Poll: the UK’s Rwanda Bill
Recently the UK made global news – and split opinions – because of its latest policy. The government has announced that it wants to send certain people seeking asylum 6,500km away to Rwanda, in Africa.
People smugglers have been putting asylum seekers’ lives at risk by charging them money to cross the English Channel in small boats – and many people, including children, have lost their lives. The UK government says that the reason for the new Rwanda policy is to deter asylum seekers from making that dangerous journey.
If asylum seekers were sent from the UK to Rwanda, the Rwandan government would decide whether or not to grant them asylum. Either way, the asylum seeker would not be allowed to live in the UK. The new policy would apply to anyone entering the UK illegally, with no limit on numbers.
So far, no asylum seekers have been sent to Rwanda, because flights have been blocked for human rights concerns.
Comments (65)
After hearing the government issuing the 'Rwanda Bill' I was simply appalled at the news. In my opinion it makes illegal immigrants almost seem like objects to the government. Bearing in mind most the time illegal immigrants are simply just poor people who's lives are terrible back in their home countries and can't afford to get visas or tickets to the UK (the 'legal way.') So they end up paying whatever money they have to smugglers so they can find some hope in a treacherous journey through multiple countries and borders just so they can get to Britian. So to pick these people up like dirt and throw them into the poor, dangerous country of Rwanda is disgusting to say the least. To not even offer these immigrants (who are poor, homesick, tired and drained from their hazardous journey) a flight back to their place of origin just shows how little the goverment cares for these people. I understand that we don't have the space for every single immigrant who comes here the legal or illegal way, but if they can afford to send that many people by plane to Rwanda (where conditions are probably worse than where they came from) than wouldn't it just be better to give them that money? Or to fly them back to a safer place? Maybe even just send them back to their homes, if theyre that upintent upon turning them away. The goverment shouldn't be allowed to treat these desperate people in such a way, especially considering how England's current Prime Minister is definetly a descendant of immigrants himself.
The UK government's proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has caused a lot of debate and raised concerns about human rights. While the aim to discourage dangerous journeys across the English Channel is understandable, the proposed approach has raised ethical questions about outsourcing asylum decisions and potential risks to individuals' rights and safety. The policy intends to send a message that illegal entry into the UK is not acceptable and could potentially reduce the number of illegal immigrants. It's important for policymakers to consider alternative solutions that address the root causes of migration while maintaining human rights standards.
Thanks for sharing, what is your personal opinion on this issue? Imagine you are Rishi Sunak, you have members of the public wanting you to be tougher on immigration, however equally you have to be a modern developed nation and show compassion. What would you do?
Hello Ollie @ KPMG
In response to what you have asked I personally feel that If I am in the shoes of Rishi Sunak, I will show compassion and also be tough on immigration in the sense that, I will allow access to some immigrants that are coming into the country for purposes of education and strictly jobs that concern the country meaning jobs like interpreters and national ambassadors. I will also try as much as possible to firstly dig in to the previous records of the immigrants and also check their criminal records to see whether they will cause havoc in the society.
I will like to say that Rishi Sunak is doing his possible best and I admire him for that and I want to say kudos to what he has done.
Thank you!!!
I think that the policy made by the UK government is beneficial to the war stricken countries especially in Africa where the state of the economy is not encouraging citizens to stay in their countries but rather immigrate in search of greener pastures. I think this policy will benefit greatly refugees in Africa because of them not needing to go on the incredibly dangerous journey which would cause the death of many especially when crossing water bodies and the Sahara desert. I think that the policy made would help people to avoid the problem which is the death of immigrants travelling to other countries. These immigrants in the UK will benefit also benefit because they do not have to pay for transportation to Rwanda
Hi grounded_seal, thanks for your comment.
The people that this policy will affect the most is people who want to stay in the UK. The aim is to deter people from attempting to come the UK at all.
Does this change your mind about anything you've said?
Yes this changes my mind about what I said because i now think that the policy will affect those who desire to make the journey to the UK despite its risks and dangers. A lot of these illegal immigrants make the journey to the UK in order to escape war, poverty, and economic reasons or family reunification. The issue is that when people immigrate, it causes problems for the natives of the UK because when there are so many immigrants in one place resources which are available will be depleted much more quickly and job opportunities will be reduced because of the increase in population which will lead to unemployment.
Hello Tiff @ Topical Talk
I am not really sure of this because, If we are to stop people from entering I personally feel that the country will not really develop because I feel that immigrants are factors of the development in a country for example for the past few years the UK have been bringing in nurses and doctors into their country which will lead to development of the UK by this single act. I also want to say that I feel that for those who want to go there trying to seek a better life I feel that the rule will be unfair to the asylum seeker.
Thank you!!
I see your point of view, but what are your thoughts for people who wanted to live in the UK but are now forced otherwise?
I think that these people because of stories told to them by those who have not even been to the UK make them believe that life is better there although they are not necessarily correct. There are not necessarily greener pastures there. Most Africans believe that if you're in Europe you are rich which is not necessarily true. Yet for those that are in Rwanda life is much better because the cost of living is less expensive than life in the United Kingdom. When someone moves to the UK A lot of expenses are included but when the distance is shortened to Rwanda it is better for the immigrants because in Nigeria the cost of going to the UK is very high but a flight or even a drive t Rwanda is much cheaper
I agree because if I were Rishi Sunak, I would take the same decision as you have stated, because as I am pressurised to toughen immigration rules, I would rather tighten the laws than just send the migrants to Rwanda. I would only give access to migrants if they have the right credentials by the right processes rather than illegally, if this can't work, then I will regulate the people that enter the country to only people who have come for businesses and for studying, because these are extra important reasons that are necessary for development and could help in the growth of the country and the world at large. I also don't see this option taken by Rishi Sunak as a decision that is good, but rather not good enough because he is under pressure and is trying his best to deliver, but I would rather prefer for him to take this suggestion he has stated because statistically by September 2023, 8% (497,797) of the people that came into the UK came for educational purposes, this displays that the UK is a country where many people come for educational purposes, and will not chase them away because it is a source of Revenue for the country and also a way of peole acquiring knowledge for usage in making life choices on occupation.
Everyone can't have the exact same opinions. There will aways be the opposers and supporters. Either way, I feel UK made this wise decision based on the effects it has or will have on the country as a whole and citizens as individuals. They obviously made this decision to reduce crime rate (e.g. illegal asylum seekers) in or coming into the country and reduce the welfare cost of the country.
Yet, this decision seems to be a mild way to violate the human rights of asylum seekers. But some rights must be denied so others can be guaranteed. In this case, the right of travel-to-UK is denied to asylum seekers so the right to safety and proper welfare (the effect of this policy on the country's production cost) would be guaranteed. This is because safety is more important than the asylum seekers' right to travel to UK. Yes, this may affect the asylum seekers financially and economically, but majority carries the vote; this policy is for the protection of the UK mass.
Thank you.
