Forum Topic

High Court Rules On Rwanda Deportation

Rwanda deportation plan: First flight can go ahead, High Court ruleshttps://news.sky.com/story/rwanda-deportation-plan-first-flight-can-go-ahead-high-court-rules-12631489

Sue Hammond ● 1101d43 Comments

Ed, sadly many weren't orphans.

Michael Ixer ● 1097d

Can't follow your argument. Of course it is the policy, not the destination. Anyway, Britain has a track record on the Seychelles as a place to exile the unwanted. Archbishop Makarios was despatched there before he had to be brought back to become President of Cyprus. Interestingly, the person who sent him there was Field Marshall John Harding - Dido Harding's grand dad.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1097d

Or perhaps just a matter of time.It's only 40 odd years since the UK stopped sending orphans to Australia (although white only I believe). Now most people would fail emmigration criteria!

Ed Robinson ● 1097d

I wonder if people would be so vocal if instead of Rwanda the destination was the Seychelles or Monaco or the Bahamas? Is the policy the problem or is the destination the issue? I have no doubt that the usual suspects will say it's the policy but I suspect the real issue is the destination.

Adam Tripp ● 1097d

My understanding is that although it's not on the scale of Syria or Yemen there is internal conflict in parts of Sudan and Nigeria. I know when a friend of mine visited Nigeria recently on business he needed an armed escort when visiting some locations. I can see the UK might seem more attractive. 

Michael Ixer ● 1097d

Ivonne, I agree, that was one of my earlier points: we're penalising the victims not the people smuggling criminals. It does seem to be problematic shutting down these gangs. I don't know much about this area but I know with cyber criminals it's difficult because of the cross border nature of the crime and the "masterminds" being in jurisdictions where they can't be reached; I suspect that's the problem with people smugglers. The authorities may know who's controlling it but not be able to reach them. 

Michael Ixer ● 1097d

I agree with you Ed. The UK was never in the Schengen agreement.So, anybody associating the Schengen agreement with the UK is completely wrong. As an aside, I was never able to understand why MI5 and MI6 and counterparts in the EU have been unable so far to find or identify people smugglers.  Under normal circumstances, they are able to find needles in a haystack but not people smugglers?It seems we are all putting refugees and asylum seekers into one category. People escaping from Syria war-torn, and now Ukraine torn, are very different from people suddenly coming from Nigeria, Sudan and other African countries. The latter were not suffering from war.But it appears that many governments are penalizing the victims from war-torn countries and allowing the people smugglers to go scot free.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1097d

"The EU practically encouraged mass migration with Schengen"Sue the UK & Ireland were the only countries not to impose restrictions with regard to EU enlargement in 2004.Neither UK or Ireland have ever been part of the Schengen agreement.The UK really needs to own its mistakes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_enlargement_of_the_European_Unionhttps://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/schengen-borders-and-visa/schengen-visa_en

Ed Robinson ● 1098d

So if there isn't a legal way to way to get papers before travelling and it's illegal once you've arrived, how do you claim asylum as per the Act the Govt signed up to.  It was noticeable how difficult Ukrainians were finding it even when the Home Office said they were set up to issue papers.  A lot of British people sent help to Poland because as Ukraine's nearest country many Ukrainians were staying close to home.  Most refugees would prefer to be on their homeland.  It happens throughout history.  The 'British' are made up of many nationalities if you look more closely.

Philippa Bond ● 1098d

That was meant to end "… take the risk of being an illegal immigrant."

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

That wasn't what I said, Sue. For a start, in your hypothetical scenario the disparity between life in the UK and Australia isn't that great and entering Australia illegally is likely to disadvantage your in a number of ways. (Also, there are ways you can legally emigrate to Australia, I know someone who did it about a year ago, although admittedly he did marry an Australian who was living in the UK and moved back there with him; perhaps that made it easier.)However, if social and economic circumstances are significantly different between your country and the UK, or one's life is being threatened, it may well be worth taking the risk.

