Rwanda Policy Judged Unlawful

[MrsSkylerWhite]

Was the only reasonable outcome.

@Papyrophile How is it narrowly legalistic? I can expand if you like on the legal obstacles for our government if you like, but that would be a lengthy post.

Maybe you should check out what i said elsewhere?

don't want to get into the ins and outs of migration and asylum policy with anyone here its fairly polarising. And can label people racist when maybe they are not …

You can check out my posts all across MN. Fill your boots. Yes, anything to do with rubber boats, migration and asylum is very contentious politically nowadays. But I post mainly on political topics, mainly (I hope) in quite moderate factual terms. I do try to row back to the centre ground where possible.

@Papyrophile

No desire to study your posts, no desire to judge you

@Papyrophile Just realised i meant to say maybe you should check out the legal issues elsewhere not me !!!!

Sorry about that

I wonder what barriers they’ll face

More countries will follow

roarrfeckingroar · Yesterday 11:46
**
It does wash. It's a legitimate concern.
**
Not wanting thousands of young men with illiberal attitudes, no assets/jobs, often no English, alongside no increase in local infrastructure to manage them... is not racism.
**
Why do the views of British people not matter”

A minority of British people. Very vocal but a minority nonetheless. The majority, including me, are more concerned about our appalling leadership, the disastrous results of Brexit, the cost of living, lack of housing and the state of the health service/social care and education. Migrants come way down the list for most on the doorstep.
Please don’t profess to speak for “British” people.

Moonwatcher1234

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

This @roarrfeckingroar. many leave their country of origin precisely because they have more liberal attitudes which are not tolerated.

The Rwanda scheme was not an off shore process for getting asylum in the UK

The plan was to allow Rwanda to decide whether or not an asylum claim was valid

The claim would be decided in Rwanda and successful claimants would remain in Rwanda.

They would not then be returned to the UK

Afhgans, Syrians and Yemenis who come to the UK would be sent to Rwanda.

If successful they would remain in Rwanda.

The Supreme Court cited evidence that 100% of claims from Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen were rejected by Rwanda's Refugee Status Determination Commitee 2020-22

Explanation in this thread

https://x.com/C4Ciaran/status/1724735214121865441?s=20

Back where? Back to the last country (who won't accept them) Back to there place of birth? I Remember there was a program which featured a man from India (i think) came here and worked illegally then wanted to go home but India didn't acknowledge him so he couldn't get a passport to go home (he destroyed his so we couldn't just send him home) he was living on the streets and committed crimes for a prison sentence to get himself off the streets it was a nightmare

(Yes it was a few years ago so I'm hoping things have changed but we don't change things often here)

Our interference causes issues surely we have learned this by now? We are not an empire those days are long past countries need to sort there own shit out

Why do the views of British people not matter?

They do matter. But "the views of the British people" are not homogeneous. We are not one big blob, and you don't get to speak for us.

We'll see at the next election whether the majority of British people are in favour of scrapping our commitment to human rights and international law. I suspect you'll find that most people are much more moderate and compassionate than you think.

Yep. Like one of the teenage boys that I used to work with who was hounded out of his home and beaten horribly on multiple occasions simply for being gay.

He wasn't a threat to anyone, he just wanted to live his life in safety without having to hide who he really was.

I know it’s been corrected already but it’s worth saying again, there’s a big difference between offshore processing and what the U.K. was planning on Rwanda.

If we just wanted offshore processing we could do that easily in France. It’s already been offered.

France recently said no to Italy on taking migrants

The shift from more open to not isn’t just here but across the EU

Taking migrants is different to processing them.

Processing them means their claims are processed there and if accepted will come to the U.K. That isn’t what the French have refused to do with Lampedusa.

If France processed applications how many would you expect and how would you limit, or not?

I’m not sure it’s a recent and current offer, even if it is it’s still the case nearly every EU country is dealing with migration issues and pressures and France has its own problems putting stresses on people.

We’ll see new set ups emerge as politicians feel the pressure.

Alternative country processing has been discussed by EU countries but with important differences. One, successful applicants would then be admitted to the EU. Two, in order to satisfy human rights concerns migration experts say this would need to be run by UNHCR or similar outside agencies.

There's been an intriguing proposal regarding the British boat problem by a migration researcher. Germany and France strike a deal with the UK to take in any migrants to reach British shores. In exchange, the UK commits to take in an equivalent number of asylum seekers from these two countries. So rather like the original EU-Turkey agreement. Observes all human rights concerns yet still likely to hugely disincentivize crossings.

The empirical problem with this is that economic development (which obviously should be supported regardless) statistically increases rather than decreases migration pressures. That's because migration comes with huge upfront investment costs for which families often pool resources. It's typically not an option available to those on the brink of famine.

Again - that's not an argument against providing support, but it means such support isn't a panacea to address migration.

So did Germany but that's in a specific context, namely Italy having suspended Dublin returns. Under the Dublin system, recipient countries of secondary migration have 6 months to send claimants back to their country of first arrival. Italy (as well as other countries, e.g. Poland) has always sabotaged this informally - strategic red tape running out the clock - but Meloni has now officially stopped returns. Other EU countries had agreed to a redistribution mechanism years ago but obviously that won't wash in the face of Italian cake-ism.

Is this specific post because you don’t think a general shift by the EU in response to the increased pressures of migration is happening?

It’s clear by now, surely, and will continue to pick up

The only real solution is to look at why mass migration is happening and I'm pretty sure its easy to find out. I suspect the reason is the west's foreign policy has led to conditions that has pushed people to leave their homes and travel 1000s of miles for a better life.

Who could blame them and many British people are now doing the same although they have the privilege of being able to do it without fear of being stuck on a barge.

Our politicians should really be looking to solve the issue rather than inventing ways of off shoreing the issue.

I think we also forget that thousands of young people leaving has a huge impact on those countries that they are leaving. When we take nurses etc from a poor country how do you think that impacts their healthcare system....

I'm afraid us westerners are to blame for nearly all of this.