Rwanda ruling

I think people are naïve - there are millions and millions living in poverty in the world who want to move to the west.
All this being kind and reasonable sounds great but the reality is that we either trash the standard of living here by providing for people who want to move here (but there won't be enough jobs or money to cover their cost) or we limit the number somehow which imv can't be seen as anything but cruel. But what's it to be.

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.

I agree with all this - and I think the answer is Braverman and her pals are cynical and wasteful. They have zero interest in actually properly addressing any of the real issues.

So what? They do a lot of stuff I don't approve of, one reason I live here and not Germany.

including removal of people who don't have a genuine claim

How? physically manhandling onto planes isn't seen as acceptable.
How do you stop the ones that apply legally but don't get in to this country from deciding to, take a boat.

Collaborate with the EU - yeah I'm sure they'll say send them back here we'll have them.

Would you place a limit on the number? Out of interest

I’m fine with routes btw but interested in what you’d do with numbers

This, there are far more humane alternatives. Imagine your life is so bad you think getting in a leaky boat with no idea what will be at the other end. Have some consideration for others

Just because we are geographically further away from countries that are in turmoil you don't think we should do our bit? We went around the world for over 300 years thinking we could do what we liked. We forced people to learn English, laid down our political and educational systems, carved up the world not create well thought out nation states but arbitrarily, imposed divide and rule creating division where there was no just to make sure we could control people. We have benefitted from this for decades. Personally I think we have a duty to any country we colonised during the empire and their immediate neighbours for what we did, how we fucked up their countries, how we bled them of their assets and what we left behind. We created huge generational trauma that the effects of which are being played out still. We didn't care about borders of the 56 countries we pillaged.

I quite agree.

The Tories don't really give a toss about immigration in my view. They are only interested in the dog whistle potential of this issue.

My frustration is that I don't think the Labour Party are brave enough to tackle this issue honestly yet either. So a grown up conversation might be a very long way away.

It was absolutely obvious to me that the measures were unconscionable and illegal from the start, both as a lawyer and a human being. And quite apart from the moral and legal issues, it is a wastefully expensive policy that would just not work. This was all apparent from the start.

Once again, as with Brexit, the government have wasted huge amounts of money carrying through something that doesn't work as a dog whistle to the right wing of its own party.

Therefore Braverman is either stupid and incompetent - the policy clearly wouldn't work and isn't lawful. Or cynical and wasteful, knowing that they could then try to blame the lack of stringent measures on an allegedly "left wing establishment". Or all of the above.

What we need is a global grown up and humanitarian conversation about migration and refugees and a central application system, where people can apply remotely and travel as safely as possible without needing to resort to smugglers and organised criminals. These issues are only going to get worse when climate change kicks in (more).

And also on economic growth vs house building vs the environment. Politicians need to stop burying their heads in the sand about climate change and migration.

I am not disappointed, I'm pleased that our laws seem to work in the way that any reasonable person might expect them to.

I'm unimpressed, however, on how much taxpayer money the government has probably wasted on legal fees for a policy that they knew wasn't legal in the first place. No doubt there will now be an expensive appeal to follow. As a pp has said, they probably don't care whether or not they actually send anyone to Rwanda... they are just going through the motions for their own political benefit. And spending our money for their own political point scoring.

I don't necessarily agree with shipping people off to Rwanda, but I DO think something needs to change to discourage people from making illegal crossings, and instead coming through the proper channels.

That would make perfect sense if there were proper channels. The trouble is that there aren't. The government knows perfectly well that it could solve the small boats problem at a stroke by organising safe passage combined with an efficient asylum processing system. They choose not to because they can't be bothered to knock the logic through the heads of their more racist voters.

I am relieved by this ruling, but saddened that it was ever needed. The vast majority are normal people put in terrible situations. It could happen to any one of us, it is pure luck where you happen to be born, I would want to be shown kindness.

Yes we need a proper and decent plan, but sadly this government only care about money and finding as many ways as possible to filter it into their own pockets.

They don't have to, and it would make no sense to require it. Countries neighbouring places like Afghanistan and Ukraine can't realistically be expected to take all their refugees.

It's illegal so anyone supporting this in parliament after it's been made illegal should be treated as they would if they supported any other illegal act.

Those 'vulnerable' people who don't stay in the first safe country they get to??

They're hardly going to put their hands up on national tv are they and be branded racists. HFW piping up 'good on you' don't imagine he is affected by mass immigration.

The ‘policy’ was never going to happen. The government must know this yet they are happy to chuck more £££ of taxpayer money down the drain so they can say ‘oh look we tried to control our borders’ to appease the brexity wankers whose votes they need.

what legal routes? Migrants can apply for a work visa but the only legal route to enter the UK as a refugees is to cross in a small boat/sneak into a vehicle that is crossing by safe means. And it IS legal. A refugee can legally enter any country they wish and apply for asylum.

The main reason people want to come to the UK is having family already here or knowing the language. The reason son many know the language...? Because we colonised 2/3rds of the world, this is our punishment for stealing their wealth and destroying their culture and native languages!

The deal was never going to pass, they always knew it was illegal it was just a distraction. The plan was always to blame the left wing judges for its failure like they did with Brexit as they knew people believe any old crap they tell them!

We HAVE restricted economic migrants coming over, that's why food has been rotting in the fields, animals had to be culled and burned and the farmers are going bankrupt.

https://twitter.com/Mrbaiti/status/1674498612946935814?t=6i01XaXsAwkubR_PJgI08A&s=19

Question time audience re Rwanda

We need immigration with the declining birth rate. The problem is we just don't have the housing and health care to support more people coming in. There are far too many people homeless, in completely unsuitable accommodation and spending far too many years on nhs waiting lists. That's before we look at dentists.

This isn't immigrants fault. If our government bothered to solve these problems perhaps with some of that invisible brexit money, the wasted covid money or however much this scheme is costing then it would be viable to have these workers coming in. If they had the right to work.

It's all well and good saying we need to prioritise workers with certain degrees but there are plenty of lower level jobs that need filling.

The irony is that even Braverman said initially she was unsure the Rwanda policy would get through.

As a lawyer she would have known the legal implications.

I don't think she ever expected it to fly and it's just another slogan for her to run with "blame the lefty lawyers".

I am surprised that our countries answer to something is to remove us from human rights charters.

How have we sunk so low?

Johnson’s mendacity has poisoned the Conservative party. Not sure we can wait much longer for an anti-venom.

You'd think that Braverman might have noticed as a result of recent events that constant lying, including lying to Parliament, is not a good career move. But she seems to be too thick to work that out.

Why? What exactly is your evidence and rationale for thinking the Court of Appeal is wrong? Because, with all the resources of the Home Office at her disposal, strangely Braverman couldn't produce any.

Here's a slightly more organized/factual take on the Germany situation, which is really just in the discussion phase (and for which they need EU approval/coordination): https://www.dw.com/en/new-german-migration-official-aims-to-send-refugees-to-africa/a-64667296

It's significantly different from what the UK wants to do. Germany is considering making "deals" with multiple countries on the routes through which large numbers of asylum seekers come to the EU/Schengen. They would only consider sending people back to a country where they were from, had strong ties, or had lived or travelled en route to the EU. They aren't just picking one country and proposing to send everyone there.

I do wonder if part of the appeal of this insane Rwanda plan to the UK Conservatives and their "base" is being able to do something, and show they're doing something, that the EU wouldn't have approved. And this is a long way from over - Rishi's all over the place saying he's confident it'll get through on appeal.