Rwanda migrant plan is lawful, High Court rules

[Scott]

 

The government's plan to deport migrants to Rwanda is lawful, the High Court has ruled.

The court ruled on Monday that the scheme did not breach the UN's Refugee Convention or human rights laws.

But the cases of eight asylum seekers had not been "properly considered" and would need to be reconsidered, judges added.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64024461

[RichardColeman]

Excellent , now park the coaches to Heathrow/Rwanda near the beaches and ports and get on with it

[Chomper Higgot]

I look forward to hearing how much this Government publicity stunt is costing tax payers.

 

We’ll then get an idea of how much public money the Government are willing to spend to create a distraction from their own failures.

 

I also look forward to hearing the rightwing response when Rwanda enacts the flip side of this deal and starts deporting it’s own immigrants to the UK.

 

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

Great news. 

 

It's a shame that the Labour party wasted so much taxpayers money by opposing something that was so obviously lawful, I can only breathe a sigh of relief that they are incapable of winning elections.

 

Let's hope the deportations are swift. There has been enough money wasted on this nonsense already.

[JayClay]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Let's s hope the deportations are swift. There has been enough money wasted on this nonsense already.

Rwanda have said that they can only process 200 claims a year so, no, the deportations won't be swift.

 

And you do realise this is an exchange program? The UK are taking an undisclosed amount of refugees in return.

 

Great scheme...

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, JayClay said:

Rwanda have said that they can only process 200 claims a year so, no, the deportations won't be swift.

 

And you do realise this is an exchange program? The UK are taking an undisclosed amount of refugees in return.

 

Great scheme...

Yes I realize it is an exchange scheme. No problem with that - Illegal immigration should be stopped no matter where it occurs. It is a scourge on society, causing problems and hardship for nearly everyone involved, including the illegal immigrants themselves.

 

Ignoring it just encourages people smuggling gangs to profit from the misery and desperation of others.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JayClay said:

Rwanda have said that they can only process 200 claims a year so, no, the deportations won't be swift.

 

And you do realise this is an exchange program? The UK are taking an undisclosed amount of refugees in return.

 

Great scheme...

We’ve yet to hear the response of Rwanda’s opposition to this scheme.

 

Those Brits incessantly outraged over immigrants need only deploy a small amount of imagination to figure out there are Rwandans who are not at all happy with this UK Government distraction publicity stunt.

 

 

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Excellent , now park the coaches to Heathrow/Rwanda near the beaches and ports and get on with it

Why aren't they being sent back to France? It's a safe country and their point of departure.

[JayClay]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes I realize it is an exchange scheme. No problem with that - Illegal immigration should be stopped no matter where it occurs. 

And how does this scheme do anything to stop illegal immigration, exactly?

Edited December 20, 2022 by JayClay
One too many "exactly"s

[Scott]

12 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Why aren't they being sent back to France? It's a safe country and their point of departure.

Once they leave France without travel documents, France has the right to refuse to allow them to return.  If they are not a French national, France has no obligation to accept them back and I suspect they will not. 

 

[JonnyF]

12 minutes ago, JayClay said:

And how does this scheme do anything to stop illegal immigration, exactly?

It sets a precedent and discourages future attempts. It may even save lives by discouraging others to take such a risk at such expense if they think there is a likelihood of being returned.

 

What would you prefer? A free council house in Islington and a knighthood for Yvette Cooper ? That's sure to deter any future attempts...

[JonnyF]

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We’ve yet to hear the response of Rwanda’s opposition to this scheme.

 

Those Brits incessantly outraged over immigrants need only deploy a small amount of imagination to figure out there are Rwandans who are not at all happy with this UK Government distraction publicity stunt.

 

 

Illegal immigrants.

 

Not immigrants.

 

Big difference, deliberately ignored to suit your narrative.

 

You might want to note that Thailand is also cracking down on illegal immigrants. Presumably you're fine with that though... It's only when the Brits do it that you scream from the rooftops.

[cleopatra2]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It sets a precedent and discourages future attempts. It may even save lives by discouraging others to take such a risk at such expense if they think there is a likelihood of being returned.

 

What would you prefer? A free council house in Islington and a knighthood for Yvette Cooper ? That's sure to deter any future attempts...

It is not going to stop the traffickers. 

Although the scheme is lawful, the previous application of the scheme was unlawful. 

The Home Office has to review every individuals circumstances before they can be sent to Rwanda. 

 

The result is a huge cost in both monies and resources for the Home Office  to carryout the assessments. 

In addition these assessments can be further appealed. 

[JayClay]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It sets a precedent and discourages future attempts. It may even save lives by discouraging others to take such a risk at such expense if they think there is a likelihood of being returned

Migrants coming across on rafts are shipped over by traffickers. They're not going to even mention Rwanda and none of the migrants themselves even will know about the plan.

 

Even if they knew about it then the chances of being one of the 200 sent over each year is so remote that they'd take the risk anyway.

 

So, any other ideas on how this will actually, genuinely, have an impact on immigration?

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Illegal immigrants.

 

Not immigrants.

 

Big difference, deliberately ignored to suit your narrative.

 

You might want to note that Thailand is also cracking down on illegal immigrants. Presumably you're fine with that though... It's only when the Brits do it that you scream from the rooftops.

I use the term ‘immigrants’ because includes the whole range from economic migrants, illegal immigrants and legal asylum seekers.

 

The Rwanda scheme applies to people claiming asylum, it is not illegal to enter the UK to claim asylum.

 

I shall not stoop to accusing you of deliberately omitting ‘asylum seekers’ to suit your agenda.

 

 

[Smokey and the Bandit]

At last some GOOD NEWS!

