Rwanda ruling

But even Braverman isn't saying they have to be deported. She is just putting it forward as a way of shunting them out of the way while their asylum claim is being considered, and as a way of deterring the people smugglers. She could, of course, destroy the people smuggling trade at a stroke by offering safe passage, and the fact that she doesn't demonstrates that all her much-vaunted care for vulnerable refugees is a complete lie.

You deport them back to their country of origin. Why is that a worse solution than refusing to allow genuine refugees in? Yes, some might try to come back, but if it's seen that we have an efficient immigration processing system as opposed to the shambles we have now, it takes away an awful lot of the current incentive to try.

We've had processes in place for decades for removing people who don't have a legal right to be here or a valid asylum claim. Why do you think it's suddenly become a problem? People are removed every week.

You seem to think that the way to avoid that is not to allow anyone in, including genuine refugees. And we have seen that the result of that is far too many people literally putting themselves into life-threatening situations. How can that be better than the proposal in @pointythings' post?

Did you intend to direct that post to me, @Simianwalk ? Because there is nothing in my post that suggests I don't think we should take refugees in.

Probably for the best - due to to the sheer expense alone; however without sending a single soul out there, in regards to 'messaging', maybe quite cost-effective in the medium term, demonstrating how awfully cross the UK is getting.

Long term - maybe Rwanda won't seem so bad once easyjet/ryan get a foothold - the accommodation is already built and we've been chuking money at Rwanda for years anyway.

It might not have worked out as a solution for illegal migrants but the Rwandan facilities look ripe for the next best holiday destination, just add a few swimming pools.

As far as I'm aware the only 'safe' route is to be Ukrainian. Not sure what became of non-Ukrainian refugees who were also fleeing Ukraine though.

At the moment 3 million a year cross north into the USA - fortunately they have lots of space and wealth but eventually the pips will squeak. Chances are racism will raise its ugly head much more than now.
That 3m figure is a bit misleading. There were a record 2.75m attempted crossings in the US last year (a record high) but most are caught and many are returned to Mexico (and many try again, so are double or triple counted).

There are thought to be about 10m undocumented people in total in the US.

It's sheer greed of the ultra rich hoovering up more of our money that has caused a drop in the standard of living. Everyone in the world is entitled to a good standard of living, there is enough to go round and enough decent land for everyone to live on. The main barrier to this is greed.

I can’t tell who you’re replying to. If it’s me I’ve given you reasons.

I said that I accept that the scheme has been held unlawful. And I have given the reason for that, in summary, as well as the fact that every other challenge failed, in summary.

I agree with Burnett LCJ and not Vos MR or Underhill LJ. Read the judgment if you want to know Burnett’s reasoning.

So, why don’t you tell me why the scheme is “criminal”? We can leave “lunacy” aside, that’s just overheated opinion.

This

Oh jog on people like you are not worthy of my oxygen.

The technicality was the fact they did not feel, Rwanda would not move them on once deported. the court of appeal is the decision of the judge and judges are not always correct hence why they can take it to further appeal.

So please spare me the boring relies 😴

The OP asked a Question I initially answered it, it was nothing to do with you or anyone else, so kindly pass me by your are not worthy of any more of my time like these illegal immigrants.

I'm really not going to engage with you any more because the sarcasm gone over your head bless you and its boring trying to walk you through things.

Ha ha ha no it doesn't.

If you disagree with UNHCR and CofA you could give reasons? I mean, read something and learn something and then share?

It doesn't involve deportation at all in fact.

But you know better than the Court of Appeal. Amazing!

You won’t have to wait as long as I did for your answer.

By a majority the CoA held Rwanda not to be safe. The most senior judge thought otherwise. A majority of judges have thought otherwise. Every other ground of appeal failed.

But it’s criminal lunacy apparently.

Will it be criminal lunacy if the Supreme Court reverses the CoA? If it doesn’t I accept - as I do now - that the scene has been held unlawful in Administrative Law terms. But that’s not your criticism, is it?

Who rattled your lefty cage 🤔.

I don't need to justify my decision or disappointment too you or any one. If they should be deported they obviously should not be here in the first place.

By all means tell them. Our dear government is generally perfectly happy to receive the Americans , Germans and French. It’s the poor , brown ones they don’t want.

And indeed, the UNHCR was a party to the case. What did they say about sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda? Go on, have a look. We'll wait.

Because again, seeking asylum is different to arriving somewhere with already-recognised legal status? Which the CofA actually describes? I promise, learning a little bit never hurt anyone.

I don't see crowds of US citizens requesting asylum 🤷‍♀️. And you've told the French and Germans to fuck off, so it's a moot point. And if you think WW2 is comparable to the invasion of Iraq, you're deluded.

But if the country is incapable of adequtely ensuring fundamental rights - that's the basis of the Court of Appeal ruling - and it's "criminal lunacy" to send anyone there, what difference does it make on what basis the UNHCR have sent the refugees to Rwanda?

It's also such "criminal lunacy" that three judges (including the Lord Chief Justice) have said the policy is lawful, and two have said not.

Looks like your objection is to sending asylum seekers anywhere, not to Rwanda. At least be honest.

@SunnyEgg it depends on whether or not the UK has a fast, fair asylum processing system. If we do, we can legitimately refuse people who come via traffickers because legal options exist (right now there are none). Knowing that a boat crossing gets you nowhere will be a genuine deterrent, as will knowing that if your case isn't genuine you will be efficiently removed.

Which is an actual resettlement programme of recognised refugees with status, as opposed to sending someone there against their will and saying, "I dunno, try seeking asylum here and see what happens."

It really is okay to learn about things before forming an opinion.

Which is obviously why the UNHCR has relocated 1,600 Syrian refugees to Rwanda...