FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Austria Rwanda Scheme
Austria Rwanda Scheme
Jump to: Newest in thread
Stella said a while ago that when other countries spoke to her about Rwanada they weren't critical.
They asked for advice on agreeing their own schemes.
It looks like Austria is now starting up its own scheme similar to the uk but possibly worse.( we await finer details)
As reported : Austria wants to remove all claimants to a 3rd country and only allow them in when their application is completed( I beleive this to be against the convention they signed)
The uk is different. We are sending those who already failed on application.
It looks like Suella wasn't lying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to. "
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum."
not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible."
They aren't just trying to say that, they have explicitly made it law in the Illegal Immigration Act, section 2(5). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/37/crossheading/duty-to-make-arrangements-for-removal/enacted
"We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it."
We don't force irregular entry. Those people always have the option to stay in France. They come here because they want to, not because they have no other choices. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
They aren't just trying to say that, they have explicitly made it law in the Illegal Immigration Act, section 2(5). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/37/crossheading/duty-to-make-arrangements-for-removal/enacted
We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
We don't force irregular entry. Those people always have the option to stay in France. They come here because they want to, not because they have no other choices."
IMAL but having a punishment (deportation) doesn't meant there isn't an asylum claim.
And irrc once in a country they have a right to apply
I do accept we don't force anyone. And I accept noone has a right to have a route to apply. It's once in, I have concerns about.
But I will also accept Im probably starting from a place that I think it's the right thing to help support those in need. And actually I'm more fighting against our approach of low support in general rather than specific cases. It's the motivation for the policy. But I also want HMG to set policies that are lawful. My amateur vie of Rwanda is it isn't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
They aren't just trying to say that, they have explicitly made it law in the Illegal Immigration Act, section 2(5). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/37/crossheading/duty-to-make-arrangements-for-removal/enacted
We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
We don't force irregular entry. Those people always have the option to stay in France. They come here because they want to, not because they have no other choices."
I tend to agree with the last part.
People claim to seek asylum from war and death, persecution.
Well surely once they have reached the safety of the closest country goal achieved.
Then why keep going and risking their lives probably more than if they stayed at home?
I've said it before on a few thread's this is mainly due to lies being fed by the traffickers making money from misery.
Clamping down on these people long before they even leave their home country,stop them exploiting innocents.
This is a bigger business than drug trafficking so it's large organised gang's.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
They aren't just trying to say that, they have explicitly made it law in the Illegal Immigration Act, section 2(5). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/37/crossheading/duty-to-make-arrangements-for-removal/enacted
We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
We don't force irregular entry. Those people always have the option to stay in France. They come here because they want to, not because they have no other choices.
I tend to agree with the last part.
People claim to seek asylum from war and death, persecution.
Well surely once they have reached the safety of the closest country goal achieved.
Then why keep going and risking their lives probably more than if they stayed at home?
I've said it before on a few thread's this is mainly due to lies being fed by the traffickers making money from misery.
Clamping down on these people long before they even leave their home country,stop them exploiting innocents.
This is a bigger business than drug trafficking so it's large organised gang's.
"
Don't be silly, it's got nothing to do with them being told lies, that's what we're told anyway.
It's to do with various factors including language, family ties and higher chance of success  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"IMAL but having a punishment (deportation) doesn't meant there isn't an asylum claim."
I don't see the Rwanda scheme as a punishment. It's just our way of dealing with complex asylum cases. It certainly isn't classed as a punishment in law.
"And irrc once in a country they have a right to apply"
That's correct, and the receiving country has an obligation to ensure that they are kept safe. It doesn't have an obligation to house them in the country that the application is made in.
"But I will also accept Im probably starting from a place that I think it's the right thing to help support those in need. And actually I'm more fighting against our approach of low support in general rather than specific cases."
I would argue that the policy does help those in need. They get sent out to a country that will look after them and keep them safe. It doesn't help economic migrants, who just want to be in the UK, but it does help genuine refugees whose main desire is safety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum.not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it. "
It is. Its been explained. They aren't being heard because they have failed asylum requirements. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"IMAL but having a punishment (deportation) doesn't meant there isn't an asylum claim.
I don't see the Rwanda scheme as a punishment. It's just our way of dealing with complex asylum cases. It certainly isn't classed as a punishment in law.
And irrc once in a country they have a right to apply
That's correct, and the receiving country has an obligation to ensure that they are kept safe. It doesn't have an obligation to house them in the country that the application is made in.
But I will also accept Im probably starting from a place that I think it's the right thing to help support those in need. And actually I'm more fighting against our approach of low support in general rather than specific cases.
I would argue that the policy does help those in need. They get sent out to a country that will look after them and keep them safe. It doesn't help economic migrants, who just want to be in the UK, but it does help genuine refugees whose main desire is safety."
it's not really dealing with asylum cases as it sounds like we won't even entertain a request. Unless dealing means avoiding.
I will look into the keeping safe bit more. I appreciate that you seem well versed and so am happy to follow that line of thinking.
My last point is more we should be looking to help decent numbers. That is more philosophical. If be open to different ways of getting there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum.not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
It is. Its been explained. They aren't being heard because they have failed asylum requirements."
the only way I can square that off is that there is an asylum requirement of regular entry. I therefore struggle to see why we have a backlog under this definition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum.not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
It is. Its been explained. They aren't being heard because they have failed asylum requirements.the only way I can square that off is that there is an asylum requirement of regular entry. I therefore struggle to see why we have a backlog under this definition. "
You will need to prove your ability for asylum.
So speak to the interpreters. Have a history of where you came from and actually open up dialogue.
Habe a passport and ID
It will no longer be good enough to arrive via clandestine entry and refuse to speak to our officers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum.not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
It is. Its been explained. They aren't being heard because they have failed asylum requirements.the only way I can square that off is that there is an asylum requirement of regular entry. I therefore struggle to see why we have a backlog under this definition.
You will need to prove your ability for asylum.
So speak to the interpreters. Have a history of where you came from and actually open up dialogue.
Habe a passport and ID
It will no longer be good enough to arrive via clandestine entry and refuse to speak to our officers.
"
I'm totally open to saying that there is a burden of proof on the asylum seeker to show their claim. And if they do t their app is rejected. More nervous on ID etc. I wonder how many palenstians have passports and why their country is on that.
But imo that's being heard and rejected. At which point I'm broadly comfortable with sending to another plave who will accept them.
I get in a vicious loop if we are saying they don't meet requirements while also complaining they don't engage with dialogue about their background. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum.not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
It is. Its been explained. They aren't being heard because they have failed asylum requirements.the only way I can square that off is that there is an asylum requirement of regular entry. I therefore struggle to see why we have a backlog under this definition.
You will need to prove your ability for asylum.
So speak to the interpreters. Have a history of where you came from and actually open up dialogue.
Habe a passport and ID
It will no longer be good enough to arrive via clandestine entry and refuse to speak to our officers.
I'm totally open to saying that there is a burden of proof on the asylum seeker to show their claim. And if they do t their app is rejected. More nervous on ID etc. I wonder how many palenstians have passports and why their country is on that.
But imo that's being heard and rejected. At which point I'm broadly comfortable with sending to another plave who will accept them.
I get in a vicious loop if we are saying they don't meet requirements while also complaining they don't engage with dialogue about their background. "
A great majority will have a presence.
How do you think they bank, pay for goods, access their mobile phones to send out videos of apparent blind children.
Everything is traceable.
The burden of proof is on them. If they can't prove it. They can't claim asylum.
How do they have £5k to pay smugglers.
You can't withdraw that cash from a bank without ID.
You can't set up the bak account without ID.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum.not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
It is. Its been explained. They aren't being heard because they have failed asylum requirements.the only way I can square that off is that there is an asylum requirement of regular entry. I therefore struggle to see why we have a backlog under this definition.
You will need to prove your ability for asylum.
So speak to the interpreters. Have a history of where you came from and actually open up dialogue.
Habe a passport and ID
It will no longer be good enough to arrive via clandestine entry and refuse to speak to our officers.
I'm totally open to saying that there is a burden of proof on the asylum seeker to show their claim. And if they do t their app is rejected. More nervous on ID etc. I wonder how many palenstians have passports and why their country is on that.
But imo that's being heard and rejected. At which point I'm broadly comfortable with sending to another plave who will accept them.
I get in a vicious loop if we are saying they don't meet requirements while also complaining they don't engage with dialogue about their background.
A great majority will have a presence.
How do you think they bank, pay for goods, access their mobile phones to send out videos of apparent blind children.
Everything is traceable.
The burden of proof is on them. If they can't prove it. They can't claim asylum.
How do they have £5k to pay smugglers.
You can't withdraw that cash from a bank without ID.
You can't set up the bak account without ID.
"
I agree that it should be possible to give credence for your story without necessarily needing to have a passport. I've always said that it should be possible to out false claims about where they come from or what nationality they are.
Again, this needs someone to review the claim. Your claim is being heard. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum.not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
It is. Its been explained. They aren't being heard because they have failed asylum requirements.the only way I can square that off is that there is an asylum requirement of regular entry. I therefore struggle to see why we have a backlog under this definition.
You will need to prove your ability for asylum.
So speak to the interpreters. Have a history of where you came from and actually open up dialogue.
Habe a passport and ID
It will no longer be good enough to arrive via clandestine entry and refuse to speak to our officers.
I'm totally open to saying that there is a burden of proof on the asylum seeker to show their claim. And if they do t their app is rejected. More nervous on ID etc. I wonder how many palenstians have passports and why their country is on that.
But imo that's being heard and rejected. At which point I'm broadly comfortable with sending to another plave who will accept them.
I get in a vicious loop if we are saying they don't meet requirements while also complaining they don't engage with dialogue about their background.
A great majority will have a presence.
How do you think they bank, pay for goods, access their mobile phones to send out videos of apparent blind children.
Everything is traceable.
The burden of proof is on them. If they can't prove it. They can't claim asylum.
How do they have £5k to pay smugglers.
You can't withdraw that cash from a bank without ID.
You can't set up the bak account without ID.
I agree that it should be possible to give credence for your story without necessarily needing to have a passport. I've always said that it should be possible to out false claims about where they come from or what nationality they are.
Again, this needs someone to review the claim. Your claim is being heard. "
Some on in the uk will review their claim.
If they can't prove who they are and their history.
They will have no right to stay in the uk.
It will be fun to see how Austria deals with this. Their plan seems to go even further.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you think the UK scheme is for failed only.
From .gov
"The asylum arrangement allows the UK to send some people to Rwanda who would otherwise claim asylum in the UK. Rwanda will consider them for permission to stay or return to their country of origin. They will not be eligible to return to the UK."
I think we have had this discussion before so if it's in Hansard, be a good fella, and find it. I've not managed to.
We went over this a while ago hovis.cdo you not remember.
Only those whose claims are not being heard by the uk are being sent there.
In otherbwords you have failed to prove you can claim asylum.not being heard isn't the same as a failed asylum.
The UK are saying they will send inadmissible cases thru. And are trying to say passing thru a safe country is inadmissible.