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

If I decided my life would be far better in Australia should I be allowed in as an economic migrant? Or should Australia have the right to say no? Would Australia then provide me with legal aid and a human rights lawyer to fight my case to stay there? I am pretty sure Australia would not and neither should the U.K.

Sue Hammond ● 1098d

Sue. The EU, US and UK and other well off countries are all guilty of wanting to ignore the root cause of this and hoping the problem will go away. It's hardly a surprise that those where there's been external intervention - Iraq  Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, South and Central America countries, … - and where they see a huge disparity between living standards want to migrate to where the internet and satellite TV tells them life is so much better. (Perhaps even one of the appalling camps in Calais is safer than being under Taliban rule or being bombed?) If there's famine caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine the numbers migrating from Africa to where they believe there's food will likely get far larger.

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

Oops: predictive seemed to change "it's" to "IRS" :-(

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

The EU countries, in particular France, have failed to address the problem of people trafficking because they simply don't want to. France is more than happy to put migrants into camps that are so appalling they obviously would not want to stay there.  The EU has facilitated human trafficking for decades and it has steadily got worse.

Sue Hammond ● 1098d

Who knows Philippa?  I shouldn't think any will end up in Rwanda anyway now that the legions of human rights lawyers have got stuck in.  I have a better plan to use as a deterrent which is to stop all legal aid. I guarantee that the greedy lawyers will disappear too because they don't care about the migrants but they do care about the money.  Legal aid should be available for British citizens only. So you enter illegally into a country that has no knowledge of your past, you make up a name and a story and then use that country's taxpayers' money to fight your case to stay. You really couldn't make it up.

Sue Hammond ● 1098d

Correct. It's a one way journey to Rwanda with no vetting on refugee status for the UK.  My understanding is the EU  scheme was to have vetting beforehand travel. The Danish scheme was different to the EU one and possibly more like the UK's, but I don't think it's ever been implemented. IRS essentially punishing the victims of people trafficking rather than the criminals organising it. 

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

They won't stay in Rwanda. Very few have in other countries' schemes, apparently.

David Ainsworth ● 1098d

But you've said that they are being sent to be vetted in Rwanda.  My understanding is that they are just being sent there - no vetting.  That this is just a one way ticket,

Philippa Bond ● 1098d

That's not really the point Caroline. "Britain's government announced in April that it had agreed a deal to send asylum-seekers to the East African country, in a move that it insisted was aimed at disrupting people-smuggling networks and deterring migrants from making the dangerous Channel crossing to England from Europe."

Sue Hammond ● 1098d

Apologies Sue.  The link I posted in my previous message was incorrect...  tut tut tut!!This is the link I was talking about:https://facts4eu.org/news/2022_apr_globalist_hypocrisy

Ivonne Holliday ● 1098d

Why can't they be vetted/assessed in the UK?

Caroline Whitehead ● 1098d

Our idea is to send them to Rwanda and be vetted/assessed there. All those who chucked their papers and phones into the Channel will not be able to prove who they are or where they have come from so to claim they are refugees seeking asylum from a war zone, torture, persecution etc will be extremely difficult for them to prove.  Own goal ...

Sue Hammond ● 1098d

Try this one Ivonne, it's the same article without the paywall:https://bdnews24.com/world/2019/09/09/europe-keeps-asylum-seekers-at-a-distance-this-time-in-rwanda

Sue Hammond ● 1098d

I think there is a subtle difference between the EU and UK stance. My understanding is the EU was  attempting to set up holding positions outside of the Schengen area to assess refugee status of migrants before allowing entry into the EU, whereas the UK is just trying to send everyone crossing the channel to Rwanda without any vetting of status, and without providing alternative legitimate channels to apply for refugee status. Of course, immigration from third party countries to EU countries is the responsibility of each EU sovereign state, not Brussels. I've never said the EU was perfect, just that membership of it was beneficial to the UK. 

