|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 10, 2023 20:40:10 GMT
Liz Kendall refuses 5 times to say whether Labour will ask Rwanda for the money back.
Meaning that of course they won't.
Although of course they'll blame the Tories for spending it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 20:59:58 GMT
Liz Kendall refuses 5 times to say whether Labour will ask Rwanda for the money back.
Meaning that of course they won't.
Although of course they'll blame the Tories for spending it in the first place.
would they get it back? Sounds like a daft question to me. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Dec 10, 2023 21:14:37 GMT
If contracts have been signed, services delivered by Rwanda, and money paid, I can't see any grounds for getting it back (and it would be perfectly legitimate to rag any government who entered into such a deal in the first place, too).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 10, 2023 21:31:56 GMT
But the Wallys amongst us will bleat that accommodating vulnerable asylum seekers in 'camps' like these is a breach of their human rights and no different to what the Nazis did in Auschwitz.
Don't be stupid. The Nazis imprisoned people in Auschwitz in order to murder them. There is no comparison. No kiddin'? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 10, 2023 21:58:18 GMT
It's a lot more recent than that - I was in a 15 man barracks room in the 1970's. But the Wallys amongst us will bleat that accommodating vulnerable asylum seekers in 'camps' like these is a breach of their human rights and no different to what the Nazis did in Auschwitz.
I seem to recall reading an article recently which complained that requiring them share rooms in 3 and 4 star hotels is 'inhumane'.
Yes, but in the 70's and 80's we didn't have the Human Rights Act and a whole industry of greedy lawyers making a mint from it. Now people are encouraged to believe that any problem in their lives is the something to do with their human rights being attacked and that there is some financial remedy - the massive expansion of Legal Aid has a lot to answer for. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 10, 2023 22:01:21 GMT
Well it would be an improvement on what we have now but I can't see it surviving contact with Human Rights Laws - the same reason that the current proposals for Rwanda will fail. My understanding of the issue with the Rwanda plan is two fold. The first is refoulment (That Rwanda will expel problem migrants to unsafe countries) The second is that Rwanda's legal system is not as robust as that in the West. If a person goes willingly to Rwanda and requests refugee status both these issues are circumvented. At least that is my understanding. I was thinking about the proposal of keeping failed asylum seekers in camps - keeping them on a boat in Portland Harbour (where they are fee to come and go) is an infringement on their human rights so what chance of keeping them penned up in camps?. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 10, 2023 22:06:42 GMT
Rwanda just like France will keep taking our money for nothing in return, even if this Rwanda fiasco does take off it will only take a fraction of the illegals, returning them immediately back to France is the only sane cheap option, and we should be spending tax payers money on legally challenging Macron/France if he refuses to take them back. Why should he? They didnt start in France, have crossed other countries to get to the Channel. They have no connection with France. On what grounds should Macron " take them back"? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 22:20:42 GMT
My understanding of the issue with the Rwanda plan is two fold. The first is refoulment (That Rwanda will expel problem migrants to unsafe countries) The second is that Rwanda's legal system is not as robust as that in the West. If a person goes willingly to Rwanda and requests refugee status both these issues are circumvented. At least that is my understanding. I was thinking about the proposal of keeping failed asylum seekers in camps - keeping them on a boat in Portland Harbour (where they are fee to come and go) is an infringement on their human rights so what chance of keeping them penned up in camps?. According to the most recent European Directive on detention, an asylum seeker can be detained for six reasons: In order to determine or verify his or her nationality or identity; In order to determine elements on which the asylum application is based which could not be obtained without detention, especially if there is a risk of absconding; In order to decide on the asylum applicant's right to enter the territory; When the asylum seeker is subject to a return procedure ... if he or she is believed to be making the application in order to delay the return; For reasons of national security or public order; Prior to a Dublin transfer if there is a serious risk of absconding. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 9:08:17 GMT
And who said these illegal migrants would be 'spending their lives in one'?
Anywhere these illegals are put is suppose to be short term, once they are processed they either stay or kicked out, so what are you on about?
