Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Draft Bill

98% of small boat arrivals do so without any form of ID. They are encouraged to dispose of anything that may identify them. passport, phone sims etc.. While it is an offence to do this with the intention of seeking asylum, there is a defence of reasonable excuse. This may well be why so many go missing once bailed. How can you ID someone with no ID. Disposing of your ID increases your chances of success. The returns agreements include financial incentives for the receiver, so they will check records and confirm. For the other countries (e.g. Africa) there is no incentive to take back, so they are simply refused as they cannot prove they have a right to be returned.
 
motorbiking said:
This may well be why so many go missing once bailed
Click to expand...
How many?

motorbiking said:
Disposing of your ID increases your chances of success
Click to expand...
Your opinion or backed by evidence?

motorbiking said:
98% of small boat arrivals do so without any form of ID.
Click to expand...
the 98% is arrivals with no passport not no ID

why do you think refugees have no passport?

lets have a look at the process for a Syrian passport (it’s not great, unless you are mates of the Assad regime)

How to obtain “the worst and most expensive passport in the world”​

The Syrian passport is at the heart of a lucrative trafficking network favored by the regime.

 
That is not what is being reported

Q74 Laura Farris: Just before that, how many people can you verify, because they have some form of identification document that you can rely on? What proportion of those arriving have that with them when they arrive?

Dan O'Mahoney: I can’t give you an exact figure, but I can tell you that it is almost none—very, very close to none. Generally speaking, encouraged by the facilitators, they will get rid of any sort of documentation or pocket litter, as we call it in law enforcement—phones, SIM cards, anything—before they are intercepted by Border Force.
 
motorbiking said:
That is not what is being reported

Q74 Laura Farris: Just before that, how many people can you verify, because they have some form of identification document that you can rely on? What proportion of those arriving have that with them when they arrive?

Dan O'Mahoney: I can’t give you an exact figure, but I can tell you that it is almost none—very, very close to none. Generally speaking, encouraged by the facilitators, they will get rid of any sort of documentation or pocket litter, as we call it in law enforcement—phones, SIM cards, anything—before they are intercepted by Border Force.
Click to expand...

it says: “I can’t give you an exact figure”
you said: 98% have no documents (an exact figure)


The figure of 98% corresponds to articles which mention passports, you’ve conflated to include all ID



In any case arriving with no documentation is not the same as obtaining asylum with no identity….you seem to imply it is
 
motorbiking said:
Disposing of your ID increases your chances of success
Click to expand...

Many of you may wonder why people seeking asylum often arrive without passports or other ID documents. The reason is often quite simple: it’s because refugees often have to flee quickly and are either unable to obtain or bring with them the necessary documentation before leaving their country of origin. ID documents may also be lost or stolen on a refugee’s journey, which is usually long and perilous.It might be that some refugees destroy their documents for fear of being deported, or because a people smuggler prompted them to do so, but the reality is that this wouldn’t improve their chances of success in claiming asylum

www.linkedin.com

Why refugees flee without passports or ID documents. Why we must not criminalise them. | Refugee Council posted on the topic | LinkedIn

Many of you may wonder why people seeking asylum often arrive without passports or other ID documents. The reason is often quite simple: it’s because refugees…
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com
 
motorbiking said:
98% of small boat arrivals do so without any form of ID. They are encouraged to dispose of anything that may identify them. passport, phone sims etc.. While it is an offence to do this with the intention of seeking asylum, there is a defence of reasonable excuse. This may well be why so many go missing once bailed. How can you ID someone with no ID. Disposing of your ID increases your chances of success. The returns agreements include financial incentives for the receiver, so they will check records and confirm. For the other countries (e.g. Africa) there is no incentive to take back, so they are simply refused as they cannot prove they have a right to be returned.
Click to expand...
So how are the Albanians identified with no identifying papers ?

Financial incentives doesn't automatically mean they know what ticket number they had.