Basically, entering a country illegally is wrong but asylum seekers should not be punished for that. They are seeking protection from what ever might have happened to them in their resident country. For all the asylum seekers to be sent to Rwanda, the Rwandan government must have decided that they are ready to help the asylum seekers. Imagine sending a refugee who migrated to UK because of insecurity to Rwanda only for the Rwandan government to decline helping that refugee. It doesn't seem fair, does it? Whether migrants or not, they are humans and they need to be considered. I am personally not in support of this policy because it doesn't see too fair. If the UK government wants to prevent the asylum seekers from making a dangerous journey, then sending them to another country in another continent doesn't really seen like a solution. I think that the policy could be tweaked a little. UK and Rwanda should work hand in hand to cater for the asylum seekers by providing protection and which ever service they need.
It's great that you are thinking about how to tweak the policy, intelligent_orchard. What are some of the things that the UK and Rwanda could do to start working hand in hand? What responsibility do you think that Rwanda has, versus what responsibility the UK has?
Well, i think the first thing that they should decide is if both of them should accept refugees or if only one of them should accept refugees while the other country funds them. This will be based on the present population and resources of the country. Since UK has decided to send most of the refugees to Rwanda, the Rwandan government should be alerted and get prepared while the UK government should at least provide funds to cater for all the refugees they are sending over there. I think the best thing is for the countries to have a discussion about what should be done to the refugees. As for their responsibilities, it depends on what the countries decide. Rwanda could choose to host the refugees while UK provides the funds or vice versa. They could also choose to take equal responsibility for the refugees. This is how i think the policy should be tweaked.
The law passed by the government of United Kingdom left me flabbergasted a made me rethink the purpose of letting in the immigrants and allowing them to be a part of their country. I personally think that its like striking axe on your own leg. Immigrants paly an important role in the social, economic and cultural growth , not allowing these immigrants and sending them off to a country not known to them is not an act supporting humanity.
I really agree with you triumphant_snow.I really felt sad about this new policy because,sending people seeking safety far away to Rwanda is a big worry because it might not be fair or safe for them. Even though the UK government wants to stop dangerous trips and bad people who try to make money by helping others cross the sea in risky boats, this plan could cause problems. It's not clear how things would work, and it might mean that these people don't get treated fairly. Also, if flights are stopped because of worries about human rights, it shows there could be some big problems. Instead of sending people far away, it would be better to find out why they're leaving their homes and help them in a fair way. This means making sure everyone's rights are respected and keeping people safe.THANK YOU!!!!🙂
I disagree with your point about letting in immigrants and allowing them to be a part of the country just because of their role in social, economic and cultural growth. If someone comes to you, you can’t let them in just because they can diversify the environment around you. Yes, I agree that some people need to be given protection because they face danger in their countries, but can be done to a certain extent only. Instead of promoting immigration, what can be done is that steps are taken to improve their condition or separate societies are made to give shelter to these people in their respective countries. A country’s resources are limited. It won’t be able to provide services to people who immigrate, legally or illegally.
I 100% agree with you triumphant_snow. The policy of the United Kingdom is completely and utterly unacceptable when. When you think that these people have suffered dangerous consequences to get here only to be sent of yet again to Rwanda, it leaves a sour taste. If I were an immigrant I would vexed if i was being treated like an outcast and want to find refuge somewhere I could be safe.
My heart is telling me that this is wrong, but when I actually think about it I feel that its the best for the asylum seekers. It's not safe to try to travel to the UK by boat but I also don't think they should be sent 6500 km away I can see why this topic has created so many split opinions.
Can you say more about this, loyal_mandarin? Why do you think it's wrong to send people 6500 km away, given that they have already traveled very far? Are you saying that the policy may be best for the asylum seekers because it's not safe to travel by boat? Do you think that the policy will act as a deterrent?
Hello to you all,
I strongly feel angry when I hear about this policy. I feel like this because... I put myself in the shoes of both the prime minister and the Asylums and when I did this, I saw what was actually going on. The asylums are helpless and are seeking for help, while the UK want to send them away to a place, they are not sure of their safety. I think that they aren't considering the lives of the asylums and I believe that the asylums deserve better than this policy.
I'm also really happy that the people of UK took charge and protested for human rights.
THANKYOU.
It's great that you put yourself in the shoes of both sides, glad_outcome. How did you feel when you put yourself in the shoes of the prime minister? Do you think that he has any valid reasons for the policy?
Well, if I was in the shoes of Rishi Sunak, I really don't know what I would have done, but to the best of my understanding I think that I would have considered way more facts before making that kind of policy.
When I put myself in his shoes I actually felt kind of guilty because... this decision seemed rather based on pressure more than anything, but despite that I still think he had his reasons for doing what he did .i.e.
1)He could have wanted control the number of persons who wanted to establish homes within the UK.
2)He might have considered the space left for his citizens.
3)He might have thought of the negative aspect of these asylum seekers.
These are all valid reasons, but I think that keeping them in the country seems to be cheaper and has more advantages, but all in all I still feel that he has a good reason for doing what he did.
THANKYOU.
Hello glad outcome
I am in accordance to what you are saying because I also feel that this rule is unfair to asylum seekers because as you have earlier mentioned, they are seeking for a better life so this rule can make some asylum seekers sad and frustrated. I actually understand what the UK government is trying to do, which is to reduce the rate of people loosing their lives while travelling through the English channel but I still feel that the rule is a bit harsh because for example if an immigrant's relative stays in the UK and he or she wants to visit or stay with his or her relative for the purpose of education or to live a better life, I feel this rule will be unfair to that individual. I personally feel that this rule will reduce tourism in the country leading to the reduction of their source of revenue which will lead to less development in the country.
Thank you!!!
I think I am going to respectfully disagree with you here, the entire aim of this bill is to help save the lives of asylum seekers. Crossing the channel in a boat that isn't fully safe is extremely dangerous. So isn't it better to prevent this treacherous journey and send them somewhere just as safe as the United Kingdom. Stopping them from taking the channel crossing will save many more lives of asylum seekers.
These trips across the channel are led by untrustworthy people who are just trying to make quick money off of vulnerable people. These types of people need to be stopped and the Rwanda bill may be the only way to do this with the least consequences.
You've disagreed in a respectful way here, well done!
Can you challenge yourself to look at a different perspective? Why might some people say that sending people to Rwanda might not be safe for them? What did the courts have to say about this?
Some may say that sending people to Rwanda might not be safe for them because of the increased risk of the asylum seekers back to the country they have just escaped from. If they are just sent back to where they started then it will have meant all the lives that had been lost and time that the journey had taken would have been for nothing.
The courts decided that because of this they could not and will not send asylum seekers to Rwanda due to their unsafe accepting system when processing asylum seekers.
Thank you for changing my mind @accurate_outcome but, I am still not certain about some facts. From the Quiz that we took and the research on this policy I have come to find out that this policy still doesn't guarantee them safety entirely.
1)
Thank you for changing my mind @accurate_outcome but, I am still not certain about some facts. From the Quiz that we took and the research on this policy I have come to find out that this policy still doesn't guarantee them safety entirely.
1)It is stated that if they were to pass through a safe country before coming to the UK they might (50%) not be allowed to live in the UK, this implies that instead of using a little bit of money to house these asylum seekers they could send them back to the country they crossed through.
2)It was also said that the Rwandan government would also choose whether or not they could live in the country.
>So, from my point of view it looks like there are still not certain whether these asylum seekers are going to get help. It is even said that this policy goes against human rights, though Rishi Sunak has his reasons for doing this it still could have been avoided.
I'm open to any new suggestions and I am willing to learn.
THANKYOU.
I see where your coming from when you are saying it doesn't guarantee one hundred percent safety, but it decreases the other risks that they might have faced when crossing the channel. There is nothing that a percent can do that guarantees you full safety, so it is better the asylum seekers take the safer route rather than the riskeier route even if it doesn't assure full safety.
However when it comes to Rwanda accepting the immigrants, we don't yet know if they would or wouldn't. Having not sent any asylum seekers there we can't just assume that Rwanda would just send them back to their original country.
Rwanda accepting asylum seekers may not be for certain, but it is better for the survival of the asylum seekers rather than them taking the treacherous journey across the channel.
The UK's government has taken a bold and controversial step to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda. This step has started a debate all over the world. I opine that this is a good idea which is beneficial to the government and the citizens of UK. Illegal immigration has been a global issue since it has caused a lot of fatalities as people often opt for dangerous routes. Illegal immigration is not good for the citizens of the country as these immigrants often come to these countries in search of jobs. This is a problem for the citizens as these people help the resources to get depleted much faster and too much immigration can cause crisis of opportunities for the natives. Therefore, I personally agree with the government of UK.
Hello everyone
As you know that we are discussing about the new policy that the UK introduced for assylum seekers. Now why do assylum seekers immigrate sometimes their needs don't get fulfilled or the country is very poor. People smugglers charge a lot of money to the seekers which means if they are already poor they have been looted by the smuggler and if they don't make it to the end they have nothing left. The policy that the UK introduced states that it will accept no more people who enter the country illegally and the ones who entered before will be allowed to stay in UK until they are not sent back to their country. In my opinion it is beneficial for both the countries Rwanda and UK as uk can manage it's population growth as the immigrants from Rwanda have stopped coming. And Rwanda's people can go back to their country , get well educated and help in the development of their country .
Waiting for your reply !
This is a very interesting point and i do agree that this will avoid many people getting "scammed". But how would you compare UK to Rwanda?
The United kingdom has decided to send immigrants back to where they came from, and honestly the british MPs are doing a right thing because too many immigrants are bad for places like europe. For example sweden is a perfect example of what happens when there are too many asylum seekers sweden used to have the lowest crime rate in europe and now has the second highest in all of europe. I think this policy will benefit greatly refugees in Africa because of them not needing to go on the incredibly dangerous journey which would cause the death of many especially when crossing water bodies.
Interesting ideas. Can you tell us where you found your evidence?
In fact, many of the immigrants the UK wants to send to Rwanda are not from there at all - they will be sent to another foreign country, not "back where they came from". Does this change your view of the government's plan?
When I hear things like this I first put myself in the shoes of the prime minister/president I was shocked to here that they are been transfered through small boats which people are been endangered. In my own perspective of what the British are doing, I say this because the British I believe are helping the assulym seekers to learn how to manage the condition of the country and learn how to have a mind of improving his or her country.
Wow, the UK's Rwanda policy sure is stirring up a lot of feelings and opinions, isn't it? It's such a tough situation all around.
On one hand, it's heartbreaking to hear about people risking their lives, including kids, in those dangerous boat journeys across the English Channel. It's like a nightmare, knowing that some are taking such risks just to find safety and a better life. So, I get why the government wants to do something to stop that.
But then again, the idea of sending asylum seekers all the way to Rwanda feels pretty intense, doesn't it? I mean, that's thousands of kilometers away from everything they know, their families, their culture. And leaving it up to Rwanda to decide whether to grant asylum or not? That's a lot of uncertainty and pressure for people already going through so much.
And now, with flights being blocked because of human rights concerns, it's like hitting a roadblock in the whole plan. It's making us all stop and think about whether this is really the right way to go about things.
Overall, it's just a tough situation with no easy answers. I hope they find a solution that keeps everyone safe and treats asylum seekers with the dignity and respect they deserve.
I chose the unsure face. I chose that because I’m generally lost for words on what so say. This is surely unfair to those who have taken that journey to get to the “dream land” and have a safe place to live which would have also cost them a lot of money to cross the channel illegally. But at another point of view this is a precaution put in place to deter people from the uk as we don’t have room for everyone or enough money for everyone as asylum seekers or immigrants usually receive. Sum of money to get them on their feet in the new country. Surely some people would have rather stayed in the country they came from rather being sent to Rwanda in Africa.
I'm not sure about immigrants receiving a sum of money. Can you provide a source for this information?
My wording is very misleading. By sum of money I meant that in the uk immigrants receive a debit card that is loaded with money depending on how many people there are or how old they are or if they have special needs.
If the immigrants have accepted to live in the housing provided they will usually get £49.18 for each person in the household. This is to help they pay for necessities such as food and toiletries. (This differs as some immigrants are given a bed and breakfast place to stay so will be given less as they don’t have to pay for some food items).
I feel surprised about the UK's Rwanda policy. UK has made a asylum policy that if asylum tries to enter UK they would be sent to Rwanda. The policy is a departure from more traditional approaches to managing asylum and immigrants. It is an uncommon practice for countries to send their asylum seekers to a third country for resettlement. I feel concerns about the compatibility of the policy with existing national and international legal frameworks including human rights obligations. The policy also might prioritize deterrence and control over humanitarian considerations. I feel surprised regarding its impact on the rights and well being of asylum seekers as well as on the border asylum seekers and immigration system. Even, the UK cannot give them full protection in Rwanda as Rwanda's human rights are not well.
I believe that what they government did was wrong because if they are not granted asylum they will not have a place to stay and this might to not having essential things needed. The government should agree with the other country that hey should grant them asylum before migrating them into another country. For they case of people smuggling they government should enact laws and programme stopping they illegal smuggling and if they smuggling continues they government should look for other borders that are safe to migrate people, as said they main purpose of migrating is for settlement so if they Rwanda government does not agree to grant them asylum they government should either look for other countries that accept migration like united kingdom and Canada and make sure they are taken care of.
Thanks for sharing, succinct_cheetah! This Rwanda policy was made by the government in the UK -- does this change your mind about anything?
Good Day Everyone,
I have reacted with the happy face, since, like other Topical Talkers, I believe that the decision made by the UK Government is very apt, as illegal immigration is a global problem. These people often choose dangerous routes and then end up getting into big trouble, which may even result in their own death. This decision prevents that from happening.
Immigration not only harms the immigrants but also the people of the country they are leaving, as this decreases the development of that particular country and so the country still lives with the name tag of "Under Developed" or "Developing" even though the people native to that country had/have the potential to remove it. It also harms the country they are going to, as that country may get short of resources faster and the population of that country may also rise.
Thank You!!
In a way you are right. Their decision leads them even to their own death. But as placid_ morning stated above these decisions were made because they were obliged to because of the state of their country. Noone wants to leave from his homeland except when they are forced to. It is easy to talk from the comfort of our homes but I can totally understand when you say that immigration can label countries to developed and developing. However humanity is a word equal to all of us and humans should care about each other.
I agree with you just as much, there are multiple aspects and opinions on every topic and in my response to this poll, I only spoke about the positive side, thank you for summoning up the negative side as well, as both aspects must be discussed upon.
Thank you for pointing this out, peaceful_mode. I quite agree - it's so important we don't forget our humanity when discussing this topic.
I am confused about the policy, this is good as well as bad at the same time.
This is good because it helps to reduce the dangerous journeys to UK and also helps to reduce the growing population of UK. This is bad because if there will be no any immigration in the UK then there might be the lack of new ideas, innovations,technolgy and business. This policy also separates people from their families.
I think it's great that you've highlighted some positive aspects of immigration, empowered_studio. Well done for thinking more widely. Can you think of some other advantages that immigration can bring to a country, for example in the employment sector?
The UK'S Rwanda policy made me develop mixed feelings and most importantly it made me reconsider whether social integration has been achieved.
Despite being beneficial in various matter, it moreover indicates that the discrimination of human rights still prevails in some countries as in this specific situation England basically forbids them live in England and makes them go back. While asylum seekers has gone to England for a better and profitable life, they should not be kicked out but on the contrary they have to accommodate to make themselves feel welcome. So, it goes without saying that I feel unsure about this policy because in spite of me concurring in a limited extend, I also believe that it's implementation can be the reason for the generation of many tribal and human rights.
Thank you for your comment. To confirm - no immigrants have yet been sent to Rwanda from the UK because of human-rights concerns.
I chose happy face because I think it is a good idea to send asylm seekers to Rwanda to set them off the path of danger. It shows that the UK actually cares for the lives of the asylum seeker, I realised that in some other countries they turn asylum seekers away whether the journey is treacherous or not. They simply don't like them so the steps the UK are taking can help save thousands of lives despite what others may think. They are actually doing a good deed
Interesting ideas. Are there any downsides in turning away refugees and sending them to Rwanda?
I believe the only downside is that the number of refugees may keep increasing and there will be no more space left in Rwanda because it is not a large country, other than that everything (in my opinion) is good.
Credible_acorn, thank you for your comment.
What do you think would be the effect on the refugees themselves?
The refugees did originally want to settle in the UK them being turned away wouldn't make them happy but if they were to be told the dangers of the journey to the UK I am sure they would understand.
That's interesting, credible_acorn. Do you think all the refugees would be understanding and accept being sent to Rwanda?
No some may not be happy with the change of plan they might even protest against the move to Rwanda. They might even cause destruction and disruption in the country they are trying to flee from. I am not sure if this group of people can be properly persuaded to make the move to Rwanda, they would try to make the trip to the UK and would be put in serious danger. But there may be a number of them that would be persuaded.
Why do you think that refugees try to come to the UK in the first place?
They could be trying to go to the UK for a better life, higher job opportunities or to escape something dangerous happening in their country.
I am glad that the UK and Rwanda have come together to make a policy that helps asylum seekers. This is good because it can save people from dangerous journeys that cost a lot and put their lives at risk.
However, there is one thing that worries me. In Rwanda, asylum seekers can only seek refuge if the Rwanda government agrees. This might mean only a few people can enter leaving the rest behind. But I hope the president will allow all asylum seekers from the UK to seek refuge in Rwanda.
Interesting ideas. Why do you think refugees and asylum seekers want to live in the UK?
I believe immigrants and asylum seekers want to live in the UK because it might be the closest and safest place for them to find refuge. Additionally, the UK offers good job opportunities, which could help them support their families or themselves. They might also have heard that the UK is a beautiful country where everyone is valued, so they want to go there to feel appreciated, even though they are immigrants.
How do you think asylum seekers would feel if they were rejected from the UK and sent all the way to Rwanda after making such long and sometimes dangerous journeys from their countries of origin?
Hi, I believe asylum seekers might feel really sad and tricked because they were told the UK is a place where everyone is important. But when they arrived, they were sent away like they didn't matter and told to go to another country. This might make them feel worthless. They might also worry that other asylum seekers could face the same treatment if they come to the UK. This could even make tourists not want to visit because they wouldn't want to experience discrimination and be sent away like they did to the asylum seekers. This could be bad for the UK because tourists are one of their major income, so if the tourists don't want to come to the UK they will suffer a massive drop in income.
Hi,
I personally selected the angry face for this poll . This is because to me it raising a lot of concerns about human rights . I understand the UK is wanting to do this to deter people from crossing the channel . There is better ways of doing this . Sending people off to Rwanda when they have done nothing wrong is very ethically wrong . We could do a less hurtful punishment likes fines instead . Another option could be to help the immigrants and HIC countries could help them by supplying them with food and supplies to come across to their country .
Lastly I do not think it is fair for politicians and leaders of countries to stop immigrants and more try to find a solution so the immigrants can get help without making counties go into over population .
Well done for suggesting another option. Can you explain what a HIC country is?
Hello Alicia ,
Thank you for this question . HIC is a high income country . Examples of this are the UK and America . Being a HIC country means your country is not poor and they have enough money to supply there country easily . That is why HIC countries will be able to help by supplying food or supplies to the LIC ( low income country ) and NEE ( newly emerging economy ) .
What I chose is surprised. I thought that people entering one country have the right to seek asylum especially when we are talking about people trying to leave from a war. For me, it is unacceptable to talk about humans as numbers. Every country should be ready to follow policies that help in people in need. They have to be prepared for how to handle immigration beforehand and not after people are risking their lives to come to their country.
I'm one of the people that used to believe that immigration was too unreasonable and not loyal to the country, and that citizens were unworthy of being a part of the country and were not grateful to be citizens. However, my thoughts and mindset about immigration changed when I saw other people's comments and opinions, and I realized that everything has a negative and positive side, and that not everything is one-sided.
That's very interesting, lovely_plant. Can you explain in more detail what made you change your mind about immigrants?
Modes:
2
My mind was changed when we had a discussion about it in the class and the hub and I know that with knowing something fully you can't just judge it by what you have heard or witnessed and that there is more to know and also the reaction of other topical talkers about the topic they expressed them selves and told us why they think so and so I became convinced and it made believe me you can't judge an image with a single opinion.
After we discussed it in class and on the Hub, I realized that you can't judge something based solely on what you have heard or seen, and that there is more to know. In addition, other topical talkers' opinions and their own expressions of why they believe it and think is right,and that convinced me that you can't judge an image based on a single opinion and everything can't be one sided.
