Court of Appeal rules: Government plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Straight from the left wing authoritaion playbook.

 

Ultimately this was down to the opinion/decision of unelected judges reversing the decision of a democratically elected government. 

 

Unelected people in positions of power going against the will of the people and the government they elected.

 

Not unlike a banana republic. Shameful. 

So you too feel the need to parade your ignorance of law and governance.

 

Banana republic, the kind of places where once elected politicians then set about disregarding the law.

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Straight from the left wing authoritaion playbook.

 

Ultimately this was down to the opinion/decision of unelected judges reversing the decision of a democratically elected government. 

 

Unelected people in positions of power going against the will of the people and the government they elected.

 

Not unlike a banana republic. Shameful. 

Actually, exactly opposite to a banana republic where government is unrestrained by an independent judiciary. The judiciary in such states is only there to ratify whatever decisions a government makes no matter how illegitimate they are.

[herfiehandbag]

The Photograph has been carefully edited or selected.

 

The full picture showed the judge facing two rows of bewigged berobed barristers, at least a dozen of them, all on the taxpayers "dime".

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, herfiehandbag said:

The Photograph has been carefully edited or selected.

 

The full picture showed the judge facing two rows of bewigged berobed barristers, at least a dozen of them, all on the taxpayers "dime".

That’s what happens when a Government ignores warnings that the  Act they are pushing through Parliament breaks existing laws and treaties. 

[herfiehandbag]

On 6/30/2023 at 7:28 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

it is without question that it is the Tories who have lost control of the UK’s borders.

And decisions like these serve to prevent any attempts to regain control. They also go a long way towards explaining how and why control was lost.

Edited July 1, 2023 by herfiehandbag

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

And decisions like these serve to prevent any attempts to regain control. They also go a long way towards explaining how and why control was lost.

No they don’t.

 

They tell the Government it may not act outwith the law.

 

Government held accountable to the law is a good thing.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[ozimoron]

9 hours ago, James105 said:

Well Parliament just needs to change the law so that the policy is lawful and make it watertight enough so that even the leftist judges  of the appeal court cannot overrule it.   I believe the democratically elected parliament is still able to make laws to enact their policies.

 

I was responding to your baseless comment that the policy would not work.   Evidence from Australia suggests that this policy does work as they already used similar to solve the problem over there. 

I guess the gas chambers were legal as well. Inhumane policies can't be made legal, they will always be thrown out by the high court.

[vinny41]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again you parade your ignorance of how law and governance work.

 

The Rwanda Scheme infringes numerous laws and international treaties.

 

It’s not simply a matter of changing the law.

 

How the unlikely possibility of a tiny fraction of immigrants being sent to Rwanda will deter people who have already demonstrated their willingness to face extreme risks is a mystery.

It was lawful until the recent court hearing last Thursday 

who knows what the outcome will be when the case goes to the Supreme Court
 

"Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “We are relieved that the court of appeal has ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for people who claim asylum. However, we’re disappointed that they have not concluded that the overall policy is unlawful.”

The judges unanimously rejected other grounds of appeal in the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/29/plan-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-is-unlawful-uk-appeal-court-rules

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

It was lawful until the recent court hearing last Thursday 

who knows what the outcome will be when the case goes to the Supreme Court
 

"Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “We are relieved that the court of appeal has ruled that Rwanda is not a safe country for people who claim asylum. However, we’re disappointed that they have not concluded that the overall policy is unlawful.”

The judges unanimously rejected other grounds of appeal in the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/29/plan-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-is-unlawful-uk-appeal-court-rules

 

Indeed.

 

Who knows?!

[vinny41]

More than 24,000 asylum seekers from about one-third of the world’s countries could face removal to Rwanda by the UK Home Office in the future,

 

A notice of intent letter is issued after the Home Office has declared an asylum claim inadmissible. This means the case cannot be determined in the UK because the asylum seeker previously passed through a safe country before reaching Britain.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/30/over-24000-uk-asylum-seekers-could-be-sent-to-rwanda-despite-court-ruling

 

A number of countries on the list are the same countries that I see forum members discussing travel plans to visit those countries

[Chomper Higgot]

41 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

More than 24,000 asylum seekers from about one-third of the world’s countries could face removal to Rwanda by the UK Home Office in the future,

 

A notice of intent letter is issued after the Home Office has declared an asylum claim inadmissible. This means the case cannot be determined in the UK because the asylum seeker previously passed through a safe country before reaching Britain.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/30/over-24000-uk-asylum-seekers-could-be-sent-to-rwanda-despite-court-ruling

 

A number of countries on the list are the same countries that I see forum members discussing travel plans to visit those countries

Two points to consider:

 

1. Has anyone asked Rwanda if they are willing to accept 24,083 migrants from the UK?

 

2. I wonder if it’s dawned on anyone (Government or lawyer representing any of the 24,083 recipients of this letter) that individuals have right for their individual circumstances to be individually reviewed?

 

Oh and a bonus question.

 

I wonder how much this doomed to fail policy has cost already?

[vinny41]

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Two points to consider:

 

1. Has anyone asked Rwanda if they are willing to accept 24,083 migrants from the UK?

 

2. I wonder if it’s dawned on anyone (Government or lawyer representing any of the 24,083 recipients of this letter) that individuals have right for their individual circumstances to be individually reviewed?

 

Oh and a bonus question.

 

I wonder how much this doomed to fail policy has cost already?

I am sure Rwanda can say no if they feel their unable to support a high number

I see Denmark entered into a similar agreement with Rwanda as they have an opt out clause with the EU on the EU asylum policy,

And now a number of EU member states are pushing the EU to adopt a similar approach

Now EU member states want their own Rwanda-style migrant deportation programme: Denmark, Greece and Austria use Brussels conference to urge bloc to follow UK lead to stem flow of Mediterranean boats

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12250569/EU-member-states-want-Rwanda-style-migrant-deportation-programme.html

Eight member states want a similar ‘innovative’ approach to controlling immigration

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-faces-call-to-strike-rwanda-style-deals-2g6wjjbg6

 

[Chomper Higgot]

49 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

I am sure Rwanda can say no if they feel their unable to support a high number

I see Denmark entered into a similar agreement with Rwanda as they have an opt out clause with the EU on the EU asylum policy,

And now a number of EU member states are pushing the EU to adopt a similar approach

Now EU member states want their own Rwanda-style migrant deportation programme: Denmark, Greece and Austria use Brussels conference to urge bloc to follow UK lead to stem flow of Mediterranean boats

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12250569/EU-member-states-want-Rwanda-style-migrant-deportation-programme.html

Eight member states want a similar ‘innovative’ approach to controlling immigration

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-faces-call-to-strike-rwanda-style-deals-2g6wjjbg6

 

Rwanda is raking it in.

 

Not having to take any asylum seekers and can send their own to the UK.

 

[vinny41]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Rwanda is raking it in.

 

Not having to take any asylum seekers and can send their own to the UK.

 

Not sure where you get the idea that Rwanda doesn't accept any asylum seekers

As clearly shown from the report by the UNHCR in the Situation analysis section

In addition, while the refugee situation in Rwanda has largely been a protracted one, increasing instability in Eastern DRC during the latter part of 2022 and early 2023 has forced people to flee across the border to Rwanda. As of end of March 2023, around 6,000 new arrivals have been recorded.

https://reporting.unhcr.org/operational/operations/rwanda

[Chomper Higgot]

43 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Not sure where you get the idea that Rwanda doesn't accept any asylum seekers

As clearly shown from the report by the UNHCR in the Situation analysis section

In addition, while the refugee situation in Rwanda has largely been a protracted one, increasing instability in Eastern DRC during the latter part of 2022 and early 2023 has forced people to flee across the border to Rwanda. As of end of March 2023, around 6,000 new arrivals have been recorded.

https://reporting.unhcr.org/operational/operations/rwanda

Forgive me, I need to be more specific.

