What annoyed you (in the news) today?

I'm a bit disappointed with this answer, given that it does not require any qualification in economics to understand the many points raised in this piece. You have been keen to comment on many immigration issues that come up on the forum, so I just thought a discussion of the realities would entertain you. But OK, if this is not something  you want to face, ill let you off. .  

Its not a summons, it a lawyers letter, theyve had several over the last few years. It will depend what jurisdication/s the tradename is registered in.

So where's the outcry, the condemnation from the usual suspects on this board?  Now two-tier-Keir has pulled the plug for the UK, has the solution suddenly gained a veneer of respectability? 

Do we think Germany will face all the challenges from the likes of the ECHR and every lobbyist under the sun that the UK had to deal with?  I shan't hold my breath... 

Let's just pause, disengage our knee-jerk outrage, and look beyond the Daily Wail "Johnny Foreigner's bullying us again" rage-bait spin, shall we?

A former minister from a minor party in the coalition in one region of the country, now a "special commissioner" to effectively their Home Secretary, has suggested it - and it would be "under the supervision of the UN" - whereas the UN kept telling the UK that their plan was illegal, to which the Home Office's reply was to lie about it.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61758828
You'll also note that it's talking specifically about those coming from staunch-Moscow-ally Belarus via Poland. Think about that route for one moment, and the logistics behind it... In fact, we can even use the Wail's own infographic to illustrate for the hard-of-thinking.

That's all really quite a long way from being the cornerstone of all government asylum policy, don'cha think?

There's also no word on whether it echoes the really contentious part of the UK scheme - that even those granted asylum would stay in Rwanda. And why Rwanda, specifically? Because no other destination country wants anything to do with the plan... Rwanda, let's not forget, is home to a shedload of human rights abuses and violations of its own.

Oh, and just a reminder - it was actually the UK Supreme Court that decided the plan breached the Human Rights Act 1998, not the European Court - and was focussed on details of the scheme, rather than the concept itself.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67423745
"The legal case against the policy hinges on the principle of "non-refoulement" - that a person seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if doing so would put them at risk of harm - which is established under both UK and international human rights law.
In a unanimous decision, the court's five justices agreed with the Court of Appeal that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was safe.
The judgement does not ban sending migrants to another country, but it leaves the Rwanda scheme in tatters - and it is not clear which other nations are prepared to do a similar deal with the UK."

But back to Germany, and the wider attitude to migration and asylum - on his appointment as "special commissioner", the individual in question said...
"After confirming his new role, Stamp set his first targets. "More regular and less irregular migration is the goal we want to achieve in the next few years," the FDP politician told WELT AM SONNTAG. "Germany is dependent on controlled immigration if we want to maintain our prosperity." Migration makes a society more vibrant and innovative. "But immigration from other cultures also presents challenges that we must talk openly about. We need a willingness to integrate from the host society, but also from those who immigrate. The basis for this is our legal system."
Stamp criticized that migration in the past had often been too disorganized. "Many people who were actually looking for work sought asylum due to a lack of regular routes into the German labor market." For those who have nevertheless integrated into the labor market here, there will be new prospects of staying. "In the future, however, we aim to make a clearer distinction between flight and labor migration and thus better organize immigration. To this end, we want to develop fair and practical opportunities for legal access to the German and European labor market with countries of origin and transit countries and at the same time ensure that people without a right of residence also consistently return to their countries of origin."
There are positive examples such as the Western Balkans arrangement that show that more orderly migration is possible. "It is a long and difficult road," said Stamp. "It is part of being honest with citizens to state clearly that such migration partnerships with the Taliban in Afghanistan or Assad in Syria are not possible. That is why another task of our migration policy is to work on a fair distribution of refugees within Europe, but also beyond."

www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article242723179/Faeser-macht-Stamp-zum-Sonderbeauftragten-fuer-Migration.html

I didn't read the link as I'd already read the story in the Times. So didn't really feel the need to go and get the Daily Wail's take on the matter. 

On the first bolded point. I would think a few relevant points are A) This is about Germany, not the UK. Its not about our governments policy. B) It's not a policy or even close to it. It is a suggested by a German govt. coalition member. Yes the Migration Commissioner, but still just a suggestion not a policy. And German, not UK. 

In the Times article I did note the bit that said one significant difference was that "..asylum procedures in Rawanda would be conducted under UN supervision."  Whether the Daily Wail brought that out I don't know. Although I could probably hazard a guess. As to the second bolded bit. I'm sure if a policy is actually put forward and tries to be enacted, it will need to be considered compatible / lawful with German and the European law/agreements. I'm also sure that in the event they do manage to construct a policy that IS considered compatible and lawful, the anti ECHR railers and wailers are unlikely to bother looking for and highlighting the differences that made it so. 

Can I just clarify, please... By "ECHR" do you mean the European Convention on Human Rights (which the UK has been subject to since the early 50s, and basically wrote) or do you mean the European Court of Human Rights, the international body that rules on breaches? BTW, neither has anything to do with the EU.

Because the Convention was brought into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998, allowing UK courts to rule on breaches, which is what happened with Rwanda.

Appeal Court judgement - www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AAA-v-SSHD-judgment-290623.pdf
Supreme Court judgement agreeing with the Appeal Court - www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2023-0093-etc-judgment.pdf

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me which articles in the convention you think are so terrible, and the UK government should not be forced to abide by?
www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

The Rwanda plan was found to breach article 3, which reads in its entirety...
"ARTICLE 3
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
Perhaps you could explain why you think that so dreadful, and such an impossibly high bar to expect our government to be held to?