UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
Mrr T said:
PRTVR said:
E63eeeeee... said:
You have to process them first, the recent collapse of asylum processing and the various stupid distractions are why we have a massive backlog and are spending a fortune on hotels. Processing isn't hard, like I said, it just needs resourcing.
If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?The head of the unit at the HO appeared before the HC committee a few no the ago, cannot find the link now, the issue is lack of staff, high turnovers of staff, and lack of systems. The latter means it very hard to keep track of addresses and phone numbers. So making appointments was a nightmare.
Iirc the government reduced the waiting list by removing those they could no longer contact.
As for your comments about legal system you seem to be basing your research on the Daily Mail. Better sources are advised.
While lawyers will advise clients on how to present their case it's highly unlikely anything will go to appeal until decision. Since about 65% are successful no appeal is required. Of the 35% who are rejected about 30% appeal and of those about half succeed.
You cannot appeal for no reason. You need to prove material evidence was missed or has now come to light or the decision did not apply the law correctly. You would normally only get one appeal. To get an appeal to a higher court you would need to convince the appeal court there was an error in law. Such cases are rare and normally only happen when the law is unclear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68167793
My point is the lawyers know the system and what is required.
PRTVR said:
blueg33 said:
PRTVR said:
If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?
You say it’s hard. But we are materially worse at processing than we were 16 or so years agoPRTVR said:
Mrr T said:
PRTVR said:
E63eeeeee... said:
You have to process them first, the recent collapse of asylum processing and the various stupid distractions are why we have a massive backlog and are spending a fortune on hotels. Processing isn't hard, like I said, it just needs resourcing.
If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?The head of the unit at the HO appeared before the HC committee a few no the ago, cannot find the link now, the issue is lack of staff, high turnovers of staff, and lack of systems. The latter means it very hard to keep track of addresses and phone numbers. So making appointments was a nightmare.
Iirc the government reduced the waiting list by removing those they could no longer contact.
As for your comments about legal system you seem to be basing your research on the Daily Mail. Better sources are advised.
While lawyers will advise clients on how to present their case it's highly unlikely anything will go to appeal until decision. Since about 65% are successful no appeal is required. Of the 35% who are rejected about 30% appeal and of those about half succeed.
You cannot appeal for no reason. You need to prove material evidence was missed or has now come to light or the decision did not apply the law correctly. You would normally only get one appeal. To get an appeal to a higher court you would need to convince the appeal court there was an error in law. Such cases are rare and normally only happen when the law is unclear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68167793
My point is the lawyers know the system and what is required.
Unreal said:
The idea that processing will be speeded up and tens of thousands returned to their country of origin is risible. It didn't happen under a supposed right of centre government with a thumping majority. It isn't going to happen under a left of centre one.
What people have to understand is that the key power brokers in the Labour Party have no issue with immigration. They see controls as regressive and racist. As a result, there's not a hope in hell of them clearing the backlog by speeding up processing and removing people. The answer is to clear the backlog at a stroke with an amnesty and to make it easier for new arrivals to obtain asylum. That will just make crossing the channel crossing even more attractive.
I'm sure it will work out just fine.
Processing being speeded up and tens of thousands being returned a year is exactly what happened under the last Labour government. Including clearing the backlogs left by the preceding Tory government. No reason at all it can't happen again. It's not like the Home Office has forgotten how to do this. What people have to understand is that the key power brokers in the Labour Party have no issue with immigration. They see controls as regressive and racist. As a result, there's not a hope in hell of them clearing the backlog by speeding up processing and removing people. The answer is to clear the backlog at a stroke with an amnesty and to make it easier for new arrivals to obtain asylum. That will just make crossing the channel crossing even more attractive.
I'm sure it will work out just fine.
Given that our Tory government are rightly despised on the continent (and at home), let’s hope that our next government do better.
An easy solution would be a fire break return all to France. Repeat this randomly for a while. With cooperation between our new Government & the French.
That would soon destroy the smuggling model.
An easy solution would be a fire break return all to France. Repeat this randomly for a while. With cooperation between our new Government & the French.
That would soon destroy the smuggling model.
E63eeeeee... said:
PRTVR said:
blueg33 said:
PRTVR said:
If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?
You say it’s hard. But we are materially worse at processing than we were 16 or so years agoThen there is the problem of dealing with the failed asylum seekers, we don't appear to have an ability to deport them so the problem and cost doesn't go away.
PRTVR said:
Mrr T said:
PRTVR said:
E63eeeeee... said:
You have to process them first, the recent collapse of asylum processing and the various stupid distractions are why we have a massive backlog and are spending a fortune on hotels. Processing isn't hard, like I said, it just needs resourcing.
If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?The head of the unit at the HO appeared before the HC committee a few no the ago, cannot find the link now, the issue is lack of staff, high turnovers of staff, and lack of systems. The latter means it very hard to keep track of addresses and phone numbers. So making appointments was a nightmare.
