UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[BOR]

ChocolateFrog said:

I actually quite fancy a holiday to Rwanda. Ever since Mark Rober did a video on the place.

Problem is the flights are really expensive

I'll chip in for a one-way ticket if you promise to take a few of the other right-wing nut jobs with you.

[E63eeeeee...]

swisstoni said:

The word ‘safe’ in regards to Rwanda had a very specific meaning.
It meant that was nothing in place to secure the future of those sent there. i.e nothing to stop Rwanda deporting them in the future.
In this context it was ‘unsafe’.

Rwanda have now made a legally binding treaty with UK to remove this uncertainty,
It is no longer ‘unsafe’ in this context.

It's extraordinary that they didn't invite you to make that explanation clearer to the high court, don't you think. The poor things must have been so confused by all the evidence they had to consider. If only someone had mentioned there'd be a treaty.

Lol at "legally binding treaty" from someone who has supported this st, presumably including the proposed breaches of treaties the UK is party to. What is the enforcement mechanism? Given Rwandan authorities were killing refugees in 2019, how safe would you feel? What does the UK do if the next batch of refugees they kill includes some from the UK?

[Vanden Saab]

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

The word ‘safe’ in regards to Rwanda had a very specific meaning.
It meant that was nothing in place to secure the future of those sent there. i.e nothing to stop Rwanda deporting them in the future.
In this context it was ‘unsafe’.

Rwanda have now made a legally binding treaty with UK to remove this uncertainty,
It is no longer ‘unsafe’ in this context.

It's extraordinary that they didn't invite you to make that explanation clearer to the high court, don't you think. The poor things must have been so confused by all the evidence they had to consider. If only someone had mentioned there'd be a treaty.

Lol at "legally binding treaty" from someone who has supported this st, presumably including the proposed breaches of treaties the UK is party to. What is the enforcement mechanism? Given Rwandan authorities were killing refugees rioters who injured 7 police officers and were protesting because the UNHCR had reduced their food supply in 2019, how safe would you feel? What does the UK do if the next batch of refugees they kill includes some from the UK?

FTFY.

[E63eeeeee...]

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

The word ‘safe’ in regards to Rwanda had a very specific meaning.
It meant that was nothing in place to secure the future of those sent there. i.e nothing to stop Rwanda deporting them in the future.
In this context it was ‘unsafe’.

Rwanda have now made a legally binding treaty with UK to remove this uncertainty,
It is no longer ‘unsafe’ in this context.

It's extraordinary that they didn't invite you to make that explanation clearer to the high court, don't you think. The poor things must have been so confused by all the evidence they had to consider. If only someone had mentioned there'd be a treaty.

Lol at "legally binding treaty" from someone who has supported this st, presumably including the proposed breaches of treaties the UK is party to. What is the enforcement mechanism? Given Rwandan authorities were killing refugees rioters who injured 7 police officers and were protesting because the UNHCR had reduced their food supply in 2019, how safe would you feel? What does the UK do if the next batch of refugees they kill includes some from the UK?

FTFY.

So now answer the question. Do you not think that supposedly safe countries could maybe handle riots without shooting people?

[Eric Mc]

Ireland is passing emergency legislation tonight which will designate the UK as a "safe country" for refugees - so they can start deportations.

Love it.

[don'tbesilly]

Eric Mc said:

Ireland is passing emergency legislation tonight which will designate the UK as a "safe country" for refugees - so they can start deportations.

Love it.

Sunak:
“We’re not going to accept returns from the EU via Ireland when the EU doesn’t accept returns back to France, where illegal migrants are coming from," he said on Monday.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/04/30/brit...

[turbobloke]

don'tbesilly said:

Eric Mc said:

Ireland is passing emergency legislation tonight which will designate the UK as a "safe country" for refugees - so they can start deportations.

Love it.

Sunak:
“We’re not going to accept returns from the EU via Ireland when the EU doesn’t accept returns back to France, where illegal migrants are coming from," he said on Monday.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/04/30/brit...

Love it.

[CivicDuties]

Eric Mc said:

Ireland is passing emergency legislation tonight which will designate the UK as a "safe country" for refugees - so they can start deportations.

Love it.

Sounds hilarious, but actually the UK isn't a safe place to be sending refugees back to because of the Rwanda policy here.

Not much to admire form the Irish government there.

What we're watching here is a breakdown of international relations regarding the treatment of refugees on a grand scale, and I'm afraid to say the biggest culprit in this sorry tale is the UK, but others aren't covering themselves in glory either.

We're dealing with real people here, playing with their very lives, people who are desperate and dispossessed.

Shame on everyone. All to "take back control of our borders". How's that all going now.

[blueg33]

CivicDuties said:

Sounds hilarious, but actually the UK isn't a safe place to be sending refugees back to because of the Rwanda policy here.

Not much to admire form the Irish government there.

What we're watching here is a breakdown of international relations regarding the treatment of refugees on a grand scale, and I'm afraid to say the biggest culprit in this sorry tale is the UK, but others aren't covering themselves in glory either.

We're dealing with real people here, playing with their very lives, people who are desperate and dispossessed.

Shame on everyone. All to "take back control of our borders". How's that all going now.

Well said.

The people revelling in "sticking it, to refugees" need to take a good hard look at themselves

[lenny007]

blueg33 said:

Well said.

The people revelling in "sticking it, to refugees" need to take a good hard look at themselves

Just curious - what's your definition of refugee in this instance?

[blueg33]

lenny007 said:

blueg33 said:

Well said.

The people revelling in "sticking it, to refugees" need to take a good hard look at themselves

Just curious - what's your definition of refugee in this instance?

Someone seeking asylum for reasons that would typically mean they get granted asylum in the UK. ie people at risk of harm or persecution (refugees was probably the wrong word, most refugees stay close to the border of their home country waiting for whatever st storm is happening to calm down)

[philv]

CivicDuties said:

Eric Mc said:

Ireland is passing emergency legislation tonight which will designate the UK as a "safe country" for refugees - so they can start deportations.

Love it.

Sounds hilarious, but actually the UK isn't a safe place to be sending refugees back to because of the Rwanda policy here.

Not much to admire form the Irish government there.

What we're watching here is a breakdown of international relations regarding the treatment of refugees on a grand scale, and I'm afraid to say the biggest culprit in this sorry tale is the UK, but others aren't covering themselves in glory either.

We're dealing with real people here, playing with their very lives, people who are desperate and dispossessed.

Shame on everyone. All to "take back control of our borders". How's that all going now.

It's a national past time to criticise the uk and the uk government.

We're not the first or last port of call in the chain of countries this mess involves.
Yet somehow were the biggest culprit.

The problem starts and ends with the eu now, with the uk in the middle.

[chrispmartha]

blueg33 said:

CivicDuties said:

Sounds hilarious, but actually the UK isn't a safe place to be sending refugees back to because of the Rwanda policy here.

Not much to admire form the Irish government there.

What we're watching here is a breakdown of international relations regarding the treatment of refugees on a grand scale, and I'm afraid to say the biggest culprit in this sorry tale is the UK, but others aren't covering themselves in glory either.

We're dealing with real people here, playing with their very lives, people who are desperate and dispossessed.

Shame on everyone. All to "take back control of our borders". How's that all going now.

Well said.

The people revelling in "sticking it, to refugees" need to take a good hard look at themselves

Think some should remember these people are human beings and in some cases very venerable ones at that.

The way people are being used as political pawns and people seeing it as a game and amusing is pretty awful to be honest.

[blueg33]

philv said:

It's a national past time to criticise the uk and the uk government.

We're not the first or last port of call in the chain of countries this mess involves.
Yet somehow were the biggest culprit.

The problem starts and ends with the eu now, with the uk in the middle.

Except that most countries in the EU take many more people than we do.

[Vanden Saab]

E63eeeeee... said:

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

The word ‘safe’ in regards to Rwanda had a very specific meaning.
It meant that was nothing in place to secure the future of those sent there. i.e nothing to stop Rwanda deporting them in the future.
In this context it was ‘unsafe’.

Rwanda have now made a legally binding treaty with UK to remove this uncertainty,
It is no longer ‘unsafe’ in this context.

It's extraordinary that they didn't invite you to make that explanation clearer to the high court, don't you think. The poor things must have been so confused by all the evidence they had to consider. If only someone had mentioned there'd be a treaty.

Lol at "legally binding treaty" from someone who has supported this st, presumably including the proposed breaches of treaties the UK is party to. What is the enforcement mechanism? Given Rwandan authorities were killing refugees rioters who injured 7 police officers and were protesting because the UNHCR had reduced their food supply in 2019, how safe would you feel? What does the UK do if the next batch of refugees they kill includes some from the UK?