Imo that's the shakey bit and a key difference. We are currently granting asylum to manybof.gehse cases so it's hard to say that irregular entry means de facto failed asylum case. That's the bit that sticks with me on all this as a principle. We force irregular entry in almost all cases, and are now saying that this is in itself a reason for not considering it.
It is. Its been explained. They aren't being heard because they have failed asylum requirements.the only way I can square that off is that there is an asylum requirement of regular entry. I therefore struggle to see why we have a backlog under this definition.
You will need to prove your ability for asylum.
So speak to the interpreters. Have a history of where you came from and actually open up dialogue.
Habe a passport and ID
It will no longer be good enough to arrive via clandestine entry and refuse to speak to our officers.
I'm totally open to saying that there is a burden of proof on the asylum seeker to show their claim. And if they do t their app is rejected. More nervous on ID etc. I wonder how many palenstians have passports and why their country is on that.
But imo that's being heard and rejected. At which point I'm broadly comfortable with sending to another plave who will accept them.
I get in a vicious loop if we are saying they don't meet requirements while also complaining they don't engage with dialogue about their background.
A great majority will have a presence.
How do you think they bank, pay for goods, access their mobile phones to send out videos of apparent blind children.
Everything is traceable.
The burden of proof is on them. If they can't prove it. They can't claim asylum.
How do they have £5k to pay smugglers.
You can't withdraw that cash from a bank without ID.
You can't set up the bak account without ID.
I agree that it should be possible to give credence for your story without necessarily needing to have a passport. I've always said that it should be possible to out false claims about where they come from or what nationality they are.
Again, this needs someone to review the claim. Your claim is being heard.
Some on in the uk will review their claim.
If they can't prove who they are and their history.
They will have no right to stay in the uk.
It will be fun to see how Austria deals with this. Their plan seems to go even further.
"
in what way? It looked like the austria scheme was based on processing abroad and then allowing successful ones back on
The UK seemed to skip any review and simply send to Rwanda to determine the claim. The last bit of the thread has been about proving history which means we are reviewing the claim. Which isn't relevant to Rwanda afaik.
What have I missed ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Isn't it the issue that Austria wants to sent claimants to be processed offshore In the same way that Australia does whereas the UK wants to send failed applicants there? Seems like half a job to me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If Austria do use Rwanda for processing claimants does that mean Rwanda is now a safe place for the asylum seekers?"
It must be.
Unless some one takes it to the ecj.
Who would the need to decide. Would be a great irony of those saying evil tories.im still not entirely sure on tbe legalities of deporting them before processing. As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Isn't it the issue that Austria wants to sent claimants to be processed offshore In the same way that Australia does whereas the UK wants to send failed applicants there? Seems like half a job to me"
Either way if they are sending them their at all it just be deemed as a safe place I would have thought |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing."
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?"
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What does "initial processing" mean ? Doesn't look defined in MoU. "
This is to support Home Office decision makers considering whether a
person whose claim is assessed as inadmissible is suitable for relocation to
Rwanda as a ‘safe third country’ in line with paragraph 345B, 345C and
345D of the immigration rules
Whe they assess if you have a true claim or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing."
"You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?"
"I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK."
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed."
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What does "initial processing" mean ? Doesn't look defined in MoU.
This is to support Home Office decision makers considering whether a
person whose claim is assessed as inadmissible is suitable for relocation to
Rwanda as a ‘safe third country’ in line with paragraph 345B, 345C and
345D of the immigration rules
Whe they assess if you have a true claim or not."
See this bit Mr Discretion on what screening is.
It's assessing the claim as admissible or inadmissible.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing."
"You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?"
"I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK."
""Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed."
"Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?"
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not."
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correct |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correct"
I think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference. "
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference. "
We have the waiting list because people are still coming over in the hope the uk gov loses its legal battle and then has to process them all.
Of the gov wins its legal battle as it should.
Then we begin deportation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
"
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
"
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum."
what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
"
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process."
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system"
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. "
I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't. "
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. "
I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It appears that Germany are considering out-sourcing migrant claims now."
I read that on the BBC today though it is only a consideration, but does look like this sort of idea is catching on. Will they also face legal challenges though if they go ahead |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected. "
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
"
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?) "
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soon |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soon"
okay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct? "
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A great majority will have a presence.
How do you think they bank, pay for goods, access their mobile phones to send out videos of apparent blind children.
Everything is traceable.
The burden of proof is on them. If they can't prove it. They can't claim asylum." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof."
I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? "
oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ? "
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
One last time.
Because the I can only assume you're being facetious and willfully ignorant.
You have an basic ID
Drivers license, Passport etc
You should arrive with these things.
If not.
You should have an online presence.
Social media, a telephone connection.
You would also have bank accounts which you open with ID.
Where the uk can contact a bank in any country and their records will identify you.
Your entire history is stored online whenever you sign up to anything.
You claiming not to have any of this. Means you aren't eligible for asylum.
This has ALWAYS been the case.
It's not for the uk to prove your request is genuine but for you.
However the conventions day we can't deport you to the country you came from unless we have a reciprocal agreement ( e.g Dublin arrangement)
Or what will be the Rwanda agreement.
The problem recently has been that we can now deport back to France and we can't yet deport to Rwanda.
No requirements of proof ever changed or the processes.
What changed was the ability to deport.
Which is why we have the backlog. Because we can't verify so many of tbe as 98% don't arrive with a passport.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ?
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
"
im trying to establish what is in an "initial review". As it's not defined in the MoU.
Talk of proving who they are via social media and bank account sounds a lot like what I'd expect as part of today's process.
And this process takes many months and is contributing to a huge backlog.
And which this process historically has quite a high success rate.
Which makes me wonder how many we will fail the initial review and therefore go to Rwanda.
Therefore I'm trying to establish of there is a change in processing alongside this.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ?
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
im trying to establish what is in an "initial review". As it's not defined in the MoU.
Talk of proving who they are via social media and bank account sounds a lot like what I'd expect as part of today's process.
And this process takes many months and is contributing to a huge backlog.
And which this process historically has quite a high success rate.
Which makes me wonder how many we will fail the initial review and therefore go to Rwanda.
Therefore I'm trying to establish of there is a change in processing alongside this.
"
Almost all current ones waiting asylum will fail.
Because if they had what was required for asylum.
They would have been granted asylum.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One last time.
Because the I can only assume you're being facetious and willfully ignorant.
You have an basic ID
Drivers license, Passport etc
You should arrive with these things.
If not.
You should have an online presence.
Social media, a telephone connection.
You would also have bank accounts which you open with ID.
Where the uk can contact a bank in any country and their records will identify you.
Your entire history is stored online whenever you sign up to anything.
You claiming not to have any of this. Means you aren't eligible for asylum.
This has ALWAYS been the case.
It's not for the uk to prove your request is genuine but for you.
However the conventions day we can't deport you to the country you came from unless we have a reciprocal agreement ( e.g Dublin arrangement)
Or what will be the Rwanda agreement.
The problem recently has been that we can now deport back to France and we can't yet deport to Rwanda.
No requirements of proof ever changed or the processes.
What changed was the ability to deport.
Which is why we have the backlog. Because we can't verify so many of tbe as 98% don't arrive with a passport.
"
it's the last few paragraphs for me. I don't see how much the ability to deport affects the speed of processing before that decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ?
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
im trying to establish what is in an "initial review". As it's not defined in the MoU.
Talk of proving who they are via social media and bank account sounds a lot like what I'd expect as part of today's process.
And this process takes many months and is contributing to a huge backlog.
And which this process historically has quite a high success rate.
Which makes me wonder how many we will fail the initial review and therefore go to Rwanda.
Therefore I'm trying to establish of there is a change in processing alongside this.
Almost all current ones waiting asylum will fail.
Because if they had what was required for asylum.
They would have been granted asylum.
"
why haven't they be rejected then ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ?
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
im trying to establish what is in an "initial review". As it's not defined in the MoU.
Talk of proving who they are via social media and bank account sounds a lot like what I'd expect as part of today's process.
And this process takes many months and is contributing to a huge backlog.
And which this process historically has quite a high success rate.
Which makes me wonder how many we will fail the initial review and therefore go to Rwanda.
Therefore I'm trying to establish of there is a change in processing alongside this.
Almost all current ones waiting asylum will fail.
Because if they had what was required for asylum.
They would have been granted asylum.
why haven't they be rejected then ? "
They haven't been processes.
As I keep saying to you across multiple threads. What do you do when you reject them
How do you deport them?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Am I understanding this right?
They haven't been processed because we have nowhere to deport to?
We have nowhere to deport to because they don't have paperwork?
Apologies if I'm reading that wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ?
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
im trying to establish what is in an "initial review". As it's not defined in the MoU.
Talk of proving who they are via social media and bank account sounds a lot like what I'd expect as part of today's process.
And this process takes many months and is contributing to a huge backlog.
And which this process historically has quite a high success rate.
Which makes me wonder how many we will fail the initial review and therefore go to Rwanda.
Therefore I'm trying to establish of there is a change in processing alongside this.
Almost all current ones waiting asylum will fail.
Because if they had what was required for asylum.
They would have been granted asylum.
why haven't they be rejected then ?
They haven't been processes.
As I keep saying to you across multiple threads. What do you do when you reject them
How do you deport them?
"
I've said earlier I'm broadly comfortable with deporting failed cases to a willing third country.
We haven't processed them yet. I can't see how being able to deport them quicker will make processing them quicker. Not if anything to do with the actual processing isn't changing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Am I understanding this right?
They haven't been processed because we have nowhere to deport to?
We have nowhere to deport to because they don't have paperwork?
Apologies if I'm reading that wrong."
that's how I'm reading it... But can only see that we must have processing resource going spare if we think it's the lack of deportation venues that's the critical path. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Am I understanding this right?
They haven't been processed because we have nowhere to deport to?
We have nowhere to deport to because they don't have paperwork?
Apologies if I'm reading that wrong."
We can't deport because we don't know where they came from and we can't send them back to France.
Previously France accepted all small boat crossing back( if no proof of refugees status provided) that was the Dublin arrangement.
That ceased ti exist after brexit.
We had about 200k arrive over the last 3 years when the Dublin arrangement disappeared.
We can deport to France.
We can't prove they aren't a danger to citizens.
They can't prove they deserve asylum and we can't refute it
So we aren't processing.
We are awaiting the Rwanda deal.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ?
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
im trying to establish what is in an "initial review". As it's not defined in the MoU.
Talk of proving who they are via social media and bank account sounds a lot like what I'd expect as part of today's process.
And this process takes many months and is contributing to a huge backlog.
And which this process historically has quite a high success rate.
Which makes me wonder how many we will fail the initial review and therefore go to Rwanda.
Therefore I'm trying to establish of there is a change in processing alongside this.
Almost all current ones waiting asylum will fail.
Because if they had what was required for asylum.
They would have been granted asylum.
why haven't they be rejected then ?
They haven't been processes.
As I keep saying to you across multiple threads. What do you do when you reject them
How do you deport them?
I've said earlier I'm broadly comfortable with deporting failed cases to a willing third country.
We haven't processed them yet. I can't see how being able to deport them quicker will make processing them quicker. Not if anything to do with the actual processing isn't changing. "
Omfg..
I've explaind this!!!
Jesus f christ hovis
Why would we process them? When we can wait to deport them because they have no documents?
Whats there to process?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
That's the last time I'm ever explaining it to you hovis.
Because after about 10 threads and my examining it to you in absolutely layman's terms 20 times.
It's still not sinking in pal.
It really isn't a hard logic to grasp.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ?
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
im trying to establish what is in an "initial review". As it's not defined in the MoU.
Talk of proving who they are via social media and bank account sounds a lot like what I'd expect as part of today's process.
And this process takes many months and is contributing to a huge backlog.
And which this process historically has quite a high success rate.
Which makes me wonder how many we will fail the initial review and therefore go to Rwanda.
Therefore I'm trying to establish of there is a change in processing alongside this.
Almost all current ones waiting asylum will fail.
Because if they had what was required for asylum.
They would have been granted asylum.
why haven't they be rejected then ?
They haven't been processes.
As I keep saying to you across multiple threads. What do you do when you reject them
How do you deport them?
I've said earlier I'm broadly comfortable with deporting failed cases to a willing third country.
We haven't processed them yet. I can't see how being able to deport them quicker will make processing them quicker. Not if anything to do with the actual processing isn't changing.
Omfg..
I've explaind this!!!
Jesus f christ hovis
Why would we process them? When we can wait to deport them because they have no documents?
Whats there to process?
"
firstly, let's beg the question that the reason we aren't processing them is because there's now where to go. Rather than any other reason such as lack of resource.
It sounds like you believe if we have somewhere to deport, we will process them.
That suggests that there are people who do processing that are twiddling thumbs. Or that maybe we could recruit a load more I guess. Thats the gap I'm struggling with. However will process them once the deportation barrier has been removed.
Tbh, I would have thought today's government would have processed these low hanging fruit just to show that a high percentage of people arent genuine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So much to address:
"You have an basic ID
Drivers license, Passport etc
You should arrive with these things."
Ideally, yes. But if you're fleeing from the death squads who are coming for you, it's not always convenient to nip home and collect your ID. We can't reject someone just because they don't have it.
"You should have an online presence.
Social media, a telephone connection."
I don't have either of those things. I wouldn't expect anyone arriving from Afghanistan to have them either.
"You would also have bank accounts which you open with ID."
It's almost impossible to live in the UK without a bank account, but many people in less technologically advanced countries do so with ease. Some countries don't even have a national banking system.
"Where the uk can contact a bank in any country and their records will identify you."
I doubt that a bank in Afghanistan will respond to such a request. Especially if the Taliban might find out that they are 'helping' the person that escaped.
"Your entire history is stored online whenever you sign up to anything."
But if they come from a country with limited internet access, that won't be of any use. And what makes you think that all those various internet companies would hand over the data to the UK government?
"You claiming not to have any of this. Means you aren't eligible for asylum.
This has ALWAYS been the case."
It doesn't, and it hasn't. There are plenty of good reasons why someone might not have all the proof you suggest, and the Convention does not allow us to reject a claim without trying to prove the facts.
"It's not for the uk to prove your request is genuine but for you."
The UK has a duty under the Convention to ensure that genuine refugees are not returned to a dangerous situation. We can't just send people back without good evidence that they aren't what they say. It's up to the state to gather this evidence.
"However the conventions day we can't deport you to the country you came from unless we have a reciprocal agreement ( e.g Dublin arrangement)"
Completely untrue. We can deport anyone back to their country of origin unless they are protected by the Convention. If they are proved to have an invalid claim, and the appeals process is exhausted, we can send them back. The only time they can't be deported is if they have a valid claim (or are appealing a rejection), or if we can't be certain which country they came from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As stated the uk will deport after initial processing.
You haven't provided any evidence for that. The law states that any irregular entrants should be sent out to Rwanda "as soon as is reasonably practicable". What makes you think that the initial processing can be done in a reasonably practicable time?
I have .I have posted it multiple times.
Those it's in the mou.
5.1 In order to expedite the process of relocation to Rwanda in a timely manner, the United Kingdom will be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers, before relocation to Rwanda occurs in accordance with this Arrangement. This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person arrives in the United Kingdom and has come to the attention of the United Kingdom.
The initial screening takes place in the UK.
"Initial screening" is not the same thing as 'processing a claim and denying it'. The MoU also says "The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims ..." (section 2.1) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r
It's clear from that section that the UK will be sending people that are ineligible for asylum, i.e. those that arrive irregularly.
Even the bit you quoted says "This process will start without delay after the prospective relocated person ... has come to the attention of the United Kingdom". That does not allow time for an application to be made, and processed.
Yes it is.
It's exactly the same.
You are screened for your documents and proof.
You dont have any.
You can't claim.
What is it you believe they are screening then if bot for proof for right of claim Mr Discretion?
So we agree that "initial screening" might mean 'assessing whether an applicant has a claim or not'. However the statement you made in your first post was "We are sending those who already failed on application". That was an inaccurate statement.
In addition, the Immigration Act 2023 states that the person must be removed as soon as they are discovered, whether they make an application or not.
They have failed their application.
Because they have failed their screening.
This screening is their application
You must arrive with proof of persecution of persecution a right to asylum.
My initial assessment was correctI think you are reading what you want to read. The MoU is ambiguous. It's a poor document in that respect imo.
The MOu is for cases that are not being considered by the UK. Rwanda will be processing and settling the claims. "Not being considered" is ambiguous to an extent. "No longer" would be tighter for your interpretation.
If a claim could be rejected the way you explain, I no longer understand why we have such a waiting list. Or what the benefit of this scheme is if the applicants are going thru the same process as today.
If it's a different "review" process then I'd like to understand the difference.
If you can't prove your right to asylum.
That's your case heard.
It's over.
I'm not reading whatbiw ant to read its in the MoU and the explanation paper I quoted.
you quoted "initial screening". That's not defined.
I agree that if you can't prove your right, that's the case heard.
However I can't see how you are so certain this is what's going to be happening.
Having your case reviewed feels a lot deeper than "initial review" and take more time. Again, I'm no longer seeing the value of Rwanda if we are doing the same work as today, which is how I'm reading your interpretation.
If I'm wrong, maybe you can explain the difference between a case review today (that takes a year irrc) and with rwanda.
That is the initial screening.
Proving your right to admission to the asylum application hence the use of the terms
Admissible and inadmissible for asylum.what makes you inadmissible?
Especially as the idea is Rwanda will be processing claims.
Whatever the uk government has decided that it requires for you to apply for asylum. Likely not having ID or a traceable online presence or phone and social media etc.
Either way. They have been heard for me. And refused admission to the asylum process.
Taking that definition, I wonder how long that takes and how much of the current backlog are these folk.
The more you explain it, the more the scheme appears to be a waste of time versus how I thought it was being pitched. It's dealing with the (historically) low number of rejections. Not removing applications from the system
I imagine it till take years tk clear the all out of tbe uk.
But we won't have an immediate danger to our people thankfully. I'm very confused how Rwanda helps if we are doing the asylum review before they are sent to Rwanda.
Again, I'm not clear how what we review today before making a Decision will differ once Rwanda scheme is in place, at least under your explanation. There's a missing piece for me that you can see that I can't.
Those currently hear awaiting processing.
Having their cases heard can't be deported because we have no way of deporting many of them.
You can't deport them back to France there is no longer a reciprocal agreement.
Once we have a agreement in place to remove those that can't prove their claim legitimate we will behin reporting. I accept the deprtation challenge means we struggle to remove people at times. I can probably get behind the Rwanda scheme of it was for that.
However.
That doesnt explain the waiting times. Having people "rejected but not deported" doesn't change the time it takes to assess someone.
How many ppl do we have in the rejected but not removed list, versus waiting for a decision ?
Id also see that it wouldn't act as a deterrent. How many ppl are coming over thinking their claim will be rejected.
Indont get what you're bot understanding.
We don't want to assess them.
Because we can't verify them they have no ID.
They will be deported rather than given the ability to stay here. Whybwould we assess false claims when in possibly a few weeks we can deport?
let me step through what I think you are saying.
my understanding is you are saying that no ID means we immediately call it a false claim and reject. Is that correct? Beyond that we don't assess?
My question thn, is whether that is as per today's process or a new process being introduced as apry of the scheme ? (And did today's process change with the new immigration act?)
Miss part of any process.
So has always been inside it. We request ID.
Nothing is changing there. All that is changing is now we can deport those who don't have ID or any proof of who they are.
Rather than have to allow them to be given refugee status
Hence why we aren't processing them.
Because why process people and let them stay here when we can hopefully deport them soonokay, so we are moving from reviewing cases without ID (as we do today) to rejecting them simply because they don't have ID. Is that correct?
No.
Please read again this entire thread about proof.I'm trying to reflect back your last post to understand your view.
I will start with smaller steps.
Today we reject asylum applications simply because someone doesn't have ID ? Is that a true statement ? oh wait you are saying with any proof that they aren't.
And is that the same as today ?
.this is getting infuriating.
I have been over this not jus tin this thread but on multiple threads.
I am not sure why its not going in.
im trying to establish what is in an "initial review". As it's not defined in the MoU.
Talk of proving who they are via social media and bank account sounds a lot like what I'd expect as part of today's process.
And this process takes many months and is contributing to a huge backlog.
And which this process historically has quite a high success rate.
Which makes me wonder how many we will fail the initial review and therefore go to Rwanda.
Therefore I'm trying to establish of there is a change in processing alongside this.
Almost all current ones waiting asylum will fail.
Because if they had what was required for asylum.
They would have been granted asylum.
why haven't they be rejected then ?
They haven't been processes.
As I keep saying to you across multiple threads. What do you do when you reject them
How do you deport them?
I've said earlier I'm broadly comfortable with deporting failed cases to a willing third country.
We haven't processed them yet. I can't see how being able to deport them quicker will make processing them quicker. Not if anything to do with the actual processing isn't changing.
Omfg..
I've explaind this!!!
Jesus f christ hovis
Why would we process them? When we can wait to deport them because they have no documents?
Whats there to process?
firstly, let's beg the question that the reason we aren't processing them is because there's now where to go. Rather than any other reason such as lack of resource.
It sounds like you believe if we have somewhere to deport, we will process them.
That suggests that there are people who do processing that are twiddling thumbs. Or that maybe we could recruit a load more I guess. Thats the gap I'm struggling with. However will process them once the deportation barrier has been removed.
Tbh, I would have thought today's government would have processed these low hanging fruit just to show that a high percentage of people arent genuine. "
What do you do after you reject them?
Imagine the headlines
" UK governement rejects 200k applicants, for asylum but they're still here!!!" The express,mail, sun etc would have a field day.
The guardian etc would say they deserve the right to stay as we can't deport them regardless of safety.wheresbthe advantage to the government processing tbe claims of Jan 21. Rejecting them then having them herefor over another 2 years?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So let's unpack this logic
I've actuslly done this in multiple threads.
"Ideally, yes. But if you're fleeing from the death squads who are coming for you, it's not always convenient to nip home and collect your ID. We can't reject someone just because they don't have it."
What are they fleeing.
