Main Edition
US
FR
May 11, 2023 - 1:00pm
Like much British political discourse, the ongoing small boats crisis in the Channel is utterly divorced from developments in the rest of Europe. Opponents of the Government’s scheme to deport irregular arrivals, as the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby demonstrated yesterday, cite Britain’s humanitarian obligations under the European Court of Human Rights as an immovable obstacle. Yet in the EU itself, national governments facing similar migration flows remove unwanted migrants through the simple expedient of ignoring their legal obligations, to their voters’ approval.
Following Hungary and Greece, who both push back migrants at the border (in Greece’s case, while denying it does so and clamping down on the pro-migration NGOs it blames for accelerating migrant flows), Lithuania is the latest EU country to take a proactive approach to border security. Last week, a new law came into effect legalising pushbacks of unwanted asylum seekers, regularising what was already the country’s unofficial but technically illegal policy.
Even more dramatically, Lithuania has passed legislation allowing a corps of civilian volunteers, including citizens of other EU countries, to work alongside the country’s border guard service, as well as permitting them to use force to remove migrants if they deem it necessary. To make their task easier, the legislation covers a 5km-deep swathe of territory along the border with Belarus, from which journalists and NGOs are banned, and in which individual border guards are deputised to make instant decisions on whether to admit migrants or push them back.
Naturally, Lithuanian pro-asylum NGOs aren’t enthusiastic about these developments. “These amendments are against both international law and our own commitments,” Jurate Juskaite, the head of the Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights, told journalists, “They are immoral, they endanger the life and health of the people trying to enter.” But Lithuania’s conservative government, which passed the new law with an overwhelming majority in parliament, is unrepentant. “When it comes to national security and human rights, there are no easy solutions, but also there are no alternatives,” the country’s interior minister Agne Bilotaite told journalists.
As in Britain, Lithuanian NGOs are preparing to challenge the new laws at the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Commission has expressed scepticism at their legality. As elsewhere in the EU, there is a growing tension between the supranational bodies which have enshrined humanitarian obligations into law, and the growing impatience of national governments — and their voters — across Europe with an ever-growing migrant flow.
This tension was highlighted by last year’s resignation of Fabrice Leggeri, chief of the EU Frontex border force, following accusations of Frontex complicity in migrant pushbacks by the Greek coastguard. Caught between the opposing wills of supranational courts and national governments, the EU is in a situation where its legal obligations have not yet caught up with its shifting political mood.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe difference is, the political class in most of the rest of Europe do not hate and dispose their own people, and long for the approval of supranational bodies with their own agenda.
It was one of the reasons that I was sceptical of the revitalising value of Brexit. Leaving the EU does not automatically result in the attitudes and rules fostered by the EU bureaucracy falling away as we have plenty of our own home grown ideological bureaucrats. Rules is rules is certainly more deeply ingrained in the UK than many of the nations of the EU.
For the individuals you reference, rules is rules except where you don’t like them in which case your duty is to ignore them
For the individuals you reference, rules is rules except where you don’t like them in which case your duty is to ignore them
It was one of the reasons that I was sceptical of the revitalising value of Brexit. Leaving the EU does not automatically result in the attitudes and rules fostered by the EU bureaucracy falling away as we have plenty of our own home grown ideological bureaucrats. Rules is rules is certainly more deeply ingrained in the UK than many of the nations of the EU.
The difference is, the political class in most of the rest of Europe do not hate and dispose their own people, and long for the approval of supranational bodies with their own agenda.
That is quite coincidence. I posted this comment yesterday evening positing a possible factor contributing to brexit:
The EU has numerous, what many consider ridiculous, rules and laws. It doesn’t bother the Germans because they tend to blindly follow rules and laws. It doesn’t bother the Italians, Spanish or French because they generally ignore rules or laws they disagree with. It did bother the English because they tend to obey the law and abide by the rules but object to unreasonable laws or rules.
I think that might just deserve a “Katharine Eyre Award for Absolute Truth”.
I worked as a Chartered Civil Engineer in the Mining Industry. One of my responsibilities was technical management of mine waste. For decades this had been used in some applications as very cheap or “free” but efficient engineering fill and I guess scores, probably hundreds of miles of Motorways are built on top of properly compacted ‘discard’, with very few problems.
The EU then decided that another blow against cheap and reliable coal powered energy would be to make this as difficult and expensive as possible. Without going into technical issues, just accept that this approach was successful, despite the informed and technically correct opposition of the mining industry.
As you say, the Germans “tend to blindly follow rules and laws”. As you also point out “Italians, Spanish or French […] generally ignore rules or laws they disagree with. And the UK Senior Civil Servants had their eyes firmly on the prospects of cushy sinecures working directly for the EU.
“Without going into technical issues, just accept that this approach was successful, despite the informed and technically correct opposition of the mining industry.”
————————–
Heh. No bias there mate, lol
I think he was saying because I was a civil engineer working in the mining industry take my works for it and I will spare you a long and tortuous explanation.
No bias in your comment though, lol
I think he was saying because I was a civil engineer working in the mining industry take my works for it and I will spare you a long and tortuous explanation.
No bias in your comment though, lol
What you describe is treason by uk clerks.
But why be surprised if opposition candidate for PM is the same?
“Without going into technical issues, just accept that this approach was successful, despite the informed and technically correct opposition of the mining industry.”
————————–
Heh. No bias there mate, lol
What you describe is treason by uk clerks.
