UK to Rwanda asylum plan ruled unlawful

[noseall]

Send em all to Albania I say

You must be a plumber.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

The government's probably bitterly disapponted that its illegality has been exposed so quickly. They were hoping they could muck about for longer, pretending they gave a toss about protecting the population from uncontrolled immigration while waving them all in.

Now they'll have to either come up with a proper plan to defend the country or just admit what is becoming clear - that they want uncontrolled immigration to keep pay and conditions low and that they don't actually care about the welfare of the majority of the British people.

 

[motorbiking]

It takes time to get these things through. Ultimately parliament makes the law and judge interpret/rule on it.

 

[Mister Banks]

Rwanda insisting it is a safe country (no great surprise there.)
Apparently Braverman to speak to the house at 5pm today re the findings.

The EU and UNHCR also say Rwanda is a safe country, apparently 2 judge's in the UK disagree!

 

[motorbiking]

Perhaps we need a Judges field trip

 

[JonathanM]

The EU and UNHCR also say Rwanda is a safe country, apparently 2 judge's in the UK disagree!

Rwanda ‘not a safe third country’ for asylum seekers, UN tells High Court

UN Refugee Agency says policy amounts to the ‘unlawful penalisation’ of refugees who use small boats

www.independent.co.uk

Rwanda is “not a safe third country” for the transfer of asylum seekers from the UK and the agreement must not be implemented, representatives of the United Nations have said.

Don't know about the EU. Do you have a reference for that?

 

[fillyboy]

Rwanda ‘not a safe third country’ for asylum seekers, UN tells High Court

UN Refugee Agency says policy amounts to the ‘unlawful penalisation’ of refugees who use small boats

www.independent.co.uk

Don't know about the EU. Do you have a reference for that?

Both the EU and the UN were instrumental in setting up a migrant camp in Rwanda.

Asylum seekers resettled in Rwanda under EU scheme abandoned to poverty

Refugees tell the Telegraph there is not enough food, housing, medical services and other basic necessities

www.telegraph.co.uk

Rwanda and the UN set up Gashora four years ago with the support of the EU to house refugees who had got stuck in Libya's civil war trying to make it across the Mediterranean.

 

[Notch7]

Rwanda and the UN set up Gashora four years ago with the support of the EU to house refugees who had got stuck in Libya's civil war trying to make it across the Mediterranean

Zero equivalence

those people were in Libya

 

[fillyboy]

Zero equivalence

those people were in Libya

Doesn't matter where they were, either Rwanda is safe, or it isn't.

 

[JonathanM]

Did you read the article. The conditions for asylum seekers in Rwanda sound terrible. Maybe that explains this:

Rwanda and the UN set up Gashora four years ago with the support of the EU to house refugees who had got stuck in Libya's civil war trying to make it across the Mediterranean.

They are very different schemes. The Libya scheme is purely voluntary. People use it because in Libya asylum seekers are suffering "torture, sexual violence, and indefinite detention" according to the UN. It doesn't sound massively better in Rwanda.

 

[JonathanM]

Doesn't matter where they were, either Rwanda is safe, or it isn't.

The UNHCR have said it isn't safe. In court. It's just that Libya is even worse!

 

[fillyboy]

Did you read the article. The conditions for asylum seekers in Rwanda sound terrible. Maybe that explains this:

View attachment 307049



They are very different schemes. The Libya scheme is purely voluntary. People use it because in Libya asylum seekers are suffering "torture, sexual violence, and indefinite detention" according to the UN. It doesn't sound massively better in Rwanda.

The UNHCR have said it isn't safe. In court. It's just that Libya is even worse!

Yes but none of that negates the fact the UN and EU set up a camp and sent them there, to Rwanda,

 

[JonathanM]

Yes but none of that negates the fact the UN and EU set up a camp and sent them there, to Rwanda,

Strictly speaking, they didn't send them. They were given an option to go there voluntarily. I think that's an important difference between the Libya scheme and our scheme.

The fact that the UN and EU set up this camp, doesn't prove that our proposed scheme is safe. That's just further conflation, from the masters in the Tory party. The Libya scheme was probably the least bad option they could come up with. Desperate times and all that. I think we can do better than that. It will be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules.

 

[motorbiking]

Its not about whether our scheme is safe, its about if Rwanda is safe.

 

[JonathanM]

And the UNHCR has said, in the High Court, that Rwanda isn't safe. Even though they have set up the Libya scheme camp there. That is the simple version of what I was saying.