Dr. Foxy, the high success rate means more people coming over in a totally unregulated way. From France, which is not exactly war-torn.
People want the border to be secure, and right now it isn't. I can see the perspective of those opposed to this new Rwanda measure. The question is what they will do as an alternative.
I'm still surprised (and this was a problem during the EU era too) that benefits haven't been changed to require X years residency or Y contributions instead of just being so broad brush and creating a massive pull factor.
This would seem an obvious counter-proposal by Labour et al., but I'll believe it when I see it.
But if all the left do is oppose the measure, it'll be akin to the EU argument in Parliament, post-referendum. They know what they're against and have no idea what they're for. People will generally opt for harsh medicine over a shrug and crossed fingers.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
“Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.
Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“
That sounds ominous.
I said a while back that Kazakhstan should be congratulated in the long run for the stance they have taken on the war in Ukraine. I can imagine that Putin is really very, very angry with them. Given the cultural and economic ties between them and Russia, it cannot have been an easy decision.
Though the question is what troops Putin can field to perform yet another 'special operation', especially if he does not declare war on Ukraine.
This evil (*) Russian regime must be stopped now, because stopping it later will be even more costly.
(*) I know some people grasp their handbags at my using their term. Again I ask them what they'd prefer me to use.
If Mad Vlad wants to take on another massive military engagement whilst his once feared war machine gets cut to pieces in Eastern Ukraine then thats up to him.
No doubt some top FSB official has assured him that the Kazahstan population will wave russian flags and throw flowers as the victorious russian troops march easily into their country.
Might leave Belorus rather exposed if he is busy on two fronts.
And then there's those islands the Japanese have an eye on...
Dr. Foxy, the high success rate means more people coming over in a totally unregulated way. From France, which is not exactly war-torn.
People want the border to be secure, and right now it isn't. I can see the perspective of those opposed to this new Rwanda measure. The question is what they will do as an alternative.
I'm still surprised (and this was a problem during the EU era too) that benefits haven't been changed to require X years residency or Y contributions instead of just being so broad brush and creating a massive pull factor.
This would seem an obvious counter-proposal by Labour et al., but I'll believe it when I see it.
But if all the left do is oppose the measure, it'll be akin to the EU argument in Parliament, post-referendum. They know what they're against and have no idea what they're for. People will generally opt for harsh medicine over a shrug and crossed fingers.
So why doesn't the present government introduce a residency element to the benefits then?
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
Why should France take way more refugees than us (they already have 3x what we have)?
The interesting question for the Tories is whether replacing Boris will win votes net. There are clearly some votes out there, currently on strike, who will return if the Conservatives are led by someone who confirm to basic standards of integrity and decency. However, the current Tory vote contains within it many who are there for Boris and that support his populist contributions to politics however destructive or dodgy.
My hunch is that they are probably better off with Boris,, because the tribal vote will construct reasons to overlook his failings and failures. Whereas the Boris fan club might well back Farage, rather than a more conventional Tory.
Yes, tricky choice for them. "We have a new PM, give us a chance" has worked before, but they are out of conventional ways to win, and possibly a rumbustious BJ campaign full of culture war and wild rhetoric is a better better for them than someone sober. But it's a gamble either way. When Sue Gray's report eventually appears I think people will take a settled view.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
It's a really hard binary to make. My heart bleeds at least a little bit, and it seems fair to say that refugees coming to the UK are making at least a bit of a rational choice in heading here rather than stopping in the first safe place they stop. But they are also fleeing from places we can understand them fleeing from.
Apparently, only Priti and Bozza knew of the plan beforehand. Have to say, that doesn't point to a well thought-out plan where all the flaws have been identified and fixed.
Three out of four of the questions in that poll are flat out wrong.
1. The proposal is to deport a number of refugees to Rwanda without processing their claims to UK asylum. At least some will have valid claims to UK asylum, possibly most, depending on who gets chosen to be deported. 2. While people might decide it's important the Government tries to distinguish between asylum seekers and economic migrants, the clear purpose of this proposal is so the government stops making this distinction and deports them anyway. 4. The £120 million is separate economic aid to Rwanda. The initial and ongoing costs of the scheme are undisclosed and undoubtedly vastly more. The easy confusion of these two things in the government press statement was probably intentional
3. I suspect the scheme won't be effective in deterring people smugglers. A similar scheme previous implement by Israel appears to have actually increased it. ie people smugglers now get two bits of business. The original shipment to the UK and another one from Rwanda. But at least that question is open and not based on false information.
But I suppose the government doesn't care whether people get the wrong end of the stick on every aspect of this policy. It is only intended to "work" in terms of shoring up its political position.
The poll shows how little voting nitention is shifting now. Taken in the last couple of days, after the Rwandan plan was announced and the Partygate fines, people have a view on both when asked but voting intention remains much the same. The basic Conservative problem is that the spread of tactical voting probably means that they need close to 40% to win this time. It doesn't look especially likely.
The polling suggests Starmer will be PM yes. However it also suggests the Tories are still nowhere near a 1997 landslide defeat or even polling as low as Brown Labour pre 2010 or they were under May in Spring 2019
Agreed.
Starmer is doing better than the polls than Brown and Corbyn, but less well than Blair. The question is whether Starmer will go into the GE doing better than EdMilliband and how he will perform in the short campaign. My hunch is that he will do better than Ed. Given the mountain to climb, largest party. Is still an exceptional result.
Only 14 per cent of Britons think he is telling the truth when he says he did not realise at the time that he was breaking the rules, compared with 76 per cent who think that he is not telling the truth.
Voters are overwhelmingly against Johnson on the issue. Sixty-eight per cent believe he intentionally misled parliament, including 48 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 32 per cent of present Conservative voters. Only 18 per cent of Britons believe he did not intentionally mislead.
Which 'he?' Sunak or Johnson?
PM
I am amazed.
Who are these 14% who think he's telling the truth?
I think he might be telling the truth about the birthday gathering. Pretty sure he's not telling the truth about the general picture though.
Doesn't matter. He should have said instantly 'Aw shucks, how kind of you, but this really isn't on - back to work, but let's have a piece sent round with our coffee/tea at elevenses'.
Wlat else?
Yeah, I agree. In that case poor judgement at best. However the actual detail of the parties matters less in my view than the misleading impression he gave parliament, and his failure once it became clear to him, if he didn't already know, to set the record straight.
'No rules were broken' was deliberately misleading when it was said, and was clearly a false statement soon afterwards.
Mr. 1961, I imagine they're fearful of it being portrayed by the left and media as cutting benefits (or the old 'xenophobia' line).
But then, I couldn't say for certain. I was surprised this wasn't changed ahead of the EU referendum. It seems like a very obvious move, yet nobody in politics wants to make it.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
A lot of people wrongly believe that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. They don't. They are not doing anything wrong by preferring Britain to France. Politicians and the right wing press repeatedly insist the opposite, but that does not make it true. If the UK does not want such a law, the logical conclusions are to withdraw from international humans right treaties or campaign internationally for them to be changed, not scapegoat the refugees who think we are a good place to re-make their lives.
… the purpose of this policy is not to appeal to the electorate as a whole. As long as the Govt demonstrates it’s doing all it can to stop ‘small boats’, it closes down space on its Right for the likes of Farage. Keeping its coalition together requires these types of policy. 2/2
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
All migrants need to be treated as genuine until otherwise surely? Like "everyone is innocent until proven guilty?"
If the Home Office did their job properly and started processing quicker we wouldnt have as big a "problem".
More legal routes would help a lot. I get the impression it was easier for Jews to leave Germany pre-war than it is for refugees to enter the UK now.
Up to a point.
The nazis made propaganda (and profits) from German Jews being refused admission to other countries. For example the 1939 Voyage of the Damned:
We refused Jewish refugees going to British controoled Palestine. The Kindertransport was an exception, but was in part because we wouldnt take their parents.
I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
They don't care about how much it costs, they just want rid of the forrin.
Happily for all of us, "hand-wringing or otherwise, we need not worry. The plan will come to nought. Imposed by Patel over her own minister and the Home Office machine, its as unworkable as it sounds. They just wanted a few distracting headlines so it served its job well.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
The greatest problem is that the man on the street cannot understand how someone is not safe in France. You can make any number of arguments about how many people different countries take, but at heart, people see migrants shopping to come to Britain rather than claim asylum in France. And that is what angers them.
Why should France take way more refugees than us (they already have 3x what we have)?
I’m not saying I agree with the man on the street. I’m explaining why these ‘racists’ think as they do. There is a contradiction in refugees in France.
I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
A massive 81.8% think we should distinguish between asylum seekers and economic refugees, but how do we do that without them having their case heard here?
That poll is full of contradictions, and many details of the proposed scheme are yet to be revealed.
Don’t you mean ‘decided’ rather than ‘revealed?’ It’s a Johnson policy after all!
I thought it was just an announcement, rather than something that would actually happen.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
The Tories already hold all but one seat in Kent and aren't likely to lose any as not a one has a majority smaller than 10k. Perhaps they might focus on other regions?
That said I dont doubt the policy, if effective, will be popular with many people desperate for a solution in places other than Kent. But its nakedly cynical design to ship a problem elsewhere gives off a bad smell for me.
Only 14 per cent of Britons think he is telling the truth when he says he did not realise at the time that he was breaking the rules, compared with 76 per cent who think that he is not telling the truth.
Voters are overwhelmingly against Johnson on the issue. Sixty-eight per cent believe he intentionally misled parliament, including 48 per cent of 2019 Conservative voters and 32 per cent of present Conservative voters. Only 18 per cent of Britons believe he did not intentionally mislead.
Which 'he?' Sunak or Johnson?
PM
I am amazed.
Who are these 14% who think he's telling the truth?
Hills took £20 off me at 16-1 for 60-65. Wouldn't take £40. I am as worried about losing on the upside for Macron as the downside but an excellent spot by @Quincel
“Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.
Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“
That sounds ominous.
I said a while back that Kazakhstan should be congratulated in the long run for the stance they have taken on the war in Ukraine. I can imagine that Putin is really very, very angry with them. Given the cultural and economic ties between them and Russia, it cannot have been an easy decision.
Though the question is what troops Putin can field to perform yet another 'special operation', especially if he does not declare war on Ukraine.
This evil (*) Russian regime must be stopped now, because stopping it later will be even more costly.
(*) I know some people grasp their handbags at my using their term. Again I ask them what they'd prefer me to use.
It isn't "grasping handbags". It is merely an objection to the implication that certain persons are under the influence of mysterious outside malevolent forces. Thus downplaying Putin, and by extension, Russia, full agency in their moral choices. Evil doesn't exist. Horrendous choices do.
I disagree. I am using it in the form of "profoundly immoral and wicked."
Evil acts do exist. And I also disagree with "Horrendous choices do". A 'horrendous choice' might be whether I have my left leg chopped off or my right arm. They had a very easy choice: not to start the war. They chose to perform an evil act.
Call a spade a spade. Putin's, and the Russian regime's, actions are evil. And repeatedly so.
Sure. Their actions are. If you choose to use that term. I just don't like the blanket use of the term for people or societies. It is rooted in sin. And suggests there is no prospect of change, nor that they could have acted any other way. And. Although you can use it that way, it is still redolent of superstition. Why did Putin invade the Ukraine? Because he's evil. (Implication. It was inevitable). It doesn't get anyone very far in coming up with answers as to how it could have been prevented nor where we go from here.
Dr. Foxy, the high success rate means more people coming over in a totally unregulated way. From France, which is not exactly war-torn.
People want the border to be secure, and right now it isn't. I can see the perspective of those opposed to this new Rwanda measure. The question is what they will do as an alternative.
I'm still surprised (and this was a problem during the EU era too) that benefits haven't been changed to require X years residency or Y contributions instead of just being so broad brush and creating a massive pull factor.
This would seem an obvious counter-proposal by Labour et al., but I'll believe it when I see it.
But if all the left do is oppose the measure, it'll be akin to the EU argument in Parliament, post-referendum. They know what they're against and have no idea what they're for. People will generally opt for harsh medicine over a shrug and crossed fingers.
Labour should be tough on trafficking and the causes of trafficking. The refugees are victims.
People are getting rich off of this. Follow the money. The illegal employers, who is selling the boats? Obviously that requires resourcing, legal alternatives that kill the black market and cooperation.
Hills took £20 off me at 16-1 for 60-65. Wouldn't take £40. I am as worried about losing on the upside for Macron as the downside but an excellent spot by @Quincel
I managed to get 2 quid on Betfair at 80-1 on 65% plus. Someone earlier in the thread got 2 quid on 150-1 !
As long as Macron gets 60% or above I’ve done fine.
On topic, the big issue in the French polling is the Melenchon number. Many pollsters had him even lower than 18 for R1 (the last YouGov had him on 16). For me, that raises big questions about the polling on what Melenchon voters will do in R2. My guess - no more than that - is that Melenchon got a proportion of soft left tactical voters in R1 who were trying to prevent Le Pen get to R2. These were the ones missed. If that’s right, I suspect most will switch to Macron in R2 and he’ll be at the higher end of his current range.
“If” being the operative word.
It may just be a weighting issue. Before the first round some Melenchon supporters were clinging to the raw data which had Melenchon higher.
Zemmour's result was also lower than any of the polls indicated but he outperformed in Paris and came third, so perhaps the pollsters are struggling to weight urban vs rural voters correctly.
