The 'Boat' People & Immigration

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

I thought I'd start a dedicated thread on this as it obviously a hot topic and rather divorced at its heart from other arguments about Johnson or Brexit.

For what it's worth my position is that if we really wanted to stop or seriously diminish illegal crossings then we need to offer to process people in Calais (yes for asylum in the UK). Then, and only then, when there is a clear safe 'legal' route to apply 'on our shores' can we have laws that generally proscribe the chancy sea crossings. I have nothing particularly for or against Rwanda. I note that about 77% if I heard correctly last night of existing boat people are successful anyway in their claim - most currently being Afghans. A risky (and expensive) sea crossing is likely a maximum deterrent already. I also think we have no international legal basis for sending asylum seekers that may have perfectly valid UK claims to Rwanda or anywhere else if they wash up on our shores.

We are naturally an island and hence difficult to get to as compared to others even for rightful asylum claims. 

Lastly - I think we should argue for a change of asylum rules generally within the UN - there should be an presumption that asylum seekers will generally look to find safety in similar geo-political regions from which they came unless they have very clear links elsewhere.

So all in all I find the current government Rwanda policy simply disingenuous as to its real aims and likely doomed to expensively fail. 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

What the hell is wrong with our Government? We must stop them crossing. For the reason of humanity and people drowning and also that most do not have the right to live here.

[horsefly 4,318]

Two things about Patel's utterly disingenuous speech in parliament today. 

1. Having just blown half a million of tax payers money on a flight that everyone predicted wouldn't take off, she has now committed immediately to repeating the same act of childish petulance guaranteeing more tax payer's money thrown away purely to sate her anger. 

2. She has described Rwanda as a truly great country full of wonderful opportunities for those that get sent there, people she claims who will be generously funded to get an education, jobs, etc, etc. In which case, if she believes what she has said, she has just given even more reason for people to board boats crossing the channel in order to get a free trip to this wonderful place. The evil old bag knows full well that the Rwanda policy can work as a deterrent for those intending to board the boats only if they perceive Rwanda to be an awful prospect. As ever she shows no shame for her barefaced lying.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Two things about Patel's utterly disingenuous speech in parliament today. 

1. Having just blown half a million of tax payers money on a flight that everyone predicted wouldn't take off, she has now committed immediately to repeating the same act of childish petulance guaranteeing more tax payer's money thrown away purely to sate her anger. 

2. She has described Rwanda as a truly great country full of wonderful opportunities for those that get sent there, people she claims who will be generously funded to get an education, jobs, etc, etc. In which case, if she believes what she has said, she has just given even more reason for people to board boats crossing the channel in order to get a free trip to this wonderful place. The evil old bag knows full well that the Rwanda policy can work as a deterrent for those intending to board the boats only if they perceive Rwanda to be an awful prospect. As ever she shows no shame for her barefaced lying.

Yet this morning, Coffey said it was to deter those crossing. So that makes Rwanda sound bad for starters.

So how would you deter people if Rwanda is such a marvellous country? Those from Africa walking to Rwanda instead and cut out the middle man?

[benchwarmer 625]

7 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

 if we really wanted to stop or seriously diminish illegal crossings then we need to offer to process people in Calais (yes for asylum in the UK).

 

Problem is that post-Brexit we no longer have a border post in Calais.  So much for the claim that Brexit would make it easier to control immigration.  That's why the government is in such a flat spin.  They've been found out.  Rwanda is a very expensive publicity stunt intended to appease their core supporters.  There was never any reason to think it would solve the problem, and there is even less now.

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by benchwarmer

[Fen Canary 874]

7 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I thought I'd start a dedicated thread on this as it obviously a hot topic and rather divorced at its heart from other arguments about Johnson or Brexit.

For what it's worth my position is that if we really wanted to stop or seriously diminish illegal crossings then we need to offer to process people in Calais (yes for asylum in the UK). Then, and only then, when there is a clear safe 'legal' route to apply 'on our shores' can we have laws that generally proscribe the chancy sea crossings. I have nothing particularly for or against Rwanda. I note that about 77% if I heard correctly last night of existing boat people are successful anyway in their claim - most currently being Afghans. A risky (and expensive) sea crossing is likely a maximum deterrent already. I also think we have no international legal basis for sending asylum seekers that may have perfectly valid UK claims to Rwanda or anywhere else if they wash up on our shores.

We are naturally an island and hence difficult to get to as compared to others even for rightful asylum claims. 