Let's say we take it they came from Africa to Europe or Middle East.
Assuming no boat or plane because they don't have passport.
So they never had time to get money or ID because " fleeing death aquads"
We knkw they have new clothes, we know they have £5000 to pay smugglers.
We know a great tmsny have mobile phones.
If as the claim would try and be. They travelled over land.
How did they get through land borders.
How did they pay for food or water or shelter in that time?
How did they the buy a tent?
Remember they're fleeing. They didn't have time for their wallet which would surely have a bak card and ID...A The way they're paying for their travels all tbe way tk France.
So let's unpack.
How do they get from Africa to Northern France first?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Previously France accepted all small boat crossing back( if no proof of refugees status provided) that was the Dublin arrangement.
That ceased ti exist after brexit."
Untrue. The Dublin Agreement says that an applicant is the responsibility of the first EU country that they apply in. If they attempt to apply in a second country, they can be sent back to the first one to be dealt with.
France has never accepted asylum claimants back unless they could be proved to have previously applied in France, which the vast majority of them hadn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Social media, a telephone connection."
I don't have either of those things. I wouldn't expect anyone arriving from Afghanistan to have them either.
So you claim not to have a telephone or social media.
Even though you signed up to this website.
You post via the Internet. You have a bank account to pay for your Internet direct debit I assume.
You pay for this website via a credit card I assume?
Also your profile shows the little phone. Which I believe indicates you are using the mobile version?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's almost impossible to live in the UK without a bank account, but many people in less technologically advanced countries do so with ease. Some countries don't even have a national banking system."
Back to point 1.
How did they get all that cash tk travel to Europe.
It couldn't be via boat or air without passport.
How did they have their wallet on them and access to their bank accounts?
How did they withdraw 5k to pay smugglers?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I doubt that a bank in Afghanistan will respond to such a request. Especially if the Taliban might find out that they are 'helping' the person that escaped.
Same problem
How did they get their money out?
Why wouldn't the bank confirm the details
They have no reason to suspect they are applying for asylum.
If the bank refuses. Then the improves the perpsn case...it work against the bank. Its citizen that has already escaped.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And they aren't having a field day today ?
But would take the wind out of many sails how use the 80pc success rate.
If most of the ppl on the backlog are those who we know can't prove their ID, then they have gone throu initial screening I'd assume. As otherwise we wouldn't know if they could prove their identification.
It strikes me as odd that we are doing a review and then saying "we would reject you, but that would make bad headlines about how many deportees are in hotels so instead we will put you on the "yet to be determined list" and put you in hotels so there are bad headlines about asylum seekers on hotels".
It's a possibility I guess. Never occured to me someone would take that view.
Same way as it's a possibility we haven't even done the initial reviews. My suspicion is it's the latter. I accept it could be the former. I don't have sufficient evidence to show either to be true. The reason I have assumed the latter is because the former never crossed my mind. I am happy to entertain that either could be true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But if they come from a country with limited internet access, that won't be of any use. And what makes you think that all those various internet companies would hand over the data to the UK government?"
You are aware of the MULTITUDE of agreements in place such as European, interpol etc where they share intelligence, data, etc right?
You will also be aware via the Dublin arrangement of how they kept a database of asylum applicants.
You are aware of request for information the authorities can do for multinationals ?
I used to have to handle these for the police on multiple cases for the bank.
They ask for the ID submitted don opening account phone numbers. Activity etc.
The people could be out of the country...it didnt matter.
And yes we did it for foreign nationals too where for example people had run off to Spain and tbe Spanish authorities requested info form uk authorities.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It doesn't, and it hasn't. There are plenty of good reasons why someone might not have all the proof you suggest, and the Convention does not allow us to reject a claim without trying to prove the facts."
I gave you the breakdown of tbe MoU and the the working paper on the description of admissibility.
You not acknowledging either of those government papers isnt my problem..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK has a duty under the Convention to ensure that genuine refugees are not returned to a dangerous situation. We can't just send people back without good evidence that they aren't what they say. It's up to the state to gather this evidence."
Agreed.
We aren't sending them back .
We are sending people who can't prove their claim genuine Rwanda.
It's not up for the state to gather the evidence.
It never had been
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So let's unpack this logic
I've actuslly done this in multiple threads.
"Ideally, yes. But if you're fleeing from the death squads who are coming for you, it's not always convenient to nip home and collect your ID. We can't reject someone just because they don't have it."
What are they fleeing.
Let's say we take it they came from Africa to Europe or Middle East.
Assuming no boat or plane because they don't have passport.
So they never had time to get money or ID because " fleeing death aquads"
We knkw they have new clothes, we know they have £5000 to pay smugglers.
We know a great tmsny have mobile phones.
If as the claim would try and be. They travelled over land.
How did they get through land borders.
How did they pay for food or water or shelter in that time?
How did they the buy a tent?
Remember they're fleeing. They didn't have time for their wallet which would surely have a bak card and ID...A The way they're paying for their travels all tbe way tk France.
So let's unpack.
How do they get from Africa to Northern France first?"
I agree with you that most of the people arriving here don't have valid claims, and should be sent home but the Convention says that we cannot send a genuine claimant back to a dangerous situation, so the law has to be set up to ensure that does not happen.
Your idea that we can reject a claim just because someone doesn't have ID doesn't fit with the idea of protecting genuine claimants, so the law isn't set up that way.
Your idea that everyone from every country must have a digital footprint and a bank account, and that the other country will be happy to share that information with the UK is, frankly, ludicrous.
It's entirely possible for someone to travel across Europe and get food, drink, clothing, shelter, and mobile phones from the various charities that have been set up to provide exactly that.
Most of the people that arrive here haven't paid any people smugglers. The smugglers get paid by their family, back in the country of origin. This happens for genuine applicants (whose family want to see them live), and bogus applicants (whose family want them to get to the UK, get a job, and send money back home).
Once again, I agree with you that the majority of people arriving have no valid claim. But your suggestions that the law allows us to reject claims without solid evidence that no harm will come to the applicant are just foolish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Previously France accepted all small boat crossing back( if no proof of refugees status provided) that was the Dublin arrangement.
That ceased ti exist after brexit.
Untrue. The Dublin Agreement says that an applicant is the responsibility of the first EU country that they apply in. If they attempt to apply in a second country, they can be sent back to the first one to be dealt with.
France has never accepted asylum claimants back unless they could be proved to have previously applied in France, which the vast majority of them hadn't."
"Article 13 – Entry and/or stay
Article 13(1) sets out the responsible State shall be that where the applicant made
his or her first illegal entry into the territory of a Dublin State across an external
border, provided the asylum claim is made within 12 months of the date of that illegal
entry."
Sorry Mr Discretion. But it was about how you entered illegally. Nothing about registering.
Article 13(2) sets out that where a State cannot or can no longer be held responsible
on the basis of Article 13(1), the responsible State is that where the individual has
entered the territories of the Dublin States irregularly (or the circumstances of entry
cannot be established) and it can be shown that the applicant has been living in the
State for at least 5 consecutive months (‘tolerated illegal presence’). If the applicant
has been living for periods of time in several Member States, each of at least 5
months, the Member State where the applicant has been living most recently shall
be responsible. Where the applicant has been living for a cumulative period of 5
months across several Member States the criteria in Article 13(2) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Social media, a telephone connection.""
"I don't have either of those things. I wouldn't expect anyone arriving from Afghanistan to have them either."
"So you claim not to have a telephone or social media.
Even though you signed up to this website.
You post via the Internet. You have a bank account to pay for your Internet direct debit I assume.
You pay for this website via a credit card I assume?
Also your profile shows the little phone. Which I believe indicates you are using the mobile version?"
I don't have any social media accounts. I don't have a landline telephone connection. I do have a mobile phone, but it's not registered in my name, or at an address that I live at.
Given the amount of posting I do here, you could claim that this is a social media site. But I would not expect the site operators to comply with any requests for data from any foreign governments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Social media, a telephone connection."
I don't have either of those things. I wouldn't expect anyone arriving from Afghanistan to have them either.
So you claim not to have a telephone or social media.
Even though you signed up to this website.
You post via the Internet. You have a bank account to pay for your Internet direct debit I assume.
You pay for this website via a credit card I assume?
Also your profile shows the little phone. Which I believe indicates you are using the mobile version?
I don't have any social media accounts. I don't have a landline telephone connection. I do have a mobile phone, but it's not registered in my name, or at an address that I live at.
Given the amount of posting I do here, you could claim that this is a social media site. But I would not expect the site operators to comply with any requests for data from any foreign governments."
Tbf, I don't have a landline, a mobile phone in my name or other trackable social media either.
I do have traceable bills though, not that I'm arguing asylum seekers would have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
agree with you that most of the people arriving here don't have valid claims, and should be sent home but the Convention says that we cannot send a genuine claimant back to a dangerous situation, so the law has to be set up to ensure that does not happen.
Yes this is why Rwanda exists.
It's not dangerous
Your idea that we can reject a claim just because someone doesn't have ID doesn't fit with the idea of protecting genuine claimants, so the law isn't set up that way. The agreement is set up that the claimant has the burden of proof not the state.
Your idea that everyone from every country must have a digital footprint and a bank account, and that the other country will be happy to share that information with the UK is, frankly, ludicrous.not really it's based on reality that they have £5k to pay boat people. Cross either land borders or tavel via sky. There not many people with £5-10k in cash that don't have a digital footprint. My logic is sound.
It's entirely possible for someone to travel across Europe and get food, drink, clothing, shelter, and mobile phones from the various charities that have been set up to provide exactly that.so then they would have a mobile / digital footprint via the free mobile.
They'd also have registered with the charities.
I am not sure how they'd cross from middle east or Africa to Europe again without money or passport. You have definitely seen some different charity shops to me...youl have to let me k ow where they're getting their £200 Nike Jordans from for charity.
Most of the people that arrive here haven't paid any people smugglers. The smugglers get paid by their family, back in the country of origin.( no they don't. They're paid in cash in person. There have been multiple docs on this. How do the family know the person is in France.if they've run away from the gun wielders.
Surely the family keying the smugglers can send the ID they ran off without to them? See how this all falls apart now?
If the claimant can get in touch to pay the 5k via his/ her family to the smugglers.
Why can't the family send photos of claimants passport and driver license?
Why can't they send tbe bank account details they had? How does the family have tbe spare 5k?
Whybis the rest of the family not in immediate danger?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Social media, a telephone connection."
I don't have either of those things. I wouldn't expect anyone arriving from Afghanistan to have them either.
So you claim not to have a telephone or social media.
Even though you signed up to this website.
You post via the Internet. You have a bank account to pay for your Internet direct debit I assume.
You pay for this website via a credit card I assume?
Also your profile shows the little phone. Which I believe indicates you are using the mobile version?
I don't have any social media accounts. I don't have a landline telephone connection. I do have a mobile phone, but it's not registered in my name, or at an address that I live at.
Given the amount of posting I do here, you could claim that this is a social media site. But I would not expect the site operators to comply with any requests for data from any foreign governments."
But you have a mobile phone. Which just a minute ago you didn't have.
So now then.
When younarrive they have access to all your apps etc. Your banking app, anything else yous igned up to.
