Yes. It’s obvious what you’re trying to build up to with your faux-naive questions, but your second question is irrelevant. Doing something illegal does not waive your human rights, and the right to asylum is a human right. The UK cannot legitimately deport asylum seekers to Rwanda without assessing their claims. Violating someone’s human rights is inhumane.
I don’t think you have that right though if you’re coming from a safe country. “Fleeing” from France to the UK by paying criminal gangs to smuggle you into the country on dangerous boats which has been known to cause death, almost always for economic or sinister intentions isn’t the same as fleeing the likes of Sudan for Italy via Mediterranean or any other warring country for a safe one.
Whatever you think about it, they do have that right. Most people who currently arrive in small boats have their claims recognised as legitimate under UK law. This also means that your characterisation of them as having economic or sinister intentions is a lie.
They’re not safe in France because France’s asylum system is also in very poor shape. They are mostly people living in temporary camps, unable to find work and relying on charity. This is not the same thing at all, obviously, as most French people living in France, and is not safe for them. Furthermore, there is no compulsion for refugees to stay in the first ‘safe’ country they reach, although in fact most do.
Even if everything I said above was false (which it isn’t), the British government could afford to fix the problem far more cheaply by investing in processing the claims more quickly. Processing asylum claims quickly would remove the incentive to pay people smugglers and thus break their business model. Instead, the government is spending huge sums of money - more than would be required to process those claims - on this policy. Even if it does work, it will be more expensive than just processing the claims, quickly.
@frankPodmore@Flax_vert
Your point about France isn’t quite right. France accepts way more refugees than the UK and those accepted are looked after.
However, many more refugees pass through France and it’s these people who are treated appallingly, beaten by the police, frequently having tents and possessions removed.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it was the police trashing the camps that I was thinking of when I was talking about the conditions there being unsafe.
@frankPodmore
Yes the police are brutes, completely out of control.
The refugees are already living in shocking conditions in the camps, although volunteers do their best.
It’s an appalling situation, people are desperate.
Australia placed asylum seekers in an island detention centres with inhumane conditions. Is that what you want to hear? To validate your opinion and agreement to the Rwanda bill? The UK Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda is not even a safe place. Do you see Rwanda like the Australian detention centre because you are a piece of shit? Do you have any more sealioning questions to validate how much of a piece of shit you are who is no worse than smugglers abusing asylum seekers? The Rwanda bill is not even popular among the British when polled except for pieces of shit. Is that the answer you want to hear?
This is true. Australia managed to completely stop small boat arrivals. However their deportation scheme was even more harsh than the UK/Rawanda proposals. From what I understand people who arrived by boat there were detained pretty much indefinitely on an island detention centre. I think they might have ended the policy because it was so brutal. Not sure that politicians would be able to do that here without a public outcry.
Interestingly, Australia is consistently one of the most pro-immigration countries in the world, and has been for the past 10+ years. I read an article in the Economist that suggested people were more happy with immigration if they believed their borders were secure.
I guess it makes sense if they have safe and legal routes, then there’s not much harm in punishing those who arrive illegally. The Rwanda policy does seem more humane than this, so that’s a good thing.
Would these people be coming from france in a small boat? If so, what would be a legitimate claim?
Oh God you’re one of those. Their claim is that they don’t want to live in France, because let’s face it who would.
They’re allowed to claim in whatever country they want just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it illegal.
Yes. It’s obvious what you’re trying to build up to with your faux-naive questions, but your second question is irrelevant. Doing something illegal does not waive your human rights, and the right to asylum is a human right. The UK cannot legitimately deport asylum seekers to Rwanda without assessing their claims. Violating someone’s human rights is inhumane.
I don’t think you have that right though if you’re coming from a safe country. “Fleeing” from France to the UK by paying criminal gangs to smuggle you into the country on dangerous boats which has been known to cause death, almost always for economic or sinister intentions isn’t the same as fleeing the likes of Sudan for Italy via Mediterranean or any other warring country for a safe one.
Whatever you think about it, they do have that right. Most people who currently arrive in small boats have their claims recognised as legitimate under UK law. This also means that your characterisation of them as having economic or sinister intentions is a lie.
They’re not safe in France because France’s asylum system is also in very poor shape. They are mostly people living in temporary camps, unable to find work and relying on charity. This is not the same thing at all, obviously, as most French people living in France, and is not safe for them. Furthermore, there is no compulsion for refugees to stay in the first ‘safe’ country they reach, although in fact most do.
Even if everything I said above was false (which it isn’t), the British government could afford to fix the problem far more cheaply by investing in processing the claims more quickly. Processing asylum claims quickly would remove the incentive to pay people smugglers and thus break their business model. Instead, the government is spending huge sums of money - more than would be required to process those claims - on this policy. Even if it does work, it will be more expensive than just processing the claims, quickly.
@frankPodmore @Flax_vert
Your point about France isn’t quite right. France accepts way more refugees than the UK and those accepted are looked after.
However, many more refugees pass through France and it’s these people who are treated appallingly, beaten by the police, frequently having tents and possessions removed.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it was the police trashing the camps that I was thinking of when I was talking about the conditions there being unsafe.
@frankPodmore
Yes the police are brutes, completely out of control.
The refugees are already living in shocking conditions in the camps, although volunteers do their best.
It’s an appalling situation, people are desperate.
Australia did the same thing and it worked, simply sending them back.
That’s not the same thing, then, is it?
‘worked’?
What we’ve done and are doing in Australia is fucked. What is wrong with you?
What’s happening with it?
Nice try, you grotty little person.
Says the one who wants to watch children drown in the sea because they came in unregulated boats.
Australia placed asylum seekers in an island detention centres with inhumane conditions. Is that what you want to hear? To validate your opinion and agreement to the Rwanda bill? The UK Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda is not even a safe place. Do you see Rwanda like the Australian detention centre because you are a piece of shit? Do you have any more sealioning questions to validate how much of a piece of shit you are who is no worse than smugglers abusing asylum seekers? The Rwanda bill is not even popular among the British when polled except for pieces of shit. Is that the answer you want to hear?
This is true. Australia managed to completely stop small boat arrivals. However their deportation scheme was even more harsh than the UK/Rawanda proposals. From what I understand people who arrived by boat there were detained pretty much indefinitely on an island detention centre. I think they might have ended the policy because it was so brutal. Not sure that politicians would be able to do that here without a public outcry.
Interestingly, Australia is consistently one of the most pro-immigration countries in the world, and has been for the past 10+ years. I read an article in the Economist that suggested people were more happy with immigration if they believed their borders were secure.
I guess it makes sense if they have safe and legal routes, then there’s not much harm in punishing those who arrive illegally. The Rwanda policy does seem more humane than this, so that’s a good thing.
You can “think” what you like. international law disagrees with you