logo
Rwanda agrees to take deportees from the US after migrant deal with UK collapsed

Rwanda agrees to take deportees from the US after migrant deal with UK collapsed

Rhyl Journal3 days ago
Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo told The Associated Press in a statement that the East African country would accept up to 250 deportees from the US, with 'the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement' under the agreement.
Ms Makolo did not provide a timeline for any deportees to arrive in Rwanda or say if they would arrive at once or in several batches. She said details were still being worked out.
The US sent 13 men it described as dangerous criminals who were in the US illegally to South Sudan and Eswatini in Africa last month and has said it is seeking more agreements with African nations. It said those deportees' home countries refused to take them back.
The US has also deported hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama under President Donald Trump's plans to expel people who he says entered the US illegally and are 'the worst of the worst'.
Rwanda attracted international attention and some outrage when it struck a deal in 2022 with the UK to accept migrants who had arrived in the UK to seek asylum.
Under that proposed deal, their claims would have been processed in Rwanda and, if successful, they would have stayed there.
The contentious agreement was criticised by rights groups and others as being unethical and unworkable and was ultimately scrapped when Britain's new Labour government took over.
Britain's Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the deal was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country for migrants.
The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for the African countries it has entered into secretive deals with to take deportees. It sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in early July after a US Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for their deportations.
They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in Djibouti as the legal battle over their deportations played out.
South Sudan, which is tipping towards civil war, has declined to say where the men are being held or what their fate is.
The US also deported five men who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini, where the government said they will be held in solitary confinement in prison for an undetermined period of time.
A human rights lawyer in Eswatini said the men are being denied access to legal representation there and has taken authorities to court. Eswatini is Africa's last absolute monarchy. The king rules over government and political parties are effectively banned.
Both South Sudan and Eswatini have declined to give details of their agreements with the US.
Rwanda, a country of some 15 million people, has long stood out on the continent for its recovery from a genocide that killed more than 800,000 people in 1994. It has promoted itself under long-time President Paul Kagame as an example of stability and development, but human rights groups allege there are also deadly crackdowns on any perceived dissent against Mr Kagame, who has been president for 25 years.
Government spokesperson Ms Makolo said the agreement with the US was Rwanda doing its part to help with international migration issues because 'our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation'.
'Those approved (for resettlement in Rwanda) will be provided with workforce training, healthcare and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade,' she said.
There were no details about whether Rwanda had received anything in return for taking the deportees.
Gonzaga Muganwa, a Rwandan political analyst, said 'appeasing President Trump pays'.
'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Labour's war on the middle classes has just taken a vicious turn
Labour's war on the middle classes has just taken a vicious turn

Telegraph

time15 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Labour's war on the middle classes has just taken a vicious turn

A government in severe distress always falls back into its comfort zone of issues it wants to talk about, rather than tackle the most important issues before it. And so, as the dog returneth to its vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly, and the Labour Party return to the comforting familiarity of fomenting class war. Another day when, instead of focusing on economic catastrophe, social meltdown and ever-more boat crossings, Labour are tinkering with their already-disastrous Equality Act to introduce a requirement for schools to consider the 'socio-economic' background of pupils when selecting children. This consideration is even likely to trump how far away a student lives from a school, whether they have siblings already there, and perhaps even whether they have disabilities. What these factors are is obviously not properly defined yet, as doing the hard work is too much for the brainboxes behind this scheme. Perhaps it will be based on the same policy surrounding civil service internships announced last week, where you can only apply if you are an ethnic minority or if your dad did a certain list of jobs when you were fourteen. Because being judged on who your father was is now, in this topsy-turvy world, something that the Left-wing progressives do, rather than the toffs. We already know the enormous, wonderful, inspiring, sacrificial steps that parents will take to get their children into the best schools. They take second jobs to pay for private school (much harder since Labour's ruinous and useless VAT increase); they will move house to be in better areas; they will even change religion to get into, for example, Catholic schools. So when yet another ladder of opportunity is removed and broken up for firewood, what will parents do next? Will they quit their jobs, sell investments, adopt a Cockney accent, all in a bid to contort themselves into Labour's increasingly narrow criteria of 'working class'? What then will happen to the economy? This will hurt children, it will hurt parents, it will hurt Britain. The same happened after the disgraceful attacks on the grammar school system. But Labour don't care. Theirs is a pathological hatred of middle England, the wellspring from which so many of them come, but bitterly resent. It is no more someone's fault to be born to loving middle-class parents than to be born to loving working-class ones, or unloving families or no family. As Alex Burghart, the Conservative shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said so well in these pages: 'Rather than dragging people down through social engineering, we should instead focus on improving equality of opportunity, so hard-working people can get on, irrespective of their class, colour or creed.' More broadly, this sorry little diminution of Britain is just the latest in a long list of examples proving that the Left, broadly defined, just does not understand human nature. The Rev Fergus Butler-Gallie put this perfectly recently: 'Liberalism believes that human nature can be bribed or oppressed or educated into goodness' and that this world view 'has been a catastrophe for the last 50 years of policy making'. Governments must work with the grain of human nature, understanding that parents will do everything they can for their children, and harnessing that rather than trying to deny it, or worse, decry it as evil and selfish. Some children will always be brighter than others, too. Again, a return of the grammar school system would allow those kids to thrive, regardless of their 'socio-economic' background. Capitalism works by harnessing human nature – socialism fails by denying it. No amount of moronic Labour policies will ever change that.