 

Rwanda is taking it in (already receiving over £100million from the UK) and not receiving any asylum 

 seekers from the UK.

 

While still being permitted to send asylum seekers from Rwanda to the UK.

 

 

 

 

[vinny41]

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Forgive me, I need to be more specific.

 

Rwanda is taking it in (already receiving over £100million from the UK) and not receiving any asylum 

 seekers from the UK.

 

While still being permitted to send asylum seekers from Rwanda to the UK.

 

 

 

 

Hence the UK Government has a good reason to go to the Supreme Court

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Hence the UK Government has a good reason to go to the Supreme Court

They had better reason to follow advice on the idiocy of the scheme.

 

Tgey chose to ignore it and the tax payers are picking up the cheque.

[vinny41]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They had better reason to follow advice on the idiocy of the scheme.

 

Tgey chose to ignore it and the tax payers are picking up the cheque.

Tony Blair tried to implement a similar scheme in 2004 initially with Tanzania and then with South Africa, the Tanzanian Government declined his offer of extra funding 

David Blunkett submitted a proposal to the EU commission to hold all asylum seekers outside the EU in  reception center's while there asylum claim was reviewed

Turkey, Russia and Ukraine were listed as possible locations for these reception center's

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-plan-to-hold-asylum-seekers-outside-eu-set-to-divide-states/

[James105]

13 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I guess the gas chambers were legal as well. Inhumane policies can't be made legal, they will always be thrown out by the high court.

Comparing a governments efforts to control its borders and stop people drowning in the channel making a dangerous crossing to the Nazis and gas chambers is laughable.   

 

Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing is not quite the same thing as gas chambers now is it, unless of course you have the racist opinion that being sent to Rwanda is the equivalent of being sent to a gas chamber due to it being so inferior to the UK.  

[James105]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They had better reason to follow advice on the idiocy of the scheme.

 

Tgey chose to ignore it and the tax payers are picking up the cheque.

The tax payers are already picking up the cheque.

 

"Unless action is taken, Braverman said that the cost of housing asylum seekers will rise to 11 billion pounds a year, up from about 3.6 billion pounds currently."

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-says-cost-deporting-each-asylum-seeker-rwanda-be-169000-pounds-2023-06-26/#:~:text=Unless action is taken%2C Braverman,about 3.6 billion pounds currently.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

The tax payers are already picking up the cheque.

 

"Unless action is taken, Braverman said that the cost of housing asylum seekers will rise to 11 billion pounds a year, up from about 3.6 billion pounds currently."

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-says-cost-deporting-each-asylum-seeker-rwanda-be-169000-pounds-2023-06-26/#:~:text=Unless action is taken%2C Braverman,about 3.6 billion pounds currently.

That’s what happens when the Government stop clearing asylum seekers.

 

Genuine asylum seekers are left rotting at tax payer expense instead of being cleared to enter society and earn their own living.

 

Bogus asylum seekers are left rotting at tax payer expense instead of being identified and deported.

 

Braverman is right, the Government’s failure is resulting in rising costs to tax payers.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Tony Blair tried to implement a similar scheme in 2004 initially with Tanzania and then with South Africa, the Tanzanian Government declined his offer of extra funding 

David Blunkett submitted a proposal to the EU commission to hold all asylum seekers outside the EU in  reception center's while there asylum claim was reviewed

Turkey, Russia and Ukraine were listed as possible locations for these reception center's

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-plan-to-hold-asylum-seekers-outside-eu-set-to-divide-states/

But it didn’t happen.

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

Comparing a governments efforts to control its borders and stop people drowning in the channel making a dangerous crossing to the Nazis and gas chambers is laughable.   

 

Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing is not quite the same thing as gas chambers now is it, unless of course you have the racist opinion that being sent to Rwanda is the equivalent of being sent to a gas chamber due to it being so inferior to the UK.  

