Cruel traffickers use Rwanda ruling in TikTok ads to entice asylum seekers to UK

A court decision to prevent Suella Braverman’s controversial Rwanda deportation scheme is being used to peddle false ads on TikTok.

Cruel people smugglers wrongly claim those who choose to pay up and take the perilous risk of crossing the Channel “will not be deported” from the UK.

This, they say, is because the Court of Appeal cancelled the costly scheme last week. This fact in itself is reportedly being used across TikTok adverts to get more people to consider the life threateing journey.

One account used images from a news broadcast about the Rwanda scheme’s cancellation, telling potential migrants in Albanian: “There is no return for Albanians who go to England by boat. Contact me if you want to go as well.”

An undercover reporter contacted the gang behind the TikTok account, entitled Albanian in England, which linked to half a dozen adverts offering Channel crossings for £3,500 per person, reported the Telegraph.

READ MORE Sunak faces ultimatum to stop European court blocking Rwanda deportation flights

In response to their inquiries, the trafficker said: “They are not returning people…there is not any law to return you. Only if you have been before in England and have been deported.”

Asked when the next crossing could be made, the gang member replied: “Every day.”But when the undercover reporter asked about Rwanda, they said: “It was a proposal from [the Prime Minister] but the court ruled against that and criticised them for their behaviour towards Albanian asylum seekers.

“In all my crossings I have families. No one of them has been returned. I will write to you on what’s up later.”

Rishi Sunak said in a statement that the government would now seek permission to appeal against the decision at the Supreme Court after it ruled his policy to be unlawful.

The ruling comes after a four-day hearing in April which challenged the decision made in December that it was lawful to send some asylum seekers – including those who arrived on small boats – to Rwanda.

It would be here that asylum seekers would have their claims processed instead of dealing with their applications for sanctuary in the UK.

The court ruled that Rwanda’s asylum system was insufficient for the task and may lead to legitimate asylum seekers being sent straight back to where they were fleeing.

Mr Sunak responded: “While I respect the court, I fundamentally disagree with their conclusions. I strongly believe the Rwandan government has provided the assurances necessary to ensure there is no real risk that asylum seekers relocated under the Rwanda policy would be wrongly returned to third countries, something that the lord chief justice agrees with.”

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Don’t miss…
Boris demands PM ‘get Rwanda done’ in blistering intervention after court blow[REVEAL]
Rwanda deportation ruling rejected by staggering 88 percent of Express readers[INSIGHT]
Sunak will do ‘whatever is necessary’ to decide UK’s asylum policy[ANALYSIS]

He added: “The policy of this government is very simple: it is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs. And I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen.”

But Victoire Imgabire Umuhoza, leader of Rwanda’s opposition party, told Sky News that the deal between Rwanda and the UK is “illegal” because the central African nation is “not a free country”.

She cited a 2017 report by the UK Foreign Office which found the Rwandan government was responsible for “targeting of the opposition leaders and civil society organisations”.

She added: “I don’t understand how a democratic country, a rich country like the UK does not want to help refugees and wants to put this heavy burden on a poor country and a not democratic country like Rwanda”.

Concerns have also been raised over the considerable cost of the scheme, with government analysis indicating last week that it would cost as much as £169,000 per person to perform the deportations.

Caroline Nokes, the chair of the women and equalities committee commented: “The value for money question is an important one but it’s worrying when the Home Office are saying themselves that they can’t be certain that these figures are accurate and they are predicated on the Rwandan scheme acting as a deterrent and to date we have not seen it acting as deterrent”.

Enver Solomon, the head of the Refugee Council, added: “If enacted in its current form, the bill would leave tens of thousands of refugees unable to access the protection they are entitled to under international law.

“It would cause hardship, cost billions of pounds, and do nothing to alleviate the current crisis and pressures within the asylum system”.

Nearly 11,500 migrants have crossed the Channel this year, down around eight percent compared to last year when a record 45,755 eventually arrived.

Source: Read Full Article