Rwanda scheme: First Rwanda flight delayed until at least 24 July
Scroll to see replies
Problem for Ireland: the UK may not currently qualify as a safe third country. The UK threatens to breach international law by sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
What a state of affairs: the nation which pioneered the rule of law and human rights, a nation that has been a safe refuge for centuries, now an unsafe country.
What a state of affairs: the nation which pioneered the rule of law and human rights, a nation that has been a safe refuge for centuries, now an unsafe country.
Original post by Stiffy Byng
Problem for Ireland: the UK may not currently qualify as a safe third country. The UK threatens to breach international law by sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
What a state of affairs: the nation which pioneered the rule of law and human rights, a nation that has been a safe refuge for centuries, now an unsafe country.
What a state of affairs: the nation which pioneered the rule of law and human rights, a nation that has been a safe refuge for centuries, now an unsafe country.
Ironic, also so much money wasted on this scheme.
Original post by Guru Jason
Or we could turn then back, dont even let them reach our shores. Let them drift in the ocean for long enough and then the message will get out that getting into the UK illeagally wont work.
What a HORRIFIC outlook you have on life. It never ceases to amaze me how dense-headed, ignorant and arrogant people exist in this world. Assuming you are a student - forget any course you are studying, cancel it now - you need to educate yourself on human morality, and a little bit of international law wouldn't go amiss. Please do not procreate until you at least educate yourself on human morality. I do not know you (nor want to) but what a thick-headed person you must be, no shadow of a doubt one of those people who believes every word the media or politicians spew out as gospel. Whoever raised you should be deeply ashamed of themselves. They and you are the people who should be left in the ocean, with those types of core values. You are a part of everything wrong in society. You ruin society and are a waste of society. Not one iota of the scope of the world. Just another entitled moronic waste of a life. People who come to the UK to escape atrocities, human rights violations, persecution, oppression, or even to escape poverty or for financial reasons are not criminals. One cannot help where one is born. Why be branded as a criminal for wanting to escape injustices and make a better life for themselves and, or their families by entitled morons like yourself. If you want to understand criminality I suggest you go have a deep dive into your government and royal family.
Original post by Saraa B
What a HORRIFIC outlook you have on life. It never ceases to amaze me how dense-headed, ignorant and arrogant people exist in this world. Assuming you are a student - forget any course you are studying, cancel it now - you need to educate yourself on human morality, and a little bit of international law wouldn't go amiss. Please do not procreate until you at least educate yourself on human morality. I do not know you (nor want to) but what a thick-headed person you must be, no shadow of a doubt one of those people who believes every word the media or politicians spew out as gospel. Whoever raised you should be deeply ashamed of themselves. They and you are the people who should be left in the ocean, with those types of core values. You are a part of everything wrong in society. You ruin society and are a waste of society. Not one iota of the scope of the world. Just another entitled moronic waste of a life. People who come to the UK to escape atrocities, human rights violations, persecution, oppression, or even to escape poverty or for financial reasons are not criminals. One cannot help where one is born. Why be branded as a criminal for wanting to escape injustices and make a better life for themselves and, or their families by entitled morons like yourself. If you want to understand criminality I suggest you go have a deep dive into your government and royal family.
I was a student for 4 years. But now I'm older I understand the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows. I don't understand how I'm considered the bad one for wanting to stop people coming here illegally. I don't have a problem with people claiming asylum, I just want then to be accepted before they travel here. Is that such a bad thing to ask.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Guru Jason
I was a student for 4 years. But now I'm older I understand the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows. I don't understand how I'm considered the bad one for wanting to stop people coming here illegally. I don't have a problem with people claiming asylum, I just want then to be accepted before they travel here. Is that such a bad thing to ask.
You suggested that people should be left to drift at sea, apparently not caring that such people might die at sea, and apparently not caring that the UK would break international law if it were to leave people drifting at sea.
I reiterate that a person who arrives in the UK and claims asylum is not acting illegally by doing so. International law requires that asylum be claimed on arrival, not before. There is no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country reached, but failure to do so may be taken into account when a claim for asylum is determined.
The asylum system exists precisely because the world is not all sunshine and rainbows.
At present, the majority of asylum claims which are processed are successful. The slow processing of claims is the fault of the Government.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Stiffy Byng
You suggested that people should be left to drift at sea, apparently not caring that such people might die at sea, and apparently not caring that the UK would break international law if it were to leave people drifting at sea.
I reiterate that a person who arrives in the UK and claims asylum is not acting illegally by doing so. International law requires that asylum be claimed on arrival, not before. There is no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country reached, but failure to do so may be taken into account when a claim for asylum is determined.
The asylum system exists precisely because the world is not all sunshine and rainbows.
At present, the majority of asylum claims which are processed are successful. The slow processing of claims is the fault of the Government.
I reiterate that a person who arrives in the UK and claims asylum is not acting illegally by doing so. International law requires that asylum be claimed on arrival, not before. There is no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country reached, but failure to do so may be taken into account when a claim for asylum is determined.
The asylum system exists precisely because the world is not all sunshine and rainbows.
At present, the majority of asylum claims which are processed are successful. The slow processing of claims is the fault of the Government.
I'm saying they are breaking the law by attempting to cross and which is why I have no problem with sending them over to Rwanda.
Doesn't matter that's its a long process to claim for asylum. You seem to be fine with illegals breaking the law but not with the government trying to enforce our right to protect our borders.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Guru Jason
I was a student for 4 years. But now I'm older I understand the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows. I don't understand how I'm considered the bad one for wanting to stop people coming here illegally. I don't have a problem with people claiming asylum, I just want then to be accepted before they travel here. Is that such a bad thing to ask.
I second what Stiffy Byng said.
Again, to apply for asylum in the UK, you must be physically in the UK. People cannot just hop on a commercial plane, private jet or ferry like it is a vacation with a visa. People who make the Channel crossing are protected by international law, if they claim asylum once they arrive, it renders the crossing as not illegal. 4 years of study and you still cannot get your head around that.
Serious human rights abuses continue to occur in Rwanda, including repression of free speech, arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, torture by Rwandan authorities, and abuse sometimes resulting in death for being in the 🌈 community. It makes no sense to send people there, breach of international law and financial implications on top of that. There are cases of people claiming asylum in the UK from Rwanda, what are they going to do send them back to Rwanda to be 'processed'. The trauma that children, families, men and women escape from is what some face in Rwanda.
Yes, it is so bad what you stated, as you stated you'd rather let people drown at sea or have the UK breach international and UK law by sending them to Rwanda.
This whole Rwanda idea is nothing but a political stunt to try to gain popularity from dimwitted people like yourself, it has never been a solution to the government's failed asylum system.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Guru Jason
I'm saying they are breaking the law by attempting to cross and which is why I have no problem with sending them over to Rwanda.
Doesn't matter that's its a long process to claim for asylum. You seem to be fine with illegals breaking the law but not with the government trying to enforce our right to protect our borders.
Doesn't matter that's its a long process to claim for asylum. You seem to be fine with illegals breaking the law but not with the government trying to enforce our right to protect our borders.
You assertion is legally incorrect. It is not illegal to seek asylum, regardless of the method of arrival. I assume that you are not a lawyer. Hence your mistaken assertion.
The Government should properly resource the asylum system, and should engage with the EU on collective action to address issues raised by flows of asylum seekers.
Sending a few people to a State with a bad record on human rights, and abandoning principles embedded in the UK's Constitution, is not the answer.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Stiffy Byng
You assertion is legally incorrect. It is not illegal to seek asylum, regardless of the method of arrival. I assume that you are not a lawyer. Hence your mistaken assertion.
The Government should properly resource the asylum system, and should engage with the EU on collective action to address issues raised by flows of asylum seekers.
Sending a few people to a State with a bad record on human rights, and abandoning principles embedded in the UK's Constitution, is not the answer.
The Government should properly resource the asylum system, and should engage with the EU on collective action to address issues raised by flows of asylum seekers.
Sending a few people to a State with a bad record on human rights, and abandoning principles embedded in the UK's Constitution, is not the answer.
Article 31 claims they must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Unless the are running from France or Ireland, they are entering illegally and should be deported until any further claim is assessed.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Guru Jason
Article 31 claims they must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Unless the are running from France or Ireland, they are entering illegally and should be deported until any further claim is assessed.
You are again mistaken.. There is no such obligation.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
Original post by Stiffy Byng
You are again mistaken.. There is no such obligation.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
It doesn't give the full story though. They should be making their application from the safe country, not asking smugglers to dinghy them across the channel. I fully support the deportation of these criminals to Rwanda until their claim is accepted.
And on a general note the majority of these people coming across the channel are not actual refugees but economic migrants.
I can only assume its our great benefits schemes they are interested in.
I can only assume its our great benefits schemes they are interested in.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Guru Jason
And on a general note the majority of these people coming across the channel are not actual refugees but economic migrants.
I can only assume its our great benefits schemes they are interested in.
I can only assume its our great benefits schemes they are interested in.
[Citation needed]
I forgot to mention that in order for the bill to be an effective deterrent, Rwanda must be a dreadful place that any illegitimate migrants would be fearful of being shipped off to.
But it must also simultaneously be a pleasant place to process legitimate migrants without violating their human rights.
It is schrodinger’s processing centre.
But it must also simultaneously be a pleasant place to process legitimate migrants without violating their human rights.
It is schrodinger’s processing centre.
Original post by Admit-One
I forgot to mention that in order for the bill to be an effective deterrent, Rwanda must be a dreadful place that any illegitimate migrants would be fearful of being shipped off to.
But it must also simultaneously be a pleasant place to process legitimate migrants without violating their human rights.
It is schrodinger’s processing centre.
But it must also simultaneously be a pleasant place to process legitimate migrants without violating their human rights.
It is schrodinger’s processing centre.
Doesn't have to be a deterrent, just a place to keep people until their application is decided. They they can either be flown here or deported back to whatever country the come from.
Original post by Stiffy Byng
You suggested that people should be left to drift at sea, apparently not caring that such people might die at sea, and apparently not caring that the UK would break international law if it were to leave people drifting at sea.
