Asylum Seekers to Rwanda - A Deterrent?

[Employment Law Clinic]

The problem here is, legal or inethical, what are the altneratives?

Priti Patel asked for alternative options from any & critics.

The Bishop of Chelmsford explained why that's not really feasible for all critics - the religious ones simply explaining the values of the church.

And for constructive ideas, that could be cheaper & more humane here's a few.

they neglect the fact there are not the doctors surgeries, dentists

Well, we made them fell unwelcome, made them apply to stay here, so a few have left.

The hospital it already at capacity.

The policy to protect the NHS was discarded in favour of protecting the PM.


Karl Limpert

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

. How are they to know? They don't tend to follow social media.

Why do you think they don't keep up with the news - on mainstream media, or social media? Of course they do - they keep in touch with their families, are supported by local charities, and have access to the news.


Karl Limpert

 

[AWA Training]

I really don't know. How do they cope?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Without the PC brigade screaming "racist"

What about people like David Davis - is he adequately outside the "PC brigade" to have a view on this?

The overwhelming majority aren’t gaming the system, they are being found to be legitimate refugees who are so desperate that they risk drowning in the Channel.

People in need of protection should come to the UK via safe and lawful routes rather than making an illegal journey. But those routes need to be available, and unless you are a Ukrainian or Afghan, there are simply no safe and legal routes available to you.

Karl Limpert

 

[AWA Training]

Make no mistake, I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for these people. To risk things as they do. Travelling across Europe at the hands of mercilous people smugglers, in the freezing cold with limited food and water. To then be put into a rubber dinghy and sent across 20+ miles of hectic ocean with heavy ship traffic. Its nasty.

More should be done for them.

 

[MOIC]

I think the point of this exercise is to be a deterrent to refugees & asylum seekers who are using the people smugglers.

Whether it will work or not, only time will tell . . . . . . . if it's allowed to get off the ground.

One thing for sure, it's not a long term solution to the problem.

It perhaps needs a 2 prong 'attack' to avoid people needing/wanting to use the people smugglers and that's to have a 'UK office' based in France, where processing takes place, this way genuine refugees and asylum seekers can be processed and if accepted, get a free ferry ticket, not run by P&O.

Would France allow this and if it's found that some do not get accepted, what might the repercussions be?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Make no mistake, I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for these people. To risk things as they do. Travelling across Europe at the hands of mercilous people smugglers, in the freezing cold with limited food and water. To then be put into a rubber dinghy and sent across 20+ miles of hectic ocean with heavy ship traffic. Its nasty.

More should be done for them.

You mean, more than sending them back to the start, don't collect £200...


Isn't that the whole debate that you were only a few posts above arguing against? Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you favoured sending them (in some cases, back) to Africa.

Perhaps, as many have argued - including a letter in the Times today suggests - a more simple means of resolving things could an assessment centre in Calais. We decided against that for Ukrainian refugees, sent them back the way they came, and no reason to expect this Home Secretary will adopt a different measure for the wider population of refugees.


Karl Limpert

 

[IanSuth]

Would France allow this and if it's found that some do not get accepted, what might the repercussions be?

Not only would France allow it but have even requested it - most recently re Ukranians stuck in France

France accuses UK of ‘lack of humanity’ over Ukrainian refugees

French interior minister writes to Priti Patel urging government to set up proper consular services in Calais

www.theguardian.com

It is a simple (but often ignored fact) other than the current special scheme for Ukranians (and now closed ones for Afghan interpreters etc) there are NO legal means for an asylum seeker to reach the UK to claim asylum.

By the very definition you have to have reached the UK by some non standard means to "claim asylum", otherwise you are just what is knows as "an immigrant", the govt have spent the last decade trying to get everyone to equate asylum seeking with unlawfulness.

Here is the UNHCR definition

An asylum-seeker is an individual who has left their country of origin in order to seek asylum in another country. Practically and legally, it is necessary for that person to formally apply for asylum as soon as possible. When an individual who has applied for asylum is found to meet the definition of a refugee according to the 1951 Refugee Convention (Convention), they will be formally recognised as a refugee and granted asylum.

The definition of a refugee according to the Convention is someone who:

‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.’


And here is a Q&A from their website which shows why people have to come here on dodgy Rib's

I am currently outside the UK but wish to seek asylum in the UK. Can UNHCR assist me?​

No. To apply for asylum in the UK, you must be physically in the UK. Applications for asylum are submitted to the UK Government and not to UNHCR. More information can be found on this UK’s Government Services webpage.

