Rwanda Policy Judged Unlawful

[MrsSkylerWhite]

Was the only reasonable outcome.

Stereotyping the views of people that you’ve never met, purely based on where you think they’ve come from actually is racism. And you do not define the views of the ‘British people’.

How do you know they have illiberal attitudes? You spout your ignorance as if it’s a fact.

So you are celebrating this? Is it too radical for those of you who put your 'seen to be kind' image ahead of what's actually better for our country? Our safety should be our primary concern NOT how we appear.

JustKen
Quelle surprise! So. What happens now?

Well the RN and RNLI have already said they won't machine gun the small boats, so presumably they'll set about draining the Channel and laying minefields on the exposed sea floor.

So there is a plan b. Glad it's all under control.

This is such a cop-out.

In the past, most people who could have claimed asylum could not actually get to Europe. It was easy to be accommodating to those who did, and we could give ourselves a lovely pat on the back for being so liberal.

Now, thanks to the internet and people traffickers, Europe is in reach for hundreds of millions of people living in poverty and under repressive regimes. None of them is doing anything wrong by wanting to come here: it is what all of us would do in their situation, and it is totally wrong to stigmatise them but... Europe cannot accommodate them all.

One of the most frustrating aspects about the Rwanda idiocy is that it lets everyone else off the hook. Instead of having to come up with an alternative, they can just criticise Braverman. We need a consensus immigration policy that treats the individual immigrants decently, but that is realistic. We do need immigrants, but we cannot accommodate all immigrants.

That's a very short sighted view of where our responsibility ends.

We could repay the trillions that we've pillaged from africa, india and the far east, and actually help develop those countries geopolitically to undue some of the damage colonialism and the empire did.

Probably confusion with EU regulation. The following is from the Refugee Council:

"There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach. A European regulation allows countries in the EU to return an adult asylum applicant to the first European country they reached. This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more people seeking asylum than others. Some of the countries through which people travel to get to Europe are unsafe for some. Many have not signed the Refugee Convention, meaning that people who remain there will not get international protection and be able to rebuild their lives"

It's always telling when someone refers to 'these people...

@Hiphopopotamonster , I have absolutely no problem with helping those genuinely in need of asylum. This country has a proud history of helping refugees and I strongly support that. We may be a wealthy country but we can’t support endless economic migrants who have entered our country illegally.

Thank goodness. Hopefully that's an end to such a cretinous policy.

Good.

We need to take our fair share of asylum seekers in the uk. We already take fewer due to being an island.

This is a big issue with voters, they are not happy with people swanning into the country, no passports or ID and demanding better treatment than locals. Then seeing the intimidating demonstrations in London.

Excellent. It was a dreadful policy.

I wonder if those claiming that they are ok with genuine asylum seekers know that there is no legal route - with the exception of Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria - to claim
Asylum in the UK.

To be fair, even Suella Braverman when she was Home Secretary didn't seem to be aware.

https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-fails-to-explain-how-asylum-seekers-can-get-to-uk-safely-and-legally-12753780

NB: it's a Conservative MP who is asking the question and making the point.

It's just a mess, but did they really thinking bunging people out to a country known for world leading genocide was the best idea they could come up with?

I mean it just seems shark jumping time.

The UK is not the only country seeking to offshore the asylum seeking process: Denmark and Austria are also keen. And the central European countries that are on Europe's Schengen borders have been and continue ramping up their border patrols. Italy has suspended its open borders with Slovakia and Slovenia, which have responded by pushing back on Hungary and Croatia. The EU is livid with Poland's overseas consular officials for issuing visas for personal gains.

All on the front page of the Independent's website for googling Schengen arguments, all dated between August and October this year. So it's a little rich to suggest that it's only the UK that worries about uncontrolled migration. The Spanish are seeing boats arriving in the Canaries from West Africa, and the Portuguese are getting the same in the Cape Verde Islands, also from west Africa.

It’s changing and will likely pick up

Germany can be added as considering off shore

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-belgium-brussels-egypt-swedish-b2432548.html

Has anyone thought of providing better security and quality of life for those in the countries they are coming from?

Surely that's the most sustainable and humane answer.

You know. Like not supporting wars and genocide, and tackling climate issues.

Some of that has to be tackled in the countries of origin @Yorkshirelass04 . If you have been following the Cricket World Cup currently being played in India, you will have heard running commentaries on air quality at some of the venues. It's not only on the western world to fix climate issues. The Global South needs to step up too.

Of course they do, but the power and much of the resources sit with western economies. And we are the ones complaining about migration of people without seemingly acknowledging that we play a role in it!

I come in with an interest in a legal rather than a moral perspective. I was a bit gobsmacked with the Tory narrative today on how they can get around the ruling by our Supreme Court , with some legislation, to make it lawful.

Bravermen’s letter to Sunak, the “not withstanding” term should be used in said legislation that would stop courts referring to ECHR rules, and numerous other national legal obligations is utter legal bollocks.

Reminds me of the book the secret barrister, he/she went to great lengths in his/her book to show how politicians lie through their teeth, even qualified barristers about the law and what can be changed, or what laws need changing when they already exist.

To those who think that the government can create laws to get out of international legal obligations towards potential asylum seekers you are totally wrong, they can not as there are to many laws enshrined in our own system it would be impossible to unravel.

For those who support the Tory position on the boat situation, put simply, they are lying to you, they know they cannot, and they are prepared to create a charade, and spend millions on it, in the knowledge it will never happen, to get your vote.

@Karensalright your position is fairly narrowly legalistic. The UK is densely populated, so surely it is fair for the UK's population to decide how many more people should be allowed to come?

Priti Patel…

Yes, Germany is considering Rwanda as well, funnily enough.