I reiterate that a person who arrives in the UK and claims asylum is not acting illegally by doing so. International law requires that asylum be claimed on arrival, not before. There is no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country reached, but failure to do so may be taken into account when a claim for asylum is determined.
The asylum system exists precisely because the world is not all sunshine and rainbows.
At present, the majority of asylum claims which are processed are successful. The slow processing of claims is the fault of the Government.
I reiterate that a person who arrives in the UK and claims asylum is not acting illegally by doing so. International law requires that asylum be claimed on arrival, not before. There is no obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country reached, but failure to do so may be taken into account when a claim for asylum is determined.
The asylum system exists precisely because the world is not all sunshine and rainbows.
At present, the majority of asylum claims which are processed are successful. The slow processing of claims is the fault of the Government.
Agreed, PRSOM in this context.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Guru Jason
And on a general note the majority of these people coming across the channel are not actual refugees but economic migrants.
I can only assume its our great benefits schemes they are interested in.
I can only assume its our great benefits schemes they are interested in.
Why do you repeat such myths? Most of the asylum claims succeed.
Original post by Guru Jason
It doesn't give the full story though. They should be making their application from the safe country, not asking smugglers to dinghy them across the channel. I fully support the deportation of these criminals to Rwanda until their claim is accepted.
It gives the full story. You just don't like your false assertions being rebutted by the facts and the law.
What crime have these people been convicted of by a court?
You cannot make the law as you wish it to be by ignoring the law as it is. Saying a false thing repeatedly does not make the thing true.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by Admit-One
I forgot to mention that in order for the bill to be an effective deterrent, Rwanda must be a dreadful place that any illegitimate migrants would be fearful of being shipped off to.
But it must also simultaneously be a pleasant place to process legitimate migrants without violating their human rights.
It is schrodinger’s processing centre.
But it must also simultaneously be a pleasant place to process legitimate migrants without violating their human rights.
It is schrodinger’s processing centre.
*and fear more than travelling across the English channel in a tiny boat that could easily break and leave you dead at sea, literally.
The whole thing is appalling, the idea that it will act as a deterrent is laughable. We've wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on a scheme which is utterly illogical.
The Irish High Court has ruled that the UK is not a safe country for asylum seekers, and that therefore the Irish government was wrong to classify the UK as safe. Sunak has brought disgrace on the UK, now classed by the independent court of a democratic nation as a breaker of international law.
And for what? To move a few people to a country with a dreadful human rights record, at huge expense. The attempt to create a wedge issue, Brexit style, and win the election by harvesting the votes of people who are ill-informed and easily alarmed is failing. There is no evidence that the Rwanda plan is widely supported by voters. For much less money, the Government could have allocated sufficient resources to the asylum system, and could have negotiated sensibly with the EU. The Government chose instead cynically to manufacture a crisis.
The same Government talks of criminalising homelessness, of removing benefits from the sick, and of other measures targeted at the poor and vulnerable. It appears that Sunak, a man just as morally bankrupt as Boris Johnson, may be determined to cling onto power until next January, before heading off to California, never to face any consequence for his callous incompetence and corruption. The UK has not been so governed so badly or so corruptly since the eighteenth century. Quite an achievement!
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/irelands-declaration-of-uk-as-safe-third-country-is-unlawful-high-court-rules-1605217.html?utm_campaign=article&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=web
And for what? To move a few people to a country with a dreadful human rights record, at huge expense. The attempt to create a wedge issue, Brexit style, and win the election by harvesting the votes of people who are ill-informed and easily alarmed is failing. There is no evidence that the Rwanda plan is widely supported by voters. For much less money, the Government could have allocated sufficient resources to the asylum system, and could have negotiated sensibly with the EU. The Government chose instead cynically to manufacture a crisis.
The same Government talks of criminalising homelessness, of removing benefits from the sick, and of other measures targeted at the poor and vulnerable. It appears that Sunak, a man just as morally bankrupt as Boris Johnson, may be determined to cling onto power until next January, before heading off to California, never to face any consequence for his callous incompetence and corruption. The UK has not been so governed so badly or so corruptly since the eighteenth century. Quite an achievement!
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/irelands-declaration-of-uk-as-safe-third-country-is-unlawful-high-court-rules-1605217.html?utm_campaign=article&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=web
(edited 5 months ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Any predictions for upcoming new laws in the UK?
- Britain Under Siege: How Long Will We Tolerate Lawless Immigration?
- UK politics demystified – ask your general election questions here!
- How would you rank LSE MSc in Development, IPE, and Human Rights, and Poli Theory??
- A level politics help
- No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targets
- Rishi Sunak threatens to remove UK from ECHR if Rwanda plan blocked
- Name a country or city with the last letter of the previous one
- Top Tory MP defects to Labour in fury at NHS crisis
- Home Office Asylum Decion Maker
- I am considering A-Level Politics
- What are your travel hacks for short trips overseas?
- ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024
- Applying to Sweden/Lund University for Physics?
- Travel grant
- London Accomondation Needed
- ATAS delay 2023
- parliamentary sovereignty
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.