 

[Newchodge]

Not only would France allow it but have even requested it - most recently re Ukranians stuck in France

France accuses UK of ‘lack of humanity’ over Ukrainian refugees

French interior minister writes to Priti Patel urging government to set up proper consular services in Calais

www.theguardian.com

It is a simple (but often ignored fact) other than the current special scheme for Ukranians (and now closed ones for Afghan interpreters etc) there are NO legal means for an asylum seeker to reach the UK to claim asylum.

By the very definition you have to have reached the UK by some non standard means to "claim asylum", otherwise you are just what is knows as "an immigrant", the govt have spent the last decade trying to get everyone to equate asylum seeking with unlawfulness.

Here is the UNHCR definition

An asylum-seeker is an individual who has left their country of origin in order to seek asylum in another country. Practically and legally, it is necessary for that person to formally apply for asylum as soon as possible. When an individual who has applied for asylum is found to meet the definition of a refugee according to the 1951 Refugee Convention (Convention), they will be formally recognised as a refugee and granted asylum.

The definition of a refugee according to the Convention is someone who:

‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.’


And here is a Q&A from their website which shows why people have to come here on dodgy Rib's

I am currently outside the UK but wish to seek asylum in the UK. Can UNHCR assist me?​

No. To apply for asylum in the UK, you must be physically in the UK. Applications for asylum are submitted to the UK Government and not to UNHCR. More information can be found on this UK’s Government Services webpage.

And, as a result of successive government policies, we offer asylum to far fewer people than most European countries.

 

[IanSuth]

From my previous reply - this is the important bit
Practically and legally, it is necessary for that person to formally apply for asylum as soon as possible

When we were in the Eu we had the Dublin Regulations that said EU member states could transfer asylum seekers back to the country they first entered the EU in - in our rush to leave by a stupid self imposed deadline we failed to arrange any kind of continuation of this deal and thus we no longer have any official means to say "they were in the EU first so you must keep them"

Under international law we HAVE to process them when they present themselves we can't legally just say "they could have applied in France" as that is not how the refugee rules are written

We were one of the original authors of those rules and if you want to read them here - https://www.unhcr.org/uk/5d9ed32b4
The only thing we really opted out of was being allowed to charge refugees for certain things and regarding industrial injury compensation

 

[UkAppCoder]

And, as a result of successive government policies, we offer asylum to far fewer people than most European countries.

We are not in a contest to see which country can take the most asylum seekers!

The reason why we are gradually taking fewer asylum seekers (if that is indeed what we're doing), is because that's what most people in our democracy want.

 

[Newchodge]

We are not in a contest to see which country can take the most asylum seekers!

The reason why we are gradually taking fewer asylum seekers (if that is indeed what we're doing), is because that's what most people in our democracy want.

Really? Where do you get those figures from?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

We are not in a contest to see which country can take the most asylum seekers!

The reason why we are gradually taking fewer asylum seekers (if that is indeed what we're doing), is because that's what most people in our democracy want.

When was that decision taken? Last I checked, we signed the 1951 Refugee Convention; didn't know our electorate, let alone our parliament, ever voted to devalue our commitment in any way.


Karl Limpert

 

[IanSuth]

We are not in a contest to see which country can take the most asylum seekers!

The reason why we are gradually taking fewer asylum seekers (if that is indeed what we're doing), is because that's what most people in our democracy want.

Please understand the way the international law regarding asylum seekers works

WE HAVE NO CHOICE ON NUMBERS - it isn't a voluntary scheme

If they get here, apply and meet the criteria it is our internationally legally binding obligation to shelter them - we can't differentiate between background/race/colour - if they meet the criteria they meet the criteria END OF

I am waiting for the first legal challenge by a young single black gay person being transported to Rwanda which is in a part of the world not exactly renowned for its treatment of gays - especially if the asylum seeker is claiming asylum due to persecution due to sexuality

 

[UkAppCoder]

@Newchodge, @Employment Law Clinic. You both need to know how our democracy works.

It's not all about elections, referenda, etc.. There is continuous pressure on MPs to satisfy the will of the people. Letters to MPs, polls, surveys, media, etc. continuously monitor and measure how people feel about various issues. The strategies which MPs use to address these issues are devised so that their chances of keeping their jobs and staying in power are maximised.

MPs make their decisions according to various criteria. Policies on migration to the UK have been decided mainly on our labour shortage and the people's concerns regarding border control.

The labour shortage could disaffect many people because it would affect our economy and would not be good for our ongoing ageing population crisis. Control of our borders is important to the majority of people in the UK.

The ways in which MPs and the government deal with all of these issues, and more, could affect the outcome of local and national elections. This is why MPs and political parties have to be astutely aware of the general feeling about various issues.

