i_scoff_cake
Free MemberIt’s possible, for example, to get asylum in the UK because you had an abusive boyfriend in Serbia
You are Theresa May and I claim my 5 euros. I'm sure you'll have an example of this, right?
You also mentioned national service, but as you're probably aware it's far more limited than that- you can't claim asylum just because you've been called up for national service.
But we created many of them by bombing the shit out of their countries
For Jan 2021, the UNHCRs own figures show that the top three national groups crossing the med were Tunianian, Egyptian and Bangladesh.
Crossing the Med to get to the UK?
Geography not your strong point labrat?
Mostly people from Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine claiming asylum in the UK. All war zones.
"In 2020, the top five most common countries of nationality of people seeking asylum in the UK were Iran, Iraq, Albania, Eritrea, and Sudan"
Ah, I see. Your thesis is not that our 'bombing' has contributed to a general increase in 'refugees' but only an increase in the ones wanting to get into the UK?
In 2020, the top five most common countries of nationality of people seeking asylum in the UK were Iran, Iraq, Albania, Eritrea, and Sudan
It’s not 2020 now. Most of those countries had people fleeing for good reason.
a general increase in ‘refugees’
Most refugees (I thought we were talking about asylum seekers, but hey) are hosted by countries neighbouring the countries they have had to leave (or indeed within a different area of the same country).
@kelvin Refugees hosted in places like Turkey do not have leave to remain. They are strictly hosted until they can be sent back.
As for your other point, apart from Iraq, there isn't a strong link between asylum applications to the UK and 'our bombing', but don't let the facts spoil a juvenile narrative.
Refugees, yes. Asylum seekers are only a very small proportion of those, and they do process asylum cases and give asylum to many of the applicants.
I didn’t make a case about “our bombing”, only that war is overwhelmingly the main reason for people currently claiming asylum in the UK right now. Blame who you want for the wars, but people flee war zones for good reason.
Sorry mate I can't be bothered to engage. I will leave it to others, if they feel so inclined.
Blame who you want for the wars, but people flee war zones for good reason.
I think we can both agree that Ukraine is (at least in part) a war zone, for example, but somewhere like Afghanistan not so much. There are hundreds of armed conflicts worldwide but this doesn't also mean they are warzones. By many standards the Left seem to apply, the UK of the 1990s was a 'warzone' because of the IRA's mainland bombing campaign. Indeed, I even hear the same people saying that African-Americans should be entitled to asylum in the UK!
There are hundreds of armed conflicts worldwide but this doesn’t also mean they are warzones
This makes no sense at all. Armed conflicts occurring but not warzones? Weird analysis
Armed conflicts occurring but not warzones?
Works for Boris:
There are no war zones
If there are war zones I didn't know they were war zones.
I didn't help create any of these war zones that don't exist
Etc
@tjagain if you read what I wrote I mentioned Northern Ireland and the IRA. By your logic just because there is an armed conflict there is a 'war zone'. Would you have said the UK in the 1990's was a 'war zone'? There was nevertheless an armed conflict between the IRA and the British state.
I don't think this has been reported much in the British media/newspapers:
https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2022/0610/1304121-uk-rwanda-deportation/
Lawyers for the claimants said that Home Secretary Priti Patel's interior ministry had even claimed endorsement for the plan from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
But the UN agency's lawyer Laura Dubinsky said it "in no way endorses the UK-Rwandan arrangement".
"UNHCR is not involved in the UK-Rwanda arrangement, despite assertions to the contrary made by the secretary of state," she told the court.
Ms Dubinsky said the would-be refugees were at risk of "serious, irreparable harm" if sent to Rwanda, and that the UN had "serious concerns about Rwandan capacity".
The worst thing about it all is that's it's all so **** predictible.
Crace had a good summary in his sketch this week: the governments only has 2 actual policies & both break the law (NIP legislation being tabled on Monday)
The high Court has just given the go ahead.
How long till the first death/ rape then a huge settlement being made and the inhuman scheme being scrapped?
Absolute ****s.
The high Court has just given the go ahead.
Appeal to be heard on Monday so certainly not a given that flights will go ahead
How long till the first death/ rape then a huge settlement being made ....
