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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

where people can apply remotely and travel as safely as possible without needing to resort to smugglers and organised criminals.

But again how do you deal with the people who are turned down - they aren't going to go home and settle - why would they?

Having a robust safe route means there will be a proper and efficient process for removing people who don't qualify for asylum.

Meanwhile you should look at the % of people arriving in small boats whose claims are granted. Including appeals it sits at over 80%. Assuming that the vast majority are economic migrants is incorrect.

Caradonna · Today 08:31

where people can apply remotely and travel as safely as possible without needing to resort to smugglers and organised criminals.

But again how do you deal with the people who are turned down - they aren't going to go home and settle - why would they?”

As I understand it, 80% of applications are approved.

Braverman had clearly used the comments section of the Daily Mail as the source of data for that statement.

I wonder how many of this audience would give a different view in private..but it's a good start twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1674524653539282945?t=xsQQwb470OdZPq9o_AeCTA&s=09

"But again how do you deal with the people who are turned down - they aren't going to go home and settle - why would they?"

We deport people all the time. We've been sending people 'back' to Jamaica who have a legal right to be here (Windrush).

It's literally all the Tories have left. The country is going to shit. They have no interest in improving the lives of us proles. It's to give the right wing press something to shout about until the election.

I'd prefer it if they were more concerned about Johnson putting Lebedev in the HOL against the advice of the security services...not to mention the 29 year-old also given a life peerage.

It’s not even true though

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.

And what proper channels are those? Nobody is going to risk their life crossing the sea in a dinghy for shits and giggles, they do it out of desperation because the Government has chosen to close down safe routes. If the threat of drowning in the freezing sea isn't enough to "discourage" them then surely that tells you something!

Suella Braverman is pure evil.

I’m neither happy nor disappointed because the Rwanda idea was a dead cat from the start. It wasn’t going to ever get off the ground and I agree it was probably a bit of performative “let’s pretend we will do the most outrageous thing ever to fix a problem and then when we are blocked, sit on our hands and blame others for the problem persisting.”

hattie43 · Yesterday 19:09

I'm not surprised it failed . Why choose Rwanda no wonder people are filled with horror .

They chose Rwanda because it's not a well developed country, which is run by a brutal dictator. Of course people wouldn't want to go there, that's the whole idea. They have lied, by saying that it's a lovely, safe place.

But it's been said now. So that makes it true, doesn't it? The government seem to think that's how it works.

@Quveas I don't want the policy at all, sorry if I gave that impression. I want swift decisions, and I am sure that with international co-operation a lot could be done to break up those who offer such passage. The government could also do a lot to minimise the under the radar ways people can earn incomes in this country and really tackle money laundering.

The safe passage posters do you see a cap on numbers

I ask as that’s where I see issues arising. How do you deal with people arriving outside those limits?

I don't like it as an idea but I don't like thinking about people drowning in the channel trying to get here either. We need a solution that is enough of a deterrent it stops people getting into the boats but we also need to make the right channels to get here more efficient and easier to access so that they don't need to get into the boats.

The government have spent what, £170 million quid on this so far, and not one person has been sent to Rwanda.
And they are still considering taking it to the Supreme Court at yet more expense. Why are people not more outraged? We keep hearing that we have no money. This waste of resources and time should be a huge national scandal.

All For a disgraceful poorly thought out plan that does nothing to tackle the issues in the first place. So they can keep up their awful racist rhetoric about small boats and try to distract everyone from cost of living, nhs, mortgages, and all the other debacles they have caused or worsened during their time in office.

I hate them. I don't say that lightly about anyone or anything, but I can't understand how they can even stay in office-not one of them has a conscience it seems, and few of them seem even marginally intelligent. All I keep hearing is 'MP's are worried as this will affect their chance of re election'. No shame!