I'm on about reality processing time for asylum claims is 2 years for the straight forward ones, challenged decisions can delay for years. Further if opinion on here is considered those asylum seekers would be kept in camps until they returned home. That would be my preference, but it is a preference. The vast majority of irregular entries are people who are not asylum seekers and (of course) can not make a proper case that they are. All the same you get to stay in the UK whether you are or not and changing that prospect to barracks on a windy island will mean only the genuine will bother. The numbers will fall off a cliff once the incentives are changed. Bear in mind that even people with a sturdy case aren't 100% genuinely travelling across Europe to the UK to escape danger. Even those people are partially engaging in a fraud by the time they reach the UK . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 15:04:36 GMT
Is the Rwanda plan really a plan though, changing the safety status of a country does not actually change the safety status of the country, does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 11, 2023 15:19:15 GMT
I'm on about reality processing time for asylum claims is 2 years for the straight forward ones, challenged decisions can delay for years. Further if opinion on here is considered those asylum seekers would be kept in camps until they returned home. That would be my preference, but it is a preference. The vast majority of irregular entries are people who are not asylum seekers and (of course) can not make a proper case that they are. All the same you get to stay in the UK whether you are or not and changing that prospect to barracks on a windy island will mean only the genuine will bother. The numbers will fall off a cliff once the incentives are changed. Bear in mind that even people with a sturdy case aren't 100% genuinely travelling across Europe to the UK to escape danger. Even those people are partially engaging in a fraud by the time they reach the UK .I'm a little confused, Orac. Are you suggesting that the "vast majority" of people coming here by irregular means do notcome here to claim asylum (not sure we know if that is true) or that the vast majority of people who claim asylum are not entitled to it which simply is not true. As we have established before people seeking asylum are not obliged to seek asylum in the first "safe" country they reach so that seems a red herring. As far as I know few if anyone would argue that those coming here to work illegally in the black market have, in most circumstances, no right to stay here as is the case, in most circumstances, with visa overstayers, considered likely to be the biggest number by far. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 15:27:54 GMT
That would be my preference, but it is a preference. The vast majority of irregular entries are people who are not asylum seekers and (of course) can not make a proper case that they are. All the same you get to stay in the UK whether you are or not and changing that prospect to barracks on a windy island will mean only the genuine will bother. The numbers will fall off a cliff once the incentives are changed. Bear in mind that even people with a sturdy case aren't 100% genuinely travelling across Europe to the UK to escape danger. Even those people are partially engaging in a fraud by the time they reach the UK .I'm a little confused, Orac. Are you suggesting that the "vast majority" of people coming here by irregular means do notcome here to claim asylum (not sure we know if that is true) or that the vast majority of people who claim asylum are not entitled to it which simply is not true. The vast majority do not have a proper claim. That is, they would be rejected if their claim were examined responsibly by an agency not trying their best to get people into the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 11, 2023 16:01:49 GMT
I'm a little confused, Orac. Are you suggesting that the "vast majority" of people coming here by irregular means do notcome here to claim asylum (not sure we know if that is true) or that the vast majority of people who claim asylum are not entitled to it which simply is not true. The vast majority do not have a proper claim. That is, they would be rejected if their claim were examined responsibly by an agency not trying their best to get people into the UK. And your evidence for that is.....? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 11, 2023 16:14:35 GMT
It seems likely that the Home Office, which is responsible for assessing asylum claims, has been directed to take the a path of least resistance by not pursuing dubious claims as vigorously as they might.
The stark contrast between acceptance rates in the UK and the EU supports that theory.
The plan has been given additional impetus by the need to drain the legacy backlog by the end of the year as Sunak 'pledged' would happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2023 16:18:00 GMT
It's a lot more recent than that - I was in a 15 man barracks room in the 1970's. But the Wallys amongst us will bleat that accommodating vulnerable asylum seekers in 'camps' like these is a breach of their human rights and no different to what the Nazis did in Auschwitz.
I seem to recall reading an article recently which complained that requiring them share rooms in 3 and 4 star hotels is 'inhumane'.
I shared a room in a small second class hotel with a drainage ganger I had never met when I was first provided accommodation for working away from home. In the Falklands our staff were put in shared accommodation during airport construction and in Hong Kong some staff hot bedded.I suppose we all should have complained as regards our human rights but then I suppose we would have been told to take a hike. |
|
