Rwanda migrant plan is lawful, High Court rules

[Chomper Higgot]

Let’s do the math.

 

40,000 people crossed the channel in the past 12 months.

 

The Rwanda PR stunt allows for 200 of which to be deported to Rwanda. 
 

Assuming all 40,000 were caught then the odds of being deported to Rwanda are 0.5%.

 

This is a PR stunt, it has one objective, to distract from the Government’s failings and it’s means of doing so is by enacting a policy based on cruelty.

 

It plays well to people within the Unitary Circle Venn Diagram.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[candide]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s do the math.

 

40,000 people crossed the channel in the past 12 months.

 

The Rwanda PR stunt allows for 200 of which to be deported to Rwanda. 
 

Assuming all 40,000 were caught then the odds of being deported to Rwanda are 0.5%.

 

This is a PR stunt, it has one objective, to distract from the Government’s failings and it’s means of doing so is by enacting a policy based on cruelty.

 

It plays well to people within the Unitary Circle Venn Diagram.

 

 

They organise this operation for only 200 people/year?

It's like crushing a fly with a sledgehammer!

[Hanaguma]

How about just towing the boats back to France before they land?

[Red Forever]

6 hours 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. 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.

Seems to me that the "misery and desperation" is only being experienced by right wing bigots who don't want forrinners "coming over here". Still, it looks like the distraction tactic is working, so far, in that Tory supporters are shouting so loudly about Cruella's latest act of cruelty that the greed of Baroness Mone is temporarily relegated to Page 94.

[JonnyF]

47 minutes ago, Red Forever said:

Seems to me that the "misery and desperation" is only being experienced by right wing bigots who don't want forrinners "coming over here". Still, it looks like the distraction tactic is working, so far, in that Tory supporters are shouting so loudly about Cruella's latest act of cruelty that the greed of Baroness Mone is temporarily relegated to Page 94.

Actually most British people support legal immigration from individuals who can enhance and contribute to the country.

 

Illegal immigration? Not so much. Much the same as pretty much every country around the world actually. I guess every country is full of right wing bigots by your criteria? ????

 

I've highlighted the important words (and not used to many long ones) so you don't miss the point again. 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Actually most British people support legal immigration from individuals who can enhance and contribute to the country.

 

Illegal immigration? Not so much. Much the same as pretty much every country around the world actually. I guess every country is full of right wing bigots by your criteria? ????

 

I've highlighted the important words (and not used to many long ones) so you don't miss the point again. 

Once again, the Rwanda scheme is only applicable to people who are having their asylum applications considered.

 

It is not illegal to enter the UK to seek asylum.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Actually most British people support legal immigration from individuals who can enhance and contribute to the country.

 

Illegal immigration? Not so much. Much the same as pretty much every country around the world actually. I guess every country is full of right wing bigots by your criteria? ????

 

I've highlighted the important words (and not used to many long ones) so you don't miss the point again. 

How does one legally seek asylum in the UK?

[proton]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

How does one legally seek asylum in the UK?

Tell a pack of lies and throw any documents away usually. Men claim their lives are threatened, women cite rape then of course they can fall back on the lies of being trafficked. My friend used to process claims 20 years ago, according to her 95% are fake claims and the stories hardly ever checked out.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, proton said:

Tell a pack of lies and throw any documents away usually. Men claim their lives are threatened, women cite rape then of course they can fall back on the lies of being trafficked. My friend used to process claims 20 years ago, according to her 95% are fake claims and the stories hardly ever checked out.

How fortunate for your argument that ‘your friend used to process claim

 20 years ago’.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

I wonder how many immigrants the UK can send to Rwanda before somebody in Rwanda asks ‘why is one of the richest nations in the world (GDP $3Trillion +) sending it’s immigrants to Rwanda (GDP $12Billion)?

 

Smacks of dumping the UK’s problems on Rwanda, Colonialism 2022.

[Scott]

3 hours ago, proton said:

Tell a pack of lies and throw any documents away usually. Men claim their lives are threatened, women cite rape then of course they can fall back on the lies of being trafficked. My friend used to process claims 20 years ago, according to her 95% are fake claims and the stories hardly ever checked out.

I suspect someone is telling porkies.  The officials involved in screening are quite well aware of conditions in the home country.  It is easy to verify specific aspects of an asylum claim.   Many asylees do keep documents relevant to their claim and present them.   Rape is not a reason for granting asylum unless it occurred in the home country and was a part of a broader claim.   Victims of rape may not face deportation if they are a part of legal process to convict a rapist.  The same is true of traffickers. 

