‘Not in my name’: Vast majority of Independent readers oppose Priti Patel’s Rwanda plan

Readers react to Priti Patel’s deal to send migrants thousands of miles away

Priti Patel has been criticised for the Rwanda plan

(Getty Images)

Independent readers have given their verdict on Priti Patel’s plan to send asylym seekers to Rwanda, with overhwelming disapproval.

The Home Secretary’s scheme has been met with criticism from all sides including Labour, Tory MPs including former prime minister Theresa May, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and even Home Office staff.

And the majority of readers agree, with 86 per cent opposing the plan.

In a poll, readers were asked: Do you back the Home Office’s Rwanda plan? There were 605 entries; 86 people said yes, 518 said no and one person chose the option ‘Not sure’.

The story sparked fierce discussion in the comments section.

One user with the name Annuka02 said the policy was “highly disturbing”, “repulsive” and “totally shocking revealing no respect or value for human life.

They added: “A scary insight into the mindset of this Government. People are not commodities who can be deported and exiled on a one way ticket. At this present moment in time I find it shameful to be British! This policy is absolutely not in my name.”

However, another commenter, HONESTDAVE, appeared to back the policy.

He said: “We should only take genuine refugees not those coming just because they feel like it. The British way of life is being seriously destroyed by uncontrolled imigration, it must be stopped.”

Ms Patel previously called her plan “bold and innovative”, challenging those against her plan to send migrants to Rwanda to come up with a better idea to tackle small boat crossings in the Channel.

Commenter Christoper Painter offered his own idea.

He said: “The solution is as follows and it is not so complicated: At the moment the UK has a need for labour in all areas. There are 1.1 million job vacancies.

“Rather than sending these young men to disused oil rigs in the North Sea, the Ascension Islands or wuanda (at exorbitant financial and ethically dubious costs ) the UK government should establish hostels where these young men are trained in jobs that that the country needs.

“Only after they have been trained, can speak English, and have worked and contributed to the system for at least three years do they have the right to access the normal services our welfare state provides - including the NHS - and choose another profession, if they wish.

“ Our welfare state was conceived as a generation concept; it does not allow for excessive rates of immigration.”

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below. Here’s how to join the conversation.