Maybe bet 365 etc etc.
And hey presto. You can prove who you are.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A list of apps on my phone that if I'd dit throw it into the channel the authorities could contact for my details through a request for information.
Natwest
Halifax
Skysuper6
Bet365
PlayStation
starbucks
Wetherspoons
Spotify
Amazon
Fourth
Liner
Train line
Google
There's more.
But point made.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Again.
Since we are going down this path
I must re iterate.
I worked in this field for about 5/6 years before becoming an accountant.
I literally did this as my job supplying these requ3sts for information for home office etc.
Solicitors
Police
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A list of apps on my phone that if I'd dit throw it into the channel the authorities could contact for my details through a request for information.
Natwest
Halifax
Skysuper6
Bet365
PlayStation
starbucks
Wetherspoons
Spotify
Amazon
Fourth
Liner
Train line
Google
There's more.
But point made."
If the Afghan authorities asked your bank and all those other companies for information, do you honestly think that they would get any helpful responses?
And if the UK government asked lots of Afghan banks and websites for details, do you really think that those companies would reply? Do you think that the Taliban would be happy to allow such details to be sent to the UK to help that person stay free?
I'll say it again because you clearly aren't reading it. I agree that the majority of arrivals here are not valid applicants. But the law has to be set up to make sure that no genuine applicant is sent back. As such, the lack of ID can't be used as evidence that a claim is not valid, since there are many reasons why a person might not have any ID.
BTW: I don't have any bank apps on my phone, nor do I use my phone to access any sites that need accounts. I don't do betting, streaming, or loyalty apps. My phone is linked to a Google account, but I don't know the details. I set up a new random Google account for each new phone I get.
I'm sure some people will think that I'm paranoid about getting tracked or having my details lifted. But I expect that I'm not half as paranoid as a gay man living in Afghanistan. I wouldn't expect the phone that he uses to post on Fab Swingers to have any trace of his real ID. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A list of apps on my phone that if I'd dit throw it into the channel the authorities could contact for my details through a request for information.
Natwest
Halifax
Skysuper6
Bet365
PlayStation
starbucks
Wetherspoons
Spotify
Amazon
Fourth
Liner
Train line
Google
There's more.
But point made.
If the Afghan authorities asked your bank and all those other companies for information, do you honestly think that they would get any helpful responses?
And if the UK government asked lots of Afghan banks and websites for details, do you really think that those companies would reply? Do you think that the Taliban would be happy to allow such details to be sent to the UK to help that person stay free?
I'll say it again because you clearly aren't reading it. I agree that the majority of arrivals here are not valid applicants. But the law has to be set up to make sure that no genuine applicant is sent back. As such, the lack of ID can't be used as evidence that a claim is not valid, since there are many reasons why a person might not have any ID.
BTW: I don't have any bank apps on my phone, nor do I use my phone to access any sites that need accounts. I don't do betting, streaming, or loyalty apps. My phone is linked to a Google account, but I don't know the details. I set up a new random Google account for each new phone I get.
I'm sure some people will think that I'm paranoid about getting tracked or having my details lifted. But I expect that I'm not half as paranoid as a gay man living in Afghanistan. I wouldn't expect the phone that he uses to post on Fab Swingers to have any trace of his real ID."
You seem enamoured with the afghan bank.
There's no reason for them not to share the details.
It's actually called an interbank call. I used to perform them all the time.
Every bank has an excel document of the AML / financial crime department
a 4 number code and whose on that 4 number code.
It's updated quarterly.
We also then have documents for tbe pice etc to verify officers badge number and names.
It's very very neat.
And this was almost 8 years ago. It will have moved kn immensely since then.
I had to call a Syria bank once when one of our employees accidentally authorised a payment to syria( which was banned at the time from receiving funds) the bak confirmedthr 60k payment had arrived and aent it back to us.
Your thoughts on the industry and my working lived experiences are very very different Mr Discretion.
I'm not sure why you think the taliban are I charge and monitoring every single call to a bank.
Again. Having worked this industry. I can tell you.
The sampling of even my own teams alls was about 20 in 3000. We would make 40-60 a day and would be sampled on 20 calls every 3 months. I think you really overestimate the talibans control on the Afghan banking sector.
It's not about not getting it
I get you agree re boats
What you don't get is how modern technology and policing and rfi work.
You have seemingly ignored many of my rebuttal up above on family contact...withdrawing money, how they pay the smugglers etc. Again.
I worked in this sector.
There's absolutely no way they get to northern France without ID or cash.
No way they cross the bordera of land of several African countries/ Middle Eastern
Then enter Europe.
Then travel across Europe.
With just a " pony in their pocket"
Sadly I can't look at your phone.
But I will guarantee that given you have a presence on a swi ginger app you've verified yourself, you will have some form of app with ID.
It wouldn't surprise me if your maybe paid a premium membership on here at 1 time.
All very traceable. And why we see them throw their phones overboard when coming here.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm being a dick but I'm imagining someone phoning up Barclays and saying "do you have a John Smith bank with you. Used to live in Leeds. Once bought a pint at weathespoons. Likes a bet"
"
For the forces its not far from the truth.
Dwp
Police
Immigration enforcement
" hi John Smith from China. We believe he's running his restaurant with illegal immigrants.
When he opened his account, did he open any others. What are the linked accounts.
" Sven carlsberg and Peter tetley."
OK do you have their IDa they opened with and their deposit history."
" sure thing"
" can we speak tothe clerk who opened the account "
" yes officer I remember John Smith had both their IDs and they didn't speak english he spoke for them"
And so begins the case of modern sl@very investigating.
As people know I have huge reservations on modern tech such as Tesla and green energy.
But it surprises me how little people are aware they're being monitored.
Even down to when the cashier at your savings bank asks you day to day questions. It's all part of KYC
" Big deposit Mr Smith, can i come work for you?"
" yeah just re fitted a whole bathroom last week" £12k refurb.finally paid in cash"
They are trained to ask these and not in an investigative manner.
Chit chat. Because that way you get more.
At my former institution this conversation along e would have generated 2 suspicious activity reports that we'd have had to investigate.
We could see your IPs
Where you logged onto your online banking.
Which devices you used
You Internet connection
Why people think a department willing to spend 5bn a year on housing illegals immigrants rather than allowing then to stay won't investigate , as well as your phone not having traceable data that they can use against you is beyond me.
There seems to be this thinking the modern world is still 1990. Its simply not.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm being a dick but I'm imagining someone phoning up Barclays and saying "do you have a John Smith bank with you. Used to live in Leeds. Once bought a pint at weathespoons. Likes a bet"
For the forces its not far from the truth.
Dwp
Police
Immigration enforcement
" hi John Smith from China. We believe he's running his restaurant with illegal immigrants.
When he opened his account, did he open any others. What are the linked accounts.
" Sven carlsberg and Peter tetley."
OK do you have their IDa they opened with and their deposit history."
" sure thing"
" can we speak tothe clerk who opened the account "
" yes officer I remember John Smith had both their IDs and they didn't speak english he spoke for them"
And so begins the case of modern sl@very investigating.
As people know I have huge reservations on modern tech such as Tesla and green energy.
But it surprises me how little people are aware they're being monitored.
Even down to when the cashier at your savings bank asks you day to day questions. It's all part of KYC
" Big deposit Mr Smith, can i come work for you?"
" yeah just re fitted a whole bathroom last week" £12k refurb.finally paid in cash"
They are trained to ask these and not in an investigative manner.
Chit chat. Because that way you get more.
At my former institution this conversation along e would have generated 2 suspicious activity reports that we'd have had to investigate.
We could see your IPs
Where you logged onto your online banking.
Which devices you used
You Internet connection
Why people think a department willing to spend 5bn a year on housing illegals immigrants rather than allowing then to stay won't investigate , as well as your phone not having traceable data that they can use against you is beyond me.
There seems to be this thinking the modern world is still 1990. Its simply not.
"
oh, I have no doubt they investigate. I've always said it should be easy to prove if someone is who they say they are, or at least get some confidence of background. You don't need tech. Just ask questions about the town they say they are from.
I've never thought it was easy to game the systems as a bit of interview prep. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's no reason for them not to share the details."
Really? If someone phoned you at the bank and said "we suspect this person of being a homosexual, and that's illegal in our country, so give us a list of all their transactions", would you have just handed the information over?
Then imagine a foreign bank receiving a call from the UK government saying "we're trying to prove who this person is, so that we can rescue them from your country". Do you think that all banks in all countries would happily hand over the information?
"Your thoughts on the industry and my working lived experiences are very very different Mr Discretion."
That's because your experiences are all about investigating crimes, and my thoughts are all about some people in some countries not wanting to help their compatriots escape to the UK.
"All very traceable. And why we see them throw their phones overboard when coming here."
And again you aren't getting it, because you're focusing on bogus claimants, and not even considering that there might be some genuine cases. Yes, I agree that many of them throw phones overboard, because they can be used to track them. But my argument is that a genuine claimant might have good reason for not having a phone, or having a phone with no usable ID on it. The Convention won't let us take the risk that a genuine claimant might get rejected, so the state has to gather more evidence to prove that a claim is, or isn't, valid. Your earlier statement that it was up to the applicant to prove their ID is just wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Really? If someone phoned you at the bank and said "we suspect this person of being a homosexual, and that's illegal in our country, so give us a list of all their transactions", would you have just handed the information over?
Then imagine a foreign bank receiving a call from the UK government saying "we're trying to prove who this person is, so that we can rescue them from your country". Do you think that all banks in all countries would happily hand over the information?
They would be contacting our forces who could ask for the disclosure of information from us. You seemed dro have missed the point above of intergovernmental agencies of different coutnries working together.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
That's because your experiences are all about investigating crimes, and my thoughts are all about some people in some countries not wanting to help their compatriots escape to the UK.
" that's because you jave lives experi3nce doing this, where all I jave is best guess and no logic" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And again you aren't getting it, because you're focusing on bogus claimants, and not even considering that there might be some genuine cases. Yes, I agree that many of them throw phones overboard, because they can be used to track them. But my argument is that a genuine claimant might have good reason for not having a phone, or having a phone with no usable ID on it. The Convention won't let us take the risk that a genuine claimant might get rejected, so the state has to gather more evidence to prove that a claim is, or isn't, valid. Your earlier statement that it was up to the applicant to prove their ID is just wrong.
I am getting it.
You can't refute any of my rebuttals.
There's boss cenario you can dream of they can pay the traffickers, contact family at home have money paid to their accounts, and not be without their ID or some way of verifying them.
I am sorry you can't refute why logic Mr Discretion...
Feel free to attempt it
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would take 2 seconds to think about what you're typing.
You genuinely research your topics and come across on both ends.
But yesterday you made me re think how you approach things after this lie
"I don't have either of those things. I wouldn't expect anyone arriving from Afghanistan to have them either."
This was in regards to owning a mobile.
I visited your profile. Saw you were using a mobile to post and the it changed to
I have a mobile phone but it's bot registered in my name
Don't let your emotions cloud your honesty here please or your way of approaching thinga logically.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But yesterday you made me re think how you approach things after this lie
"I don't have either of those things. I wouldn't expect anyone arriving from Afghanistan to have them either.""
