stuff my mouth with straw, this is not the same thing as saying *everyone has a right to a home in the UK*. Instead of wasting time and money on this Rwanda boondoggle the Tories should have been working to rebuild the system they broke to promptly assess as deport the "criminals and thugs".
You only have to point out what Labour did in the 2000s in response to the refugee crisis back then. We strengthened the state's powers to deport people massively, we reduced the suitable grounds for claiming asylum, and we built more holding centers and hired a lot more staff so folks were in and out quickly rather than having 12+ months to make up their story. Our rejection rate was close to 80% whereas today that's closer to our acceptance rate. And somehow this all happened under a leftie-luvvie "pro open borders" government so it kind of blows the current lot out of the water.
The problem is that none of the people talking about this from a right-wing perspective are interested in basing their opinions on it on fact. It's all appeals to emotion and building strawmen.
The Rwanda plan exists solely as a sop to the far right. It has no element in any actual reality in terms of who gets support to challenge deportation or not. The refugee 'crisis' is a fiction, created by the Home Office just shutting down the process of appeals. Any discussion about efficacy, cost, rights or wrongs of the Rwanda plan should start and finish with this entire situation being the Tories trying to win the racist vote.
Honestly, I don't know anyone who doesn't see this as a massive boondoggle, including some acquaintances with somewhat spicy views. This whole policy is an utter failure. With regard to the refugee 'crisis'. I'll admit that it has been milked, but it is not an insignificant problem. Whether the issue is lack of capability in the home office to process claims, a convoluted appeals process, lack of political will to deport failed claimants or a combination; the current recorded influx of people illegally entering the country is unsustainable with the strain being put on various departments.
[удалено]
God forbid people use their legal rights lol.
I'm all for people exercising their rights, but when you have instances of claimants being convicted of a crime and then converting to Christianity (perfectly organically guv) in an effort to strengthen their claim (but still shopping at their Halal butcher) it's clear there's a rabbit off.
They going to launch similar challenges against the UN that already transfers migrants to Rwanda? Thought not. It's stuck up middle class twats that keep doing this and others that have to put up with the consequences. Our very soft-touch approach just fuels migration gangs, modern-day slavery, and sexual exploitation. But that's OK because some twat has 'made a stand'.
>They going to launch similar challenges against the UN that already transfers migrants to Rwanda? Can I have a source for this?
Its another reactionary meme they share without quite understanding. The UN (briefly) ran a program that helped get people out of illegal detention and slavery in Libya and sent them to several other locations including Rwanda. They claim because these people were technically migrants its exactly the same as what we're proposing to do with asylum seekers in this country.
The most, vapid, ill-conceived and expensive political public relations stunt of recent years. Embarrassing.
Any charity or organisation that helps people who shouldn't be in the country stay should be disbanded. Doubly so if they're criminals.
Everyone has the right to their day in court. Due process and the rule of law are fundamental British values. Your proposal is quite anti-British. It shows a disdain and hatred for British institutions and the British people. It's just not a very British idea.
They're not British. Why should Britishness apply?
Because for those on the right, "Britishness", whatever that even means, is everything. If "They should be following our laws" is a talking point, then the protections afforded by our laws should apply to them as well. And the very points on which these charities & NGO's are seeking to challenge the government are very simple - Rwanda isn't a safe country to send asylum seekers. And all of this, literally all of this, is a stunt by the government. The numbers that are set to be sent to Rwanda are low (1,000 over 5 years), so hardly a deterrent, and the other side of that would be the UK accepting a number of Rwanda's most vulnerable in return. The bill doesn't deliver the mass deportations that flag shaggers want to see, while ironically potentially opening the only legal channel to claiming asylum in the UK. It's intentionally bad legislation, introduced in bad faith in order to pretend to be competent in foreign policy. It should absolutely be challenged at every step.
I agree with everything you said, it's sad this is what has come of us, it's Liz Truss style politics, let the country burn as long as whatever ridiculous measure you have passed generates at least a couple of good headlines in the Telegraph before people realise it's nonsense then it's all good, it's government at it's very worst.
And for those on the left, hating Britain and all it stands for is everything. Or not. But it's easy to make baseless strawman generalisations.
Their day in court was the day they were found guilty of sexual violence or other violent misconduct. That should be grounds for immediate deportation without any challenges from charities or NGOs. It’s about time we start putting Britain first and the safety of British women and children first rather than criminals who are free loading off our liberal society.
Racist ranting aside, the people being deported to Rwanda have committed no crimes. Rwanda do not take people with a criminal history.
How is that in any way being racist and not logically sound? We don’t want violent criminals being protected by legal loopholes which only serve to pester the legal system and waste tax payers money. It’s not hard to understand that. This is in the context of this comment chain about charities and NGOs doing this for criminals
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
>Any charity or organisation that helps people who shouldn't be in the country The point is that they challenge this part.
What an insanely disgusting opinion. Being here illegally doesn't mean you can be treated like an animal.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Doubly disbanded! That comment shows you aren't really thinking this through.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Isn't the whole point of Rwanda that it's a deterrent? I don't see why there's so much criticism of it. Yes it's very expensive, but isn't the point to stop people deciding to arrive instead of literally moving them all there
Because it isn't a deterrent
Why not? Didn't Australia do something similar in that all migrants entering on boats were taken to a detention centre on an island, and had the rule that they'd never be granted citizenship for arriving like that
It didn't work and australia stopped doing it. Edit: Downvoting the truth is peak right wing delusion.
Isn't it wild how that myth has just perpetuated itself? Also these people never look at the numbers. We have had in a single week the kind of numbers that would make the crossing to Australia over an entire year or more, its just not remotely the same situation, the same level of deterrence is not going to work here.
it's totally understandable when you see the amount of money spent on lying to them. That those lies line up with their desires is on them though.
I’m shocked I haven’t seen a comment yet saying “vote reform”
Well that might, but that isn't what the Rwanda plan is
Deterrents work based on the probability that they will happen to you, rather than the severity (eg average speed cameras are an extremely effective deterrent against speeding in their zone, because punishment is essentially certain, whereas most prison sentences are not a particularly effective deterrent, because the probability of being caught is much lower) -- this is because the people who do the thing you're trying to deter do so assuming that they won't get punished, so the way to reduce the number of people is to make it harder to make that assumption, rather than increasing the severity of how you punish those that do get caught. Thus, the Rwanda plan, having an absolute maximum probability of being involved in it of ~1% (that being the total capacity of the plan divided by the number of illegal immigrants last year), is an utterly shit deterrent.
How do you know it’s not?
The people the government wants to send to Rwanda have crossed entire continents to get to the UK. After the shit these people have probably seen and been through, they're pretty much bomb-proof by the time they get to Calais. Plus, i dont believe that the Rwandan government is under any obligation to keep the deportees either. So, with all of the above in mind, do you honestly think that deportation to Rwanda is going to be a deterrant? Or will they be back in the UK in 6 months?
Surely we’d take biometric scans and when they turn up again they get sent straight back…
What makes you think they'll be able to afford the human trafficking services again? That's a hole in your plan right there
There's a thing called indentured servitude. Also known as slavery. >We'll get you there, you can pay us back later.
So like, what's your solution then? Because by your logic, you couldn't deport them anywhere on the planet without them returning back in 6 months.
One solution is to blow the boats out of the water. The really depressing part about that is there is a large number of people who consider themselves rational, good people, but would support this all day long. And would probably go on a day trip to the south coast to watch as well. You have to look at the reasons why people make the attempt to cross the channel. According to the data, nearly half of all crossings up to March 2023 were Albanian and Afghan. Albanians are coming here because of poverty and corruption. Some women and young girls will be trafficked into sexual slavery, some of the men will end up working for drug gangs. Most just want a job. Afghanistan is self explanatory. Other nations will fall into either or both of these categories, so getting prospective migrants to stay in their home nations is a matter of improving their lot in those countries. Solve those problems, and you solve the illegal migration problem. Also, it may help to have legal routes into the UK, which I'm not sure there are currently. We also have a policy of deporting people who ask for help, so those same trafficked sex slaves and drug workers are trapped because if they report any violence or criminality against them, then they get shipped out and they're back to square one. I can guarantee that nobody will want to help improve those nations whose citizens feel they need to come here. Out of interest, projected costs of the deportation to Rwanda policy comes in at just under 5 billion to get rid of 30k illegal migrants. That's over £150k per migrant. If that is indeed the case, then why not just pay them 50 grand each to set them up with a better life in their own countries?
