The Supreme Court has ruled the Rwanda deportations are illegal

DaisyAnneReturns

growstuff

DaisyAnneReturns

Iam64

DAR - I fear people who reject the EHRC don’t realise they’d be giving up their own rights, just that ”illegals’ should have no rights at all, ever

I know, Iam and MayBee I know, but it is is amazingly sad.

And we have seen if all before.

TBH I'm not sure I have ever seen anything like this before - not in the UK anyway.

I was looking back into history growstuff.

So was I (admittedly not in great detail) but I really can't think of anything like it. Even the pre-WW2 refusal to turn Jews away, bigoted as it was, wasn't quite so pre-planned and heartless.

As far as I know, the pre-WW2 government didn't consider totally ignoring national and international laws.

Primrose53

foxie48

maddyone

Oh thank you foxie. I thought you were talking about asylum seekers, but you’re talking about people whose asylum applications have been refused. I guess they must be put into detention centres. I would hope that if they’re housed in a detention centre prior to deportation, the detention there should be a very short time. But maybe it’s not.

People from the Windrush generation who were here quite legally and had British citizenship were held in detention centres and then deported. Really shocking. About 50% are eventually given right to stay, and there have been cases of people held for 2 or more years before being released. Sadly not a shining example of British efficiency. We really should be able to act more humanely.

I think you are a bit muddled up. Can you rewrite that post.

Tell me which bit is muddled up and I'll address it.

growstuff

Oreo

The Rwanda plan is still on.
RS on tv now saying just that.There will be a treaty ready to go through Parliament to show Rwanda is safe for the immigrants, and if all else fails he wouldn’t allow the court in Strasbourg to scupper it.

And I believe every word RS says!

Have you read the full judgment?

The Supreme Court certainly doesn't agree that Rwanda is safe for asylum seekers. The ECHR is only a small part of it.

Just reporting what RS was saying at that particular moment on tv.
I rarely believe what any politician says will come to pass.
My further comment that any party who could stop the small boats would win an election is still a valid one.Whether any party actually could do it is a moot point.

So was I (admittedly not in great detail) but I really can't think of anything like it. Even the pre-WW2 refusal to turn Jews away, bigoted as it was, wasn't quite so pre-planned and heartless.

I was talking about laws that were brought in, that were seen as bearable when they applied to others, but never thought they could be applied to all growstuff.

Disagree with Oreo’s last comment. Stopping the small boats may increase some Tory majorities and maybe tip them in in a seat or two, but not a make or break issue to the electorate at large for all the reasons already given.

Feel free to disagree 😃 that’s what forums are for.I have no real hope that either the present government or Labour will turn the tide of the small boat issue.

I thought Brexit was all about protecting our borders? Hasn’t gone well, has it? Today one Conservative MP ( can’t remember who) was blaming France for not doing what we pay them to do and then it was pointed out that numbers had decreased over the last few months. Might that not be because of what the French are doing?

It’s a bit like inflation. The problems are never, according to the government, their fault. But when things improve it’s always down to what they have done.

growstuff

Oreo

He will try very hard to achieve this before an election is called I bet.
Any party which can stop the boats will do well in the election, like it or not.

Any party which thinks it can "stop the boats" is living in cloud cuckoo land and anybody who thinks that any of the current plans will work needs to give their head a wobble.

Resources for investigating trafficking gangs have been slashed. The UK has refused to take up offers for processing in France. The UK has also cut the number of claims being processed, so people are left in limbo.

What we've seen over the last year or so is loud-mouthed rhetoric, which hasn't a hope in hell of reducing the number of asylum seekers, but it persuades a few people that something "is being done".

Exactly growstuff

It is a complex problem which demands a thoughtful approach rather than a media soundbite one.

We have already shelled out millions to Rwanda for nothing whatsoever, money that could have been spent on streamlining the processing system and helping to sort the problem.

Of course we cannot accept all the refugees trying to enter Britain, and there is no political party saying that. We all know that this is a major problem for all the European countries, but it needs serious well thought-out policies, not the flim-flam that we are listening to that has serious repercussions for our standing in the world and our democracy.

I have three words for the ‘leave the ECHR’ swivel-eyed loons (as an ally of Cameron famously called them): Good Friday Agreement.

Siope

I have three words for the ‘leave the ECHR’ swivel-eyed loons (as an ally of Cameron famously called them): Good Friday Agreement.

Oh yes! That had slipped my mind.

Germanshepherdsmum

She has said enough to give us a flavour of things without details which would implicate her relative.

Thank you.

What the Tories are conveniently trying to dismiss is that in our constitution the judiciary are the 3 rd pillar and have been so for centuries. Trying to dismiss the rule of law by so called emergency legislation is the road to bringing the whole thing crashing down.

sharon103

JenniferEccles

Sorry but no they are not desperate, not in the way you mean LauraNorderr

Desperate to get here yes, as we are a soft touch, but as we all know, before they arrive here they have travelled through several perfectly safe European countries.

I agree with all of your posts JenniferEccles.
A very close relative works in a detention centre.
Some on here would have a different opinion if they knew what I know. Obviously I can't say.
They have a better going on than we do. No wait to see a doctor, hospital or dentist.
No wonder people get angry.

So why make something sound like it's classified information when it's actually unsubstantiated tittle tattle?

Grow stuff, you appear yo be an expert in these matters, does this mean you live in an area affected by refugees housed in hotels and detention centres? The people living in those a reas are most affected. Big difference in genuine asylum seekers and economic refugees.

Allsorts

Grow stuff, you appear yo be an expert in these matters, does this mean you live in an area affected by refugees housed in hotels and detention centres? The people living in those a reas are most affected. Big difference in genuine asylum seekers and economic refugees.

I live very near Wethersfield and I know residents, people on the local council and others who work for Care4Calais, who have been refused entry to provide clothes and haircuts.

I'm not an expert.

How do local residents know the difference between a genuine asylum seeker and an economic refugee? That seems like a complete distraction.

The thread is about Rwanda. Having read the judgment, nobody has to be an expert to understand the issues.

Rishi Sunak sounds pretty desperate. We had Boris Johnson's "Get Brexit done" and now Sunak's Get Rwanda done. To make matters worse the day before the Supreme Court ruling he was called a weak leader by a woman!

Being called a weak leader by a woman - phew

A woman? Surely not! 🤣

we get far fewer migrants than the countries they travel through first and many have families here. It would be much more ethical if they did as Labour propose, apply for asylum in France, speed up the process by employing more staff, then those that are approved can simply hop on the ferry, no gangs of criminals involved. I wouldn't have a problem with them moving people on who don't satisfy the criteria for asylum then, but hoping a) they won't get here and b) the long wait for approval will put them off hasn't worked

Honestly...this government has gone about things in totally the wrong way. They should have taken a firm stand on illegal migration right from the start. Instead, they have made them feel welcome.
One thing that puzzles me about human rights. If countries are obliged to take care of people who enter the country illegally, why do they not have the same obligation to take care of their own citizens who find themselves homeless?

The government just gets more farcical by the hour. We now appear to have a Minister responsible for delivering this policy who has described it privately as ‘batshit’.

^ One thing that puzzles me about human rights. If countries are obliged to take care of people who enter the country illegally, why do they not have the same obligation to take care of their own citizens who find themselves homeless?^
Good question, but that doesn’t rouse the same amount of shouting from the populace as what to do with the homeless.