Surely part of the appeal of deporting them to another country is that they will be outside the jurisdiction of the UK's legal system?
Similar to the United States sending prisoners which they wanted to treat in a totally illegal manner under US law to Guantanamo Bay. The US government didn't send prisoners to Guantanamo Bay because they thought they would enjoy the sunshine and fresh sea air, it was to deny them their legal rights.
No one will ever be sent there as the courts will stop them it being clearly illegal under international law
That aged well 🙁
Well, I hope they've all got their yellow fever shots. Need them a couple of weeks before travelling.
I'm sure we have an efficient and caring system for delivering the necessary vaccinations in time...
They might fall out of the UK's legal system, but if they are subsequently raped, killed in Rwanda having been sent there against international law I am pretty sure a civil case against the UK government would proceed successfully in the UK
To I_scoff_cake ; By many standards the Left seem to apply, the UK of the 1990s was a ‘warzone’ because of the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign. Indeed, I even hear the same people saying that African-Americans should be entitled to asylum in the UK
I am pretty sure that some people from Northern Ireland would have been able to claim asylum elsewhere as it definitely wasn't safe for them during the troubles. But the other bit I am thinking that you're spicing up to suit your rather obvious agenda. You should practice a bit before trying again
having been sent there against international law
So a UK judge can rule in favour of a deportation which violates international law?
Or is Justice Swift leaving it to the Appeal Court judges to decide on Monday whether it violates international law?
The UNHCR appears confident that the deportations are against international law so I don't understand how a UK judge can therefore allow it.
I'm horrified by the policy and surprised at the outcome.
How does international law get applied in UK courts? Possibly if not enshrined in UK legislation only an international court can enforcement it?
So a UK judge can rule in favour of a deportation which violates international law?
Apparently, he hasn't ruled on this, he came to the conclusion that there was no short term risk to the relevant individuals and they could be brought back if it was later found that they had been sent there illegally. That said, the UNHCR aren't the arbiters of international law.
Or is Justice Swift leaving it to the Appeal Court judges to decide on Monday whether it violates international law?
No they will address the narrower question, the question of illegality will be dealt with later.
How does international law get applied in UK courts? Possibly if not enshrined in UK legislation only an international court can enforcement it?
UK courts interpret the agreements that the UK has signed and will give effect to the rights created therein, rights under treaties take precedence over UK legislation. In many cases there is no relevant international court and enforcing international law by International Courts isn't really a thing anyway.
@i_scoff_cake Are you a Russian bot?
Nah he’s just feels threatened by dilution of the British way of life, and he’s broken rule #1
That said, the UNHCR aren’t the arbiters of international law.
No but you would expect the UNHCR to have access to the most reliable legal advice.
In many cases there is no relevant international court and enforcing international law isn’t really a thing anyway.
I don't know if that is true or not so I am prepared to accept that it might be. What I do know for certain is that it is a pisspoor excuse for the government to break the law......."there is no court to enforce the law and our legal obligations to it so we will ignore it".
But how typical of this government and the renowned party of "law and order", eh?
And if it is indeed the case legislation needs to be introduced to allow UK courts the power to enforce international legal obligations on UK gov ministers.
Although I would sadly have no confidence at all in the current Labour leadership having any commitment to any such legislation:
"The proposed presumption against prosecution applies to offences such as war crimes and torture and critics say it breaches international humanitarian law"
Edit : RE: "That said, the UNHCR aren’t the arbiters of international law" It is worth remembering that Priti Patel felt it was important to falsely claim that the UNHCR fully supported her.
No but you would expect the UNHCR to have access to the most reliable legal advice.
I'm not sure I would.
What I do know for certain is that it is a pisspoor excuse for the government to break the law
I am confident that the UK courts will give full effect to any rights asylum seekers have as a result of agreements that the UK has signed, I wrote this to explain the mechanics of how International treaties are enforced and was just pointing out the reality that there really isn't any way to enforce a decision against a sovereign nation outside the domestic courts.
And if it is indeed the case legislation needs to be introduced to allow UK courts the power to enforce international legal obligations on UK ministers.