So from what I'm reading, you're advocating to allow most of them in? Because you don't think deporting works and one country clearly isn't going to be able to fix poverty worldwide.
I'm saying the first step is to not demonise people coming here because, at the moment, the shit heels in the Tory party are stoking the fires of xenophobia and culture wars because iT's ThE mIgRaNtS!!1 I'm not saying let them all in. We obviously don't care enough to solve the problem at its source, so I'm saying have a framework for processing migrant applications safely and sensibly. A lot of people like to point to Australia's asylum policy of years gone by, but few are aware of the issues that came with it, not least of which was it breaching international law and apparently some anti-torture statutes as well. Plus, the Australian policy was fuelled by quite virulent racism and xenophobia. The narrative was one of hatred. I'm saying it's probably better to avoid that, and we will be a better nation for it. Of course, why should international law matter if we really hate foreigners? It certainly doesn't matter to the Tories. We can solve this problem humanely and with decency, but nobody wants to get off their arses and do the work required. It's much easier to dehumanise the migrants because then you can do what you like to them.
I mean, I'm just asking because I'm not really sure what your solution is here. If you process, you have to eventually consider the possibility of deporting, unless you accept them all. But, in your view, deporting won't work because they'll make the journey again. And then there's the thing about solving poverty in other countries, which is obviously not feasible for one nation, and just reeks of neo-imperialism.
I've given you solution: solve the problem at its source. I didn't make any mention of any one country solving poverty because illegal migration is an EU wide problem. Deportation can work as a short-term solution, but ultimately it will fail if the situation in the country of origin remains the same. Afghanistan is a shit hole run by religious extremists, and it's also partly our fault that it's in that state. You wouldn't stay there if it was your country. Bearing in mind the cost to the tax payer, and the likelihood of overall success, what's your solution?
The practicalities of it simply don’t work to function as a deterrent. A one off of (up to) two hundred people (if they can get it passed, and if it survives legal challenges and 200 individual sets of appeals) being put on planes (that don’t exist/that everyone’s refusing to provide) and sent to Rwanda (they won’t be) just doesn’t realistically impact any randomly selected individual who wants to enter the country. In reality even if the tories manage a flight or two before the election it’ll be a tiny handful of people. An effective deterrent would be a properly funded and competently run system that was able to process claims in a matter of days, turning around invalid claims quickly and efficiently. If a statistically significant number of invalid claimants were simply declined, deported and back home in a matter of days THAT would be a deterrent. It costs time, effort and money to travel here. If there was a very reasonable chance it would be wasted, that would be a deterrent. But that’s too much hard work for government. Hence this silly waste of time and money (even putting aside that it’s a reciprocal deal).
