| Refugee question thoughts 22:53 - Jun 25 with 1255 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I received a reply from my MP about the Rwanda deportation policy and in it they claim "Since 2015, over 185,000 men, women and children seeking refuge have been offered a place in this country, which is more than any other similar resettlement scheme in Europe. This includes almost 100,000 British Nationals Overseas threatened by draconian security laws in Hong Kong, 20,000 through the Syrian scheme, 13,000 from Afghanistan, and around 50,000 Ukrainians."
My big question is, do British citizens leaving Hong Kong to come here count as refugees?
Is the headline figure that we have resettled more refugees than any other similar resettlement scheme in Europe remotely true? Haven't Germany alone taken many times that figure?
Is my MP misrepresenting figures or where am I misunderstanding? |  |
| |  |
| Refugee question thoughts on 08:14 - Jun 26 with 1105 views | ADStephenson |
I remember hearing something about this on More or Less once and it is indeed true, IF you only consider certain schemes (which the government do, of course). Germany took in 800,000 Syrian refugees in a year when I lived there, but it's on a different scheme. I might have made some slight inaccuracies with that representation, but it's something like that. |  |
| |
| Refugee question thoughts on 11:56 - Jun 26 with 1001 views | Darth_Koont |
I think "any other similar resettlement scheme in Europe" is the qualifier that's doing all the work.
The UK is way down the actual list of European countries taking in refugees and asylum seekers. And given our size but also frequently active or supporting role in the regional upheavals that cause migration and refugees, that's pretty shameful. |  |
| |
| Refugee question thoughts on 13:28 - Jun 26 with 946 views | Swansea_Blue |
I don’t know, but suspect BNOs would count as refugees, as although they have nationality status they are not British citizens so can’t come and go here as the please.
Even with these though, the numbers are nothing compared to what many others take in. As Darth said, “scheme” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Other countries go about it differently rather than using our specific type of schemes. This disingenuous argument has been rolled out by them for months - probably helps them justify their general anti-foreigner approach. (Got to keep these foreigners and foreign institutions as the bogey men if we want a culture war).
(Edited because of auto correct’s uselessness). [Post edited 26 Jun 2022 13:35]
|  |
| |
| Refugee question thoughts on 13:30 - Jun 26 with 945 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Refugee question thoughts on 11:56 - Jun 26 by Darth_Koont |
I think "any other similar resettlement scheme in Europe" is the qualifier that's doing all the work.
The UK is way down the actual list of European countries taking in refugees and asylum seekers. And given our size but also frequently active or supporting role in the regional upheavals that cause migration and refugees, that's pretty shameful. |
So it is deliberate misrepresentation.
Is it also reasonable to say that British passport holders coming from Hong Kong should not be counted or does the "oppressive regime" mean they should? | |
| |
| Refugee question thoughts on 13:52 - Jun 26 with 897 views | eireblue |
| Refugee question thoughts on 13:30 - Jun 26 by Nthsuffolkblue |
So it is deliberate misrepresentation.
Is it also reasonable to say that British passport holders coming from Hong Kong should not be counted or does the "oppressive regime" mean they should? |
What is interesting is that under the HK scheme, potentially about 5 million people could move here.
I don’t think there is any cap on the HK scheme.
Seems curious that sometimes people in the current Government state things like the country only has a certain capacity.
But 100k people have entered quite comfortably, since Jan 2021. Whilst processing the 11,000 or so people coming in boats, results, not in setting up safer alternatives, but we have the Rwanda policy of letting people cross in boats and then flying them somewhere else to cope with those vast numbers. |  | | |
| Refugee question thoughts on 14:23 - Jun 26 with 847 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Refugee question thoughts on 13:52 - Jun 26 by eireblue |
What is interesting is that under the HK scheme, potentially about 5 million people could move here.
I don’t think there is any cap on the HK scheme.
Seems curious that sometimes people in the current Government state things like the country only has a certain capacity.
