Farleigh Hospice Food And Drink
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
No More Hotels & Pizzas
It's off to Rwanda, will it deter them?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
'The government has today (Thursday 14 April) set out bold new plans to tackle illegal migration, control our borders and crack down on the criminal gangs exploiting this international crisis.
This will see migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies, recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants.
Under this Partnership the UK is investing £120 million into the economic development and growth of Rwanda. Funding will also be provided to support the delivery of asylum operations, accommodation and integration, similar to the costs incurred in the UK for these services.
Alongside this action, which will disrupt the business model of people-smuggling gangs, the military will also now take operational command of responding to small boats in the Channel, in partnership with Border Force.'
The Spectator
This will see migrants who make dangerous or illegal journeys, such as by small boat or hidden in lorries, have their asylum claim processed in Rwanda. Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies, recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants.
Under this Partnership the UK is investing £120 million into the economic development and growth of Rwanda. Funding will also be provided to support the delivery of asylum operations, accommodation and integration, similar to the costs incurred in the UK for these services.
Alongside this action, which will disrupt the business model of people-smuggling gangs, the military will also now take operational command of responding to small boats in the Channel, in partnership with Border Force.'
The Spectator
//…but surely the government advisors and legal mob would have anticipated the legal challenges etc. //
You are a crease sometimes, Tora! :-)
This is window dressing. It’s so as to appear to be doing something about a problem which many people desperately want to see addressed. The problem of “the boat people” is causing enormous stress on public services. One of the reasons cited for the airport disruption is that loads of Border Farce personnel have been shipped down to Dover to deal with the influx. It’s costing £1.3m a day (and rising) to provide accommodation for these people. That’s half a billion quid a year, just to put a roof over their heads. Near to where I live an enormous development is under way to provide over 1,000 “apartments” in a totally unsuitable location and it will cause enormous problems in the area. Well, 600 people pitched up at Dover yesterday so a few days like that and that's the capacity provided by that development gone.
Here's why it won’t work:
// Of course this will be stopped by the HRA pond life briefs no doubt all queuing up already to fight it with tax payers money no doubt.//
The architects of this scheme know it won’t work to any significant degree and they know why. M’Learned Friends will already be licking their lips at the thought of the poor, disposed people arriving at Dover, being met by the Army and led off to holding centres awaiting deportation to Rwanda. They will have their research into conditions there already prepared. The scheme will hit the headlines over Easter, give Ms Patel a bit of street cred for a few days, will fail over the next few months and then be quietly ditched, hopefully at a time when nobody will notice.
//So would they not have changed the law first?//
The law that prevents these actions is our own Human Rights Act. No party has any intention of repealing it or even tinkering with it. In any case that would be futile because, despite our own Act virtually mirroring the European Convention on Human Rights and was designed to stop people going to Strasbourg, they still have the right to do so. Again, no party has any intention of withdrawing the UK’s signature from that convention.
//Perhaps we should ask the Ozzies how they dealt with THEIR human rights lawyers, because they've been deporting illegals immigrants for years.//
The Ozzies would tell you that their Human Rights Act (The Human Rights Commission Act) is nothing like as vague and all-encompassing as ours, They will also tell you that they do not subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights. .
//Use of the terms bednobs mentioned is to express the dislike or contempt that some people have for the concepts involved.//
Yes they are. I used “Yuman Rights” deliberately in that context.
You are a crease sometimes, Tora! :-)
This is window dressing. It’s so as to appear to be doing something about a problem which many people desperately want to see addressed. The problem of “the boat people” is causing enormous stress on public services. One of the reasons cited for the airport disruption is that loads of Border Farce personnel have been shipped down to Dover to deal with the influx. It’s costing £1.3m a day (and rising) to provide accommodation for these people. That’s half a billion quid a year, just to put a roof over their heads. Near to where I live an enormous development is under way to provide over 1,000 “apartments” in a totally unsuitable location and it will cause enormous problems in the area. Well, 600 people pitched up at Dover yesterday so a few days like that and that's the capacity provided by that development gone.
Here's why it won’t work:
// Of course this will be stopped by the HRA pond life briefs no doubt all queuing up already to fight it with tax payers money no doubt.//
The architects of this scheme know it won’t work to any significant degree and they know why. M’Learned Friends will already be licking their lips at the thought of the poor, disposed people arriving at Dover, being met by the Army and led off to holding centres awaiting deportation to Rwanda. They will have their research into conditions there already prepared. The scheme will hit the headlines over Easter, give Ms Patel a bit of street cred for a few days, will fail over the next few months and then be quietly ditched, hopefully at a time when nobody will notice.
//So would they not have changed the law first?//
The law that prevents these actions is our own Human Rights Act. No party has any intention of repealing it or even tinkering with it. In any case that would be futile because, despite our own Act virtually mirroring the European Convention on Human Rights and was designed to stop people going to Strasbourg, they still have the right to do so. Again, no party has any intention of withdrawing the UK’s signature from that convention.
//Perhaps we should ask the Ozzies how they dealt with THEIR human rights lawyers, because they've been deporting illegals immigrants for years.//
The Ozzies would tell you that their Human Rights Act (The Human Rights Commission Act) is nothing like as vague and all-encompassing as ours, They will also tell you that they do not subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights. .
//Use of the terms bednobs mentioned is to express the dislike or contempt that some people have for the concepts involved.//
Yes they are. I used “Yuman Rights” deliberately in that context.
NJ; As you will know, the human rights encompassed by the ECHR are:
the right to life (Article 2)
freedom from torture (Article 3)
freedom from slavery (Article 4)
the right to liberty (Article 5)
the right to a fair trial (Article 6)
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't against the law at the time (Article 7)
the right to respect for family and private life (Article 8)
freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)
freedom of expression (Article 10)
freedom of assembly (Article 11)
the right to marry and start a family (Article 12)
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights (Article 14)
the right to protection of property (Protocol 1, Article 1)
the right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2)
the right to participate in free elections (Protocol 1, Article 3)
the abolition of the death penalty (Protocol 13)
How does moving an illegal immigrant to another country (Rwanda) for processing impinge on any of them?
the right to life (Article 2)
freedom from torture (Article 3)
freedom from slavery (Article 4)
the right to liberty (Article 5)
the right to a fair trial (Article 6)
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't against the law at the time (Article 7)
the right to respect for family and private life (Article 8)
freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)
freedom of expression (Article 10)
freedom of assembly (Article 11)
the right to marry and start a family (Article 12)
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights (Article 14)
the right to protection of property (Protocol 1, Article 1)
the right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2)
the right to participate in free elections (Protocol 1, Article 3)
the abolition of the death penalty (Protocol 13)
How does moving an illegal immigrant to another country (Rwanda) for processing impinge on any of them?
//How does moving an illegal immigrant to another country (Rwanda) for processing impinge on any of them?//
The usual route is Article 8, Khandro. Article 5 might also come into play as they will have to be detained (though there's no need to invoke that - UK laws have adequate protections against unlawful imprisonment and they will be invoked by the migrants' lawyers).
Anyway, no need to debate it too much. The proof of the pudding, as they say. I'll diary this thread out for a re-visit in a few months and we'll review how the new policy is going.
The usual route is Article 8, Khandro. Article 5 might also come into play as they will have to be detained (though there's no need to invoke that - UK laws have adequate protections against unlawful imprisonment and they will be invoked by the migrants' lawyers).
Anyway, no need to debate it too much. The proof of the pudding, as they say. I'll diary this thread out for a re-visit in a few months and we'll review how the new policy is going.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.