Iirc the government reduced the waiting list by removing those they could no longer contact.
As for your comments about legal system you seem to be basing your research on the Daily Mail. Better sources are advised.
While lawyers will advise clients on how to present their case it's highly unlikely anything will go to appeal until decision. Since about 65% are successful no appeal is required. Of the 35% who are rejected about 30% appeal and of those about half succeed.
You cannot appeal for no reason. You need to prove material evidence was missed or has now come to light or the decision did not apply the law correctly. You would normally only get one appeal. To get an appeal to a higher court you would need to convince the appeal court there was an error in law. Such cases are rare and normally only happen when the law is unclear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68167793
My point is the lawyers know the system and what is required.
Of cause lawyers know the system. That's there job. They will assist with the application. However, the assessor will also have been trained so the process should be fair. As I said only about 10% of applications get near a court. They also normally only get one appeal. If you want a further appeal you have to ask permission, with reasons, of the Tribunal.
https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tri...
In very exceptional cases the high court may accept a direct application. But you would have to present a very good case as to why the tribunal was legally wrong.
Vanden Saab said:
grumbledoak said:
What a ridiculous idea. Creating new not-concentration-camps-really in the third world.
If we are to intercept boat traffic across the Channel, we should put them on the Isle of Wight. I bet that doesn't happen either.
Concentration camps??? what are you on about, They will be safe and free from the threat of war or persecution so they will be bailed and allowed to live and earn a living in Rwanda until their case is settled. If we are to intercept boat traffic across the Channel, we should put them on the Isle of Wight. I bet that doesn't happen either.
If they lose i think they also stay there
Mrr T said:
Did you actually read the link? There is no mention the asylum application got anywhere near a court.
Of cause lawyers know the system. That's there job. They will assist with the application. However, the assessor will also have been trained so the process should be fair. As I said only about 10% of applications get near a court. They also normally only get one appeal. If you want a further appeal you have to ask permission, with reasons, of the Tribunal.
https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tri...
In very exceptional cases the high court may accept a direct application. But you would have to present a very good case as to why the tribunal was legally wrong.
But there was three appeals, I would imagine that the people making the decisions are legally trained especially when there are immigration lawyers involved, a court in everything but name.Of cause lawyers know the system. That's there job. They will assist with the application. However, the assessor will also have been trained so the process should be fair. As I said only about 10% of applications get near a court. They also normally only get one appeal. If you want a further appeal you have to ask permission, with reasons, of the Tribunal.
https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tri...
In very exceptional cases the high court may accept a direct application. But you would have to present a very good case as to why the tribunal was legally wrong.
Anyway I have a car to fix now the rain has stopped, have a good day everyone.
PRTVR said:
sugerbear said:
PRTVR said:
My point is the lawyers know the system and what is required.
Finding a lawyer that understands the law is a good thing right? it's literally their job. Based blog posts it seems most legal delays occur because of the long delays in HO processing meaning the lawyer has changed jobs. There was one case reported recently. There was no contact for over a year. An interview was arranged but the lawyer had retired. So the claimants attended alone and had no access to case papers. In the interview he was told he could not see copies of the case papers and was not advised to ask to postpone the interview. He made some minor errors, I think on days. On those grounds the application was refused. This case did go to court and the HO lost because the law says he should have a copy of his case papers and it's was wrong to proceed with out representation.
PRTVR said:
Mrr T said:
Did you actually read the link? There is no mention the asylum application got anywhere near a court.
Of cause lawyers know the system. That's there job. They will assist with the application. However, the assessor will also have been trained so the process should be fair. As I said only about 10% of applications get near a court. They also normally only get one appeal. If you want a further appeal you have to ask permission, with reasons, of the Tribunal.
https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tri...
In very exceptional cases the high court may accept a direct application. But you would have to present a very good case as to why the tribunal was legally wrong.
But there was three appeals, I would imagine that the people making the decisions are legally trained especially when there are immigration lawyers involved, a court in everything but name.Of cause lawyers know the system. That's there job. They will assist with the application. However, the assessor will also have been trained so the process should be fair. As I said only about 10% of applications get near a court. They also normally only get one appeal. If you want a further appeal you have to ask permission, with reasons, of the Tribunal.
https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tri...
In very exceptional cases the high court may accept a direct application. But you would have to present a very good case as to why the tribunal was legally wrong.
Anyway I have a car to fix now the rain has stopped, have a good day everyone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68167793
He applied in 2016 and was refused but not deported.
He converted to Christianity and apply again in 2020. This was refused but overturned on appeal.
So one appeal.
PRTVR said:
E63eeeeee... said:
PRTVR said:
blueg33 said:
PRTVR said:
If it was "not hard" do you not think it would be done now ? We have a very efficient legal system that works to keep them here, repeated appeals make the process go on for years, then a lot of countries are refusing to take them back, Pakistan is the latest, so what then ?