But 100k people have entered quite comfortably, since Jan 2021. Whilst processing the 11,000 or so people coming in boats, results, not in setting up safer alternatives, but we have the Rwanda policy of letting people cross in boats and then flying them somewhere else to cope with those vast numbers. |
There can't be a cap on those from Hong Kong that were given British passports because they are British citizens. (Although looking it up there is a limit of 1 year to their stay despite this which then begs the question are the 100,000 here permanently or just for 1 year?) 2.9 M were eligible leading up to the handover so I am not sure the number is as high as 5 million. The fact we have received 100,000 rather shows up the lie that everyone who can get here is desperate to. | |
| |
| Refugee question thoughts on 14:54 - Jun 26 with 811 views | eireblue |
| Refugee question thoughts on 14:23 - Jun 26 by Nthsuffolkblue |
There can't be a cap on those from Hong Kong that were given British passports because they are British citizens. (Although looking it up there is a limit of 1 year to their stay despite this which then begs the question are the 100,000 here permanently or just for 1 year?) 2.9 M were eligible leading up to the handover so I am not sure the number is as high as 5 million. The fact we have received 100,000 rather shows up the lie that everyone who can get here is desperate to. |
The 2.9M is the direct number of people, the rest of the 5M potential people are the dependents, I believe.
Yep when someone gets here, they just keep paying for additional Visa’s until they get right to stay and apply for full British citizenship.
That maybe one of the key differences in attitude. One of the cohorts fleeing have more money to pay for Visas and access to health care. A family with members in professional jobs from HK, may have more resource that they can bring than someone escaping the Taliban. | | | |
| Refugee question thoughts on 15:02 - Jun 26 with 785 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Refugee question thoughts on 14:54 - Jun 26 by eireblue |
The 2.9M is the direct number of people, the rest of the 5M potential people are the dependents, I believe.
Yep when someone gets here, they just keep paying for additional Visa’s until they get right to stay and apply for full British citizenship.
That maybe one of the key differences in attitude. One of the cohorts fleeing have more money to pay for Visas and access to health care. A family with members in professional jobs from HK, may have more resource that they can bring than someone escaping the Taliban. |
The question is really are they still refugees? They are not what I think of as one because they are already British citizens but do they technically hit the definition? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Refugee question thoughts on 15:11 - Jun 26 with 765 views | BloomBlue |
| Refugee question thoughts on 15:02 - Jun 26 by Nthsuffolkblue |
The question is really are they still refugees? They are not what I think of as one because they are already British citizens but do they technically hit the definition? |
According to the UN Refugee Convention, the definition of a refugee is someone who: ‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country’ (Article 1, 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees).
Therefore I guess if those in Hong Kong had a fear they would be persecuted by the Chinese authorities because of their political opinion (for example) then yes they are officially a refugee according to the UN. |  | | |
| Refugee question thoughts on 15:30 - Jun 26 with 727 views | ElephantintheRoom |
The key is in the word ‘offered’. Very few Hong Kongers have come here so far and probably will not ever come here. Germany has taken in 750,000 Ukrainians a mere 10x more than the UK . I’m not sure many Afghans have been settled - most are marooned in hotels - there is no infrastructure to house them and no funding - though they have been ‘offered’ sanctuary. It’s just words used to mislead |  |
| |
| Refugee question thoughts on 16:09 - Jun 26 with 685 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Refugee question thoughts on 15:11 - Jun 26 by BloomBlue |
According to the UN Refugee Convention, the definition of a refugee is someone who: ‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country’ (Article 1, 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees).
Therefore I guess if those in Hong Kong had a fear they would be persecuted by the Chinese authorities because of their political opinion (for example) then yes they are officially a refugee according to the UN. |
As British passport holders, are they outside the country of their nationality though?
However, it is complicated in that the passports given to them only give residency rights of 1 year. | |
| |
| Refugee question thoughts on 20:24 - Jul 4 with 415 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
So I have continued to correspond with my MP on the issue and his latest response:
"Thank you for your further email of 3rd July regarding the processing of asylum claims in Rwanda.
I take note of your views and concerns. Ultimately, I feel that the potential for further loss of life in the Channel means that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue and that we must therefore act to deter people making these dangerous crossings, though I acknowledge that this is a far from ideal situation and I can understand why you have come to a different conclusion.
With best wishes.
Redacted"
So, he acknowledges that the point of the policy is to deter people making these dangerous crossings. It is clear they are open about how inhuman sending these people to Rwanda is. It is to punish them for being refugees. Disgraceful.
If you continue to support this Government, it is this attitude to people less fortunate than yourself that you are continuing to support. I am sure DaveU will downvote this but, come on, please give me a justification for this policy that does not involve sending them to Rwanda being a punishment for them. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
