Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-migrants-rwanda-processed-deal/
Lord Richard Harrington told LBC's Iain Dale on Tuesday evening: "If it's happening in the Home Office on the same corridor that I'm in they haven't told me about it.
"I'm having difficulty enough getting them from Ukraine to our country, there's no possibility of sending them to Rwanda."
and will be wound down after a year or two.
Or cancelled after horrific and expensive abuse comes to light, like Australia and Israel.
Don't see what the problem is. I'd rather be in the sun in Rwanda than a miserable fried-chicken shop in Newham.
Sending these young men to Rwanda is symptomatic of an inability to address regional inequities.
They may be unwanted in the over-expanded south east of England, but in Scotland there appears to be a recruitment shortfall coming around the corner.
The recent census was nothing more than a thinly disguised labour survey.
The ‘Stakhanovich Brides’ have cottoned on to this too, but it’ll take twenty years to get these products ready for the labour market.
Doctors' concerns over hospital abortion demos https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61111211
Christians are overly keen to abrogate the actual responsibility of raising a child.
Whereas, these economic migrants already possess all the skills required for the labour market.
They’ll be proficient in English, they’ve demonstrated a grasp of currency, economics, and geography, etc.
White Britain is becoming inbred. We need the genetic input of other countries.
Send them oop north. Perfectly welcome.
I have just read this :
Rwandan nationals fleeing the regime of general Paul Kagame, in power since 2000, will not be relocated.
So the UK government is openly admitting that Rwanda has a problem with persecuting people and can't be trusted.
And yet it proudly announces that it has struck a deal with them......to look after people fleeing persecution.
It's like some sort of weird and tasteless joke.
“You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
Very good interview on Radio4 Today… minister (Tom Pursglove?) unable to answer any of the simple practical questions (how much will it cost per a person, will it cost less then having them live at the Ritz, when will it happen, will it even happen, what stops people leaving Rowanda and trying again, if it didn’t work for Israel why will it work for us, will it actually reduce the small boat traffic from France)… when faltering just fell back on this new nonsensical headline grabbing plan being “world leading”. The policy doesn’t make any sense, but it’s not supposed to. It’s about campaigning to steer the media’s attention and to revive the interest and loyalty of people who vote based on feelings as regards “take back control”, or “Britain First”, rather than having any interest in the costs and feasibility (never mind morality) of seeking to close the UK to asylum seekers, and shipping people off to live under a dictator that other people are fleeing from.
Not sure it's been covered in the first few pages but the Rwandan government spokesperson on PM last night was quite clear that people won't be applying for UK asylum from Rwanda, once they are there the application will be for Rwandan asylum.
I'm not sure many people understand that, I certainly assumed it was a temporary arrangement while a UK application was processed.
No it's permanent. So if you are an Afghan who speaks English and has family in the UK you will be expected to live in Rwanda.
Denmark, a country which has a particularly unpleasant attitude towards refugees (unless they come from a European country) is currently negotiating with Rwanda for a similar deal. I believe that Israel is/has also considered Rwanda for people they don't want in their country.
Yup permanent. That’s the idea. But sounds like those who Israel sent to Rwanda left as soon as they could, and were on the move again. Have a listen to that Radio4 Today interview on iPlayer. A lot of information packed into some very calm questions about the practicality of this back of a fag packet policy. Empty answers though, as you’d expect.
I’d never heard of Pursglove before, so did some searching on twitter…
https://twitter.com/mikemcktfc/status/1514866400451571713?s=21
I guess he ought to be able to recognise a criminal gang when he sees one.
https://twitter.com/StevieVanZandt/status/1514828503312748544
He's my empty vessel of an MP...
And some other tweets that came up about that interview (go listen to it)…
https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/status/1514875600841891849?s=21
https://twitter.com/carlbenfield/status/1514875355156430855?s=21
https://twitter.com/galaverna_gb/status/1514876188530991105?s=21
No it’s permanent. So if you are an Afghan who speaks English and has family in the UK you will be expected to live in Rwanda.