But why be surprised if opposition candidate for PM is the same?
I think Germany doesn’t follow EU law as you claim.
Both Germany and France ignore what they don’t like in EU regulations.
Only naive Brits comply, thus getting flooded with EU goods and immigrants.
Unfortunately our disgusting, innept and corrupt higher orders lost any faith in their ability to govern and meekly accepted rules from Brussels and money from China.
I think that might just deserve a “Katharine Eyre Award for Absolute Truth”.
I worked as a Chartered Civil Engineer in the Mining Industry. One of my responsibilities was technical management of mine waste. For decades this had been used in some applications as very cheap or “free” but efficient engineering fill and I guess scores, probably hundreds of miles of Motorways are built on top of properly compacted ‘discard’, with very few problems.
The EU then decided that another blow against cheap and reliable coal powered energy would be to make this as difficult and expensive as possible. Without going into technical issues, just accept that this approach was successful, despite the informed and technically correct opposition of the mining industry.
As you say, the Germans “tend to blindly follow rules and laws”. As you also point out “Italians, Spanish or French […] generally ignore rules or laws they disagree with. And the UK Senior Civil Servants had their eyes firmly on the prospects of cushy sinecures working directly for the EU.
I think Germany doesn’t follow EU law as you claim.
Both Germany and France ignore what they don’t like in EU regulations.
Only naive Brits comply, thus getting flooded with EU goods and immigrants.
Unfortunately our disgusting, innept and corrupt higher orders lost any faith in their ability to govern and meekly accepted rules from Brussels and money from China.
That is quite coincidence. I posted this comment yesterday evening positing a possible factor contributing to brexit:
The EU has numerous, what many consider ridiculous, rules and laws. It doesn’t bother the Germans because they tend to blindly follow rules and laws. It doesn’t bother the Italians, Spanish or French because they generally ignore rules or laws they disagree with. It did bother the English because they tend to obey the law and abide by the rules but object to unreasonable laws or rules.
Don’t forget Croatia: Austria giving the green light for Croatia to join Schengen on 1.1.2023 was at least partially because Austria felt comfortable with Croatia’s ability to police its own borders and thus stop migrants getting to Austria. (Their veto against Romania & Bulgaria remains.)
Funnily enough, Croatia routinely undertakes violent pushbacks: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/03/croatia-ongoing-violent-border-pushbacks
The EU basically tuts a bit every now and again for appearance’s sake but lets the practice go on. Frontex just gets whipped away from the borders it’s set up to police so that no one can accuse it of human rights violations.
The whole thing is a ridiculous sham: the legal framework concerning asylum needs a massive overhaul. With Germany getting to the end of its tether, I assume this cannot be that far away.
Finally, I would just like to award the Katharine Eyre Award for Absolute Truth to the following sentence:
“Like much British political discourse, the ongoing small boats crisis in the Channel is utterly divorced from developments in the rest of Europe”.
Bravo. The British ability to have absolutely NO CLUE about what’s going on on the other side of the Channel is unsurpassed.
On your latter point, it’s a failure of the MSM to report, rather than “The British” to understand what goes on in other countries, preferring to attack the UK government for daring to try to find a way out of the immigration impasse.
This article goes some to redressing that failure.
I can assure you based on consistent personal experience that it isn’t just a media issue.
Well i’ll concede you may have a point! But still, my point stands regarding the MSM, who deride insularity whilst being exponents of the same.
Well it is really a media issue. Since most people are dependant on the MSM for news if the MSM do not report it it did not happen
The media are well aware that if the covered what was happening in the rest of Europe reservations about whet the UK government propose would happen overnight so they stay silent.
I remember being surprised about the negligible coverage of the “gilets jaune” protests. It was not that it was not newsworthy it was just the it was the kind of news the MSM did not want to cover, probably because it could indirectly reflect badly on the EU
Well i’ll concede you may have a point! But still, my point stands regarding the MSM, who deride insularity whilst being exponents of the same.
Well it is really a media issue. Since most people are dependant on the MSM for news if the MSM do not report it it did not happen
The media are well aware that if the covered what was happening in the rest of Europe reservations about whet the UK government propose would happen overnight so they stay silent.
I remember being surprised about the negligible coverage of the “gilets jaune” protests. It was not that it was not newsworthy it was just the it was the kind of news the MSM did not want to cover, probably because it could indirectly reflect badly on the EU
I can assure you based on consistent personal experience that it isn’t just a media issue.
On your latter point, it’s a failure of the MSM to report, rather than “The British” to understand what goes on in other countries, preferring to attack the UK government for daring to try to find a way out of the immigration impasse.
This article goes some to redressing that failure.
Don’t forget Croatia: Austria giving the green light for Croatia to join Schengen on 1.1.2023 was at least partially because Austria felt comfortable with Croatia’s ability to police its own borders and thus stop migrants getting to Austria. (Their veto against Romania & Bulgaria remains.)
Funnily enough, Croatia routinely undertakes violent pushbacks: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/03/croatia-ongoing-violent-border-pushbacks
The EU basically tuts a bit every now and again for appearance’s sake but lets the practice go on. Frontex just gets whipped away from the borders it’s set up to police so that no one can accuse it of human rights violations.
The whole thing is a ridiculous sham: the legal framework concerning asylum needs a massive overhaul. With Germany getting to the end of its tether, I assume this cannot be that far away.