My words were in reply to "Social media, a telephone connection". I genuinely read that as meaning a landline connection, which I don't have.
As for your rebuttals, I can't find them. If you actually want me to reply, you'll need to repeat them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Smoke and mirrors, nothing is stopping the boats. All that has happened is a government notice to male the press not focus on them. Notoce a drop in Gaza coverage too by any chance, at least less focus on the civillian deaths? Thats not by accident, those who think we have a free press really are lovong in a fantasy land. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But yesterday you made me re think how you approach things after this lie
"I don't have either of those things. I wouldn't expect anyone arriving from Afghanistan to have them either."
My words were in reply to "Social media, a telephone connection". I genuinely read that as meaning a landline connection, which I don't have.
As for your rebuttals, I can't find them. If you actually want me to reply, you'll need to repeat them."
They are above. Feel free to re read Mr Discretion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania"
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it."
I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
"
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants."
didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
"
If they reach your country.
You can't deport them then bring them back they have to be processed in the country of application.
The un refers them and we accept them via these schemes yes. And I don't mind us taking in more.
If by that you mean why don't we process in France for example.
We discussed this on here before.it wouldnt work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
If they reach your country.
You can't deport them then bring them back they have to be processed in the country of application.
The un refers them and we accept them via these schemes yes. And I don't mind us taking in more.
If by that you mean why don't we process in France for example.
We discussed this on here before.it wouldnt work."
I didn't know that. I'm not sure why it's an issue but I'd not support anything that breaks a law.
I was trying to clarify your UN statement tbh where you say we use the un for processing.
I'm a fan of that scheme tbh and would be a fan of extending it wider than the very vulnerable to help better distribute the remaining refugees. Imo international cooperation is the best way through this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
If they reach your country.
You can't deport them then bring them back they have to be processed in the country of application.
The un refers them and we accept them via these schemes yes. And I don't mind us taking in more.
If by that you mean why don't we process in France for example.
We discussed this on here before.it wouldnt work.I didn't know that. I'm not sure why it's an issue but I'd not support anything that breaks a law.
I was trying to clarify your UN statement tbh where you say we use the un for processing.
I'm a fan of that scheme tbh and would be a fan of extending it wider than the very vulnerable to help better distribute the remaining refugees. Imo international cooperation is the best way through this. "
I agree.
Iw ant us taking in more genuine refugees who can live a better life without fear here I the uk and are open to becoming uk citizens and relishing our culture as with their own.
I dont want people queue jumping and not wanting to become part of our culture.
The UN schemes are a good way kf doing this for me and screening genuine claims |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
If they reach your country.
You can't deport them then bring them back they have to be processed in the country of application.
The un refers them and we accept them via these schemes yes. And I don't mind us taking in more.
If by that you mean why don't we process in France for example.
We discussed this on here before.it wouldnt work.I didn't know that. I'm not sure why it's an issue but I'd not support anything that breaks a law.
I was trying to clarify your UN statement tbh where you say we use the un for processing.
I'm a fan of that scheme tbh and would be a fan of extending it wider than the very vulnerable to help better distribute the remaining refugees. Imo international cooperation is the best way through this.
I agree.
Iw ant us taking in more genuine refugees who can live a better life without fear here I the uk and are open to becoming uk citizens and relishing our culture as with their own.
I dont want people queue jumping and not wanting to become part of our culture.
The UN schemes are a good way kf doing this for me and screening genuine claims"
as it stands, it's not really queue jumping. That implies a queue. Afaik we aren't saying nor more referrals as we are full.
There is also a fair amount of projecting the motivations and future actions of people in saying they don't want to become part of their culture. Unless you have some interesting reading for me. I have no idea either which way whether a refugee integrates better or worse than any other immigrant. Tbh, I don't really know what our culture involves. Maybe its a wording thing... I'd want to see integration into our society. But even then... I'm not 100pc sure what I mean by that !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
If they reach your country.
You can't deport them then bring them back they have to be processed in the country of application.
The un refers them and we accept them via these schemes yes. And I don't mind us taking in more.
If by that you mean why don't we process in France for example.
We discussed this on here before.it wouldnt work.I didn't know that. I'm not sure why it's an issue but I'd not support anything that breaks a law.
I was trying to clarify your UN statement tbh where you say we use the un for processing.
I'm a fan of that scheme tbh and would be a fan of extending it wider than the very vulnerable to help better distribute the remaining refugees. Imo international cooperation is the best way through this.
I agree.
Iw ant us taking in more genuine refugees who can live a better life without fear here I the uk and are open to becoming uk citizens and relishing our culture as with their own.
I dont want people queue jumping and not wanting to become part of our culture.
The UN schemes are a good way kf doing this for me and screening genuine claimsas it stands, it's not really queue jumping. That implies a queue. Afaik we aren't saying nor more referrals as we are full.
There is also a fair amount of projecting the motivations and future actions of people in saying they don't want to become part of their culture. Unless you have some interesting reading for me. I have no idea either which way whether a refugee integrates better or worse than any other immigrant. Tbh, I don't really know what our culture involves. Maybe its a wording thing... I'd want to see integration into our society. But even then... I'm not 100pc sure what I mean by that !! "
.it's queue jumping when you arrive and ask for asylum without proof of identity.cwhilentoehrs wait in camps with ID to prove who they are before coming to the uk.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
If they reach your country.
You can't deport them then bring them back they have to be processed in the country of application.
The un refers them and we accept them via these schemes yes. And I don't mind us taking in more.
If by that you mean why don't we process in France for example.
We discussed this on here before.it wouldnt work.I didn't know that. I'm not sure why it's an issue but I'd not support anything that breaks a law.
I was trying to clarify your UN statement tbh where you say we use the un for processing.
I'm a fan of that scheme tbh and would be a fan of extending it wider than the very vulnerable to help better distribute the remaining refugees. Imo international cooperation is the best way through this.
I agree.
Iw ant us taking in more genuine refugees who can live a better life without fear here I the uk and are open to becoming uk citizens and relishing our culture as with their own.
I dont want people queue jumping and not wanting to become part of our culture.
The UN schemes are a good way kf doing this for me and screening genuine claimsas it stands, it's not really queue jumping. That implies a queue. Afaik we aren't saying nor more referrals as we are full.
There is also a fair amount of projecting the motivations and future actions of people in saying they don't want to become part of their culture. Unless you have some interesting reading for me. I have no idea either which way whether a refugee integrates better or worse than any other immigrant. Tbh, I don't really know what our culture involves. Maybe its a wording thing... I'd want to see integration into our society. But even then... I'm not 100pc sure what I mean by that !!
.it's queue jumping when you arrive and ask for asylum without proof of identity.cwhilentoehrs wait in camps with ID to prove who they are before coming to the uk.
"
who is waiting in camps to come to the UK? The UNHCR identifies the suitable resettlement country. One can't apply for resettlement. Let alone apply for a resettlement country.
Maybe its terminology and how i picture a queue. I don't believe that more people will be referred by the UN if we weren't processing those seeking asylum in the UK. Interested if you have info that suggests otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
If they reach your country.
You can't deport them then bring them back they have to be processed in the country of application.
The un refers them and we accept them via these schemes yes. And I don't mind us taking in more.
If by that you mean why don't we process in France for example.
We discussed this on here before.it wouldnt work.I didn't know that. I'm not sure why it's an issue but I'd not support anything that breaks a law.
I was trying to clarify your UN statement tbh where you say we use the un for processing.
I'm a fan of that scheme tbh and would be a fan of extending it wider than the very vulnerable to help better distribute the remaining refugees. Imo international cooperation is the best way through this.
I agree.
Iw ant us taking in more genuine refugees who can live a better life without fear here I the uk and are open to becoming uk citizens and relishing our culture as with their own.
I dont want people queue jumping and not wanting to become part of our culture.
The UN schemes are a good way kf doing this for me and screening genuine claimsas it stands, it's not really queue jumping. That implies a queue. Afaik we aren't saying nor more referrals as we are full.
There is also a fair amount of projecting the motivations and future actions of people in saying they don't want to become part of their culture. Unless you have some interesting reading for me. I have no idea either which way whether a refugee integrates better or worse than any other immigrant. Tbh, I don't really know what our culture involves. Maybe its a wording thing... I'd want to see integration into our society. But even then... I'm not 100pc sure what I mean by that !!
.it's queue jumping when you arrive and ask for asylum without proof of identity.cwhilentoehrs wait in camps with ID to prove who they are before coming to the uk.
who is waiting in camps to come to the UK? The UNHCR identifies the suitable resettlement country. One can't apply for resettlement. Let alone apply for a resettlement country.
Maybe its terminology and how i picture a queue. I don't believe that more people will be referred by the UN if we weren't processing those seeking asylum in the UK. Interested if you have info that suggests otherwise. "
The unhcr works with refugee camps to find people to remove at countries accepting of its schemes.
The uk has signed up to these schemes.
They are queue jumping those in the camps.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hot on the heels of Germany,it looks like Italy want to join in this off shoring of applicants to and plan to use Albania
Yup.
I wonder if the remain acolytes will be so enamoured with e.u coutnries when they adopt it.I'm fine in theory with asylum seekers being processed offshore. I'd not want to see someone having reduced ability to seek asylum as the result of changes (I won't open that can up re UK approach)
I'm fine in theory with countries accepting our rejected asylum seekers.
I caveat that both need to be to countries where the person is safe. I'm uncomfortable with LGBT going to some places.
I'm fine with countries reviewing their approach of funding asylum seekers before the decision is made.
Personally i am not comfortable with them processing then offshore.
I dont knkw if you mean deporting them then importing them back whe passed. I am.pretty sure you'd have some human rights violations there.
You might have meant the curre t unhcr processing where we use the UN to process them?
If so. I am absolutely fine doing that and for me I want us to do more
But I won't be accepting us doing more until we've sorted out the current deportation mess of the illegal immigrants. didn't say deport / import per se. But can see why you are reading that.
Why aren't you comfortable processing offshore ?
If there's a Human Rights but I've missed I will retreat back.
We don't "use" UN/UNHCR if this is the referred scheme. We are given (with right to refuse) refugees the UN have identified as being vulnerable and see UK as being the best safe country for them.
If they reach your country.
You can't deport them then bring them back they have to be processed in the country of application.
The un refers them and we accept them via these schemes yes. And I don't mind us taking in more.
If by that you mean why don't we process in France for example.
We discussed this on here before.it wouldnt work.I didn't know that. I'm not sure why it's an issue but I'd not support anything that breaks a law.
I was trying to clarify your UN statement tbh where you say we use the un for processing.
I'm a fan of that scheme tbh and would be a fan of extending it wider than the very vulnerable to help better distribute the remaining refugees. Imo international cooperation is the best way through this.
I agree.
Iw ant us taking in more genuine refugees who can live a better life without fear here I the uk and are open to becoming uk citizens and relishing our culture as with their own.
I dont want people queue jumping and not wanting to become part of our culture.
The UN schemes are a good way kf doing this for me and screening genuine claimsas it stands, it's not really queue jumping. That implies a queue. Afaik we aren't saying nor more referrals as we are full.
