The Home Office and UK government policy concerning asylum seekers/Rwanda deportations
- Thread starter teqniq
- Start date
tommers
It was... Rebekah Vardy's account
It's all just surreal. I think they've finally lost it. It doesn't make sense on any level, even why they're so obsessed with it
Look, there's a whole page about it on the gov website. Migrants detected crossing the English Channel in small boats – last 7 days
So weird.
Look, there's a whole page about it on the gov website. Migrants detected crossing the English Channel in small boats – last 7 days
So weird.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
PR1Berske
Alligator in chains by the park gates.
Draft version of the "Safety of Rwanda Bill"
www.gov.uk
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
New legislation to make clear that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers.
Draft version of the "Safety of Rwanda Bill"
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
New legislation to make clear that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers.
If we say it, it's so. FFS.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
Someone from the press needs to ask "You've declared Rwanda safe. What would have to happen in Rwanda for that to change?"
Change of government? Arrest/detainments of migrants straight off the plane? A level of recorded abuse/violence towards migrants among the general population? Rises in general crime statistics, or of stats in specific areas? Or is that it, Rwanda is unilaterally safe until the end of time?
Change of government? Arrest/detainments of migrants straight off the plane? A level of recorded abuse/violence towards migrants among the general population? Rises in general crime statistics, or of stats in specific areas? Or is that it, Rwanda is unilaterally safe until the end of time?
tommers
It was... Rebekah Vardy's account
They've said it's safe purely so they can pass their shitty bill. They don't believe it. They said the SC based its assessment on "conditions 18 months ago" so they absolutely accept that conditions can change but they could not give a shit. They just want that plane flying so, I dunno, Jacob Rees fucking Mogg sends him a Xmas card or whatever the fuck is going on.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
You and I know they don't give a shit. In fact, lots of people know they don't give a shit.
Still more people need it pointed out to them in words of one syllable though.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
I know it's like, absolutely not the point or important at all, but this is so unprofessional, it reads like a stroppy comment on a local newspaper's Facebook post not something that should be coming out of the fucking government! It honest to god feels like when some passive aggressive knob ends up out of their depth at work and they get defensive when everyone slowly starts taking the kid gloves off and asks them pointed questions or grasses or whatever
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
I don't think they're planning shit atm but on a certain level it can be a win-win for them, because by the time they're finished using it as a dog foghorn for anti-immigration sentiment it'll be election time, with actual implementation being directly after. They can pass whatever they like over the next few months, no solid stats will be out by the time the polls open.
If they win the new administration can then quietly drop the whole thing in the memory hole and hope five years will be long enough for the public to forget they spunked £150m on nonsensicle posturing, if they lose then they get to watch Starmer squirm like a worm in front of the media, battering him for being liberal on immigration if he drops it, incompetence if he tries to make it actually work.
If they win the new administration can then quietly drop the whole thing in the memory hole and hope five years will be long enough for the public to forget they spunked £150m on nonsensicle posturing, if they lose then they get to watch Starmer squirm like a worm in front of the media, battering him for being liberal on immigration if he drops it, incompetence if he tries to make it actually work.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
I thought it was a spoof account at first!
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
The electoral battle lines are already drawn.
WILL YOU STAND WITH RISHI TO STOP THE BOATS, OR LET EM ALL FLOOD IN WITH STARMER??
If it wasn't so tragic it would actually be very funny. The UK is unimaginably fucked.
WILL YOU STAND WITH RISHI TO STOP THE BOATS, OR LET EM ALL FLOOD IN WITH STARMER??
If it wasn't so tragic it would actually be very funny. The UK is unimaginably fucked.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
dyslexic tawt
King Canute and the tide - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Actual name of course was Cnut.
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
WTF?!!!...actual fascists
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Looks like some (shite) advisors have told rat-boy to show some emotion and grit as the focus groups think he's just robotically managerial. Trouble is, as today shows, when in this new mode he just comes across like a whingeing sixth-former who has had their lunch-time off-site pass revoked.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Reads like a post straight out of NextDoor
8ball
1,200 lights
8ball
1,200 lights
Has Rwanda promised not to evict any of the migrants back to their country of origin?
I gather that’s what the Government were angling for at one point..
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
No, but they have taken the moral high ground above the Government of the United Kingdom by stating that they will not be party to breaking international law.
8ball
1,200 lights
I believe the UK Government are also claiming not to be breaking international law.
The moral high ground hardly seems especially high in this case anyhow.
teqniq
DisMembered
But they are, see my earlier post:
8ball
1,200 lights
But they are, see my earlier post:
Yeah, I saw it. I’m not sure whether you’re missing something or I am, but the “Here is why” bit doesn’t make sense without some extra context (which I might have honestly missed because I haven’t been arsed to watch the whole car crash in detail).
teqniq
DisMembered
8ball
1,200 lights
I was looking for the reasoning rather than the claims. I’m aware of the claims.
By which I mean, the only bit of reasoning I’d seen for Rwanda being unsafe (regardless of its actual safety or not - I’m just talking about the legal arguments flying about), was the danger of further deportation to an unsafe country of origin.
Hence HM Gov seeking assurances against that so they can claim its safe, so legal etc etc.
There could be a bunch of arguments the Government is just ignoring, though. The tweet by itself is no help in that regard, not by itself, anyway.
Last edited:
teqniq
DisMembered
I think you should be able to extract the reasoning from those 'claims', which are not actually claims but quotes from the legislation they have rushed through. But here you go... it is simply that they will conveniently ignore certain sections sections of the Human Rights Act when considering people that have arrived in the UK, claiming asylum. You will notice here that i have not called them 'migrants'. To do this is actually in contravention of international law that the UK is signatory to. The Rawandans have have realised this and are not actually having any of it, preferring to stay within the bounds of international law.
Interestingly as an aside it turns out the the vermin used another £100m of public funds to butter up the Rawandans rather than £15m as I stated earlier:
8ball
1,200 lights
No, there is no reasoning. Just claims.
And plenty of cash being handed over for nothing, obv.
I’m not sure where Rwanda would get any claim to the moral high ground from in the context of an argument based around the principle of non-refoulement.
Which made be think maybe the goal posts had moved (or been moved).
Last edited:
teqniq
DisMembered
What the actual fuck. Those are not claims, those are quotes from the legislation, along with my albeit non-legal expert analysis. It's not rocket science.
Here is a breakdown of what this new legislation actually means from a professor of public law:
The Rwanda Bill and its constitutional implications
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill has been published with much fanfare, following the conclusion a treaty between the UK and Rwanda that provides for some asylum-seekers to be remo…
publiclawforeveryone.com
8ball
1,200 lights
What the actual fuck. Those are not claims, those are quotes from the legislation, along with my albeit non-legal expert analysis. It's not rocket science.
Here is a breakdown of what this new legislation actually means from a professor of public law:
The Rwanda Bill and its constitutional implications
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill has been published with much fanfare, following the conclusion a treaty between the UK and Rwanda that provides for some asylum-seekers to be remo…
That says something quite different to the Tweets (or at least what they claim/imply), but thanks for digging it up.
Clause 2(1) is oddly worded, but if it means what yer man says it means then it’s hardly a surprise that the Rwandans are backing off. Explainable by simple arse-covering, obv.
Similar threads