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

It sets a precedent and discourages future attempts. It may even save lives by discouraging others to take such a risk at such expense if they think there is a likelihood of being returned.

 

What would you prefer? A free council house in Islington and a knighthood for Yvette Cooper ? That's sure to deter any future attempts...

But will it deter them? Their prospects must be pretty grim to force them to undertake such a journey in the first place. They aren't coming to the UK on a whim. 

[RuamRudy]

*Deleted posts edited out*

 

Examples? Well, illegal immigration to North America - much from the lawless, impoverished Central American countries. It's not a stretch to say that the US bears a significant responsibility for the state of the countries there from it's decades of exploitation and it's support for paramilitary regimes and right wing dictators.

 

Afghanistan, Syria, North African basket case countries? Again, the US and it's European lackeys have spent most of the past 70 years propping up the worst sort of people to ensure that the countries failed to thrive.Prior to that, Empire and colonialism sowed the seeds of the inequality and strife that blight these regions to this day.

 

So, in my view, the West bears significant responsibility for the state of the developing world, and it can't wash it's hands now simply because it's chickens are coming home to roost.

[JonnyF]

22 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

But will it deter them? Their prospects must be pretty grim to force them to undertake such a journey in the first place. They aren't coming to the UK on a whim. 

Hopefully it will deter them.

 

It's got to be better than just throwing our hands in the air and admitting it's a free for all and we can no longer control who can come into the country.

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Once they leave France without travel documents, France has the right to refuse to allow them to return.  If they are not a French national, France has no obligation to accept them back and I suspect they will not. 

 

Yes, you are right of course. The question that should be asked though is why, having reached France, do they undertake the dangerous Journey to reach the UK ? From what I have read they aren't living the life of Reilly once they reach the UK, in fact their situation here is quite desperate, especially these days.

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Hopefully it will deter them.

 

It's got to be better than just throwing our hands in the air and admitting it's a free for all and we can no longer control who can come into the country.

90% of traffickers could be eliminated tomorrow. 

All it requires is that the UK set up safe routes for asylum seekers to submit requests. 

This does not mean the UK becomes an open door. It would require the UK to assess the applications. 

[mikeymike100]

Not perfect by any means, but at least its something and is sending a message?

 

[proton]

Just a PR stunt that will never happen and would not make any difference to the numbers anyway. Answer is still the same, turn back boats, deport anyone immediately and no benefits to any illegal immigrants. There has to be a deterrent, at the moment there is only an incentive for these pretend asylum seekers. Hotels, cash and free healthcare deter nobody.

[JonnyF]

31 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Examples? Well, illegal immigration to North America - much from the lawless, impoverished Central American countries. It's not a stretch to say that the US bears a significant responsibility for the state of the countries there from it's decades of exploitation and it's support for paramilitary regimes and right wing dictators.

 

Afghanistan, Syria, North African basket case countries? Again, the US and it's European lackeys have spent most of the past 70 years propping up the worst sort of people to ensure that the countries failed to thrive.Prior to that, Empire and colonialism sowed the seeds of the inequality and strife that blight these regions to this day.

 

So, in my view, the West bears significant responsibility for the state of the developing world, and it can't wash it's hands now simply because it's chickens are coming home to roost.

Blair and Bush certainly have a lot to answer for in terms of destabilizing the middle east with their illegal war based on WOMD lies.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, proton said:

Just a PR stunt that will never happen and would not make any difference to the numbers anyway. Answer is still the same, turn back boats, deport anyone immediately and no benefits to any illegal immigrants. There has to be a deterrent, at the moment there is only an incentive for these pretend asylum seekers. Hotels, cash and free healthcare deter nobody.

The main thing for me is that those seeking to undermine the government at the expense of the country have been put firmly back in their place.

[Denim]

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Not perfect by any means, but at least its something and is sending a message?

 

Unfortunately , at 200 a year , the message will be all too clear to prospective immigrants crossing the channel. Just another acceptable risk among many they have already taken.

 

The Rwanda scheme is just a daft idea from the get go. A boat that won't float.

 

Even my idea of the government buying a decommissioned cruise ship (  can accommodate 2000 + people in cabins with own facilities ) and taking people from rafts straight to the ship anchored off shore is not as bad. Not even necessary to set a foot on shore. Asylum applications dealt with on the ship by immigration officers. Only those accepted can land on shore. Genuine cases separated from economic migrants. 

 

Considering how much money the government is wasting on hotels ( causing some unemployment ) at least the ship still has its original scrap value if things don't work out.

[Scott]

Posts advocating killing people have been removed along with replies.  Continue and face a suspension.  

 

 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

*Deleted posts edited out*

 

Examples? Well, illegal immigration to North America - much from the lawless, impoverished Central American countries. It's not a stretch to say that the US bears a significant responsibility for the state of the countries there from it's decades of exploitation and it's support for paramilitary regimes and right wing dictators.

 

Afghanistan, Syria, North African basket case countries? Again, the US and it's European lackeys have spent most of the past 70 years propping up the worst sort of people to ensure that the countries failed to thrive.Prior to that, Empire and colonialism sowed the seeds of the inequality and strife that blight these regions to this day.

 

So, in my view, the West bears significant responsibility for the state of the developing world, and it can't wash it's hands now simply because it's chickens are coming home to roost.

The US has given 4.4 billion dollars to Nicaragua alone.  I think they are doing their part. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

The main thing for me is that those seeking to undermine the government at the expense of the country have been put firmly back in their place.

You’ll need to explain that.

 

It doesn’t make sense.

 

The ruling has no bearing at all on criticism of the Government.

[Chelseafan]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

Their prospects must be pretty grim to force them to undertake such a journey in the first place.

Have you been to France recently ????