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

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

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.   

Labour, and other political parties, have stated they will deal with the problem by providing accessible asylum application processing at or near the points of origin and do so without the need to break UK law, international law and international treaties.

 

I’m not sure why you are wandering off on some nonsense about the NHS, it’s obviously not at all related to the topic under discussion.

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

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

Perhaps you should start a thread on stuff that was happening almost two decades ago.

 

 

[vinny41]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps you should start a thread on stuff that was happening almost two decades ago.

 

 

The backlog of 450,000 asylum seekers cases took over 5 years to resolve 2006-2011 so only 12 years ago It should be remembered that some asylum seekers had to wait up to 9 years before their case was closed and during that period 74,500 asylum seekers went missing

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

The backlog of 450,000 asylum seekers cases took over 5 years to resolve 2006-2011 so only 12 years ago It should be remembered that some asylum seekers had to wait up to 9 years before their case was closed and during that period 74,500 asylum seekers went missing

Meanwhile, the Government of this day is failing to assess asylum claims and spending over £140,000,000 on a doomed to fail Rwanda scheme that has been ruled illegal.

 

It seems they missed the lesson you are using as a whataboutary defense of their ineptitude.

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Meanwhile, the Government of this day is failing to assess asylum claims and spending over £140,000,000 on a doomed to fail Rwanda scheme that has been ruled illegal.

 

It seems they missed the lesson you are using as a whataboutary defense of their ineptitude.

 

 

That comment is straight out of the book of Captain Hindsight Starmer. Let's critisise without offering up an alternative or how we're going to pay for it.

 

Talk about whataboutary. You are the class captain.????????????

Edited July 2, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[vinny41]

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Meanwhile, the Government of this day is failing to assess asylum claims and spending over £140,000,000 on a doomed to fail Rwanda scheme that has been ruled illegal.

 

It seems they missed the lesson you are using as a whataboutary defense of their ineptitude.

 

 

The result is that the High Court's decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AAA-v-SSHD-summary-290623.pdf

 

There was a further 5 points raised by the asylum seekers and the charity which were dismissed by the Court

Some of the claimant's wanted the court to rule that the entire policy was unlawful but the court didn't

[Chomper Higgot]

56 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

That comment is straight out of the book of Captain Hindsight Starmer. Let's critisise without offering up an alternative or how we're going to pay for it.

 

Talk about whataboutary. You are the class captain.????????????

I suggest you take that up with the Government.

 

Over £140,000,000 spent on a doomed to fail and illegal ‘Rwanda’ scheme, with by Braverman’s own admission £Billions more at risk because the Government have lost control of the situation.

 

A crisis of the 14 year in office Tory Government, at tax payer’s expense.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

The result is that the High Court's decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed and that unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected removal of asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AAA-v-SSHD-summary-290623.pdf

 

There was a further 5 points raised by the asylum seekers and the charity which were dismissed by the Court

Some of the claimant's wanted the court to rule that the entire policy was unlawful but the court didn't

It’s not simply a matter of the scheme being illegal (keep your hopes up for the High Court).

 

There still remains the matter of the Government already losing its case against 10 asylum seekers who had not been given individual assessments:

 

”In the meantime, though, all flights remain on hold. Indeed, the Home Office has not yet reconsidered the cases of the ten individual asylum-seekers who brought the original challenge. In the High Court, they established that the Home Office had not considered their individual circumstances fairly. They cannot be removed unless their cases are looked at again.”

 

Since individual assessments are required it might be a better idea to quit the expensive, doomed and illegal Rwanda scheme and simply establish a functional asylum application process. Conducting those assessments at or near the point of departure, or even in France, would identify bonafide asylum seekers before they get to the UK and provide sound legal footing for the removal of any bogus asylum seekers.

 

It would of course lack the cruelty of deporting asylum seekers without assessing their claims, and that might not go down well with those wedded to cruelty towards others less fortunate than themselves.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-judges-ruled-against-the-rwanda-plan/#:~:text=Summing up%2C the Lord Chief,to Rwanda will be unlawful.'

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suggest you take that up with the Government.

 

Over £140,000,000 spent on a doomed to fail and illegal ‘Rwanda’ scheme, with by Braverman’s own admission £Billions more at risk because the Government have lost control of the situation.

 

A crisis of the 14 year in office Tory Government, at tax payer’s expense.

You made a  post on a forum for expats in Thailand and you want me to take it up with the government?

 

I know you think you have some clout but that takes tge biscuit.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

You made a  post on a forum for expats in Thailand and you want me to take it up with the government?

 

I know you think you have some clout but that takes tge biscuit.

You do realize it’s the UK Government’s doomed to failure keynote policy that was challenged in court, refer OP, and it’s the UK Government’s failure on immigration that is the cause of increasingly out of control costs, refer Braverman’s statement linked in this thread.

 

And that’s putting aside your own frequent statements that you are currently back living in the UK.

 

Sorry you didn’t get your biscuit.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You do realize it’s the UK Government’s doomed ones o failure keynote policy that was challenged in court, refer OP, and it’s the UK Government’s failure on immigration that is the cause of increasingly out of control costs, refer Braverman’s statement linked in this thread.

 

And that’s putting aside your own frequent statements that you are currently back living in the UK.

 

Sorry you didn’t get your biscuit.

 

Whataboutary, as one might say.

I'll  explain once again. I posted a reply to a post you made. You suggested I refer it, your post, to the government. I doubt they'd be interested. They'd probably place you on their ignore list.

[Chomper Higgot]

Given the Government have not yet challenged the earlier High Court ruling that individuals the Government wishes to deport must each have their individual cases assessed, it seems the Government are not able to grasp the issue they say they are dealing with.

 

Perhaps a constant source of rightwing outrage is more valuable to them than an actually taking steps to resolve the problem within the law.

 

 

[Seppius]

Meanwhile: "Migrant crossings for the month of June hit highest since records began five years ago after 3,824 made journey to UK in small boats - as yearly total hit 11,434"

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12259843/Migrant-crossings-month-June-hit-highest-records-began-five-years-ago.html

 

Well done Rishi, pledge to stop them is working

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:49 PM, Doctor Tom said:

So much for the supremacy of Parliament.  

While there is a principle known "parliamentary supremacy" in the UK, it is not unlimited.

 

It is constrained by various factors, one of which is judicial review. Because, as the the article below points out:

 

Quote

Parliament's supremacy is limited by the requirement to act within the law.

Limitations on Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 7/1/2023 at 9:57 AM, James105 said:

When it is actually implemented it will.   No illegal immigrants will make the risky journey across the channel if it is just a longer, more expensive, more dangerous and more complex way of getting to Kigali.  

Any would-be immigrant with a grasp of the numbers will probably not be deterred.

 

Last year nearly 50,000 people made small boat crossings. This year it looks like being more.

Even if this scheme ever gets off the ground (which is by no means certain) the Rwandan government has said it currently only has room to accommodate 200 people. Although that number should eventually rise to 1,000 it's still only going to be a small fraction of small boat arrivals that could go there.

 

I reckon anyone thinking of making a small boat crossing will hardly be put off by those odds.