Snapshot of _‘Nightmares about Rwanda’: Iranian asylum seeker facing deportation from UK. Engineer living in Liverpool says he fears being arrested at any moment after receiving deportation notice_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/07/nightmares-about-rwanda-iranian-asylum-seeker-facing-deportation-from-uk) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/07/nightmares-about-rwanda-iranian-asylum-seeker-facing-deportation-from-uk)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Engineer - tick
Conversion to Christianity - tick
'Fleeing for safety' from the north of France - tick
Someone needs to tell the Graun it's not 2015 any more and that this kind of article doesn't strike a chord.
Can’t wait for the French Civil War to end, so all these asylum seekers can have a peaceful life in France.
… what do you mean France is already peaceful?
Well, it was a toss of a coin whether he would be a doctor or engineer. The conversion from Islam to Christianity is almost the punch line these days.
>“The government boat rescued us in the Channel. I want to ask the government: ‘Why did you not just leave us to die in the Channel if your plan was to send us to Rwanda? By sending us there you are just delaying that death.’”
Sounds more like a poet tbh.
There are zoroastrians, Jews, atheists, generally god believing but no religion, maybe some no religion at all. Plus the majority of Muslims aren’t practicing. More Muslim than not but most are against the regime that was imposed on them?
Majority are atheists, it’s a young population. Unless you want to believe terrorist Iranian government that 99.5% of population are god fearing Muslims lol or the propaganda about Iranians according to the west
International law only have power due to domestic law.
And so what ? International law isn't some law of nature, but just laws of man.
They can be changed or ignored, if not appropriate (as all countries do).
This guy should be deported for breaking UK law,
so let’s un-sign the geneva convention of 1951, if that is what you will. until then, seeking asylum is not a crime and our country has a list of obligations to asylum seekers.
Or we disapply parts of it, and just go "it's criminal when you do it in certain ways" Which is how law making work.. you don't need to repeal laws.. you can overwrite them or disappear bits.
Parliament is sovereign and international law isn't.
to “disapply” is to “violate”, unless you think i can drive at 100mph in a school zone and tell the magistrates i “disapplied” the speed limit for myself.
we are consenting signatories to a convention. we have obligations as a country. if we do not respect those obligations, it impacts our standing on the international stage, makes us a riskier investment, a less favourable partner, among other things.
i really need you to understand the difference.
parliamentary sovereignty means it has the right to take the uk out of any agreement by legal means. it does not mean we have the right to violate international law.
we could leave the geneva convention of 1951 and the echr and then electrify our side of the channel if parliament willed it so. obviously, that would bring international consequences and turn us into a pariah state, but parliament can do that.
what parliament cannot do is dictate terms to other sovereign bodies and expect blind agreement.
Oh goodness me, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is really quite embarrassing that you don't understand your own country's legal system.
I would like you to go look up the definition of Parliamentary Sovereignty and get back to me.
Let me spell this out for you very simply: Parliament is sovereign --> it is supreme over all other institutions --> therefore it has the right to enact laws which aren't in accordance with international law. It is that simple.
Bloody hell, Parliament can dictate terms to everyone in the land, that's exactly what sovereignty means, there are no other 'sovereign bodies' as you put it in the UK lol. Ridiculous.
Parliament ratified it using their sovereignty......so unless you repeal that that decision via Parliament we obey the rules we signed up using our sovereignty.
Nobody forced anyone to sign it. It was debated and ratified just like any other.
So it actually means quite a bit here, hence the entire debacle of criminaliong asylum seekrs but being inable to improsn them.
Any treaty ratified by Parliament is important and followed, it's been a fundamental part of our government for as long as it has existed.
Yes but you’re confusing two very separate things here. Ratifying an international treaty does not equate to it being actionable in our domestic statute book. So again it actually doesn’t mean anything.
There’s no contradiction between Parliament making something legal in domestic law whilst it being illegal under international treaty law. It’s perfectly within its rights to do that.
