Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the law needs changing." Ok, but when we leave the ECHR, which loosely ties into the UNDHR, and the goverment starts to erode your rights, don’t start crying | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was ruled unlawful, not illegal. Unlawful means it cannot happen because there's no legal basis for it. Illegal means it's against a specific statute." I stand corrected. Therefore a specific law is required to allow it. Or, better, the existing laws need changing to raise the bar for accepting asylum seekers, transfer the burden of proof to the claimant, limit the time they have to provide proof, curtail appeals and allow swift deportation to their country of origin once their claims are rejected. We should be working on the premise that all people arriving here by illegal means are either criminals or economic migrants, or both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the law needs changing." Which laws would need to be changed or introduced? I thought the judge was saying Rwanda is not a safe place to send the claimants. It seemed more focused on the location as opposed to the scheme itself but that's just my guess. Changing UK laws is one thing but if it is the ECHR thing then I can't see that being changed. Bit of a wild guess now but if the only way was to leave the ECHR would Sunak use that in the GE. I think probably not but it's not impossible | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We should be working on the premise that all people arriving here by illegal means are either criminals or economic migrants, or both." Welcome to post-brexit UK. What a time to be alive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does that mean that EU member states that were sending refugees to Rwanda were also doing so unlawfully?" Why would it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We should be working on the premise that all people arriving here by illegal means are either criminals or economic migrants, or both." But if you travelled by hiding on a train, and you had to because your life was in danger, then that is a defence. If your defence is accepted, then there was no crime. Your record is clean. You can apply for citizenship in the end. A presumption is no good. People's cases have got to be heard. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the law needs changing." So the law needs changing because the most senior judges in the land voted 5-0 against it!! Let’s repeat that again… 5-0 That’s a whole lot of heavy lifting that’s going to need doing…. 5-0 by the way…. I am surprised you didn’t say change the judges!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants." It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, the law needs changing. So the law needs changing because the most senior judges in the land voted 5-0 against it!! Let’s repeat that again… 5-0 That’s a whole lot of heavy lifting that’s going to need doing…. 5-0 by the way…. I am surprised you didn’t say change the judges!!! " Cast your mind back a few years and the Daily Mail published a picture of the High Court Judges implying they were enemies of the state or traitors. It was eerily reminiscent of something that happened in the press in Nazi Germany. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. " do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants. It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! " I wonder if she has been playing to get sacked before this. The resignation letter pre emptied this kind of result and was the first I've seen of breaking ranks that the Rwanda scheme was anything but a great idea that would work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR?" I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants. It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! I wonder if she has been playing to get sacked before this. The resignation letter pre emptied this kind of result and was the first I've seen of breaking ranks that the Rwanda scheme was anything but a great idea that would work. " Possibly but she also pointed out that even if the court had ruled in favour of the scheme it would most likely be challenged again as Sunak had failed to adopt other measures to prevent such challenges (or something to that effect) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants. It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! " Does the ruling mean that if the UK found another willing country that is deemed to be safe then the scheme is viable with a few changes to UK law but not leaving the ECHR, or that the UK cannot use this sort of scheme anywhere? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too." I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it." Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. " The answer to this is technical .. so bare with me, this is my understanding Under UK law you cannot be deported to a country is there is the possibility of the death sentence being in play… for example, in the case of Abu qatarda, the UK had to get an international memorandum of understanding saying if he was deported to Jordan that the death penalty would not be applied as a requested sentence for his charges (which happened to be terrorism based…. Side note: found not guilty of all charges) He held up that extradition/deportation for years because the Jordanian authorities wouldn’t agree to this.. it was only when they eventually did that it happened! So what has been happening in Rwanda is 2 things 1) funny enough there have been documented instances where migrants sent there by UNHCR have been attacked by locals and police 2) Rwanda doesn’t have laws and would not commit that if the UK sent people there, they would not send them onwards back to countries of origin… so therefore the justices saw them as unsafe to be sent to (remember when Julian assange was claiming he didn’t want to be sent to Sweden, because he feared they would send his onwards to the US!…… basically this!) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants. It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! Does the ruling mean that if the UK found another willing country that is deemed to be safe then the scheme is viable with a few changes to UK law but not leaving the ECHR, or that the UK cannot use this sort of scheme anywhere?" Let’s take out the word “Rwanda” and exchange it for “France” in an example…. Then the answer is in theory yes under one of the 3 5-0 decisions they had go against them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. The answer to this is technical .. so bare with me, this is my understanding Under UK law you cannot be deported to a country is there is the possibility of the death sentence being in play… for example, in the case of Abu qatarda, the UK had to get an international memorandum of understanding saying if he was deported to Jordan that the death penalty would not be applied as a requested sentence for his charges (which happened to be terrorism based…. Side note: found not guilty of all charges) He held up that extradition/deportation for years because the Jordanian authorities wouldn’t agree to this.. it was only when they eventually did that it happened! So what has been happening in Rwanda is 2 things 1) funny enough there have been documented instances where migrants sent there by UNHCR have been attacked by locals and police 2) Rwanda doesn’t have laws and would not commit that if the UK sent people there, they would not send them onwards back to countries of origin… so therefore the justices saw them as unsafe to be sent to (remember when Julian assange was claiming he didn’t want to be sent to Sweden, because he feared they would send his onwards to the US!…… basically this!) " You've answered why the UK Supreme Court has ruled the way they have, I have no problem with the ruling. Not why the UNHCR are still sending people there whilst arguing that it would be unsafe for Britain to do so. Do the UNHCR have a treaty with Rwanda that stops the issues foreseen for the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think." "they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes". This is it for me. This is why they don't do anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too." Unless the reason to deliberately not solve the problem is, as some say, to distract from other areas then I don't see a reason for not solving it. If it is to provide a distraction then in my opinion that only works for a short time, not the years and years it's been going on. Now the distraction is more damaging than whatever it was originally distracting from and just highlights the government's failure. They may bring it to a head and use it in the GE by making the GE manifesto about leaving whatever legal bodies is required to do the Rwanda scheme or similar. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants. It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! Does the ruling mean that if the UK found another willing country that is deemed to be safe then the scheme is viable with a few changes to UK law but not leaving the ECHR, or that the UK cannot use this sort of scheme anywhere? Let’s take out the word “Rwanda” and exchange it for “France” in an example…. Then the answer is in theory yes under one of the 3 5-0 decisions they had go against them" Thank you. So far then the scheme itself does not seem to be a problem but the chosen location is a problem despite the UNHCR using it. Seems Sunak is perusing with Rwanda and that they are willing to help but if the court's won't accept them as safe, I'm not sure what will change | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think." James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. " By legacy cases, do you mean backlog? I do remember reading something about the government fast tracking and approving asylum requests without following the processes to verify the requests. I am not sure that's a good thing. The crossings going down could be due to UK making a deal with Albania to return all the arrivals from that country. Full marks for that though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. By legacy cases, do you mean backlog? I do remember reading something about the government fast tracking and approving asylum requests without following the processes to verify the requests. I am not sure that's a good thing. The crossings going down could be due to UK making a deal with Albania to return all the arrivals from that country. Full marks for that though." By legacy cases, I do mean backlog. I agree it wouldn't be a good thing if verifications aren't properly carried out. I'm having a guess but wouldn't the Albanians still show on figures crossed even if they were sent back? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. By legacy cases, do you mean backlog? I do remember reading something about the government fast tracking and approving asylum requests without following the processes to verify the requests. I am not sure that's a good thing. The crossings going down could be due to UK making a deal with Albania to return all the arrivals from that country. Full marks for that though. By legacy cases, I do mean backlog. I agree it wouldn't be a good thing if verifications aren't properly carried out. I'm having a guess but wouldn't the Albanians still show on figures crossed even if they were sent back?" I read somewhere that once the deal with Albania was announced, the number of Albanians making the crossing just dropped abruptly. Why would they pay so much money to smugglers only to go back to their home country? Moving the other asylum seekers to Rwanda could work in theory for the same reason. But I am pretty sure all the Tories knew it would be blocked by legal challenges. There is also the question of how many of them are sent to Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. By legacy cases, do you mean backlog? I do remember reading something about the government fast tracking and approving asylum requests without following the processes to verify the requests. I am not sure that's a good thing. The crossings going down could be due to UK making a deal with Albania to return all the arrivals from that country. Full marks for that though. By legacy cases, I do mean backlog. I agree it wouldn't be a good thing if verifications aren't properly carried out. I'm having a guess but wouldn't the Albanians still show on figures crossed even if they were sent back? I read somewhere that once the deal with Albania was announced, the number of Albanians making the crossing just dropped abruptly. Why would they pay so much money to smugglers only to go back to their home country? Moving the other asylum seekers to Rwanda could work in theory for the same reason. But I am pretty sure all the Tories knew it would be blocked by legal challenges. There is also the question of how many of them are sent to Rwanda." Got it. So from what you understand, there are less Albanians arriving? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. The answer to this is technical .. so bare with me, this is my understanding Under UK law you cannot be deported to a country is there is the possibility of the death sentence being in play… for example, in the case of Abu qatarda, the UK had to get an international memorandum of understanding saying if he was deported to Jordan that the death penalty would not be applied as a requested sentence for his charges (which happened to be terrorism based…. Side note: found not guilty of all charges) He held up that extradition/deportation for years because the Jordanian authorities wouldn’t agree to this.. it was only when they eventually did that it happened! So what has been happening in Rwanda is 2 things 1) funny enough there have been documented instances where migrants sent there by UNHCR have been attacked by locals and police 2) Rwanda doesn’t have laws and would not commit that if the UK sent people there, they would not send them onwards back to countries of origin… so therefore the justices saw them as unsafe to be sent to (remember when Julian assange was claiming he didn’t want to be sent to Sweden, because he feared they would send his onwards to the US!…… basically this!) You've answered why the UK Supreme Court has ruled the way they have, I have no problem with the ruling. Not why the UNHCR are still sending people there whilst arguing that it would be unsafe for Britain to do so. Do the UNHCR have a treaty with Rwanda that stops the issues foreseen for the UK?" The basic answer to that is no…. In effect the United Nations operates as a 3rd party organisation and and it works on a “volunteer “ basis for this… so you have had documented cases of , for example, people leaving because they are gay/lesbian… being sent to Rwanda, where they have been attacked by locals/police… or being sent back to their country of origin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants. It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! Does the ruling mean that if the UK found another willing country that is deemed to be safe then the scheme is viable with a few changes to UK law but not leaving the ECHR, or that the UK cannot use this sort of scheme anywhere? Let’s take out the word “Rwanda” and exchange it for “France” in an example…. Then the answer is in theory yes under one of the 3 5-0 decisions they had go against them Thank you. So far then the scheme itself does not seem to be a problem but the chosen location is a problem despite the UNHCR using it. Seems Sunak is perusing with Rwanda and that they are willing to help but if the court's won't accept them as safe, I'm not sure what will change" He would really need to make it a treaty rather than a memorandum of understanding, but that would then need to be ratified by parliament, and even then may still end up in court challenges if Rwanda human rights record doesn’t improve… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. The answer to this is technical .. so bare with me, this is my understanding Under UK law you cannot be deported to a country is there is the possibility of the death sentence being in play… for example, in the case of Abu qatarda, the UK had to get an international memorandum of understanding saying if he was deported to Jordan that the death penalty would not be applied as a requested sentence for his charges (which happened to be terrorism based…. Side note: found not guilty of all charges) He held up that extradition/deportation for years because the Jordanian authorities wouldn’t agree to this.. it was only when they eventually did that it happened! So what has been happening in Rwanda is 2 things 1) funny enough there have been documented instances where migrants sent there by UNHCR have been attacked by locals and police 2) Rwanda doesn’t have laws and would not commit that if the UK sent people there, they would not send them onwards back to countries of origin… so therefore the justices saw them as unsafe to be sent to (remember when Julian assange was claiming he didn’t want to be sent to Sweden, because he feared they would send his onwards to the US!…… basically this!) You've answered why the UK Supreme Court has ruled the way they have, I have no problem with the ruling. Not why the UNHCR are still sending people there whilst arguing that it would be unsafe for Britain to do so. Do the UNHCR have a treaty with Rwanda that stops the issues foreseen for the UK? The basic answer to that is no…. In effect the United Nations operates as a 3rd party organisation and and it works on a “volunteer “ basis for this… so you have had documented cases of , for example, people leaving because they are gay/lesbian… being sent to Rwanda, where they have been attacked by locals/police… or being sent back to their country of origin " Cheers. I can't make that add up. The UNHCR say its not safe for Britain but happily send others there. I've actually been looking for this answer for quite a while, still can't square it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. " so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. The answer to this is technical .. so bare with me, this is my understanding Under UK law you cannot be deported to a country is there is the possibility of the death sentence being in play… for example, in the case of Abu qatarda, the UK had to get an international memorandum of understanding saying if he was deported to Jordan that the death penalty would not be applied as a requested sentence for his charges (which happened to be terrorism based…. Side note: found not guilty of all charges) He held up that extradition/deportation for years because the Jordanian authorities wouldn’t agree to this.. it was only when they eventually did that it happened! So what has been happening in Rwanda is 2 things 1) funny enough there have been documented instances where migrants sent there by UNHCR have been attacked by locals and police 2) Rwanda doesn’t have laws and would not commit that if the UK sent people there, they would not send them onwards back to countries of origin… so therefore the justices saw them as unsafe to be sent to (remember when Julian assange was claiming he didn’t want to be sent to Sweden, because he feared they would send his onwards to the US!…… basically this!) You've answered why the UK Supreme Court has ruled the way they have, I have no problem with the ruling. Not why the UNHCR are still sending people there whilst arguing that it would be unsafe for Britain to do so. Do the UNHCR have a treaty with Rwanda that stops the issues foreseen for the UK? The basic answer to that is no…. In effect the United Nations operates as a 3rd party organisation and and it works on a “volunteer “ basis for this… so you have had documented cases of , for example, people leaving because they are gay/lesbian… being sent to Rwanda, where they have been attacked by locals/police… or being sent back to their country of origin Cheers. I can't make that add up. The UNHCR say its not safe for Britain but happily send others there. I've actually been looking for this answer for quite a while, still can't square it. " I suspect you'll be looking for a while yet | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. " So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that." "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that." Or just find another safe country? Maybe one of the commonwealth members could be persuaded with the Rwanda money? The Aussies seem to be able to carry this out, why do we make such a mess of it, especially when the template is already there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says."" I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants. It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! " It was her baby. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The consequences of leaving the EU. If we were in the French couldn't send us the migrants. It’s not just that…. The judges in itself have agreed that Rwanda is not a safe 3rd country to be sent to… and the country itself cannot declare itself safe Just as well sue Ellen went on Monday, because she probably would have gone today! It was her baby." Poop, it was NOT her baby. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. By legacy cases, do you mean backlog? I do remember reading something about the government fast tracking and approving asylum requests without following the processes to verify the requests. I am not sure that's a good thing. The crossings going down could be due to UK making a deal with Albania to return all the arrivals from that country. Full marks for that though. By legacy cases, I do mean backlog. I agree it wouldn't be a good thing if verifications aren't properly carried out. I'm having a guess but wouldn't the Albanians still show on figures crossed even if they were sent back? I read somewhere that once the deal with Albania was announced, the number of Albanians making the crossing just dropped abruptly. Why would they pay so much money to smugglers only to go back to their home country? Moving the other asylum seekers to Rwanda could work in theory for the same reason. But I am pretty sure all the Tories knew it would be blocked by legal challenges. There is also the question of how many of them are sent to Rwanda. Got it. So from what you understand, there are less Albanians arriving?" Yes. This article says the number of Albanians arriving dropped by 90% https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/19/people-smugglers-cut-channel-crossing-prices-more-than-half/ But I am not sure if that's the only contributing factor | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. By legacy cases, do you mean backlog? I do remember reading something about the government fast tracking and approving asylum requests without following the processes to verify the requests. I am not sure that's a good thing. The crossings going down could be due to UK making a deal with Albania to return all the arrivals from that country. Full marks for that though. By legacy cases, I do mean backlog. I agree it wouldn't be a good thing if verifications aren't properly carried out. I'm having a guess but wouldn't the Albanians still show on figures crossed even if they were sent back? I read somewhere that once the deal with Albania was announced, the number of Albanians making the crossing just dropped abruptly. Why would they pay so much money to smugglers only to go back to their home country? Moving the other asylum seekers to Rwanda could work in theory for the same reason. But I am pretty sure all the Tories knew it would be blocked by legal challenges. There is also the question of how many of them are sent to Rwanda. Got it. So from what you understand, there are less Albanians arriving? Yes. This article says the number of Albanians arriving dropped by 90% https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/19/people-smugglers-cut-channel-crossing-prices-more-than-half/ But I am not sure if that's the only contributing factor " Wasn't the Albanian repatriation down to a one off payment if they went back voluntarily? Sure I read or saw it was and the figure of £1500 per person was mentioned.. Happy for someone to clarify.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. " I'd imagine there are some countries were refoulment is deemed likely. And rwanda are sending people back there. He also mentions Rwanda's "apparent misunderstanding" of its obligations under the Refugee Convention. I don't have all the details... I'd imagine much will be published. But there seems to be a fair amount that says Rwanda isn't a good choice as a country to pass responsibility to. What's been reported looks pretty damning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. " Legal correspondent and a solicitor involved with the appeal explained in on R4 earlier, the Rwandans in some cases clandestinely moved people including Afghanistan citizens seeking asylum back to their home country and that was one part of why the Supreme Court found against the Government.. Plus there is no independent judicial oversight in the country to hold them to scrutiny hence they have been saying one thing and doing another plus there's no appeal against refould ment for the individuals once the judges have made their decision.. In order to satisfy the Supreme Court it's felt that structural changes are required to address the areas of concern and for it to be shown it's changed in practise .. Something like a treaty won't satisfy.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. Or just find another safe country? Maybe one of the commonwealth members could be persuaded with the Rwanda money? The Aussies seem to be able to carry this out, why do we make such a mess of it, especially when the template is already there? " Australia does what it wants they would be happy pushing people back into the sea which I find fair if that's what they want we on the other hand have a weak government who really aren't interested in dealing with the situation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Rishi Sunak just said he will pass an emergency law declaring Rwanda is a safe country after supreme court ruling that the Rwanda policy is unlawful Guess he knows best, has he spent much time there ? " He wants a big fight with the supreme Court judges, mucho deflection.. Coming out fighting after suella tore him up for arse paper.