Zemmour did better in Paris because the racists there prefer the more erudite intelligent racist !
Although most of the polls have increased Macrons lead over Le Pen it’s still not comfortable given questions remain over turnout.
Whereas last time the debate couldn’t change the outcome it could have a much larger impact now . The odds still favour Macron but there will be a lot of nervousness across the EU and NATO .
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
All migrants need to be treated as genuine until otherwise surely? Like "everyone is innocent until proven guilty?"
If the Home Office did their job properly and started processing quicker we wouldnt have as big a "problem".
More legal routes would help a lot. I get the impression it was easier for Jews to leave Germany pre-war than it is for refugees to enter the UK now.
Next year's policy will be to accept only those able to force a camel through the eye of a needle.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
It's a really hard binary to make. My heart bleeds at least a little bit, and it seems fair to say that refugees coming to the UK are making at least a bit of a rational choice in heading here rather than stopping in the first safe place they stop. But they are also fleeing from places we can understand them fleeing from.
Apparently, only Priti and Bozza knew of the plan beforehand. Have to say, that doesn't point to a well thought-out plan where all the flaws have been identified and fixed.
The BJ party Brains Trust: very little brains and effall trust.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
A massive 81.8% think we should distinguish between asylum seekers and economic refugees, but how do we do that without them having their case heard here?
That poll is full of contradictions, and many details of the proposed scheme are yet to be revealed.
Don’t you mean ‘decided’ rather than ‘revealed?’ It’s a Johnson policy after all!
I thought it was just an announcement, rather than something that would actually happen.
Me too. It has already achieved its main objectives. It's got the right people frothing and the very right people cheering. Actually doing it seems a bit superfluous and will have the embarrassment of not working.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
All migrants need to be treated as genuine until otherwise surely? Like "everyone is innocent until proven guilty?"
If the Home Office did their job properly and started processing quicker we wouldnt have as big a "problem".
More legal routes would help a lot. I get the impression it was easier for Jews to leave Germany pre-war than it is for refugees to enter the UK now.
Up to a point.
The nazis made propaganda (and profits) from German Jews being refused admission to other countries. For example the 1939 Voyage of the Damned:
We refused Jewish refugees going to British controoled Palestine. The Kindertransport was an exception, but was in part because we wouldnt take their parents.
Oh yes, I forgot. The UK had their own fair share of intolerant racists and Nazi sympathisers during Pre-war years.
I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
A massive 81.8% think we should distinguish between asylum seekers and economic refugees, but how do we do that without them having their case heard here?
That poll is full of contradictions, and many details of the proposed scheme are yet to be revealed.
Don’t you mean ‘decided’ rather than ‘revealed?’ It’s a Johnson policy after all!
I thought it was just an announcement, rather than something that would actually happen.
Trouble with that is that, having raised expectations two years before the next GE, the people who like this sort of thing will expect this sort of thing to happen and be effective.
"Tough rhetoric, Ineffectual actions" is about the worst possible bit of the quadrant to occupy.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
All migrants need to be treated as genuine until otherwise surely? Like "everyone is innocent until proven guilty?"
If the Home Office did their job properly and started processing quicker we wouldnt have as big a "problem".
More legal routes would help a lot. I get the impression it was easier for Jews to leave Germany pre-war than it is for refugees to enter the UK now.
Next year's policy will be to accept only those able to force a camel through the eye of a needle.
Last thing they want, they are the non-doms
Good wheeze there actually: you can still pay your 60k for nondom status but you also get put in a lottery with a 10% chance of being deported to Rwanda
… the purpose of this policy is not to appeal to the electorate as a whole. As long as the Govt demonstrates it’s doing all it can to stop ‘small boats’, it closes down space on its Right for the likes of Farage. Keeping its coalition together requires these types of policy. 2/2
Yes, it's been shown time and again failing to stop the issue can be overlooked by the electorate so long as it thinks something is being tried.
Even so the potential risks are high. I think it reasonable for nations to take tough stances, yes even if we understand why people would choose to come, but this tough?
I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
A massive 81.8% think we should distinguish between asylum seekers and economic refugees, but how do we do that without them having their case heard here?
That poll is full of contradictions, and many details of the proposed scheme are yet to be revealed.
Don’t you mean ‘decided’ rather than ‘revealed?’ It’s a Johnson policy after all!
I thought it was just an announcement, rather than something that would actually happen.
Trouble with that is that, having raised expectations two years before the next GE, the people who like this sort of thing will expect this sort of thing to happen and be effective.
"Tough rhetoric, Ineffectual actions" is about the worst possible bit of the quadrant to occupy.
You just big up the success, distribute pics of the first planeload (7 crisis actors) landing at Kigali, and relaunch the policy with the promise it'll work even better. Win win.
“Kazakhstan has now explained that the May 9 parade is not feasible because the priority is to maintain combat readiness of the armed forces to ensure protection and defense of gov and military facilities. Hands down, this is bold.
Correct me if I’m wrong: Kazakhstan MoD has basically said that instead of celebrating Soviet Russian May 9 version of the V-day, they are instead preparing for a now plausible Russian “special operation” scenario on their territory“
That sounds ominous.
I said a while back that Kazakhstan should be congratulated in the long run for the stance they have taken on the war in Ukraine. I can imagine that Putin is really very, very angry with them. Given the cultural and economic ties between them and Russia, it cannot have been an easy decision.
Though the question is what troops Putin can field to perform yet another 'special operation', especially if he does not declare war on Ukraine.
This evil (*) Russian regime must be stopped now, because stopping it later will be even more costly.
(*) I know some people grasp their handbags at my using their term. Again I ask them what they'd prefer me to use.
It isn't "grasping handbags". It is merely an objection to the implication that certain persons are under the influence of mysterious outside malevolent forces. Thus downplaying Putin, and by extension, Russia, full agency in their moral choices. Evil doesn't exist. Horrendous choices do.
I disagree. I am using it in the form of "profoundly immoral and wicked."
Evil acts do exist. And I also disagree with "Horrendous choices do". A 'horrendous choice' might be whether I have my left leg chopped off or my right arm. They had a very easy choice: not to start the war. They chose to perform an evil act.
Call a spade a spade. Putin's, and the Russian regime's, actions are evil. And repeatedly so.
Sure. Their actions are. If you choose to use that term. I just don't like the blanket use of the term for people or societies. It is rooted in sin. And suggests there is no prospect of change, nor that they could have acted any other way. And. Although you can use it that way, it is still redolent of superstition. Why did Putin invade the Ukraine? Because he's evil. (Implication. It was inevitable). It doesn't get anyone very far in coming up with answers as to how it could have been prevented nor where we go from here.
