This is expected because this is quite new and a lot of confusion over the implication of someone applying to go to the UK only to end the end up in Rwanda without the possibility of ever touching UK.
Although they gave not been able to execute with the first attempt canceled as a result of tough legal battle.
I personally think the law is not right that is why I'm a little surprise that some people are happy with the law. People who want migrate to Rwandan should feel free to do so but people should not forced to go a country never planned for because their reasons of seeking asylum in a particular country.
I would have a confused face, I say this because I do not feel right if the UK go and dump asylum seekers in Rwanda. I feel like is it right or is it good enough.
If I was the president of Rwanda, I will never agree to a decision like this because I do not see the essence of Rwanda being a dump site for deported asylum seekers from the UK.
This is all just my opinion so please do not take it to heart and also do not get influenced by this but instead stand by what you believe.
THANK YOU FOR AT LEAST HEARING ME OUT.
Hello understanding_science,
I agree with you because I feel like UK and Rwanda signing contracts making Rwanda be a place where asylum seekers are kept and deported from the UK is a horrible and terrible idea. So, according to my research, some ways that a country can get rid of its asylum seekers are;
Increase support
Work together
Protect asylum seekers
And to help tackle the root causes.
So, generally, I say that if a country wants to get rid of its asylum seekers, then it should do it these four ways instead of signing contracts and dumping them in other countries.
Remember, this us just my opinion on this so please do not take it to heart.
THANK YOU.
There are thousand and one reasons why countries might allow asylum seekers into their countries. Some the reasons include stretching of basic infrastructure, health care system, security issues, job competition with citizens, food security etc.
Despite all these, I think countries can still make provision immigrants because the benefits they come with.
I think that some countries might not allow asylum seekers into their country because;
1) The asylum seekers might take most of the country's funds,
2) They might not even be able to take the employment opportunities of the country so there is no need for them to occupy space in the country.
So, these are just a few reasons that some countries do not want to have asylum seekers in their country.
THANK YOU.
hi, here are some of the reasons why I think why countries might not allow asylum seekers;
1. they could be spies for an enemy country. people could be sent to a country to pretend as asylum seekers to gather information about them and them give that information to the country they work for. so because of this country have now started limiting the amount of immigrants entering their country.
2. medical services, there are many people who don't have access to hospitals or any other medical services in a country and the government is trying to solve that problem, but if immigrants enter the country the government would have a lot more work in their hands since the immigrants to also have the right to medical services, which would make the time longer for the government to achieve their goal of providing medical services to everyone in the country.
Even though of all these reasons countries should have open arms to who want to seek refuge in their country.
Yes. This is what I expect, wide range of opinions because the is quite a strange position for a country to adopt in treating immigration issues. How does one explain that you seeking to move to a country for a particular in the country and you find yourself in another country? Does this also mean people from Rwanda can not apply to migrate to UK since they have entered into partnership to receive repatriated immigrants to the country? These are questions I think both UK and Rwandan government will need to answer.
Thank you
I expected a lot of people to be unsure because we know that it's better for them to be shipped to Rwanda so they won't have to face the dangers of traveling in a boat. But, by committing this action many asylum-seekers may feel homesick as they will get shipped 6400 km away and it would be hard to adjust to a new place.
Yes it was quite what I expected. I understand that immigration is a difficult topic to handle and it may cause concern and uncertainty. I believe that most of us can understand the feelings of these people moving to another country especially if they are forced to because of a war or a very difficult situation they have in their country.
I have to say that I am relieved that only a few people feel happy that immigrants should be sent back as things for me a tough decision to make
This might not be what I expected because I thought most people might choose a sad or angry face. Personally, I think the government should not be sending the immigrants to Rwanda because I think that the immigrants are innocent as they just wanted to escape the danger of war. I think it is a bit too harsh to send them to a small country when they just wanted to live a safe life. I understand why the UK government decided to send the immigrants there but I think they had not thought about how the immigrants think about the policy. It would also cost a lot of money to send a lot of people to Rwanda, which is about 6604km away. Why waste the money to send the immigrants to Rwanda when the government could build more houses using that money?
No, it is not what I expected. I expected most of us would choose a surprised face about the UK's Rwanda policy. This news was a new topic to most of us. We didn’t know about it earlier. So, it is surprising to me. It is not like the usual policies of asylum-seekers. It is different. It is an uncommon practice for a country to send its asylum-seekers to a third country without their will. I think there would be human rights obligations. I feel surprised regarding its impact on asylum-seekers. Even, it is more costlier to send asylum-seekers in Rwanda rather than staying there in the UK. Also, the UK cannot give them full protection in Rwanda as well as Rwanda's police is not well enough. I'm more surprised that many people are happy about the policy. How they can be happy without thinking its impact on asylum-seekers?
I would have a surprised face. This is because the government don't even care. At the moment, the asylum seekers are rotting away in a ship in the middle of nowhere. They should deal with this situation as soon as possible.
This is expected because many people know that the UK's decision is very bad. The government in the UK don't care about the basic human rights of people and focus more on the country's development. This is not right as people have lives to live and the UK government are in the way of them
This was not what I was expecting because I thought more people would be more angry at UK's Rwanda policy because it is not fair for the government to send the immigrants away to another country after what they had gone through, facing dangerous challenges on the way to seek refuge in the UK and if they send them away it would make the immigrants think that they are worthless and make them feel discriminated. It is good for us to welcome people with open arms even though they are not from our country or culture and it also improves unity amongst people in the world.
I agree with you because it is not fair for them to send them away like that it discourages them since they made a long and dangerous journey to seek refuge there. The country would have benefited from the immigrants since they come with skills and techniques that could help a country massively.
