Immigration Watch International (2): High Court greenlights UK’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda

Tuesday, December 20, 2022

High Court greenlights UK’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda

The British government says it will send migrants who have crossed the English Channel by boat to Rwanda as soon as it can, after the High Court ruled the deportation policy was legal.

The UK wants to try and bust the people-smuggling gangs sending boatloads of migrants from the north of France to the UK by diverting asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing and resettlement in a plan modelled on Australia’s controversial but successful policy of stopping the flow of immigrants coming by boats.

But the plan has been stymied by legal challenges, including in the European Court of Human Rights which issued a last-minute injunction halting the first-planned flight in June. The injunction remains in force until the conclusion of legal appeals.

The ECHR is separate to the European Union but its ruling has sparked calls by some Conservatives for Britain to quit the Convention.

On Monday, the High Court handed down its judgment and said that the plan was lawful.

“The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom,” Lord Justice Lewis said.

“The relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the Refugee Convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations on the government including the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998,” Swift said.

But the decision also dealt a blow to the government.

“The Home Secretary has not properly considered the circumstances of the eight individual claimants whose cases we have considered,” Swift ruled.

“For that reason, the decisions in those cases will be set aside and their cases will be referred back to the Home Secretary for her to consider afresh,” Swift said.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said the judgment, although set to be appealed in the Supreme Court, was a vindication of the government’s policy and that the government was determined “to deliver this partnership at scale as soon as possible”.

The sooner it is up and running, the sooner we will break the business model of the evil gangs,” she said.

Braverman said that the British people did not support open borders but had been told these views were “immoral.”

“Even today we see from certain quarters an unhealthy contempt for anyone who wants controlled migration,” she said.

“Such an attitude is unhelpful, moreover, it’s fanciful, we do not have infinite capacity ... we cannot tolerate people coming here illegally.

“It is not legitimate to leave a safe country like France to seek asylum in the United Kingdom,” she said.

But the opposition’s home affairs spokeswoman Yvette Cooper said that Britain deserved better. “Britain is better than this,” she said.

The UK is grappling with the largest-ever number arrivals of migrants on small boats in a single year, with numbers exceeding 44,000 this year.

Yolande Mokolo, a spokeswoman for the Rwandan government said: “We welcome this decision and stand ready to offer asylum seekers and migrants safety and the opportunity to build a new life in Rwanda.”

“This is a positive step in our quest to contribute to innovative, long-term solutions to the global migration crisis,” Mokolo said.

Britain has already paid Rwanda £140 million ($253 million) to house and process asylum seekers at the Hope Hostel in Kigali which has so far remained empty.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/high-court-greenlights-uk-s-plan-to-deport-migrants-to-rwanda-20221220-p5c7lk.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Tuesday, December 20, 2022

High Court greenlights UK’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors