UK to proceed with sending migrants to Rwanda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That should be illegal. Very few refugees coming to the UK are from that country. You can't just dump vulnerable people in a vulnerable third world country always on the brink of explosion.

It's like plucking Honduran families from the southern border and throwing them into Kashmir. It's not humane. It goes against all human rights.

If you are fleeing your country and demanding asylum, than any place that is not your country that welcomes you is a safe place. Rwanda has agreed to take these "refugees" and they will be safe.

Otherwise you are an economic immigrant and do not legal have a claim for asylum.

Says the person whose “economic immigrant” ancestors came to the US for a better life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That should be illegal. Very few refugees coming to the UK are from that country. You can't just dump vulnerable people in a vulnerable third world country always on the brink of explosion.

It's like plucking Honduran families from the southern border and throwing them into Kashmir. It's not humane. It goes against all human rights.

If you are fleeing your country and demanding asylum, than any place that is not your country that welcomes you is a safe place. Rwanda has agreed to take these "refugees" and they will be safe.

Otherwise you are an economic immigrant and do not legal have a claim for asylum.

Says the person whose “economic immigrant” ancestors came to the US for a better life.

The US has a history of economic migrants, was built on and relies today on them. Some Americans fled their homes when they came here - most came for opportunity.

Europe and the UK are very different. They were not built on people coming for opportunity, or st least not recently. Their history, their culture, their countries are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That should be illegal. Very few refugees coming to the UK are from that country. You can't just dump vulnerable people in a vulnerable third world country always on the brink of explosion.

It's like plucking Honduran families from the southern border and throwing them into Kashmir. It's not humane. It goes against all human rights.

We cannot house all the poor people of the world in our country. It is not sustainable.

Yep.

Let’s out obey into fixing our homeless crisis first before we pour billions into migrants who should not even be here.

By crossing illegally, you have no say where you should end up. Don’t come unless you are granted asylum from proper ports of entry.

[Anonymous]

Great move. We should ship our illegal immigrants to the UK for shipment to Rwanda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That should be illegal. Very few refugees coming to the UK are from that country. You can't just dump vulnerable people in a vulnerable third world country always on the brink of explosion.

It's like plucking Honduran families from the southern border and throwing them into Kashmir. It's not humane. It goes against all human rights.

More like sending them to Puerto Rico or Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands, which are US territories.

?? Rwanda is not a UK territory!

You cannot be this stupid. No one said Rwanda was a “UK territory.” Educate yourself:

https://thecommonwealth.org/about-us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That should be illegal. Very few refugees coming to the UK are from that country. You can't just dump vulnerable people in a vulnerable third world country always on the brink of explosion.

It's like plucking Honduran families from the southern border and throwing them into Kashmir. It's not humane. It goes against all human rights.

If you are fleeing your country and demanding asylum, than any place that is not your country that welcomes you is a safe place. Rwanda has agreed to take these "refugees" and they will be safe.

Otherwise you are an economic immigrant and do not legal have a claim for asylum.

Says the person whose “economic immigrant” ancestors came to the US for a better life.

The US has a history of economic migrants, was built on and relies today on them. Some Americans fled their homes when they came here - most came for opportunity.

Europe and the UK are very different. They were not built on people coming for opportunity, or st least not recently. Their history, their culture, their countries are different.

The history of previous migration does not bind the US to making similar policy decisions in the future. We don’t need to continue with bad policy just because it’s how we did it before. International transportation is much more accessible and the global population outside the US is 5x larger than it was in 1900. The number of people that can potentially come under the existing refugee and asylum eligibility criteria is just too large. If even 1/10th of 1% of the population living outside the US attempts to move here (regardless of the method, illegally, family based green cards, asylum, etc.) that will be almost 8 million people a year. The current immigration system is unsustainable in the 21st century. Migration inflows are likely to worsen dramatically due to climate change and we cannot afford to continue what we are doing now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great move. We should ship our illegal immigrants to the UK for shipment to Rwanda.

I wonder if Papua New Guinea would be open to a deal now that they aren't taking refugees from Australia anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That should be illegal. Very few refugees coming to the UK are from that country. You can't just dump vulnerable people in a vulnerable third world country always on the brink of explosion.

It's like plucking Honduran families from the southern border and throwing them into Kashmir. It's not humane. It goes against all human rights.

If you are fleeing your country and demanding asylum, than any place that is not your country that welcomes you is a safe place. Rwanda has agreed to take these "refugees" and they will be safe.

Otherwise you are an economic immigrant and do not legal have a claim for asylum.

Says the person whose “economic immigrant” ancestors came to the US for a better life.

Immigrants think everyone else in the U.S. is an immigrant of descendants of immigrants. Not true. My relatives have never been immigrants and I am not sympathetic to the immigrants story. I don't care about it. You all should have tried to uplift your home country. I actually would love to go somewhere and leave all of my responsibilities behind, friends, family, civics, and start fresh all over in a more prosperous country, then call myself a racial minority and demand benefits, but no I can't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That should be illegal. Very few refugees coming to the UK are from that country. You can't just dump vulnerable people in a vulnerable third world country always on the brink of explosion.

It's like plucking Honduran families from the southern border and throwing them into Kashmir. It's not humane. It goes against all human rights.

If you are fleeing your country and demanding asylum, than any place that is not your country that welcomes you is a safe place. Rwanda has agreed to take these "refugees" and they will be safe.

Otherwise you are an economic immigrant and do not legal have a claim for asylum.

Says the person whose “economic immigrant” ancestors came to the US for a better life.

The US has a history of economic migrants, was built on and relies today on them. Some Americans fled their homes when they came here - most came for opportunity.

Europe and the UK are very different. They were not built on people coming for opportunity, or st least not recently. Their history, their culture, their countries are different.

The history of previous migration does not bind the US to making similar policy decisions in the future. We don’t need to continue with bad policy just because it’s how we did it before. International transportation is much more accessible and the global population outside the US is 5x larger than it was in 1900. The number of people that can potentially come under the existing refugee and asylum eligibility criteria is just too large. If even 1/10th of 1% of the population living outside the US attempts to move here (regardless of the method, illegally, family based green cards, asylum, etc.) that will be almost 8 million people a year. The current immigration system is unsustainable in the 21st century. Migration inflows are likely to worsen dramatically due to climate change and we cannot afford to continue what we are doing now.

DP. Thank you. I am beyond sick of the idiot who keeps insisting our immigration system should be just as it was over 100 years ago. The stupidity is palpable.