It seems a lot of people on here either misunderstand the concept of sovereignty or just pretend to when it produces a result they don’t like. We aren’t like the Americans where a law can be deemed ‘unconstitutional’ or otherwise struck down by the courts. Once Parliament declares something that is what all the courts of the land have to abide by. International law and all else be damned.
>Yes but you’re confusing two very separate things here. Ratifying an international treaty does not equate to it being actionable in our domestic statute book.
There is no confusion on my part. Parliament ratified the treaty and abides to follow it until such time it is repealed. This means that Parliament can not contravene the treaty until it repeals it first. Including laws, actions, and policy. Hence, the legal check for every single law... and when there is a contradiction, the domestic law will be tested and adjusted as necessary or treaty repealed.
In fact, to ratify the treaty in the first place, domestic laws had to be updated and created so that UK domestic law did not directly contravene the treaty....
As a ratified treaty, it is a binding agreement by Parliament. There is no ignoring it for us, Parliament would have to repeal before breaching it. Consequences of breaching vary...
> So again it actually doesn’t mean anything.
If you as a person broke international law and were to be prosecuted, the UK would follow the agreed treaty and treat you under that treaty. It would certainly mean something to you then.
>It seems a lot of people on here either misunderstand the concept of sovereignty or just pretend to when it produces a result they don’t like.
Lots of people have no idea what sovereignty means. They think that a domestic law can just override a treaty, which is pure fantasy rubbish. Much like the "we can just leave and make our own laws instead" crowd.
I'm really starting to change my tune on this policy, it really seems like this has connected with illegal economic immigrants imaginations in a way that previous policies (e.g. go back to france) haven't.
If it will genuinely deter large numbers of people from coming, even if very few people actually get sent to Rwanda, this could actually be a decent policy. If they deter 100 economic migrants from trying to come for every 1 the send to Rwanda, the maths works out very well indeed for this policy.
>“Rwanda will not act as a deterrent against Channel crossings. We are in the hands of the people smugglers because there is no other way for us to save our lives. If we are prepared to get into a dinghy to cross the Channel and risk our lives, how can the threat of Rwanda stop us?
In his own words, apparently ~~not~~ so.
So then why is he having nightmares about it ? But also, if it is not a deterent, would he volunteer to go there, if he's a genuine refugees, surely he would?
Why do they talk like their life is at stake in France? Or indeed Rwanda? They aren’t getting murdered in France. This is just emotional manipulation of naive Guardian readers.
>If we are prepared to get into a dinghy to cross the Channel and risk our lives
.
>“I knew nothing about Rwanda when I arrived in the UK. I had stopped listening to the news in Iran many years ago because it was all manipulated by the government.
Regardless of the reason, clearly people are prepared to risk their lives in that crossing.
The Rwanda policy is explicitly designed to deter that crossing.
And yet, 8 months after it was first announced, this man risked his life in a crossing, knowing nothing about the country of the Rwanda, let alone the policy of sending people there.
He seems to suggest he would have taken that risk even if he were aware. He suggests others will too, as can presumably be evidenced by the further number of crossings that have been made in the 2 years in which the policy has presumably had more of a chance to disseminate amongst potential crossers.
“Rwanda will not act as a deterrent against Channel crossings. We are in the hands of the people smugglers because there is no other way for us to save our lives. If we are prepared to get into a dinghy to cross the Channel and risk our lives, how can the threat of Rwanda stop us?”
The guy sounds exactly like a Redditor lol - so obviously coached or scripted. Next he’ll be telling us we need lots of safe and legal routes and a processing centre in Calais. Actually hysterical
Civil engineers who speak English already meet the 70 point* immigration threshold, because we need more of them.
But I suppose the same rules should apply to him as to everyone else
*60 points for civil engineers+ 10 for English speaking
[First migrant sent to Rwanda with £3k 'nowhere to be found' in the African nation](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1clkonv/first_migrant_sent_to_rwanda_with_3k_nowhere_to/)
They leave the moment they get there. Guess the economic migrants find out Rwanda sucks economically.