I think that England has the authority to stop people from illegally entering their country, but I don't think that redirecting people Rwanda is really something that has any ethics. Part of it is that this bill only applies to illegal immigration. But at that point, you can't blame England because these immigrants were already willing to take the risk. I propose a middle ground, where both England and Rwanda work hand-in-hand to help immigrants, then make them go to Rwanda. My plan goes like this: the immigrants are caught in England, and the broker who organized the journey is arrested. The immigrants are given food, water and a medical check. Then they are told to board the plane to Rwanda. If at any point Rwanda is overwhelmed with the number of immigrants, the immigrants can stay at England until Rwanda has space. Continue this plan until Rwanda is filled, then England can begin dealing with their problems head-on.
Talented_signature, thank you for your comment.
England, as part of the United Kingdom, has in the past signed international agreements to accept people who genuinely seek asylum. Does that affect your answer?
I think no. The bill only effects illegal immigrants that cross the English Channel. Which in that case, I think my answer is a nice middle ground. Also I think that there is a difference between people who went illegally, to people that went legally.
I'm really confused about the new Rwanda policy. This new policy shows the negligence of Uk to guard the boarder properly. They failed to guard their boarder properly as a result people have entered there illegally. So, they should take necessary measures to improve the protection system. They should also punish those people who have entered illegally and made arrangement for them to return their own country. Instead of getting the asylum back to their own country, they decided to send them to Rwanda where they may be able to get in or not which depends on the will of the government. By doing this, aren't they putting the life of the people at risk? They are not thing about the future of those people and want to send them to a country 6500 km way from where the people may not ever be able to return their own country. This policy is totally against human rights and moral values. I think instead of sending them to distant country, they should focus more on securing the protection of the boarder and work to give at least a comfortable life to those people until they return to their own country. Uk needs to talk to the government of those asylum people's country and let the government to take a decision for their people. If the government don't want to take any steps for those asylums, then Uk can do something to ensure the good conditions of their life and help them to get back to their own countries.
When thinking of a different country you could move to, you would likely choose a country that has a low cost of living but still has many possibilities and opportunities. This policy shakes me up a bit because not only is it split between morally ethical and morally unethical, but after reading some of the comments, my opinion has shifted. Sure, the policy was initiated to help save lives and protect people but you have to remember, people would do anything for freedom. We see this in multiple tragic cases in history. In order to live a better life, many would take a big sacrifice to help either a loved one or themselves reach a good place in life. Rejecting them and sending them to a country that's NOT going to 100% accept them and offer them the freedom and safety that they risked their lives for is 1000% unethical and something that has to be fixed immediately.
I believe the UK government should not deport asylum seekers. If the Rwandan government refuses to accept them, they will be left stranded. The UK government should prioritize compassion and humanity in its decision-making. Additionally, asylum seekers often contribute to society and support themselves, easing the burden on the UK government. A larger population can bring numerous benefits, so I urge the UK government to offer asylum seekers a chance to stay.
UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda has raised ethical concerns about outsourcing decisions on asylum, individuals' safety, and rights. Policy makers need to consider alternative solutions that address the causes of migration and respect human rights standards.
This is a very good point - what are the causes of migration and what should policy-makers be doing about them? What can we do to prevent people needing to leaving their countries in the first place? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Low wages are the main cause of immigration. It is important to pay workers fairly, especially when they come from their home countries and work hard. Thank you for responding to my comment, Marie.
One way to reduce the migration of people from their country of origin to another country is to create a more livable environment for them. This includes providing better education, health care and social services for the citizens. It also involves enhancing the security of the country and preventing violence. Furthermore, it is important to respect and celebrate the cultural diversity of the people and not to judge or criticize their culture and traditions.
The UK proposal about sending asylum seekers to Rwanda has divided people into different opinions and causing trouble and concerns about this topic. Making these seekers go to Rwanda makes people feel worried about them causing people deaths. We are also talking about people risking their lives and I feel that this is wrong.
I am very disappointed and angry with this policy made by the UK government. This policy makes the immigrants, who were once living peacefully, forcefully leave the country and indirectly snatch their human rights. This takes away the security of the income which they may have contrived in the previous years. It thus creates a barrier between the citizens and the union of the UK.
This is such a sensitive topic to analyze. For me asylum seekers are people that are just forced to leave their country because they do not want to risk their lives of themselves and their families. The issue here are the smugglers who are also illegal trying to get profit from people so disappointed and distressed. The government should pose strict laws for those people.
Concerning asylum seekers now. We should not forget they are humans and not objects placing them back and forth. They have legal human rights and every country should respect it.
There are several reasons for the emigration from a country to the immigration into country, the reasons to leave a country is known as the push factors and the reasons for moving into a country are known as pull factors. Some factors of the main push factors are: bad weather, poor healthcare, poor education, war and natural disaster. Most of these are mostly shown in developing countries. All these are the main reasons why people decide to leave their country, in pursuit of a better home, with potentially good lives for their children or themselves, Asylum seekers are refugees and survivors from war, all these people travel hundreds and thousands of miles to reach the UK, because it is seen as a place of refuge. Turning them down, through the Rwanda Bill policy, will spark outrage, fear, anxiety and lots of disappointment. My initial thought was the sad emoji, but really with careful consideration, it is a grounded , although hard decision to make this policy. It is already dangerous letting in many people into the UK especially those without valid documents to rely on. It can increase the amount of criminal activity if care is not taken care of in the type of people brought in, mot only that but the population would have increased drastically, there might be serious economic breakdowns due to caring for the asylum seekers growing over the years and a good chance of shortages. So it's easy to see why the UK felt the Rwanda policy was their best option. In conclusion, although it was easy to think otherwise, I believe the Rwanda Bill policy was the UK own best decision to ensure the safety of the asylum seekers and the grounded stand of their economy. Thereby making the scale of opinions balancing.
This bill really makes me anxious, I put myself in the shoes of the asylum seekers and the government, and I think that the bill is safe, the government wants to reduce the risking of lives done by asylum seekers to seek passage to the United Kingdom, it is true that this bill will reduce the risks of going through the dangerous journey, but have they counselled with the Rwandan government, this is a double sided bill and if one side faulters, it will ruin everything, I am anxious on the outcome and I know that this bill will better improve the livelihood of both the citizens and the asylum seekers.
Thank you for seeing my views.
Hi there,
I'm unsure about this poll because the UK Rwanda Bill, which aims to address unlawful migration, has sparked controversy due to its potential impact on human rights, safety, and finances. Critics argue that provisions in the bill could undermine asylum seekers’ rights, particularly the removal of their right to access a court. Moreover, concerns persist about the safety and conditions awaiting migrants deported to Rwanda. The financial commitment involved—estimated at around £400 million—has raised eyebrows. For instance, the UK government has already paid £240 million to Rwanda, with an additional £50 million expected in the 2024–25 financial year. These figures highlight the bill’s significant financial implications. However, without clear assurances regarding migrants’ well-being and protection in Rwanda, uncertainty remains. The bill’s hostility toward human rights and potential risks to vulnerable individuals have drawn attention, making it a contentious issue that requires careful consideration in my opinion.
I am UNSURE because I think Rwanda is 92% safe. No one knows what the future holds. So we will not know if Rwanda will have
1. Natural disasters
2. Outbreak of diseases
3. Theft
4. Burglary
5. Kidnapped
6. Poverty
7. Lack of food
8. Consistent riot
Anything can happen in the future. Nobody knows what will happen. Things can change and everything you have done will be wasted.
The UK policy seems a bit unfair to me. That why I chose confused. I thought that governments should use a variety of effective methods in favor of equality and human rights. By sending them back is sending them back to their problems.
We need to behave humanly, understand and feel their pain.
All governments can work towards a plan that will consistently help immigrants to feel safe and away from danger as this is human rights.
Thanks for sharing your view outspoken_opinion. Can you give some of examples of the methods that governments could use in favour of equality and human rights?
They can implement a careful plan which will provide first safety in an area designed for them with homes.
They should provide food any basic needs the first time.
Then they can move a step forward to make them acquainted with the culture and laws of the host country.
It would also be a nice idea to have volunteer organisations aiming at assisting
There are some types of these programs that are implemented and they provide a positive feedback
I am extremely enraged about this new policy, it’s like washing your hands off of people who genuinely need your help, telling them to go to a country that is still struggling with many of their own problems within their country and citizens. This is akin to pushing your problems to someone else, someone much weaker than you who won’t be able to handle such responsibilities.
Firstly, there should be a distinct difference between asylum seekers and immigrants.
Immigrants have a choice, they want to live in another country because of maybe financial issues, job opportunities, loving the county’s culture, education, relatives who already live there and so on, however, asylum seekers are forcefully displaced from their countries due to war, poverty, rejection in society, etc. So their reason is more dire.
The UK should be able to differentiate the two and give priority to asylum seekers.
Those who are trying to enter illegally should be punished yes because it’s against the law but what if they had no other choice? What if this way seemed like a light at the end of a dark tunnel? You can’t just limit immigration or deter attempts to enter the UK, what would happen to these helpless people? You just send them of to a country that has worse issues to deal with?
I feel like a better solution would be to open a port that accepts asylum seekers, an means for these people to enter the country legally instead of shutting down the whole system.
You can be strict on immigration by disproving illegal entry nonetheless it is not ideal to curb the entire process all together.
You made some interesting points smart_goji. Can you share an example of how the UK government could differentiate between asylum seekers and immigrants?
As I am from a country that accepts immigratants especially war refugees I absolutely understand their difficult situation. I know that they were forced to come in my country and if things were different in their country they wouldn't come. I feel sad for them and the way they are now living as they lost everything, their land, their home, their belongings, their dreams. This is why I chose the sad face for the UK policy as I emphasize with them.
I totally agree with you as we are from a country that was badly inflicted from wars. I would feel really angry if our government would not accept refugees or find even temporary solutions to help them.
Thankfully politicians seem to understand and especially simple people in our country.
A refugee is a person that has to live equally in a host country because they didn't choose this option.
Politicians and governments forced them to escape in order to live a proper life.
Hi,
I feel an angry confusion. I mean like, why?! Why would you [try to] deport immigrants all the way to Rwanda? I believe sending immigrants over there would be cruel to the immigrants and a massive problem to the people and government of Rwanda. Rwanda is mildly stable, but a massive influx of immigrants probably wouldn't be the best for the country. Some side effects for Rwanda are they would need to increase food production and provide a lot of housing, even if they are just temporary. Rwanda isn't that big of a country and doesn't have too much flat, usable land, so providing housing might be a problem. Many people in Rwanda already suffer from malnutrition, so it's going to be hard finding food for the new immigrants.
Luckily, no one has been sent to Rwanda yet and I hope people keep protesting the UK's policy.
I would feel mad if this happened in my country because then immigrants would have to move on such short notice because is the president didn't tell them and started sending people to collect them they would feel mad and possibly scared. Also many immigrants come to the US for job opportunities and if they had to move then they would most likely have no jobs that provide enough money for them. If the immigrants had to move on such short notice they would go to another country without a home or money for food. Also I think that asylum seekers would be mad because if they are in another country then they wouldn't be there to stop all this madness, and if the immigrants are moved to a more dangerous country and they don't allowed money to be sent then asylum seekers would be arguing and getting mad.
When I hear about the Rwanda policy, it makes me feel awful and torn at the same time. On one hand I feel terrible for the thousands of migrants trying to reach this country. Willing to risk their safety in search for a better life and for it all to end up being useless as they are deported over 6500 km away to one of the poorest and unsafe countries in Africa where elections are manipulated by assasinating and banning opposition parties and leaders. The government is turning the situation into an us vs them situation where the immigrants are treated as objects rather than people. The UK takes in refugees from Rwanda because it's an unsafe country and yet the government is trying to send refugees to Rwanda despite knowing how unsafe it is. On the other hand however, something must be done with immigration as we simply don't have the housing, space and resources to accomidate them all. A line must be drawn somwhere but where it should be drawn is the question. However, this is an extreme, which must be stopped or at least seriously changed.
I think being in the mind of Rishi Sunac is a good thing because what he is doing about the immigration is good from all the people trying to cross the EN border has to go somewhere or all rishis sunacs rensponsibility will be on them and that will be a lot off money so i really think its a good idea and the bills there would be cheaper
I think it is inhumane to send people such a long distance away after spending so much time on a long dangerous journey! They aren't happy with their lives so they seek a happy safe place, what is wrong with that? After all, even if countries are societies where you live they are still just places on the vast oceans on the Earth. And people can also build on a place to make it a society and the more people the more ideas the better the bigger the richer the society will become. So it disappointing that people would think that asylum seekers would put strain on our resources since England can make room.
I really don't like how they are charging people money just to cross the English Channel in a SMALL BOAT. Also if they already know that they are killing people, including children, they should just stop what they are doing.
Also I don't think that it's fair to charge asylum seekers some money to cross the English Channel in a small boat. That's also the reason why people,including children, are dying.
For the part where the UK. is just sending asylum seekers to the Rwanda without any of their permission and they aren't even asking the asylum seekers do they want to get sent there, so its very unfair to the asylum seekers and Rwanda.
I am unsure of the Rwanda policy because I think is would be good for the UK if they send immigrants to Rwanda but at the same time, I think it is reasonable why they had blocked the flights in concerns of human rights.
If the immigrants were sent to Rwanda, the UK would not have to worry about where to put the immigrants and the immigrants would not want to make their way to the UK as they knew they will not be allowed to live in the UK. On the other hand, it would be very difficult for the asylum seekers because they do not know whether the asylum seeker will be treated fairly or be free. The people that disagree with the Rwanda policy because they think Rwanda is a country that does not have as much money as the UK and it is not very well monitored.
I think it is good that no asylum seekers is yet sent to Rwanda because the asylum seekers would want to have a better life at the UK. After all, it was the reason that they decided to take this dangerous journey through the English Channel to the UK. If you sent them to Rwanda, people feared that the asylum seekers would have a bad time over there.
Why do you think asylum seekers - and immigrants in general - want to come to the UK?
I think that the reason asylum seekers wanted to come to the UK because they might see the UK as a really safe country because I think most asylum seekers come from a country that is fighting. The other asylum seekers might come from a country that has a problem. I think that they want to make the dangerous journey cross the English Channel because they wanted to escape the problem they are having in their home country. The asylum seekers that had children of their own might have another reason. I think the reason is that they wanted their children to be educated better. Or they think that going to the UK is the only solution to their problem.
I agree with you thoughtful_peak. I think that many asylum seekers are trying to create a better life for their children than the one they have had to leave behind and that they believe that the dangerous trip is worth it for themselves or for their family.
I agree with you secure_ferret. It is important to create a stable and safe future for their children so they can continue to grow up in a secure environment. If they can go to school in a safe, non-conflict country, then their chances of getting a good job and healthy lifestyle is higher! :)
Building on what secure_ferret said, Asylum seekers wouldn't flee their home and possibly leave their family behind to go on a dangerous journey for no reason. They are leaving their home because they are forced to; because of fighting or prosecution.
In conclusion, I think that asylum seekers come to the UK because it is viewed as a safe or much safer place than where they are fleeing from.
Hello,
Personally, I believe that the Rawanda policy seems all too extreme. Sending people who had just travelled half way across the earth another 6500 Km seems very inhumane. After making this long and perilous journey around the the world, what they need is a place to rest and rehabilitate and not a long and possibly stressful flight.
A better solution may be to set up refugee centres close to points where many refugees often come to (possibly close to the English channel) where refugees can rest for the short term before we figure out a long term solution.
Most refugees come to England as young adults or even children which means that they could set themselves up here and become part of the society, possibly even helping to make solutions or to help in industries.
Thank you
I believe that the UK is not in a suitable place to house asylum seekers. They have homeless people of their own who can't get jobs so that should be fixed first. Our prices are also going up and many adults are suffering from unemployment. The journey is also unsafe to get here and we are trying to save lives. There are other countries to go to and compared to most of them we are a very small place. We can afford some asylum seekers but not that many.
I am unsure of how I feel about the Rwanda policy. As a citizen of the UK, I think some of the government's money has been going to things that aren't as urgent or important as finding a safe home for refugees. For example, a new train line between Birmingham and London is not as important as getting asylum seekers safe and settled in a new place. I think we should focus on getting them safe, healthy and working so they can give back to society.
However, I understand why Rishi Sunak is doing this. The UK already has issues with housing, and homelessness is on the rise. But, I think temporary housing could be another option instead of shipping them away.
I agree with you healthy_snow because the government's money has been used for some insignificant or unessential projects but I also understand that the Rwanda bill is there to prevent the unsafe journey and is a precaution. I do think that money should be put towards housing asylum seekers who have already made the journey as we are in a better economic position.
This bill has sparked many debates among countless people, mainly due to concerns about how humane the bill is. I believe that this was a very bad idea. One reason for this is that it insinuates that the government doesn't have any compassion for immigrents and asylum seekers, by deterring them from coming to the UK. The objective was reportedly to stop asylum seekers from making dangerous journeys, but there are better ways that this could be done. For example, providing some form of transport that the government can moniter for safety. Also, sending the immigrats on another journey could exhaust people who are already physically and emotionally drained, which is unneccessarily cruel. My final point is that there are few asylum seekers coming to Brtain compered to countries much closer to the dangers people are running from, so we would be spending fewer resources compered to the nearer nations.
I agree with my fellow student as he is point is a very good one. As it also shows that people are being injured on the unnecessary journeys and the UK Goverment are just putting them through more pain when they have the power to stop it. Thank You for Reading
The goal of the UK's Rwanda bill has been set clear as stone, the goal of the UK is to deter illegal human smuggling and people trying to cross into the UK illegally to save lives. Anyone who is against this bill is also against the work to prevent people crossing into the UK illegally which causes thousands of deaths every year. While using this to ultimately save millions of lives.
But i also acknowledge peoples views on the legitimacy of taking migrants to Rwanda ultimately i believe it is not fully morally correct to take these people and yes "Kidnap them" as has been said by many others, but if all these groups are doing is searching for is a home that is viewed as safer than where they where coming from then they will get the same result. So to save future lives and protect current ones this bill can be effective and implemented quickly hopefully leaving all people in a better situation.
I am Happy about the Rwanda bill
Firstly, I am conscious of the sensitivity of this topic and that some people may have personal experience but I believe that the Rwanda bill is a sensible move for the current global situation.
Rwanda, while still an LIC has a GNI per capita of 882 USD which is significantly more than than countries like the DRC which have a GNI of 577 USD. Rwanda has a relatively low crime rate but is near to a destructive plate boundary so earthquakes are common. Cyclones there are rare but still occur and can be deadly. However the risk of these are very low if people are accommodated in good houses. There has also not been a war since 1994.
This is a good deterant but could also be used to boost the Rwandan economies as more people could work for Rwanda and provide tax money. This would also create a strong alliance with Rwanda who could prove invaluable in future wars.
Putting myself in the shoes of both the MP and the Asylum seekers I believe that the Rwanda bill is sensible and both will benefit from this new bill.
Thank you
The UK Government plan to send all migrants to Rwanda is truly sickening and dehumanising as many of these migrants have no where to go because in their home country there is conflict or they are facing persecution for their beliefs which is horrific as these migrants' home country should be free and open-mined to everyone who lives.
I am feeling a bit confused because I don't understand why the UK is accepting more immigrants if they have no space for them. And if the UK is transferring them to another country, it should be a first-class country that treats people well. After all, immigrants go to the UK for a better lifestyle, not to settle down in a country like Rwanda that may not have the same opportunities.
I am happy that with the UK's Rwanda policy. I do agree that it might seem inhumane since some of the asylum seekers are genuine people seeking greener pastures but most of the time, they are usually drug traffickers, human traffickers or terrorists, who cause some crimes in the UK, so this might abate the number of crimes. Also, Rwanda is one of the fastest developing countries in Africa, so sending these people could really help out their economy. Also, this would lessen the number of people leaving their own country, which cause shortage of workers and collapses economies.
You make some interesting points, but the first one I'd like to ask a question about. You say "they are usually....". Where is your evidence for this? Can you support your claim that this is the case, the majority of the time?
According to science direct article talking about immigration affecting, Bell et al(2013) show with data for the United Kingdom that asylum seekers increase property crimes. A prime example of asylum seeker causing crime is that during war in a country in the Maghreb region of North Africa, some asylum seekers came to my country, settled and set up a camp, where in 2016 a total of 41 crime cases were reported.
The Rwanda Policy doesn't make sense since just one person costs £170,000 which obviously is a lot more expensive than the person just staying in the UK, it's obvious that Rishi is underestimating the situation with the amount of Immigrants going or staying in England. The plan is just way to expensive.
i am angry and confused on why they want to send people from other countries that are probably coming to the UK to have a better life. Why send them to Rwanda when it will cost more, and we need more people as the population is dropping in the uk which affects many people, jobs and wellbeing.