That is generally the case, although often secondary legislation will be used.
The King (or very soon to be) has spoken, ooh, bit of politics.
Surprisingly King Charles III seems to have some decency on the issue, or at least can read the room
"BioNTech to soon start mRNA vaccine factory construction in Rwanda"
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/biontech-soon-start-mrna-vaccine-factory-construction-rwanda-2022-06-09/
"By most markers, Rwanda is climbing out of hell. Ranked among the least corrupt countries on earth, with more female parliamentarians than any other nation, universal health coverage and a predictable, market-friendly government. Thousands have been lifted out of poverty. Life expectancy increased from 48 to 67 in little over a decade." https://adamboggon.co.uk/adamboggon/about-rwanda
Leaving the arguments in this thread aside, ironically the UK could be in the process of losing some very driven, enterprising and resourceful people to Rwanda.
or at least can read the room
He hasn't though has he? He made a comment in private that he thought the idea was appalling. He is entitled to have an opinion on any subject in private, including whether or not something is appalling.
But for reasons unknown someone decided to allegedly leak that information to the Daily Mail and the Times, two newspapers not necessarily known for their opposition to the Tories's attitudes towards refugees.
And what room do you think he was reading? The monarchy is probably sufficiently secure in the UK for the alleged comment not to have a significant impact, but it will go down like a lead balloon within certain sections of Australian society where the role of the monarchy is far less secure and the whole principal of riding roughshod over the rights of non-european refugees and dumping them faraway in distant lands is highly popular.
Ranked among the least corrupt countries on earth, with more female parliamentarians than any other nation, universal health coverage and a predictable, market-friendly government. Thousands have been lifted out of poverty. Life expectancy increased from 48 to 67 in little over a decade.”
Yes as Priti Patel suggests Rwanda is like bleedin paradise.
That's why she thinks sending refugees there will put them off crossing the Channel.
The last place refugees want to go is paradise on Earth.
Yes as Priti Patel suggests Rwanda is like bleedin paradise.
She has me sold, I am packing my bags as sounds like a much better place that the shitty country England has become over the last 40 years. As least ****ers like Patel won't be there.
A good question …
https://twitter.com/alextaylornews/status/1536680775093043200?s=21
… the “answer” focuses on “legal routes” … something that would be very welcome.
https://twitter.com/colinyeo1/status/1536750358797729794?s=21
Some very busy legal work happening (no doubt to be derided by the Mail and government ministers very soon… followed by jibes about Starmer being focused on trivialities like laws and not breaking them)…
https://twitter.com/jacquimckenzie6/status/1536760560947286018?s=21
Opposition:
https://twitter.com/yvettecoopermp/status/1536424106878451712?s=21
https://twitter.com/yvettecoopermp/status/1536463717340266500?s=21
In the latest development Johnson is now suggesting that The UK could leave the European Convention on Human Rights as it may prevent it shipping asylum seekers to Rwanda
We can’t have those pesky lawyers demanding that the government actually adhere to international law now, can we?
And if that doesn’t sound like a descent into fascism, then it should, because it is
What the **** is happening to this country under this pack of lunatics. They’re turning us into some mad rogue state
https://twitter.com/itvnewspolitics/status/1536711158132002819?s=21&t=g7rB0kE-bTcdABH-Lmzwew
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1536765507382218753?s=21&t=g7rB0kE-bTcdABH-Lmzwew
It really does beggar belief. What a sad, sad day.
Stunts like this make me ashamed to be British.
Wating hundreds of millions of pounds on being horrible to other humans because of where they were born does not sit well with me.
I dont what the answer is, but deportation to Rwanda is not it. They will be back in 2mths.
If you wanTed to alienate a group of resourceful young men and leave hem open to radicalisation and recruitment by groups that wish Britain ill. You could do a awful lot worse than implemeeting a policy like this.
Genuinely didn't think the flight would leave today, how can the legal challenges not have found a way to delay it at least? How did it get to the ECHR having to step in using emergency powers?
It really does beggar belief. What a sad, sad day.
Makes me feel sick watching Johnson say that.
Is anyone coordinating a really big protest?