You say it’s hard. But we are materially worse at processing than we were 16 or so years agoThen there is the problem of dealing with the failed asylum seekers, we don't appear to have an ability to deport them so the problem and cost doesn't go away.
Some interesting stats here :-
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brie...
"As of June 2023, the total ‘work in progress’ asylum caseload consisted of 215,500 cases. Of these, 138,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision, 5,100 were awaiting the outcome of an appeal, and approximately 41,200 cases were subject to removal action."
So about 2.5% of cases were awaiting results of an appeal. Well over 60% of all cases hadn't even had an initial decision.
Doesn't look like appeals are a significant number of the total cases?
This also contradicts the claim we're taking a disproportionate number of asylum seekers:-
In 2022, there were around 13 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 22 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 19th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brie...
"As of June 2023, the total ‘work in progress’ asylum caseload consisted of 215,500 cases. Of these, 138,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision, 5,100 were awaiting the outcome of an appeal, and approximately 41,200 cases were subject to removal action."
So about 2.5% of cases were awaiting results of an appeal. Well over 60% of all cases hadn't even had an initial decision.
Doesn't look like appeals are a significant number of the total cases?
This also contradicts the claim we're taking a disproportionate number of asylum seekers:-
In 2022, there were around 13 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 22 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 19th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure.
E63eeeeee... said:
rscott said:
Condi said:
BoRED S2upid said:
You’re talking about pennies compared to the bigger picture. £5.4bn a year on housing then in hotels. Absolutely eye watering amounts being spent and will only get bigger as thiusabds more will arrive this summer. Not that Rishi will care but what is labours plan?
In which case they need to be processed faster! There were more asylum applications in circa 2000/2001 when we didn't have this enormous backlog of people. Also, people who have had their claims rejected should be repatriated faster. Again, in the past this wasn't such an issue. The problems are here. Are of the UK's own making.
Anyway, it's never going to happen, so it remains a complete waste of money, and of political capital.
So we'll be paying to house them indefinitely, thanks to this stupid piece of legislation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-...
"The Illegal Migration Act changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country."
rscott said:
E63eeeeee... said:
rscott said:
Condi said:
BoRED S2upid said:
You’re talking about pennies compared to the bigger picture. £5.4bn a year on housing then in hotels. Absolutely eye watering amounts being spent and will only get bigger as thiusabds more will arrive this summer. Not that Rishi will care but what is labours plan?
In which case they need to be processed faster! There were more asylum applications in circa 2000/2001 when we didn't have this enormous backlog of people. Also, people who have had their claims rejected should be repatriated faster. Again, in the past this wasn't such an issue. The problems are here. Are of the UK's own making.
Anyway, it's never going to happen, so it remains a complete waste of money, and of political capital.
So we'll be paying to house them indefinitely, thanks to this stupid piece of legislation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-...
"The Illegal Migration Act changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country."
Highly critical report from the Public Accounts Committee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxww0j0pdv7o
So far £290m given to Rwanda.
Accommodation for "illegal migrants" in the UK costing up to 10x more than forecast. Estimated £5m to convert RAF Weathersfield actually came out at £49m.
Immigration judges have started releasing people detained to be sent to Rwanda as there is no timetable for them doing so.
All work on processing any asylum claims stopped, which means the backlog is simply getting bigger.
MPs being told by officials there are "robust" plans in place but appears to be little evidence of any plan they can share.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxww0j0pdv7o
So far £290m given to Rwanda.
Accommodation for "illegal migrants" in the UK costing up to 10x more than forecast. Estimated £5m to convert RAF Weathersfield actually came out at £49m.
Immigration judges have started releasing people detained to be sent to Rwanda as there is no timetable for them doing so.
All work on processing any asylum claims stopped, which means the backlog is simply getting bigger.
MPs being told by officials there are "robust" plans in place but appears to be little evidence of any plan they can share.
Condi said:
Highly critical report from the Public Accounts Committee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxww0j0pdv7o
So far £290m given to Rwanda.
Accommodation for "illegal migrants" in the UK costing up to 10x more than forecast. Estimated £5m to convert RAF Weathersfield actually came out at £49m.
Immigration judges have started releasing people detained to be sent to Rwanda as there is no timetable for them doing so.
All work on processing any asylum claims stopped, which means the backlog is simply getting bigger.
MPs being told by officials there are "robust" plans in place but appears to be little evidence of any plan they can share.
Not really surprised. Awful waste of money. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxww0j0pdv7o
So far £290m given to Rwanda.
Accommodation for "illegal migrants" in the UK costing up to 10x more than forecast. Estimated £5m to convert RAF Weathersfield actually came out at £49m.
Immigration judges have started releasing people detained to be sent to Rwanda as there is no timetable for them doing so.
All work on processing any asylum claims stopped, which means the backlog is simply getting bigger.
MPs being told by officials there are "robust" plans in place but appears to be little evidence of any plan they can share.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff