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?

The UK owes unconditional sanctuary, reparations and residence to any person from any country or territory that it has ever colonised, exploited, or laid waste through military intervention.

Don’t tell the Americans, French and Germans.

Happy to tell them the same, plus the Belgians. But this is the UK we're talking about.

Yes, I know we are talking about the U.K.
Based on you extremely broad criteria we would also owe unconditional sanctuary, reparations and residence to the Germans, French and Americans.

Especially the Germans, they were Nazis when we “laid waste through military intervention” but we bombed the fuck out of them and then rolled tanks to and fro blowing things up.

Or does the reason for military intervention matter?

@SunnyEgg a cap on genuine refugees? Nope. Just allow them to work. We have labour shortages. Also stop counting international students as immigrants, that policy is scaremongering. The vast majority of refugees stay in nearby countries. The UK really isn't generous in how many it takes (and nor is the EU, the West as a whole needs to do better).

Ok with no cap on numbers and safe passage, given that the highest barrier would be removed, how many do you envisage applying?

Taking into account climate crisis and mass migration increasing too.

ie people currently risk their lives which is an incredibly high barrier, when it’s easy and safe to do so how many are people thinking will want to do it?

Can you explain to me like I’m stupid what the legal channels are that these people can be using?

no explanation is too basic. Spell it out for me please…

What is your acceptable number of asylum seekers Sunnyegg?

I don’t mind answering this later as a slightly different tack but I am really interested in what people think will happen with numbers if barriers are much lower

Right now they are very high and people take the risk, without that what are people expecting?

YANBU, the whole idea seems like criminal lunacy

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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

It doesn't involve deportation at all in fact.

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

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

Ha ha ha no it doesn't.

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.

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.