I believe I am very careful to use in in relation to to 'Russians', but the 'Russian regime'.
As an aside, there are *rumours* that Putin is very heavily influenced by Patriarch Kirill. Much of Putin's talk about his imaginary empire and the glories of Russia's past are redolent of superstition.
I also don't agree with the line: "Because he's evil. (Implication. It was inevitable)." Good and evil and far more complex than that, and there are plenty of examples of people who might be called 'evil' who could be considered to have done good acts, or been kind at times.
I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
A massive 81.8% think we should distinguish between asylum seekers and economic refugees, but how do we do that without them having their case heard here?
That poll is full of contradictions, and many details of the proposed scheme are yet to be revealed.
Don’t you mean ‘decided’ rather than ‘revealed?’ It’s a Johnson policy after all!
I thought it was just an announcement, rather than something that would actually happen.
Trouble with that is that, having raised expectations two years before the next GE, the people who like this sort of thing will expect this sort of thing to happen and be effective.
"Tough rhetoric, Ineffectual actions" is about the worst possible bit of the quadrant to occupy.
It is not because it will be blocked by the courts, who get the blame. That is very much deliberate, the government are even leaking fears about where the law will be challenged.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Its deliberate. Its like the staunch defence from the BBC hack of her Kent queues story which resolutely forgot to mention the broken customs computer. Or the BBC story celebrating the riches coming to Cornwall but forgetting to say that its massively less cash than they got from the EU. The latter directly shown up by ITV News calling out the funding gap forgotten to be mentioned by the BBC.
All news is mediated. Filtered. Spun. In the past the BBC tried massively hard to be impartial. No more. The positive grifting operation for Big Dog now includes BBC News. Not really a surprise when you look at the people running it and their connections to Downing Street.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
This policy could still fail even if it deters people. After all, there are no shortage of extreme measures that could have deterred people. This policy also has to be seen to settle people humanely to succeed. It will not survive a damaging expose from a Rwanda refugee camp.
In any case you have to question whether this will deter at all. People are already risking death at sea getting in a boat. A hypothetical trip to Rwanda is a small thing on top of that.
I’m with you. Follow the money. Crack down on the demand pull.
Interesting thought that had a Priti Patel's policy existed in the 60s she'd now either be living in Rwanda or have been butchered in the genocide there
Hills took £20 off me at 16-1 for 60-65. Wouldn't take £40. I am as worried about losing on the upside for Macron as the downside but an excellent spot by @Quincel
I managed to get 2 quid on Betfair at 80-1 on 65% plus. Someone earlier in the thread got 2 quid on 150-1 !
As long as Macron gets 60% or above I’ve done fine.
My initial prediction was 66% for Marcon, on the basis that Le Pen seems to undershoot her polling. Add the error the last time to the current polling and we are seriously close to being in the zone already. Another 2-3% consolidation and we are there. This honestly strikes me as closer to evens than 16-1. Win or lose it is seriously mispriced.
Dr. Foxy, the high success rate means more people coming over in a totally unregulated way. From France, which is not exactly war-torn.
People want the border to be secure, and right now it isn't. I can see the perspective of those opposed to this new Rwanda measure. The question is what they will do as an alternative.
I'm still surprised (and this was a problem during the EU era too) that benefits haven't been changed to require X years residency or Y contributions instead of just being so broad brush and creating a massive pull factor.
This would seem an obvious counter-proposal by Labour et al., but I'll believe it when I see it.
But if all the left do is oppose the measure, it'll be akin to the EU argument in Parliament, post-referendum. They know what they're against and have no idea what they're for. People will generally opt for harsh medicine over a shrug and crossed fingers.
Labour should be tough on trafficking and the causes of trafficking. The refugees are victims.
People are getting rich off of this. Follow the money. The illegal employers, who is selling the boats? Obviously that requires resourcing, legal alternatives that kill the black market and cooperation.
Many many other people and groups do well out of these refugees too. Including refugee support organisations, charities and private companies who charge a fortune to send them to shitholes like Middlesbrough and Gateshead.
There’s a lot of money to be made out of modern day human trafficking little of which goes to the trafficked.
I love polls like this, revealing how messy the British public's opinions are on things in contrast to the clean (and ideological) consistency of activists. 47% support vs 26% oppose, but 47% think it is bad value for money vs 39% who think good value. So at least some people think it is bad value for money but we should still do it.
A massive 81.8% think we should distinguish between asylum seekers and economic refugees, but how do we do that without them having their case heard here?
That poll is full of contradictions, and many details of the proposed scheme are yet to be revealed.
Don’t you mean ‘decided’ rather than ‘revealed?’ It’s a Johnson policy after all!
I thought it was just an announcement, rather than something that would actually happen.
Trouble with that is that, having raised expectations two years before the next GE, the people who like this sort of thing will expect this sort of thing to happen and be effective.
"Tough rhetoric, Ineffectual actions" is about the worst possible bit of the quadrant to occupy.
You just big up the success, distribute pics of the first planeload (7 crisis actors) landing at Kigali, and relaunch the policy with the promise it'll work even better. Win win.
Or as some have suggested claim any difficulty is the fault of the Left and the courts and say you will fix that.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
Labour should really pick up on this. It obviously fits in well with both the need for a better alternative response than what sounds like more of the status quo, and also tackling unscrupulous employers generally.
The interesting question for the Tories is whether replacing Boris will win votes net. There are clearly some votes out there, currently on strike, who will return if the Conservatives are led by someone who confirm to basic standards of integrity and decency. However, the current Tory vote contains within it many who are there for Boris and that support his populist contributions to politics however destructive or dodgy.
My hunch is that they are probably better off with Boris,, because the tribal vote will construct reasons to overlook his failings and failures. Whereas the Boris fan club might well back Farage, rather than a more conventional Tory.
I don't know why Johnson doesn't save his tax pounds and just dispense with this utterly daft, unworkable populist nonsense and just go the full Rwanda election strategy and engineer 99% of the popular vote at elections.
Going the full Putin, he could generate personal wealth that Carrie could only dream of and "party like it's 1999". I am genuinely surprised he is so slow out of the blocks.
Rwanda could be the final destination for traitors rather than economic migrants.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
If that was known I suspect the polling might be even stronger!
Indeed. Who knew that the UK were full of racists. Even ex pats in Spain
Are you kidding? One of the comedy items every time we go to see the in-laws is the stereotypical ex-pat racist. Live in Spain, don't speak Spanish, don't integrate with natives and complain loudly at beach front bars about too many immigrants back home who don't speak English or integrate.
Its not remotely everyone. But they absolutely do exist. I've met them. My FIL has made a good living off them.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
I agree, but the two in combination may well have been more effective still.
I believe the Starlink satellites are in low orbits, but previous ASAT tests have shown that debris can go into much higher orbits. Trying to take out enough Starlink satellites to make a difference would probably imperil all LEO activity.
Such an action might well be a denial of LEO to everyone. *If* Russia can find enough missiles to do the job. Using an EMP to do it would have very serious consequences as well.
Interesting thought that had a Priti Patel's policy existed in the 60s she'd now either be living in Rwanda or have been butchered in the genocide there
It is always a mistake on this issue to divert onto Patel's heritage.
It's a distraction and gets rather uncomfortable when people essentially state, though you've not quite done so but others do, that she she hold certain opinions due to her race
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
There is a lot of arithmetic involved in calculating who will switch votes to whom in the second round of French presidential elections. That arithmetic favours Macron. Le Pen is closer than she should be but I don't see her winning barring a real surprise. The odds don't seem massively overpriced to me.
The one surprise of this election so far is Mélenchon's strong showing. There is a theory that this is in part due to normal supporters of the Socialists and Greens lending their vote to Mélenchon to avoid yet another run-off between Macron and Le Pen. I am not sure about this but they came to 1% point of achieving their aim if so. This theory favours Macron as they won't support Le Pen in the second round.
On topic, the big issue in the French polling is the Melenchon number. Many pollsters had him even lower than 18 for R1 (the last YouGov had him on 16). For me, that raises big questions about the polling on what Melenchon voters will do in R2. My guess - no more than that - is that Melenchon got a proportion of soft left tactical voters in R1 who were trying to prevent Le Pen get to R2. These were the ones missed. If that’s right, I suspect most will switch to Macron in R2 and he’ll be at the higher end of his current range.
“If” being the operative word.
It may just be a weighting issue. Before the first round some Melenchon supporters were clinging to the raw data which had Melenchon higher.
Zemmour's result was also lower than any of the polls indicated but he outperformed in Paris and came third, so perhaps the pollsters are struggling to weight urban vs rural voters correctly.
Zemmour did better in Paris because the racists there prefer the more erudite intelligent racist !
Although most of the polls have increased Macrons lead over Le Pen it’s still not comfortable given questions remain over turnout.
Whereas last time the debate couldn’t change the outcome it could have a much larger impact now . The odds still favour Macron but there will be a lot of nervousness across the EU and NATO .
Isn't it more that Paris is home to about half of Frances 500 000 Jews, most like Zemmour's family being postwar miigrants from North Africa?
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
The genuine asylum seekers are the ones who are stuck in their home country unable to escape. Those stuck in France, less so.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
I agree, but the two in combination may well have been more effective still.
It does need to be properly funded, mind.
If it's just a few hundred a year, then it will deter virtually no one.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
The genuine asylum seekers are the ones who are stuck in their home country unable to escape. Those stuck in France, less so.
Surely the genuine ones are those that prove to the satisfaction of UK courts that they are genuine? Which includes the majority of irregular arrivals?
Dr. Foxy, the high success rate means more people coming over in a totally unregulated way. From France, which is not exactly war-torn.
People want the border to be secure, and right now it isn't. I can see the perspective of those opposed to this new Rwanda measure. The question is what they will do as an alternative.
I'm still surprised (and this was a problem during the EU era too) that benefits haven't been changed to require X years residency or Y contributions instead of just being so broad brush and creating a massive pull factor.
This would seem an obvious counter-proposal by Labour et al., but I'll believe it when I see it.
But if all the left do is oppose the measure, it'll be akin to the EU argument in Parliament, post-referendum. They know what they're against and have no idea what they're for. People will generally opt for harsh medicine over a shrug and crossed fingers.
This is just ignorant. Asylum Seekers do not receive benefits. None. Zero. Nor do the undocumented working here illegally - can't claim when you don't formally exist. As I said to another poster I know you are intelligent, so why post something this stupid?
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
The genuine asylum seekers are the ones who are stuck in their home country unable to escape. Those stuck in France, less so.
I dont quite follow this. That would mean no one who claims asylum anywhere is genuine, as they got out. We can hardly launch operations to rescue people from Eritrea.
I think it's clear plenty of claimants in France are taking the piss, and people have a tendency to imply it doesn't matter if someone is a genuine asylum seeker (wouldn't you do it if you were fleeing poverty? Etc), but you seem to have set the bar rather high.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
The Rwandan policy is obviously absurd and about as close to people trafficking as a western government has got but the problem it claims (falsely) to fix remains. The statistics down thread shows that the vast majority of boat people qualify for asylum. They do so because they come from utter shit holes of which, sadly, there are all too many on the planet.
How can you possibly say to a Syrian, an Iraqi, a Yemini, someone from the Sudan or an Uyghur from China that it is safe to go home? The few that fail are almost certainly those who do not persist with a process that makes Kafka look like top quality administration.
The reality is that our immigration procedure, built around UN conventions, is not fit for purpose in a world that is far more mobile than ever before. There are hundreds of millions around the world who qualify under it for asylum in the UK. We try to reduce the flow by making it very difficult to get here legally (as if that matters at all for asylum) dragging out the process for years in the simplest cases so that people go away and making their lives an utter misery whilst they are in limbo, not able to work, open a bank account, get a private rental, the whole hostile environment.
Personally, I think we need to have a grown up conversation about this. We should, as a country, be able to choose who we want to help, whether it is Hong Kong Chinese or Ukrainians. We can be mercantilist about the rest, choosing the skilled or young as we see fit. The pretense that we take all comers should be abandoned. We simply can't.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
They are genuine asylum seekers until their application is refused. That’s how it works.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
They are genuine asylum seekers until their application is refused. That’s how it works.
A poor choice of wording on my part, but they aren't the most in need. And if we have finite resources to help, it should be focused on that subset.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
I keep saying this! Shut down the black economy and you remove the pull. @Morris_Dancer said they're coming here to claim benefits. No! Asylum Seekers do not get a penny! And unregistered illegals can't claim as they don't exist. They are working. So go after scum employers paying a pittance in cash.
The Rwandan policy is obviously absurd and about as close to people trafficking as a western government has got but the problem it claims (falsely) to fix remains. The statistics down thread shows that the vast majority of boat people qualify for asylum. They do so because they come from utter shit holes of which, sadly, there are all too many on the planet.
How can you possibly say to a Syrian, an Iraqi, a Yemini, someone from the Sudan or an Uyghur from China that it is safe to go home? The few that fail are almost certainly those who do not persist with a process that makes Kafka look like top quality administration.
The reality is that our immigration procedure, built around UN conventions, is not fit for purpose in a world that is far more mobile than ever before. There are hundreds of millions around the world who qualify under it for asylum in the UK. We try to reduce the flow by making it very difficult to get here legally (as if that matters at all for asylum) dragging out the process for years in the simplest cases so that people go away and making their lives an utter misery whilst they are in limbo, not able to work, open a bank account, get a private rental, the whole hostile environment.
