UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118950587#Comment_118950587

"We must accept false dichotomies, because the only alternative is cannibalism!"

You say that "the only policy that can be implemented at a national level that doesn't divert trafficking is, effectively, an open border." I don't have a problem with a policy that diverts trafficking if it also does something that is actually of some use. But if you are really proposing a simple dichotomy - divert trafficking or open your borders - then it's a no-brainer that opening your borders is the morally correct policy; that will cost money, but it will also reduce human suffering. Offshoring just costs money.

But of course the dichotomy is an absurdly false one. It's patently untrue that, if I object to the Australian policy (or the proposed UK policy) I am de facto supporting open borders. There are lots of other avenues that can be explored - e.g. multilateral refugee resettlement programmes; providing avenues for people not already in the country to apply for protection without having to be trafficked in; etc. Most countries in the world don't offshore asylum seekers like Australia does and the UK proposes to, and they also don't have "effectively" open borders.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118950677#Comment_118950677

then it's a no-brainer that opening your borders is the morally correct policy

Except it's not... because you're putting the interests of foreigners ahead of the interests of the native population.

Increasing the population in many situations is a bad idea, especially for a country like Australia where liveable land area is limited. However, similar problems exist for any country. Increasing the population with people lacking the skills or education to mesh with your economy is just as bad, especially when those people need long-term financial supports. Increasing the population of people with cultures who are opposite to your own native values, is risky due to the friction and racism that invariably manifests after a generation or two. And lastly, invariably migrant populations can't compete, as a group, with the native population due to the difference in generational wealth, which leads to the development of a lower socio-economic group, and bitterness based along ethnic or cultural lines.

When people talk about what's morally correct, invariably they're only looking at what's morally correct for their chosen group.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118950757#Comment_118950757

When you talk about what's morally correct, it may that you are only looking at what's good for your chosen group. But don't generalise from yourself to the rest of the world.

I've already said that "support offshoring or support open borders!" is an absurd and preposterous suggestion. But, as a thought experiment, in a hypothetical world where that really was the only choice, both options would indeed have significant costs. I'm not suggesting that open borders would have no negatives; just that it is likely to produce less misery than the only alternative permitted in this hypothetical.

I wouldn't, though, buy into all the negatives that you suggest. Australia is a society that has been built by importing people with, mostly, limited skills and education (but the right colour skin), whose various cultures were foreign - sometimes very foreign - to the one they were coming to. And, while this hasn't been without its problems, on the whole Australia is now regarded as a fairly successful country. Certainly the suggestion that Australia cannot survive a migration policy not very different from the migration policy it has been practising for most of the the past two centuries (except without the overt racism) is not obviously true.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118950844#Comment_118950844

When you talk about what's morally correct, it may that you are only looking at what's good for your chosen group. But don't generalise from yourself to the rest of the world.

I didn't talk about what's morally correct... because I don't think there is such a thing in this kind of situation. You raised it as a reason to justify your position.

I've no idea what "But don't generalise from yourself to the rest of the world." means.

I've already said that "support offshoring or support open borders!" is an absurd and preposterous suggestion.

Yes, you have, and I didn't attempt to defend offshoring in my post (nor have I, elsewhere). I referred to the idea that it is morally correct to support inward migration.. especially to the degree that has been mentioned on this thread.

I lived in Brisbane for just shy of two years, and the vast majority of people I encountered, whether through work (finance, and strawberry planting) or living, were "foreign" or their families had arrived there in the last 30-40 years. There's a sizable Asian community, along with peoples from all over... people who have been there for generations already. The idea that Australia focused on the "right" kind of ethic groups stems from the colonial period, but there has been natural migration of other ethnic groups for a rather long time.

In any case, you're not addressing the negatives I mentioned, but introducing new aspects to discuss.

Certainly the suggestion that Australia cannot survive a migration policy not very different from the migration policy it has been practising for most of the the past two centuries (except without the overt racism) is not obviously true.

There's really no need for the dramatic reference to Australia "not surviving". That kind of interjection has no place in a reasonable conversation.

At some point, a nation has to recognise that the current population will continue to increase due to births, and that further immigration, beyond the natural flows (and standard immigration policies), is detrimental to the wellbeing of both society and the economy. That's the point here. The idea that Australia or other nations can or should always continue to allow immigration, especially mass immigration, with AS/refugees adding to the mix, is short-sighted and fails to take into account the stresses that are manifesting in all nations that have been following such a policy for the last few decades. Which is why your claim of what's morally correct, sacrifices the wellbeing of the native (and current population) so that more and more people can be admitted.

The offshoring has been badly implemented but Australia (and other nations) need to find some manner of dealing with such immigration that doesn't involve settlement within that nations territory.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118950677#Comment_118950677

My morally obligation decreases rather quickly with distance.

By the time it extends past my family, friends and neighbours, it's very small, and past the borders of this nation, I'm not sure it exists at all.

