It’s inhumane because even people who have legitimate claims will be deported to Rwanda against their wills, and will never be allowed to have those legitimate claims reveiwed.
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.
Oh right so has he found an airline to take them then?
Jesus Christ what an absolute idiot we have as a prime minister. Why does he insist on this policy, literally no one likes it. It is unpopular with everyone other than the hardline right, why can these absolute morons not see that he is repeatedly shooting himself in the foot by even talking about this.
Corrupt government is one thing but incompetent is quite another. I could almost respect a corrupt but competent prime minister.
What chartered flights? Even the Rwanda airline wants nothing to do with this.
Where are all the extra judges suddenly come from? Are you pulling then off other cases like rape and murder?
No interference from Foreign courts. They’re not foreign, it’s the European court of which we, the UK, are a member.
Labour keeps voting against the bill! Yes, they do but you have the majority in the house of commons and the Lords. It’s the Tory lords voting against this bill because they have the sense to realise how batshit this legislation is.
What chartered flights? Even the Rwanda airline wants nothing to do with this.
Given the enormous cost per person and the low numbers of people they are shifting, I am sure they could find an old school chum with a spare private jet lying about that they can hire out for an exorbitant fee.
I’m actually quite surprised that this hasn’t happened and that they’re going with commercial airlines. I wonder if even party donors are reluctant to get involved.
Or that it needs to be dragged out so they can say “It’s so sad no commercial company will do it, guess we’ll just have to use my wife’s jet at a 300% markup…”
Add comment