There has to be an actual process to identify before any return can be made if what you are trying to say is true. Money or no money
 
@Notch7 I wont accept the opinion of a lobby group. I doubt you'd accept facts posted in the DM or telegraph.
read p14 the burden on proof is very low.


good background reading..

@carmanmemoranda because they interview them and speak to them.

where are you from - Iran, where about in Iran - er the middle? what Language do you speak - Albanian, why don't you speak Farsi? err... etc
 
motorbiking said:
where are you from - Iran, where about in Iran - er the middle? what Language do you speak - Albanian, why don't you speak Farsi? err... etetc
Click to expand...
That's proof of nothing.

Can be born in England, qualify as British and speak Alvanuan and/or other languages. Lots of people can speak more than 1 language.

More proof than that is needed and you know it.

Otherwise, what language you speak determines where you get sent ? Rubbish
 
motorbiking said:
I wont accept the opinion of a lobby group. I doubt you'd accept facts posted in the DM or telegraph.
read p14 the burden on proof is very low.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept your opinion that no documentation improves the chances of approval.

you stated opinion as fact and as yet you’ve zero evidence.


motorbiking said:
read p14 the burden on proof is very
Click to expand...
The level of burden of proof is not stated on page 14

the scoring for the criteria is not stated

So you cannot claim it is very low.
 
Very slippery slope, but it's what a lot in here appear to support. Be very careful what you wish for.


The former Conservative Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland has raised a concern that a number of MPs have raised privately too.

Namely, that if the government starts telling domestic courts what it can or can't do - what precedent would this set for the future, if one day there was a leader or government in charge who the (now) governing party didn't agree with?

That's a concern a number of the more centre-right Tory MPs have.

Even some who in theory support the Rwanda plan aren't happy with the precedent.
 
If not parliament, who else should make the rules for the courts to follow?

the courts are not law makers.
 
Notch7 said:
I don’t accept your opinion that no documentation improves the chances of approval.

you stated opinion as fact and as yet you’ve zero evidence.



The level of burden of proof is not stated on page 14

the scoring for the criteria is not stated

So you cannot claim it is very low.
Click to expand...
I can - your own document explains it quite clearly.
Its not my opinion, it is that stated by experts.. Your own document p14 on
Notch7 said:
Click to expand...
 
motorbiking said:
If not parliament, who else should make the rules for the courts to follow?

the courts are not law makers.
Click to expand...
Even the Tories can't agree on it, let alone others.


Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights - made up of MPs and peers from all sides - has now warned that the Rwanda Bill breaches international law and could create an unprecedented constitutional clash between ministers and the British courts.

This is an important intervention from the committee chaired by Labour veteran Harriett Harman because its role is to advise MPs on how legislation could interfere with basic rights and the legal checks that prevent ministers abusing power.

The highly critical preliminary report says Rishi Sunak’s proposal to order courts to treat Rwanda as safe, even though the Supreme Court says it is not, “is a remarkable thing for a piece of legislation to do”.

It accepts that Parliament has the right to make the claim but then adds: “[It is] the role of the courts to assess evidence and come to a conclusion upon it.

“More fundamentally, effectively reversing by statute a Supreme Court judgement... undermines the constitutional role of the judiciary, arguably jeopardising both the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

Why does this matter?

Well all modern well-functioning democracies have independent courts capable of holding government to account on the most difficult matters of the day.

Secondly, the One Nation Conservative MPs have seemingly accepted assurances the that the package is lawful.

Some of their own colleagues in this expert committee are now saying
 
motorbiking said:
I can - your own document explains it quite clearly.
Its not my opinion, it is that stated by experts.. Your own document p14 on
Click to expand...
That is simply not true, you are posting that in the hope some people will believe without checking

You need to provide quotes from the document and supporting data that proves your claims, which are:

1) Disposing of your ID increases your chances of success

2) burden on proof is very low
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top