FTFY.

So now answer the question. Do you not think that supposedly safe countries could maybe handle riots without shooting people?

Another one insulting the French. They kill protestors too.

[Rocket.]

CivicDuties said:

Sounds hilarious, but actually the UK isn't a safe place to be sending refugees back to because of the Rwanda policy here.

Not much to admire form the Irish government there.

What we're watching here is a breakdown of international relations regarding the treatment of refugees on a grand scale, and I'm afraid to say the biggest culprit in this sorry tale is the UK, but others aren't covering themselves in glory either.

We're dealing with real people here, playing with their very lives, people who are desperate and dispossessed.

Shame on everyone. All to "take back control of our borders". How's that all going now.

Nope they are mostly economic migrants here illegally trafficked by criminals for profit.

They need to be dissuaded from making the dangerous and expensive journey in the first place, even if we wanted to we can't help them all so stop blaming the people of the UK who never asked them to come and maybe start calling out the people making money from their plight?

[don'tbesilly]

blueg33 said:

CivicDuties said:

Sounds hilarious, but actually the UK isn't a safe place to be sending refugees back to because of the Rwanda policy here.

Not much to admire form the Irish government there.

What we're watching here is a breakdown of international relations regarding the treatment of refugees on a grand scale, and I'm afraid to say the biggest culprit in this sorry tale is the UK, but others aren't covering themselves in glory either.

We're dealing with real people here, playing with their very lives, people who are desperate and dispossessed.

Shame on everyone. All to "take back control of our borders". How's that all going now.

Well said.

The people revelling in "sticking it, to refugees" need to take a good hard look at themselves

I was quite surprised by Eric’s take on the situation, perhaps he’d like to reflect on the “love it” comment, although I’d guess he’s feeling a tad deflated right now, grrr Sunak!

[chrispmartha]

Rocket. said:

Nope they are mostly economic migrants

Got the stats to back that up?

[CivicDuties]

philv said:

CivicDuties said:

Eric Mc said:

Ireland is passing emergency legislation tonight which will designate the UK as a "safe country" for refugees - so they can start deportations.

Love it.

Sounds hilarious, but actually the UK isn't a safe place to be sending refugees back to because of the Rwanda policy here.

Not much to admire form the Irish government there.

What we're watching here is a breakdown of international relations regarding the treatment of refugees on a grand scale, and I'm afraid to say the biggest culprit in this sorry tale is the UK, but others aren't covering themselves in glory either.

We're dealing with real people here, playing with their very lives, people who are desperate and dispossessed.

Shame on everyone. All to "take back control of our borders". How's that all going now.

It's a national past time to criticise the uk and the uk government.

We're not the first or last port of call in the chain of countries this mess involves.
Yet somehow were the biggest culprit.

The problem starts and ends with the eu now, with the uk in the middle.

Ah, all the EU's fault.

Reality of the situation is that our leaving it without any plan of how to do it and then just lashing out when anything goes wrong has caused the current problems.

[E63eeeeee...]

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni said:

The word ‘safe’ in regards to Rwanda had a very specific meaning.
It meant that was nothing in place to secure the future of those sent there. i.e nothing to stop Rwanda deporting them in the future.
In this context it was ‘unsafe’.

Rwanda have now made a legally binding treaty with UK to remove this uncertainty,
It is no longer ‘unsafe’ in this context.

It's extraordinary that they didn't invite you to make that explanation clearer to the high court, don't you think. The poor things must have been so confused by all the evidence they had to consider. If only someone had mentioned there'd be a treaty.

Lol at "legally binding treaty" from someone who has supported this st, presumably including the proposed breaches of treaties the UK is party to. What is the enforcement mechanism? Given Rwandan authorities were killing refugees rioters who injured 7 police officers and were protesting because the UNHCR had reduced their food supply in 2019, how safe would you feel? What does the UK do if the next batch of refugees they kill includes some from the UK?

FTFY.

So now answer the question. Do you not think that supposedly safe countries could maybe handle riots without shooting people?

Another one insulting the French. They kill protestors too.

The French use live ammunition on protestors? Good thing we're not sending any refugees there, I'd say.

I notice you still haven't answered the question.