Michael Ixer ● 1098d

I could not open the article posted by Ed as it is behind a paywall, but I found this one dated 19 November 2019:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/world/europe/migrants-africa-rwanda.htmlIt is interesting to note that nationals from Niger, Sudan, Egypt and Chad who were held in detention centres in Libya since 2017 were sent to Rwanda under the UNHCR's Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM).  Please note that the nationals the UK is wishing to deport today include four Iranians, two Iraqis, two Albanians and one Syrian.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1098d

The EU practically encouraged mass migration with Schengen and then Merkel exacerbated the problem with her open door policy in 2015, and Brussels has been trying to get rid of the migrants ever since! Such delicious irony.😸

Sue Hammond ● 1098d

Oh no! 🙀The the saints in Brussels have been doing it for years! I can hardly wait for the EU defenders to turn up ...😸

Sue Hammond ● 1098d

Clearly the UK is not alone in off-loading but that does not make it right.An article here from 2019/2020"Europe Keeps Asylum Seekers at a Distance, This Time in Rwanda"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/world/europe/migrants-africa-rwanda.html

Ed Robinson ● 1098d

I often wondered why it is OK to "off-load" immigrants coming to a country and sent to another.Greece and Italy were screaming in desperation for help to cope with the level of immigrants they got.Also, while the UK was in the EU, it was OK to say immigrants had to seek asylum/protection at the first country they arrived at.At the moment, the UK is on a stand-alone basis and therefore, no other country has the obligation to take the immigrants in.Let us not forget that quite a few of those immigrants escaping from countries are more qualified that our people.I think a bit of human consideration towards the immigrants would not go amiss.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1099d

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-talks-with-spain-canada-about-taking-more-refugees-sources-2022-06-02/Not at all the same.

Philippa Bond ● 1099d

So  It's ok for Biden to send refugees to Spain?

Barbara Shillabeer ● 1099d

I think benefits are not an EU responsibility, they're set by each individual sovereign state within the EU. I've not looked in detail; some (Scandinavian states?) may be better than the UK, others will be worse. I sense the French health system may be more efficient than the UK's (ie waiting lists aren't so bad) while not alway totally free at source? (Just going on what I've sensed from those living there.)

Michael Ixer ● 1100d

Yes, and I remember a smirking man who made out he was school age, was sent to a school in Kent or somewhere, who was really aged about 40. Why wouldn't they want to go to Rwanda, the property they have showed looked better than some Council Tenants are living in.  How many more people can you cram into Britain. Why are they throwing away all their identification and why are their family not coming forward to house them then.

Barbara Stevens ● 1100d

Really, not sure about that.

Andy Pike ● 1100d

Yes, but they would have the same benefits in France and other EU countries too.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1100d

Not forgetting the benefits , healthcare,education service etc

Andy Pike ● 1100d

It was fully predictable that there would be an increase in arrivals by boat, whilst in the EU under the Dublin agreement we could return them, so they would try to smuggle themselves in on a lorry and then vanish. - now we cannot return them so all they need to do is make it into our waters.

Matt Palmer ● 1100d

Adam. Before Brexit we could as part of an EU asylum agreement. The government didn't want a new asylum agreement as part of Brexit so we can't now. A Brexit benefit - for refugees? :-)https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/10/france-to-push-for-eu-wide-uk-migration-treaty-over-channel-crossings?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Michael Ixer ● 1100d

Many want to come to the UK because they have family here, so going to France wouldn't cut it for them.

Richard Carter ● 1100d

I haven't followed this story but what I find odd about the inflow of people across the Channel is why cant we send them back to France? It's a safe, modern country with good health care, jobs and lovely cheese & wine, plus of course we are forever told by our resident champagne socialists that GB is a racist basket case, so why would any self respecting "refugee" want to leave France for a country paved with racism and Brexit?

Adam Tripp ● 1100d

It's going to the court of appeal Monday. 

Michael Ixer ● 1100d

Ooh er! The heir to the throne has spoken!

Richard Carter ● 1100d