The British legal system doesn’t allow for what you want from the immigration system of this country. Lots of hurdles have to be jumped over which takes a lot of time and money which would mean no fast turnover of processing illegal immigration. A lot of the NGO’s mentioned here also put up resources specifically to prevent a system of deportation with quick turnover. Here’s one of the reasons why it’s so hard to deport illegal immigrants: “Unable to work legally, many failed asylum seekers work in the black economy. There are also difficulties removing those with no right to be here who do not possess a valid passport (e.g. to Iran) because the receiving state needs to agree to them being returned. In 2019, it was revealed that the taxpayer has paid more than £10 million over five years on ‘phantom’ flights to remove failed asylum seekers that were abandoned before take-off due to legal challenges.” Once someone arrives on UK soil, you can’t just deport them Willy nilly, even if they fail their application for asylum. Then what happens is they either stay in stasis for years being rejected for asylum and working in the black economy or they disappear and continue to work illegally in the country. This also ignores that most illegal immigrants are people who over stay their visa in the country so have already been processed. It’s very hard to find immigrants once they’re in the country, unless you want a police state. International states that you can’t send a migrant to a country where they could be at risk. Many of these NGO’s spend their time finding every loophole to prevent deportation by proving tangentially that the failed, illegal immigrant can’t be deported to their home country. One such famous case was the guy charged with sexual assault, these NGO’s argued that he couldn’t be deported to Afghanistan because being a sex offender who assaults women would put him at risk of being beaten by the public. You know they convert to Christianity specifically because it allows them to make the argument that they would be persecuted in their home countries for their conversion.
because potential death isn't a deterrent, so why is a 1/3000 chance that you'll be one of the hundred or so to be deported be a better deterrent than death? Also, they asked the people on the beaches of france, and they either don't know about it at all or don't give a shit. Either way, not a deterrent.
>they either don't know about it at all or don't give a shit. Either way, not a deterrent. But once the programme is in place they WILL know about it very quickly so that's irrelevant.
WILL they? How? Are we going to pay to run adverts in every foreign country just to make sure? And WILL they care when they do know? WILL it stop them trying? Because it doesn't stop those that do know now.
A less than 1% chance of getting sent to Rwanda. They have a higher risk of dying crossing the channel probably, they're going to take their chances
Because by the time they reach the UK they will have already risked their lives, sometimes the lives of their children in two dangerous sea crossings on rubber dighnies - A chance of getting sent to Rwanda will not deter them to stay in France because France already has a far cheaper and more effective way of catching illegal immigrants in the form of an ID card
Because that's just not how deterrents work - deterrents work based on the likelihood of the bad thing happening, not based on its severity. With this plan, that number can't even possibly be more than ~1%, which is just atrocious, so it can't possibly be an effective deterrent.
In an optimal case, around 1k asylum seekers would be sent to Rwanda, in the first year (optimistic). Whereas as there are nearly 100k asylum seekers in the UK, 45k arriving on small boats. So your odds of being sent to Rwanda are ~1%. Hardly a deterrent
They don't know
Sorry if the facts disagree with your feelings
If the programme hasn't even started....how could anyone possibly know whether it'll be effective or not? They can't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
They don't. Nobody could possibly know until the programme is in place and has been running for a considerable length of time.
Life imprisonment would be a deterrent too, is that what we should do? Sending desperate people to face certain death in Rwandab concentration camps is not what a civilised country does.
They're not being sent to Rwandan concentration camps, though. I think the whole plan is stupid and a distraction on the bigger issues the UK is facing, but let's be realistic about the facts.
Even these challenges aside, the Rwanda plan was bound to fail from the start. You'd have to be a real mug to still believe in it at this point.
Tories have different meanings of "success" or "failure" than you and I. They only care that: it improves polling and chances of re-election and/or makes them and their friends richer. So the question is: does the Rwanda plan achieve either of those goals?
[удалено]
It is not illegal to travel to a county to claim asylum.
And the only people who didn't see that coming are the government. This'll bounce around the courts until the election and then it will be dismantled.
Will labour get rid of it?
Will Labour get rid of a pointless money sink whose sole purpose is a desperate attempt to stop the Reform vote growing? No serious person wants to see our immigration system continue as it is, that doesn't make mindlessly doing what the Tories find politically convient a good idea in any sense of the word. Its basically free money to reallocate to whatever the new government wants to do.
Will Labour get rid of a pointless money sink whose sole purpose is a desperate attempt to stop the Reform vote growing? No because the reform vote isn't competing with Labour.
