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?

This

I can’t tell who you’re replying to. If it’s me I’ve given you reasons.

I said that I accept that the scheme has been held unlawful. And I have given the reason for that, in summary, as well as the fact that every other challenge failed, in summary.

I agree with Burnett LCJ and not Vos MR or Underhill LJ. Read the judgment if you want to know Burnett’s reasoning.

So, why don’t you tell me why the scheme is “criminal”? We can leave “lunacy” aside, that’s just overheated opinion.

It's sheer greed of the ultra rich hoovering up more of our money that has caused a drop in the standard of living. Everyone in the world is entitled to a good standard of living, there is enough to go round and enough decent land for everyone to live on. The main barrier to this is greed.

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.
That 3m figure is a bit misleading. There were a record 2.75m attempted crossings in the US last year (a record high) but most are caught and many are returned to Mexico (and many try again, so are double or triple counted).

There are thought to be about 10m undocumented people in total in the US.

As far as I'm aware the only 'safe' route is to be Ukrainian. Not sure what became of non-Ukrainian refugees who were also fleeing Ukraine though.

Probably for the best - due to to the sheer expense alone; however without sending a single soul out there, in regards to 'messaging', maybe quite cost-effective in the medium term, demonstrating how awfully cross the UK is getting.

Long term - maybe Rwanda won't seem so bad once easyjet/ryan get a foothold - the accommodation is already built and we've been chuking money at Rwanda for years anyway.

It might not have worked out as a solution for illegal migrants but the Rwandan facilities look ripe for the next best holiday destination, just add a few swimming pools.

Did you intend to direct that post to me, @Simianwalk ? Because there is nothing in my post that suggests I don't think we should take refugees in.

We've had processes in place for decades for removing people who don't have a legal right to be here or a valid asylum claim. Why do you think it's suddenly become a problem? People are removed every week.

You seem to think that the way to avoid that is not to allow anyone in, including genuine refugees. And we have seen that the result of that is far too many people literally putting themselves into life-threatening situations. How can that be better than the proposal in @pointythings' post?

You deport them back to their country of origin. Why is that a worse solution than refusing to allow genuine refugees in? Yes, some might try to come back, but if it's seen that we have an efficient immigration processing system as opposed to the shambles we have now, it takes away an awful lot of the current incentive to try.

But even Braverman isn't saying they have to be deported. She is just putting it forward as a way of shunting them out of the way while their asylum claim is being considered, and as a way of deterring the people smugglers. She could, of course, destroy the people smuggling trade at a stroke by offering safe passage, and the fact that she doesn't demonstrates that all her much-vaunted care for vulnerable refugees is a complete lie.

How does safe passage resolve it though?

How many will arrive (and from which countries) so that no one else would want to pay a smuggler, and if you have any kind of limit what do you do if the next person arrives on a boat?

No she isn't just 'shunting them out of the way'. Have you read the policy?

Once you go to Rwanda there is no opportunity for you to come back. You don't have your claim considered and cone back to the UK. You have you claim considered and either get to stay in Rwanda or deported back to your original country. She is proposing that we very expensively outsource our issue.

This has been answered on this thread already, several times, but OK.

Safe routes from outside the UK coupled with a fast, efficient and transparent processing scheme means that:

• You will get a decision quickly
• If that decision is negative, you know that you will be removed
• If you do come in a small boat, you will also be removed, preferably to a country where that same safe route exists

That removes the incentive for people to use traffickers because there is no gain in it. Doing this will need international cooperation on refugees, but we need that anyway - and we had it, before Brexit. It can be done. We don't need all this performative lawbreaking.

Meanwhile in the background, countries also need to work on the reasons why people leave their homes, but it's very often war. After appeals, over 80% of the people who come in small boats are granted asylum here, so you can't legitimately say that they're all economic migrants either.

No. No one has directly answered on the numbers

How many will it take to stop people paying to get here outside the safe passage?

