By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Ahhhhhh nice Rwandan facilities NOT good enough for illegal migrants, BUT Estonia good enough for U.K prison inmates, some task to undertake family visits?
Here comes even more farce, along with a load of human rights lawyers!
My understanding is that the Germans are intending to use Rwanda for third county processing.
This is entirely sensible, entirely legal and won't fall foul of the ECHR.
The Tory plan was to process in Rwanda, and give no option to return should the assylum claim be deemed legal. This is not sensible, not legal and would fall foul of the EHCR.
Some seem to think that the UK Rwanda plan failed tdue to the EHCR and lefty lawyers. It didn't. It failed because it was never ever going to work. It was an insanely poorly drafted bill.
So much time was spent banging against a brick wall to pretend to be tough it has cost us a fortune. Not just the Rwanda money but the massive hotel bills while trying to acheive the impossible, and of course the bill meant 10s of 1000s are now stuck here unable to work.
It's a concern that so many want to leave the EHCR (putting us in a trio with Belarus and Russia) because actually they didn't read or understand the legislation. Or of course their main sources are GeeBeeBees and Talk TV.
My understanding is that the Germans are intending to use Rwanda for third county processing.
This is entirely sensible, entirely legal and won't fall foul of the ECHR.
The Tory plan was to process in Rwanda, and give no option to return should the assylum claim be deemed legal. This is not sensible, not legal and would fall foul of the EHCR.
Some seem to think that the UK Rwanda plan failed tdue to the EHCR and lefty lawyers. It didn't. It failed because it was never ever going to work. It was an insanely poorly drafted bill.
So much time was spent banging against a brick wall to pretend to be tough it has cost us a fortune. Not just the Rwanda money but the massive hotel bills while trying to acheive the impossible, and of course the bill meant 10s of 1000s are now stuck here unable to work.
It's a concern that so many want to leave the EHCR (putting us in a trio with Belarus and Russia) because actually they didn't read or understand the legislation. Or of course their main sources are GeeBeeBees and Talk TV.
Ahhhhhh nice Rwandan facilities NOT good enough for illegal migrants, BUT Estonia good enough for U.K prison inmates, some task to undertake family visits?
Here comes even more farce, along with a load of human rights lawyers!
Never going to happen, the liberal left and human right lawyers will see to that.
How about they look at returning foreign prisoners with less than a year left on their sentence home, two birds with one stone, or is that far to simple.
My understanding is that the Germans are intending to use Rwanda for third county processing.
This is entirely sensible, entirely legal and won't fall foul of the ECHR.
The Tory plan was to process in Rwanda, and give no option to return should the assylum claim be deemed legal. This is not sensible, not legal and would fall foul of the EHCR.
Some seem to think that the UK Rwanda plan failed tdue to the EHCR and lefty lawyers. It didn't. It failed because it was never ever going to work. It was an insanely poorly drafted bill.
So much time was spent banging against a brick wall to pretend to be tough it has cost us a fortune. Not just the Rwanda money but the massive hotel bills while trying to acheive the impossible, and of course the bill meant 10s of 1000s are now stuck here unable to work.
It's a concern that so many want to leave the EHCR (putting us in a trio with Belarus and Russia) because actually they didn't read or understand the legislation. Or of course their main sources are GeeBeeBees and Talk TV.
Yep "GeeBeeBees" or how people ouside of WOKE crackpottery like to call it "GB News".....That?..... Is prepared to ask questions and get to the truth that the likes of BBC (and others) completely avoids. Thank God someone is asking the right questions at the right time!
Labour plans : Rwanda scrapped!..... Miltary bases to be shut!.....Bibby Stockholm Barge to be shut...Hotels to be shut!
Video 7:40s QUOTE: "You'll be providing accomodation for those people in the 'normal way', you're going to be putting them in council houses". END OF QUOTE
When was the last time the BBC (and others) decided to get to the bottom of the bleeding-bloody-obvious by applying reality, common sense and critical thinking ability?
Yep "GeeBeeBees" or how people ouside of WOKE crackpottery like to call it "GB News".....That?..... Is prepared to ask questions and get to the truth that the likes of BBC (and others) completely avoids. Thank God someone is asking the right questions at the right time!
Labour plans : Rwanda scrapped!..... Miltary bases to be shut!.....Bibby Stockholm Barge to be shut...Hotels to be shut!
Video 7:40s QUOTE: "You'll be providing accomodation for those people in the 'normal way', you're going to be putting them in council houses". END OF QUOTE
When was the last time the BBC (and others) decided to get to the bottom of the bleeding-bloody-obvious by applying reality, common sense and critical thinking ability?