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. By legacy cases, do you mean backlog? I do remember reading something about the government fast tracking and approving asylum requests without following the processes to verify the requests. I am not sure that's a good thing. The crossings going down could be due to UK making a deal with Albania to return all the arrivals from that country. Full marks for that though. By legacy cases, I do mean backlog. I agree it wouldn't be a good thing if verifications aren't properly carried out. I'm having a guess but wouldn't the Albanians still show on figures crossed even if they were sent back? I read somewhere that once the deal with Albania was announced, the number of Albanians making the crossing just dropped abruptly. Why would they pay so much money to smugglers only to go back to their home country? Moving the other asylum seekers to Rwanda could work in theory for the same reason. But I am pretty sure all the Tories knew it would be blocked by legal challenges. There is also the question of how many of them are sent to Rwanda. Got it. So from what you understand, there are less Albanians arriving? Yes. This article says the number of Albanians arriving dropped by 90% https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/19/people-smugglers-cut-channel-crossing-prices-more-than-half/ But I am not sure if that's the only contributing factor Wasn't the Albanian repatriation down to a one off payment if they went back voluntarily? Sure I read or saw it was and the figure of £1500 per person was mentioned.. Happy for someone to clarify.." It is a combination of both. We offered £1500 for voluntary repatriation. But only 50% of returns were voluntary https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reached-in-uk-albania-agreement-on-illegal-migration#:~:text=The%20UK%20and%20Albanian%20authorities,have%20been%20returned%20to%20Albania. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too. I've been saying this for years, even yesterday got ridiculed for saying it. Yeah the left wingers think the Tories are far right fascist, while the right wingers think that the Tories are anti-immigration but are incompetent or the evil woke lawyers are blocking them from stopping illegal immigration. I think neither is true and they want this to continue because there will be cheap labour and they can keep pointing this issue to gather votes. When you look around, the same actually happened with Georgia Meloni in Italy. While she gets called a far right fascist or strictly anti-immigrant, she wasn't able to control illegal immigration either. Makes you think. James Cleverly said today that legacy cases are now under 30k. Couple that with less boat crossings this year. It seems that they are trying to do something about it. By legacy cases, do you mean backlog? I do remember reading something about the government fast tracking and approving asylum requests without following the processes to verify the requests. I am not sure that's a good thing. The crossings going down could be due to UK making a deal with Albania to return all the arrivals from that country. Full marks for that though. By legacy cases, I do mean backlog. I agree it wouldn't be a good thing if verifications aren't properly carried out. I'm having a guess but wouldn't the Albanians still show on figures crossed even if they were sent back? I read somewhere that once the deal with Albania was announced, the number of Albanians making the crossing just dropped abruptly. Why would they pay so much money to smugglers only to go back to their home country? Moving the other asylum seekers to Rwanda could work in theory for the same reason. But I am pretty sure all the Tories knew it would be blocked by legal challenges. There is also the question of how many of them are sent to Rwanda. Got it. So from what you understand, there are less Albanians arriving? Yes. This article says the number of Albanians arriving dropped by 90% https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/19/people-smugglers-cut-channel-crossing-prices-more-than-half/ But I am not sure if that's the only contributing factor Wasn't the Albanian repatriation down to a one off payment if they went back voluntarily? Sure I read or saw it was and the figure of £1500 per person was mentioned.. Happy for someone to clarify.. It is a combination of both. We offered £1500 for voluntary repatriation. But only 50% of returns were voluntary https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reached-in-uk-albania-agreement-on-illegal-migration#:~:text=The%20UK%20and%20Albanian%20authorities,have%20been%20returned%20to%20Albania." Cheers I think it was some prisoners too which if it saving money in locking them up makes sense..  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. Legal correspondent and a solicitor involved with the appeal explained in on R4 earlier, the Rwandans in some cases clandestinely moved people including Afghanistan citizens seeking asylum back to their home country and that was one part of why the Supreme Court found against the Government.. Plus there is no independent judicial oversight in the country to hold them to scrutiny hence they have been saying one thing and doing another plus there's no appeal against refould ment for the individuals once the judges have made their decision.. In order to satisfy the Supreme Court it's felt that structural changes are required to address the areas of concern and for it to be shown it's changed in practise .. Something like a treaty won't satisfy.." All of that makes sense... I still can't square (don't think I ever will) "The Supreme Court holds that the High Court was wrong to attach so little weight to the evidence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN’s specialist refugee agency" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. Legal correspondent and a solicitor involved with the appeal explained in on R4 earlier, the Rwandans in some cases clandestinely moved people including Afghanistan citizens seeking asylum back to their home country and that was one part of why the Supreme Court found against the Government.. Plus there is no independent judicial oversight in the country to hold them to scrutiny hence they have been saying one thing and doing another plus there's no appeal against refould ment for the individuals once the judges have made their decision.. In order to satisfy the Supreme Court it's felt that structural changes are required to address the areas of concern and for it to be shown it's changed in practise .. Something like a treaty won't satisfy.. All of that makes sense... I still can't square (don't think I ever will) "The Supreme Court holds that the High Court was wrong to attach so little weight to the evidence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN’s specialist refugee agency"" do you know the nature of their evidence ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. Legal correspondent and a solicitor involved with the appeal explained in on R4 earlier, the Rwandans in some cases clandestinely moved people including Afghanistan citizens seeking asylum back to their home country and that was one part of why the Supreme Court found against the Government.. Plus there is no independent judicial oversight in the country to hold them to scrutiny hence they have been saying one thing and doing another plus there's no appeal against refould ment for the individuals once the judges have made their decision.. In order to satisfy the Supreme Court it's felt that structural changes are required to address the areas of concern and for it to be shown it's changed in practise .. Something like a treaty won't satisfy.. All of that makes sense... I still can't square (don't think I ever will) "The Supreme Court holds that the High Court was wrong to attach so little weight to the evidence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN’s specialist refugee agency"do you know the nature of their evidence ? " Again, if evidence exists that its unsafe (I'm not arguing against it), why are they happy to enable Libyans (and others) to go there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Serious question. Does anyone still believe that the government really wants to stop illegal immigration? Looks more and more like they are just doing all these gymnastics to make the people think they want to fix the problem but don't really want. I have noticed the same kind of behaviour in other issues too." All of this looks like gestures to the right wingers in the Conservative Party while providing more work (and access to public funds) for m'learn'd friends. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. Legal correspondent and a solicitor involved with the appeal explained in on R4 earlier, the Rwandans in some cases clandestinely moved people including Afghanistan citizens seeking asylum back to their home country and that was one part of why the Supreme Court found against the Government.. Plus there is no independent judicial oversight in the country to hold them to scrutiny hence they have been saying one thing and doing another plus there's no appeal against refould ment for the individuals once the judges have made their decision.. In order to satisfy the Supreme Court it's felt that structural changes are required to address the areas of concern and for it to be shown it's changed in practise .. Something like a treaty won't satisfy.. All of that makes sense... I still can't square (don't think I ever will) "The Supreme Court holds that the High Court was wrong to attach so little weight to the evidence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN’s specialist refugee agency"do you know the nature of their evidence ? Again, if evidence exists that its unsafe (I'm not arguing against it), why are they happy to enable Libyans (and others) to go there?" Surely it’s a matter of each individual case? So for example a lesbian woman, may not be safe under the laws of Rwanda for being gay. Yet a straight libyan man who seeks asylum as a political refugee might be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, if evidence exists that its unsafe (I'm not arguing against it), why are they happy to enable Libyans (and others) to go there?" They have a deal with onward forwarding countries, which mean the refugees sent there don't remain in Rwanda. UNHCR run training in Rwanda that leads to the refugee being offered work in another country, or to go back home with new skills. This might be the missing link. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. Legal correspondent and a solicitor involved with the appeal explained in on R4 earlier, the Rwandans in some cases clandestinely moved people including Afghanistan citizens seeking asylum back to their home country and that was one part of why the Supreme Court found against the Government.. Plus there is no independent judicial oversight in the country to hold them to scrutiny hence they have been saying one thing and doing another plus there's no appeal against refould ment for the individuals once the judges have made their decision.. In order to satisfy the Supreme Court it's felt that structural changes are required to address the areas of concern and for it to be shown it's changed in practise .. Something like a treaty won't satisfy.. All of that makes sense... I still can't square (don't think I ever will) "The Supreme Court holds that the High Court was wrong to attach so little weight to the evidence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN’s specialist refugee agency"do you know the nature of their evidence ? Again, if evidence exists that its unsafe (I'm not arguing against it), why are they happy to enable Libyans (and others) to go there? Surely it’s a matter of each individual case? So for example a lesbian woman, may not be safe under the laws of Rwanda for being gay. Yet a straight libyan man who seeks asylum as a political refugee might be?" Dunno tbh.. Supreme court are more concerned about the overall state of the lack of safeguards and the past performance of not abiding by international laws and conventions within the Rwandan justice system.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since there is no airline willing to accept the contract now it all seems a colossal waste of time and money" Beg to differ. It achieved its aim. Riled up support from the further to the right of the Tory party. Job done. High fives and champagnes all round. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since there is no airline willing to accept the contract now it all seems a colossal waste of time and money Beg to differ. It achieved its aim. Riled up support from the further to the right of the Tory party. Job done. High fives and champagnes all round. " All set up nicely to be a stick from the Tories at the next election to hit all their opponents with.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We should be working on the premise that all people arriving here by illegal means are either criminals or economic migrants, or both. But if you travelled by hiding on a train, and you had to because your life was in danger, then that is a defence. If your defence is accepted, then there was no crime. Your record is clean. You can apply for citizenship in the end." That's just not true. If you arrive in the UK without permission, you have committed a crime. If you are granted asylum, you can't be prosecuted for that crime, but the crime still exists, and will remain on your record. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, if evidence exists that its unsafe (I'm not arguing against it), why are they happy to enable Libyans (and others) to go there?" Today's ruling didn't say that Rwanda is unsafe, it says that it was unsafe when the first deportation was scheduled. It's possible that Rwanda is now safe, but the government didn't provide suitable evidence to prove that. So it might be that other countries are relying on more recent evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, if evidence exists that its unsafe (I'm not arguing against it), why are they happy to enable Libyans (and others) to go there? Today's ruling didn't say that Rwanda is unsafe, it says that it was unsafe when the first deportation was scheduled. It's possible that Rwanda is now safe, but the government didn't provide suitable evidence to prove that. So it might be that other countries are relying on more recent evidence." I was aware of that tbf. UNHCR & EU have been sending migrants there since before the first scheduled UK arrival. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Again, if evidence exists that its unsafe (I'm not arguing against it), why are they happy to enable Libyans (and others) to go there? Today's ruling didn't say that Rwanda is unsafe, it says that it was unsafe when the first deportation was scheduled. It's possible that Rwanda is now safe, but the government didn't provide suitable evidence to prove that. So it might be that other countries are relying on more recent evidence. I was aware of that tbf. UNHCR & EU have been sending migrants there since before the first scheduled UK arrival. " The judgement seems to be that Rwanda is unsafe because of the risk of refoulment. That's not a risk with the UNHCR scheme as it's UNHCR that is doing the assesment. The poor human rights record was of part of the reason for believing there was a risk. The record itself was not itself the issue. That's the fundamental difference. As an aside, the Israeli scheme was found to be unlawful by Israeli supreme court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you arrive in the UK without permission, you have committed a crime." It is hard to see how that can be the case, because otherwise a path to citizenship would be obstructed for those who never asked to lose their home and who never wanted to have to seek safety in another country. "I had to because my life was in danger" is a defence and it has to mean something - if the defence is accepted then it can mean that no offence took place. Is it possible to apply for citizenship even if you have a criminal record? I found that the charity Nacro has an answer. Nacro runs homes and education for vulnerable groups, such as the homeless, drug addicts and convicts. By the way, one of Nacro's funders has been the EU's European Social Fund. That's another example of the good things that the European Union does. Nacro's answer is, "You must disclose your full criminal record when applying for British citizenship if you are applying from England, Wales or Scotland. If you have been convicted of an offence and were sentenced to exactly four years' imprisonment or longer, your application is likely to be refused". This is why there an exception provided by the refugee conventions so that people with genuine cases are not given criminal records unfairly and can go on to fully take part in the UK's society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you arrive in the UK without permission, you have committed a crime." "It is hard to see how that can be the case, because otherwise a path to citizenship would be obstructed for those who never asked to lose their home and who never wanted to have to seek safety in another country." As I've said several times, a signatory to the 1951 Convention is not permitted to discriminate against a person on the grounds that their entry to the country was made illegally. The crime exists, but it can't be held against the person that is granted asylum. Any person who is granted asylum, and subsequently wishes to apply for citizenship, will need to declare any crimes of which they have been convicted. Since they weren't prosecuted for the entry crime, they don't need to declare it. ""I had to because my life was in danger" is a defence and it has to mean something - if the defence is accepted then it can mean that no offence took place." It's a defence for assault, but it's not a defence for failure to report to the authorities on arrival. Besides, people arriving from France can't say that their life was in danger there. "Is it possible to apply for citizenship even if you have a criminal record?" Yes. It's also possible to be granted citizenship even if you have a criminal conviction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Besides, people arriving from France can't say that their life was in danger there." But conventions don't require you to have to stop in France. You could have relatives in the UK but not in France. You could know English but not French. The New European had a good article about the people who lost their lives in a boat that failed halfway across the Channel. Who was on the boat? Where were they from? What were their stories? The title was: "The 27: 'They are dying, but they don’t know this yet.' A special investigation into the lives of the people who drowned in the Channel". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just seen a piece on tv where it was said that parliamentary law in the UK is the only thing UK courts can judge on. I was under the impression that international bodies rules also applied. Apparently if parliament pass a law saying not to implement a certain area from an international body or treaty then judges cannot pick up on it. So a few questions, is this the law that Sunak has mentioned today? Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say? Also why did the government not do this ages ago?" the judgement mentions a number of international conventions including the refugee convention and United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment But also three domestic laws. I'm not sure where Sunak thinks he can go on this. Is he really saying we should change laws so it's okay to refoule refugees? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""I had to because my life was in danger" is a defence and it has to mean something - if the defence is accepted then it can mean that no offence took place." "It's a defence for assault, but it's not a defence for failure to report to the authorities on arrival. Besides, people arriving from France can't say that their life was in danger there." "But conventions don't require you to have to stop in France." No one said they did. You were talking about someone showing away on a train, and claiming that they had to because their life was in danger. The only trains that come through the tunnel come from France, and no one can claim that they had to board a train in France to escape from a life-threatening situation. Yes, OK, some trains originate in Belgium or Germany, but they have to travel through France, and the same logic applies. "You could have relatives in the UK but not in France. You could know English but not French." You said that earlier, and I pointed out that is not an acceptable reason for an asylum claim. You really are getting quite irritating with your habit of removing all context from the bit of the quote you want to address. I've restored it again above so that readers don't get confused. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just seen a piece on tv where it was said that parliamentary law in the UK is the only thing UK courts can judge on. I was under the impression that international bodies rules also applied. Apparently if parliament pass a law saying not to implement a certain area from an international body or treaty then judges cannot pick up on it. So a few questions, is this the law that Sunak has mentioned today? Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say? Also why did the government not do this ages ago?the judgement mentions a number of international conventions including the refugee convention and United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment But also three domestic laws. I'm not sure where Sunak thinks he can go on this. Is he really saying we should change laws so it's okay to refoule refugees? " I think this is what he was addressing. The judge mentions those international bodies and treaties as currently they have to. However, parliament is the ultimate law maker in the UK nowadays and can introduce law to diss apply certain elements of these international treaties. The person he was speaking with, after trying to avoid the question finally and reluctantly agreed that was indeed the case. As for the current UK laws that this scheme is in breech of, they can be amended too. I am not sure this is all correct but that's what was said. Hopefully it will become clearer but as I said right at the start of this scheme, it will be bogged down in challenges. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just seen a piece on tv where it was said that parliamentary law in the UK is the only thing UK courts can judge on. I was under the impression that international bodies rules also applied. Apparently if parliament pass a law saying not to implement a certain area from an international body or treaty then judges cannot pick up on it. So a few questions, is this the law that Sunak has mentioned today? Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say? Also why did the government not do this ages ago?the judgement mentions a number of international conventions including the refugee convention and United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment But also three domestic laws. I'm not sure where Sunak thinks he can go on this. Is he really saying we should change laws so it's okay to refoule refugees? " This is like a car crash in slow motion and I don’t mean that from you / us / we point of view! The UK is signed up and was a contributor to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention. In my opinion, this convention will be the focus of change to UK decision making on refugees. Remove the UK from the convention and Rwanda is a go, controlling the borders is less complex and saves approximately £8 billion a year. That in my opinion is the choice, abide by a convention last visited for any major amendment in the 60’s, or don’t and achieve your goals | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say?" Yes, the countries that signed up have volunteered to honour the decisions of the shared international body. If a member country decides not to, then it can become a pariah state subject to sanctions by the other countries. This principle is in the Charter of the League of Nations of 1920. The Charter of the United Nations followed in 1945. The non-EU Council of Europe that runs the ECHR was set up in 1949. The European Union mentions "respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter of 1945". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Remove the UK from the convention and Rwanda is a go" Maybe? But that could upset the Good Friday Agreement. That would upset Northern Ireland and the Irish Border Communities and Ireland. That would upset the EU because Ireland is a member. Police and security cooperation with the EU depends on no backsliding on human rights. Otherwise data sharing will be more restricted or suspended altogether. It would also upset the USA because there are lots of Americans with Irish backgrounds especially in Chicago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just seen a piece on tv where it was said that parliamentary law in the UK is the only thing UK courts can judge on. I was under the impression that international bodies rules also applied. Apparently if parliament pass a law saying not to implement a certain area from an international body or treaty then judges cannot pick up on it. So a few questions, is this the law that Sunak has mentioned today? Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say? Also why did the government not do this ages ago?the judgement mentions a number of international conventions including the refugee convention and United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment But also three domestic laws. I'm not sure where Sunak thinks he can go on this. Is he really saying we should change laws so it's okay to refoule refugees? This is like a car crash in slow motion and I don’t mean that from you / us / we point of view! The UK is signed up and was a contributor to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention. In my opinion, this convention will be the focus of change to UK decision making on refugees. Remove the UK from the convention and Rwanda is a go, controlling the borders is less complex and saves approximately £8 billion a year. That in my opinion is the choice, abide by a convention last visited for any major amendment in the 60’s, or don’t and achieve your goals " I'm not sure I'm there. It's one of about six or seven conventions and laws referenced. And we aren't even talking hypothetical risks here. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention. To cut a long story short, no objective assessment could conclude that the government of Rwanda can be trusted to uphold the principle of non-refoulement and this is based on some of its specific actions in relation to asylum processing as well as wider misdeeds. Are we really getting annoyed that laws are stopping us from getting to in a arrangement that had serious risk of refoulment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"controlling the borders is less complex and saves approximately £8 billion a year" Hmm. That sounds like it comes from the same stable as those that claimed there would be less bureaucracy from not being in the EU. Instead there is more bureaucracy in every post office in the country, customs charges and delays in both directions, regulatory duplication on chemicals and the CE safety mark, duplication of the work done by the EU agencies and by the European Commission, regulatory barriers, visa requirements, rules of origin and no EU VAT area and even no Euratom causing delays on materials for X-rays and cancer treatments. How much would the Rwanda scheme cost? Al Jazeera today: "Sending each asylum seeker there would cost on average 169,000 pounds, the UK government has said". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Australia can do it, why can't we?" The Australia scheme has been a disaster. It hasn't worked and it caused a lot of suffering especially for children. The Guardian's report on the 1st of October 2020 said: "Refugee children as young as seven have displayed suicidal behaviour. Many have been exposed to physical and sexual abuse; some have self-harmed. With no hopes for the future, they display signs of traumatic withdrawal (or resignation) syndrome. One affected child was finally evacuated from Nauru unconscious, having gradually stopped speaking, eating and drinking." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Since there is no airline willing to accept the contract now it all seems a colossal waste of time and money Beg to differ. It achieved its aim. Riled up support from the further to the right of the Tory party. Job done. High fives and champagnes all round. " Thing is it's not really about the Right of the Tory Party. They're mistaken in thinking there is a public appetite for this. No flights will simply be seen as a fuck up by the Tories. It will be used against them in the Election and then the British public will shrug and move on As I said no airline - no flights End of | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm still confused as to why, if Rwanda isn't a safe country (that's the verdict) the EU & UNHCR help to resettle Libyan refugees there. It just doesn't make sense. do Rwanda settle the refugee claims, or is it UNHCR? I don't see why that matters. I'm asking why, if the UNHCR says Rwanda isn't a safe country, are they sending migrants there. so there appears to be two or three elements. One is Rwanda safe to live. While it's mentioned it's not apparentlt the main reason. The second is whether Rwanda can be relied on if they are processing claims. It's this last bit that appears to be the main concern. "The legal test which has to be applied in this case is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement [this means sending people back to their home countries]." This bit is only a concern of Rwanda are doing the processing. Not UNHCR. So we sign a treaty that prevents Rwanda from refoulement. Sounds quite simple really, providing Rwanda would agree to that. "Another matter raised by Lord Reed is Rwanda's failure to fulfil undertakings with Israel under an agreement - similar to the one being proposed by the UK - on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18. "Despite the terms of the agreement... asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled." This raises questions on whether Rwanda can be relied on, he says." I'm wondering how they came the the conclusion 'likely to be refouled'. Those dates ate 5-10 years ago. Surely there's data that says whether these people were ultimately refouled or not. Legal correspondent and a solicitor involved with the appeal explained in on R4 earlier, the Rwandans in some cases clandestinely moved people including Afghanistan citizens seeking asylum back to their home country and that was one part of why the Supreme Court found against the Government.. Plus there is no independent judicial oversight in the country to hold them to scrutiny hence they have been saying one thing and doing another plus there's no appeal against refould ment for the individuals once the judges have made their decision.. In order to satisfy the Supreme Court it's felt that structural changes are required to address the areas of concern and for it to be shown it's changed in practise .. Something like a treaty won't satisfy.. All of that makes sense... I still can't square (don't think I ever will) "The Supreme Court holds that the High Court was wrong to attach so little weight to the evidence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN’s specialist refugee agency"" I think I can answer that… when it went to the high court, the 3 judges overhearing the case 2-1 against the policy being legal which is why the government then went to the Supreme Court | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just seen a piece on tv where it was said that parliamentary law in the UK is the only thing UK courts can judge on. I was under the impression that international bodies rules also applied. Apparently if parliament pass a law saying not to implement a certain area from an international body or treaty then judges cannot pick up on it. So a few questions, is this the law that Sunak has mentioned today? Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say? Also why did the government not do this ages ago?the judgement mentions a number of international conventions including the refugee convention and United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment But also three domestic laws. I'm not sure where Sunak thinks he can go on this. Is he really saying we should change laws so it's okay to refoule refugees? This is like a car crash in slow motion and I don’t mean that from you / us / we point of view! The UK is signed up and was a contributor to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention. In my opinion, this convention will be the focus of change to UK decision making on refugees. Remove the UK from the convention and Rwanda is a go, controlling the borders is less complex and saves approximately £8 billion a year. That in my opinion is the choice, abide by a convention last visited for any major amendment in the 60’s, or don’t and achieve your goals I'm not sure I'm there. It's one of about six or seven conventions and laws referenced. And we aren't even talking hypothetical risks here. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention. To cut a long story short, no objective assessment could conclude that the government of Rwanda can be trusted to uphold the principle of non-refoulement and this is based on some of its specific actions in relation to asylum processing as well as wider misdeeds. Are we really getting annoyed that laws are stopping us from getting to in a arrangement that had serious risk of refoulment? " Which goes directly against the work the UNHCR are doing in Rwanda, who are using Rwanda as a training ground for refugees. If Sunak is going to change laws, he must also provide the power for the UK government to not be influenced or guided by ECHR. Not recognising the UN 1951 Refugee Convention might in my opinion give him what he needs to move the ECHR challenge as the UK would not recognise the definitions and status of a refugee under the convention. Whatever path he takes the government down it will need to be extremely quick because time is not on his side. It does bother me that this approach is is driven off the back of Braverman's letter and he is out to show it was spite and not truth that compelled her to write about is lack of interest in this matter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Australia can do it, why can't we? The Australia scheme has been a disaster. It hasn't worked and it caused a lot of suffering especially for children. The Guardian's report on the 1st of October 2020 said: "Refugee children as young as seven have displayed suicidal behaviour. Many have been exposed to physical and sexual abuse; some have self-harmed. With no hopes for the future, they display signs of traumatic withdrawal (or resignation) syndrome. One affected child was finally evacuated from Nauru unconscious, having gradually stopped speaking, eating and drinking."" you say it hasnt worked, have the numbers of illegals getting into australia goe down? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just seen a piece on tv where it was said that parliamentary law in the UK is the only thing UK courts can judge on. I was under the impression that international bodies rules also applied. Apparently if parliament pass a law saying not to implement a certain area from an international body or treaty then judges cannot pick up on it. So a few questions, is this the law that Sunak has mentioned today? Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say? Also why did the government not do this ages ago?the judgement mentions a number of international conventions including the refugee convention and United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment But also three domestic laws. I'm not sure where Sunak thinks he can go on this. Is he really saying we should change laws so it's okay to refoule refugees? This is like a car crash in slow motion and I don’t mean that from you / us / we point of view! The UK is signed up and was a contributor to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention. In my opinion, this convention will be the focus of change to UK decision making on refugees. Remove the UK from the convention and Rwanda is a go, controlling the borders is less complex and saves approximately £8 billion a year. That in my opinion is the choice, abide by a convention last visited for any major amendment in the 60’s, or don’t and achieve your goals I'm not sure I'm there. It's one of about six or seven conventions and laws referenced. And we aren't even talking hypothetical risks here. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention. To cut a long story short, no objective assessment could conclude that the government of Rwanda can be trusted to uphold the principle of non-refoulement and this is based on some of its specific actions in relation to asylum processing as well as wider misdeeds. Are we really getting annoyed that laws are stopping us from getting to in a arrangement that had serious risk of refoulment? Which goes directly against the work the UNHCR are doing in Rwanda, who are using Rwanda as a training ground for refugees. If Sunak is going to change laws, he must also provide the power for the UK government to not be influenced or guided by ECHR. Not recognising the UN 1951 Refugee Convention might in my opinion give him what he needs to move the ECHR challenge as the UK would not recognise the definitions and status of a refugee under the convention. Whatever path he takes the government down it will need to be extremely quick because time is not on his side. It does bother me that this approach is is driven off the back of Braverman's letter and he is out to show it was spite and not truth that compelled her to write about is lack of interest in this matter. " how does that go against work they are doing ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just seen a piece on tv where it was said that parliamentary law in the UK is the only thing UK courts can judge on. I was under the impression that international bodies rules also applied. Apparently if parliament pass a law saying not to implement a certain area from an international body or treaty then judges cannot pick up on it. So a few questions, is this the law that Sunak has mentioned today? Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say? Also why did the government not do this ages ago?the judgement mentions a number of international conventions including the refugee convention and United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment But also three domestic laws. I'm not sure where Sunak thinks he can go on this. Is he really saying we should change laws so it's okay to refoule refugees? This is like a car crash in slow motion and I don’t mean that from you / us / we point of view! The UK is signed up and was a contributor to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention. In my opinion, this convention will be the focus of change to UK decision making on refugees. Remove the UK from the convention and Rwanda is a go, controlling the borders is less complex and saves approximately £8 billion a year. That in my opinion is the choice, abide by a convention last visited for any major amendment in the 60’s, or don’t and achieve your goals I'm not sure I'm there. It's one of about six or seven conventions and laws referenced. And we aren't even talking hypothetical risks here. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention. To cut a long story short, no objective assessment could conclude that the government of Rwanda can be trusted to uphold the principle of non-refoulement and this is based on some of its specific actions in relation to asylum processing as well as wider misdeeds. Are we really getting annoyed that laws are stopping us from getting to in a arrangement that had serious risk of refoulment? Which goes directly against the work the UNHCR are doing in Rwanda, who are using Rwanda as a training ground for refugees. If Sunak is going to change laws, he must also provide the power for the UK government to not be influenced or guided by ECHR. Not recognising the UN 1951 Refugee Convention might in my opinion give him what he needs to move the ECHR challenge as the UK would not recognise the definitions and status of a refugee under the convention. Whatever path he takes the government down it will need to be extremely quick because time is not on his side. It does bother me that this approach is is driven off the back of Braverman's letter and he is out to show it was spite and not truth that compelled her to write about is lack of interest in this matter. how does that go against work they are doing ? " Rwanda, is or is not a trusted country for refugees, this is important. The UNHCR use Rwanda to train and prepare refugees for onward travel to countries like Canada, that to me shows a level of trust and accountability by Rwanda. We gave 2 different views on Rwanda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just seen a piece on tv where it was said that parliamentary law in the UK is the only thing UK courts can judge on. I was under the impression that international bodies rules also applied. Apparently if parliament pass a law saying not to implement a certain area from an international body or treaty then judges cannot pick up on it. So a few questions, is this the law that Sunak has mentioned today? Is it really the case that international bodies do not have the final say? Also why did the government not do this ages ago?the judgement mentions a number of international conventions including the refugee convention and United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment But also three domestic laws. I'm not sure where Sunak thinks he can go on this. Is he really saying we should change laws so it's okay to refoule refugees? This is like a car crash in slow motion and I don’t mean that from you / us / we point of view! The UK is signed up and was a contributor to the UN 1951 Refugee Convention. In my opinion, this convention will be the focus of change to UK decision making on refugees. Remove the UK from the convention and Rwanda is a go, controlling the borders is less complex and saves approximately £8 billion a year. That in my opinion is the choice, abide by a convention last visited for any major amendment in the 60’s, or don’t and achieve your goals I'm not sure I'm there. It's one of about six or seven conventions and laws referenced. And we aren't even talking hypothetical risks here. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention. To cut a long story short, no objective assessment could conclude that the government of Rwanda can be trusted to uphold the principle of non-refoulement and this is based on some of its specific actions in relation to asylum processing as well as wider misdeeds. Are we really getting annoyed that laws are stopping us from getting to in a arrangement that had serious risk of refoulment? Which goes directly against the work the UNHCR are doing in Rwanda, who are using Rwanda as a training ground for refugees. If Sunak is going to change laws, he must also provide the power for the UK government to not be influenced or guided by ECHR. Not recognising the UN 1951 Refugee Convention might in my opinion give him what he needs to move the ECHR challenge as the UK would not recognise the definitions and status of a refugee under the convention. Whatever path he takes the government down it will need to be extremely quick because time is not on his side. It does bother me that this approach is is driven off the back of Braverman's letter and he is out to show it was spite and not truth that compelled her to write about is lack of interest in this matter. how does that go against work they are doing ? Rwanda, is or is not a trusted country for refugees, this is important. The UNHCR use Rwanda to train and prepare refugees for onward travel to countries like Canada, that to me shows a level of trust and accountability by Rwanda. We gave 2 different views on Rwanda. " train and prepare? Not sure what you mean. But the issue with Rwanda, and why they are deed unsafe, is because there is a real risk of refoulment if Rwanda process claims. For UNHCR, the UNHCR process the cases. So that concern isnt relevant. UNHCR take responsibility. Sure, one can have concerns about Rwanda. People have called this out. But that wasn't the focus for the finding. It was very specific to refoulment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why pick Rwanda when with a bit of due diligence they would have know the issues there or did they just ignore what was then known..?" . They were officially informed about the issues and risks but continued regardless  . Desperately trying to show they were doing something. Ie, not just wasting taxpayer £millions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why pick Rwanda when with a bit of due diligence they would have know the issues there or did they just ignore what was then known..? . They were officially informed about the issues and risks but continued regardless . Desperately trying to show they were doing something. Ie, not just wasting taxpayer £millions"That worked well for them  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On Radio 4 the new Home Secretary seemed to be saying The Government had been working on Plan B for a year yet the Home Secretary who left the post last week said there was no Plan B , If there was / is a Plan B who has who has been working on it ? If the answer is Sunak , why has he been working on Plan B without the knowledge of the then Home Secretary ? .if he has worked on this without letting Braverman know why has the UK taxpayer been paying her wages as a Minister ? And why has Sunak employed someone he didn't trust to do the job '? " What a tangled web we weave... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why pick Rwanda when with a bit of due diligence they would have know the issues there or did they just ignore what was then known..?" "They were officially informed about the issues and risks but continued regardless. Desperately trying to show they were doing something. Ie, not just wasting taxpayer £millions." "That worked well for them" I suspect it did. I think a lot of Tory voters see the government trying to implement a sensible policy, and being stymied by lefty liberal lawyers. I suspect those people are now more likely to vote Tory at the next election because they want to keep the fight going until they win. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why pick Rwanda when with a bit of due diligence they would have know the issues there or did they just ignore what was then known..? They were officially informed about the issues and risks but continued regardless. Desperately trying to show they were doing something. Ie, not just wasting taxpayer £millions. That worked well for them I suspect it did. I think a lot of Tory voters see the government trying to implement a sensible policy, and being stymied by lefty liberal lawyers. I suspect those people are now more likely to vote Tory at the next election because they want to keep the fight going until they win." To me from the various little bits of news I think Sunak is trying to show he has exhausted all other avenues for the Rwanda plan and only a serious change in law or withdrawal from particular treaties will allow it to be implemented. He seems to be setting up a Strasbourg versus parliament situation. It would not surprise me he uses this in the next GE given how long it takes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll record QT and watch tomorrow. One of the questions is about the Rwanda policy." What do you expect to hear other than the usual political lies? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"no one can claim that they had to board a train in France to escape from a life-threatening situation" What if they'd come from Eritrea? Here's an example from the book "Hear Our Stories: An Anthology of Writings on Migration". ------------ My Eritrea by Daniel Habte. This poem depicts the treacherous journey made by Daniel, as a child, from Eritrea to England. He shares tales of cruelty and kindness along his odyssey. While safe and loved with a new family, Daniel still misses his mother. "This is my story... My Eritrea, it is a beautiful, blessed yet brutal land. You can work hard to make a success of your life, but you have no control to decide where you stand! The fear of a life held captive by hard, cruel leaders, living in the dirt, rubbed deep in my hurt of missing my family and friends. Do I stay and carry out the military demand?" -------------- That's the beginning. The poem goes on for four more pages. You see, Daniel didn't stop in France and nor did he have to. The international conventions, that the UK has signed up to, and helped to write, provides for it. I believe that's humane and a good thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You see, Daniel didn't stop in France and nor did he have to. The international conventions, that the UK has signed up to, and helped to write, provides for it. I believe that's humane and a good thing." I agree. And I bet that boy misses his mother and worries about her every moment, and she in turn the same for him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll record QT and watch tomorrow. One of the questions is about the Rwanda policy. What do you expect to hear other than the usual political lies?" Debate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"no one can claim that they had to board a train in France to escape from a life-threatening situation" "What if they'd come from Eritrea?" Again you've removed the context to make your argument work. You were originally talking about someone entering the UK illegally "by hiding on a train, and you had to because your life was in danger". If there were trains that ran from Eritrea to the UK, you might have a point. But there aren't. To get on a train to the UK you have to be in France, or Belgium, or Germany. No one can board a train in those countries and claim that they had to do that to get to the UK because their life was in danger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I read an article that had deputy chair saying the govt should just go ahead. If they did, what would this mean? If they could, why didn't they do it sooner? We all know there are plenty of ministers and their ilk who think they're beyond the law "1st of all there would be a big old “contempt of court” charge of which anyone knowingly being complicit from the prime minister down could face up to a year in jail Other than that I am sure there would be charges for illegal detention thrown in as well.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll record QT and watch tomorrow. One of the questions is about the Rwanda policy. What do you expect to hear other than the usual political lies?" QT is not about that, it's about the audience and how they respond to what's current.. The usual political lies is accepted pretty much to some degree wherever democracy is and has been.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very disappointing. The premise seemed to be that Rwanda had rejected every claim of asylum and there were bo guarantees that they would be re deported. I am not sure where the judges got that idea. It seemed to hinge on that made up basis But on comes the emergency legislation we hope." Why? its a crap idea that cost loads,deals with 200 people and is reciprocal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very disappointing. The premise seemed to be that Rwanda had rejected every claim of asylum and there were bo guarantees that they would be re deported. I am not sure where the judges got that idea. It seemed to hinge on that made up basis But on comes the emergency legislation we hope." The judges “got that idea “ because the Rwanda government has done it before in the past! … there are documented cases! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prior to The UK leaving The EU , anyone seeking asylum in The UK could do so from another EU country , this meant that although there was a problem with "small boats" reaching Europe it didn't impact directly with The UK . Following The UK getting Brexit done , this deal was cancelled , Those who voted leave were well aware this would be cancelled because they knew what they were voting for , The irony appears that those in Parliament shouting loudest about the small boats arriving on UK shores , appear to be the same people who shouted loudest for Brexit ,," not sure any of this is true tbh. Anything to back it up? Afaik you have to be in the UK to claim asylum. We lost the Dublin agreement with brexit, but that went to other way (returns) and actually only stealth with a handful of cases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prior to The UK leaving The EU , anyone seeking asylum in The UK could do so from another EU country ..." This is wildly inaccurate. The UK has never allowed asylum claims to be made from outside the country. In fact, I'm not aware of any country that allows asylum claims to be made from outside their borders. There were (and still are) some special schemes that allowed people to apply to come here from certain countries, but those were humanitarian aid, not asylum claims. The 1951 Convention says that an asylum seeker can apply in any country that they can get to. It does not allow them to choose a country to be given asylum in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To get on a train to the UK you have to be in France, or Belgium, or Germany. No one can board a train in those countries and claim that they had to do that to get to the UK because their life was in danger." That appears to say that no-one who qualifies as a refugee from Eritrea who has got as far as France can go to the UK, because "you're safe enough in France". That would amount to an asylum ban? If such a reading were correct, then such a ban would already be in operation. We would be hearing about Eritreans in France who hope to join relatives in the UK or have some other reason, who cannot, because they are forbidden by the UK, despite the UK being a signatory to the 1951 Convention and the 1961 Protocol. That would make a nonsense of the Convention and Protocol, it seems to me. Instead, we have heard that many of those who have survived a Channel crossing to the UK have eventually been given a decision in their favour because of having a good case. There's a copy of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees on the UNHCR website. It says in the Introductory Note, "The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. "Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of non-refoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To get on a train to the UK you have to be in France, or Belgium, or Germany. No one can board a train in those countries and claim that they had to do that to get to the UK because their life was in danger." "That appears to say that no-one who qualifies as a refugee from Eritrea who has got as far as France can go to the UK, because "you're safe enough in France"." That's because you keep removing the context. You were talking about an Eritrean boarding a train in Europe, and claiming that they had to because their life was in danger. That won't fly as an excuse. They could claim that the train was just part of their journey from Eritrea, and that would be acceptable (assuming they hadn't stayed in France for months). They can't claim that they got on the train to save themselves from danger, because that clearly isn't true. "That would amount to an asylum ban? If such a reading were correct, then such a ban would already be in operation." It's exactly the same situation in every signatory country. The convention was written to cover Jewish people who had fled Germany around WWII, and were starting to be sent back by the countries that they had settled in. As such, it is supposed to deal with people that are already living in a country, it doesn't make any stipulations about letting people in to apply for asylum. "We would be hearing about Eritreans in France who hope to join relatives in the UK or have some other reason, who cannot, because they are forbidden by the UK, despite the UK being a signatory to the 1951 Convention and the 1961 Protocol." Hoping to join relatives is not an acceptable reason to grant asylum, according to the Convention. The acceptable route would be to apply for asylum in France, get travel documents, then come to the UK and apply for permanent residence. "There's a copy of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees on the UNHCR website. It says in the Introductory Note, "The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay..." That's exactly what I've been explaining to you all this thread. Those granted asylum can't be prosecuted for their illegal entry. They don't have to invent a 'defence'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why?" I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Prior to The UK leaving The EU , anyone seeking asylum in The UK could do so from another EU country , this meant that although there was a problem with "small boats" reaching Europe it didn't impact directly with The UK . Following The UK getting Brexit done , this deal was cancelled , Those who voted leave were well aware this would be cancelled because they knew what they were voting for , The irony appears that those in Parliament shouting loudest about the small boats arriving on UK shores , appear to be the same people who shouted loudest for Brexit ,," As a brexiteer I refute the "was well aware"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live." The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway?" Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. " Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I thought it's about illegal migrants not economic ones?" They are the illegal ones. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent." So you don't care how other countries treat their migrants? Sounds a bit right wing to me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I thought it's about illegal migrants not economic ones? They are the illegal ones." If they are illegal investment in processing and safe routes would see them rejected sooner. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question." I didn't think so. I see the policy as being about lessening the incentives for people smuggling, by removing the 'prize'. So can I assume that you don't have a problem with sending asylum applicants elsewhere, you just have a problem with Rwanda? "Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that." Not really. Making it easier to apply would just attract more economic migrants. If we accept them, we're not controlling immigration, and if we reject them, they'll just make the channel crossing anyway. "What country do you suggest anyway?" I'm not well enough versed in international politics to know which countries are genuinely safe. But for the sake of argument, let's say India. It's a rising economy, with a high level of tolerance of differences, and lots of opportunities for English speakers. Good for economic migrants, and safe for genuine refugees. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent. So you don't care how other countries treat their migrants? Sounds a bit right wing to me "Do you think we should have closer ties with Russia like Belarus? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent. So you don't care how other countries treat their migrants? Sounds a bit right wing to me
Do you think we should have closer ties with Russia like Belarus?
"Fancy answering the question before asking completely irrelevant ones? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. I didn't think so. I see the policy as being about lessening the incentives for people smuggling, by removing the 'prize'. So can I assume that you don't have a problem with sending asylum applicants elsewhere, you just have a problem with Rwanda? Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. Not really. Making it easier to apply would just attract more economic migrants. If we accept them, we're not controlling immigration, and if we reject them, they'll just make the channel crossing anyway. What country do you suggest anyway? I'm not well enough versed in international politics to know which countries are genuinely safe. But for the sake of argument, let's say India. It's a rising economy, with a high level of tolerance of differences, and lots of opportunities for English speakers. Good for economic migrants, and safe for genuine refugees." Jesus Christ, why do you think they chose Rwanda? We've established that economic migrants are illegal above, they'd be rejected making all the people coming in boats illegal thus very easy to process. I suspect you ll see a massive reduction in the small boats after the next election anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent. So you don't care how other countries treat their migrants? Sounds a bit right wing to me
Do you think we should have closer ties with Russia like Belarus?
Fancy answering the question before asking completely irrelevant ones? "No I don't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent. So you don't care how other countries treat their migrants? Sounds a bit right wing to me
Do you think we should have closer ties with Russia like Belarus?
Fancy answering the question before asking completely irrelevant ones?
No I don't."Fair enough. I'll assume you won't answer because it'll show you don't really care as much as migrants as you profess to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent. So you don't care how other countries treat their migrants? Sounds a bit right wing to me
Do you think we should have closer ties with Russia like Belarus?
Fancy answering the question before asking completely irrelevant ones?
No I don't.
Fair enough.
I'll assume you won't answer because it'll show you don't really care as much as migrants as you profess to."Please identify where I've professed to that with an attached quote........ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Jesus Christ, why do you think they chose Rwanda?" I'm not Jesus, just a normal bloke. I assume that's a rhetorical question. Why don't you just tell me why you think they choose Rwanda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent. So you don't care how other countries treat their migrants? Sounds a bit right wing to me
Do you think we should have closer ties with Russia like Belarus?
Fancy answering the question before asking completely irrelevant ones?
No I don't.
Fair enough.
I'll assume you won't answer because it'll show you don't really care as much as migrants as you profess to.
Please identify where I've professed to that with an attached quote........
"As I said, 'I'll assume', based upon your refusal to answer the question. You know what an assumption is don't you? I'll help you out... a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does anyone actually think this is a good policy? it so why? I do. Let's assume we replace Rwanda with another genuinely safe country. At present we have a flow of people into this country that isn't properly regulated, and we have people dying in the channel. Some portion of those channel crossers are economic migrants, not fleeing an oppressive country. They have an incentive to cross the channel to earn money and get a better life. If it became clear that the UK wouldn't accept illegal entrants, and would just send them off to somewhere else, that incentive would disappear. The policy would stop all the crossings from those that just want to better their lot in life, would reduce the uncontrolled immigration problem, and lessen deaths in the channel. The policy would not affect genuine claimants, who would still be given a safe place to live. The fact you've swapped Rwanda out is making a mockery of that question. Surely opening more safe routes and investment in processing would be a better way to reduce the small boats and illigal immigration issue that. What country do you suggest anyway? Opening safe routes and investing in processing isn't going to stop economic migrants. If you genuinely believe the idea behind this plan is terrible then you better tell the countries in Europe too seeing as they're now attempting to offshore migrants. Why would I do that? I pay tax to the UK government. I guarantee in a few years time nobody will see this as money well spent. So you don't care how other countries treat their migrants? Sounds a bit right wing to me
Do you think we should have closer ties with Russia like Belarus?
Fancy answering the question before asking completely irrelevant ones?
No I don't.
Fair enough.
I'll assume you won't answer because it'll show you don't really care as much as migrants as you profess to.
Please identify where I've professed to that with an attached quote........
As I said, 'I'll assume', based upon your refusal to answer the question.
You know what an assumption is don't you?
I'll help you out...
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."You said I 'profess to' so where did I 'profess to' the ammuption was based on that wasn't it? The assumption was that I don't care. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that?" You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor." I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR" 
You should find the thread on that from last year and post there then! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR" If we can just throw human rights out of the window we'll be able to treat these humans as badly as we want. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR
You should find the thread on that from last year and post there then!"Why? The Rwanda flights have been blocked by different courts. I am wondering if the same courts would be fine with Albania. Given that we are arguing about the laws about which country is acceptable, it seems to be the right to discuss it here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR If we can just throw human rights out of the window we'll be able to treat these humans as badly as we want. " What is arguing about? Albania is also a terrible place to send asylum seekers to? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR
You should find the thread on that from last year and post there then!
Why? The Rwanda flights have been blocked by different courts. I am wondering if the same courts would be fine with Albania. Given that we are arguing about the laws about which country is acceptable, it seems to be the right to discuss it here"Because we are not at that point yet, this despite what went on before has now been set in our supreme Court.. Regardless of the intervention previously by the ECHR when the plane was on the runway so to speak if the government tried to send anyone to Rwanda in defiance of the current ruling by the Supreme Court that would be contempt and I think as someone else said it carried a possible custodial sentence albeit unlikely.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR
You should find the thread on that from last year and post there then!
Why? The Rwanda flights have been blocked by different courts. I am wondering if the same courts would be fine with Albania. Given that we are arguing about the laws about which country is acceptable, it seems to be the right to discuss it here"The thread ise about the recent ruling that had nothing to do with the ECHR! It's also about the UK and Rwanda, not Europe and a Rwanda style agreement that might use a different country, Sunak has indicated that they are sticking on Rwanda. These seem to be brought up as side issue to muddy the arguement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that?" They seem to have done that quickly too. I presume, but don't know, that any problems with their scheme could be heard in the European top court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR
You should find the thread on that from last year and post there then!