If someone puts an actual figure then it’s the answer

@SunnyEgg the data on the number of small boats coming in before the UK left the Dublin agreement is there for you to Google. That's what having a plan and international collaboration does - go look it up.

And lots of advice to deal with immigrants applications quickly - yes, v good idea, but how when someone arrives with no papers, nothing - I mean you don't even know where they've come from (they may say a war torn country but how to prove that) - no age, no id, no nothing. I'm not sure how that can be done quickly without assuming stuff eg nationality, age etc. which is probably not allowing them their human rights.

If the Rwanda plan was the answer then the Government would have published the impact assessments/cost benefit analysis right?

That isn't a new issue though, it's always been there. It's always been managed. And not by shipping people off to a really not very pleasant country with a really unpleasant regime without any form of due process.

Ok deflection as the question isn’t that easy to answer.

Although you do realise numbers are increasing as things become more volatile?

Look to those crossing the Mediterranean

Fine you don’t want to answer, or it’s difficult. The latter is true. But thinking we can face mass migration with an easy safe passage in a stroke as pp put it is rather optimistic.

If people want to convince that safe passage is an easy solution they’d have to say more about the reality of why people pay smugglers and what would need to be done to resolve it.

"Although you do realise numbers are increasing as things become more volatile?"

Which I guess is where the international aid budget cuts at FCDO come in.

Funding was slashed by 69% to Syria, 62% in Bangladesh and 49% in South Sudan as the FCDO sought to reduce the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income. Support for Palestinian refugees in Syria was discontinued, despite warnings about the impact on health and education, and funding to the UN population fund was cut.
The audit, published on Thursday, said 15 FCDO country and regional offices had their funding cut by more than 50% compared with the previous year.

amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/31/uk-foreign-office-rushed-42bn-of-aid-cuts-official-audit-finds

Cuts to the BBC world service were short sighted in terms of strengthening our soft power.

How much would it need to be increased by to resolve the issues?

Nobody has said there is an easy solution. There isn't. But there's a right and a wrong way of doing things. Yes, the world is volatile. That means more genuine refugees - people who need and deserve help. Closing the shutters like the UK is doing is morally unacceptable - we do not do enough. It needs long term international collaboration to address both the causes and the consequences of migration.

It's simplistic to call it all 'long term migration' - do you really think people wouldn't return if their countries were safe and stable?

I suspect there are better qualified people that actually work in that area can answer that question so I won't try.

Regardless I doubt cutting budgets will be beneficial overall as Rory Stewart has long argued.

I asked before what your preferred limit was - what is your solution to the problem?

When I read these posts it sounds like posters envisage a world where a certain amount of people safely and neatly cross borders from countries that have also had enough aid to help fix issues with mafia states, hunger or persecution

It will run well and no need for smugglers

I think that’s unrealistic. Firstly the countries who provide aid will continue to be strained for various reasons but mostly it underestimates the sheer human effort to gain safety.

As climate crisis intensifies it will get messier. So for a start I’d like conversations from those proposing solutions to recognise this.

Then once people say yes it’s going to get tough it’s a starting point on what to do

My prediction is citizens will demand more with borders but what that’s actually like when they do, I’m not sure

Sorry if I've missed the answer - somebody upthread said that 80% of applications from those coming over in the boats are approved, what happens to the other 20% out of curiosity?

And what happens to those who ditch their documents? If somebody ditches the documents and then refuses to give their details so they can be traced - why should we offer them sanctuary, they could be lying about anything. OBVIOUSLY there are exceptions where documents are damaged or lost, but they could still give their details on arrival so checks could take place on their identity?

I do believe the people whose claims are accepted should be fast-tracked to get an NI number etc so they can work, contribute and become part of our society. We DO need migrants, we have a lot of jobs in health and social care and farming that they could help with.

The whole system just needs an overhaul - surely if they could apply from abroad that would help, successful applications could be helped to cross safely and those unsuccessful would stay where they were