='s O.A.P's losing their winter fuel allowance and U.K citizens being taxed to pay for free council housing/house building for illegal migrants that arrived in the with no I.D or documentation.
To be then given priority to jump ahead of U.K thousands citizens whom have been on a waiting list for years!
='s O.A.P's losing their winter fuel allowance and U.K citizens being taxed to pay for free council housing/house building for illegal migrants that arrived in the with no I.D or documentation.
To be then given priority to jump ahead of U.K thousands citizens whom have been on a waiting list for years!
If you just watch GeeBeebees and Talk TV then you'll think that immigrants are the problem with and the anwser to everything.
If you just watch GeeBeebees and Talk TV then you'll think that immigrants are the problem with and the anwser to everything.
It's a lot more complicated that that.
Is it more complicated than that? Or is it actually very simple?
It’s difficult to think of any challenge this country is facing without it being directly caused by or at least exacerbated by a boom in the population due to large migration numbers.
It’s just basic common sense that accepting 1.2 million new arrivals every year (600,000 net) both legal and illegal puts more stress on the infrastructure, public services, the rental market, the housing market. There’s also a significant percentage of foreign born people in our prisons so we can add crime to the list.
As much as it would be nice to bury our heads in the sand and say la la la la everything’s fine nothing to see here, mass migration is inextricably linked to every facet of our lives and the lives of everyone in this country.
My understanding is that the Germans are intending to use Rwanda for third county processing.
This is entirely sensible, entirely legal and won't fall foul of the ECHR.
The Tory plan was to process in Rwanda, and give no option to return should the assylum claim be deemed legal. This is not sensible, not legal and would fall foul of the EHCR.
Some seem to think that the UK Rwanda plan failed tdue to the EHCR and lefty lawyers. It didn't. It failed because it was never ever going to work. It was an insanely poorly drafted bill.
So much time was spent banging against a brick wall to pretend to be tough it has cost us a fortune. Not just the Rwanda money but the massive hotel bills while trying to acheive the impossible, and of course the bill meant 10s of 1000s are now stuck here unable to work.
It's a concern that so many want to leave the EHCR (putting us in a trio with Belarus and Russia) because actually they didn't read or understand the legislation. Or of course their main sources are GeeBeeBees and Talk TV.
Isn't this a rewriting of history Gwyn? The primary argument of the opponents of the policy was that Rwanda was not a safe country. I tried to suggest that, with its exemplary progress towards universal healthcare coverage and given that UNHCR itself facilitates and supports the location of asylum seekers and stateless persons in Rwanda, this was an unfair view. Some of the Germans seem to think it is safe to send migrants there and indeed that is implicit in your own post.
Rwanda is fine the name stinks because of the internecine strife and human butchery of African upon African The scheme was ok by me They’d be safe enough there and the extra Labour would enrich their land . Just like it has here Yeah baby
Yep "GeeBeeBees" or how people ouside of WOKE crackpottery like to call it "GB News".....That?..... Is prepared to ask questions and get to the truth that the likes of BBC (and others) completely avoids. Thank God someone is asking the right questions at the right time!
Labour plans : Rwanda scrapped!..... Miltary bases to be shut!.....Bibby Stockholm Barge to be shut...Hotels to be shut!
Video 7:40s QUOTE: "You'll be providing accomodation for those people in the 'normal way', you're going to be putting them in council houses". END OF QUOTE
When was the last time the BBC (and others) decided to get to the bottom of the bleeding-bloody-obvious by applying reality, common sense and critical thinking ability?
More waffle with familiar sound bites , the new Border force commander in chief , Boss , supremo , what ever he / she will be called wont be in post for another 6 weeks , that's 3 and a half months since the grand announcement .they haven't a clue .
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
More waffle with familiar sound bites , the new Border force commander in chief , Boss , supremo , what ever he / she will be called wont be in post for another 6 weeks , that's 3 and a half months since the grand announcement .they haven't a clue .
The MP indeed gave a master class in not seeing the wood for the trees.
Isn't this a rewriting of history Gwyn? The primary argument of the opponents of the policy was that Rwanda was not a safe country. I tried to suggest that, with its exemplary progress towards universal healthcare coverage and given that UNHCR itself facilitates and supports the location of asylum seekers and stateless persons in Rwanda, this was an unfair view. Some of the Germans seem to think it is safe to send migrants there and indeed that is implicit in your own post.
[Post edited 6 Sep 17:24]
Not from me.
