Deportation to Rwanda

Topical debate, moral dilemmas and quirky questions. Join fellow shareholders in civilised discussions of issues of interest
macliam
Posts: 11226
Joined: Thu Jul 18 2013 12:26pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1630 times
Been thanked: 9281 times
Contact:

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by macliam » Thu Jun 16 2022 3:07am

rayf wrote:
Thu Jun 16 2022 12:07am
well - just to be controversial - I am in favour of the idea. I don't see any other realisic option unless France and the rest of the EU play their part.

Strangely, I think before we left the EU, it would have made sense for these so-called refugees to claim asylum in France or anywhere else in Europe. Once accepted, they would then have been free to travel all over the EU, including the UK. But not since brexit.

Currently I think the main problem is that they are coming from France - they are no longer refugees in danger. So asylum doesn't really apply.

I'm waiting for the backlash :)
Well, just to be controversial, I'd say that if this government actually did something proactive about migration, rather than playing to their core support, there might actually be a solution. France actually plays more of its "part" than the UK does, in that it accepts more migrants... as does Germany. In 2021, Germany had 134,255 asylum applicants, France had 119,945 and the UK came 5th in the EU with 43,665 when everyone was supposed to take their "share" of migrants, so perhaps the boot is on the other foot. France also doesn't have the trump card of hiding on the far side of the channel and making it virtually impossible for migrants to claim asylum without putting themselves into the hands of people traffickers.

Currently, the main problem is that the UK does not accept claims for asylum outside the UK except in specific circumstances and for limited numbers of selected nationalities. Then it blames France for not cracking down on people who have done nothing illegal (because they are not illegal migrants until they arrive in the UK). It also has done nothing to provide ID checking or to crack down on the black economy, unlike other states.

Finally, claims for asylum are valid if there is a proven link to the UK or there are family connections here.... regardless of where the applicant landed first. Attempting to weasel out of accepting refugees by dint of geographical separation really is a despicable ploy - especially from a government where a minister is an Iraqi Kurd..... you know, just like the ones they tried to deport yesterday.
Thanked by: blythburgh
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me

Chadwick
Posts: 2435
Joined: Mon Jul 05 2010 4:21pm
Has thanked: 1234 times
Been thanked: 2583 times
Contact:

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by Chadwick » Thu Jun 16 2022 11:53am

rayf wrote:
Thu Jun 16 2022 12:07am
Currently I think the main problem is that they are coming from France - they are no longer refugees in danger. So asylum doesn't really apply.
That's not how it works.
Refugees are not obliged to stop in the first safe country. The vast majority do, but they are allowed to seek asylum in any country they choose - they just have to get there.

It is not possible to seek asylum in the UK from outside the UK, so they come via France because that is the shortest sea crossing to the UK.

If Priti Patel really wanted to prevent refugees crossing the channel, and to do the processing offshore, all she has to do is enable the asylum process to begin at a British Embassy.
Thanked by: blythburgh

macliam
Posts: 11226
Joined: Thu Jul 18 2013 12:26pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1630 times
Been thanked: 9281 times
Contact:

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by macliam » Fri Jun 17 2022 8:49pm

Image
Thanked by: blythburgh
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me

macliam
Posts: 11226
Joined: Thu Jul 18 2013 12:26pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1630 times
Been thanked: 9281 times
Contact:

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by macliam » Sun Apr 02 2023 9:02pm

Cruella Braverman came out from under her rock to justify her policies..... on Sky, or the BBC, anywher that would have her.

When asked about a situation in 2018, when 12 Congolese refugees in Rwanda were shot dead for protesting.... she said "That might be 2018, we are looking at 2023 and beyond"  Oh, that's ok then, 2018? - that's SOooooooo last century!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7x_wL8IiFA
Thanked by: blythburgh
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me

blythburgh
Posts: 17737
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 7:14pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 35005 times
Been thanked: 6106 times
Contact:

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by blythburgh » Mon Apr 03 2023 7:22am

macliam wrote:
Sun Apr 02 2023 9:02pm
Cruella Braverman came out from under her rock to justify her policies..... on Sky, or the BBC, anywher that would have her.

When asked about a situation in 2018, when 12 Congolese refugees in Rwanda were shot dead for protesting.... she said "That might be 2018, we are looking at 2023 and beyond"  Oh, that's ok then, 2018? - that's SOooooooo last century!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7x_wL8IiFA
That person was fat in 2018 so they cannot possibly be fat in 2023 as that photo is 5 years old.

or

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a chicken

Just a couple of things that are as logical as Braverman's statement
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

macliam
Posts: 11226
Joined: Thu Jul 18 2013 12:26pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1630 times
Been thanked: 9281 times
Contact:

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by macliam » Thu Apr 20 2023 6:56pm

Much anticipation of the latest Tory twist of the knife.... the proposed legislation to give the Home Secretary the ability to ignore ECHR interim rulings (Rule 39 injunctions). This was what was used to stop the rushed attempt to start deportations to Rwanda last year - and although nothing has been done to overcome the issues which caused that ruling, the Government are desperate to get someone on a plane before the electorate lose interest.

