Bibby Bargain Barge?

motorbiking said:
For those who are not recognised as refugees, Rwanda shall consider whether the Relocated Individual has another humanitarian protection need, such that return to their country of origin would result in a real risk of their being subject to inhuman, degrading treatment or torture or a real risk to their life.
Click to expand...
The obligation and decision is delegated or abnegated to Rwanda to decide an unsuccessful applicant's future.
 
motorbiking said:
Retracting this?
and this ? Since clearly you hadn't read it.
Click to expand...
Cetainly not.
They're refused asylum in Rwanda. Rwanda then has the option to return them to their country of origin, or allow them to wander around Rwanda without support.
The asylum seeker is allowed to leave Rwanda, or stay there, without work, accomodation or food. So they need to resort to crime to live.
Rwanda sends them back as criminals.
Circuit complete.

In addition, the failed asylum seeker can be returned to UK, with or without the UK's permission.
Section 11, states the Uk may make a request for a return.
It doesn't say anything about denying the return of a failed asylum seeker.

And in previous occasions Rwanda has a record of refusing 100% of applications.
 
Last edited:
Rwandan facility currently has the capacity to house around 100 people at once and process the claims of up to 500 occupants per year. This is consistent with the recent capacity of Rwanda’s asylum system to process individual claims.
Click to expand...
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

Q&A: The UK’s former policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda - Migration Observatory

This updated commentary answers some common questions about the Rwanda asylum policy and its implications, reflects the Labour government’s announcement that it is cancelling the Rwanda scheme, and to review the financial cost of the policy to date.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

To deal with 1.6% of the boat arrivals to the UK, UK are preparing to exit the ECHR and ignore the UN Convention. (Based on the incorrect assumption that all Rwanda's applications will be those relocated from UK)

That's desparation.

Rwanda's record of making decisions is about 50% of their current capacity of 500 per year.
Even the UK's broken systems makes about 20,000 decisions a year. :rolleyes:
The Home Office’s May 2022 review of Rwanda’s asylum system shows that in 2020, the country made 228 decisions on asylum claims. In the same year, the UK made around 19,000 asylum decisions.
Click to expand...
 
motorbiking said:
Remote processing - yes
Remote applications - no

The whole point is to deter people becoming illegal immigrants, by using traffickers.
Click to expand...
Since Brexit, the Con's are managing to pull in an extra 750'000 migrants, a few illegals ain't gonna make much difference. They need to sort their stuff out.
 
motorbiking said:
For those recognised as refugees by Rwanda, Rwanda shall grant the Relocated Individual refugee status
Click to expand...
So these people would have the status of being a refugee in Rwanda

Let’s say the Rwandan govt feel some of the refugees are ”most vulnerable”…..



Article 19: Resettlement of vulnerable refugees​

The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Parties’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.
 
noseall said:
Since Brexit, the Con's are managing to pull in an extra 750'000 migrants, a few illegals ain't gonna make much difference. They need to sort their stuff out.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the Cons can’t blame the sh1t economy, the sh1t public services that is their fault on the EU anymore……so look over there Daily Mail readers, there’s some brown people its all their fault.
 
Notch7 said:

Article 19: Resettlement of vulnerable refugees​

The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Parties’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.
Click to expand...

Gonna need a bigger barge...
 
motorbiking said:
More like a caravan. A portion of a %age of small number of 50% of 500
Click to expand...
Rwanda gets to choose who is returned.

And why the immense amount of money spent on the scheme anyway that deals with a miserable 1.6% of the boat arrivals?
(That's 1.6% of the asylum seekers, not counting any returns to the UK, nor the asylum seekers sent to UK by Rwanda. :rolleyes: )

When you collate all the money giuven to Rwanda (£250M+), plus the money given to France (£550M+), plus the money spent on the barge,(25M not counting the £1.2M to the local council), plus the cost of Hotels (£3B per year), plus the time and money wasted in judicial proceedings(£?M), plus the time and money spent on Parliamentary process(£?M), UK could have given the money to the countries of origin to alleviate the need for the asylum seekers to leave in the first place.
There must be several £Billions north of £5B which could have been better spent.
 
motorbiking said:
Is that is what you have concluded from reading the treaty? I suggest you read it again.
Click to expand...
As always I ask you to highlight the relevant bits that refute my comments.
Your opinion is unwanted and your advice unwarranted. :rolleyes:
 
How can I know what you are referring to given that the treaty says no such thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top