I don’t think I ever posted about Rwanda being safe or not.
My issue that I’ve posted about many times is that bill was always unworkable, poorly written with a host of unintended consequences.
I’ve mentioned on many occasions how furious I’ve been that it was such a waste of time and money whose purpose wasn’t to solve illegal immigration but a straw man to woo reform voters.
It was pretending to be tough on the issue but it was never going to work. Smoke and mirrors.
The Germans might if they draft the legislation properly. We didn’t.
I don’t think I ever posted about Rwanda being safe or not.
My issue that I’ve posted about many times is that bill was always unworkable, poorly written with a host of unintended consequences.
I’ve mentioned on many occasions how furious I’ve been that it was such a waste of time and money whose purpose wasn’t to solve illegal immigration but a straw man to woo reform voters.
It was pretending to be tough on the issue but it was never going to work. Smoke and mirrors.
The Germans might if they draft the legislation properly. We didn’t.
Please, if that is the case you are just about the only one to see things that way. Safety was the main issue in the Divisional and Supreme Court cases and the central issue addressed in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
Edit:
To be fair you have questioned the workability of the scheme from early in this thread, but you also wrote:
"My understanding from the judges remarks (I’m no legal expert) is while Rwanda don’t have a functioning asylum system, it won’t be legal whether we’re in air out of the EHRC."
One of the key reasons why some said Rwanda was unsafe was the alleged absence of a properly-functioning asylum system.
The MP indeed gave a master class in not seeing the wood for the trees.
[Post edited 6 Sep 17:29]
Yes indeed, a case of full steam ahead with council house waiting list jumping for illegal migrants, and the building of new council houses to house illegal migrants, that'll end up attracting even more illegal migrants in the way cow pats attract flies.
France offers tents, the U.K offers council houses! Think about that folks!
Apparently the Labour masterplan is mass-dispersal of illegal migrants throughout the entire U.K amongst every council authority.
Yes indeed, a case of full steam ahead with council house waiting list jumping for illegal migrants, and the building of new council houses to house illegal migrants, that'll end up attracting even more illegal migrants in the way cow pats attract flies.
France offers tents, the U.K offers council houses! Think about that folks!
Apparently the Labour masterplan is mass-dispersal of illegal migrants throughout the entire U.K amongst every council authority.
Tick tock!
The other angle is that as long as migrants are waiting for their asylum claims to be processed their accommodation must be funded by the Home Office, but when they are approved and become refugees those who cannot afford to pay commercial rents must be accommodated by the relevant local authority. Council tax payers will be left to pick up the tab (assuming that central government is unlikely to bail out the local authorities).
Please, if that is the case you are just about the only one to see things that way. Safety was the main issue in the Divisional and Supreme Court cases and the central issue addressed in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
Edit:
To be fair you have questioned the workability of the scheme from early in this thread, but you also wrote:
"My understanding from the judges remarks (I’m no legal expert) is while Rwanda don’t have a functioning asylum system, it won’t be legal whether we’re in air out of the EHRC."
One of the key reasons why some said Rwanda was unsafe was the alleged absence of a properly-functioning asylum system.
[Post edited 6 Sep 17:55]
That (in admittedly around about way) is linked to the right to return. Seems the Germans can get round it so I’ll keep an eye out for how it’s done. I’m always happy (ish) to be wrong and I like to learn.
I’ve never said I’m against third country processing and have been very vocal about the bill keeping 1000s here forever, not processing them and in turn, not allowing it to work.
I’m certainly not on my own. I’ve read widely around the legislation as time goes on, the lack of return is becoming more and more pertinent.
The other angle is that as long as migrants are waiting for their asylum claims to be processed their accommodation must be funded by the Home Office, but when they are approved and become refugees those who cannot afford to pay commercial rents must be accommodated by the relevant local authority. Council tax payers will be left to pick up the tab (assuming that central government is unlikely to bail out the local authorities).
[Post edited 6 Sep 18:03]
There is indeed the fact that local authority council tax payers will have to pay for a lot of this! The money has to come from somewhere! Await a council tax rise!
FFS paying for additional resources for care provision and services for O.A.P's, disabled and vulnerable would be vastly more acceptable!
BUT! Paying for illegal entry Johnny-Come-Lately, chancers, parasites and overseas organised crime gangs from places like Vietnam?
That (in admittedly around about way) is linked to the right to return. Seems the Germans can get round it so I’ll keep an eye out for how it’s done. I’m always happy (ish) to be wrong and I like to learn.
