Rwanda hostel spruced up with £20m of Brit taxpayer cash to receive first deportees — from America
Rwanda is taking in 250 migrants thrown out of the US under Donald Trump's mass removal programme.
2
Some will enjoy hotel-quality facilities at Hope Hostel, which was readied under the then-Tory government's deportation scheme last summer.
The £700million plan was ditched when Labour won the election.
Trump is now pushing ahead with his scheme.
A Hope Hostel source told The Sun yesterday: 'We are always ready to provide the best services to the customers.'
Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo confirmed those arriving in the country would be given support.
She added: 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement.
'Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare and accommodation support to jump-start their lives in Rwanda.'
The initial agreement — signed last month — is for 250 people but can be extended if both countries agree. Britain signed its agreement in 2022.
Four UK arrivals were sent to Rwanda but that was under a separate voluntary scheme and did not involve their moving into Hope Hostel.
Ismael Bakina, boss of the private operator of the hostel, said the US arrivals would be surprised at the quality of the services offered, adding: 'This is not a prison or a detention centre.'
I visited Rwanda's £20m 'migrant hotel' where UK asylum seekers will stay – it's got Premier League on TV & footie pitch
2
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration for alleged free speech violations
Aug 6 (Reuters) - Stanford University's student newspaper sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday, arguing it has violated the free-speech rights of foreign students by threatening to deport them for writing stories that it considers "anti-American or anti-Israel." The Stanford Daily and two unidentified students said in the lawsuit, opens new tab, filed in federal court in California against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, that foreign students at the Palo Alto, California, school have refused to write about the conflict in the Middle East for fear they could be arrested, detained and deported. "This pall of fear is incompatible with American liberty," the lawsuit said. "Our First Amendment stands as a bulwark against the government infringing the inalienable human right to think and speak for yourself." Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' Stanford Daily attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement. A spokesperson for Stanford University said the newspaper is an independent organization and that the school is not part of the lawsuit. The Trump administration has attempted to deport students who have expressed pro-Palestinian views, calling them antisemitic and extremist sympathizers whose presence in the country was adverse to U.S. foreign policy. Protesters say that the government wrongly conflates their criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism and extremism. Judges have ordered the release of some students who the administration arrested and detained without being charged with a crime. The Stanford Daily said in its lawsuit that the administration has caused its foreign writers to self-censor to avoid being targeted. It argued that the administration's threats prevent them from "engaging in protected expression like attending protests, using certain slogans, and publicly voicing their true views about American foreign policy, Israel, and Palestine." The newspaper asked the court to rule that the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from deporting non-citizens for engaging in free speech.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
MAGA co-founder of popular burger restaurant named in honor of Trump is ironically arrested by ICE
The co-founder of Trump Burger, a Texas fast-food chain idolizing President Donald Trump and his hardline immigration policies, is now facing deportation himself. Roland Beainy, a Lebanese immigrant who turned his loyalty to Trump into a MAGA-branded burger empire, has been accused of immigration fraud and notified by federal officials that his green card is being revoked. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Beainy is under investigation over what has been described as a 'sham marriage' designed to exploit US immigration laws. The revelation has ignited controversy across Texas, where Beainy has helped build a chain devoted to Trump's image complete with impersonators, burgers stamped with Trump's name, and menu items mocking former President Biden. But the restaurateur known for glorifying deportation policies is now entangled in a potential deportation case of his own. An immigration court hearing has been set for November 18, where Beainy could be formally ordered to leave the country. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) informed a woman claiming to be Beainy's wife that his I-130 application - the form used by American citizens to sponsor relatives for immigration status, would be revoked. USCIS reportedly found no lease, joint accounts, or other proof that the two ever shared a life together. Investigators say even the woman's own family acknowledged the marriage was a 'sham.' Beainy's legal meltdown comes amid a torrent of litigation surrounding his beloved burger brand, Trump Burger which has grown to four Texas locations and features everything from the 'Trump Tower Burger' to the 'Melania Crispy Chicken.' The gimmick is pure MAGA kitsch with menu items named after Trump family members, burgers stamped with Trump's name on the bun, and Trump impersonators roaming the dining rooms. From its early days, Trump Burger was designed to be a monument to American bravado: red meat, big slogans and bigger portions. It branded itself as unapologetically conservative and unabashedly pro-Trump down to the $50.99 'Biden Burger,' which features a measly 1-ounce patty and is topped with 'old tomato and our oldest buns available due to cheating and inflation.' Launched in 2020 in Bellville, Texas, Trump Burger was Beainy's love letter to the 45th president - a man whose hardline immigration stance include ICE raids and mass deportations. 'The man who slapped Trump's face on a hamburger and called it freedom is now fighting to stay in the country,' one critic posted on Facebook. 'Turns out wrapping meat in patriotism doesn't automatically come with a green card renewal.' Beainy's troubles with ICE appear to be just the beginning. He currently entangled in at least four lawsuits, including a bitter feud over ownership of the Trump Burger brand itself. Beainy claims he purchased a 50% stake in the original restaurant from co-founder Iyad 'Eddie' Abuelhawa. But Abuelhawa denies there was ever a formal agreement and is countersuing Beainy, seeking $1 million in damages. In a separate dispute, Beainy sued the property owner of Trump Burger's Kemah location, Archie Patterson, after Patterson evicted him and changed the signage to read 'MAGA Burger.' Beainy's former business partner, Beshara Janho, is also suing him for over $1 million in damages related to another venture. But the most brutal blow has come from Trump himself. In February, the Trump Organization sent a cease-and-desist letter to Beainy, demanding he stop using Trump's name and image, citing potential consumer confusion and unauthorized brand use. The restaurant is not endorsed by Donald Trump, the Trump family, or the Trump Organization. Beainy's immigration court hearing is scheduled for November 18, where a judge will determine whether the green card revocation stands and whether Beainy will be deported.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Married immigrants trying to get green cards could be deported, new Trump-era guidance says
Immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens have long expected that they won't be deported from the country while going through the process of obtaining a green card. But new guidance from Donald Trump's administration explicitly states that immigrants seeking lawful residence through marriage can be deported, a policy that also applies to immigrants with pending requests. Immigration authorities can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and applied to become a lawful permanent resident through a citizen spouse, according to guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued this month. The policy also applies to immigrants with pending green cards through other citizen family members. People who entered the country illegally aren't the only ones impacted. Under new guidance, immigrants trying to get lawful status through a spouse or family member are at risk of being deported if their visas expired, or if they are among the roughly 1 million immigrants whose temporary protected status was stripped from them under the Trump administration. Immigrants and their spouses or family members who sponsor them 'should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,' the policy states. The changes were designed to 'enhance benefit integrity and identify vetting and fraud concerns' and weed out what the agency calls 'fraudulent, frivolous, or non-meritorious' applications, according to USCIS. 'This guidance will improve USCIS' capacity to vet qualifying marriages and family relationships to ensure they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,' the agency said in a statement. Those changes, which were filed on August 1, are 'effective immediately,' according to the agency. Within the first six months of 2025, immigrants and their family members filed more than 500,000 I-130 petitions, which are the first steps in the process of obtaining legal residency through a spouse or family member. There are more than 2.4 million pending I-130 petitions, according to USCIS data. Nearly 2 million of those petitions have been pending for more than six months. It is unclear whether those petitions involve immigrants who either lost their legal status or did not have one at the time they filed their documents. Previously, USCIS would notify applicants about missing documents or issue a denial notice serving as a warning that their case could be rejected — with opportunities for redress. Now, USCIS is signaling that applicants can be immediately denied and ordered to immigrant courts instead. Outside of being born in the country, family-based immigration remains the largest and most viable path to permanent residency, accounting for nearly half of all new green card holders each year, according to USCIS data. 'This is one of the most important avenues that people have to adjust to lawful permanent status in the United States,' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, told NBC News. Under long-established USCIS policies, 'no one expected' to be hauled into immigration court while seeking lawful status after a marriage, Mukherjee said. Now, deportation proceedings can begin 'at any point in the process' under the broad scope of the rule changes, which could 'instill fear in immigrant families, even those who are doing everything right,' according to Mukherjee. Obtaining a green card The high-profile arrest and threat of removing Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil put intense scrutiny on whether the administration lawfully targeted a lawful permanent resident for his constitutionally protected speech. And last month, Customs and Border Protection put green card holders on notice, warning that the government 'has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused.' 'In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention,' the agency said. Another recent USCIS memo outlines the administration's plans to revoke citizenship from children whose parents lack permanent lawful status as well as parents who are legally in the country, including visa holders, DACA recipients and people seeking asylum. The policy appears to preempt court rulings surrounding the constitutionality of the president's executive order that unilaterally redefines who gets to be a citizen in the country at birth. That memo, from the agency's Office of the Chief Counsel, acknowledges that federal court injunctions have blocked the government from taking away birthright citizenship. But the agency 'is preparing to implement' Trump's executive order 'in the event that it is permitted to go into effect,' according to July's memo. Children of immigrants who are 'unlawfully present' will 'no longer be U.S. citizens at birth,' the agency declared. Trump's order states that children whose parents are legally present in the country on student, work and tourist visas are not eligible for citizenship USCIS, however, goes even further, outlining more than a dozen categories of immigrants whose children could lose citizenship at birth despite their parents living in the country with legal permission. That list includes immigrants who are protected against deportation for humanitarian reasons and immigrants from countries with Temporary Protected Status, among others. The 14th Amendment plainly states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The Supreme Court has upheld that definition to apply to all children born within the United States for more than a century. But under the terms of Trump's order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn't a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump's order, according to plaintiffs challenging the president's order. A challenge over Trump's birthright citizenship order at the Supreme Court did not resolve the critical 14th Amendment questions at stake. On Wednesday, government lawyers confirmed plans to 'expeditiously' ask the Supreme Court 'to settle the lawfulness' of his birthright citizenship order later this year.
