Hotel Rwanda?

[Workingman]

Patel had been in Kigali to sign a deal whereby Rwanda takes in illegal immigrants to the UK on a one-way ticket. The trial is set to cost £120m.

It is claimed the scheme would "save countless lives" from human trafficking. No it won't, they are already here, the traffickers already have the cash. It will mainly focus on single males with the "vast majority" of those arriving "illegally" being considered for relocation to Rwanda. So deportation is not definite. It is also claimed that it would "over time prove a very considerable deterrent". That is not definite, either.

Unfortunately, given that this government's record on illegals is so appalling something had to be done.



I am not comfortable with this scheme, it sounds a bit inhumane, and these people are our problem not Rwanda's. It is for us to process the illegals and economic migrants from the genuine refugees and asylum seekers and then send them packing - and keep on doing it over and over.

I would prefer the £120m to be spent on upgrading ex military bases to a decent standard of accommodation and other facilities such as medical and interpretation services where arrivals can be processed in a safe yet controlled environment.

[medsec222]

I find it depressing to read every day of so many people crossing the channel in small boats. I have no idea if this new scheme will work or not or how much it will cost the UK taxpayers, but we can't go on just taking more and more migrants who would prefer to settle in the UK for one reason or another, as sooner rather than later we will become overwhelmed if we continue with the 'open door' policy we are dealing with currently.. Already we have a shortage of housing and what little green belt we have left seems to be gradually diminishing, not to mention NHS, general practitioners, dentists, education etc.

I would not wish inhumane conditions on anyone but many of these migrants are fit young men who have left their own country for a better standard of living elsewhere. By contrast we see young Ukrainian men making sure their wives and children are safe before fighting for control of their own country. Many of the older ones amongst us will remember that fathers, uncles, and sons have seen this before and done exactly the same during world war 2.

A picture is painted by the media that these migrants are desperate frightened people trying to reach the UK as a place of safety. But they are still able to hand over large sums of money to the traffickers and they coming from France which is a place a safety. I do worry for the women and children amongst the migrants who risk crossing the channel but it seems they will be housed in the UK to have their applications processed.

No doubt the human rights lawyers will have a field day trying to scupper the scheme and Pritti Patel with it. They will drag this out with appeals, again paid for the the UK taxpayer and certainly if the scheme does get off the ground, it will be more difficult for them to fill their coffers at the expense of the UK taxpayers. Being transported to Rwanda having taken a risky journey to cross the channel rather than being housed in a hotel must surely act as a deterrent for many of the migrants. We have tried co-operation with the French but it is a waste of time and money and to no avail. So it's up to the UK now to ensure it has control of its own borders.

Migration is such an emotive subject, so I hope I haven't offended anyone with my post.

[Workingman]

I see that RAF Linton-on-Ouse is to be used as a Reception Centre.

It has been under care and maintenance since its closure in 2020 so it is not a run down dump. It has former married quarters and H and T barrack blocks, medical centre, gym, cinema ex NAAFI (supermarket), HQ admin centre. It is the ideal sort of place for processing to take place. There are other recently closed RAF and Army bases to be used.

Linton or Hotel Rwanda? I know which I would choose.

[TheOstrich]

Linton or Hotel Rwanda? I know which I would choose.

Rwanda, without a shadow of doubt. Why do you want to give them a foothold in this country which the wretched Human Rights brigade will exploit?

France has done beggar all to curb these migrants and the people-smuggling gangs exploiting them - just laughed at us and taken our money. The Government has had to do something, and this scheme is a darn sight more proactive in curbing illegal immigration than anything its critics have come up with.

Once the first 500 or so have been shipped out, and the word gets back the Dunkirk Camps, it will, I'm sure, be a deterrent.

[cromwell]

These people are not "migrants" or refugees, they are illegal economic immigrants.

As such they have no right to be here at all.
They are costing us millions every day in hotel costs, this Rwanda scheme will cost millions, most of them will end up receiving some form of benefit and legal challenges by the human rights shower will cost us millions.


Additionally the dinghy lot are overwhelmingly members of a religious group where other members have been responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks and terrorist murders in this country, and for the mass grooming and sexual abuse of vulnerable young girls.

The media can weep and wail all they want with their manufactured outrage. I don't want one of them in the country.

As Meds says this is an emotive subject. But I am sick of our media and their deceitful slanted reporting.

[Workingman]

Guys, I think that you have misunderstanded me.

I want the illegals, the fakes, and the chancers not to be here. However, it is my take that we should process them quickly and efficiently and then deport them sharpish. Hotel Rwanda does not do that.

Help the genuine ones by all means, but give the chancers a one-way ticket out - destination their choice.

[victor]

Cromwell and the Ostrich are right,we cannot carry on having these illegals.
Let's face it the ONLY reason they want to come here is for the benefits that we hand them.

Come on Patel put an end to it.,they are bleeding this country dry.

Happy to take our money but not our standards of way of life

[Suff]

It is not quite as effective as dumping them on the beaches of North Africa, but it does send a message.

These people are risking their lives and, worse, the lives of wives and children, in order to take advantage of our economy and "get ahead" in a way which is extremely difficult in their country. They spend quite a lot of money on it, often financed by the larger family, on the expectation that the family will also be able to come over after a period of time.

Winding up deep in Africa after spending that amount of money is not their desired goal. Once it gets out it will have an effect.

I expect scepticism on this but the evidence is already there. During the mass migration of 2m illegals through Greece and other eastern states, some of these people walked more than 2,000 miles. Swedish press were in Denmark talking to illegals who were continuing on to Sweden. They asked them why they did not stay in Denmark.

The answer was simple. In Sweden they would get their own individual room at the outset, followed by a single apartment thereafter. Sweden gave them more than 2x the money and their family was allowed to come over after 6 months. In Denmark they were given subsistence money for living, accommodated like an army barracks with 6/8 people per room and they had to wait 18 months before family could be brought over. Break the law during that time, work illegally, or any of a host of other transgressions and they would be deported.

News soon spread. Denmark was not a "friendly" country for illegals. So they carried on into Sweden.

It works and news spreads fast when the desperate have mobile phones with international roaming enabled.

[Workingman]

During the mass migration of 2m illegals through Greece and other eastern states, some of these people walked more than 2,000 miles.

Hang on there. These people were escaping an internecine three-way civil war in a failed state between the state, Syria, those against it, and insurgents in the form of IS. They were in no way 'illegal'. You are conflating different things. They, the overwhelming majority, are not illegals, they are refugees.

Those crossing the Med and the Channel are another thing, they are mostly African economic migrants and it is they who we should turn back, day after day for as long as it takes.

[Suff]

On review of the applicants in Germany, 75% were from Afghanistan and the horn of Africa. Less than 20% were fleeing Syria.

Why are they coming across the channel? On application in France, 85% are rejected and deported for being economic migrants and not tru refugees.