Basically people trafficking with an official Home Office stamp on it. It's indefensible, and will make more countries turn their backs on the UK. Good luck getting a US trade deal now.
This level of abusive populist bullshittery feels like the death spasm of a government that ran out of ideas and legitimacy years ago.
I had the misfortune to hear pursglove on R4 this morning.
That performance could in no way be described as an interview; his utter ignorance was appalling - refused to allow the interviewer to ask a question in full before resuming his outpouring of verbiage.
I recognised his name but didn't't know anything about him so did a bit of research into his background - he's a perfect fit for patel's department.
What an odious, ignorant, contemptible little shit.
Binners - I'm reporting you to the mods. Posting Life of Brian memes is tiresome, but posting pictures of Priti Vacant gurning away is utterly revolting.
Some interesting facts from the House of Commons Library:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
"Asylum seekers made up around 6% of immigrants to the UK in 2019."
Well that puts this apparently huge problem into some sort of perspective.
"The percentage of asylum applicants refused at initial decision reached its highest point at 88% in 2004. Since then, the refusal rate has been falling overall and was at 28%, its lowest point since 1990".
It's interesting, although not entirely surprising, that there was such a high refusal rate when Tony Blair was PM. I wonder if his allegedly human rights lawyer wife had anything to say on the matter.
"When compared with EU countries, the UK ranked 14th out of the individual countries in terms of the number of asylum applications per capita".
Fascinating. Who would have thought it?
practicality of this back of a fag packet policy.
Just pity the poor civil servants. If you think you're having a shit day at work, remember that it is someone's job to implement this quarter-witted policy.
And when the cost of it escalates… they’ll get the blame.
EDIT: Oh, more importantly, when the faceless bureaucracy destroys lives, the civil servants will be blamed for that. I for one am sick of the Home Office and what was the FCO getting blamed for “failures” by Conservative politicians when they are operating policies designed to be heartless and damaging by Conservative politicans.
Since then, the refusal rate has been falling
Is that not partly because it has become much harder to apply? You can’t get here to apply, routes have been closed. You can’t jump through the hoops put in place to apply while outside the country.
TBH I think the new policy could be extended to anyone that dares question the goverment 🙂
May as well go all in if your going to go this route.
The actual policy is cobblers.
Surely this is a way of distracting from fines, failings and lies?
Operation save big dog lives on.
Just pity the poor civil servants. If you think you’re having a shit day at work, remember that it is someone’s job to implement this quarter-witted policy.
Thanks for that
when the faceless bureaucracy destroys lives, the civil servants will be blamed for that. I for one am sick of the Home Office and what was the FCO getting blamed for “failures” by Conservative politicians when they are operating policies designed to be heartless and damaging by Conservative politicans
And that.
Surely this is a way of distracting from fines, failings and lies?
Yep but won’t stop them trying it.
Bit like banging on about fishing rather than securing the financial service side, gets some people excited and let’s the clown circus roll on.
Is that not partly because it has become much harder to apply?
How does that affect the refusal percentage?
Are you suggesting that in 2004 88% of asylum application were indeed spurious? That is certainly a criticism levelled at asylum seekers - that they are on fact simply economic migrants. Although due to government policies in 2004 I think it is fair to say that there was very likely a significant increase in war refugees.
If you have to get past high hurdles to even apply (ie get into the UK or navigate any of the restrictive schemes that are supposed to let people apply on route from war zones), it already filters out many people lacking the paperwork and/or help to get their applications completed and accepted first time without the need for further submissions or an appeal.
So you think 88% of asylum claims made in 2004 were indeed false?
Well I guess it is possible but I am suspicious as it's generally an accusation made by right-wingers who are hostile towards asylum seekers, ie, "they are simply economic migrants trying to avoid the proper process".
Would we believe the same claim made by a Tory government? Especially at a time when many English speaking refugees are trying to flee war zones?