I am unsure about the Rwanda bill because it is against human rights and transporting people to a different country that they didn't necessary choose to go to. Also it might not be the safest because of the war that happened about 30 years ago. This might be a threat to the people going there. Also it will cost more for them to be sent to Rwanda them get asylum in the UK.I don't see a point to send the immigrants from the UK to Rwanda out of all the places in the world.
The Rwanda policy is not the most advanced idea . It cost so much more to let these immigrates than letting them stay . Immigration is a helpful way for countries with a lower population to get more workers and get a more inclusive community with people from all backgrounds .
Although the UK itself has a high average economy and it seems wrong of us to deny asylum seekers the security and acceptance they search for, it's even more unfair to deny those born and raised in the community the same treatment. Officially, over 3.8% (1.46 million) of people in the UK are unemployed, and whilst the scale of homelessness is a notoriously difficult thing to quantify, homelessness is a rising problem within the country. The government chooses to invest less in trying to prevent homelessness from indignifying people, and more in inconveniencing them by taking away their abilities to sleep in dry areas such as bus stops. If the government solved the crisis of homelessness and unemployment that current UK citizens face, then we may very much be capable of housing asylum seekers who desperately need help. But for now, the best decision this country could make is to remove asylum seekers and safely send them somewhere that might be able to fulfill the needs of those, rather than building on an existing issue by adding more people to an already failing society. It is wiser for us to focus on rebuilding what we have lost rather than make the situation worse until the eventual fall of our economy
I think that the policy is absurd. Because, if the asylum seekers are running away from danger they are going to need somewhere to be safe and to get a job. If you are the prime minister of a country and you only let in a few of them, what is going to happen to the others, how will people take it, will it be taken as favouritism? If you are going to allow anyone one in you can't block out all the rest.
I believe that the 'Rwanda Bill' is what's best for the people of the UK and for the asylum seekers. I think this because more people trying to enter the country illegally means that the government will gradually lose money, and struggle to fund the education and medical care for the people in the country. Many people believe that the UK is issuing this bill simply because the asylum seekers aren't from the UK, therefore making the British government racist, but this just isn't the case. Fact is that unless you were here before the last ice age, then everyone came here on a little boat at some point, and while not allowing the asylum seekers to stay in the UK might be disagreeable, the British government is still giving people asylum, rather than deporting them back to their place of origin; and although that's morally wrong, it something the could've done instead.
I think that the English government has reasoning to send the refugees to different countries because human traffickers are putting innocent lives in danger and getting away with it because we don't have laws to stop them. I believe that country should not be Rwanda because it is a very poor country where there is a lot of corruption because they don't have the same human rights laws as we do in the uk. instead it could be America or Australia or New Zealand because those countries have large plots of land where buildings could be built. Building can be expensive to build so i think lots of first world countries such as Spain, Germany, Belgium and etc. could put some money in to a pot for building houses for refugees. Then if refugees travelled to these countries they would have a place to live and make a life.
After finding out about the Rwanda policy I was extremely shocked. The part which surprised me the most was the fact that the refugees can still be send away by Rwanda. This means a great threat to the refugees who have fled from war or persecution. Furthermore, it is a very ignorant policiy which gives the impression of the UK being a superior country, therefore being allowed to just send refugees away. it seems like they want to get rid of a problem.
After educating myself on the Rwanda Bill I am infuriated. While one might argue, that this Bill is imposed to minimize further economical issues after Brexit in the UK and to put the money tax payers pay to "good use" , I can confidently say : "that will not be the case". To send one person to Rwanda is incredibly expensive, thus this bill cannot make much sense economically. But I am infuriated because it is not justifiable morally. To send people who just escaped a human crisis, a war or something equally traumatizing to a place they cannot be guaranteed safety either? A place they did not choose? It is wrong and that is why I strongly disagree.
I voted my poll for Angry because the government's new law inhumane, because you are disorganised doesn't' mean you need to evict people like they are items. Even the flights have been blocked for human rights concerns, you can't just send people who just came to the Uk to a totally different country. What if a person that came to the Uk learned English beforehand and now have been sent to a different country with a different culture and language. What if the person came to live with their family and wanted to start their life over; and in a situation like that had been deported to another continent.
Rwanda was not a safe country for immigrants and asylum due to 'serious and systemic defects' in its processing of asylum claims- ukandeu.ac.uk. Levels of building health and safety in Rwanda are lower than in the UK. Buildings and construction sites have collapsed, causing deaths and serious injuries. Fire safety standards vary and fires in residential and public places are a continuing risk- www.gov.uk. Rwanda is not a very save country for fresh immigrants from the information used above, your life could be at risk if you were sent to Rwanda, the language barrier, your job, the state of which your accommodation is in all are potential causes that could end your life because of the Uk government's decision of sending you out of their reach and care.
Asylum seekers experience lots of traumatic events, sometimes barely making it alive out of a country and experiencing a hazardous and treacherous to get to the Uk only to get sent to a completely different country. Imagean what it's like losing your loved ones, leaving your home country and trying to escape from danger. Many "illegal" immigrants sail through the cold and harsh waters of the English Channel because they cannot afford a visa. Tiredness, homesick, grief, and anger at the British Politian's for passing such a cruel law.
When we talked about the UK`s Rwanda policy in scool, I honestly was quite confused. It doesn`t make sense that people who fled from their own country are being send to Rwanda where the government still can decide if they can stay there or not. And what will happen if the Rwandan government doesn`t grant them asylum? Will these people be sent back to their country? Thses people left their home for a reason (e.g. because of war or religious persecution). Someone commeted that they are being nothing more than objects to the government and I totally agree with this point. And what also is quite unlogical is the fact that so far, flights to Rwanda have been blocked for human rights concerens. So it is known that Rwanda isn`t the safest place to sent asylum seekers to. So why was the policy even introduced? Of course a country can`t accept endless amounts of migrants and asylum seekers-this will be tough from the financial point of view. But sending thousands of people to another country located 6500 km away is probably more expensive than providing them with basic needs for a living. These people are tired,drained and traumatised from their journey-many of them saw people dying and suffering on the way and back in their home country. They do not come to the UK to be send away-they come to ask for a better life believing in simple humanity .
I actually agree with the Rwanda Bill as There are so many immigrants escaping war and dangerous living conditions to go and live somewhere else but As we all know The UK is really overpopulated and Rishi Sunak has made a great decision Because Rwanda has got a much smaller population and the skilled immigrants looking for work can help Rwanda's GDP and Overall grow as a country as they are still a developing country Because I don't think the British Tax payers Should be paying all This Money (As well as being in a cost of living crisis) To fund Immigrants hotels and Houses While British Tax payers Expect this to be funded in School Hospital Environment And the country. But on the other hand you still have to feel Bad that These People have escaped war and dangerous living conditions and cross rivers like the English Channel To Find work But this is overall quite a debateble topic.