Lastly - I think we should argue for a change of asylum rules generally within the UN - there should be an presumption that asylum seekers will generally look to find safety in similar geo-political regions from which they came unless they have very clear links elsewhere.

So all in all I find the current government Rwanda policy simply disingenuous as to its real aims and likely doomed to expensively fail. 

 

The main issue I can see is that in order to process them in Calais, firstly you’ll need French cooperation to care for the asylum seekers while there claims are being processed which I wouldn’t rely on, and also what happens to them if their application fails in Calais? The French don’t want them so they’d simply hop onto a boat as they did before.

I personally don’t have any real issue with offshore processing, as it worked well in Australia acting as a deterrent to people making risky boat journeys. Currently the reward outweighs the risk for these people crossing the Channel, so that equation needs to reverse to stop people attempting it. As upping the risk obviously isn’t an option, then the only way to do that is to lessen the reward, and removing the right to stay in the UK obviously does that.

My personal preference for asylum policy would be to refuse those who enter the country illegally, while substantially increasing the UKs presence and the numbers we take from the many refugee camps around the world, with the numbers to be received debated through parliament. This would offer a safe path to those in genuine need of asylum, allow time to properly check applications and act as a deterrent to people risking their lives in makeshift dinghy’s in my view.

I’m interested to hear how those opposed to the Rwanda scheme would stop the crossings and people smugglers currently making a fortune from peoples desperation. I’ve heard lots of opposition but no other ideas put forward yet

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

27 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

The main issue I can see is that in order to process them in Calais, firstly you’ll need French cooperation to care for the asylum seekers while there claims are being processed which I wouldn’t rely on, and also what happens to them if their application fails in Calais? The French don’t want them so they’d simply hop onto a boat as they did before.

I personally don’t have any real issue with offshore processing, as it worked well in Australia acting as a deterrent to people making risky boat journeys. Currently the reward outweighs the risk for these people crossing the Channel, so that equation needs to reverse to stop people attempting it. As upping the risk obviously isn’t an option, then the only way to do that is to lessen the reward, and removing the right to stay in the UK obviously does that.

My personal preference for asylum policy would be to refuse those who enter the country illegally, while substantially increasing the UKs presence and the numbers we take from the many refugee camps around the world, with the numbers to be received debated through parliament. This would offer a safe path to those in genuine need of asylum, allow time to properly check applications and act as a deterrent to people risking their lives in makeshift dinghy’s in my view.

I’m interested to hear how those opposed to the Rwanda scheme would stop the crossings and people smugglers currently making a fortune from peoples desperation. I’ve heard lots of opposition but no other ideas put forward yet

Catch the people smugglers, and prosecute them 

[Fen Canary 874]

1 minute ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Catch the people smugglers, and prosecute them 

That should be part of it yes, but it’s hard to do when they’re based abroad, and doesn’t solve the problem of people congregating in Calais to try and get across or trying to get across 

[horsefly 4,318]

29 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I personally don’t have any real issue with offshore processing, as it worked well in Australia acting as a deterrent to people making risky boat journeys.

It costs the Australians circa $3.4m per person per year to be off-shored ($9,305 per day for each immigrant).  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/12/australia-will-spend-almost-34m-for-each-person-in-offshore-detention-budget-shows.

The first 4 years cost $5bn https://www.smh.com.au/public-service/cost-for-australias-offshore-immigration-detention-near-5-billion-20170717-gxci97.html#:~:text=Australia's offshore immigration detention program has cost the,%245 billion since 2012%2C new figures have confirmed.

Not convinced I would call that "working well". The Australians have also had to adopt an aggressive use of its navy to drive boats back into the sea to achieve a deterrent effect. It's scheme is officially condemned by the UN. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/un-committee-condemns-australias-punitive-asylum-policy/

The £120m we have already promised/paid the Rwandans will only cover a very small number of "boat people" (the top estimate is the low hundreds, or about one busy days worth of the boat trade). Even if one overlooks the appalling ethics involved, the whole scheme is wildly unfeasible financially, and nothing more than a stunt to distract from Johnson's appalling record as PM.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I thought I'd start a dedicated thread on this as it obviously a hot topic and rather divorced at its heart from other arguments about Johnson or Brexit.

For what it's worth my position is that if we really wanted to stop or seriously diminish illegal crossings then we need to offer to process people in Calais (yes for asylum in the UK). Then, and only then, when there is a clear safe 'legal' route to apply 'on our shores' can we have laws that generally proscribe the chancy sea crossings. I have nothing particularly for or against Rwanda. I note that about 77% if I heard correctly last night of existing boat people are successful anyway in their claim - most currently being Afghans. A risky (and expensive) sea crossing is likely a maximum deterrent already. I also think we have no international legal basis for sending asylum seekers that may have perfectly valid UK claims to Rwanda or anywhere else if they wash up on our shores.

We are naturally an island and hence difficult to get to as compared to others even for rightful asylum claims. 

Lastly - I think we should argue for a change of asylum rules generally within the UN - there should be an presumption that asylum seekers will generally look to find safety in similar geo-political regions from which they came unless they have very clear links elsewhere.

So all in all I find the current government Rwanda policy simply disingenuous as to its real aims and likely doomed to expensively fail. 

 

This is absolutely the core of the problem. At present, international law dictates that anybody can claim asylum in any country they choose' whether it's a neighbour or on the opposite side of the planet from where they started. 

The state of international law also dictates that anyone who reaches the UK, whether legally or illegally, and claims asylum, must stay in the UK unless they go willingly. This leaves us with a system open to abuse, a fantastic sales pitch for human trafickers selling the UK as a destination, and public discontent that can only get worse as people see that government is completely impotent against the constraints of international law to control the UK's borders. 

If the problem can't be properly managed, then unless new commitments can be agreed multilaterally under international law as you've suggested, then the only alternative is to withdraw from commitments under international law, which overall is a very bad thing. 

[ricardo 7,411]

There is no simple solution here. Poor people looking for a better life. Who can honestly say they wouldnt do the same if they were in their shoes.

Its a problem and I don't  pretend to know what the answer is.

[horsefly 4,318]

Anyone who thinks the problem of immigration is bad now, had better not contemplate the hundred-fold increase when global warming renders huge swathes of the world uninhabitable. There needs to be an urgent cooperative international solution to this issue, not some half-ar*sed, unworkable, narrow-minded nonsense from Patel.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Anyone who thinks the problem of immigration is bad now, had better not contemplate the hundred-fold increase when global warming renders huge swathes of the world uninhabitable. There needs to be an urgent cooperative international solution to this issue, not some half-ar*sed, unworkable, narrow-minded nonsense from Patel.

To be honest, that is coming, and when it does then humanitarianism is going to go out of the window. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,833]

Don't worry everyone, Rwanda will be greatly enriched by all the doctors, surgeons, lawyers and teachers we will be deporting to them!😉

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

4 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Don't worry everyone, Rwanda will be greatly enriched by all the doctors, surgeons, lawyers and teachers we will be deporting to them!😉

The government initiative was largely inspired by the UNHCR using Rwanda as a staging post. It would be a bit of a laugh if Rwanda did finish up being the last bastion of global civilisation. 

[Fen Canary 874]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

It costs the Australians circa $3.4m per person per year to be off-shored ($9,305 per day for each immigrant).  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/12/australia-will-spend-almost-34m-for-each-person-in-offshore-detention-budget-shows.

The first 4 years cost $5bn https://www.smh.com.au/public-service/cost-for-australias-offshore-immigration-detention-near-5-billion-20170717-gxci97.html#:~:text=Australia's offshore immigration detention program has cost the,%245 billion since 2012%2C new figures have confirmed.

Not convinced I would call that "working well". The Australians have also had to adopt an aggressive use of its navy to drive boats back into the sea to achieve a deterrent effect. It's scheme is officially condemned by the UN. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/un-committee-condemns-australias-punitive-asylum-policy/

The £120m we have already promised/paid the Rwandans will only cover a very small number of "boat people" (the top estimate is the low hundreds, or about one busy days worth of the boat trade). Even if one overlooks the appalling ethics involved, the whole scheme is wildly unfeasible financially, and nothing more than a stunt to distract from Johnson's appalling record as PM.

We’ve got nothing to compare those figures to though to know if they’re as expensive as you claim. There’s no denying that the numbers trying to get to Australia by boat have all but dried up, so what was it costing the Australians before in naval patrols to intercept and rescue these extra people before offshore processing was implemented, as well as the costs involved housing them in Australia while their application was heard and the hassle and expense of trying to remove those that failed? Without knowing that it’s impossible to say if the new system is expensive compared to what came before though I’d argue that the reduced number of people risking their lives and cutting off a source of income for people smugglers would be worth the extra financial cost.

The policy also enjoys popular support in Australia amongst the public, so to me that overrules any objections of the a UN. A democratically elected government takes precedence over an unelected supranational organisation 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

We’ve got nothing to compare those figures to though to know if they’re as expensive as you claim. There’s no denying that the numbers trying to get to Australia by boat have all but dried up, so what was it costing the Australians before in naval patrols to intercept and rescue these extra people before offshore processing was implemented, as well as the costs involved housing them in Australia while their application was heard and the hassle and expense of trying to remove those that failed? Without knowing that it’s impossible to say if the new system is expensive compared to what came before though I’d argue that the reduced number of people risking their lives and cutting off a source of income for people smugglers would be worth the extra financial cost.

The policy also enjoys popular support in Australia amongst the public, so to me that overrules any objections of the a UN. A democratically elected government takes precedence over an unelected supranational organisation 

The financial costs aren't really that important in comparison to being seen to be in control. It'd probably cost Ukraine less if they gave every Russian soldier a million quid to disappear; the problem is that, if you did that, more invaders would keep coming to collect their million quid. 

[Fen Canary 874]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The financial costs aren't really that important in comparison to being seen to be in control. It'd probably cost Ukraine less if they gave every Russian soldier a million quid to disappear; the problem is that, if you did that, more invaders would keep coming to collect their million quid. 

I agree with you I think the financials are peanuts in the scheme of things, I was merely replying to the other poster who was implying the costs were prohibitive 

[horsefly 4,318]

5 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

We’ve got nothing to compare those figures to though to know if they’re as expensive as you claim.

Nonsense! One only needs to compare the costs of supporting an unemployed person on benefits within Australia. If you think that costs over $9,000 a day you're thinking of cloud cuckoo land and not Oz. You also leave out the very obvious point that many of these people would also end up contributing to the Australian economy, just as it has been shown that migrants to the UK contribute more than they take in benefits.

5 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

There’s no denying that the numbers trying to get to Australia by boat have all but dried up, so what was it costing the Australians before in naval patrols to intercept and rescue these extra people before offshore processing was implemented, 

Firstly, the Australian Navy don't standardly "rescue" these people, they drive them back out to sea in breach of international human rights laws. Secondly, the Navy is still involved on a daily basis in the expensive business of driving these people back out to sea; what has "dried up" is the number of people making it to shore.

6 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

The policy also enjoys popular support in Australia amongst the public, so to me that overrules any objections of the a UN

An utterly specious argument. The Russian government claims popular support for its invasion of Ukraine, does that mean it "overrules" any objections of UN? The whole point of signing up to the UN is to secure international standards of human rights and decency in order to control egregious abuses of people by rogue nations. Exactly the same point holds of the ECHR (as Winston Churchill, one of its key proponents, would tell you if he were still alive). Do I really need to repeat the many other historical examples, such as Na*zi Germany, to make this obvious point?

6 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

A democratically elected government takes precedence over an unelected supranational organisation 

Simply false as a matter of international law.

5 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

agree with you I think the financials are peanuts

You genuinely believe $3.4m a year for each offshored immigrant is peanuts do you?  More than 3000 people attempted the crossing in March alone this year; and so far this week, despite the threat of deportation to Rwanda, several hundred have also attempted a crossing. Our deal with Rwanda, already costing £120m, only covers the deportation of a couple of hundred maximum for the year; do you really think the smugglers won't inform potential migrants of these facts?

Unless, like Patel ,you think the Navy should be blocking and sinking these boats, the lessons to be learned are from Israel's completely disastrous experiment with deportation to Rwanda. A responsible government would be seeking to form constructive partnerships with other nations to prosecute the smugglers exploiting these poor people, rather than persecuting the victims of their crimes. This is nothing more than a sickening stunt to deflect from Johnson's appalling record as PM, and the Tory Party's complete failure to address the immigration issue. Sadly they know full well that the typical Daily Mail reader will ignore the wild implausibility of this dreadful scheme and will suck up the government's propaganda that its inevitable failure must be put down to those horrible Europeans and evil leftie human rights lawyers.

[Herman 9,838]

Fen does realise we are not "offshore processing". They are being dumped in Rwanda whether they are legitimate or not.

[Fen Canary 874]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

Fen does realise we are not "offshore processing". They are being dumped in Rwanda whether they are legitimate or not.

Of course it’s offshore processing. They will be sent to Rwanda while their claims are processed. Those that are granted asylum to live in the UK will gain right of entry. Those that are refused will be given the option of relocating to Rwanda. 

[duke63 545]

Maybe if we and other western Nations did not go bombing, destabilising and destroying the Countries many of these people come then there would not be this problem.

Ultimately the ONLY way you will stop this happening is to make the Countries that these people flee from, a much better place to live so they have no interest in leaving it.

if you have nothing to lose at all other than a life with no meaning, then why not take the risk?

 

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by duke63

[benchwarmer 625]

btw the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, don't let the government persuade you otherwise.  It is part of the Council of Europe, of which all European nations are members ie. both EU and non-EU.  Russia used to be a member but was expelled in April following the invasion of Ukraine.

Edited June 16, 2022 by benchwarmer

[Herman 9,838]

6 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Of course it’s offshore processing. They will be sent to Rwanda while their claims are processed. Those that are granted asylum to live in the UK will gain right of entry. Those that are refused will be given the option of relocating to Rwanda. 

They're really not mate. You need to delve a bit deeper into the plan. 

[duke63 545]

2 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

btw the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, don't let the government persuade you otherwise.  It is part of the Council of Europe, of which all European nations are members, ie. both EU and non-EU.  Russia used to be a member but was expelled in April following the invasion of Ukraine.

Johnson's own grandfather was a member of the ECHR for 20 years and its President for 10.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/06/10/dear-boris-your-nihilism-betrays-your-grandfathers-legacy-hed-be-appalled/

[Fen Canary 874]

27 minutes ago, Herman said:

They're really not mate. You need to delve a bit deeper into the plan. 

Enlighten me then, as every single article I’ve read on numerous media outlets have described it as offshore processing

[Fen Canary 874]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Nonsense! One only needs to compare the costs of supporting an unemployed person on benefits within Australia. If you think that costs over $9,000 a day you're thinking of cloud cuckoo land and not Oz. You also leave out the very obvious point that many of these people would also end up contributing to the Australian economy, just as it has been shown that migrants to the UK contribute more than they take in benefits.

Firstly, the Australian Navy don't standardly "rescue" these people, they drive them back out to sea in breach of international human rights laws. Secondly, the Navy is still involved on a daily basis in the expensive business of driving these people back out to sea; what has "dried up" is the number of people making it to shore.

An utterly specious argument. The Russian government claims popular support for its invasion of Ukraine, does that mean it "overrules" any objections of UN? The whole point of signing up to the UN is to secure international standards of human rights and decency in order to control egregious abuses of people by rogue nations. Exactly the same point holds of the ECHR (as Winston Churchill, one of its key proponents, would tell you if he were still alive). Do I really need to repeat the many other historical examples, such as Na*zi Germany, to make this obvious point?

Simply false as a matter of international law.

You genuinely believe $3.4m a year for each offshored immigrant is peanuts do you?  More than 3000 people attempted the crossing in March alone this year; and so far this week, despite the threat of deportation to Rwanda, several hundred have also attempted a crossing. Our deal with Rwanda, already costing £120m, only covers the deportation of a couple of hundred maximum for the year; do you really think the smugglers won't inform potential migrants of these facts?

Unless, like Patel ,you think the Navy should be blocking and sinking these boats, the lessons to be learned are from Israel's completely disastrous experiment with deportation to Rwanda. A responsible government would be seeking to form constructive partnerships with other nations to prosecute the smugglers exploiting these poor people, rather than persecuting the victims of their crimes. This is nothing more than a sickening stunt to deflect from Johnson's appalling record as PM, and the Tory Party's complete failure to address the immigration issue. Sadly they know full well that the typical Daily Mail reader will ignore the wild implausibility of this dreadful scheme and will suck up the government's propaganda that its inevitable failure must be put down to those horrible Europeans and evil leftie human rights lawyers.

 

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Nonsense! One only needs to compare the costs of supporting an unemployed person on benefits within Australia. If you think that costs over $9,000 a day you're thinking of cloud cuckoo land and not Oz. You also leave out the very obvious point that many of these people would also end up contributing to the Australian economy, just as it has been shown that migrants to the UK contribute more than they take in benefits.

Firstly, the Australian Navy don't standardly "rescue" these people, they drive them back out to sea in breach of international human rights laws. Secondly, the Navy is still involved on a daily basis in the expensive business of driving these people back out to sea; what has "dried up" is the number of people making it to shore.