Finally, I would just like to award the Katharine Eyre Award for Absolute Truth to the following sentence:
“Like much British political discourse, the ongoing small boats crisis in the Channel is utterly divorced from developments in the rest of Europe”.
Bravo. The British ability to have absolutely NO CLUE about what’s going on on the other side of the Channel is unsurpassed.
If your neighbour (Belarus) is prepared to weaponise illegal immigration into your country (Lithuania) in order to try to destabilise and undermine it, I think you’re entitled to do whatever you can to resist this.
I’ve said this before: the WWII era refugee conventions are well past their sell by date. They simply don’t address today’s problems and place all the responsibilities on countries and assign all rights to refugees/migrants/randoms/whatever who are required to take no responsibilities nor respect any laws.
Well said. Long past!
All true.
But comment about what Belorussia wants is irrelevant.
Any sovereign country is free to apply any measures to stop invasion by low IQ, 3rd world savages.
Sinking boats in Mediterranean and elsewhere would solve the problem at the stroke.
Well said. Long past!
All true.
But comment about what Belorussia wants is irrelevant.
Any sovereign country is free to apply any measures to stop invasion by low IQ, 3rd world savages.
Sinking boats in Mediterranean and elsewhere would solve the problem at the stroke.
If your neighbour (Belarus) is prepared to weaponise illegal immigration into your country (Lithuania) in order to try to destabilise and undermine it, I think you’re entitled to do whatever you can to resist this.
I’ve said this before: the WWII era refugee conventions are well past their sell by date. They simply don’t address today’s problems and place all the responsibilities on countries and assign all rights to refugees/migrants/randoms/whatever who are required to take no responsibilities nor respect any laws.
They all face the same problem as we do: how do you deport someone who comes from a country that will not take them back or which is too dangerous to send them back to?
Our answer, we hope, is the Australian one – pay another country to take them (Rwanda in our case, PNG and Nauru in the Aussie one) .
The Europeans may join with the Archbishop of Canterbury in denouncing these schemes but eventually they will have to create third-country arrangements of their own or risk being overwhelmed.
Either that or a 100% pushback scheme for anyone approaching the border illegally. It is hard to see how that is done without a serious number of fatal accidents.
In other words, they may be hardening their attitudes as their people lose patience, but they still have to devise an effective approach.
Putting aside any moral or ethical concerns, the issue is practicality. In Australia offshoring has failed and processing in PNG and Nauru has ended, leaving only a handful of people still held there. Despite the claim that the Rwanda scheme is uncapped the idea that they can take tens of thousands from the UK is delusional.
The Rwanda idea surfaced as a distraction from Johnson’s Partygate problems and is now being used a culture war/wedge issue, again to deflect from the Tories failure to manage immigration effectively.
I wouldn’t allow, in good faith, Suella Braverman to manage a cake stall at the village fete, let alone be Home Secretary. I suspect the chasm between her rhetoric and her competence and ability to deliver will be fairly clear when the next election happens.
In good faith? I very much doubt that. Not only has she worked as a QC (now KC) but has also passed the bar exam in the US, and specialises in immigration law with considerable success.
What’s your experience of cake stalls?
In addition, in what sense has Australian offshoring failed over the past two decades?
I agree.
There is absolutely no evidence that the offshoring produced the outcome the government claims in respect of Rwanda eg deterrence. In is more likely that the twin policies of turnback and takeback were more effective in reducing numbers. Neither are currently available to the UK.
If you think Braverman was Perry Mason incarnate, and is doing a great job at the Home Office then good for you. Me? Not so much…
I’m more interested in a longer term perspective than political point scoring. In reality, she’s been in the job two minutes and is pushing as hard as current immigration legislation will allow to reduce the iniquity of human lives being put at risk through criminal trafficking.
Overturning uncontrolled immigration isn’t going to happen overnight, so let’s put some perspective into this debate. Perry Mason is fiction, she’s having to grapple with the reality and you’d do better to wish her well rather than carping.
Oh, please. This has nothing to do with criminal trafficking. The rise in people risking their lives in small boats coincided with the cutting off of legal routes to seeking asylum. You want to stop or dramatically reduce the trafficking simply reinstate the legal routes.
All of the rhetoric, all of her performative nastiness, all of the demonisation and dehumanisation of refugees is aimed at creating a wedge issue and mobilising the xenophobic vote for the next election.
Everyone wants an immigration system that works for the UK, and if I thought for a moment that was what Braverman was trying for then she would have my support.
But treating fellow human beings as pawns in a particularly nasty game to garner votes repels me.
The amount of ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is dwarfed by the number of immigrants coming in legally, and both are the result of government policy.
I agree we need a sensible debate on immigration, but this isn’t it.
We need an immigration system which is welcoming to genuine asylum seekers, and others who will contribute to the economy.
Achieving that won’t happen overnight, as i’ve already stated, but dismissing efforts to rebalance the system will take concerted effort and the support of the British people against the forces which simply put a negative slant on any attempt to exert control over net migration. If you can’t support that effort, tell us what more needs to be done, rather than taking umbrage with those with a broader perspective.
And – critically – also not welcoming to those who are not genuine asylum seekers or will not contribute. We absolutely have to discriminate between those we need and or need to help and the rest. We do not have the resources to do more. And neither is it our responsibility.
I think it is fundamentally immoral to take ownership of other people’s responsibilities. It not only creates moral hazard, but it also removes the need for those truly responsible to improve themselves/their actions/their countries.
I don’t think I can be any clearer that I don’t think that this is a genuine attempt to put in place a workable immigration policy. The cruelty is the point of this policy, it’s not going to work because it’s not really supposed to work, it’s a crude attempt to win votes and advance Braverman’s career.
If you want to sort this out then first open up genuine routes to asylum again to stop or dramatically cut the number of boats; speed up processing of claims and work out how to assimilate those whose claims are successful; and be honest with the British people about the pros and cons of immigration and what is practical. And recognise that those claiming asylum are fellow human beings and treat them accordingly, whether they get to stay or not.
Sorry, but to have a ‘broader perspective’ you need to demonstrate it which, as far as I’m concerned, you’ve failed to do.
You don’t need to be “sorry” since your apology is an insult towards those with a genuine desire to improve the system. Your attack on Braverman should be seen in this light. Before she entered parliament, she was already involved in trying to improve the system for genuine asylum seekers through representing their interests. Your response is both ignorant and negative; based, i dare say, entirely on narrow party political lines which i implore people to move away from with this vital concern.
I don’t belong to any political party so I look at any situation on its merit.
You, however, seem lost in your own self righteousness, where you alone have all the answers.
The idea that Braverman was some beacon of justice in a previous life doesn’t accord with any profile I’ve read.
To repeat, yet again, her policy is not based on any attempt to genuinely solve the problem. It won’t work. It’s not intended to. It’s a gimmick and her increasingly fevered and inflammatory language proves this.
It’s dog whistle politics so I’m not really surprised it strikes a chord with the Unherd Echo Chamber.
I don’t believe a majority of voters are the racists and xenophobes, or prove as gullible, as she hopes they are and they will repudiate her policies at the next election.
Once again, your reading of the genuine attempt to make headway in this debate – and in the wider context of seeking to control immigration – is full of nothing but cliche such as “dog-whistle politics”. “Unherd Echo Chamber”.
Have you heard yourself?
I’ve put forward a perfectly reasonable perspective, including a balanced view of what Braverman is trying to achieve in the short timeframe she may have, and it’s been met with negativity and name-calling. “Racists”. “Xenophobes”.
It’s entirely typical that, having lost the debate, such tactics are resorted to, to try and restore some semblance of integrity. I’d be easier to contribute in a positive way rather than continually seeking to dismiss genuine and heartfelt attempts to resolve very serious problems.
You have the kind of ego that means you think you are absolutely right about absolutely everything all of the time so when someone has the temerity not to acknowledge your brilliance you clutch your pearls, say ‘how very dare you’ and denigrate them.
Luckily, as I said, the majority of people are not as easily fooled as you. By the way, don’t reply to the e-mail from the Nigerian Prince, it’s a scam…
You have the kind of ego that means you think you are absolutely right about absolutely everything all of the time so when someone has the temerity not to acknowledge your brilliance you clutch your pearls, say ‘how very dare you’ and denigrate them.
Luckily, as I said, the majority of people are not as easily fooled as you. By the way, don’t reply to the e-mail from the Nigerian Prince, it’s a scam…
Once again, your reading of the genuine attempt to make headway in this debate – and in the wider context of seeking to control immigration – is full of nothing but cliche such as “dog-whistle politics”. “Unherd Echo Chamber”.
Have you heard yourself?
I’ve put forward a perfectly reasonable perspective, including a balanced view of what Braverman is trying to achieve in the short timeframe she may have, and it’s been met with negativity and name-calling. “Racists”. “Xenophobes”.
It’s entirely typical that, having lost the debate, such tactics are resorted to, to try and restore some semblance of integrity. I’d be easier to contribute in a positive way rather than continually seeking to dismiss genuine and heartfelt attempts to resolve very serious problems.
As a lawyer, I was aware of Braverman in her stint as AG / BoJo’s poodle. Never mind her cut-price ideologies, technically she was below par:
https://ayenaw.com/2022/01/26/britains-ag-is-in-pr/
I’m afraid facts are not going to deter SM’s view that Braverman is a cross between Clarence Darrow and Joan of Arc. Facts are such an annoyance!
I’m afraid facts are not going to deter SM’s view that Braverman is a cross between Clarence Darrow and Joan of Arc. Facts are such an annoyance!
I don’t belong to any political party so I look at any situation on its merit.
You, however, seem lost in your own self righteousness, where you alone have all the answers.
The idea that Braverman was some beacon of justice in a previous life doesn’t accord with any profile I’ve read.
To repeat, yet again, her policy is not based on any attempt to genuinely solve the problem. It won’t work. It’s not intended to. It’s a gimmick and her increasingly fevered and inflammatory language proves this.
It’s dog whistle politics so I’m not really surprised it strikes a chord with the Unherd Echo Chamber.
I don’t believe a majority of voters are the racists and xenophobes, or prove as gullible, as she hopes they are and they will repudiate her policies at the next election.
As a lawyer, I was aware of Braverman in her stint as AG / BoJo’s poodle. Never mind her cut-price ideologies, technically she was below par:
https://ayenaw.com/2022/01/26/britains-ag-is-in-pr/
I agree JM. If Braverman allowed the publication of the work done on agreeing/negotiating return deals with all the countries from where the claimants come I’d be less sceptical. But the HO is blocking it and that has to be her call. Why for heavens sake? Is it because they’ve done v little?
Furthermore whether one agrees Rwanda will work or not the demonising language is entirely unnecessary. That suggests this is as much about creating a dividing line as solving the problem.
Exactly. It’s intended to improve her prospects of being the right wing choice if they lose the next election.
You look at the rhetoric and compare it with actual delivery and they are miles apart.
And of course Braverman is already blaming everyone else – The Civil Servants, the Woke, the famous Lefty Lawyers, Ant & Dec (although I may have got this one wrong) – for her multiple failures to improve any of the statistics on numbers processed etc.
Exactly. It’s intended to improve her prospects of being the right wing choice if they lose the next election.
You look at the rhetoric and compare it with actual delivery and they are miles apart.
And of course Braverman is already blaming everyone else – The Civil Servants, the Woke, the famous Lefty Lawyers, Ant & Dec (although I may have got this one wrong) – for her multiple failures to improve any of the statistics on numbers processed etc.
You don’t need to be “sorry” since your apology is an insult towards those with a genuine desire to improve the system. Your attack on Braverman should be seen in this light. Before she entered parliament, she was already involved in trying to improve the system for genuine asylum seekers through representing their interests. Your response is both ignorant and negative; based, i dare say, entirely on narrow party political lines which i implore people to move away from with this vital concern.
I agree JM. If Braverman allowed the publication of the work done on agreeing/negotiating return deals with all the countries from where the claimants come I’d be less sceptical. But the HO is blocking it and that has to be her call. Why for heavens sake? Is it because they’ve done v little?
Furthermore whether one agrees Rwanda will work or not the demonising language is entirely unnecessary. That suggests this is as much about creating a dividing line as solving the problem.
Braverman has a “broader perspective”?
And – critically – also not welcoming to those who are not genuine asylum seekers or will not contribute. We absolutely have to discriminate between those we need and or need to help and the rest. We do not have the resources to do more. And neither is it our responsibility.
I think it is fundamentally immoral to take ownership of other people’s responsibilities. It not only creates moral hazard, but it also removes the need for those truly responsible to improve themselves/their actions/their countries.
I don’t think I can be any clearer that I don’t think that this is a genuine attempt to put in place a workable immigration policy. The cruelty is the point of this policy, it’s not going to work because it’s not really supposed to work, it’s a crude attempt to win votes and advance Braverman’s career.
If you want to sort this out then first open up genuine routes to asylum again to stop or dramatically cut the number of boats; speed up processing of claims and work out how to assimilate those whose claims are successful; and be honest with the British people about the pros and cons of immigration and what is practical. And recognise that those claiming asylum are fellow human beings and treat them accordingly, whether they get to stay or not.
Sorry, but to have a ‘broader perspective’ you need to demonstrate it which, as far as I’m concerned, you’ve failed to do.
Braverman has a “broader perspective”?
“we need a sensible debate on immigration, but this isn’t it.” With you contributing I have to agree.
What legal routes existed for Albanian drug dealers to seek asylum in Britain?
We need an immigration system which is welcoming to genuine asylum seekers, and others who will contribute to the economy.
Achieving that won’t happen overnight, as i’ve already stated, but dismissing efforts to rebalance the system will take concerted effort and the support of the British people against the forces which simply put a negative slant on any attempt to exert control over net migration. If you can’t support that effort, tell us what more needs to be done, rather than taking umbrage with those with a broader perspective.
“we need a sensible debate on immigration, but this isn’t it.” With you contributing I have to agree.
What legal routes existed for Albanian drug dealers to seek asylum in Britain?
Oh, please. This has nothing to do with criminal trafficking. The rise in people risking their lives in small boats coincided with the cutting off of legal routes to seeking asylum. You want to stop or dramatically reduce the trafficking simply reinstate the legal routes.
All of the rhetoric, all of her performative nastiness, all of the demonisation and dehumanisation of refugees is aimed at creating a wedge issue and mobilising the xenophobic vote for the next election.
Everyone wants an immigration system that works for the UK, and if I thought for a moment that was what Braverman was trying for then she would have my support.
But treating fellow human beings as pawns in a particularly nasty game to garner votes repels me.
The amount of ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is dwarfed by the number of immigrants coming in legally, and both are the result of government policy.
I agree we need a sensible debate on immigration, but this isn’t it.
In 2001 as a result of growing numbers of “boat people” arriving in Australia, the newly elected John Howard introduced mandatory offshore processing (the Pacific Solution).
Year – Arrivals
2001 – 5516
2002 – 1 (one!)
2003 – 53
2004 – 15
2005 – 11
2006 – 60
In 2007 Kevin Rudd’s Labor won the election and dismantled the Pacific Solution and closed the processing centres on Manus and Nauru.
2007 – 148
2008 – 161
2009 – 2726
2010 – 6555
2011 – 4565
2012 – 17202
In 2013 Tony Abbott was elected an re-introduced mandatory offshore processing, adding Christmas Island into the locations.
2013 – 14214
2014 – 158
New arrivals have continued to be under 100 a year and it is noticeable that Anthony Albenese, the new Labor PM, has not attempted to undo this policy after the Rudd debacle.
Numbers of Turnbacks (which only started after 2014) are not published but the Australian newspaper puts it at less than 6 boats a year so unlikely to be material in term of deterrence compared to offshore detention.
Offshore processing continues to this day. In September 2021 the Australian Government signed a new deal with Nauru to keep an ongoing form of asylum seeker processing centre on the island. There were around 107 asylum seekers remaining on Nauru as of July 2021.
And the point of this blizzard of statistics is what? To somehow ‘prove’ that it shows that Rwanda will work?
It shows that Australia stopped the boats when they said: no one who comes here illegally will be allowed to stay here, you will be deported home or to another country.
It also shows that when the Labour Party dismantled that deterrence, the boats immediately returned.
It doesn’t prove that setting up the same deterrence will work for us but it offers hope that it might.
I know of no other system – other than stopping the boats from landing in the first place – that has been shown to work.
The USA hasn’t managed to stop illegal immigrants pouring over their border, nor has the EU. Only Australia has a proven track record of doing so. We would be mad not to take note.
Except that there is no actual evidence that it was offshoring that worked as a deterrence. There were other factors involved, and I note you didn’t comment on the takeback agreements. It seems a stretch that it will translate to a situation where thousands who risk their lives crossing the channel will be deterred by the possibility that a few of them may end up in Rwanda.
What it may do is deter people from claiming asylum so they end up disappearing into the black economy.
And Viktor Orbán’s Hungary has done pretty well, to the strong approval of most Hungarians.
The point of the “blizzard of statistics” is to demonstrate that your argument is based on bunk. But you knew that.
Except that there is no actual evidence that it was offshoring that worked as a deterrence. There were other factors involved, and I note you didn’t comment on the takeback agreements. It seems a stretch that it will translate to a situation where thousands who risk their lives crossing the channel will be deterred by the possibility that a few of them may end up in Rwanda.
What it may do is deter people from claiming asylum so they end up disappearing into the black economy.
And Viktor Orbán’s Hungary has done pretty well, to the strong approval of most Hungarians.
The point of the “blizzard of statistics” is to demonstrate that your argument is based on bunk. But you knew that.
It shows that Australia stopped the boats when they said: no one who comes here illegally will be allowed to stay here, you will be deported home or to another country.
It also shows that when the Labour Party dismantled that deterrence, the boats immediately returned.
It doesn’t prove that setting up the same deterrence will work for us but it offers hope that it might.
I know of no other system – other than stopping the boats from landing in the first place – that has been shown to work.
The USA hasn’t managed to stop illegal immigrants pouring over their border, nor has the EU. Only Australia has a proven track record of doing so. We would be mad not to take note.
And the point of this blizzard of statistics is what? To somehow ‘prove’ that it shows that Rwanda will work?
I’m more interested in a longer term perspective than political point scoring. In reality, she’s been in the job two minutes and is pushing as hard as current immigration legislation will allow to reduce the iniquity of human lives being put at risk through criminal trafficking.
Overturning uncontrolled immigration isn’t going to happen overnight, so let’s put some perspective into this debate. Perry Mason is fiction, she’s having to grapple with the reality and you’d do better to wish her well rather than carping.
In 2001 as a result of growing numbers of “boat people” arriving in Australia, the newly elected John Howard introduced mandatory offshore processing (the Pacific Solution).
Year – Arrivals
2001 – 5516
2002 – 1 (one!)
2003 – 53
2004 – 15
2005 – 11
2006 – 60
In 2007 Kevin Rudd’s Labor won the election and dismantled the Pacific Solution and closed the processing centres on Manus and Nauru.
2007 – 148
2008 – 161
2009 – 2726
2010 – 6555
2011 – 4565
2012 – 17202
In 2013 Tony Abbott was elected an re-introduced mandatory offshore processing, adding Christmas Island into the locations.
2013 – 14214
2014 – 158
New arrivals have continued to be under 100 a year and it is noticeable that Anthony Albenese, the new Labor PM, has not attempted to undo this policy after the Rudd debacle.
Numbers of Turnbacks (which only started after 2014) are not published but the Australian newspaper puts it at less than 6 boats a year so unlikely to be material in term of deterrence compared to offshore detention.
Offshore processing continues to this day. In September 2021 the Australian Government signed a new deal with Nauru to keep an ongoing form of asylum seeker processing centre on the island. There were around 107 asylum seekers remaining on Nauru as of July 2021.
I agree.
There is absolutely no evidence that the offshoring produced the outcome the government claims in respect of Rwanda eg deterrence. In is more likely that the twin policies of turnback and takeback were more effective in reducing numbers. Neither are currently available to the UK.
If you think Braverman was Perry Mason incarnate, and is doing a great job at the Home Office then good for you. Me? Not so much…
Actually I think the Australian system was a success. Sure it had its problems and is now being dismantled but I don’t see Australia as having had a illegal migrant problem.
After the 2001 election, in response to growing number of “boat people” arrivals, John Howard’s government implemented the Pacific Solution – mandatory offshore detention in Nauru and Manus (PNG).
In 2001 5,516 boat people arrived in Australia.
In 2002 ONE boat person arrived in Australia.
The number stayed below 150 people arriving annually until 2008 when Kevin Rudd’s Labor won the election and dismantled the scheme.
In 2009 2,726 boat people arrived in Australia.
In 2012 17,202 boat people arrived in Australia.
In 2013 Tony Abbott won the election on a “Stop the Boats” ticket. He restarted mandatory offshore detention (plus pushback).
In 2014 156 boat people arrived in Australia.
Offshore detention still continues today on Nauru. From Wikipedia:
It is interesting to note that not only did offshore detention stop boats arriving in Australia but it also stopped the boats setting off too – the numbers in the offshore facilities shrunk rapidly once the message got out that you couldn’t get into Australia.
But all original people in Australia were boat people?
Great Post and stats.
What puzzles me is why uk government is not willing to use existing facilities in countries Australia got agreements with?