So, over the past few years (decades) we have been taking lots of migrants because of our labour shortage, and our desire to increase our population in order to grow our economy. Since the former has now largely been addressed for the time being, we are now in a position to decrease the rate of immigration and address the border control issue.

It sounds harsh, but that's the way the system works. I suggest you both watch a few sessions in the house of commons. You both seem to be rigidly referring to laws, treaties, conventions, etc., and other documents which have been signed and set in concrete. You also seem to expect that these rules are immutable, inflexible and can never be modified.

No offence intended to either of you, but I think you both need to get out of your offices and see how things work in the real world!

 

[Newchodge]

@Newchodge, @Employment Law Clinic. You both need to know how our democracy works.

It's not all about elections, referenda, etc.. There is continuous pressure on MPs to satisfy the will of the people. Letters to MPs, polls, surveys, media, etc. continuously monitor and measure how people feel about various issues. The strategies which MPs use to address these issues are devised so that their chances of keeping their jobs and staying in power are maximised.

MPs make their decisions according to various criteria. Policies on migration to the UK have been decided mainly on our labour shortage and the people's concerns regarding border control.

The labour shortage could disaffect many people because it would affect our economy and would not be good for our ongoing ageing population crisis. Control of our borders is important to the majority of people in the UK.

The ways in which MPs and the government deal with all of these issues, and more, could affect the outcome of local and national elections. This is why MPs and political parties have to be astutely aware of the general feeling about various issues.

So, over the past few years (decades) we have been taking lots of migrants because of our labour shortage, and our desire to increase our population in order to grow our economy. Since the former has now largely been addressed for the time being, we are now in a position to decrease the rate of immigration and address the border control issue.

It sounds harsh, but that's the way the system works. I suggest you both watch a few sessions in the house of commons. You both seem to be rigidly referring to laws, treaties, conventions, etc., and other documents which have been signed and set in concrete. You also seem to expect that these rules are immutable, inflexible and can never be modified.

No offence intended to either of you, but I think you both need to get out of your offices and see how things work in the real world!

Are you not aware of the current HUGE labour shortage?

 

[IanSuth]

Are you not aware of the current HUGE labour shortage?

And the fact international law over rides local right wing pressures

And for your reference i did IT recruitment for 27 years until last march (so know a fair bit about employment and visa laws), the other 2 people you mention Newchodge and EmploymentLawClinic have far more legal knowledge and are saying the same

Do you think it possible that those with more knowledge of laws in this area have well.......more knowledge of law

PS figures just out show that post Brexit there hasnt been a drop in migration just a shift in origin from Eu to Indian/Ukranian & Nigerian

If law was created by popularity we would have strung up/beheaded/castrated many people over the last few decades including a fair few innocents - luckily it isn't

 

[Newchodge]

And the fact international law over rides local right wing pressures

Well, yes, but international law appears at the moment to count for nothing. Certainly with the current government.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I suggest you both watch a few sessions in the house of commons.

I’ve watched it regularly, at all times, from the main chamber to parliamentary committees, ever since it’s been televised.

So, over the past few years (decades) we have been taking lots of migrants…

And we still are taking lots of economic migrants. But this thread is about asylum-seekers – potential refugees – not migrants.

There is continuous pressure on MPs to satisfy the will of the people. Letters to MPs, polls, surveys, media, etc. continuously monitor and measure how people feel about various issues. The strategies which MPs use to address these issues are devised so that their chances of keeping their jobs and staying in power are maximised.

If MPs feel so strongly about any given subject or issue of concern to their voters, there’s always a simple answer: stand for election on a manifesto that explicitly states what they would do on said policy.
Such is the formalities & understandings of parliament that if a manifesto pledge is voted for in the Commons, ultimately the Lords will not block enabling legislation.


Can you point to more than* a single paragraph in the Conservative manifesto of 2019 (only 3 years ago) that covered "refugees"?


*there is one reference, on page 23 of the manifesto…


Karl Limpert

 

[IanSuth]

Here it is in full - this is the only mention of asylum in the entire manifesto - can't see how "we will send the ones we don't like the look of to Rwanda" fits into this


We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

The ways in which MPs and the government deal with all of these issues, and more, could affect the outcome of local and national elections.

Like millions of others when we got out of our homes & offices on Thursday, 12th December 2019, I voted in the last election.

The country as a whole voted for a Conservative majority of 80 on the promise that government would “continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution”.

Do you not think the 13,966,454 that voted for the Conservatives have a right to expect the Conservatives to deliver on that manifesto promise, rather than off-shore this responsibility to Rwanda?