Why? The Rwanda flights have been blocked by different courts. I am wondering if the same courts would be fine with Albania. Given that we are arguing about the laws about which country is acceptable, it seems to be the right to discuss it here
The thread ise about the recent ruling that had nothing to do with the ECHR!
It's also about the UK and Rwanda, not Europe and a Rwanda style agreement that might use a different country, Sunak has indicated that they are sticking on Rwanda.
These seem to be brought up as side issue to muddy the arguement."Your first posts in the thread were about the cost of sending people to Rwanda and how many people can be sent and whether the policy does work? Maybe police yourself before policing others on what can and cannot be spoken in this thread? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? They seem to have done that quickly too. I presume, but don't know, that any problems with their scheme could be heard in the European top court." Yeah it will be interesting to see how that turns out. As of now, many European countries see this as a solution but are trying to figure out the legal problems. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who created "borders" ? Humans did. Why ? No flipping idea. By all means, retain your "territory" on a map, but for the love of humanity, just let people come and go as they wish. Homosapiens have been around for 300,000 years and we are STILL squabbling over flipping borders ? " There are so many reasons for borders to exist. - Taxation - Consistency in moral values - Accountability for cost of social welfare - Protecting a way of life - Security | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are so many reasons for borders to exist. - Taxation - Consistency in moral values - Accountability for cost of social welfare - Protecting a way of life - Security " I'm not talking about the "decountrifying" or elimination of nations per se. Those things above still go on in their nations. I'm just saying, freedom of movement for all. If I want to sell my house, get on a plane, and buy one in any other country in the world tomorrow. I can. Just like that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are so many reasons for borders to exist. - Taxation - Consistency in moral values - Accountability for cost of social welfare - Protecting a way of life - Security I'm not talking about the "decountrifying" or elimination of nations per se. Those things above still go on in their nations. I'm just saying, freedom of movement for all. If I want to sell my house, get on a plane, and buy one in any other country in the world tomorrow. I can. Just like that. " The points I made still apply. Taxation and social welfare - Lots of people would love to move to a country which has social welfare that pays for jobless people. But that country cannot take everyone. Way of life - Countries like Japan have some expectations on social behaviour, not really codified into law. One example is you should not talk on phone in the trains. Do you think they can retain that way of life with an open border? Their cultural expectation is one of the reasons why they are totally against immigration, even though they are suffering from serious labour shortage. Security - If countries like India which are targets for terror attacks just open their borders, they may as well write the death warrant for their population | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The points I made still apply. Taxation and social welfare - Lots of people would love to move to a country which has social welfare that pays for jobless people. But that country cannot take everyone. Way of life - Countries like Japan have some expectations on social behaviour, not really codified into law. One example is you should not talk on phone in the trains. Do you think they can retain that way of life with an open border? Their cultural expectation is one of the reasons why they are totally against immigration, even though they are suffering from serious labour shortage. Security - If countries like India which are targets for terror attacks just open their borders, they may as well write the death warrant for their population " IMHO, things "apply" until they do not. Everything is mutable and impermanent. Which is a good thing, because it allows for adaptability and change. Taxation & Social Welfare : If you are implying the purpose of a border is to gatekeep a way of life, by denying others the benefits you personally enjoy, I'm not sure said border is ethically-sound, if that's the sole reason alone. Certainly needs looking at in terms of fairness. Obviously the "way of life" (whatever that means) in Japan is not predicated solely on not talking on phones on trains. One assumes there are signs on the train to advise non-natives however. I'm not able to comment on India specifically, but who is queuing up to take them down and why ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR If we can just throw human rights out of the window we'll be able to treat these humans as badly as we want. What is arguing about? Albania is also a terrible place to send asylum seekers to?" Not sure I understand the question. The single and only purpose of this scheme is to get support from the further to the right element of the electorate. It's worked. Job done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR If we can just throw human rights out of the window we'll be able to treat these humans as badly as we want. What is arguing about? Albania is also a terrible place to send asylum seekers to? Not sure I understand the question. The single and only purpose of this scheme is to get support from the further to the right element of the electorate. It's worked. Job done. " Denmark's left wing government also wanted to try moving asylum seekers to Rwanda. Maybe it's just because no country has the capacity to take so many people from different countries and integrate them and hence they are looking at other options? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR If we can just throw human rights out of the window we'll be able to treat these humans as badly as we want. What is arguing about? Albania is also a terrible place to send asylum seekers to? Not sure I understand the question. The single and only purpose of this scheme is to get support from the further to the right element of the electorate. It's worked. Job done. Denmark's left wing government also wanted to try moving asylum seekers to Rwanda. Maybe it's just because no country has the capacity to take so many people from different countries and integrate them and hence they are looking at other options?" Denmark also seem to be eanti.g to use Rwanda as an offshore holding place while processing. Has any country proposed to send them to rwanda for Rwanda do the processing? Given thats the key part. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The points I made still apply. Taxation and social welfare - Lots of people would love to move to a country which has social welfare that pays for jobless people. But that country cannot take everyone. Way of life - Countries like Japan have some expectations on social behaviour, not really codified into law. One example is you should not talk on phone in the trains. Do you think they can retain that way of life with an open border? Their cultural expectation is one of the reasons why they are totally against immigration, even though they are suffering from serious labour shortage. Security - If countries like India which are targets for terror attacks just open their borders, they may as well write the death warrant for their population IMHO, things "apply" until they do not. Everything is mutable and impermanent. Which is a good thing, because it allows for adaptability and change. Taxation & Social Welfare : If you are implying the purpose of a border is to gatekeep a way of life, by denying others the benefits you personally enjoy, I'm not sure said border is ethically-sound, if that's the sole reason alone. Certainly needs looking at in terms of fairness. Obviously the "way of life" (whatever that means) in Japan is not predicated solely on not talking on phones on trains. One assumes there are signs on the train to advise non-natives however. I'm not able to comment on India specifically, but who is queuing up to take them down and why ? " Taxation and social welfare - It's easy to make statements about what's ethically sound and what is not on the internet. Will you sacrifice all the social welfare you enjoy so that we can use that money to help enrich the poor people in the rest of the world? Speaking of fairness and equality, why do you spend money getting a paid account on a swingers website when you could use that money to pay for someone else's food? Isn't it unfair that there are people starving for food while you are out here spending money on a website to have sex with strangers? On the way of life of Japan, do you think if we move millions of people from UK to Japan, they would follow the signs there? Many have trouble following signs here. Who is queueing up to take down India? India has long standing issues with Pakistan. Recently China has joined the battle too. In spite of very stringent border checks on the side of Pakistan, a bunch of scum successfully launched the Mumbai terror attacks by hijacking a boat and entering the country. Different people have different cultures. Different societies have different economic incentives. Different countries have conflicts with each other. Unless you want to make the entire world have same values and follow same set of rules, a world without border will always be a pipe dream. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR If we can just throw human rights out of the window we'll be able to treat these humans as badly as we want. What is arguing about? Albania is also a terrible place to send asylum seekers to? Not sure I understand the question. The single and only purpose of this scheme is to get support from the further to the right element of the electorate. It's worked. Job done. Denmark's left wing government also wanted to try moving asylum seekers to Rwanda. Maybe it's just because no country has the capacity to take so many people from different countries and integrate them and hence they are looking at other options?" Sure other country'd political parties use the same tactics to get support. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government have zero intention of deporting many of the migrants. They created laws within days to shut down the entire country. They have had years to change the law and yet haven't, because the intention is not there. Things will continue as they are be it Conservative or Labour being paraded in front of cameras for us." Hard agree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR If we can just throw human rights out of the window we'll be able to treat these humans as badly as we want. What is arguing about? Albania is also a terrible place to send asylum seekers to? Not sure I understand the question. The single and only purpose of this scheme is to get support from the further to the right element of the electorate. It's worked. Job done. Denmark's left wing government also wanted to try moving asylum seekers to Rwanda. Maybe it's just because no country has the capacity to take so many people from different countries and integrate them and hence they are looking at other options? Denmark also seem to be eanti.g to use Rwanda as an offshore holding place while processing. Has any country proposed to send them to rwanda for Rwanda do the processing? Given thats the key part. " That's a difference I did not know. If UK sends asylum seekers to Rwanda as an offshore holding place, would that run into the same legal issues? Because I remember reading somewhere that Denmark was discouraged by UK's plan blocked by ECHR | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently Italy has reached a deal with Albania and EU says that's fine. Will the ECHR give green flag for that? You realise it was the supreme court that found the Rwanda scheme unlawful and expressly referenced ECHR wasn't a factor. I know that. The first time the flight was grounded was because of ECHR If we can just throw human rights out of the window we'll be able to treat these humans as badly as we want. What is arguing about? Albania is also a terrible place to send asylum seekers to? Not sure I understand the question. The single and only purpose of this scheme is to get support from the further to the right element of the electorate. It's worked. Job done. Denmark's left wing government also wanted to try moving asylum seekers to Rwanda. Maybe it's just because no country has the capacity to take so many people from different countries and integrate them and hence they are looking at other options? Denmark also seem to be eanti.g to use Rwanda as an offshore holding place while processing. Has any country proposed to send them to rwanda for Rwanda do the processing? Given thats the key part. That's a difference I did not know. If UK sends asylum seekers to Rwanda as an offshore holding place, would that run into the same legal issues? Because I remember reading somewhere that Denmark was discouraged by UK's plan blocked by ECHR" afaik, that would be okay. But of course, that would mean us accepting any successful cases which goes against the whole point of all this as a deterrent. There's a load of stuff about due process on top of this. That's why the individual cases had fallen over even before the SC judgement about the scheme in general. That may be where Denmark got cold feet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
