bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
she was right though - the figures do bear no valid comparison. Why such blatant lies when the facts can so easily be established. Think she needs to get back to photocopying legal documents thats about her level
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
I carnt get my head round it legal to send people to third countries Rwanda never to return or have the option to go back to where they came from. This is surely no different to extraordinary rendition used on terrorists.
Where is the Rwanda plan up to in regard to the law and legal challenges ? How many people have been sent?
Where is the Rwanda plan up to in regard to the law and legal challenges ? How many people have been sent?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
None have been sent yet as a result of legal challenges - there was a flight ready to go when the courts intervened
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 5,896
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
This is the flaw with the whole policy.
You can only send them to a 'safe' country, which means you have to prove the country is 'safe' in the meaning of the law. I would imagine a lawyer could find something 'unsafe' about most countries outside the EU and a few within.
Then you have to find a 'safe' country willing to accept them. I believe the deal with Rwanda works out at 600k a head. It would be far cheaper to put them through university! Rwanda will only take so many and has the right to send its own asylum-seekers in exchange. 'Complex cases.' That sounds promising, doesn't it?
Back in the day, when we owned Van Diemen's Land, it would have been a doddle, but those days have gone.
Even if you have no qualms about the morality of the policy - none at all - it is still hard to see how this is a pragmatic solution, or even practicable.
You can only send them to a 'safe' country, which means you have to prove the country is 'safe' in the meaning of the law. I would imagine a lawyer could find something 'unsafe' about most countries outside the EU and a few within.
Then you have to find a 'safe' country willing to accept them. I believe the deal with Rwanda works out at 600k a head. It would be far cheaper to put them through university! Rwanda will only take so many and has the right to send its own asylum-seekers in exchange. 'Complex cases.' That sounds promising, doesn't it?
Back in the day, when we owned Van Diemen's Land, it would have been a doddle, but those days have gone.
Even if you have no qualms about the morality of the policy - none at all - it is still hard to see how this is a pragmatic solution, or even practicable.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Rather like Scott Benton's claim of 100's of millions want to come here through Bravermans article citing billions we have Jenrick says Rwanda will take tens of thousands of our deportee's - none of them offering any context or proof for those statments.
All we know is that Rwanda have agreed - at significant cost - to take 200 a year. Now if they were able to take tens of thousands all Rwanda has to do is say so and Jenrick can tell us at what cost
I see it’s been ruled legal but it seems the ruling is based on them being processed there and then being able to come here but the policy is that if successful they don’t get to come here rather win the right to live in Rwanda if they fail they get sent to wherever they came from
bluefish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 706
- Team supported
- City
I don't how or where Braverman was brought up but if it had been in our household,my mum would have taken her to one side and given her a good talking to. Braverman would no doubt have regained her humanity.
Instead we have this empty shell of a faux politician.
Instead we have this empty shell of a faux politician.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Gripper Stebson would have made a minister of the crown in this Govt to be fair - if you are old enough you know
Stable, as in full of horseshit?