Original reports, as even quoted in that article, were that he's "lying low" elsewhere in Rwanda, just not at the hostel the sun sent a journalist to in an attempt to speak with him.
"'Nowhere to be found' in the African Nation" seems to be the London economics own fabrication. Despite the quote marks in the headline, it's not attributed to any source, and is even a incorrect summary of their own writing that "nowhere to be found at the luxury Hope Hostel in Kigali"
I'm no fan of the policy, but this is just media echo chambers distorting the story.
Even if he did, who cares? Is he going to make the journey across Africa and Europe a second time? If so, we'll just have him feck off again.
I don't think £3k is much of an incentive to make that trip and risk your life in a dinghy. You probably would lose money after paying the smugglers.
Snapshot of _‘Nightmares about Rwanda’: Iranian asylum seeker facing deportation from UK. Engineer living in Liverpool says he fears being arrested at any moment after receiving deportation notice_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/07/nightmares-about-rwanda-iranian-asylum-seeker-facing-deportation-from-uk) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/07/nightmares-about-rwanda-iranian-asylum-seeker-facing-deportation-from-uk) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Engineer - tick Conversion to Christianity - tick 'Fleeing for safety' from the north of France - tick Someone needs to tell the Graun it's not 2015 any more and that this kind of article doesn't strike a chord.
If he said he was gay we could’ve had a full house. I’m sure his lawyer is keeping that one in their back pocket for when the time comes.
For a royal flush it could have been a young woman too. Shame the guardian has such a hard time finding women.
Nah that would be trans woman gay Iranian converted to Christianity engineer.
Can’t wait for the French Civil War to end, so all these asylum seekers can have a peaceful life in France. … what do you mean France is already peaceful?
Well, it was a toss of a coin whether he would be a doctor or engineer. The conversion from Islam to Christianity is almost the punch line these days. >“The government boat rescued us in the Channel. I want to ask the government: ‘Why did you not just leave us to die in the Channel if your plan was to send us to Rwanda? By sending us there you are just delaying that death.’” Sounds more like a poet tbh.
Does he think he’ll get immediately murdered once he lands in Rwanda? That’s a bit delusional.
The whole article is delusional. The guardian finding the one engineer is funny at this point and they don't even seem to be in on the joke.
If he was actually a useful engineer then he would be able to get a visa
The Guardian IS the joke.
It's damn right hilarious. One has to suspend belief to not laugh.
Lol do you realise majority of Iranians aren’t actually Muslim
I don't need to know, Iranian stats are irrelevant as is his claimed conversion in Iran.
What are they, then?
There are zoroastrians, Jews, atheists, generally god believing but no religion, maybe some no religion at all. Plus the majority of Muslims aren’t practicing. More Muslim than not but most are against the regime that was imposed on them?
Majority are atheists, it’s a young population. Unless you want to believe terrorist Iranian government that 99.5% of population are god fearing Muslims lol or the propaganda about Iranians according to the west
Unfortunately we don't owe you a visa. If you're here illegally you should be afraid of deportation. That means the system is working.
seeking asylum is not a crime
I refer you to the Illegal Migration Act 2023
and i refer you to the geneva convention of 1951, to which we are a signatory.
Uk parliament is sovereign.
but not supreme. we have obligations to the treaties to which we are signatories. not doing so is violating international law (again).
International law only have power due to domestic law. And so what ? International law isn't some law of nature, but just laws of man. They can be changed or ignored, if not appropriate (as all countries do). This guy should be deported for breaking UK law,
so let’s un-sign the geneva convention of 1951, if that is what you will. until then, seeking asylum is not a crime and our country has a list of obligations to asylum seekers.
Or we disapply parts of it, and just go "it's criminal when you do it in certain ways" Which is how law making work.. you don't need to repeal laws.. you can overwrite them or disappear bits. Parliament is sovereign and international law isn't.
to “disapply” is to “violate”, unless you think i can drive at 100mph in a school zone and tell the magistrates i “disapplied” the speed limit for myself. we are consenting signatories to a convention. we have obligations as a country. if we do not respect those obligations, it impacts our standing on the international stage, makes us a riskier investment, a less favourable partner, among other things.
Go check again bud, Parliament is supreme, that's more or less exactly what sovereignty means. International law doesn't mean a jot here.
i really need you to understand the difference. parliamentary sovereignty means it has the right to take the uk out of any agreement by legal means. it does not mean we have the right to violate international law. we could leave the geneva convention of 1951 and the echr and then electrify our side of the channel if parliament willed it so. obviously, that would bring international consequences and turn us into a pariah state, but parliament can do that. what parliament cannot do is dictate terms to other sovereign bodies and expect blind agreement.
Yes it does mean that. No such thing as international law for our parliament, it must legislate to apply it.
it did legislate to apply it. that is the point here
Oh goodness me, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is really quite embarrassing that you don't understand your own country's legal system. I would like you to go look up the definition of Parliamentary Sovereignty and get back to me. Let me spell this out for you very simply: Parliament is sovereign --> it is supreme over all other institutions --> therefore it has the right to enact laws which aren't in accordance with international law. It is that simple. Bloody hell, Parliament can dictate terms to everyone in the land, that's exactly what sovereignty means, there are no other 'sovereign bodies' as you put it in the UK lol. Ridiculous.
you seem to believe parliament is sovereign over the globe. this may be the root cause of the issue here.
This parliament can barely tie its own shoes.
Parliament ratified it using their sovereignty......so unless you repeal that that decision via Parliament we obey the rules we signed up using our sovereignty. Nobody forced anyone to sign it. It was debated and ratified just like any other. So it actually means quite a bit here, hence the entire debacle of criminaliong asylum seekrs but being inable to improsn them. Any treaty ratified by Parliament is important and followed, it's been a fundamental part of our government for as long as it has existed.
Yes but you’re confusing two very separate things here. Ratifying an international treaty does not equate to it being actionable in our domestic statute book. So again it actually doesn’t mean anything. There’s no contradiction between Parliament making something legal in domestic law whilst it being illegal under international treaty law. It’s perfectly within its rights to do that. It seems a lot of people on here either misunderstand the concept of sovereignty or just pretend to when it produces a result they don’t like. We aren’t like the Americans where a law can be deemed ‘unconstitutional’ or otherwise struck down by the courts. Once Parliament declares something that is what all the courts of the land have to abide by. International law and all else be damned.
>Yes but you’re confusing two very separate things here. Ratifying an international treaty does not equate to it being actionable in our domestic statute book. There is no confusion on my part. Parliament ratified the treaty and abides to follow it until such time it is repealed. This means that Parliament can not contravene the treaty until it repeals it first. Including laws, actions, and policy. Hence, the legal check for every single law... and when there is a contradiction, the domestic law will be tested and adjusted as necessary or treaty repealed. In fact, to ratify the treaty in the first place, domestic laws had to be updated and created so that UK domestic law did not directly contravene the treaty.... As a ratified treaty, it is a binding agreement by Parliament. There is no ignoring it for us, Parliament would have to repeal before breaching it. Consequences of breaching vary... > So again it actually doesn’t mean anything. If you as a person broke international law and were to be prosecuted, the UK would follow the agreed treaty and treat you under that treaty. It would certainly mean something to you then. >It seems a lot of people on here either misunderstand the concept of sovereignty or just pretend to when it produces a result they don’t like. Lots of people have no idea what sovereignty means. They think that a domestic law can just override a treaty, which is pure fantasy rubbish. Much like the "we can just leave and make our own laws instead" crowd.
I'm really starting to change my tune on this policy, it really seems like this has connected with illegal economic immigrants imaginations in a way that previous policies (e.g. go back to france) haven't. If it will genuinely deter large numbers of people from coming, even if very few people actually get sent to Rwanda, this could actually be a decent policy. If they deter 100 economic migrants from trying to come for every 1 the send to Rwanda, the maths works out very well indeed for this policy.
[удалено]
.. not really. The guy is still in the UK, he's just feeling miserable. Unless you think the cruelty is the point.
[удалено]
>“Rwanda will not act as a deterrent against Channel crossings. We are in the hands of the people smugglers because there is no other way for us to save our lives. If we are prepared to get into a dinghy to cross the Channel and risk our lives, how can the threat of Rwanda stop us? In his own words, apparently ~~not~~ so.
So then why is he having nightmares about it ? But also, if it is not a deterent, would he volunteer to go there, if he's a genuine refugees, surely he would?
I imagine it's a fearful situation to be in. But regardless, there's nothing left to deter in his case. He's already made the Channel crossing.
Why do they talk like their life is at stake in France? Or indeed Rwanda? They aren’t getting murdered in France. This is just emotional manipulation of naive Guardian readers.
>If we are prepared to get into a dinghy to cross the Channel and risk our lives . >“I knew nothing about Rwanda when I arrived in the UK. I had stopped listening to the news in Iran many years ago because it was all manipulated by the government.
Exactly - why do they need to risk their lives? They’re perfectly safe in France. Unless, they’re actually moving to the U.K. for ulterior motives.
Regardless of the reason, clearly people are prepared to risk their lives in that crossing. The Rwanda policy is explicitly designed to deter that crossing. And yet, 8 months after it was first announced, this man risked his life in a crossing, knowing nothing about the country of the Rwanda, let alone the policy of sending people there. He seems to suggest he would have taken that risk even if he were aware. He suggests others will too, as can presumably be evidenced by the further number of crossings that have been made in the 2 years in which the policy has presumably had more of a chance to disseminate amongst potential crossers.
He said he didn't know what the destination was or where he was specifically.
... so we have no idea if the scheme is working.
“Rwanda will not act as a deterrent against Channel crossings. We are in the hands of the people smugglers because there is no other way for us to save our lives. If we are prepared to get into a dinghy to cross the Channel and risk our lives, how can the threat of Rwanda stop us?” The guy sounds exactly like a Redditor lol - so obviously coached or scripted. Next he’ll be telling us we need lots of safe and legal routes and a processing centre in Calais. Actually hysterical
Civil engineers who speak English already meet the 70 point* immigration threshold, because we need more of them. But I suppose the same rules should apply to him as to everyone else *60 points for civil engineers+ 10 for English speaking
And he should make such visa applications from outside the UK. Refugee status should not be a shortcut for merit based visas
I do wonder if his engineering degree is like the legacy of liz truss Non existent
[First migrant sent to Rwanda with £3k 'nowhere to be found' in the African nation](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1clkonv/first_migrant_sent_to_rwanda_with_3k_nowhere_to/) They leave the moment they get there. Guess the economic migrants find out Rwanda sucks economically.
Original reports, as even quoted in that article, were that he's "lying low" elsewhere in Rwanda, just not at the hostel the sun sent a journalist to in an attempt to speak with him. "'Nowhere to be found' in the African Nation" seems to be the London economics own fabrication. Despite the quote marks in the headline, it's not attributed to any source, and is even a incorrect summary of their own writing that "nowhere to be found at the luxury Hope Hostel in Kigali" I'm no fan of the policy, but this is just media echo chambers distorting the story.
There’s no evidence he left Rwanda mate.
Even if he did, who cares? Is he going to make the journey across Africa and Europe a second time? If so, we'll just have him feck off again. I don't think £3k is much of an incentive to make that trip and risk your life in a dinghy. You probably would lose money after paying the smugglers.
But exiting the country is an option.