UK court says judicial review into government's Rwanda deportation will begin in September

Members of the staff board a plane reported by British media to be first to transport migrants to Rwanda, at MOD Boscombe Down base in Wiltshire, Britain, June 14, 2022. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls/File Photo

 

LONDON, July 20 (Reuters) - A judicial review into the legality of the British government's plan to deport migrants to Rwanda will start on Sept. 5, London's High Court said on Wednesday.

Under an agreement struck in April, Britain will send tens of thousands of migrants who arrive on its shores illegally more than 4,000 miles (6,4000 km) to the East African country.

Migrants and charities are bringing a judicial review to challenge the policy's lawfulness.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-court-says-judicial-review-into-governments-rwanda-deportation-will-begin-2022-07-20/

Let's hope the high court has a backbone on this one. Its an excellent idea in my opinion. 

8 minutes ago, alien365 said:

Let's hope the high court has a backbone on this one. Its an excellent idea in my opinion. 

I dunno, seems expensive. Perhaps one of the Shetland Islands would have been better. 

I would send them all to Rwanda.  They are nothing but economic migrants who are scrounging off of the UK taxpayer.  They are leeches as are the Immigration Lawyers who are funded by the UK taxpayer.  As soon as they land on UK shores they should be deported.

The migrants say they are escaping prosecution but the Women still have time to get pregnant.  I am all for looking after legitimate Refugees but those who cross the English Channel are not refugees. Something has to be done drastically to put a stop to this and that is immediate deportation.

43 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I dunno, seems expensive. Perhaps one of the Shetland Islands would have been better. 

Then they would vote for the SNP for allowing them to stay there ????

41 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I dunno, seems expensive. Perhaps one of the Shetland Islands would have been better. 

The policy was put inplace by HMG after reviewing the Australian decision to offshore  ayslum seekers for processing. The approx cost for the Oz tax payers for offshoring asylum seekers is around AUD$400k each p.a. Total Oz tax payer cost to date is around A$9.6 billion. As you would know deportation can only occur with government to government agreements, unsurprisingly very few agreements to date..

 

https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/cost-australias-asylum-policy#:~:text=The Refugee Council of Australia,the 2021-2022 financial year.

9 minutes ago, Excel said:

Then they would vote for the SNP for allowing them to stay there ????

Didn't think of that...... I'm just an ignorant colonial lad....????

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The policy was put inplace by HMG after reviewing the Australian decision to offshore  ayslum seekers for processing. The approx cost for the Oz tax payers for offshoring asylum seekers is around AUD$400k each p.a. Total Oz tax payer cost to date is around A$9.6 billion. As you would know deportation can only occur with government to government agreements, unsurprisingly very few agreements to date..

 

https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/cost-australias-asylum-policy#:~:text=The Refugee Council of Australia,the 2021-2022 financial year.

How about just ferrying them back to Europe?  From what I know, true asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum from the FIRST safe country they enter. And that sure won't be England.  Once they keep travelling, they give up the right to seek refugee status.

15 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

How about just ferrying them back to Europe?  From what I know, true asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum from the FIRST safe country they enter. And that sure won't be England.  Once they keep travelling, they give up the right to seek refugee status.

Actually incorrect claim, though a number of countries have enacted domestic law to overrule international refugee convention agreements which they had ratified. e.g. Dublin Regulation, but mostly ignored. Ayslum seekers are not obliged to claim refugee status at the first 'safe country'.

 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

Well that's kicked it back so no doubt by the time they review the facts and then spend a year deliberating it will be time for an election so that the current government responsible for this will possibly no longer be in office.

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

Actually incorrect claim, though a number of countries have enacted domestic law to overrule international refugee convention agreements which they had ratified. e.g. Dublin Regulation, but mostly ignored. Ayslum seekers are not obliged to claim refugee status at the first 'safe country'.

 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

Trudging through several safe and prosperous lands before setting out to the UK certainly puts paid to the idea of displaced asylum seekers fleeing disaster. The fleeing ended long before. What is taking place is economic and not social.  Hence laws like the Dublin Regulation that seek to honor the spirit of asylum, which has been crapped on by thousands. 

44 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Trudging through several safe and prosperous lands before setting out to the UK certainly puts paid to the idea of displaced asylum seekers fleeing disaster. The fleeing ended long before. What is taking place is economic and not social.  Hence laws like the Dublin Regulation that seek to honor the spirit of asylum, which has been crapped on by thousands. 

Since UK has left the E.U., it also left the Dublin agreement. Therefore, it has lost the possibility to send refugee back to the first country of entry.

9 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

How about just ferrying them back to Europe?  From what I know, true asylum seekers are supposed to seek asylum from the FIRST safe country they enter. And that sure won't be England.  Once they keep travelling, they give up the right to seek refugee status.

Repeating a fallacy doesn’t make it true.

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Trudging through several safe and prosperous lands before setting out to the UK certainly puts paid to the idea of displaced asylum seekers fleeing disaster. The fleeing ended long before. What is taking place is economic and not social.  Hence laws like the Dublin Regulation that seek to honor the spirit of asylum, which has been crapped on by thousands. 

The UK got rid of the ‘Dublin Regulation’, it’s one of those ‘Brexit Bonuses’ y’all kept banging on about.

Well done!

20 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK got rid of the ‘Dublin Regulation’, it’s one of those ‘Brexit Bonuses’ y’all kept banging on about.

Well done!

The Dublin Regulation was not working before Brexit. No point staying in the doomed bloc when the EU never applied its own regulations to the other nations.