Prince Charles: – Terrible

Prince Charles: - Terrible

The UK will this week deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, after Boris Johnson and the British government in April entered into an agreement with Rwanda on the matter. The agreement sparks fierce international protests, especially since Rwanda is one of the poorest and smallest countries in Africa, and therefore unable to sponsor asylum seekers.

Prince Charles has also now expressed his dissatisfaction with the agreement, several British media have written.

– Terrible, the 73-year-old prince is said to have said about the agreement, according to reports timesAnd the ReutersAnd the Sky News And many other media.

– embarrassment

Prince Charles’ statement came in a special context, according to timesWhich was said about the positions of the Prince. Avisa further wrote that the prince is particularly frustrated with the asylum agreement because he will represent the queen during a meeting in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, later this month.

Then he will meet President Kagame, and will witness “embarrassing moments,” the Times wrote.

Agree: Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Perrota (left) and British Home Secretary Priti Patel speak to the press outside the United Nations headquarters in Geneva about the two countries' controversial asylum agreement.  Photo: AP/NTB

Agree: Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Perrota (left) and British Home Secretary Priti Patel speak to the press outside the United Nations headquarters in Geneva about the two countries’ controversial asylum agreement. Photo: AP/NTB
Show more

The British, led by Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel, have been working for a long time to come to an agreement in which they can expel asylum seekers they do not want.

UN: Illegal

Both the United Nations and a number of British organizations have condemned the asylum agreement.

– Says that the notified deportations are in no way supported by the UN High Commissioner Laura Dubinskya lawyer with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, adds that refugees would be able to experience “serious and irreparable damage” if they were sent to Rwanda.

The United Nations held two meetings with British authorities, in which reports confirmed that deporting people to countries where they could face persecution is illegal under international law. BBC.

Article title: “Asylum seekers sent to Rwanda are being handed over to poverty” telegraph, who sent a journalist to Rwanda to find out what asylum seekers would face there. Refugees say there is not enough food, shelter, medical assistance or other vitals, the journalist writes in the Telegraph.

British ministers believe asylum seekers can now “build their lives in safety”. Rwanda, for its part, promised “long-term accommodation” to those deported by the British, without saying anything else about what that meant.

first of many

The asylum agreement has also been considered in British law. On Friday, a British court rejected the appeal of a group of asylum seekers who will already be put on a plane on Tuesday and sent to Rwanda.

31 people will be repatriated on the first flight from the UK to Rwanda on Tuesday, he said. BBC.

But Tuesday’s deportations will be the first of many, and everything is going as the British want.

Home Secretary Patel has been working on the asylum agreement for a short year, and has received a lot of criticism. She herself responded that the agreement was an opportunity to fight the “evil traffickers” who help asylum seekers come to Britain.

They get paid

Under the asylum agreement between Britain and Rwanda, the British will pay 120 million pounds, which will be allocated to educational projects, according to the BBC.

Rwanda has a population of 12.3 million and is the most densely populated country on the African mainland. So why should a small, poor African country say yes to accepting asylum seekers the British don’t want?

“Rwandanese ministers believe that the arrival of motivated migrants will help them boost the economy and that the agreement will be able to contribute to future investments,” he wrote. BBC Editor Mark Eastonbefore concluding:

“But one wonders what the average Rwandan thinks about sending a rich European country its problems to a small African nation.”

FRP: Send them to Africa

In Norway, too, the debate over sending refugees has raged. Earlier this year, Fribs Erlind Wiborg also promoted a publishing house to send refugees to Africa and Rwanda.

– I think Rwanda is a good proposal for a place. There is a reason why the UK chose him, too. Weborg said but I’m willing to look at other countries too Aftenposten In May this year.

The proposal sparked a backlash.

Logic does not hang in the balance. FRP, who is very interested in helping in the vicinity, must understand that countries like Rwanda will not have the opportunity to help in their neighborhood if we send asylum seekers to it. He then drops the entire asylum institute . Paul Nessie, NOAS general secretary, said Dagbladet.

See also  Accused of trying to open a plane door in the air
Jabori Obasanjo

Jabori Obasanjo

"Coffee trailblazer. Certified pop culture lover. Infuriatingly humble gamer."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *