UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[crankedup5]

This feels like the time has arrived when politicians across Europe need to be finding resolutions to the migrants issue. As tolerance and understanding decays and an ever increasing number of migrants seek asylum unsustainable political issues are becoming clearer.

[CivicDuties]

crankedup5 said:

This feels like the time has arrived when politicians across Europe need to be finding resolutions to the migrants issue. As tolerance and understanding decays and an ever increasing number of migrants seek asylum unsustainable political issues are becoming clearer.

We had a far better situation as regards the UK border some years ago. It was called being in the EU.



What we're seeing now with lunacy like the Rwanda policy is the UK trying to make its mental decision to leave fight against the objective reality of the consequences of that act.

[blueg33]

crankedup5 said:

This feels like the time has arrived when politicians across Europe need to be finding resolutions to the migrants issue. As tolerance and understanding decays and an ever increasing number of migrants seek asylum unsustainable political issues are becoming clearer.

If only we were part of a club that had an agreement to send people back to other safe countries and spread the burden etc. Something signed in Dublin maybe?..............

[E63eeeeee...]

crankedup5 said:

This feels like the time has arrived when politicians across Europe need to be finding resolutions to the migrants issue. As tolerance and understanding decays and an ever increasing number of migrants seek asylum unsustainable political issues are becoming clearer.

I guess that's why the EU is introducing a Europe-wide asylum system, and the UK is, checks notes, er, entering myths into statute, implementing policies neither the PM or Home Sec believe in, and starting pointless diplomatic fights with our neighbours. Go UK!

I'm sure it will all be worth it if we can save a handful of Tory councillors on Thursday, or keep Sunak in a job for an extra month or two.

[swisstoni]

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 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?

Read this laughing boy …

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/conten...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656...5_Dec_23-_UK_VERSION.pdf

[E63eeeeee...]

swisstoni 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 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?

Read this laughing boy …

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/conten...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656...5_Dec_23-_UK_VERSION.pdf

You got me with them, a link to the legislation, not the treaty, and another link that doesn't work. I'm convinced. Let's go Rwanda!

But you didn't answer the question. How would you feel if a recognised refugee, sent by the UK to Rwanda, is killed by the Rwandan authorities?

[crankedup5]

E63eeeeee... said:

crankedup5 said:

This feels like the time has arrived when politicians across Europe need to be finding resolutions to the migrants issue. As tolerance and understanding decays and an ever increasing number of migrants seek asylum unsustainable political issues are becoming clearer.

I guess that's why the EU is introducing a Europe-wide asylum system, and the UK is, checks notes, er, entering myths into statute, implementing policies neither the PM or Home Sec believe in, and starting pointless diplomatic fights with our neighbours. Go UK!

I'm sure it will all be worth it if we can save a handful of Tory councillors on Thursday, or keep Sunak in a job for an extra month or two.

Be interesting how the EU migrant adoption policy works out, if it’s fully adopted. Already two member Countries have refused inclusion and a number of other Countries are expressing issues of doubt. It’s only taken twenty years for the EU to waken from its slumbers to recognise that member Country populations are getting less enthusiastic regarding rising migrant numbers.

[swisstoni]

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni 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 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?

Read this laughing boy …

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/conten...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656...5_Dec_23-_UK_VERSION.pdf

You got me with them, a link to the legislation, not the treaty, and another link that doesn't work. I'm convinced. Let's go Rwanda!

But you didn't answer the question. How would you feel if a recognised refugee, sent by the UK to Rwanda, is killed by the Rwandan authorities?

It’s not hard to find ‘uk rwanda treaty’ in google if you really bothered. But you clearly aren’t.

[Rocket.]

chrispmartha said:

Rocket. said:

Nope they are mostly economic migrants

Got the stats to back that up?

No but I think it's fairly obvious, but lets just suppose then they are not, they have already made it to a safe country in Europe so why then come to the UK and take even more risk?

[blueg33]

swisstoni said:

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni 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 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?

Read this laughing boy …

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/conten...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656...5_Dec_23-_UK_VERSION.pdf

You got me with them, a link to the legislation, not the treaty, and another link that doesn't work. I'm convinced. Let's go Rwanda!