Comments (11)
This is expected because this is quite new and a lot of confusion over the implication of someone applying to go to the UK only to end the end up in Rwanda without the possibility of ever touching UK.
Although they gave not been able to execute with the first attempt canceled as a result of tough legal battle.
I personally think the law is not right that is why I'm a little surprise that some people are happy with the law. People who want migrate to Rwandan should feel free to do so but people should not forced to go a country never planned for because their reasons of seeking asylum in a particular country.
I would have a confused face, I say this because I do not feel right if the UK go and dump asylum seekers in Rwanda. I feel like is it right or is it good enough.
If I was the president of Rwanda, I will never agree to a decision like this because I do not see the essence of Rwanda being a dump site for deported asylum seekers from the UK.
This is all just my opinion so please do not take it to heart and also do not get influenced by this but instead stand by what you believe.
THANK YOU FOR AT LEAST HEARING ME OUT.
Hello understanding_science,
I agree with you because I feel like UK and Rwanda signing contracts making Rwanda be a place where asylum seekers are kept and deported from the UK is a horrible and terrible idea. So, according to my research, some ways that a country can get rid of its asylum seekers are;
Increase support
Work together
Protect asylum seekers
And to help tackle the root causes.
So, generally, I say that if a country wants to get rid of its asylum seekers, then it should do it these four ways instead of signing contracts and dumping them in other countries.
Remember, this us just my opinion on this so please do not take it to heart.
THANK YOU.
Can you think of some reasons why countries might not allow asylum seekers?
There are thousand and one reasons why countries might allow asylum seekers into their countries. Some the reasons include stretching of basic infrastructure, health care system, security issues, job competition with citizens, food security etc.
Despite all these, I think countries can still make provision immigrants because the benefits they come with.
I think that some countries might not allow asylum seekers into their country because;
1) The asylum seekers might take most of the country's funds,
2) They might not even be able to take the employment opportunities of the country so there is no need for them to occupy space in the country.
So, these are just a few reasons that some countries do not want to have asylum seekers in their country.
THANK YOU.
hi, here are some of the reasons why I think why countries might not allow asylum seekers;
1. they could be spies for an enemy country. people could be sent to a country to pretend as asylum seekers to gather information about them and them give that information to the country they work for. so because of this country have now started limiting the amount of immigrants entering their country.
2. medical services, there are many people who don't have access to hospitals or any other medical services in a country and the government is trying to solve that problem, but if immigrants enter the country the government would have a lot more work in their hands since the immigrants to also have the right to medical services, which would make the time longer for the government to achieve their goal of providing medical services to everyone in the country.
Even though of all these reasons countries should have open arms to who want to seek refuge in their country.
Yes. This is what I expect, wide range of opinions because the is quite a strange position for a country to adopt in treating immigration issues. How does one explain that you seeking to move to a country for a particular in the country and you find yourself in another country? Does this also mean people from Rwanda can not apply to migrate to UK since they have entered into partnership to receive repatriated immigrants to the country? These are questions I think both UK and Rwandan government will need to answer.
Thank you
I expected a lot of people to be unsure because we know that it's better for them to be shipped to Rwanda so they won't have to face the dangers of traveling in a boat. But, by committing this action many asylum-seekers may feel homesick as they will get shipped 6400 km away and it would be hard to adjust to a new place.
Yes it was quite what I expected. I understand that immigration is a difficult topic to handle and it may cause concern and uncertainty. I believe that most of us can understand the feelings of these people moving to another country especially if they are forced to because of a war or a very difficult situation they have in their country.
I have to say that I am relieved that only a few people feel happy that immigrants should be sent back as things for me a tough decision to make
This might not be what I expected because I thought most people might choose a sad or angry face. Personally, I think the government should not be sending the immigrants to Rwanda because I think that the immigrants are innocent as they just wanted to escape the danger of war. I think it is a bit too harsh to send them to a small country when they just wanted to live a safe life. I understand why the UK government decided to send the immigrants there but I think they had not thought about how the immigrants think about the policy. It would also cost a lot of money to send a lot of people to Rwanda, which is about 6604km away. Why waste the money to send the immigrants to Rwanda when the government could build more houses using that money?
No, it is not what I expected. I expected most of us would choose a surprised face about the UK's Rwanda policy. This news was a new topic to most of us. We didn’t know about it earlier. So, it is surprising to me. It is not like the usual policies of asylum-seekers. It is different. It is an uncommon practice for a country to send its asylum-seekers to a third country without their will. I think there would be human rights obligations. I feel surprised regarding its impact on asylum-seekers. Even, it is more costlier to send asylum-seekers in Rwanda rather than staying there in the UK. Also, the UK cannot give them full protection in Rwanda as well as Rwanda's police is not well enough. I'm more surprised that many people are happy about the policy. How they can be happy without thinking its impact on asylum-seekers?
I would have a surprised face. This is because the government don't even care. At the moment, the asylum seekers are rotting away in a ship in the middle of nowhere. They should deal with this situation as soon as possible.
This is expected because many people know that the UK's decision is very bad. The government in the UK don't care about the basic human rights of people and focus more on the country's development. This is not right as people have lives to live and the UK government are in the way of them
I'm surprised about how many people put Unsure Face but I do understand as it is a very new problem.
This was not what I was expecting because I thought more people would be more angry at UK's Rwanda policy because it is not fair for the government to send the immigrants away to another country after what they had gone through, facing dangerous challenges on the way to seek refuge in the UK and if they send them away it would make the immigrants think that they are worthless and make them feel discriminated. It is good for us to welcome people with open arms even though they are not from our country or culture and it also improves unity amongst people in the world.
I agree with you because it is not fair for them to send them away like that it discourages them since they made a long and dangerous journey to seek refuge there. The country would have benefited from the immigrants since they come with skills and techniques that could help a country massively.