UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

irishproduce

They have been planning this for a while, trying to find a solution to the scourge of illegal African fellas skimming across their channel in boats.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61097114

It is going to cost them £120m a year though. Think about that. They will incur a cost of £120m every year just to resolve the issue without being inhumane

It will be very interesting to see how it works out. It is not something EU countries would be allowed do obviously but if it proves a success then more power to the Brits. There is always a risk that one single negative incident will occur and become a lightning rod for the activists.

Another interesting angle is the loss of income that the NGOs and hangers on will suffer as a result of this outsourcing of the problem.

Mike Murdock

This won't happen.

The courts in the UK will deem it illegal. Just watch.

Peregrinus

Two stupidities here:

1. Neither common sense nor anying the UK government has done to date suggest that this will resolve the issue "without being inhumane".
2. The notion that "NGOs and hangers on" will suffer as a result of this doesn't bear much scrutiny.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058241670/uk-will-finally-off-shore-illegal-asylum-seekers-crossing-the-channel

There is always a risk that one single negative incident will occur and become a lightning rod for the activists.

He says, without a hint of irony, after literally decades of the right-wing anti-woke brigade using those exact tactics to paint ALL asylum seekers in a bad light. There is also supreme irony in the UK vilifying France for the last 20 years for 'passing the buck', so to speak, while they are now doing the same.

Why do you think, OP, that EU countries would not be allowed to do this?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925716#Comment_118925716

EU countries systematically do it. It's the whole point of the Dublin Agreement.

Mike Murdock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925716#Comment_118925716

Offshore to a country like Rwanda? No, not a chance. The ECJ and/or ECHR would deem it illegal to allow it. Rwanda is run by a dictator who is not afraid of circumventing basic, fundamental human rights.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058241670/uk-will-finally-off-shore-illegal-asylum-seekers-crossing-the-channel

Fair play to them. Make the place less attractive and save lives into the bargain. Pity the rest of Europe wouldn't follow suit. Too many lefties with loud voices.

goldenmick

@irishproduce - They will incur a cost of £120m every year just to resolve the issue without being inhumane

I would think if being sent to Rwanda for crossing the channel doesn't deter them then nothing will.

If I were a migrant I'd rather take my chances in Russia than a poverty stricken hell-hole like Rwanda. And that's saying something.

Atlantic Dawn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925766#Comment_118925766

The odd thing is they set out from France which is better than where they came from or Rwanda or Russia.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925789#Comment_118925789

English is the language of opportunity.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925735#Comment_118925735

If the ECHR won't allow it, then the UK can't do it either, can they? UK is still party to the European Convention on Human Rights and subject to the jurisdiction of the ECHR, and the present government has no plans to change either of those things.

Mike Murdock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925802#Comment_118925802

Also, no identity cards in the UK which means they can pretty much disappear into the background.

They'll be a long time travelling by boat to cross the English Channel from Rwanda! 😁

Mike Murdock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925855#Comment_118925855

Yes, it has pretty much been enshrined into Cherie Blair's Human Rights Act. This is more "show" by Boris to be able to blame Europe/ECHR/Blair/Lefty Courts for scuppering a ridiculous, bone-headed plan.

If they want to be proactive with the channel crisis, ship all the migrants right back to France when they arrive on shore or are intercepted in the channel.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925874#Comment_118925874

Or, considering the vast majority of asylum claims are accepted, open up either legal routes for them into the UK or open up processing centres in France.

Fasano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926187#Comment_118926187

why does someone in France need to apply for Asylum in the UK?

Why don't they apply for asylum in France?

Yurt2

This is a bizzare policy.

I understand the pressing need to do something. People traffickers bringing 30k people a year on a perilous journey is madness too, so it has to be disincentivised somehow, but Rwanda??

titan18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925735#Comment_118925735

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925766#Comment_118925766

Lads, you'd actually want to read up on Rwanda instead of basing it on 90s Rwanda.

It might not have London/UK money but it's far from a poverty stricken hell hole, and whilst Kagame is pretty much a dictator, he's also helped transform the country's economy in the last 30 years.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926287#Comment_118926287

They are under no particular obligation to apply for asylum in France. Again, the vast majority of asylum claims from people who reach the UK are approved.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926316#Comment_118926316

Well then the laws need to change. WW2 asylum rules are no longer relevant. It's time to tighten the rules.

riffmongous

Rwanda, much like Croatia, got away with a huge amount of killing and ethnic cleansing in the years after they were themselves the victims.

And they are still up to it in the Congo nowadays, through their proxies.

Smee_Again

This smells of nothing more than a distraction to Boris lying to Parliament and for breaking the law. It'll probably never happen, or at least not in the numbers being thrown about but it'll bump Boris' lying and law breaking off the front pages for a day or two.

Until the next fine that is.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926410#Comment_118926410

Him and Priti are in Kigali at the moment signing off on it.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925855#Comment_118925855

The ECHR is for a different world to the modern one and has made a mockery of asylum etc.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926288#Comment_118926288

If you know you will end up in Rwanda for processing, you'll up doing a different cost benefit analysis.

Maybe you'll stay at home, try other countries. As an investment decision Britain will be less attractive.

kravmaga

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925751#Comment_118925751

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61097114

Maybe Ireland needs to take a look at our failed asylum Direct Provision system, make a decision on the thousands in the current system and either give them status or a one way ticket home.

Mike Murdock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926550#Comment_118926550

Our DP system is only failing because of the multiple appeals allowed against decisions.

Close that by allowing 1 appeal and a max of 90-180 days before a final decision is made and you'd clean up the DP mess.

Of course the NGO Industrial Complex and Lawyers would hate that.

Fasano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926316#Comment_118926316

Again, why would someone in France, wish to apply for Asylum in the UK?

Why don't they apply for asylum in France?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926608#Comment_118926608

Family connections in the UK. Ability to speak English. Perceived better prospects.

It is somewhat beside the point however.

Mike Murdock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926628#Comment_118926628

No requirement for Government mandated ID cards either which means they can disappear into the background and not be tracked.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926628#Comment_118926628

1. Family reunification is already in place for this.
2. Not a reason for asylum
3. Not a reason for asylum

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926301#Comment_118926301

Ask yourself....why Rwanda? The real answer is because they are a totalitarian regime who will be more likely to flout international laws surrounding refugees and asylum. They're not being chosen because of their outstanding humanitarian record or for their transformed economy. But because they're willing to be bribed to take these people in.

This is a smokescreen, anyway, and will fall at the first hurdle.

The numbers being quoted don't add up, it is entirely doomed to fail. Have a look at how much Aus spends per application, then figure out how many you can process for the 120M being bandied about.......

Spoiler Warning

Spoiler alert, not even enough to cover yesterday's refugees.

irishproduce

We've mentioned this isn't allowed and will never be allowed. Not just by EU but the ngos here have disproportionate influence and reach.

Gatling

Makes sense to a degree ,you might make it to the channel but it's then a one way ticket to Rwanda ,

This Idea asylum is a consumer choice should be stamped out

Pussyhands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118925802#Comment_118925802

It's a bit like someone seeking refuge from an abusive partner being offered a safe house and then going "oh no, give me something better"

If people are picky over a safe place, then you have to question whether they were unsafe in the first place.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926696#Comment_118926696

The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers and refugees end up in neighbouring countries.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926769#Comment_118926769

So a change in the current laws wouldn't affect the majority then. No reason not to change it.

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926769#Comment_118926769

Except the 60,000 + that landed here from the likes of Africa

Fasano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926628#Comment_118926628

so these are more emigrants than asylum seekers then, if they can afford to pick and choose.

creeper1

I think it's fairly obvious that they are trying to emulate what Australia was able to do to defend their borders.

Those saying it won't be allowed because of human rights lawyers and ngos I get that but wasn't Australia also a signature on human rights laws. Don't they also have ngos ? How come it could fly there but no chance for European countries. As I understand it Denmark (a country with fantastic living standards) is also consideringor even pushing for a solution similar to this.

creeper1

cgcsb

Will have to be done at some point here too.

Snickers Man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926288#Comment_118926288

All smartarsery aside, if you were to play Word Association with Rwanda, what's the first word that comes to mind?

Cuddly gorillas, rainforests, mountains, GENOCIDE, well-dressed elderly dancing men, world music....?

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926783#Comment_118926783

Given how abused it is the law must change.

Genuine refugees in Ireland, Britain and across are a vanishingly rare occurrence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926860#Comment_118926860

Yeah, you're dead right. If Australia can do it, then others should follow suit.

It's not like it was deemed to be illegal in the Papua New Guinea supreme court or anything............was it?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58812578

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926661#Comment_118926661

I never claimed it was a reason for asylum. They are reasons to want it in UK as opposed to France. They already have other legitimate reasons for asylum as shown by the very high acceptance rate once they make it to the UK.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926795#Comment_118926795

The notion that once someone has been forced to flee their own country that they should be perfectly happy to just set up in whatever country they happen to escape to is absurd. The majority of course do just that as they have no means or option for anything else. However, given the choice of living in a refugee camp in the desert or a shot of life in the UK we would all do what we could to make the latter work. It might ease the transition of having to flee your own country while leaving your whole life behind.

It is not as if the UK take on a disproportionate number of refugees - indeed the opposite is true.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926965#Comment_118926965

Arsenal shirt sponsor?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118926608#Comment_118926608

Most of them do, so shouldn't your question really be why do some prefer to apply in the UK? And podge has already suggested likely answers.

Jequ0n

Life would be so much easier if all of them had Ukrainian passports, because then everyone would be bending over backwards to house them.

Though I got to admit that the Rwanda idea amused me.