Activists and asylum seekers have won an appeals court challenge to the government's planned deportation program in Rwanda. Three judges have overturned a Supreme Court ruling that said the East African country could be considered a "safe third country" for migrant transfers. It is the latest court ruling in a long-running legal battle over the implementation of the controversial project, which was announced last April as part of an anti-Channel crossing scheme. Delivering his judgment, Chief Justice Lord Burnett said he did not think the migrants were at risk of being deported from Rwanda to their home countries, but that Rwanda was not a safe place for them while their asylum claims were being processed..

 

More on this story from

 

 

© Copyright  ASEAN NOW 2023-06-29

 

So much for the supremacy of Parliament.  

Thank goodness for the Courts.  Time for this evil government to go.

1 hour ago, Doctor Tom said:

So much for the supremacy of Parliament.  

Parliament and the Government are subject to the laws of the land.

 

Perhaps the Government should have listened to advice that their plans were in breach of law before pushing them through Parliament.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Parliament and the Government are subject to the laws of the land.

 

Perhaps the Government should have listened to advice that their plans were in breach of law before pushing them through Parliament.

 

 

Parliament make the Laws. Parliament is supreme, not the Judiciary, whose job it is to interpret the will of parliament. This is screwed up, as usual, by Human Rights Law, which in far too many cases thwarts the will of Parliament and indeed of the people.  

Just now, Doctor Tom said:

Parliament make the Laws. Parliament is supreme, not the Judiciary, whose job it is to interpret the will of parliament. This is screwed up, as usual, by Human Rights Law, which in far too many cases thwarts the will of Parliament and indeed of the people.  

That’s not how the law works whoever told you it is was lying to you.

 

Parliament is subject to the laws Parliament enacts.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Parliament is subject to the laws Parliament enac

That makes no sense at all. Laws are applicable to everyone, but Parliament make those Laws and can repeal or amend them.  That is self evident, which is the point I made in my first post. 

The op post is factual incorrect as the Court overturned a previous High Court ruling made in December 2022 At no point has this case ever reached the Supreme Court

it is not possible for a High Court to overturn any Supreme Court ruling

26 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

That makes no sense at all. Laws are applicable to everyone, but Parliament make those Laws and can repeal or amend them.  That is self evident, which is the point I made in my first post. 

Parliament does indeed make laws and Parliament may amend or repeal laws, but once a law is enacted it applied to all, including to Parliament and Government.

 

Parliament nor Government may not act outwith the law.

32 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

That makes no sense at all. Laws are applicable to everyone, but Parliament make those Laws and can repeal or amend them.  That is self evident, which is the point I made in my first post. 

Correct.

 

This from the BBC:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66051292.amp

 

Perhaps Sunak would be better advised to reinstate a functioning Asylum assessment scheme, the current one having been deliberately stripped of the budget and resources it needs to operate.

 

Genuine asylum seekers might ten be removed from expensive detention and put to work in the economy which needs workers while those failing assessment can be removed from expensive detention and legally deported.

 

Cost savings in the provision of detention, workers provided for the economy, illegal migrants legally removed and the UK’s obligations to international treaties complied with.

 

Not a win win, but a win win win win.

 

 

UK total joke for people arriving illegally - 99% men ! 

 

What I fail to understand is why we are putting them all up in hotels as opposed to making them all work on farms to earn their keep and make up for the lack of fruit and vegetable pickers from Europe !

11 hours ago, vinny41 said:

The op post is factual incorrect as the Court overturned a previous High Court ruling made in December 2022 At no point has this case ever reached the Supreme Court

it is not possible for a High Court to overturn any Supreme Court ruling

That is what got me confused, how can the 'Supreme Court' be overruled? It wouldn't be Supreme?

15 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Thank goodness for the Courts.  Time for this evil government to go.

Thai or UK ? lol

15 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Thank goodness for the Courts.  Time for this evil government to go.

You do realize this is in the UK? not sure I'd call their Govt EVIL.

Another example of why the UK is <deleted> up imo

Rwanda. A good place to keep people without a visa? 

 

I guess Thailand could look into it. 

1 hour ago, brianthainess said:

You do realize this is in the UK? not sure I'd call their Govt EVIL.

Have you been following UK politics much? Evil is possibly a touch emotive, but they are certainly uncaring, greedy, corrupt and incompetent.

 

While there are a few MPs who are clearly amoral, I think the majority are simply selfish grifters.

2 hours ago, brianthainess said:

You do realize this is in the UK? not sure I'd call their Govt EVIL.

Maybe I was a little overblown.  "Callous" and all things stated above by @RuamRudy

4 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

UK total joke for people arriving illegally - 99% men ! 

 

What I fail to understand is why we are putting them all up in hotels as opposed to making them all work on farms to earn their keep and make up for the lack of fruit and vegetable pickers from Europe !

The reason the UK are ‘putting up’ these ‘illegal immigrants’ is because the UK Government has failed to manage asylum assessment and clearance.

 

Result, people claiming asylum are not being processed at anywhere near an acceptable rate, the Government fix for this was remove the definition of required processing time.

 

Outcome genuine asylum seekers are not being cleared and allowed to earn their own living in the UK, while bogus asylum seekers are not being identified and removed.

 

Nobody objects to bogus asylum seekers being removed.

 

The question to be asked is why have the Government spent time and money on their Rwanda scheme, which they were warned would break UK and international law instead of fixing the asylum claim assessment and removal of bogus claimants?

 

18 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

So much for the supremacy of Parliament.  

It's about the rule of law. Which a government is supposed to uphold, not trash.

57 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reason the UK are ‘putting up’ these ‘illegal immigrants’ is because the UK Government has failed to manage asylum assessment and clearance.

 

Result, people claiming asylum are not being processed at anywhere near an acceptable rate, the Government fix for this was remove the definition of required processing time.

 

Outcome genuine asylum seekers are not being cleared and allowed to earn their own living in the UK, while bogus asylum seekers are not being identified and removed.

 

Nobody objects to bogus asylum seekers being removed.

 

The question to be asked is why have the Government spent time and money on their Rwanda scheme, which they were warned would break UK and international law instead of fixing the asylum claim assessment and removal of bogus claimants?

 

Why? Show business policy,

21 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Thank goodness for the Courts.  Time for this evil government to go.

To Rwanda?

Pathetic.

 

This type of nonsense plays into the hands of far right groups. Time to enforce sensible immigration policies like The East is doing.

 

No wonder the East is surging ahead of the West with this type of idiocy. Stop pandering to the left wing woke mob. Implement a sensible policy an enforce it.

23 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

Parliament make the Laws. Parliament is supreme, not the Judiciary, whose job it is to interpret the will of parliament. This is screwed up, as usual, by Human Rights Law, which in far too many cases thwarts the will of Parliament and indeed of the people.  

Got a problem with human rights? The court decided that Rwanda wasn't a safe place. You don't care if safe or not so long as not on your lawn?

 

Populist politics loses this one.

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Got a problem with human rights? The court decided that Rwanda wasn't a safe place. You don't care if safe or not so long as not on your lawn?

 

Populist politics loses this one.

They didn't arrive from Rwanda. 

 

That would have been a hell of a trip in a dinghy.

 

They are economic migrants looking to exploit the idiocy of the champagne socialists virtue signalling from their ivory towers.

Just now, JonnyF said:

They didn't arrive from Rwanda. 

 

That would have been a hell of a trip in a dinghy.

 

They are economic migrants looking to exploit the idiocy of the champagne socialists virtue signalling from their ivory towers.

So, ok to ignore their human rights? That was my point, they did not come from Rwanda and the court ruled they would not be safe there.  What could go wrong in Rwanda? Oh, wait...

27 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Pathetic.

 

This type of nonsense plays into the hands of far right groups. Time to enforce sensible immigration policies like The East is doing.

 

No wonder the East is surging ahead of the West with this type of idiocy. Stop pandering to the left wing woke mob. Implement a sensible policy an enforce it.

‘Playing into the hand of right wing groups’ and then you launch into an anti ‘left wing woke mob’.

 

You might want to consider the posit hat the whole doomed Tory policy is not at all intended to address immigration but designed to distract the public from the ever growing litany of Tory failures.

 

The ‘Rwanda’ scheme is an agreement to ‘exchange’ asylum seekers, with Rwanda sending asylum seekers to the UK. 
 

It’s already cost well over a hundred million of tax payers pounds and will continue to cost more millions with zero impact on immigration.

 

It does get right wingers wound up into an ‘anti left woke mob’ rant while blinding to the Government’s failures.

 

You’re being played and you are willingly playing your part.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

So, ok to ignore their human rights? That was my point, they did not come from Rwanda and the court ruled they would not be safe there.  What could go wrong in Rwanda? Oh, wait...

They could have stayed in France. Perfectly safe.

 

But no, not enough benefits there. They might have to work. So they threw the dice. The lure of benefits Britain was too strong. Decisions have consequences.

 

They would be fine in Rwanda. Just avoid the hotspots and it's no issue. More MSM hype.

 

They might have had to work for a living in Rwanda though.... that danger has passed thanks to British taxpayers.

 

Economic migrants playing the system.

 

Meanwhile British servicemen rot homeless on the streets.

26 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Got a problem with human rights? The court decided that Rwanda wasn't a safe place. You don't care if safe or not so long as not on your lawn?

 

Populist politics loses this one.

The idiocy is clear.

 

Rwanda is, we are told, both and simultaneously, a horrible place that the mere chance of being sent there will deter ‘the boats’ and a lovely safe place to send asylum seekers.

 

It takes a special kind of stupid to hold those two things on your head and not conclude someone is telling lies.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

You might want to consider the posit hat the whole doomed Tory policy is not at all intended to address immigration but designed to distract the public from the ever growing litany of Tory failures.

Not sure what a posit hat is but maybe a tin foil hat would be more appropriate for your bizarre conspiracy theories.

 

They are implementing the policy gradually to avoid a huge reaction from the woke MSM. 

 

Give it time. As long as Labour stay in the wilderness we will move in a positive direction. Labour would simply open the gates while back slapping at Islington wine parties.