Court of appeal supports asylum seekers challenge

ronib

And you Iam64 clearly the left.

Perspective again. Over the years I have come to see Iam as left of centre. Obviously, if you are looking a long way from the right, that may seem further to the left.

It's always a good thing to know your own bias. It's those who really have no idea who help the extremists to do the damage.

MaizieD have a little dig around - there’s more to this than covered by any newspaper.

Taxation doesn’t fund the water industry Wyllow.

ronib

MaizieD the Supreme Court hasn’t taken into account that Libya sends asylum seekers to Rwanda? It is not therefore an untried system.

Wrong it has been tried and found very much wanting. Israel abandoned it. The judiciary in Rwanda are not politically independent and that is a real issue unlike ours who are and able therefore to make decisions based on THE RULE OF LAW, rather than political expediency.

Rwanda judiciary are overseen by the government.

Oh and it was a Supreme Court ruling!

Post above muddled, please just read first part!

The Court of Appeal very much based its ruling on Rwanda’s asylum seekers policy, and how other countries had dealt with Rwanda and failed.

NanKate

To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, the Labour Party have not said how they would deal with with this influx of asylum seekers.

I expect the Labour Party to be elected at the next General Election so I will be able to see if their solutions work.

I do hope by then Sir Keir Starmer can come up with a clear and accurate description of what a woman is.

They will tell us in more detail before the election. I see some of the long worked on Labour NHS plan has popped up this morning.

They really are like big kids this lot. Now copying someone else's homework. There are grown-up Conservatives but the kids will keep beating them up!

Re QT.

Being a Tory voter does not make you anti-immigration.

Tories generally like to think of themselves as realists and fixers. We need certain skills and migrant labour to fix our labour shortage.

We have a captured (literally) labour market in the asylum seekers.

Obvious really.

Ww2 - sorry I don’t understand. Is Libya aided by the UNHCR sending its refugees/displaced persons to Rwanda? It’s definitely sending them somewhere.

ronib

Ww2 - sorry I don’t understand. Is Libya aided by the UNHCR sending its refugees/displaced persons to Rwanda? It’s definitely sending them somewhere.

I have no idea, I suppose I could look but I do know that the judges looked at other governments who tried using Rwanda and failed.

Germanshepherdsmum

ronib

Iam64 desperately escaping from France is the issue ….

👏👏👏

What do the little slug mean, please

A labour force containing people who don’t speak English, women with young children - who are you trying to kid wwm?

ronib

MaizieD have a little dig around - there’s more to this than covered by any newspaper.

Oh dear.

Germanshepherdsmum

Taxation doesn’t fund the water industry Wyllow.

No? It has certainly funded large payout to share-holders.

Germanshepherdsmum

A labour force containing people who don’t speak English, women with young children - who are you trying to kid wwm?

Oh dear, oh dear.

How so? Upthread it was claimed (erroneously):that TW was borrowing to pay the shareholders. People do seem to have it in for the shareholders don’t they?

So relating to whether Rwanda was a safe country.

Lord Chief Underhill

“There are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the asylum claims of (those transported to Rwanda) will be wrongly refused.

On the face of it, it would pear to follow that there was a real risk of them being refouled. Where an asylum seekers claim is rejected, the country in question will typically require them to leave the country, and since they are found to be no risk to the country they have (fled) there is no reason why they should not be returned to their country of origin”

Thus leaving them to their fate, and the reason they left in the first place.

Not shareholders GSM but the so called Market. It is corrupt and that corruption is aided by CEOs who know little about business but much about manipulating this corruption.

Some of the shareholders are Pension Companies. How can if be their fault?

Shouldn't have replied to GSM as that post was, no doubt mistakenly, on the wrong topic. Apologies.

Germanshepherdsmum

A labour force containing people who don’t speak English, women with young children - who are you trying to kid wwm?

Hang on I thought it was supposed to be all Albanian men (and a few others) on the boats.
You don't need English to pick fruit or veg, but mixing in the community, shopping and working would help them to learn.
And some asylum seekers are people (including women) with degrees who speak excellent English. None of them are allowed to work although employers say they would employ them.
Of course working asylum seekers would deprive Braverman of the opportunity to give out the rising costs as a reason for exporting them to Rwanda.

151 Albanians have entered the U.K. this year.

Picking fruit and veg is seasonal work Glorianny. What about the rest of the year?
Having a degree and speaking excellent English isn’t enough. For example a doctor, dentist or lawyer who qualified in Syria would not be able to practise here without further training and exams. This is not the ready-made workforce that some like to claim.

Germanshepherdsmum

Picking fruit and veg is seasonal work Glorianny. What about the rest of the year?
Having a degree and speaking excellent English isn’t enough. For example a doctor, dentist or lawyer who qualified in Syria would not be able to practise here without further training and exams. This is not the ready-made workforce that some like to claim.

No - it is, but you want to argue that it isn’t because allowing asylum seekers who appear to have a good case - to work, pay tax and contribute to their country of choice does not suit your agenda.

By showing that they are willing to contribute to this country’s wellbeing will boost their application I would have thought.

Ww2 thanks for Lord Underhill’s judgement. I thought that where an asylum seeker was refused permission to remain that a third safe country would be offered. It wouldn’t follow that an asylum seeker would be returned to their country of origin or country deemed to be unsafe. I don’t know if in those circumstances a refused refugee could apply to the Uk?