So you think 88% of asylum claims made in 2004 were indeed false?
No. I absolutely don’t. Read my words rather than making something else up.
I haven't got a clue what the hell you are talking about mate. You seem to be all over the place.
I point out that in 2004 88% of asylum claims were rejected. You came out with some excuse that it was easier to claim asylum then. So I ask you if you thought 88% were indeed false claims, you now say absolutely not and accuse me of making something up.
What is actually your point? Or is this just your irresistible urge to argue with me for the sake of it, and there is no point?
ernie and kelvin, boys - why not continue your spat offline as no-one is interested.
Is that not partly because it has become much harder to apply? You can’t get here to apply, routes have been closed.
We can see that clearly from the problems the Ukrainian refugees are facing. There was just no system set up to quickly deal with people claiming refugee or asylum status.
Now if this is the case for Ukrainians. Think how bad it must be/been for others over the past several years fleeing the proxy wars of the middle east and north Africa.
This is why they have been risking their lives to cross the channel in unsafe rubber dinghies. Simply because there was no other choice and the entire system has been designed this way to make claiming asylum as difficult as possible.
I have only read / scanned the first few posts.
I am not here to reject/accept whatever the migrants are doing, if they get through all the best to them but if not it must be heart breaking. Life is hard so good luck to them for seeking a safer better life.
Regardless, my view is that why do they want to choose UK? I am not here to discourage them coming to the UK but what does UK offer that other rich EU countries cannot (excluding former eastern block)?
If I could turn back the clock I would go to Sweden or Norway in an instant rather than UK because of the space, land and fewer people there.
But since I cannot speak Swedish/Norwegian my only choice is UK. Can't stand USA. However, I did consider Canada and Australia but for some reasons my qualifications are much more compatible with UK so ended up here. In fact at one point I would go to any of the EU countries if they would accept me for education.
If they come with nothing (qualification etc) it will take them at least 20 years of hard work to reach a level of financial stability. I mean really hard.
I spent 20 years just to earn a proper living and by that time I have already aged. Time passed very quickly. It was uphill for 20 years and never stopped.
Seriously, if they asked me for advice I would tell to them go to any of the EU countries to settle down as quickly as possible. Establish themselves there and have peace of mind, then their children can decide where they want to go.
p/s: even people from HK find it a bit challenging but since they come from a "pressure cooker" place with very strong work ethics, UK is a bit relax for them. Even so many are just relying on their saving to survive while doing odd jobs.
^^Credit where it's due, good, interesting post.
Regardless, my view is that why do they want to choose UK?
I think your reasons are perfectly valid for others wanting the UK over other destinations. Plus family connections.
Also, most do go to other destinations, the idea that all assylum seakers are desperate to get here is false, but suits the Tories cruel agenda.
Seriously, if they asked me for advice I would tell to them go to any of the EU countries to settle down as quickly as possible.
Given the current situation, this is going to sound odd, but most European countries bar a few notable exceptions are much much worse than the UK.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RwandaGov/status/1514578499452997633
Sounds good :
by tackling global inequalities of opportunity that drive economic migrants to leave their countries.
Except that people fleeing persecution or war are not necessarily "economic migrants". The term is deliberately used to suggest that they are less deserving.
And then there's this:
During the review, countries across all regions called on Rwanda to end torture and ill-treatment, and investigate cases of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and deaths in custody.
Several countries also said that Rwanda should protect marginalized groups, such as children living on the streets, and ensure that they are not subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention, including in “transit” centers.
"Rwandan authorities need to go beyond empty promises and deflection to address the country’s human rights problems"
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/01/un-countries-call-out-rwandas-rights-record
Except that people fleeing persecution or war are not necessarily “economic migrants”. The term is deliberately used to suggest that they are less deserving.
Yes, not all are economic migrants but there is nothing wrong with economic migrants as well so long as they can beat the system fairly.
Having said that time is not on their side if they wish to make a good living (especially economic migrants generally speaking.) and will probably takes 10 years to settle down (20 years to work like the "locals"). Then 2 to 3 generations to properly settle down to a meaningful life.
Anyway, I am just comparing my observation of HK migrants to UK and the way to cope with the changes.
Seriously, if they asked me for advice I would tell to them go to any of the EU countries to settle down as quickly as possible. Establish themselves there and have peace of mind, then their children can decide where they want to go.
If I could turn back the clock I would go to Sweden or Norway in an instant rather than UK because of the space, land and fewer people there.
I was talking to a migrant family who settled in Sweden and expressed surprise that they left there for the UK since I’d rather live in Sweden, but the racism they were subject to made them leave for the more multi-cultural UK.
That sounds like a good scheme.
That sounds like a good scheme.
As opposed to the scheme we are proposing.
Yep that does sound like a worthwhile scheme
Nothing like the monstrosity Patel was desperately struggling to explain today
Why is it a better scheme, what is good about it?
I can't see much difference with Patel's proposal other than asylum seekers in detention centres in Libya will be flown directly to Rwanda, rather than being flown from the EU.
And aren't these asylum seekers only in detention centres in Libya because of the EU anyway?
European Union (EU) migration cooperation with Libya is contributing to a cycle of extreme abuse. The EU is providing support to the Libyan Coast Guard to enable it to intercept migrants and asylum seekers at sea after which they take them back to Libya to arbitrary detention, where they face inhuman and degrading conditions and the risk of torture, sexual violence, extortion, and forced labor.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/01/21/no-escape-hell/eu-policies-contribute-abuse-migrants-libya
This bit could have come straight out of Priti Patel's mouth :
EU policy-makers and leaders justify this focus as a political and practical necessity to assert control over Europe’s external borders and “break the business model of smugglers,” as well as a humanitarian imperative to prevent dangerous boat migration.
The excuses and words used are exactly the same as the current Tory administration. They don't want them in the EU and they are prepared to spend £millions to keep them out.
It's a ****ing disgrace.
I can’t see much difference with Patel’s proposal other than asylum seekers in detention centres in Libya will be flown directly to Rwanda, rather than being flown from the EU.
Well, there’s one big difference for you, to start with. But I don’t have the inclination to argue with you, the time isn’t well spent, see it how you wish.
But I don’t have the inclination to argue with you
If only that represented a new attitude on your part. However we both know the truth is that you can't explain why it "sounds like a good scheme".
Forcing desperate refugees into appalling detention centres in Libya is a disgraceful policy. Flying them to Rwanda won't somehow exonerate that policy.
It seems that you don't have a problem with sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, you just have a problem with a Tory government doing it.
I have a problem with anyone doing it. Europe has a population of 500 million people, it can easily cope with the refugees, which are numbered in their thousands, typically fleeing wars started or fuelled by European countries.
Between January and June 2021, the EU-backed Libyan coastguards intercepted around 15,000 people at sea and returned them to Libya – more than in all of 2020 – during what they describe as “rescue” missions.
Fresh evidence of harrowing violations, including sexual violence, against men, women and children intercepted while crossing the Mediterranean Sea and forcibly returned to detention centres in Libya, highlights the horrifying consequences of Europe’s ongoing cooperation with Libya on migration and border control, said Amnesty International in a report published today.
You can say it “seems” all you want, but your words do not reflect my own words, or my thoughts.
These are your words :
kelvin Full Member
That sounds like a good scheme.Posted 10 hours ago
I stand by those words, but not the ones you are trying to put in my mouth. Express your own opinions and stop assigning things to me I haven’t said.
Yep, still very happy to argue. You are just not prepared to explain why "that sounds like a good scheme", which is understandable.
Sounds like a rubbish scheme to me. As does Priti Patel's proposal.
Getting people out of the Libya camps is necessary. The scheme linked to above seems a sound way to help achieve that. I do not support sending back boats in the Med any more that I support sending asylum-seekers from the UK to any other countries and denying them the right to apply for asylum in the UK. From now on, please state your own views and stop trying to put words in the mouths of others.