But you didn't answer the question. How would you feel if a recognised refugee, sent by the UK to Rwanda, is killed by the Rwandan authorities?

It’s not hard to find ‘uk rwanda treaty’ in google if you really bothered. But you clearly aren’t.

You still didnt answer the question posed - are you ex post office?

[Mortarboard]

Murph7355 said:

Mortarboard said:

Plenty of warm weather there. Get 'em shipped out.
Don't mention parallels with Australia. Those were sent by ship, completely different.

M.

When are you standing for election?

I'll get in touch with Reform and those NatC people.

Just need those pensioners votes, get in power, and we can ship those freeloaders off too...

M.

[E63eeeeee...]

swisstoni said:

E63eeeeee... said:

swisstoni 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 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?

Read this laughing boy …

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/conten...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/656...5_Dec_23-_UK_VERSION.pdf

You got me with them, a link to the legislation, not the treaty, and another link that doesn't work. I'm convinced. Let's go Rwanda!

But you didn't answer the question. How would you feel if a recognised refugee, sent by the UK to Rwanda, is killed by the Rwandan authorities?

It’s not hard to find ‘uk rwanda treaty’ in google if you really bothered. But you clearly aren’t.

I'm not, you claimed it was legally binding. That's kind of a meaningless claim in an international treaty, unless there's some kind of enforcement mechanism, usually governed by some kind of supranational body. I asked you what that was. You sent me a link to some UK legislation, suggesting you don't actually know what you mean by legally binding, like how could UK legislation bind the Rwandans? It doesn't even bind a future UK government, as we'll see in a few months.

And you still haven't answered the question.

[Murph7355]

CivicDuties said:

We had a far better situation as regards the UK border some years ago. It was called being in the EU.



What we're seeing now with lunacy like the Rwanda policy is the UK trying to make its mental decision to leave fight against the objective reality of the consequences of that act.

Because the EU is especially great on this issue to the point it's causing them no issues at all internally, despite such wonders as the Dublin Agreement.

If the latest accord they have pushed out does anything other than ps off member state electorates even further, I will be shocked.

[Murph7355]

Just to add, if the Dublin Agreement is working swimmingly and the EU is the answer... Why:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

And

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

Mayne the deal that should be done is bulk discount with Rwanda

[E63eeeeee...]

Rocket. said:

chrispmartha said:

Rocket. said:

Nope they are mostly economic migrants

Got the stats to back that up?

No but I think it's fairly obvious, but lets just suppose then they are not, they have already made it to a safe country in Europe so why then come to the UK and take even more risk?

Why do you think it's pretty obvious? Did someone you trust tell you it as if it was a fact? Or did you somehow work it out for yourself based on all your experience of the UK's asylum system? Perhaps you interviewed a selection of asylum seekers? If we assume you didn't, you could have just looked at the publicly available stats that show a significant majority of asylum applications are granted asylum, so even the home office (who do interview them) don't think they are mostly economic migrants.

Still baffles me how many people who know virtually nothing about this subject spout off confident nonsense about it online. Why do you do it? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to know. Do you do this on other subjects too?

[Rocket.]

E63eeeeee... said:

Why do you think it's pretty obvious? Did someone you trust tell you it as if it was a fact? Or did you somehow work it out for yourself based on all your experience of the UK's asylum system? Perhaps you interviewed a selection of asylum seekers? If we assume you didn't, you could have just looked at the publicly available stats that show a significant majority of asylum applications are granted asylum, so even the home office (who do interview them) don't think they are mostly economic migrants.

Still baffles me how many people who know virtually nothing about this subject spout off confident nonsense about it online. Why do you do it? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to know. Do you do this on other subjects too?

OK so let's say I interviewed some asylum seekers do you think any in their right mind would say their motivation is economic? You can't be that naive surely

It's people like you that grant them the right to remain on the back of some cock and ball sob story. Anyway crack on with your self righteous virtue signalling gibberish!

[E63eeeeee...]

Murph7355 said:

Just to add, if the Dublin Agreement is working swimmingly and the EU is the answer... Why:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

And

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

Mayne the deal that should be done is bulk discount with Rwanda

Dublin isn't working swimmingly, that's why it's being replaced. It worked well for the UK, you could almost imagine we were a big part of designing it, but it was always tougher on the countries where migrants arrived first.

Did you mean to post the same link twice? Nobody is claiming the EU are angels on migration, but one party suggesting something that could be implemented in some way maybe is somewhat different from an actual government threatening to break international law and legislating that black is white to get an absurdly expensive scheme off the ground, despite there being no evidence it will work even on its own terms.

Given it's generally less hassle and more effective just to get your asylum system working properly than faff around offshoring bits of it, this reads more like pandering, but the EU isn't immune to that by any means, nor does the UK have a monopoly on st ideas.

[E63eeeeee...]

Rocket. said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Why do you think it's pretty obvious? Did someone you trust tell you it as if it was a fact? Or did you somehow work it out for yourself based on all your experience of the UK's asylum system? Perhaps you interviewed a selection of asylum seekers? If we assume you didn't, you could have just looked at the publicly available stats that show a significant majority of asylum applications are granted asylum, so even the home office (who do interview them) don't think they are mostly economic migrants.

Still baffles me how many people who know virtually nothing about this subject spout off confident nonsense about it online. Why do you do it? This is not a rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to know. Do you do this on other subjects too?

OK so let's say I interviewed some asylum seekers do you think any in their right mind would say their motivation is economic? You can't be that naive surely

It's people like you that grant them the right to remain on the back of some cock and ball sob story. Anyway crack on with your self righteous virtue signalling gibberish!

You said "mostly", not "any". And yes, it's people just like me, and like you, who interview them and make decisions. Just normal people. They've heard all the cock and bull stories too, they do this stuff all day, every day. They know a lot about the countries people come from, they aren't exactly easy to con and it's not as if the system is set up to be generous. To answer your question, yes, some of them will turn out not to be genuine. That's why a percentage are refused. Some of them are trafficked and don't have much choice, some of them are just trying their luck.

Any chance you want to answer my question now?

[Vanden Saab]

E63eeeeee... said:

Murph7355 said:

Just to add, if the Dublin Agreement is working swimmingly and the EU is the answer... Why:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

And

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

Mayne the deal that should be done is bulk discount with Rwanda

Dublin isn't working swimmingly, that's why it's being replaced. It worked well for the UK, you could almost imagine we were a big part of designing it, but it was always tougher on the countries where migrants arrived first.

Did you mean to post the same link twice? Nobody is claiming the EU are angels on migration, but one party suggesting something that could be implemented in some way maybe is somewhat different from an actual government threatening to break international law and legislating that black is white to get an absurdly expensive scheme off the ground, despite there being no evidence it will work even on its own terms.

Given it's generally less hassle and more effective just to get your asylum system working properly than faff around offshoring bits of it, this reads more like pandering, but the EU isn't immune to that by any means, nor does the UK have a monopoly on st ideas.

No wonder you think the EU is great if you think sending back less than 5% of failed asylum seekers is working well.

[E63eeeeee...]

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Murph7355 said:

Just to add, if the Dublin Agreement is working swimmingly and the EU is the answer... Why:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

And

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

Mayne the deal that should be done is bulk discount with Rwanda

Dublin isn't working swimmingly, that's why it's being replaced. It worked well for the UK, you could almost imagine we were a big part of designing it, but it was always tougher on the countries where migrants arrived first.

Did you mean to post the same link twice? Nobody is claiming the EU are angels on migration, but one party suggesting something that could be implemented in some way maybe is somewhat different from an actual government threatening to break international law and legislating that black is white to get an absurdly expensive scheme off the ground, despite there being no evidence it will work even on its own terms.

Given it's generally less hassle and more effective just to get your asylum system working properly than faff around offshoring bits of it, this reads more like pandering, but the EU isn't immune to that by any means, nor does the UK have a monopoly on st ideas.

No wonder you think the EU is great if you think sending back less than 5% of failed asylum seekers is working well.

Sorry, you'll have to clarify what you're referring to, I've no idea. Also not sure where you get the idea I think the EU is great from, despite what's in the post you just quoted, maybe the same place you get your knowledge about immigration.