 

The 95% may be close to correct.  The vast majority of people who apply for asylum in some areas are denied. 

 

[proton]

29 minutes ago, Scott said:

I suspect someone is telling porkies.  The officials involved in screening are quite well aware of conditions in the home country.  It is easy to verify specific aspects of an asylum claim.   Many asylees do keep documents relevant to their claim and present them.   Rape is not a reason for granting asylum unless it occurred in the home country and was a part of a broader claim.   Victims of rape may not face deportation if they are a part of legal process to convict a rapist.  The same is true of traffickers. 

 

The 95% may be close to correct.  The vast majority of people who apply for asylum in some areas are denied. 

 

She was not telling lies, she worked for the home office for years in London then at a camp in Cambridgeshire. She knew the asylum scams from the inside as she was originally an illegal overstayer from Africa, working with refugees in London! Those were the two stories she told me they were prepped with, fear of murder and rape. It may not be as easy these days. 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, JayClay said:

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

Presumably the refugees being swapped for will be vetted and approved, unlike those that came by paying criminals to do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

How about just towing the boats back to France before they land?

I doubt the French would allow it.

Perhaps just tow them back to the middle and point them in the direction of France.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, candide said:

They organise this operation for only 200 people/year?

It's like crushing a fly with a sledgehammer!

It's a disincentive, where none existed before. When one has sold the family farm to send one son to the UK by paying criminal gangs, one wants to be pretty sure they will be able to stay in the UK if they reach it. If there is a chance they will be sent to Rwanda instead, one may hesitate to sell the land.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/20/2022 at 2:12 AM, Scott said:

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

Hurrah for that.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, soalbundy said:

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.

Perhaps the UK should become more like France then?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Presumably the refugees being swapped for will be vetted and approved, unlike those that came by paying criminals to do so.

You presume!

[cleopatra2]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's a disincentive, where none existed before. When one has sold the family farm to send one son to the UK by paying criminal gangs, one wants to be pretty sure they will be able to stay in the UK if they reach it. If there is a chance they will be sent to Rwanda instead, one may hesitate to sell the land.

The dicincentive aspect dissolved with the court case. 

There is a debate if it ever existed considering the Rwanda pre-conditions of not accepting families, those under age of majority or persons with a criminal record. 

The UK Court case re-affirmed the requirement that the HO have to asses each individual that the UK wish to send Rwanda. This means that each case can be appealed in UK justice system causing a lengthy and costly process for the HO. 

Given the courts finding of 19 legal failures of the 8 persons that the HO sought to send to Rwanda, does not inspire confidence the HO at present is capable of such requirements. 

 

Given that the HO initial objective of the scheme were to automatically send asylum seekers to Rwanda.The requirement now to carry out assessments, the scheme long term future looks dead. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

The dicincentive aspect dissolved with the court case. 

There is a debate if it ever existed considering the Rwanda pre-conditions of not accepting families, those under age of majority or persons with a criminal record. 

The UK Court case re-affirmed the requirement that the HO have to asses each individual that the UK wish to send Rwanda. This means that each case can be appealed in UK justice system causing a lengthy and costly process for the HO. 

Given the courts finding of 19 legal failures of the 8 persons that the HO sought to send to Rwanda, does not inspire confidence the HO at present is capable of such requirements. 

 

Given that the HO initial objective of the scheme were to automatically send asylum seekers to Rwanda.The requirement now to carry out assessments, the scheme long term future looks dead. 

If that is true, then Britain needs to become more like France.

[Hanaguma]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt the French would allow it.

Perhaps just tow them back to the middle and point them in the direction of France.

 

Into French waters is enough.  Sorry, but these people are choosing to risk themselves by crossing.  If the British continue to rescue them and bring them ashore in old Blighty, it will only encourage more of the same.  Once a few boatloads are returned, the rest will notice and the practice will become less frequent.

[candide]

54 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Into French waters is enough.  Sorry, but these people are choosing to risk themselves by crossing.  If the British continue to rescue them and bring them ashore in old Blighty, it will only encourage more of the same.  Once a few boatloads are returned, the rest will notice and the practice will become less frequent.

On top of being impractible, it probably would no be deterrent. Currently, when they are stopped, they just try again until it works.

