Thread: Starmer’s chronicles
View Single Post
Old Yesterday, 17:43   #1651
1andrew1
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 15,212
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
Re: Starmer’s chronicles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Yes, offshore processing.

That's how Australia did it.

That was how, given a chance, Rwanda would have worked.
The Rwanda scheme was deemed unlawful by the UK's Supreme Court, so it couldn't have worked. The court cited concerns about Rwanda not being a safe country for refugees, citing potential risks of returning refugees to persecution and Rwanda's human rights record.

If the government of the day had wanted it to work, they would have worked with a country with a good human rights record. But would that country want failed immigrants to the UK and how much would they charge the UK?
1andrew1 is offline   Reply With Quote