Perhaps you're posting from a monastery having previously donated your worldly goods to charity, and have fully implemented your perfect utilitarian moral framework in your actions.

But I suspect it exists mainly in costless words on the internet.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118950938#Comment_118950938

The whole point of the Refugee Convention is to counter the tendency to have regard only to the welfare of our nearest and dearest.

Your moral obligation to people further off may be less, but it is not nil. The point of the Refugee Convention is to ensure that people in need of protection today will not be treated as Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were largely treated in the 1930s; they will not be abandoned and turned away merely because they are citizens of another country. Their need for protection creates a moral claim on us, even though they are foreigners.

If you don't accept that, fine, say so. But say it openly and honestly.

In the course of this thread we've moved away from a situation where Sonar was attempting to justify Australia's offshoring practices with claims that they saved "thousands of lives from drowning" and they "put the people traffickers out of business". He has pretty much abandoned attempts to justify the first claim, and you now tell us that he never meant the second at all. (Does he agree with you? He hasn't returned to the thread to say.) Instead, Australia's offshoring policy is now being justified with the assertion that we have no obligation to care about these people at all because they are foreigners.

About which I'll say two things. First, this has the merit of honesty, but it has little else to commend it. Secondly, it confirms the point I made earlier; that justifications of the system with claims that it is actually for the good of the asylum seekers are largely bogus; when pressed, people advancing such justifications will usually reveal that their true position is that it is bad for the asylum seekers, but they don't care about that and do not understand why anyone else would.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118951143#Comment_118951143

The moral claim, such as it is, is satisfied by the Australian system: you can flee here from peril, and your life will be protected, but you will never live on the mainland and never have the living standards and opportunities of an Australian resident or citizen.

I find it revealing that this system resulted in a collapse in applications. You have asserted, without proof, that people simply fled elsewhere.

It seems to me to be far more likely that what they were fleeing from was unpleasant, but not as unpleasant as a life lived confined to a camp in Nauru, and they made their decisions accordingly.

Varik

Not seen anything of the new law in detail but the press release had this. Not limited to just boats across the channel it seems.

Every person who comes to the UK illegally, or by dangerous or unnecessary methods from safe countries – including those arriving by small boats, hidden in the back of lorries and found in the UK without leave – will be considered for relocation to Rwanda.
Any person who has arrived in the UK in this way since 1 January 2022 will be considered for relocation to Rwanda.
People that have travelled through a safe country to reach the UK or have a connection to a safe country would be deemed inadmissible to the UK’s asylum system and may face removal to a safe third country.
Each case would be assessed individually. The country of removal may be a safe third country in which the person was present before claiming asylum in the UK, one with which they have some other connection, or any other safe third country that will accept them.
We would never return an individual to a country where they would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118953147#Comment_118953147

Fascinating fact of the day: The success rate for people from Rwanda applying for protection in the UK is . . . 100%. It's absurd that the UK would turn around and pronounce Rwanda to be a safe country when every single person seeking protection from Rwanda has been found by the UK authorities to be in need of protection. If the UK would "never return an individual to a country where they would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment", they wouldn't be making this arrangement with Rwanda. And bear in mind that this is the government that objects vociferously when the UK courts block deportation of people from the UK to countries where they would face a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment, honks into the void about leftie lawyers, etc, etc. If you believe them when they say they would never do this, you are a fool.

And, in general, treat what UK governments say they intend to do in this area with a high degree of scepticism. Look instead at the powers they take for themselves; look at what they can do. If they are telling you "yes, it's a sweeping power, but trust us to use it responsibly and only in appropriate cases" be very, very sceptical. They have a long history of betraying exactly that kind of trust.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118952141#Comment_118952141

Listen to yourself, Nermal.

What they were fleeing from was a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. That's the concept of "refugee" enshrined in Australian law and the Australian authorities have found that the great majority of them meet that test.

So your position here is, basically, that Australia discourages people from fleeing from persecution by treating them worse than their persecutors do, so that they are better off just staying where they are and enduring their persecution. And doing that satisfies Australia's moral claim "such as it is".

That's just grotesque. I don't think you'll find many people who agree with you on this one.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118954573#Comment_118954573

My position is: if life in a camp in Nauru is worse than the 'persecution' you were facing at home, you weren't really being persecuted at all.

You'll find the majority of both Australia and the UK in firm agreement with me, and the more the Geneva convention is abused, the more countries will join them.

Fandymo

Fair play to both the UK and Rwanda.

Rwanda for being the first African country to decide wonderful multiculturalism is the way to go and taking all of these people to culturally enrich their country and it's lucky citizens.

And the UK for donating so many multicultural people who, obviously, would have vastly improved the UK, to Rwanda.