Personally, I think we need to have a grown up conversation about this. We should, as a country, be able to choose who we want to help, whether it is Hong Kong Chinese or Ukrainians. We can be mercantilist about the rest, choosing the skilled or young as we see fit. The pretense that we take all comers should be abandoned. We simply can't.
I think it would be far more honest to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention, or at least the 1967 annex that extended it beyond Europe.
Interesting thought that had a Priti Patel's policy existed in the 60s she'd now either be living in Rwanda or have been butchered in the genocide there
It is always a mistake on this issue to divert onto Patel's heritage.
It's a distraction and gets rather uncomfortable when people essentially state, though you've not quite done so but others do, that she she hold certain opinions due to her race
that may or may not be the case, but it does highlight the hypocrasy.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
They are genuine asylum seekers until their application is refused. That’s how it works.
A poor choice of wording on my part, but they aren't the most in need. And if we have finite resources to help, it should be focused on that subset.
So how does that work, a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel op spiriting people out of Syria?
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
I don’t see that this Govt is doing anything to better help those left behind.
Before people were risking death and the possibility of being sent home. Now they are risking death and the possibility of being sent to Rwanda. If you are already risking death, Rwanda isnt going to make a difference.
This just underlines the core point. This is a dog whistle for those at home in their armchairs.
I suspect the other part of the story, the RN taking over will have more impact.
The Rwandan policy is obviously absurd and about as close to people trafficking as a western government has got but the problem it claims (falsely) to fix remains. The statistics down thread shows that the vast majority of boat people qualify for asylum. They do so because they come from utter shit holes of which, sadly, there are all too many on the planet.
How can you possibly say to a Syrian, an Iraqi, a Yemini, someone from the Sudan or an Uyghur from China that it is safe to go home? The few that fail are almost certainly those who do not persist with a process that makes Kafka look like top quality administration.
The reality is that our immigration procedure, built around UN conventions, is not fit for purpose in a world that is far more mobile than ever before. There are hundreds of millions around the world who qualify under it for asylum in the UK. We try to reduce the flow by making it very difficult to get here legally (as if that matters at all for asylum) dragging out the process for years in the simplest cases so that people go away and making their lives an utter misery whilst they are in limbo, not able to work, open a bank account, get a private rental, the whole hostile environment.
Personally, I think we need to have a grown up conversation about this. We should, as a country, be able to choose who we want to help, whether it is Hong Kong Chinese or Ukrainians. We can be mercantilist about the rest, choosing the skilled or young as we see fit. The pretense that we take all comers should be abandoned. We simply can't.
I think it would be far more honest to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention, or at least the 1967 annex that extended it beyond Europe.
Exactly, that is what I am saying. The right to asylum should cease to exist. Our right to choose who we want should replace it. Its harsh and brutal but so is the present system.
The Rwandan policy is obviously absurd and about as close to people trafficking as a western government has got but the problem it claims (falsely) to fix remains. The statistics down thread shows that the vast majority of boat people qualify for asylum. They do so because they come from utter shit holes of which, sadly, there are all too many on the planet.
How can you possibly say to a Syrian, an Iraqi, a Yemini, someone from the Sudan or an Uyghur from China that it is safe to go home? The few that fail are almost certainly those who do not persist with a process that makes Kafka look like top quality administration.
The reality is that our immigration procedure, built around UN conventions, is not fit for purpose in a world that is far more mobile than ever before. There are hundreds of millions around the world who qualify under it for asylum in the UK. We try to reduce the flow by making it very difficult to get here legally (as if that matters at all for asylum) dragging out the process for years in the simplest cases so that people go away and making their lives an utter misery whilst they are in limbo, not able to work, open a bank account, get a private rental, the whole hostile environment.
Personally, I think we need to have a grown up conversation about this. We should, as a country, be able to choose who we want to help, whether it is Hong Kong Chinese or Ukrainians. We can be mercantilist about the rest, choosing the skilled or young as we see fit. The pretense that we take all comers should be abandoned. We simply can't.
I think you are correct about this policy being ineffective and that procedures don't work and our response cruel.
I cant quite get to a position of an entirely mercantilist approach, but it does seem the case that if you believe in borders at all, there is problem given there will always been loads more people, even genuine seekers, than places wanting to accept them.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
I agree, but the two in combination may well have been more effective still.
It does need to be properly funded, mind.
If it's just a few hundred a year, then it will deter virtually no one.
The policy is a success nonetheless.
a) It has deflected attention from Partygate.
b) It has enthused a particular kind of Conservative voter and Conservative MPs.
The fact that it is expensive, unwieldy, is morally questionable, possibly pushes the envelope of international treaties, and deters no one, matters not a jot.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
The genuine asylum seekers are the ones who are stuck in their home country unable to escape. Those stuck in France, less so.
Appreciate you answer. Even you knew how legally invalid it was as you were typing it. As I was saying, we're not your average stupid Tory voter, you don't need to lie to us.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
They are genuine asylum seekers until their application is refused. That’s how it works.
A poor choice of wording on my part, but they aren't the most in need. And if we have finite resources to help, it should be focused on that subset.
So how does that work, a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel op spiriting people out of Syria?
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
They are genuine asylum seekers until their application is refused. That’s how it works.
A poor choice of wording on my part, but they aren't the most in need. And if we have finite resources to help, it should be focused on that subset.
So how does that work, a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel op spiriting people out of Syria?
Isn't that what happened with Syria a few years back?
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
They are genuine asylum seekers until their application is refused. That’s how it works.
A poor choice of wording on my part, but they aren't the most in need. And if we have finite resources to help, it should be focused on that subset.
So how does that work, a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel op spiriting people out of Syria?
Isn't that what happened with Syria a few years back?
And how did that go?
It's weird you don't seem to have the same attitude to people from Ukraine?
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
I agree, but the two in combination may well have been more effective still.
It does need to be properly funded, mind.
If it's just a few hundred a year, then it will deter virtually no one.
The policy is a success nonetheless.
a) It has deflected attention from Partygate.
b) It has enthused a particular kind of Conservative voter and Conservative MPs.
The fact that it is expensive, unwieldy, is morally questionable, possibly pushes the envelope of international treaties, and deters no one, matters not a jot.
HYUFD made the point yesterday that BJ's immediate focus is on his core vote and his MPs. Once he has ridden out the present danger he can work on slightly less shitty, sunlit uplands policies for the rest of us in 2023-4.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
They are genuine asylum seekers until their application is refused. That’s how it works.
A poor choice of wording on my part, but they aren't the most in need. And if we have finite resources to help, it should be focused on that subset.
So how does that work, a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel op spiriting people out of Syria?