Asking why it "sounds like a good scheme" does not constitute putting words in the mouth of others.
Nor does saying "It seems that you don’t have a problem with sending asylum seekers to Rwanda". Something which you have just confirmed with this comment:
Getting people out of the Libya camps is necessary. The scheme linked to above seems a sound way to help achieve that.
Priti Patel could claim that her policy is exactly the same except for the horrific detention centres in Libya.
Priti Patel could claim that her policy is exactly the same except for the horrific detention centres in Libya.
UNHCR and others have been using EU funding to remove refugees from Libyan camps to Niger for years now (at least 2018 I think) Libya has no immigration laws, and no refugee status laws, and their resettlement centres are horrific, Mostly these folks are then returned to their home countries, although I think teeny numbers have ended up in Italy. I'd rather see legal routes for both immigration or asylum seekers, but anything that helps remove folks from the applaing system in Libya is to be welcomed and that includes (in my opinion at least) the risk of the sea crossing.
It's fair to say that in comparison to almost any country in the EU (bar a couple of notable exceptions) UK citizens have a more understanding position towards both immigrants and asylum seekers - as hard as that may to believe.
The EU scheme sounds too much like 'forin aid'
And we know how unpopular that is with a certain demographic...
If I could turn back the clock I would go to Sweden or Norway in an instant rather than UK because of the space, land and fewer people there.
But since I cannot speak Swedish/Norwegian my only choice is UK.
Swedish is the corporate language of much of Sweden, a good percentage of the population speak better English than many who are born and bred in the UK.
I was talking to a migrant family who settled in Sweden and expressed surprise that they left there for the UK since I’d rather live in Sweden, but the racism they were subject to made them leave for the more multi-cultural UK.
Racism/homophobia (a general fear of "others") is quite polarised in Sweden. The little village i live in voted about 35% for Sweden Democrats, which is the mainstream anti immigration party. Yet across the country it's only around 17%. Some of the even more rural areas it's nearer 50%. I've even had neighbours comment that i'm ok as i'm the right type of immigrant. They've been somewhat educated on the subject.
Though if you get into any of the cities or areas with high and long term immigrant populations, support for the SD is much lower.
The EU scheme sounds too much like ‘forin aid’
It doesn't sound like foreign aid to me. It sounds like the EU spending €10.3 million to keep asylum seekers with brown skin out of the EU.
In the same way that Priti Patel's eye watering £120 million for her scheme to keep asylum seekers out of the UK doesn't sound like foreign aid.
Just pissing money on unnecessary and pointless nonsense to placate racists and tabloid commentators. I was going to say right-wingers but even right-wingers like David Davis are strongly opposed to the proposal.
It sounds like the EU spending €10.3 million to keep asylum seekers with brown skin out of the EU.
report on opinion on asylum seekers in Europe. They're reflecting their populations wishes. (from that report)
in 2016 they became more negative. Comparing 2016 with 2014, seven out of 19 countries saw a slight improvement in their opinion on refugees (up around 3%). The other countries saw their support for refugees decline. Leading the decrease was Poland, with 16 percentage points less in 2016 than in 2014 as regards the opinion that the government should be generous when judging applications for refugee status. Close to Poland were the Netherlands, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and Slovenia, all with a decrease of around 12 percentage points.
European voters are telling their politicians that they don't want either immigrants or refugees.
Racism/homophobia (a general fear of “others”) is quite polarised in Sweden.
A bit rich given Sweden was part of the area the Vikings came from.
Swedish is the corporate language of much of Sweden, a good percentage of the population speak better English than many who are born and bred in the UK.
In my younger days we didn't have internet and information was hard to obtain (none) because there was/is No embassy branch office in Borneo. However, we had British Council with plenty of education information. Spent 4 years concentrating on studying A-Levels like a part-time student almost daily. I think, I think but cannot recall completely now, I did look at the Swedish education system but English was not mentioned the medium of communication. Yes, in the corporate world English is spoken but not in education in my days. Things might have changed but I don't know otherwise I would have gone there. One of my friend from Uni is a half Norwegian and for some reason he studied at UK Univ, not sure why.