I actually can't believe anyone even as stupid as the venal dullards leading the Tory party are this desperate to pander to deranged racists that they've pushed through something this daft. They've even earned criticism from the decadent Church of England over this. I don't really know what the point is. The white ethnic nationalists were already firmly in the Tory camp and there's alternative for them thanks to the voting system.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118954573#Comment_118954573

It could be argued that they're simply encouraging people to seek Asylum through other means. The rates of Asylum given to people who arrive by plane have remained the same. Australia still accepts large numbers of refugees and Asylum seekers referred to them by other countries and particular organisations. The focus is against those who enter illegally by boat.

They're not discouraging claims of Asylum. That's an exaggeration.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118953147#Comment_118953147

Not limited to just boats across the channel it seems

Yup. They also stated that there would be a trial period initially applied sending single males first, and then, possibly expanding the scope to affect others. In reality, all Asylum seekers or refugees could be required to move there, or be required to retract their Asylum claim, and move elsewhere.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955210#Comment_118955210

Your position disgraces you and you should be ashamed to assert it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955438#Comment_118955438

I'm tired of saying, but it's still true and apparently it still needs to be said, that it's not illegal to come to Australia by boat to seek asylum. (It's also not illegal to come to the UK by boat to seek asylum.)

You're correct that Australia likes to be able to pick and choose which persecuted people it will afford protection to. But that doesn't address the problem faced by persecuted people who don't get picked, and it certainly doesn't justify demonising them coming "illegally" when what they are doing is perfectdly legal, or incarcerating them in offshore camps in dreadful conditions in order to discourage others from seeking protection. Only the likes of Nermal could find that morally acceptable.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955612#Comment_118955612

If you enter Australia by boat without a visa, it is illegal. Claiming Asylum doesn't automatically extend permission to stay there, hence remaining illegal until the claim has been accepted, and then, processing can begin. In any case, you're tired of arguing semantics.

You're correct that Australia likes to be able to pick and choose which persecuted people it will afford protection to.

Not even remotely what I said... but I'm getting used to that. The method of entry into Australia is important. Also, if you look at the Asylum granted from other methods (such as being referred by countries or organisations) you'll find a wide selection of nationalities or ethnicities.

Also, a large chunk of those attempting to enter are not persecuted people. They're economic migrants. You tend to merge all attempts into one category, as if everyone has a justifiable position as being in need.

But that doesn't address the problem faced by persecuted people who don't get picked, and it certainly doesn't justify demonising them coming "illegally" when what they are doing is perfectdly legal, or incarcerating them in offshore camps in dreadful conditions in order to discourage others from seeking protection. Only the likes of Nermal could find that morally acceptable.

You really should stop deflecting, and address what was written.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955418#Comment_118955418

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955596#Comment_118955596

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1515255814705008644

Your hyperbole is embarrassing.

Happy to be among the deplorable majority.

No, what's emabrassing is desperate trying to defend a racist policy because it'll be cruel to people you despise for pretty obvious reasons. 47% isn't a majority btw. I'd also call that embarrassing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118955831#Comment_118955831

While I think it's a badly thought out policy, and the plan is likely to fall apart... how is it a racist policy? It targets Asylum seekers, and doesn't specify any particular races. So, Caucasians, Hispanics, or Asians would be just as likely to be affected as Black people.

JupiterKid

It's a hare-brained attempt to deflect and distract from Boris Johnson's own deep political failings and rank hypocrisy over the anger among the UK electorate over his blatant disregard for others vis a vis his many Covid lockdown parties at Number 10.

It won't work beyond the immediate short-term as Rwanda is being bribed by the UK govt to partake in this folly and almost certainly lacks the capacity, competence and infrastructure for this operation. Expect some kind of crisis and u-turn on this before too long...

Just as Boris's attempts to use the war in Ukraine to his own political advantage and cling on to power at any cost is pretty obvious to anyone with more than a few brain cells - and who prefers to get their news from sources other than Sky News and the tabloids.

It's all about distraction and self-preservation and little if anything to do with trying to properly deal with the people trafficking/illegal immigration problem.

Mike Murdock

Stories like this are just likely to harden attitudes and grow support for the Rwanda option.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10738627/Afghan-TikTok-migrant-posed-designer-gear-ski-resort-boasting-Channel-crossing.html

Really what they need to do is just bring the migrants right back to the French shore when they are intercepted at sea.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956214#Comment_118956214

Nah. That's just the usual Daily Mail racism. All this Rwanda scam is is a way to shore up the Tories' support amongst angry racists. We have a cost of living crisis here and they're so desperate to keep someone like Priti Patel that they're burning taxpayers' cash on this nonsense.

Mike Murdock

Of course. No argument about the substance of the article, just the usual shrill cry of "RACIST".

I don't agree with the Rwanda option btw. The simple solution for Patel and Johnson was to approve the shipping of migrants back to France either once they landed in the UK or were intercepted at sea.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956229#Comment_118956229

Perhaps you could have made an actual argument instead of dumping it here...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118956246#Comment_118956246

I'm not seeing you attempting much in the way of arguments.