Hopefully this decision will be reversed on appeal, because this pretty much amounts to state-approved trafficking
Makes sense, the High Court can’t really overrule the legislature. The government and parliament have been hell bent on making this country an authoritarian state by taking away power from the judiciary. Their hands are tied. The only one that could do something is the Supreme Court and that’s going to be a challenge. The real power lies with parliament and the government, they can put an end to it but there’s no chance that’ll change.
No doubt some redditors will glue themselves to something to stop these people being deported
I think it was always the case that the rich would bring down the shutters on what will likely be a large number of climate change refugees over the next few decades. I fully expect other countries to follow our lead now and move these people to countries that will accept money for people.
[removed]
This is where we find out that an un-named individual in the ECJ will be the judge of that
Finally, can we get on with it now?!
Great, lets start shipping them out
This dumb judge is just rubberstamping government policy. The courts are subordinate to the sitting government and will rarely rule against them. There is nothing legal about this at all and an idiot judge pretending otherwise is full of baked beans.
finally, start deporting everyone of them right away
This is a weird one right cause everyone seems to be lying at the same time.
The government want the deports to be a deterrent, implicitly making clear Rwanda is a place you don’t want to end up in. Whilst at the same time making it clear Rwanda is safe.
The opposition want to claim Rwanda is a horrible, awful place. Despite, by every definition used internationally it being acceptable to house refugees. The arguments of autocracy and homophobia don’t work when Jamaica, Qatar etc all have the same issue and host refugees.
As such they have to contradict themselves and often come across as a bit racist when they argue anywhere in Africa is too dangerous. The main deterrent for Rwanda is not how dangerous it is but that people WANT to come to the UK for the economic chance not out of danger.
Lawful? Apparently so.
Moral? Very much no.
Cost effective? Doesn’t look like it.
Actually effective in reducing migration or asylum seekers? Lol no.
A way for the Conservative government to posture and dog whistle to the same Daily Mail reading swathe of the electorate who gave us stellar choices like Brexit and Boris? Absolutely.
They can call it lawful, that doesn’t change how inhuman it, or they are.
Sounds like Rwanda have a money printing machine then. All they need to do is make sure people keep coming to the UK.
As it is I think the Tories wanted this blocked so they could grandstand on evil courts again. Now that it is through it is just a really silly and expensive plan that achieves nothing.
The state of these comments…
Utterly privileged people totally devoid of compassion, who think they are somehow deserving because they had the incredible luck to be born in the countries that do the exploiting and the destroying, and who look at those who are on the receiving end of their destructive lifestyle like they are turds on their shoes.
For absolute shame.
> Their lawyers argued the plans were unlawful and that Rwanda “tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.
> But representatives from the Home Office argued the agreement between the UK and the country provided assurances that everyone sent there would have a “safe and effective” refugee status determination procedure.
Deporting people to a country that commits torture and murder on opponents and pretending they’ll be safe.
Lawful under UK law, perhaps.
Not necessarily under international law.
And whether it is lawful or not doesn’t alter the mind-numbing immorality of the plan.
We have a government without a shred of human decency.
Of course it’s lawful. The issue is whether it’s ethical. And I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as some people think. But actually discussing that is very risky in this community.
Parliament is Soverign, anything it legislates is lawful
But the ECHR won’t let you do it, and we can’t leave that without a load of issues popping up
The courts do get something right from time to time
Reminder that the BBC has reporting in Rwanda.
Here’s a lovely section from one of today’s articles.
>For days we’ve been trying to get an asylum seeker living in Rwanda to speak to us on the record. Time and again people agree, and then mysteriously become unavailable, often after being visited by a “community leader”.
>
>”I’ve asked for asylum,” Mohammed tells me.
>
>”The authorities don’t say no, but everything is ‘tomorrow’, or ‘come back next month’. It’s been almost one year that they haven’t given it to me.”
That’s where the government is sending them.
An interesting amount of people in this thread don’t understand the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant either.
Yeah nuking cities to kill innocent millions is morally wrong too, luckily we don’t have to do it because the deterrent is enough.
Rwanda is the nuclear option and once unchallengeable in courts we should see dramatically less migrants trying to illegally cross from France.
In addition to this we need to spend more resources on processing all outstanding cases and introduce a safe method for applying to come here.
Which. Court.?
Can an African Court do the same?
Then its lawful for thhe UK to take in all people from The Commonwealth Nations including those that they had Colonised, including their families.
This is completely lawful.
As it should be – a democratically elected government should not have limits on what it can do
Australia’s numbers plummeted when they did the same – we aren’t obligated to take in the world’s poor
26 comments
Hopefully this decision will be reversed on appeal, because this pretty much amounts to state-approved trafficking
Makes sense, the High Court can’t really overrule the legislature. The government and parliament have been hell bent on making this country an authoritarian state by taking away power from the judiciary. Their hands are tied. The only one that could do something is the Supreme Court and that’s going to be a challenge. The real power lies with parliament and the government, they can put an end to it but there’s no chance that’ll change.
[Press summary](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Rwanda-press-summary.pdf) and [full judgment](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/AAA-v-SSHD-Rwanda-judgment.pdf) links. The Government wins on principle, but it seems that each of the eight individual applicants will have their cases reviewed, because apparently there were multiple errors that the Home Secretary will have to fix.
No doubt some redditors will glue themselves to something to stop these people being deported
I think it was always the case that the rich would bring down the shutters on what will likely be a large number of climate change refugees over the next few decades. I fully expect other countries to follow our lead now and move these people to countries that will accept money for people.
[removed]
This is where we find out that an un-named individual in the ECJ will be the judge of that
Finally, can we get on with it now?!
Great, lets start shipping them out
This dumb judge is just rubberstamping government policy. The courts are subordinate to the sitting government and will rarely rule against them. There is nothing legal about this at all and an idiot judge pretending otherwise is full of baked beans.
finally, start deporting everyone of them right away
This is a weird one right cause everyone seems to be lying at the same time.
The government want the deports to be a deterrent, implicitly making clear Rwanda is a place you don’t want to end up in. Whilst at the same time making it clear Rwanda is safe.
The opposition want to claim Rwanda is a horrible, awful place. Despite, by every definition used internationally it being acceptable to house refugees. The arguments of autocracy and homophobia don’t work when Jamaica, Qatar etc all have the same issue and host refugees.
As such they have to contradict themselves and often come across as a bit racist when they argue anywhere in Africa is too dangerous. The main deterrent for Rwanda is not how dangerous it is but that people WANT to come to the UK for the economic chance not out of danger.
Lawful? Apparently so.
Moral? Very much no.
Cost effective? Doesn’t look like it.
Actually effective in reducing migration or asylum seekers? Lol no.
A way for the Conservative government to posture and dog whistle to the same Daily Mail reading swathe of the electorate who gave us stellar choices like Brexit and Boris? Absolutely.
They can call it lawful, that doesn’t change how inhuman it, or they are.
Sounds like Rwanda have a money printing machine then. All they need to do is make sure people keep coming to the UK.
As it is I think the Tories wanted this blocked so they could grandstand on evil courts again. Now that it is through it is just a really silly and expensive plan that achieves nothing.
The state of these comments…
Utterly privileged people totally devoid of compassion, who think they are somehow deserving because they had the incredible luck to be born in the countries that do the exploiting and the destroying, and who look at those who are on the receiving end of their destructive lifestyle like they are turds on their shoes.
For absolute shame.
> Their lawyers argued the plans were unlawful and that Rwanda “tortures and murders those it considers to be its opponents”.
> But representatives from the Home Office argued the agreement between the UK and the country provided assurances that everyone sent there would have a “safe and effective” refugee status determination procedure.
Deporting people to a country that commits torture and murder on opponents and pretending they’ll be safe.
Lawful under UK law, perhaps.
Not necessarily under international law.
And whether it is lawful or not doesn’t alter the mind-numbing immorality of the plan.
We have a government without a shred of human decency.
Of course it’s lawful. The issue is whether it’s ethical. And I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as some people think. But actually discussing that is very risky in this community.
Parliament is Soverign, anything it legislates is lawful
But the ECHR won’t let you do it, and we can’t leave that without a load of issues popping up
The courts do get something right from time to time
Reminder that the BBC has reporting in Rwanda.
Here’s a lovely section from one of today’s articles.
>For days we’ve been trying to get an asylum seeker living in Rwanda to speak to us on the record. Time and again people agree, and then mysteriously become unavailable, often after being visited by a “community leader”.
>
>”I’ve asked for asylum,” Mohammed tells me.
>
>”The authorities don’t say no, but everything is ‘tomorrow’, or ‘come back next month’. It’s been almost one year that they haven’t given it to me.”
That’s where the government is sending them.
An interesting amount of people in this thread don’t understand the difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant either.
Yeah nuking cities to kill innocent millions is morally wrong too, luckily we don’t have to do it because the deterrent is enough.
Rwanda is the nuclear option and once unchallengeable in courts we should see dramatically less migrants trying to illegally cross from France.
In addition to this we need to spend more resources on processing all outstanding cases and introduce a safe method for applying to come here.
Which. Court.?
Can an African Court do the same?
Then its lawful for thhe UK to take in all people from The Commonwealth Nations including those that they had Colonised, including their families.
This is completely lawful.
As it should be – a democratically elected government should not have limits on what it can do
Australia’s numbers plummeted when they did the same – we aren’t obligated to take in the world’s poor