Edited December 21, 2022 by candide

[Hanaguma]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

On top of being impractible, it probably would no be deterrent. Currently, when they are stopped, they just try again until it works.

Depends.   How many actually make landfall in the UK versus how many are found at sea and brought ashore by patrols? If the latter is more common then it will certainly BE a deterrent to just tow them back to France.

[Credo]

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Into French waters is enough.  Sorry, but these people are choosing to risk themselves by crossing.  If the British continue to rescue them and bring them ashore in old Blighty, it will only encourage more of the same.  Once a few boatloads are returned, the rest will notice and the practice will become less frequent.

That is strictly illegal and the UK will be creating a much larger problem by doing so.  Give it a thought for a moment, British military boats unloading people on the shores of France.  What could go wrong?

 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Credo

[Hanaguma]

9 hours ago, Credo said:

That is strictly illegal and the UK will be creating a much larger problem by doing so.  Give it a thought for a moment, British military boats unloading people on the shores of France.  What could go wrong?

 

 

Not unloading them, just towing them back. Or blocking their entry into UK territorial waters. No need to take the people on board at all. 

 

Besides, the last time the British military unloaded boats on the coast of France was to LIBERATE the place.  

[Credo]

42 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Not unloading them, just towing them back. Or blocking their entry into UK territorial waters. No need to take the people on board at all. 

 

Besides, the last time the British military unloaded boats on the coast of France was to LIBERATE the place.  

One country does not have the right to enter the territorial waters of another country without the express permission or previous agreements to do so.  That is particularly true of military ships.  Once in international waters, they are covered under protocols that require they be assisted and taken to the closest safe harbor.  

 

You seem to forget these are people.  They are human beings, and how they are treated is covered by laws and basic human morality.  

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Into French waters is enough.  Sorry, but these people are choosing to risk themselves by crossing.  If the British continue to rescue them and bring them ashore in old Blighty, it will only encourage more of the same.  Once a few boatloads are returned, the rest will notice and the practice will become less frequent.

Once the Australian solution was started the boats seem to have stopped. IMO Rwanda is the British version of the Australian solution, but surely there is still a British island far away that could be used instead? As long as they are on British territory no legal problems and far away from all the goodies is probably enough of a disincentive to stop the boats from France.

Perhaps the Falklands could yet prove useful.

[Hanaguma]

7 minutes ago, Credo said:

One country does not have the right to enter the territorial waters of another country without the express permission or previous agreements to do so.  That is particularly true of military ships.  Once in international waters, they are covered under protocols that require they be assisted and taken to the closest safe harbor.  

 

You seem to forget these are people.  They are human beings, and how they are treated is covered by laws and basic human morality.  

Yet these "migrants" can freely enter British territorial waters without express permission?   Anyway,  I said just to block their entry. Not to necessarily enter French waters. But if the French are unwilling to enforce their own laws, they can expect consequences. 

 

Yes, they are human beings. With responsibility for themselves. If they deliberately put themselves in a dangerous position, they cannot expect to be rewarded for it.  If they drown due to their own deliberate actions, so be it. That is on them and not anyone else.  How about returning them to safe harbor in the country they left?

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Credo said:

One country does not have the right to enter the territorial waters of another country without the express permission or previous agreements to do so.  That is particularly true of military ships.  Once in international waters, they are covered under protocols that require they be assisted and taken to the closest safe harbor.  

 

You seem to forget these are people.  They are human beings, and how they are treated is covered by laws and basic human morality.  

Surely the international thing only takes effect if the voyagers were in distress? As long as the boat was seaworthy and had enough fuel to get back to France that should negate any responsibility of  Britain's.Are you saying a seaworthy small boat not in distress in the channel is the responsibility of the British government to bring into a  British port? That is a nonsense.

After all they chose to get on it of their own free will and it was good enough to leave safe harbour on. They didn't magically appear in British waters, did they?

 

They are indeed humans and chose to leave their own country, and pay criminals to get them to the French coast and to get on a rubber boat, so why have they become a British  responsibility?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yes, they are human beings. With responsibility for themselves. If they deliberately put themselves in a dangerous position, they cannot expect to be rewarded for it.  If they drown due to their own deliberate actions, so be it. That is on them and not anyone else.  How about returning them to safe harbor in the country they left?

Why is it always Britain's responsibility to "rescue" them? Surely the French also have a responsibility to rescue them if in trouble and take them to a French port?