Lawyers prepare for legal battles on behalf of individual asylum seekers challenging removal to east Africa

Lawyers prepare for legal battles on behalf of individual asylum seekers challenging removal to east Africa

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation bill will become law after peers eventually backed down on amending it, opening the way for legal battles over the potential removal of dozens of people seeking asylum.

After a marathon battle of “ping pong” over the key legislation between the Commons and the Lords, the bill finally passed when opposition and crossbench peers gave way on Monday night.

The bill is expected to be granted royal assent on Tuesday. Home Office sources said they have already identified a group of asylum seekers with weak legal claims to remain in the UK who will be part of the first tranche to be sent to east Africa in July.

Sunak has put the bill, which would deport asylum seekers who arrive in the UK by irregular means to Kigali, at the centre of his attempts to stop small boats crossing the Channel.

  • @barsoapEnglish
    1•26 days ago

    The constitutional order didn’t change with reunification: The east split up into states, which then simultaneously but individually joined the western federation. Pretty much the same thing as 1957, when Saarland joined the federation.

    As to why we have better judges – part of it is cultural, but a lot institutional. They aren’t appointed for life but 12 year terms or until they’re 68, which ever comes first, they get elected with 2/3rd majorities, half by parliament, half by the Bundesrat (i.e. by the state governments). Oh: You actually need to be qualified: Either have passed the 2nd state examination in law (which qualifies you to be a regular judge), or be a professor of law. The net result is that the judges are first and foremost jurists, and very good ones at that, not party hacks. It also helps that the constitutional court is not an appellate court, they only do law review, not case review.