Or are you suggesting that the manifesto on which the gov't were elected is meaningless, @UkAppCoder , and rather than a X on the ballot paper - placed there based on the manifesto that each MP stood for election on - it's only a letter to each MP that can influence what my parliament does? Perhaps it's you that needs to get out more, or read more.


Karl Limpert

 

[Karimbo]

its a complete farce, rwanda are making a small industry for taking european and israli migrants, taking cash to give migrants refuge, majority of the times these people leave rwanda and rawanda still pockets the money claiming they're still residing in their borders.

secondly there are lgbt asylum seekers of rwandan descent who are escaping the country to seek refuge in europe. how can we send asylum seekers there which has human rights problems of its own?

 

[IanSuth]

secondly there are lgbt asylum seekers of rwandan descent who are escaping the country to seek refuge in europe. how can we send asylum seekers there which has human rights problems of its own?

And there lies the issue as well

As soon as there is a legal precedent set that we can't deport anyone to Rwanda who is LGBT+ (and remember initially we are concentrating on single mainly black men of working age) then you will see every detained migrant identifying as LGBT - something impossible to disprove and a "get out of jail free" card for this scheme which will render it worse than useless and a huge waste of £

If social media can work to spread the word that the scheme exists it sure as hell can spread a workaround at least as fast

 

[MOIC]

So, first plane to Rwanda scheduled to leave next week . . . . . . or not.

All predictable.

 

[Karimbo]

So, first plane to Rwanda scheduled to leave next week . . . . . . or not.

All predictable.

Cancelled due to lack of airport staff most likely.

All these policies pandering to the right is really making the country look bad. The constant party gate issues, the no confidence motion, moving back to lbs and ozs. Doing brexit but not having the sovereignty to push back on EU imposing a border between great Britain and NI.

Its all making the country and economy weak in the eyes of investors

 

[Newchodge]

Cancelled due to lack of airport staff most likely.

All these policies pandering to the right is really making the country look bad. The constant party gate issues, the no confidence motion, moving back to lbs and ozs. Doing brexit but not having the sovereignty to push back on EU imposing a border between great Britain and NI.

Its all making the country and economy weak in the eyes of investors

I agree generally, however the EU did not impose a border between great Britain and NI. Johnson suggested it.

 

[MOIC]

So, the first court challenge has found in favour of the government, albeit granting the right to appeal which will be heard on Monday.

Prince Charles making his feelings known (Sending people to Rwanda is appauling) is not really being politically neutral, is it?

 

[Gyumri]

If there are any dentists among them then they should be given indefinite leave to remain. People are not so much pulling their hair out at present but are having to resort to pulling their own chompers out because they cannot get to see an NHS dentist. That doesn't seem fair.

 

[MOIC]

Will the flight take off?

With any asylum seekers on board?

My guess is that there'll be 2 and the flight won't take off.

Your guess?

 

[Gyumri]

There will one plus the Home Secretary for publicity and maybe a health and safety and equal opportunities official - so that makes at least four and anyone else who wants to stay at the Rwanda Hilton for a short holiday.

 

[MOIC]

Not good publicity if there's just one!

 

[NickGrogan]

Home secretary, various staff, a health and safety person or two, several lawyers, a "shadow" minister - but not Yvette Cooper.

Zero asylum seekers.

It will be hailed a great success.

 

[MOIC]

Flight has been given the go ahead by the high court.

So far, one asylum seeker has lost his claim to stop being deported.

 

[IanSuth]

5 but it won't leave until tomorrow is my guess

 

[MOIC]

So, all 7 asylum seekers taken off the plane.

European Court of Human Rights …….

The right outcome?

 

[Newchodge]

The legal one.

 

[Ian J]

So, all 7 asylum seekers taken off the plane.

European Court of Human Rights …….

The right outcome?

It seems that the judgement was based on "real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment".

If that is the case why weren't the French prosecuted for keeping all of those migrants in their inhuman and degrading camps?

 

[MOIC]

Could it be that the ECHR is politically motivated, given we’ve left the EU?

Interesting that the UK courts thought it was OK.

 

[WaveJumper]

It seems that the judgement was based on "real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment".

If that is the case why weren't the French prosecuted for keeping all of those migrants in their inhuman and degrading camps?

Exactly, one rule for the French and another for everyone else. It makes my mind boggle that there is not more of a condemnation of the way the French governmeent are dealing with the camps in France.

And is our new scheme just a money making machine for the lawyers

 

[Newchodge]

Could it be that the ECHR is politically motivated, given we’ve left the EU?

Interesting that the UK courts thought it was OK.

The ECHR, which we were one of the prime movers in getting set up, has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union except that both include the word Europe, which seems to be enough to set the dogs barking.