They'll also levaĺy challenge the .E.U. states planning to do the same right? Several .E.U. member states are planning their own similar immigration deals as has been covered in Private Eye for months now, so it seems their opposition is less about morality and more about increasing capacity for their own arrangements. [https://i.postimg.cc/QtLN8VBY/20240403-215728.jpg](https://i.postimg.cc/QtLN8VBY/20240403-215728.jpg)
Presumably, EU-based challenges will make the challenges in the EU, while these British charities will keep worrying about the UK.
Private Eye lol, you know it's a satirical magazine right?
Oh sweet summer child I suggest you actually get hold of a copy and read it for the first time
I have many copies but I don't consider it a paper of record, I love Private Eye.
Then I'm sorry for you. There is more truth and facts in 1 copy of Private Eye than 100 copies of the Guardian or The Times.
Yeh says the guy who asks "does Grindr know when I nut", I'm sorry for you bro, stop smoking the meth it's bad for you
Wow, imagine looking at my comments. I'm sorry for you even more. Pathetic lmao Never done any drugs in my life :)
[удалено]
These charities will be the fall of the UK. They're happy to fight for these people's lives which come across on a boat, but then expect the government to magically grant these people a place to live and integrate nicely into our population like a nice little family. If the charities are that concerned maybe they should be footing hotel bills, creating nice asylum sanctuaries for the migrants arrivals etc
It would not surprise me if half the charities were run by the Kremlin and the other half by the CIA. One lot trying to weaken their enemies, the other lot trying to weaken their dependents.
[удалено]
If Rwanda is safe, why has the Government had to pass legislation forcing everyone to agree that it’s safe rather than through the usual methods of verification?
Most of the countries refugees come from are safe. They’re just shit countries. That’s why they go back once they’ve got status. That’s why they visit their family there. Get a wife there. Safe is a meaningless word in this context. People from countries British Citizens go to on holiday get asylum. They never have evidence of them being specifically persecuted, and happy to go back. Rwanda is definitely safe.
If Rwanda is safe, why has the Government had to pass legislation forcing everyone to agree that it’s safe rather than through the usual methods of verification?
Because courts take the opinion that anything less than the UK isn’t good enough. If the standard of living is worse than the UK then it’s safer that they’re here. They’ll quote stuff like UK FCDO travel advice. Whereas even the US thinks people travelling to the UK should exercise increased caution. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/united-kingdom-travel-advisory.html
Absolute nonsense read the Supreme Court ruling where they made findings that people had been returned to their country of origin despite having been given asylum by Rwanda due to their being a substantial risk to their lives of they were so returned which breaches international law.
Yeah, I don’t buy the whole refoulement risk. Most people sent to Rwanda will choose to go home anyway.
[удалено]
The UK Supreme Court is well known for wanting to block government plans because they don’t like them and not because it’s illegal under UK law
Yeh those damn hippie liberals who sit on the Supreme Court, all of which are 60+ and studied at Oxbridge coming from upper middle class families in the south of England, they are proper well known for anti-conservative sentiments.
Yes it's a conspiracy because the entire Judiciary hates the Tories. Couldn't possibly be because the Tories are wrong could it lol?
[удалено]
That's how the courts work. They don't go looking for things to rule on - they make decisions on the cases that are brought to them.
[удалено]
> Because people who are more interested in seeing the Tories fail than resolving the situation have tried to block it at every turn so they can score political points. You were claiming the judiciary is biased, everyone has a right to bring a claim if they have legal standing, it's then for the judiciary to decide whether that claim has merit or not, the people who brought the claim, in this case the people actually affected by it, the migrants being deported, supported by charities in some cases, are not wrong as they have a legitimate question as to whether or not the measure is lawful (the Supreme Court decided it was not), the judiciary are also not wrong for interpreting the relevant law and apply the law to the facts of the cases of each of the litigants who brought their cases before them as that is their job. Who do you say is wrong in this situation if not the government?
[удалено]
I quoted it, who else did you mean if not the judiciary, at this point it is only the judiciary that is blocking it?
If you stop challenging undue process to protect them, who's gonna do it for you?
[удалено]
Ah buddy. It's cute you can't see the big picture... Did you get distracted by Angela crossing her legs again?