An utterly specious argument. The Russian government claims popular support for its invasion of Ukraine, does that mean it "overrules" any objections of UN? The whole point of signing up to the UN is to secure international standards of human rights and decency in order to control egregious abuses of people by rogue nations. Exactly the same point holds of the ECHR (as Winston Churchill, one of its key proponents, would tell you if he were still alive). Do I really need to repeat the many other historical examples, such as Na*zi Germany, to make this obvious point?

Simply false as a matter of international law.

You genuinely believe $3.4m a year for each offshored immigrant is peanuts do you?  More than 3000 people attempted the crossing in March alone this year; and so far this week, despite the threat of deportation to Rwanda, several hundred have also attempted a crossing. Our deal with Rwanda, already costing £120m, only covers the deportation of a couple of hundred maximum for the year; do you really think the smugglers won't inform potential migrants of these facts?

Unless, like Patel ,you think the Navy should be blocking and sinking these boats, the lessons to be learned are from Israel's completely disastrous experiment with deportation to Rwanda. A responsible government would be seeking to form constructive partnerships with other nations to prosecute the smugglers exploiting these poor people, rather than persecuting the victims of their crimes. This is nothing more than a sickening stunt to deflect from Johnson's appalling record as PM, and the Tory Party's complete failure to address the immigration issue. Sadly they know full well that the typical Daily Mail reader will ignore the wild implausibility of this dreadful scheme and will suck up the government's propaganda that its inevitable failure must be put down to those horrible Europeans and evil leftie human rights lawyers.

Again, you’ve provided nothing to compare those financial figures to so we can’t say just how expensive the system is compared to letting those people stay in Australia while their cases are heard (as well as the hassle you then have trying to expel those whose claims are rejected).

Also comparing the offshore processing of people who have illegally entered another country to the crimes committed by the Third Reich and the Russians is extremely hyperbolic, and makes me suspect your main problem with the policy is the fact it’s a Tory one 

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

45 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Of course it’s offshore processing. They will be sent to Rwanda while their claims are processed. Those that are granted asylum to live in the UK will gain right of entry. Those that are refused will be given the option of relocating to Rwanda. 

 

37 minutes ago, Herman said:

They're really not mate. You need to delve a bit deeper into the plan. 

Herman is absolutely correct Fen - We are just shipping people off to Rwanda and they will apply for asylum THERE to Rwanda (not UK). They are not coming back here either way (well not until we find them in another boat)!

That's why the UN etc are so enraged - we are simply trying to pay somebody else to shirk off meeting our own obligations.

As to calling it offshore processing that's become a slight of hand as usual with this lot - same as allowing some to confuse the ECHR with the EU (or ECJ) etc. Can't think why they try to do it.

On the 'costs' of Patel's wizzo boy's own scheme  - can't help but think it would be cheaper and easier to give each boat person £100K to apply in France or anywhere else 😉

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[horsefly 4,318]

28 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

btw the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU, don't let the government persuade you otherwise.  It is part of the Council of Europe, of which all European nations are members ie. both EU and non-EU.  Russia used to be a member but was expelled in April following the invasion of Ukraine.

Indeed! Russia were thrown out; the UK would be the only country to voluntary withdraw from it since its inception. Churchill would be turning in his grave should the government go through with this threat. People also need to be clear just what the ECHR order actually is. It does not overrule UK law, it merely demands that, "the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings". The government could circumvent the threat of ECHR interventions by bringing a law before parliament legalising the deportation of immigrants to Rwanda. I can only assume it refuses to do so because it knows full well that there are probably many (largely silent) Tory MPs and Lords who are repulsed by this policy, and there would be a very possibility of it failing.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! Russia were thrown out; the UK would be the only country to voluntary withdraw from it since its inception. Churchill would be turning in his grave should the government go through with this threat. People also need to be clear just what the ECHR order actually is. It does not overrule UK law, it merely demands that, "the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings". The government could circumvent the threat of ECHR interventions by bringing a law before parliament legalising the deportation of immigrants to Rwanda. I can only assume it refuses to do so because it knows full well that there are probably many (largely silent) Tory MPs and Lords who are repulsed by this policy, and there would be a very possibility of it failing.

I think only Russia and Belarus are outside the remit of the ECHR in Europe. It's nice to know the peer group many Tory MPs want to belong too.