Humanities desk
< November 16	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 17

Rwanda immigration

UK ex-PM Sunak, and more recently incoming POTUS Trump, have floated the idea of deporting unwanted migrants to Rwanda.[1] Rwanda doesn't sound like the worst place in the world (it's bad, but not at the absolute bottom), but doesn't Rwanda itself have anything to say about this? The idea is to just fly people to Rwanda and have them ask for asylum there, when (in Trump's case) the US and maybe multiple Central American countries have declined? What happens if Rwanda also says no? Has there been any mention in some kind of foreign aid to Rwanda to entice them to go along with the scheme? Basically, "why Rwanda" out of all other possible countries. The whole thing sounds bizarre. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Rwanda asylum plan for the British version. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The British sent unwanted citizens (not just illegal immigrants) to Australia for 80 years. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48; actually, there was no provision in the Aliens Act 1793 for transportion. Unwanted migrants, chiefly French, were simply expelled (many went on to the United States). The act lapsed in 1836 and there were no further immigration controls until the Aliens Act 1905. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the Rwanda asylum plan article helped. The Australia scheme was in a different age and probably wouldn't work now ;). 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could work, if America had a vast, sparsely populated chunk of land. As to sending them to Rwanda, it's well to keep in mind that Trump floats a lot of ideas, just what could charitably be called "thinking out loud", which have no real possibility of happening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we shall see 130.74.59.186 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has its own similar third-country camp, the Nauru Regional Processing Centre, and formerly had the Manus Regional Processing Centre too. CMD (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, there's lots of unpopulated land in the US, but if you let someone settle anywhere in the US then I think it would be difficult to stop them from leaving there. And people don't want to live in those places. Offers of housing to homeless US citizens in low population areas haven't been taken up much, since there are better services available in urban centers. 2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:2CDE (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trumpies aren't advocating voluntary resettlement. If they stay in America, they could be in something like the camps Japanese-Americans were locked in during WWII. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internment camps could work well for what Republicans have in mind, but could have negative consequences for public health. Historically, internment camps are connected to the quick spread of "endemic contagious diseases" to the entire population of internees. The infection of nearby settlements is not out of the question. Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

immigration detention (pending the resolution of asylum claims, for example),

as contrasted with the present 'catch-and-release' policy, or the granting of temporary protected status to the citizens of countries (or those who claim citizenship of certain countries) writ large, if enough of them enter the country illegally,

is meant to incentivize autorepatriation

i don't understand how someone can believe these outrageous lies, when we have already had a trump presidency

big promises - and ineffectual results, hampered by the civil service, who, as it turns out, cannot just be slashed overnight, and by more moderate advisors

as Vance predicted - the victory of trump will be very harmful to the mental health of a certain class of people, who actually believe, as Harris repeatedly insisted, that Trump is a 'fascist', will be a 'dictator' - and then conceded the election to him without incident

How will the American people resolve this cognitive dissonance ?

please settle down and accept that a new golden age is beginning 130.74.58.180 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conceding an election to the actual winner and having a peaceful transition of power is the hallmark of respect for properly conducted democratic processes. Some live by this principle. Others ..... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]