Priti Patel wins legal battle over Rwanda migrants plan.

? JUST IN: The United Nations is making a late attempt to stop the first flight deporting migrants to Rwanda next week, warning that it would breach Britain’s international obligations

Maudi

I would child murderers they would be on a plane tomorrow if I had my way.

And what, make them some other countries problem?

How would you choose the country to send them to?

I suppose it wouldn’t matter as long as none of your family ever went there

What a sad commentary on how “the silent majority” think

In 1900, my great grandfather left Italy and came to Britain as an economic migrant- no checks in those days. It was a well trodden path for poverty stricken Italian farmers, hence so many places here with Italian restaurants/ice cream parlours ( it was ice cream for my family!)
Fast forward three and four generations, and his descendants are proud Brits hard working, tax paying citizens. Can we give this opportunity to the new would-be immigrants? If we do, we may all benefit.
So, maybe a properly managed system would be morally right, and in our best interests. I'm not sure about how GreatGrandad would have fared in Rwanda.
Does the country need ice cream?

A quick turn around is essential. A dinghy ride to Kent must be seen as a one way ticket to Rwanda. Keep sending them with daily flights. The sooner people realise the money they are paying to these illegal people traffickers is a waste of money the sooner it will stop.

Urmstongran, what are your reflections on my post?

Ah well, the Appeal Court will decide, on Monday, what is legal under our laws and what isn't.

At least it will be settled then, one way or another, hopefully!

Whoever loses on Monday will take it to the Supreme Court.

That was just on the Classic FM news so it must be true.

History is a different country ChocolateLG. What your family did was legal at the time. It’s not now.

Plus we need to manage migration to this country. It’s small in relation to other European countries.

In 1901 the population of the UK was c. 32 million people (I looked it up). It’s more than double that now.

As I say, different times.

So you don't think it possible that, with appropriate checks, some of these people might be, as my family was, very motivated to make a success of their new life and bring useful skills to this country?
Bear in mind, as I have posted before, part of the population increase is due to the rise in numbers of the elderly, who are not being replaced by births.
Maybe we'll need younger, fitter, folk to drive our buses, run our health service, stack our shelves and build our roads.
My daughter and her family live abroad, and have brought skills to their adopted home - my daughter is undertaking a research PhD in her new language.

volver

Whoever loses on Monday will take it to the Supreme Court.

That was just on the Classic FM news so it must be true.

Well, they'll have to be quick unless they can delay Tuesday's flight.

But, it does need sorting out legally - and the courts are the only people that can decide that.]

What your family did was legal at the time. It’s not now.

Once again: it is perfectly legal to seek asylum in the UK, no matter what your means of arrival is. In fact, applying on arrival in the UK is one of only two ways to do so.

This is the UK government’s advice (my bold)

‘You must apply for asylum if you want to stay in the UK as a refugee.

You should apply when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country.’

I’d be happy if they had appropriate checks but with our sclerotic bureaucracy that’s not happening (and hasn’t for years). These young males pay a people smuggler, jump into a rubber dinghy and arrive on the shores of Kent. Most have no paperwork. It’s a nightmare trying to process them. Some pretend to be younger than they really are so they can be processed as juveniles, deceiving local authorities. It’s dangerous (some migrants have died crossing) and just plain wrong on so many levels.

Under new legislation (Nationality and Borders Act 2022) they have 14 days to appeal I believe. They can continue to appeal . . . but from Rwanda.

Of course they do the "appropriate checks". Do you think they are all just given an iPhone and left to get on with it?

Sheesh. So much lack of knowledge and so much inhumanity.

volver if they did appropriate checks how come some male migrants were deemed under 18 years and enrolled in schools only to be rumbled later? Sheesh indeed.

How many UG? Which schools? What happened subsequently? Where are they now?

How many actual migrants to the UK were there last year? And how many the year this "age mistake" happened?

Just the facts ma'am.

It was pre Brexit (I think). It was reported in the newspapers. I remember articles & photographs at the time. One an was about 23y if I recall correctly. If you can be bothered (I can’t) Google is your friend here.

Oh, OK, you can't be bothered.

So none then.

Or one instance six years ago. Pathetic.

There is an article online dated today it’s Mail online, and the cases of over 18’s claiming to be under 18’s is definitely up.

No, it wasn’t one instance volver. And there’s nothing wrong with me declining to look it up for you!
?

GrannyGravy13

There is an article online dated today it’s Mail online, and the cases of over 18’s claiming to be under 18’s is definitely up.

So the "appropriate checks" are working then?

Urmstongran have you actually met any refugees or asylum seekers? Or is your knowledge purely garnered from the right wing press? Firstly no one gets in or puts their children in a boat if there is an easily accessible and efficient legal route they could use. Secondly asylum seekers do not want to be a burden on the tax payer, they want to work but aren't allowed to. Thirdly the system of gaining asylum is long drawn out and unfit for purpose. So we hold people who could be working, paying taxes and contributing to our society in a sort of limbo for years with no idea when they will be cleared. Now some of those people will be criminalised and forcibly moved.
The late Tony Benn's words are so accurate
The way the government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.

I also recall professional forensic scientists getting involved (I read a lot of articles in newspapers). - they study bones & teeth of corpses to assess ages of those dug up or found. They said the Home Office needed to up its game. The technology is there. Seems to me the will isn’t though. Or the money for the extra processing of these migrants. I don’t know which.

Urmstongran

No, it wasn’t one instance volver. And there’s nothing wrong with me declining to look it up for you!
?

No. Other than you basing your attitude to this topic on some half remembered incident from an indeterminate number of years ago.

Sheesh, indeed.

volver

GrannyGravy13

There is an article online dated today it’s Mail online, and the cases of over 18’s claiming to be under 18’s is definitely up.

So the "appropriate checks" are working then?

I didn’t read the article, just the precis

I am not happy with sending what is essentially a problem of our own making to another country.

I gave my idea of a solution upthread.

Ew.