The Rushanara Ali scandal exposes Starmer's double standards on sleaze
The Rushanara Ali scandal exposes Starmer's double standards on sleaze

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

The Rushanara Ali scandal exposes Starmer's double standards on sleaze

One of the reasons Keir Starmer won a landslide at the last election was voters' repulsion at the endless sleaze and hypocrisy of the last Tory government. Starmer tore into Boris Johnson time and again over his abuse of power as prime minister and refusal to deal firmly with misconduct by his own ministers. That would all end when Starmer entered No 10, we were told. And we believed him. Starmer may be dull, he may have no great vision and precious few clear policies, we thought. But he was an honest and decent man who would drain the swamp that Westminster had become under the Tories. Addressing Parliament in 2021 at the height of the so-called 'Wallpapergate' affair, when Johnson was caught taking secret loans to refurbish his Downing St flat, Starmer called the prime minister 'Major Sleaze.' Labour MPs cheered as Starmer seized the moral high ground, accusing the Conservatives of being 'mired in sleaze, cronyism and scandal.' If he won power, he would have no truck with such corrupt antics, he said. Barely a year into Starmer's administration, it is depressingly clear that little has changed. We have already had the scandal of his wife taking thousands of pounds worth of free clothes from Labour donor Lord Waheed Alli, while Starmer himself accepted free football tickets, clothes and even spectacles. We have even had a Labour MP forced to resign after being caught punching a constituent outside a pub. But it has reached a new low with the resignation of homelessness minister, Rushanara Ali. The gross double standards that led to her exit from the government – forcing out tenants from a property she owned before whacking up the rent by £700 a month and seeking new tenants when new legislation she is responsible for would outlaw such action – is bad enough. The arrogant manner of her departure – and Starmer's refusal to condemn her in clear terms – is worse. She blithely declares she had 'at all times' followed 'all legal requirements' and had taken her responsibilities 'seriously.' She was resigning to avoid 'being a distraction from the ambitious work of the government.' No mention of an apology. Judging from his ringing denunciation of Johnson you might imagine Starmer would send Ms Ali packing with a stern rebuke. You would be wrong. From a cursory look at his formal reply to her you might think Ali was being promoted not punished. Starmer thanks her for her 'diligent work' at her department, saying it will have 'lasting impact.' How mistaken he is. The only impact Ms Ali's departure from Starmer's government will have is as a reminder to the electorate that when it comes to sleaze, Labour's approach appears little different to their Conservative predecessors. As the saying goes: 'Do as we say, not as we do.'

Trump signs executive order targeting spending on grants
Trump signs executive order targeting spending on grants

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Trump signs executive order targeting spending on grants

WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order, opens new tab on Thursday to tighten federal grant approvals, with grant award decisions to now undergo evaluation, opens new tab by Trump's political appointees, the White House said. The Trump administration has threatened to cut federal funds for various agencies and educational institutions over a range of issues. These include pro-Palestinian protests against U.S. ally Israel's war in Gaza, climate initiatives, transgender policies and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The order signed on Thursday and released by the White House said "discretionary awards must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities." It said subject matter experts would also be involved in decisions on awarding grants. The order criticized DEI programs, assistance for immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, and transgender initiatives. It said federal grants shall not be used to fund "any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values." Rights advocates have raised concerns about Trump's federal funding threats, saying they harm free speech and academic freedom and amount to political interference that can undo decades of progress. Trump and his allies defend his steps by saying his administration is combating ideologies they consider "far left" and "anti-merit."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store