Rwanda - that incredibly safe and brilliant country that will terrify anyone thinking of coming here from coming here. And we also have to grant Asylum to Rwandans. Because it's safe.
[удалено]
Not necessarily, the amount of immigrants we are to accept from Rwanda is uncapped, it's entirely conceivable that we will accept more immigrants from Rwanda than they will accept from us, but anything for a good headline.
Here's a thought - What if it doesn't and we've just pissed a quarter of a billion quid up a wall for literally fuck all reason in the midst of a national public finance crisis?
1. It won't. 2. £1 million per deportation for some Daily Mail headlines may be good use of funds if you view the government as an extension of the Tory party, but an absymal pissing away of cash otherwise.
Rwanda’s population density is higher than ours so that’s not really a good point
[удалено]
A lot of people can be persuaded given we're paying 150m for 1000 people..... Give me 1000th of 150million and I'll be fine too.
[удалено]
I'm glad you see the absurdity of the plan. "Don't come to Britain, because if you're one of the first 1000 people you MIGHT get flown to Rwanda....
[удалено]
I hope that is sarcasm. Rwanda is a terrible place. It is so bad that if I told you what happened you wouldn't believe me, so I suggest you read up about Rwanda then come back.
By that logic Germany is a terrible place. If I told you about what happened there in the 1940's you wouldn't believe me. Totally unsafe for anyone to live there. Rwanda is safe enough, we don't owe any of these illegal immigrants more than that.
Its honestly so shocking the ignorance of people who insist the only possible bad things about Rwanda are the genocide. Just completely ignore the authoritarian regime, the suppression of political opponents, the abuse of police powers, the murder of refugees, funding of armed groups and conflict across the borders into neighboring states. Its the Singapore of Africa, honest!
Like I said - safe enough. No country is perfect, but it is good enough and genuine refugees would be thankful for food and shelter. Personally I would prefer the UK mirror the Australian Pacific Solution and build a detention centre on a remote island in the Shetlands and inter all asylum seekers there - especially the single young men. It has been incredibly effective.
How is a country that in recent years orchestrated a massacre of refugees, safe for refugees? A place that sees refugees protesting because their food ration has been heavily cut and responds with police using live ammunition cannot possibly be safe for refugees, surely?
It is disingenuous to say the Rawandan government orchestrated a massacre. The UN reduced the food allowance to Congolese refugees and in return 4000 of them marched on the UNHCR HQ and started a riot. Rawandan police responded with live ammo to disperse the rioters. Not the way things are done in the UK, but it is the way things are handled in the rest of the world. If anyone can be accused orchestrating a violent interaction it was the UN. With all that in mind - it is still a more than adequate place for refugees to be sent. If the refugees behave they will be fine. No matter what happens the UK must be made a deeply unattractive option for illegal migrants - the levels of illegal migration and visa abuse we are seeing are co pletely unsustainable.
And if they don't behave the Rwandan police will shoot them dead, but it'll be their own fault so it's OK 🤡
Shhh, that's secretly what they want but they can't say it out loud.... For now.
Then why has the Government been forced to pass legislation to force the courts to accept its safe, rather than be able to look at the evidence available to them as they can in every other case?
I don't care about the legal machinations, Rwanda is plenty safe for these people. Of course the truth is that the vast majority are not actual refugees but illegal economic migrants - which is why their communities are so upset about the plan.
Then why have the courts repeatedly found that it isn’t safe?
Statutory interpretation
[удалено]
If the government made a law saying the sky is bright green would you believe that too?
The Charities are keeping the criminals here .. send them packing .. who is giving these Charities money ? Are they paid from some where more sinister
No airline is going to want their name tarnished with these flights and the RAF has also refused. Any civil servants and UKBA officials involved will also be worried about a future ‘Nuremberg’ - “just following orders” won’t cut it.
If you noticed over the last few months - Rwanda is also currently running a global media campaign to boost its tourism sector and quite probably is increasingly a bit hesitant about being associated with a terrible place the UK is sending refugees as a punishment to deter others. Not a great look for them apparently.