UK to Rwanda asylum plan ruled unlawful

Y'know. I just read three pages of this argument...



...and still have no idea what's going on. :unsure:

Is the plan lawful, or not?
I think motorbiking was trying to imply that UK Domestic case law changes the UN refugee Convention.
Of course, it doesn't.

But it does illustrate the politics and actions of the UK government when the UN Refugee Convention prevents the UK government from carrying out its policies aimed at criminalising and dealing with asylum seeekers.
 
Sponsored Links
A short clip where MT does not explain what she means by "Illegal immigration".
Asylum Seekers are, and were during MT's time, covered by the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
"The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom."

Either MT was intentionally ignoring the 1952 Convention, or she was not aware of it.
Or the clip omitted important parts of MT's comments that elucidated MT's comments.
 
A short clip where MT does not explain what she means by "Illegal immigration".
Asylum Seekers are, and were during MT's time, covered by the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
"The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom."

Either MT was intentionally ignoring the 1952 Convention, or she was not aware of it.
Or the clip omitted important parts of MT's comments that elucidated MT's comments.
Noted.
 
Sponsored Links
Either MT was intentionally ignoring the 1952 Convention, or she was not aware of it.
Or the clip omitted important parts of MT's comments that elucidated MT's comments.

Or might she have been trying to whip up racists to vote Tory?
 
Back
Top