I’ve never said I’m against third country processing and have been very vocal about the bill keeping 1000s here forever, not processing them and in turn, not allowing it to work.
I’m certainly not on my own. I’ve read widely around the legislation as time goes on, the lack of return is becoming more and more pertinent.
I'm not pursuing this in a nasty way and appreciate that you have a right to a different point of view from mine, but the main legal issue in the court cases was the possibility of "refoulement". That is not about return to the UK but return to the country where the person seeking refugee status was at risk of persecution. The 2024 Act made provision for certain safeguards to prevent refoulement. To quote from a commentary:
"The Act is an attempt to address the Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of AAA and others) v SSHD UKSC 42 that the relocation policy was in breach of international law due to the risk of refoulement – the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they could be in danger of persecution."
Never going to happen, the liberal left and human right lawyers will see to that.
How about they look at returning foreign prisoners with less than a year left on their sentence home, two birds with one stone, or is that far to simple.
I don’t think I ever posted about Rwanda being safe or not.
My issue that I’ve posted about many times is that bill was always unworkable, poorly written with a host of unintended consequences.
I’ve mentioned on many occasions how furious I’ve been that it was such a waste of time and money whose purpose wasn’t to solve illegal immigration but a straw man to woo reform voters.
It was pretending to be tough on the issue but it was never going to work. Smoke and mirrors.
The Germans might if they draft the legislation properly. We didn’t.
Agree with every word.
It was only ever intended to be a headline grabber and could not have worked.
If the Germans make it work good on them. It's not hard to improve on anything the last government did.
I don’t think I ever posted about Rwanda being safe or not.
My issue that I’ve posted about many times is that bill was always unworkable, poorly written with a host of unintended consequences.
I’ve mentioned on many occasions how furious I’ve been that it was such a waste of time and money whose purpose wasn’t to solve illegal immigration but a straw man to woo reform voters.
It was pretending to be tough on the issue but it was never going to work. Smoke and mirrors.
The Germans might if they draft the legislation properly. We didn’t.
There’s no need to worry 2 tier Kier has promised to stop the gangs at source.
Anyone who believes that once a gang leader is removed another won’t step in is very gullible or sees no wrong in the Labour Party.
I'm not pursuing this in a nasty way and appreciate that you have a right to a different point of view from mine, but the main legal issue in the court cases was the possibility of "refoulement". That is not about return to the UK but return to the country where the person seeking refugee status was at risk of persecution. The 2024 Act made provision for certain safeguards to prevent refoulement. To quote from a commentary:
"The Act is an attempt to address the Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of AAA and others) v SSHD UKSC 42 that the relocation policy was in breach of international law due to the risk of refoulement – the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they could be in danger of persecution."
Not taken as nasty at all AJ - you always post in a constructive way and I agree with an awful lot of it. Even if I don’t agree it doesn’t meant its wrong 😉.
My take on this is personal. Your right about the deemed unsafe asylum system and that became the sharp end of the legal argument.
For me, my biggest issue was the fact UK is a signatory of the UCR Convention, which allows people to seek asylum in any country they choose.
Processing of site and making that decision is fine with me. Stopping genuine asylum claims is not.
Not taken as nasty at all AJ - you always post in a constructive way and I agree with an awful lot of it. Even if I don’t agree it doesn’t meant its wrong 😉.
My take on this is personal. Your right about the deemed unsafe asylum system and that became the sharp end of the legal argument.
For me, my biggest issue was the fact UK is a signatory of the UCR Convention, which allows people to seek asylum in any country they choose.
Processing of site and making that decision is fine with me. Stopping genuine asylum claims is not.
That is a gracious post and as I said I think there is room for different views here. However, if the key document is the 1951 Refugee Convention (and 1967 then you get to the controversy about Article 31, which most originally understood to mean that asylum seekers are only exempt from penalties for illegal entry when they come directly from a country where they were at risk of persecution. In essence this has been diluted over the years by judgements that have opened up various loopholes as to why "coming directly" does not necessarily mean coming to the first safe country. However, whatever the content of this discourse about the meaning of the 1951 Convention, there is nothing in it about a right to claim asylum in the country of the asylum seeker's choice. Some of the UK's own immigration legislation (e,g. Section 31 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) incorporates this notion of first safe country, although again various court judgements have watered this down. This allows the NGOs to say the idea means very little. So overall current majority legal opinion will point to all kinds of reasons why claiming asylum in places other than the first safe country is allowable, but stops short of saying that persons can travel around unrestricted until they find their preferred destination country.
Article 31 says:
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.