This is a fancy bit of legal flimflammery, because, although signatories are committed to abide by final rulings, interim rulings are not mentioned in the convention. The process was implemented by the ECHR to prevent states rushing through penalties before a final ruling had been made.... and have, until now, been accepted by signatories, so there has never been a formal amendment. So, by ignoring these interim rulings, the UK could claim to be abiding by the convention, whilst implementing questionable policies which have yet to be declared to be in keeping with it.

BUT - if you're a cynic, there's another possible outcome.... The ECHR could just make interim rulings carry the same weight as final judgements and require all signatories to accept them. Whilst this would put the UK on the naughty step, it would also provide ammo for those who want the UK to leave the covention altogether. Some fancy lawyer has earned their biscuit. :evil:
Thanked by: blythburgh
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me

Richard Frost
Posts: 13232
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 8:14pm
Location: The Isle of Dreams
Has thanked: 2874 times
Been thanked: 6862 times

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by Richard Frost » Thu Apr 20 2023 8:05pm

macliam wrote:
Thu Apr 20 2023 6:56pm
Much anticipation of the latest Tory twist of the knife.... the proposed legislation to give the Home Secretary the ability to ignore ECHR interim rulings (Rule 39 injunctions). This was what was used to stop the rushed attempt to start deportations to Rwanda last year - and although nothing has been done to overcome the issues which caused that ruling, the Government are desperate to get someone on a plane before the electorate lose interest.

This is a fancy bit of legal flimflammery, because, although signatories are committed to abide by final rulings, interim rulings are not mentioned in the convention. The process was implemented by the ECHR to prevent states rushing through penalties before a final ruling had been made.... and have, until now, been accepted by signatories, so there has never been a formal amendment. So, by ignoring these interim rulings, the UK could claim to be abiding by the convention, whilst implementing questionable policies which have yet to be declared to be in keeping with it.

BUT - if you're a cynic, there's another possible outcome.... The ECHR could just make interim rulings carry the same weight as final judgements and require all signatories to accept them. Whilst this would put the UK on the naughty step, it would also provide ammo for those who want the UK to leave the covention altogether. Some fancy lawyer has earned their biscuit. :evil:
Or we could elect a labour government at the next election and put the whole Saga into History.
Thanked by: blythburgh, Chadwick

blythburgh
Posts: 17737
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 7:14pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 35005 times
Been thanked: 6106 times
Contact:

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by blythburgh » Fri Apr 21 2023 11:07am

My biggest fear about the next General Elections are:

a) how many people will be denied a vote as they do not have or forget to bring the right photo ID

b) Labour will get a landslide and IMHO a large majority can mean they can push through any law they choose. Only just over a third of those who voted in the last General Election voted Tory but the large majority they have means they are able to push through laws that a much smaller majority might mean they do not pass both Houses of Parliament.

And it does not help that we currently have a PM who seems to fall over backwards to favour the hard right section of Tory MP's
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

Richard Frost
Posts: 13232
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 8:14pm
Location: The Isle of Dreams
Has thanked: 2874 times
Been thanked: 6862 times

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by Richard Frost » Fri Apr 21 2023 11:16am

blythburgh wrote:
Fri Apr 21 2023 11:07am
My biggest fear about the next General Elections are:

a) how many people will be denied a vote as they do not have or forget to bring the right photo ID

b) Labour will get a landslide and IMHO a large majority can mean they can push through any law they choose. Only just over a third of those who voted in the last General Election voted Tory but the large majority they have means they are able to push through laws that a much smaller majority might mean they do not pass both Houses of Parliament.

And it does not help that we currently have a PM who seems to fall over backwards to favour the hard right section of Tory MP's
a) Very few IMO. It is more likely to be those who have forgotten to take it with them

b) Unless they do extremely well in Scotland. (Very possible, given the state of politics there) It is unlikely to happen. Is this any different from what the con party are doing now. Just look at the asylum bill.

Unfortunately I will be voting LD. At the last election labour won just 7% of the vote LD 41% and Conservatives 49% Eastbourne has been a swing seat for many years and I do not see that changing in the near future.

Sarah
Posts: 5829
Joined: Sat Jun 26 2010 10:01am
Has thanked: 432 times
Been thanked: 4414 times
Contact:

Re: Deportation to Rwanda

Post by Sarah » Fri Apr 21 2023 11:56am

Tactical voting can stop the Tories

Find your most effective tactical vote for the next general election

Put in your postcode here:
https://tactical.vote/
Thanked by: Richard Frost

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests