Rwanda ruling

But this is just a vicious ugly culture war, and probably the only thing they have left to them that might avoid a total wipeout for the party at the next GE. They won’t win on their recored in government, that’s for sure. They’ve debased and diminished us all. Feels like they’re determined to wreck everything for the next government to deal with, out of sheer spite, just as they spitefully wrecked all the good things Labour did and punished us with austerity. All in it together, my arse.

What’s the evidence is for you and Braverman asserting it is “a disappointment for most people” - has there been any polling? The referendum of 2016 and the GE of 2019 can’t be counted as polls on immigration, hardly what anyone could call up to date evidence, and Brexit was also about sovereignty and control and freedom and bent bananas and too-feeble hoovers - not everyone who voted Leave was a xenophobe or “person with immigration concerns”. I mean, that’s the official line, isn’t it?

After a quick google, from last December a YouGov survey:

showed that only 10% of Britons agreed that sending people who cross the channel in boats to Rwanda was the best way to address the issue. The most popular alternative, with the backing of 39%, was for the government to make it easier for people to apply for asylum in Britain from overseas so they did not need to attempt the channel crossing in the first place.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/braverman-defies-polls-by-saying-overwhelming-majority-back-rwanda-plan_uk_63a0991be4b0f4895addddd2

There may be more recent polling, where The People have changed their minds in the last 6 months, I suppose.

There seems to be nothing this government can’t cock up, apart from making their mates and cronies richer - their only apparent talent.

No I’m bloody relieved

Would those happy with the ruling be prepared to personally tell a woman in a refuge that there is no home for her and her children because the accommodation has been allocated to someone who paid a trafficker $10,000?

No. I would be personally happy to fund more beds for women fleeing abuse regardless of place of origin. Anyone happy to leave a woman in Afghanistan to be treated as she would be, should think a little harder about the accident of birth that rendered her so fortunate.

BTW before people start the nonsense about 'would you', I have supported and housed 7 women and their children in my own home. Over the course of 5 years. My money is all in my mouth.

The amount of money wasted on this scheme & fighting in the courts could have been spent on better processing & clearing the backlogs. Why don't they just have staff in Calais to process who can come, give them a safe crossing & cut out the people who often charge to take them, only take enough fuel to get half way, return them to Calais & charge them again.

We don't get to shirk our responsibility to asylum seekers because the Tory government are shit at their job. Asylum seekers are not to blame for our problems.

We all deserve better.

yes it's being investigated. I wasn't aware I was required to prove the factual accuracy of my opinions on mumsnet to you personally? and i don't really mind if you don't agree with my opinion, you are fully entitled to have your own. as adults it should be ok to agree to disagree in a civilised manner, no?

also, this is my opinion and this is a forum for the exchange of opinions and discussion - you may disagree which you are fully entitled to do so. however, even if I were to state a factually incorrect point, there is no need to be rude surely? civilised dialogue is the cornerstone of civilised society and I am sure you would not speak like this to a stranger in real life? there are real human beings behind these keyboards, it's good to remember that.

And?

These are allegations, not proof.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility

"To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there.

If you’re stateless, your own country is the country you usually live in.
This persecution must be because of:

• your race
• your religion
• your nationality
• your political opinion
• anything else that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, for example, your gender, gender identity or sexual orientation
• You must have failed to get protection from authorities in your own country."

So 100% of women in Afghanistan, a large number of women in Africa, the Middle-East and South Asia qualify. A large number of economic migrants driven by greed rather than fear also arrive at times and locations of their choosing.

In a country where waiting lists for social housing stretch to decades, how do we deal fairly with those who are genuinely in crisis? Everything that compassionate folk want to make available to new arrivals are resources that cannot be given to vulnerable citizens.

Would those happy with the ruling be prepared to personally tell a woman in a refuge that there is no home for her and her children because the accommodation has been allocated to someone who paid a trafficker $10,000?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/suella-braverman-rwanda-ministerial-code-breach-b2345537.html

Do you have even the most tenuous evidence of this?

If so, please share. Otherwise stop spouting bollocks.

wouldn't be so sure of that. she gave the Rwanda contracts to her chums in Rwanda... I'm sure she got something out of it

She is right about it being a disappointment for most people. The last GE vote and Brexit vote shows this.

The public do want to stop the boats, whether Rwanda policy will ever work is another question.

The truth is that the govt has absolutely no intention of lowering immigration. That’s why they are championing a policy that will never make it past the red tape. They have put Braverman forward as mouthpiece and to make it look like they mean business. This and most western government have no inclination to lower immigration. They want higher immigration. Especially in this country, it helps with massaging the GDP figures to make it look we have economies growth as the population grows. Even though GDP per capita suffers and people get poorer in reality.

Yup.

The Tories don't want to stop the boats. They are happy to have them as a distraction from the damage that they are doing to our country.

I strongly suspect that the wanted this policy to be blocked by the courts, so that they can now blame the woke lefty lawyers. It's just electioneering, something to bring out at the next GE to say, we would have done this but the bleeding hearts wouldn't let us.

The small boats, and the courts blocking their "plan", is perfect for the Tories, it allows them to whip their racist little Englander fan base up into a frenzy.

No, of course YANBU.

Stupid people tend to shout more loudly.

@Quveas I don't need a history or politics lesson on Rwanda, thanks.

I was specifically talking about 'sending' her there.

I recently saw Spitting Image at the theatre. Their portrayal of Suella was phenomenal.

Exactly this. I can't decide which is worse: Braverman's utter stupidity or her heartless inhumanity.

Invest in the system to process the claims in a speedy manner, rather than allow them to go on for years.

But fixing that would mean the Torys losing a talking point.

I do - invest the same amount into the processing system - send those with no claim back and grant those with a claim a status that allows them to work

Can we carry on paying £7 million a day / £49 mil a week / £196 mil a month to house in hotels though ?
The simple answer is no .
I have no magic answer , Rwanda is not one of them .

A stupid, evil, publicity stunt policy from a party that is so bereft of credibility, competence and ideas that it’s resorting to the obsessive demonization of refugees in order to win votes from the easily duped and plain old garden variety racists.

The next election can’t come soon enough.

this - I am pleased with the ruling - it's so cruel to refuse to accept that the issue is with not processing people quickly enough due to government cuts coupled with a refusal to process people safely outside of the uk/set up systems to do so - these are human beings we are talking about

I work with UASC and we have young people turning 18 who have been waiting 5+ years for a Home Office decision - including those wanting to go to Uni - with no idea of their status - the added stress this causes to already traumatised children is disgraceful