Forums Forums National News Asylum and Rwanda

Newspapers are making a big issue out of using Rwanda as holding centre for Asylum seekers and I genuinely don't see why.

Asylum is not about choosing to live in another country (migration), it is about leaving your country because you are unsafe through some form of discrimination. Unfortunately we have a lot of economic migrants attempting to claim asylum and we need a process to discourage that. Routine migration/immigration is a completely separate issue from asylum.

Asylum Seeker:-

What is wrong with using Rwanda? It is providing a temporary safe place for asylum seekers while discouraging economic migrants attempting to claim asylum. Australia has been using a similar system for many years and it works well for them.

Certainly a vote winner for the Tories, But I believe we must do something.

Yep, a vote winner in so much that they can use common sense 0.01% of the time, the other 99.99% of the time its more like the Cuckoos Nest, I mean, I thought the word "gathering" had weathered the test of time but apparently not in clown-speak.

What's wrong with it?

Well what happens if you are not granted asylum? Are you flown back to the UK? Or left in Rwanda? I suspect the latter.

The UN agreement to,which the UK is a signatory is clear that it is the asylums seekers right to choose which country to request asylum from. NOT the country they are in to decide for them. Shipping them to another country seems to fly in the face of thie

Thirdly it is the same sort of thinking employed by Americans who shipped prisoners abroad to countries where torture was allowed.

Finally what have you got against 'economic migrants'. The urge to better your position is universal and even admired. Even the tories are all for ambitious, aspirtional people.

Would I give a job to a character who had managed to travel across the world facing danger, border guards and god knows what other dangers to get here? You bet I would! He is evidently energetic, ambitious clever, has initiative and has the ability to think on his feet.

I'd be very happy to see the poison dwarf of the home office, Priti Patel, shipped out though.

The same as happens now under international law, the failed asylum seeker either tries to find another country that will take them or they are returned to the country of origin.


It is an offshore processing centre, there is no question of moving them there permanently against their will.

Asylum seekers that come through the UN resettlement program and/or a UK resettlement program will not be sent to Rwanda.


I didn't say I had anything against economic migrants, don't try and put words in my mouth.

Not a new idea, the EU were doing it in 2019, and Denmark looked at it then and is doing so again now.


Europe Keeps Asylum Seekers at a Distance, This Time in Rwanda
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/world/europe/migrants-africa-rwanda.html

Its interesting how most Labour MPs are up in arms about it, but the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged something needed to be done a few years ago:

Labour MP Rachel Reeves: Riots could sweep streets of Britain if immigration is not curbed after Brexit
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...riots-uk-conference-speech-a7334266.html

AC/DC Shot Down In Flames.
Morning.
I was Reading News that the Plane never Left because of European Court`s was Embarrassing to digest Seems they will do anything to keep them hear. I believe something needs done to Stop immigrant`s before we have Dunkirk Fleet of Dinghy`s on a daily basis with Climate change and World get Hotter and dryer.

The ECHR result will be interesting as any ruling against the UK will also impact the EU and the UN (and also USA, Canada and Australia indirectly). The ECHR's main objection is that once the asylum seekers are in Rwanda they will no longer come under ECHR protection. While this could be considered as a mirror of Guatanamo Bay the UK and Rwanda would still be fully responsible for the asylum seekers unlike the USA in the case of Guatanamo who basically had an offshore lawless state.

I still cannot see how there is anything immoral or illegal about what the UK has proposed, it is about asylum seekers being given safe sanctuary while their application is being processed noting that over 60% of claimants are found to be inadmissible because they have links to other safe countries where they should go first (in accordance with both UK and international law).

Nineteen countries that are not members of the EU come under the ECHR (through membership of the Council of Europe). Many of those countries are struggling with immigrants and some are recipient parties to externalisation schemes (eg Turkey to which the EU have extensively transferred immigrants).

Amazing how important this story was last week, an abuse of human rights and so on.

Nothing has changed but the media now has new things to focus on (weather, train strikes). It amazes me how quickly they throw away a story.

As for those seeking asylum, how on earth can this be considered a genuine case?


Shouldn't this be a job for the Vietnamese local police?

To top it all it turns out the ECHR hasn't blocked any transfers to Rwanda.

However Boris has mislead the nation and used this as an excuse to try to change UK law. There are a lot of laws being changed at the moment many of which are going to be detrimental to the general populace and taking us backward many decades of democracy and fairness.

Only thing I can find about that is this:

https://fullfact.org/immigration/EU-rwanda-flight-court/

which claims

ECHR issued a "Rule 39", rule 39 is not legally binding it is a request, information or a suggestion not a mandate. The UK Government can totally ignore it.

Sorry but this whole story is a joke, They could have put a stop to this some two or three years ago, how many people have they let in the country so far? I bet no one knows!
Stop them coming across the channel, how hard can it be! We now have the Royal Navy,RNLI and Border Patrol now being used as a taxi service! Its a bloody discrace and Patel[ America's friend!} needs to go!
As for being Asylum Seekers that is also a joke, they are only here to get onto the benefits systems so the few people who still work these days are paying their taxes to put them up in Hotels and camps, they are even recuiting for staff for said camps! Wonder how long it will be before they start digging tunnels and disappearing into the night only to surface years later, working in post in a local Council?
Who's footing the bill for these appeals in court?
Then to come up with an idea of sending them to Rwanda? Costing millions to do a deal yet we have poeple here living on poverty line how many old people are going to be dead this winter?, Unsure whether they can afford food or engery because of a weak corrupt Government not looking far enough ahead to avoid all this!
If you left this to me i could put a stop to these crossing in a week!

I think you might be mistaken. That's why the UK want to alter the laws, so Rule 39 can be ignored.

If Rule 39 was a "request" then they would have ignored it.



https://www.politico.eu/article/bre...-ignore-decisions-new-human-rights-plan/

Boris is opportunistically changing the law (as he has on other occasions as part of the change to a dictatorship/autocracy), you don't think that if Rule 39 is a mandate that a simple national law change could override the whole of the ECHR system whilst remaining a member of the Council of Europe

From the ECHR itself .... note the word "request"


SOURCE