Potentially it's the same. Rwanda has a history of having the worst massacre in modern times, worst since the Khmer Rouge in the 80's. THis is clearly the reason that the court of appeals found that Rwanda is not a safe pl;ace. The only possible argument that you could mount to suggest that decision is wrong is to consider the high court to be in the pocket of the extreme leftist marxists. The decisionw as evidence based.

[Pink Mist]

Reported Flame post removed as well as a reply.

[James105]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Potentially it's the same. Rwanda has a history of having the worst massacre in modern times, worst since the Khmer Rouge in the 80's. THis is clearly the reason that the court of appeals found that Rwanda is not a safe pl;ace. The only possible argument that you could mount to suggest that decision is wrong is to consider the high court to be in the pocket of the extreme leftist marxists. The decisionw as evidence based.

Germany has a worse historical safety record than Rwanda in the last 100 years, so why is it you believe that Rwanda is less safe than Germany then if you are using wars from decades ago as your reasoning for it not being safe there today?   

 

I think I can guess the reason.   

[James105]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s what happens when the Government stop clearing asylum seekers.

 

Genuine asylum seekers are left rotting at tax payer expense instead of being cleared to enter society and earn their own living.

 

Bogus asylum seekers are left rotting at tax payer expense instead of being identified and deported.

 

Braverman is right, the Government’s failure is resulting in rising costs to tax payers.

 

 

Perhaps you can advise the government how you can tell an asylum seeker is bogus or not when they rock up after having disposed of their passports and identification, lie about where they are from and then abuse the legal aid system with endless appeals if they are denied.  

 

So what is your solution for this?   I presume you have one?      

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

Perhaps you can advise the government how you can tell an asylum seeker is bogus or not when they rock up after having disposed of their passports and identification, lie about where they are from and then abuse the legal aid system with endless appeals if they are denied.  

 

So what is your solution for this?   I presume you have one?      

Oh you mean after 14 years they need my help?

And if I choose not to participate it’s my fault?!

It’s the Government’s job, not mine, it’s the Government that are failing to do the job they were elected to do.

 

I suggest you start blaming the failing Government, and not those who are pointing out the Government has failed.

 

My solution is replace the Government at the next General Election.

 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[vinny41]

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

Germany has a worse historical safety record than Rwanda in the last 100 years, so why is it you believe that Rwanda is less safe than Germany then if you are using wars from decades ago as your reasoning for it not being safe there today?   

 

I think I can guess the reason.   

Or if you go back further some scholars argued that the policies of the UK Government during the Irish Famine  was a deliberate act of genocide by the British government. Over 1 million Irish people died

Last Conquest of Ireland

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/L/bo58743592.html

Clearly UNHCR doesn't seem to have an issue evacuating refugees and asylum-seekers from Libya to Rwanda as it has been doing so since 2019 and in 2021 extended its MOU to December 2023

https://www.unhcr.org/rw/who-we-help/evacuees-from-libya-emergency-transit-mechanism-centre

[vinny41]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh you mean after 14 years they need my help?

And if I choose not to participate it’s my fault?!

It’s the Government’s job, not mine, it’s the Government that are failing to do the job they were elected to do.

 

I suggest you start blaming the failing Government, and not those who are pointing out the Government has failed.

 

My solution is replace the Government at the next General Election.

 

 

Who would you replace them with we have seen Labour had a 450,000  asylum seeker case backlog in 2006 so that rules them out which means just Lib Dem, Greens or Reform UK

[James105]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh you mean after 14 years they need my help?

And if I choose not to participate it’s my fault?!

It’s the Government’s job, not mine, it’s the Government that are failing to do the job they were elected to do.

 

I suggest you start blaming the failing Government, and not those who are pointing out the Government has failed.

 

My solution is replace the Government at the next General Election.

 

 

Right.  So basically you do not have a solution and just want to criticise those who are proposing a solution, which would be the government.   

 

I haven't heard of Labour plans to deal with this so I presume they have the same solution you have, which is just to criticise and hope that somehow the NHS and social services survive when it gets even more out of control under their watch than it is now.