I was talking to a migrant family who settled in Sweden and expressed surprise that they left there for the UK since I’d rather live in Sweden, but the racism they were subject to made them leave for the more multi-cultural UK.
To be honest, I was preparing myself for all sorts before I came to UK including cultural sensitivity. I am not surprised if that happens in Sweden etc but generally speaking UK has been very nice to me, bar one or two incidents but nothing serious, and so I stay and root down. My advantage is that I went to Universities in the UK going through legal route but others might be less fortunate. Again, I wish them luck but time is the biggest fear if I look back. 20 years is like the blink of an eye.
European voters are telling their politicians that they don’t want either immigrants or refugees.
Yeah racism throughout the EU is clearly a huge problem. It's surprising how many people try to deny it.
IMO the way forward is to help create conditions which avoid conflict and wars, not start wars or stoke them up. Help struggling Third World countries to achieve greater economic justice. Stop supporting despots and undemocratic regimes.
And of course educate people so that they overcome their ignorance of the fact that people fleeing wars and persecution aren't a threat.
Spending £millions to dump them elsewhere isn't a solution.
Although people have sought refuge and asylum in Britain for centuries boatloads of desperate people making perilous journeys across the Mediterranean or English Channel on totally unseaworthy vessels wasn't an issue until relatively recently, it certainly wasn't 30 years ago. Something has clearly happened to cause this. There is no "inevitability", it's a problem that needs fixing, not swept under the carpet or dumped elsewhere.
A deal to send 300 prisoners from Denmark to Kosovo for €15 million per year was signed, authorities in Copenhagen said.
The prisoners that will be sent to Kosovo are foreign detainees who are due to be deported after their sentences.
We're talking about 300 people here, surely it would be easier to build a prison rather than send them to Kosovo and pay Kosovo £15 million per year to keep them?
Or just deport them straight away?
But maybe the real motivation is simply a strong dislike of foreigners, as this comment by the left of centre Danish social democrat "justice minister" seems to suggest :
"With this agreement, Denmark is also sending a clear signal to foreigners from third countries who have been sentenced to deportation: your future is not in Denmark, so you should not serve your sentence there," Haekkerup said.
Punishing them for coming to Denmark seems at least in part to be the goal.
Deporting people is easier said than done. If they can pay a third country to accept responsibility for their imprisonment and subsequent deportation they will likely be saving money at 50k per person. I'm not saying I agree with the approach but it may actually be cost effective.
Ernie those aren't asylum seekers
Those are foreign criminals who are deported after their sentence ends, is it not?
https://www.ft.com/content/42e396a5-82df-4e44-a883-18883fb880c3
Patel's scheme is to send people seeking asylum to Rwanda, not just to be processed or if their claim fails , but to pay the regime there to keep them even if their claim is successful!
Anyway the Briefing room had a pretty good breakdown of why it's likely to fail and cost a fortune as the experiences of Israel and Australia have shown
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0016hfv
Not that that matters to the government long-term, it's just headlines to keep the Tory/brexit base from deserting Johnson
Ernie those aren’t necessarily asylum seekers
No of course not, no one claimed they were. They might be or they might not asylum seekers, but they are definitely foreigners.
As the justice minister says :
Denmark is also sending a clear signal to foreigners from third countries who have been sentenced to deportation: your future is not in Denmark
That's exactly what's been done in the UK for a while though isn't it?
Foreign criminals are routinely deported from UK after their sentence ends
Those are foreign criminals who are deported after their sentence ends, is it not?
I think they are to finish their sentences in Kosovo, so they're being deported before their sentence ends. Not sure of the relevance to this thread. Other than to point out something happening in another country backed up with anti-foreigner rhetoric, as if that makes what Johnson and Patel have planned somehow less heinous, or more practical, or less of a waste of money. I really don't know. We know the political use of foreigner bashing isn't unique to the UK, far from it. It's rife everywhere. Doesn't mean our government's attempt to throw Red Meat to their Brexit supporters shouldn't be called out. It's likely to either never happen, or be stopped after it's proven to be an expensive failure, anyway. Lots of noise to help Save Big Dog.
I think they are to finish their sentences in Kosovo, so they’re being deported before their sentence ends
Aahh Ok I see
Si not to do with asylum seekers at all
No, it's a big fat squirrel with a Danish accent.
I’m not saying I agree with the approach but it may actually be cost effective.
Denmark certainly focuses heavily on the alleged cost of "non-Western immigrants", which I guess helps to demonize them....... sponging off the state etc.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20211015/denmark-says-non-western-immigrants-cost-state-31-billion-kroner/
The cost to the state of immigration from countries defines as ‘non-Western’ was 31 billion kroner in 2018, according to an annual report from the Danish Ministry of Finance.
............................
This means that, along with spending on benefits, the costs of public services to which everyone in Denmark has access are included in the calculation.
Btw only someone who was born in Denmark and had at least one Danish parent is considered Danish. The children of immigrants aren't considered Danish :
A person is considered to be Danish if she or he has at least one parent who is a Danish citizen and was born in Denmark. People defined as ‘immigrants’ and ‘descendants’ do not fulfil those criteria.
It really is an appalling level of bigotry and racism.
I think one has to think about what "success" looks like for this policy.
I would say it will almost certainly be successful in reducing the numbers across the board: Boats intercepted, people drowned, applications received, applications granted, people comin' over 'ere takin' our jobs, etc
Key to that is the message being sent to those seeking to come to the UK to seek asylum: Not only will you immediately be sent to Rwanda, but even if you application is granted, you will still not be coming to the UK.... you will be living in Rwanda, until such time you are returned home. Why come all this way, pay all this money, risk the crossing etc, if you are just going to end up in Rwanda anyway? This is about the UK completely abandoning it's obligation to accept asylum seekers - whilst maintaining a paper-thin presence that it isn't.
I think the fall-back position will be to allow people who's application is granted, to come to the UK..... but they they'll just slow-walk the applications like Australia does. This is just about making even the best-case outcome so undesirable that people don't even try to come to the UK.
And it's already been successful:
It's distracted from partygate (somewhat)
It's distracted from the cost of living crisis (somewhat)
It's distracted from whatever today's Tory bumble **** ery is (somewhat)
if it's voted down by labour, the Tories will point and say that Labour are weak on immigration / defending people smugglers etc
If it happens, the tories will take credit for the inevitable reduction in numbers, it will also probably be attributed to brexit.
I detest the Tories, both collectively and individually, but their objective here is not to make an asylum system that works, combat people trafficking etc, it's to make an announcement that will re-energise the debate about immigrants/refugees/asylum-seekers (all those words are interchangeable when what you really just mean is black/brown people) - which is a debate that they know that they will win against labour.
I would say it will almost certainly be successful in reducing the numbers across the board: Boats intercepted, people drowned, applications received
You don't even need to guess, You can download a report about how successful the Australian version has been here It found that "offshoring" didn't reduce numbers of sea migrations, or accidents, or applications. It's not hard to see why, Desperate people don't make rational decisions about the nature of their flight to safety. The report concludes
...Suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty. Because the central principle behind the policy is deterrence, by design you have to make conditions worse at the offshoring centre than what people had suffered before.
The costs to the australian government were about £1bn to offshore 3000 refugees
which quite frankly is insane
It found that “offshoring” didn’t reduce numbers of sea migrations, or accidents, or applications. It’s not hard to see why, Desperate people don’t make rational decisions about the nature of their flight to safety. The report concludes
…Suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty. Because the central principle behind the policy is deterrence, by design you have to make conditions worse at the offshoring centre than what people had suffered before.
Welllllllllll..... yes and no.
The article/paper is appropriately damming of the practice of offshoring asylum seekers for extended periods, in terrible conditions whist their applications are processed. And most editorials focus on the legality, humanity, effectiveness etc of offshore detention during application processing.
To be clear: I think it's all horrendous, and I'm not seeking to defend Australia's approach and obsession with the "ban the boats!" political football in any way.
What's important to understand (in particular about that article/paper) is that Australia's approach has been twofold:
1) Offshore detention whist somebodies application is processed (this is the most controversial aspect, and is the part that most people focus on). Important to note that this is less terrible than what the UK are proposing.
2) Operation Sovereign Borders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sovereign_Borders) which is the practice of using the Australian navy to aggressively turn-back boats trying to reach Australia.
The second of these HAS been effective at stopping people landing in Australia by boat. The paper that you linked to also attributes the reduction in maritime arrivals to OSB, rather than offshore detention - hence the stated conclusion that offshore detention (the way Australia did it) is not effective itself.
I think my point is that the combination of aggressive measures in the channel, and no route to being settled in the UK, even if your application is eventually successful, is more aligned to offshore detention + OSB, if you are comparing it to what Australia did. I think it will certainly reduce the number of:
Boats intercepted, people drowned, applications received, applications granted, people comin’ over ‘ere takin’ our jobs, etc
And even if it doesn't, the minister will just find a number that suggests that it does. The fallback statistic will be "number of asylum seekers settled in the UK = 0" which is baked-in to this dreadful scheme
The costs to the australian government were about £1bn to offshore 3000 refugees
which quite frankly is insane
How much do you think the Tories would spend (not themselves..... your money, obvs) to reignite the immigration debate? Plus, they don't actually have to do it/spend the money - doesn't cost anything to make the announcement.
Also, the low numbers of people actually shipped to Rwanda and detained will be used to show that the (expensive) scheme is working as a deterrent....... what good value it is. Similarly, if there are large number of people sent to Rwanda, it will be used to demonstrate how necessary the scheme is.
Any way this goes, the Tories will find a way to spin-it so that the gammons/mouthbreathers will lap it up. Based on their ability to convince a significant number of people to vote for Brexit, this should be a piece of cake.
The costs to the australian government were about £1bn to offshore 3000 refugees
which quite frankly is insane
It’s a tick box on taking back control etc, they couldn’t stop the videos of the refuges boats and couldn’t do the turning around or straffing of the inflatables with Spiftfires.
They have to be seen doing something,they don’t care about price, it’s all PR.
Probably cheaper to write them a euro cheque to buy a house and golden visa in Portugal.
To be clear: I think it’s all horrendous, and I’m not seeking to defend Australia’s approach..
And yet you make this comment: "How much do you think the Tories would spend" when it is claimed that the costs to the Australian government were about £1bn to offshore 3000 refugees, and it is suggested that this is quite frankly insane.
How much the the UK Tories are willing to spend is completely irrelevant to whether the Australian government's scheme is insane.
You also make the comment "Important to note that this is less terrible than what the UK are proposing", why is it important to note, if you are not attempting to defend it?
Wow, you do like to look for an argument in everything.
Reading the post as a whole, he's clearly not defending it. He's comparing it.
Because I'm not selective in my opposition to bigotry towards refugees I'm looking for an argument?
Kimbers makes a point which if true is perfectly valid, it is insane for the Australian government to spend £1bn to offshore 3000 refugees,
How much the Tories are willing to spend doesn't make that point less valid.
Sigh. I thought it was clear, but I’ll spell it out for you.
They are not spending a billion to offshore 3000 refugees. They are re-ignite the immigration debate (which costs them nothing), and for which they would probably consider 1bn to be good value, as they know their ruddy-faced “base” will respond favourably.
you seem determined that somehow defending Australia’s policies…. When I state explicitly that I’m not - I’m saying that the tories policy is even worse.