Isn't that what happened with Syria a few years back?
And how did that go?
It's weird you don't seem to have the same attitude to people from Ukraine?
What's my attitude to people from Ukraine?
I'm interested to know because I don't think I've actually commented on it.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Let's face it, they are being sent to Rwanda because they are generally further from the UK than their starting point. As a cynical answer to stopping economic migration in its tracks, it's very canny.
If you are from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, west Africa, north Africa, are you going to want to give a snakehead ten grand to risk your life in a small boat, for a ticket to Rwanda? Or stay in France instead. Or any of the other dozen countries you have gone through to get to Calais. It will end the camps in Calais, For which I guess the French will delighted.
How badly do you think this policy will play in, say, Kent? Spoiler: it will be very popular. Scotland? Maybe not so much.
If it successfully deters people from making the crossing, then it will be a success.
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
I agree, but the two in combination may well have been more effective still.
It does need to be properly funded, mind.
If it's just a few hundred a year, then it will deter virtually no one.
The policy is a success nonetheless.
a) It has deflected attention from Partygate.
b) It has enthused a particular kind of Conservative voter and Conservative MPs.
The fact that it is expensive, unwieldy, is morally questionable, possibly pushes the envelope of international treaties, and deters no one, matters not a jot.
Pete is one of the few who is thinking about the impact of this - and I think he's right unfortunately.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
I don’t see that this Govt is doing anything to better help those left behind.
Indeed, allowing British embassies overseas to accept applications for asylum in UK would be a logical part of a fair asylum policy. This would allow legal entry, and encourage applicants to make progress in applications and appeals rather than string them out.
It would kill off the business of people traffikers.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
They are genuine asylum seekers until their application is refused. That’s how it works.
A poor choice of wording on my part, but they aren't the most in need. And if we have finite resources to help, it should be focused on that subset.
So how does that work, a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel op spiriting people out of Syria?
or a Schindler?
Give it to an actor and tell them you need a performance worthy of an Oskar.
The big flaw with that poll is that it entirely misrepresents the policy. People are not being sent to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed, they are being sent to Rwanda, with no chance of return to the UK.
Yep.
Is this a deliberate mistake by Mail to engineer the poll? Or just journos not on top of their brief commissioning a shite poll?
Is it actually the case they have no chance at all of a return to the U.K. or is that someone complainining about a poll misrepresenting the policy just misrepresenting the policy.
I’m not really that up on it but the reactions, both pro and anti, seem to verge on the hysterical.
It is the case that people sent to Rwanda would have no right of return even if they were found to be legitimate refugees. See Paras 9-10 in Part 2 of the Memorandum of Understanding (esp 10.1).
Can’t say I agree with that. I’m now in the anti camp rather than the don’t know camp.
Surely there is a way to help genuine asylum seekers, and sift out economic migrants, without resorting to such a policy.
We seem to have a situation where Refugee charities/groups/lawyers and many politicians on the left regard all migrants as genuine and demand an open door and the reverse is true of those on the other side of the debate.
We cannot punish the genuinely needy. It’s barbaric.
Isn't the point that those who have made it to the English channel are no longer asylum seekers?
Why would that be the case? Unless you are perpetuating the myth they have to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don't believe you are stupid, and I know that PBers aren't stupid. You aren't a Tory minister telling lies to morons who applaud being lied to. So why bother?
Oh Rob is posting rubbish again.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I wasn't claiming they were illegal, I was commenting on the phrase "genuine asylum seeker". Those currently in France are just the ones that can afford to pay someone to get out. Wouldn't it be better to help those left behind, rather than those that are already in France?
I don’t see that this Govt is doing anything to better help those left behind.
Indeed, allowing British embassies overseas to accept applications for asylum in UK would be a logical part of a fair asylum policy. This would allow legal entry, and encourage applicants to make progress in applications and appeals rather than string them out.
I have actually been meaning to ask about this. Is that not actually a path to request asylum? Absurd if so.
Before people were risking death and the possibility of being sent home. Now they are risking death and the possibility of being sent to Rwanda. If you are already risking death, Rwanda isnt going to make a difference.
This just underlines the core point. This is a dog whistle for those at home in their armchairs.
I suspect the other part of the story, the RN taking over will have more impact.
The Hate Mail is already attacking the Navy for using the wrong type of ships. Erm, the Navy are not remotely equipped for this operation. Just ask them. They'll tell you. But the Bully Patel doesn't care as it can fail as far as she cares as long as she can find someone to blame that isn't her.
Comments
I'm of a roger mind on the outcome.
The policy is unworkable and designed to wind people like you up, and/or dead cat.
"Labour want more mass drownings in the channel"
People want the border to be secure, and right now it isn't. I can see the perspective of those opposed to this new Rwanda measure. The question is what they will do as an alternative.
I'm still surprised (and this was a problem during the EU era too) that benefits haven't been changed to require X years residency or Y contributions instead of just being so broad brush and creating a massive pull factor.
This would seem an obvious counter-proposal by Labour et al., but I'll believe it when I see it.
But if all the left do is oppose the measure, it'll be akin to the EU argument in Parliament, post-referendum. They know what they're against and have no idea what they're for. People will generally opt for harsh medicine over a shrug and crossed fingers.
No doubt some top FSB official has assured him that the Kazahstan population will wave russian flags and throw flowers as the victorious russian troops march easily into their country.
Might leave Belorus rather exposed if he is busy on two fronts.
And then there's those islands the Japanese have an eye on...
Interesting background piece in The Times today;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/718d253c-bce5-11ec-94e5-2197dead5942?shareToken=233b3d1902c1c7dda25771547ea026c9
Apparently, only Priti and Bozza knew of the plan beforehand. Have to say, that doesn't point to a well thought-out plan where all the flaws have been identified and fixed.
1. The proposal is to deport a number of refugees to Rwanda without processing their claims to UK asylum. At least some will have valid claims to UK asylum, possibly most, depending on who gets chosen to be deported.
2. While people might decide it's important the Government tries to distinguish between asylum seekers and economic migrants, the clear purpose of this proposal is so the government stops making this distinction and deports them anyway.
4. The £120 million is separate economic aid to Rwanda. The initial and ongoing costs of the scheme are undisclosed and undoubtedly vastly more. The easy confusion of these two things in the government press statement was probably intentional
3. I suspect the scheme won't be effective in deterring people smugglers. A similar scheme previous implement by Israel appears to have actually increased it. ie people smugglers now get two bits of business. The original shipment to the UK and another one from Rwanda. But at least that question is open and not based on false information.
But I suppose the government doesn't care whether people get the wrong end of the stick on every aspect of this policy. It is only intended to "work" in terms of shoring up its political position.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-partnership-to-tackle-global-migration-crisis
'No rules were broken' was deliberately misleading when it was said, and was clearly a false statement soon afterwards.