There is also a fair amount of projecting the motivations and future actions of people in saying they don't want to become part of their culture. Unless you have some interesting reading for me. I have no idea either which way whether a refugee integrates better or worse than any other immigrant. Tbh, I don't really know what our culture involves. Maybe its a wording thing... I'd want to see integration into our society. But even then... I'm not 100pc sure what I mean by that !!
.it's queue jumping when you arrive and ask for asylum without proof of identity.cwhilentoehrs wait in camps with ID to prove who they are before coming to the uk.
who is waiting in camps to come to the UK? The UNHCR identifies the suitable resettlement country. One can't apply for resettlement. Let alone apply for a resettlement country.
Maybe its terminology and how i picture a queue. I don't believe that more people will be referred by the UN if we weren't processing those seeking asylum in the UK. Interested if you have info that suggests otherwise.
The unhcr works with refugee camps to find people to remove at countries accepting of its schemes.
The uk has signed up to these schemes.
They are queue jumping those in the camps.
"
agreed. Generally those at risk. The population of people that may be resettled UK is small. Most people wouldn't be in scope.
I kinda get what you are saying however I don't believe there is anybody in the resettled scheme who is missing out or being slowed down because of us processing UK based asylum seekers. It's almost like there are two independent queues.
And the ones we accept through the UK queue are, by definition, refugees. I don't know why you'd say these wish to integrate less than through the referral scheme. Which tbh was my main point. My fault for raising multiple points in one comment.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unlawful .
Sadly yes.
Based on the idea that there's bo guarantee they won't be re deported.
Which seems to have come from nowhere as a notion.
Emergency legislation should sort this
"
from nowhere?
There is no dispute that persons who were relocated under the agreement suffered serious breaches of their rights under the Refugee Convention. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention
FCDO officials mentioned the Israel/Rwanda agreement in a submission to ministers in April 2021. They explained that Rwanda had ... They also explained that it emerged that those who were transferred to Rwanda were not given the right to settle and were at risk of refoulement, and that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the programme unlawful in April 2018.
98.Although ministers and officials were aware of the Israel/Rwanda agreement and the problems which arose under it, they do not appear to have investigated why it had failed, or attempted to obtain information about the terms of the agreement or the assurances which the Rwandan government had given. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unlawful .
Sadly yes.
Based on the idea that there's bo guarantee they won't be re deported.
Which seems to have come from nowhere as a notion.
Emergency legislation should sort this
from nowhere?
There is no dispute that persons who were relocated under the agreement suffered serious breaches of their rights under the Refugee Convention. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention
FCDO officials mentioned the Israel/Rwanda agreement in a submission to ministers in April 2021. They explained that Rwanda had ... They also explained that it emerged that those who were transferred to Rwanda were not given the right to settle and were at risk of refoulement, and that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the programme unlawful in April 2018.
98.Although ministers and officials were aware of the Israel/Rwanda agreement and the problems which arose under it, they do not appear to have investigated why it had failed, or attempted to obtain information about the terms of the agreement or the assurances which the Rwandan government had given."
Which people were relocated sorry hovis? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unlawful .
Sadly yes.
Based on the idea that there's bo guarantee they won't be re deported.
Which seems to have come from nowhere as a notion.
Emergency legislation should sort this
from nowhere?
There is no dispute that persons who were relocated under the agreement suffered serious breaches of their rights under the Refugee Convention. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention
FCDO officials mentioned the Israel/Rwanda agreement in a submission to ministers in April 2021. They explained that Rwanda had ... They also explained that it emerged that those who were transferred to Rwanda were not given the right to settle and were at risk of refoulement, and that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the programme unlawful in April 2018.
98.Although ministers and officials were aware of the Israel/Rwanda agreement and the problems which arose under it, they do not appear to have investigated why it had failed, or attempted to obtain information about the terms of the agreement or the assurances which the Rwandan government had given.
Which people were relocated sorry hovis?"
the people under the Israeli/rwanda scheme |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unlawful .
Sadly yes.
Based on the idea that there's bo guarantee they won't be re deported.
Which seems to have come from nowhere as a notion.
Emergency legislation should sort this
from nowhere?
There is no dispute that persons who were relocated under the agreement suffered serious breaches of their rights under the Refugee Convention. UNHCR found that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the arrangement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda. It provided evidence relating to more than 100 nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who had arrived in Rwanda under the agreement during 2015 and 2016 and had then been taken to the Ugandan border or put on flights to Uganda. In three cases, refoulement to Eritrea (via Kenya) had only been prevented by UNHCR’s intervention
FCDO officials mentioned the Israel/Rwanda agreement in a submission to ministers in April 2021. They explained that Rwanda had ... They also explained that it emerged that those who were transferred to Rwanda were not given the right to settle and were at risk of refoulement, and that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the programme unlawful in April 2018.
98.Although ministers and officials were aware of the Israel/Rwanda agreement and the problems which arose under it, they do not appear to have investigated why it had failed, or attempted to obtain information about the terms of the agreement or the assurances which the Rwandan government had given.
Which people were relocated sorry hovis?the people under the Israeli/rwanda scheme "
So not British then.
And not under our scheme good.
As our MoU is vastly different.
It was a voluntary scheme and not the same arrangement.
So yes.
I am still not sure how you compare Israeli scheme to the UK's |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This entire point of the MoU
Should have dealt with these concerns. Sadly not
13 Access for inspection, monitoring and provision of legal services
13.1 The joint committee will determine the process for access to facilitate and ensure that the Monitoring Committee formed in accordance with paragraph 15 has unfettered access to the following for the purposes of completing their assessments and reports:
13.1.1 the locations they are required to inspect under their terms of reference, save that a relocated person may refuse them entry to their private accommodation if they do not wish it to be inspected,
13.1.2 relevant officials, employees and agents of both Participants for interview,
13.1.3 any other person they may wish to interview who is willing to be interviewed,
13.1.4 the records held in relation to Relocated Individuals at all stages of the relocation process from the initial screening by the United Kingdom up to and including the asylum process as well as records of decisions taken about them,
13.1.5 records of grants and refusals of refugee status and of appeals raised against refusals of refugee status and their outcome,
13.1.6 records of any procedures that directly impact Relocated Individuals, and |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
"
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?"
of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Israeli scheme shouldn't feature in any discussion with the uk scheme.
It has no effect on the uk implementation "
does it not matter if Rwanda are a trustworthy partner? Especially if relying on the MoU to ensure no refoulment?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?"
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?"
The Israeli scheme was like the uk scheme of voluntary leave.
We do the exact same as Israel did already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ony 2016Man 25 weeks ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"Unlawful .
Sadly yes.
Based on the idea that there's bo guarantee they won't be re deported.
Which seems to have come from nowhere as a notion.
Emergency legislation should sort this
"
.
The scheme allowed Rwanda to send people here as well as The UK being able to send people to Rwanda , as , I assume , we are classed as a safe country , will it still be OK for Rwanda to send people to The UK ??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?"
I'm using the SC judgement as a source to explain the decision.
I'm not going to replicate the SC work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?
The Israeli scheme was like the uk scheme of voluntary leave.
We do the exact same as Israel did already."
with Rwanda ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?I'm using the SC judgement as a source to explain the decision.
I'm not going to replicate the SC work. "
And that's the problem
You using tbe Israeli scheme as a comparable was not correct they are different schemes.
Which is why the judgement is quite shocking in my belief
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?
The Israeli scheme was like the uk scheme of voluntary leave.
We do the exact same as Israel did already.with Rwanda ?"
No.
A vuluntary leave scheme.
That would be comparable.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Voluntary and assisted returns:
introduction
This page provides Immigration Enforcement (IE) with information and case working
instructions on voluntary and assisted returns for non-detained cases. Voluntary and
assisted returns may be either at public expense or at the expense of the individual.
The information may also be useful as an overview to UK Visas and Immigration
(UKVI) and Border Force about the IE Voluntary Returns Process.
What is a voluntary return?
Voluntary return (VR) is an umbrella term referring to any non-enforced departure of
an immigration offender (or their family members) from the UK to the country of
return. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Voluntary and assisted returns:
introduction
This page provides Immigration Enforcement (IE) with information and case working
instructions on voluntary and assisted returns for non-detained cases. Voluntary and
assisted returns may be either at public expense or at the expense of the individual.
The information may also be useful as an overview to UK Visas and Immigration
(UKVI) and Border Force about the IE Voluntary Returns Process.
What is a voluntary return?
Voluntary return (VR) is an umbrella term referring to any non-enforced departure of
an immigration offender (or their family members) from the UK to the country of
return."
By the courts logic and reasoning of the Israeli scheme.
The above voluntary returns scheme. Should also be illegal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?I'm using the SC judgement as a source to explain the decision.
I'm not going to replicate the SC work.
And that's the problem
You using tbe Israeli scheme as a comparable was not correct they are different schemes.
Which is why the judgement is quite shocking in my belief
"
fine for you to disagree with the SC.
Do you believe that there would be no risk of refoulment if we used Rwanda ?
And do you believe the Rwanda complied with the terms of the Israeli scheme ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?
The Israeli scheme was like the uk scheme of voluntary leave.
We do the exact same as Israel did already.with Rwanda ?
No.
A vuluntary leave scheme.
That would be comparable.
"
okay. I think you are looking at the type of scheme. The SC was looking at the trustworthiness of the party. You believe Rwanda to be trustworthy is my understanding here. And so would comply fully with the MoU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?
The Israeli scheme was like the uk scheme of voluntary leave.
We do the exact same as Israel did already.with Rwanda ?
No.
A vuluntary leave scheme.
That would be comparable.
okay. I think you are looking at the type of scheme. The SC was looking at the trustworthiness of the party. You believe Rwanda to be trustworthy is my understanding here. And so would comply fully with the MoU. "
But the point is its not about trustworthiness.
If the Israeli scheme is not designed to stop deportation from Rwanda you're not making tbe correct comparisons
You're comparing voluntary removal from Israel and payment tk go to a 3rd country with no guarantee of asylum application. To a forced removal to Rwanda where the MoU section 13 deals with monitoring of all subjects and treatment.
To me
If you are using Israeli scheme as a reason .
It's a piss poor judgement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unlawful .
Sadly yes.
Based on the idea that there's bo guarantee they won't be re deported.
Which seems to have come from nowhere as a notion.
Emergency legislation should sort this
.
The scheme allowed Rwanda to send people here as well as The UK being able to send people to Rwanda , as , I assume , we are classed as a safe country , will it still be OK for Rwanda to send people to The UK ??? "
Not by the uk courts assumptions.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You using tbe Israeli scheme as a comparable was not correct they are different schemes.
Which is why the judgement is quite shocking in my belief"
The UK Supreme Court has held that the performance of the Israeli scheme is relevant to whether the UK's scheme can be considered safe or not. And the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of how the law should be applied.
So the highest court in the land, made up of the most venerable legal professionals, has decreed that you are wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't follow your point at all.
Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme.
Is the Israeli scheme irrelevant? As it's different?
100.We do not agree that it is irrelevant. Although the terms of the agreement may well have been different from the MEDP, and it ceased to operate five years ago, it is nonetheless a recent agreement for the transfer of asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda, under which the Rwandan government undertook to comply with the principle of non-refoulement. Its apparent failure to fulfil that undertaking is relevant to an assessment of the risk of refoulement under the arrangements entered into with the government of the United Kingdom.
Have you got the assurances I the Israeli scheme to hand hovis?of course not. Do you know the SC hasnt seen them ?
"Rwanda have shown that they refoule. This was despite assurances in the Israeli scheme."
I would hope you quoting the scheme saying it explicitly stops deportation. You would have at least read it yourself?
The Israeli scheme was like the uk scheme of voluntary leave.
We do the exact same as Israel did already.with Rwanda ?
No.
A vuluntary leave scheme.
That would be comparable.
okay. I think you are looking at the type of scheme. The SC was looking at the trustworthiness of the party. You believe Rwanda to be trustworthy is my understanding here. And so would comply fully with the MoU.
But the point is its not about trustworthiness.
If the Israeli scheme is not designed to stop deportation from Rwanda you're not making tbe correct comparisons
You're comparing voluntary removal from Israel and payment tk go to a 3rd country with no guarantee of asylum application. To a forced removal to Rwanda where the MoU section 13 deals with monitoring of all subjects and treatment.
To me
If you are using Israeli scheme as a reason .
It's a piss poor judgement."
let me check my understanding
You are saying if the Israeli scheme did not have a no refoulment clause, then it's not relevant.
On the flip side, if it did have a clause, would that then be relevant ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As a slight aside but still on theme. I see Michel barnier the once eu negotiator us not happy with out of control immigration in France and wants protection from EU rules. He wants a constitutional block on EU laws and having France decide it's own policy including a 3 to 5 year ban on all non EU migration. He complains that the ECJ restricts member states freedom to act in national security and expand migrants rights to bring in families. He says that ECHR treaties always seem to favour migrants and wants them revised. Quite a change of tune for him |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a slight aside but still on theme. I see Michel barnier the once eu negotiator us not happy with out of control immigration in France and wants protection from EU rules. He wants a constitutional block on EU laws and having France decide it's own policy including a 3 to 5 year ban on all non EU migration. He complains that the ECJ restricts member states freedom to act in national security and expand migrants rights to bring in families. He says that ECHR treaties always seem to favour migrants and wants them revised. Quite a change of tune for him"
he was employed to fight EUs corner. It was never clear what his political views were and they becameore apparent when he was running for presidency.
I'm somewhat unclear on what he is fighting against here or the scale of the problem. It's seems HR laws are allowing migrants to get visas for their families. And that this is a security risk.
I'd imagine (tho not sure) that it's more a focus on economic migration not asylum seekers. But France has unique challenges with migration due to its approach with territories (as I understand it). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a slight aside but still on theme. I see Michel barnier the once eu negotiator us not happy with out of control immigration in France and wants protection from EU rules. He wants a constitutional block on EU laws and having France decide it's own policy including a 3 to 5 year ban on all non EU migration. He complains that the ECJ restricts member states freedom to act in national security and expand migrants rights to bring in families. He says that ECHR treaties always seem to favour migrants and wants them revised. Quite a change of tune for himhe was employed to fight EUs corner. It was never clear what his political views were and they becameore apparent when he was running for presidency.
I'm somewhat unclear on what he is fighting against here or the scale of the problem. It's seems HR laws are allowing migrants to get visas for their families. And that this is a security risk.
I'd imagine (tho not sure) that it's more a focus on economic migration not asylum seekers. But France has unique challenges with migration due to its approach with territories (as I understand it). "
Yes it seems his former pay master is now his problem as he is now on the receiving end of their rules and not enjoying it one bit. One of his main gripes is that France is not allowed to introduce its own laws to tackle problems. It could be HR or the EU allowing families of migrants to come. I know when the UK was under the Dublin agreement it allowed easier access for families. We are no longer in that but not sure if France are in it now. Either way he is now experiencing real life. Guess having cake and eating it should be put to him  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You using tbe Israeli scheme as a comparable was not correct they are different schemes.
Which is why the judgement is quite shocking in my belief
The UK Supreme Court has held that the performance of the Israeli scheme is relevant to whether the UK's scheme can be considered safe or not. And the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of how the law should be applied.
So the highest court in the land, made up of the most venerable legal professionals, has decreed that you are wrong."
A vourt just also ruled a lady caught on video destroying a window of a bank wasn't destroying property.
As I said.
If they have a problem with the Isaraeli scheme.
I've no idea why our own voluntary scheme is still in operation.
For me both of these ideas are in complete conflict of each other.
For what it's also worth.
The usa supreme court just overrules its own previous judgements last year and declared them incorrect.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You using tbe Israeli scheme as a comparable was not correct they are different schemes.
Which is why the judgement is quite shocking in my belief
The UK Supreme Court has held that the performance of the Israeli scheme is relevant to whether the UK's scheme can be considered safe or not. And the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of how the law should be applied.
So the highest court in the land, made up of the most venerable legal professionals, has decreed that you are wrong.
A vourt just also ruled a lady caught on video destroying a window of a bank wasn't destroying property.
As I said.
If they have a problem with the Isaraeli scheme.
I've no idea why our own voluntary scheme is still in operation.
For me both of these ideas are in complete conflict of each other.
For what it's also worth.
The usa supreme court just overrules its own previous judgements last year and declared them incorrect.
"
refoulement should be er happen. Regardless of a clause in an agreement. The fact it has happened makes Rwanda unsafe. The fact Rwanda seems to missunderstand it's obligations under the refugee convention makes it unsafe.
The Israeli scheme is just one example. The findings looked wider. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You using tbe Israeli scheme as a comparable was not correct they are different schemes.
Which is why the judgement is quite shocking in my belief
The UK Supreme Court has held that the performance of the Israeli scheme is relevant to whether the UK's scheme can be considered safe or not. And the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of how the law should be applied.
So the highest court in the land, made up of the most venerable legal professionals, has decreed that you are wrong.
A vourt just also ruled a lady caught on video destroying a window of a bank wasn't destroying property.
As I said.
If they have a problem with the Isaraeli scheme.
I've no idea why our own voluntary scheme is still in operation.
For me both of these ideas are in complete conflict of each other.
For what it's also worth.
The usa supreme court just overrules its own previous judgements last year and declared them incorrect.
refoulement should be er happen. Regardless of a clause in an agreement. The fact it has happened makes Rwanda unsafe. The fact Rwanda seems to missunderstand it's obligations under the refugee convention makes it unsafe.
The Israeli scheme is just one example. The findings looked wider. "
Well then if I were you hovis.
I'd take this up with the supreme court. Because it already does happen in the uk on the same basis of tbe Israeli scheme. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You using tbe Israeli scheme as a comparable was not correct they are different schemes.
Which is why the judgement is quite shocking in my belief
The UK Supreme Court has held that the performance of the Israeli scheme is relevant to whether the UK's scheme can be considered safe or not. And the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of how the law should be applied.
So the highest court in the land, made up of the most venerable legal professionals, has decreed that you are wrong.
A vourt just also ruled a lady caught on video destroying a window of a bank wasn't destroying property.
As I said.
If they have a problem with the Isaraeli scheme.
I've no idea why our own voluntary scheme is still in operation.
For me both of these ideas are in complete conflict of each other.
For what it's also worth.
The usa supreme court just overrules its own previous judgements last year and declared them incorrect.
refoulement should be er happen. Regardless of a clause in an agreement. The fact it has happened makes Rwanda unsafe. The fact Rwanda seems to missunderstand it's obligations under the refugee convention makes it unsafe.
The Israeli scheme is just one example. The findings looked wider.
Well then if I were you hovis.
I'd take this up with the supreme court. Because it already does happen in the uk on the same basis of tbe Israeli scheme."
what happens on the same basis?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The supreme court seems to have forget it does not make laws. In its ruling which was based on potentional outcomes it forgot that the UK can actually send illegal immigrants back to countries where the illegal immigrant claims they could be persecuted. An illegal immigrant may have a better outcome having the case reviewed whilst in Rwanda than the UK.
The supreme court ruling was not about Rwanda itself but where the illegal immigrant could potentialy end up. The detail in the ruling seems to change UK law irrespective of where the person is located when their case is being heard, either the UK or Rwanda, and to where they could be returned too.
The supreme court ruling was strange in that it was based on 'could end up in a dangerous country if sent to Rwanda' that's like saying let's fine everyone now who drives as they could break the speed limit in the future.
If they are the best legal experts we have then we are doomed. The UK has the weakest border in the world, our law lords have made it that way. Hopefully immigration will slow when EU coutries put their borders up, as they seem to be doing on a daily basis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You using tbe Israeli scheme as a comparable was not correct they are different schemes.
Which is why the judgement is quite shocking in my belief
The UK Supreme Court has held that the performance of the Israeli scheme is relevant to whether the UK's scheme can be considered safe or not. And the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of how the law should be applied.
So the highest court in the land, made up of the most venerable legal professionals, has decreed that you are wrong.
A vourt just also ruled a lady caught on video destroying a window of a bank wasn't destroying property.
As I said.
If they have a problem with the Isaraeli scheme.
I've no idea why our own voluntary scheme is still in operation.
For me both of these ideas are in complete conflict of each other.
For what it's also worth.
The usa supreme court just overrules its own previous judgements last year and declared them incorrect.
refoulement should be er happen. Regardless of a clause in an agreement. The fact it has happened makes Rwanda unsafe. The fact Rwanda seems to missunderstand it's obligations under the refugee convention makes it unsafe.
The Israeli scheme is just one example. The findings looked wider.
Well then if I were you hovis.
I'd take this up with the supreme court. Because it already does happen in the uk on the same basis of tbe Israeli scheme.what happens on the same basis?
"
We allow the voluntary deportation of asylum seekers who accept money to other coutnries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The supreme court seems to have forget it does not make laws. In its ruling which was based on potentional outcomes it forgot that the UK can actually send illegal immigrants back to countries where the illegal immigrant claims they could be persecuted. An illegal immigrant may have a better outcome having the case reviewed whilst in Rwanda than the UK.
The supreme court ruling was not about Rwanda itself but where the illegal immigrant could potentialy end up. The detail in the ruling seems to change UK law irrespective of where the person is located when their case is being heard, either the UK or Rwanda, and to where they could be returned too.
The supreme court ruling was strange in that it was based on 'could end up in a dangerous country if sent to Rwanda' that's like saying let's fine everyone now who drives as they could break the speed limit in the future.
If they are the best legal experts we have then we are doomed. The UK has the weakest border in the world, our law lords have made it that way. Hopefully immigration will slow when EU coutries put their borders up, as they seem to be doing on a daily basis."
Agreed which has been my point.
Said asylum seekers can be voluntarily returned to their ow country ( it Hinksey we kay them £15k? But I'd need to check)
The asylum seekers according to judgement could end up in Rwanda then be deported elsehwer. Though fkr me point 13 of MoU deals with this.
If tbe SC had a problem with the Israeli voluntary scheme.
I've absolutely but a fucking clue how we still operate our own voluntary scheme.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
