Rwanda ruling

[OwlBabiesAreCute]

Suella Braverman says today's Supreme Court ruling against the UK government's plan to send immigrants to Rwanda is a disappointment for most people.

Not for me it isn't.

AIBU? Am I in the minority?

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?

And?

These are allegations, not proof.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

No I’m bloody relieved

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

Question time audience re Rwanda

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.