But then, I couldn't say for certain. I was surprised this wasn't changed ahead of the EU referendum. It seems like a very obvious move, yet nobody in politics wants to make it.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/
David Gauke
@DavidGauke
… the purpose of this policy is not to appeal to the electorate as a whole. As long as the Govt demonstrates it’s doing all it can to stop ‘small boats’, it closes down space on its Right for the likes of Farage. Keeping its coalition together requires these types of policy. 2/2
https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1515227074340036611
The nazis made propaganda (and profits) from German Jews being refused admission to other countries. For example the 1939 Voyage of the Damned:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Damned
We refused Jewish refugees going to British controoled Palestine. The Kindertransport was an exception, but was in part because we wouldnt take their parents.
Happily for all of us, "hand-wringing or otherwise, we need not worry. The plan will come to nought. Imposed by Patel over her own minister and the Home Office machine, its as unworkable as it sounds. They just wanted a few distracting headlines so it served its job well.
That said I dont doubt the policy, if effective, will be popular with many people desperate for a solution in places other than Kent. But its nakedly cynical design to ship a problem elsewhere gives off a bad smell for me.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1515239048302010368
And. Although you can use it that way, it is still redolent of superstition.
Why did Putin invade the Ukraine?
Because he's evil. (Implication. It was inevitable).
It doesn't get anyone very far in coming up with answers as to how it could have been prevented nor where we go from here.
People are getting rich off of this. Follow the money. The illegal employers, who is selling the boats? Obviously that requires resourcing, legal alternatives that kill the black market and cooperation.
As long as Macron gets 60% or above I’ve done fine.
Although most of the polls have increased Macrons lead over Le Pen it’s still not comfortable given questions remain over turnout.
Whereas last time the debate couldn’t change the outcome it could have a much larger impact now . The odds still favour Macron but there will be a lot of nervousness across the EU and NATO .
However...
I suspect the draw of the UK (where it is easy to find work as an undocumented migrant), and the fact that the capacity of the Rwandan scheme is a tiny fraction of the number of asylum seekers reaching the UK, means that its effect will likely be limited.
As @Malmesbury and I have argued, by far the best thing we can do is to reduce the demand pull, by incentivizing people to report on those who hire people in the UK illegally.
"Tough rhetoric, Ineffectual actions" is about the worst possible bit of the quadrant to occupy.
Good wheeze there actually: you can still pay your 60k for nondom status but you also get put in a lottery with a 10% chance of being deported to Rwanda
Even so the potential risks are high. I think it reasonable for nations to take tough stances, yes even if we understand why people would choose to come, but this tough?
As an aside, there are *rumours* that Putin is very heavily influenced by Patriarch Kirill. Much of Putin's talk about his imaginary empire and the glories of Russia's past are redolent of superstition.
I also don't agree with the line: "Because he's evil. (Implication. It was inevitable)." Good and evil and far more complex than that, and there are plenty of examples of people who might be called 'evil' who could be considered to have done good acts, or been kind at times.
All news is mediated. Filtered. Spun. In the past the BBC tried massively hard to be impartial. No more. The positive grifting operation for Big Dog now includes BBC News. Not really a surprise when you look at the people running it and their connections to Downing Street.
In any case you have to question whether this will deter at all. People are already risking death at sea getting in a boat. A hypothetical trip to Rwanda is a small thing on top of that.
I’m with you. Follow the money. Crack down on the demand pull.
There’s a lot of money to be made out of modern day human trafficking little of which goes to the trafficked.
Going the full Putin, he could generate personal wealth that Carrie could only dream of and "party like it's 1999". I am genuinely surprised he is so slow out of the blocks.
Rwanda could be the final destination for traitors rather than economic migrants.
Its not remotely everyone. But they absolutely do exist. I've met them. My FIL has made a good living off them.
Such an action might well be a denial of LEO to everyone. *If* Russia can find enough missiles to do the job. Using an EMP to do it would have very serious consequences as well.
It's a distraction and gets rather uncomfortable when people essentially state, though you've not quite done so but others do, that she she hold certain opinions due to her race
Same with remain voters and remainders.
The one surprise of this election so far is Mélenchon's strong showing. There is a theory that this is in part due to normal supporters of the Socialists and Greens lending their vote to Mélenchon to avoid yet another run-off between Macron and Le Pen. I am not sure about this but they came to 1% point of achieving their aim if so. This theory favours Macron as they won't support Le Pen in the second round.
If it's just a few hundred a year, then it will deter virtually no one.
You can claim asylum in any country. You don’t become illegal until your application is declined. Until then that’s the law.
You cannot by definition immigrate legally to claim an asylum.
I think it's clear plenty of claimants in France are taking the piss, and people have a tendency to imply it doesn't matter if someone is a genuine asylum seeker (wouldn't you do it if you were fleeing poverty? Etc), but you seem to have set the bar rather high.
How can you possibly say to a Syrian, an Iraqi, a Yemini, someone from the Sudan or an Uyghur from China
that it is safe to go home? The few that fail are almost certainly those who do not persist with a process that makes Kafka look like top quality administration.
The reality is that our immigration procedure, built around UN conventions, is not fit for purpose in a world that is far more mobile than ever before. There are hundreds of millions around the world who qualify under it for asylum in the UK. We try to reduce the flow by making it very difficult to get here legally (as if that matters at all for asylum) dragging out the process for years in the simplest cases so that people go away and making their lives an utter misery whilst they are in limbo, not able to work, open a bank account, get a private rental, the whole hostile environment.
Personally, I think we need to have a grown up conversation about this. We should, as a country, be able to choose who we want to help, whether it is Hong Kong Chinese or Ukrainians. We can be mercantilist about the rest, choosing the skilled or young as we see fit. The pretense that we take all comers should be abandoned. We simply can't.
Before people were risking death and the possibility of being sent home. Now they are risking death and the possibility of being sent to Rwanda. If you are already risking death, Rwanda isnt going to make a difference.
This just underlines the core point. This is a dog whistle for those at home in their armchairs.
I suspect the other part of the story, the RN taking over will have more impact.
I cant quite get to a position of an entirely mercantilist approach, but it does seem the case that if you believe in borders at all, there is problem given there will always been loads more people, even genuine seekers, than places wanting to accept them.
a) It has deflected attention from Partygate.
b) It has enthused a particular kind of Conservative voter and Conservative MPs.
The fact that it is expensive, unwieldy, is morally questionable, possibly pushes the envelope of international treaties, and deters no one, matters not a jot.
It's weird you don't seem to have the same attitude to people from Ukraine?
I'm interested to know because I don't think I've actually commented on it.
It would kill off the business of people traffikers.