Surely that would provide these countries with income?
After you send first few thousands of savages there, the channel boats would stop.
But all original people in Australia were boat people?
Great Post and stats.
What puzzles me is why uk government is not willing to use existing facilities in countries Australia got agreements with?
Surely that would provide these countries with income?
After you send first few thousands of savages there, the channel boats would stop.
Sorry all – I tried to post a response to John M several times but the UnHerd system seems to have a delay. Hence I have posted variations on a theme three times.
No problem Matt, unfortunately some thickos on here don’t get it even with your repeat posts.
No problem Matt, unfortunately some thickos on here don’t get it even with your repeat posts.
Year – Asylum Seeker Arrivals
2001 – 5516 – John Howard (Liberal) elected
2002 – 1 (one!) – Offshore Processing introduced
2003 – 53
2004 – 15
2005 – 11
2006 – 60
2007 – 148 – Kevin Rudd (Labor) elected
2008 – 161 – Offshore Processing stopped
2009 – 2726
2010 – 6555
2011 – 4565
2012 – 17202
2013 – 14214 – Tony Abbott (Liberal) elected
2014 – 158 – Offshore processing re-started
I’ll take that “failing policy” then.
I’ll take that “failing policy” then.
Offshore processing continues to this day. In September 2021 the Australian Government signed a new deal with Nauru to keep asylum seeker processing centre on the island. There were around 107 asylum seekers remaining on Nauru as of July 2021.
In good faith? I very much doubt that. Not only has she worked as a QC (now KC) but has also passed the bar exam in the US, and specialises in immigration law with considerable success.
What’s your experience of cake stalls?
In addition, in what sense has Australian offshoring failed over the past two decades?
Actually I think the Australian system was a success. Sure it had its problems and is now being dismantled but I don’t see Australia as having had a illegal migrant problem.
After the 2001 election, in response to growing number of “boat people” arrivals, John Howard’s government implemented the Pacific Solution – mandatory offshore detention in Nauru and Manus (PNG).
In 2001 5,516 boat people arrived in Australia.
In 2002 ONE boat person arrived in Australia.
The number stayed below 150 people arriving annually until 2008 when Kevin Rudd’s Labor won the election and dismantled the scheme.
In 2009 2,726 boat people arrived in Australia.
In 2012 17,202 boat people arrived in Australia.
In 2013 Tony Abbott won the election on a “Stop the Boats” ticket. He restarted mandatory offshore detention (plus pushback).
In 2014 156 boat people arrived in Australia.
Offshore detention still continues today on Nauru. From Wikipedia:
It is interesting to note that not only did offshore detention stop boats arriving in Australia but it also stopped the boats setting off too – the numbers in the offshore facilities shrunk rapidly once the message got out that you couldn’t get into Australia.
Sorry all – I tried to post a response to John M several times but the UnHerd system seems to have a delay. Hence I have posted variations on a theme three times.
Year – Asylum Seeker Arrivals
2001 – 5516 – John Howard (Liberal) elected
2002 – 1 (one!) – Offshore Processing introduced
2003 – 53
2004 – 15
2005 – 11
2006 – 60
2007 – 148 – Kevin Rudd (Labor) elected
2008 – 161 – Offshore Processing stopped
2009 – 2726
2010 – 6555
2011 – 4565
2012 – 17202
2013 – 14214 – Tony Abbott (Liberal) elected
2014 – 158 – Offshore processing re-started
Offshore processing continues to this day. In September 2021 the Australian Government signed a new deal with Nauru to keep asylum seeker processing centre on the island. There were around 107 asylum seekers remaining on Nauru as of July 2021.
The current idea being batted around in Germany is to assess asylum claims at Europe’s borders. Refuse those who aren’t entitled and share out those who are across the EU. But even that raises the question of whether any country would be willing to have such a reception centre on its territory (they will be huge, and soon overflowing) and what you would do with the failed applicants. They are unlikely to toddle off home obediently upon refusal, but to try and get into Europe anyway. The problem is intractable and a veritable Pandora’s box of political toxic potatoes (hot potatoes doesn’t seem like the right label). Something has got to give soon though: even the obedient, deferential, moralistic Germans are losing their rag. An article I read recently on emigration from Germany cited a new motivation for leaving Germany: because people have had enough of it politically. Paying loads of tax to live in a country with crumbling infrastructure, out of control immigration and huge integration issues for decades to come…I get why those who can leave do.
I thought we only had articles about people emigrating from Britain. Funny how the British press misses out the fact that the same thing happens in Germany.
German media doesn’t write about emigration patterns from Britain either.
German media doesn’t write about emigration patterns from Britain either.
But it isn’t intractable really, is it ?
There was a pretty much impermeable border right the way across Europe between around 1950 and 1989. Not that I’m recommending that.
But it shows that this is largely a question of will.
Indeed. It appears to be similar to money, an agreed faith in value is what is important there.
There is little remaining faith in the nation state. Oddly, mostly from the people who run them.
The examplec of Spain js interesting. Spain recently refused to allow a planeful of Spanish residents to stay, because their residence permits had used some mistaken paperwork. They turned back the residents , who departed for Britain in the same plane in which they had arrived. Britain accepted them. I dont see why Britain is obliged to accept non residents with no valid paperwork, instead of simply returning the plane/boat/ ferry. This would halt the boat people right away.
Indeed. It appears to be similar to money, an agreed faith in value is what is important there.
There is little remaining faith in the nation state. Oddly, mostly from the people who run them.
The examplec of Spain js interesting. Spain recently refused to allow a planeful of Spanish residents to stay, because their residence permits had used some mistaken paperwork. They turned back the residents , who departed for Britain in the same plane in which they had arrived. Britain accepted them. I dont see why Britain is obliged to accept non residents with no valid paperwork, instead of simply returning the plane/boat/ ferry. This would halt the boat people right away.
“Paying loads of tax to live in a country with crumbling infrastructure, out of control immigration and huge integration issues for decades to come…I get why those who can leave do.” Now what other European country might that remind us of?
I thought we only had articles about people emigrating from Britain. Funny how the British press misses out the fact that the same thing happens in Germany.
But it isn’t intractable really, is it ?
There was a pretty much impermeable border right the way across Europe between around 1950 and 1989. Not that I’m recommending that.
But it shows that this is largely a question of will.
“Paying loads of tax to live in a country with crumbling infrastructure, out of control immigration and huge integration issues for decades to come…I get why those who can leave do.” Now what other European country might that remind us of?
“eventually they will have to create third-country arrangements of their own or risk being overwhelmed.” They already have – UK is their ‘third-country’.
I never understand why we have to take them but the country of origin can reject them. How did countries from which people in their hordes are leaving come to exert such authority.
Make receipt of UK aid conditional on them accepting the failed applicants
The EU has been getting Turkey to do its dirty work by preventing migrants entering the Schengen Zone for decades; the quid pro quo was meant to be eventual membership of the EU. But Turkey, with good reason, now sees that will never happen – can never happen! So the EU has to decide whether to continue to deal with Erdogan (unless he’s ousted at the elections by someone rather more to the European nations’ taste, or whether to risk losing this particular dam bursting.
Ireland, meanwhile, having been shielded by its larger neighbour (us) from the consequences of inward migration, has post-Brexit become a non-Schengen magnet for would-be migrants to the UK. And, predictably, blames the UK!
I have no problem with fatal accidents.
These people are invaders and should be stopped by any means available.
Let’s ask simple question:
There are 2 billion Muslims in the world, so what about Muslim countries taking in Muslim immigrants?
I see Saudis and other camel riding, goat f***ing ragheads do not want them?
To bad, stay in your Muslim s**thole.
Putting aside any moral or ethical concerns, the issue is practicality. In Australia offshoring has failed and processing in PNG and Nauru has ended, leaving only a handful of people still held there. Despite the claim that the Rwanda scheme is uncapped the idea that they can take tens of thousands from the UK is delusional.
The Rwanda idea surfaced as a distraction from Johnson’s Partygate problems and is now being used a culture war/wedge issue, again to deflect from the Tories failure to manage immigration effectively.
I wouldn’t allow, in good faith, Suella Braverman to manage a cake stall at the village fete, let alone be Home Secretary. I suspect the chasm between her rhetoric and her competence and ability to deliver will be fairly clear when the next election happens.
The current idea being batted around in Germany is to assess asylum claims at Europe’s borders. Refuse those who aren’t entitled and share out those who are across the EU. But even that raises the question of whether any country would be willing to have such a reception centre on its territory (they will be huge, and soon overflowing) and what you would do with the failed applicants. They are unlikely to toddle off home obediently upon refusal, but to try and get into Europe anyway. The problem is intractable and a veritable Pandora’s box of political toxic potatoes (hot potatoes doesn’t seem like the right label). Something has got to give soon though: even the obedient, deferential, moralistic Germans are losing their rag. An article I read recently on emigration from Germany cited a new motivation for leaving Germany: because people have had enough of it politically. Paying loads of tax to live in a country with crumbling infrastructure, out of control immigration and huge integration issues for decades to come…I get why those who can leave do.
“eventually they will have to create third-country arrangements of their own or risk being overwhelmed.” They already have – UK is their ‘third-country’.
I never understand why we have to take them but the country of origin can reject them. How did countries from which people in their hordes are leaving come to exert such authority.
Make receipt of UK aid conditional on them accepting the failed applicants
The EU has been getting Turkey to do its dirty work by preventing migrants entering the Schengen Zone for decades; the quid pro quo was meant to be eventual membership of the EU. But Turkey, with good reason, now sees that will never happen – can never happen! So the EU has to decide whether to continue to deal with Erdogan (unless he’s ousted at the elections by someone rather more to the European nations’ taste, or whether to risk losing this particular dam bursting.
Ireland, meanwhile, having been shielded by its larger neighbour (us) from the consequences of inward migration, has post-Brexit become a non-Schengen magnet for would-be migrants to the UK. And, predictably, blames the UK!
I have no problem with fatal accidents.
These people are invaders and should be stopped by any means available.
Let’s ask simple question:
There are 2 billion Muslims in the world, so what about Muslim countries taking in Muslim immigrants?
I see Saudis and other camel riding, goat f***ing ragheads do not want them?
To bad, stay in your Muslim s**thole.
They all face the same problem as we do: how do you deport someone who comes from a country that will not take them back or which is too dangerous to send them back to?
Our answer, we hope, is the Australian one – pay another country to take them (Rwanda in our case, PNG and Nauru in the Aussie one) .
The Europeans may join with the Archbishop of Canterbury in denouncing these schemes but eventually they will have to create third-country arrangements of their own or risk being overwhelmed.
Either that or a 100% pushback scheme for anyone approaching the border illegally. It is hard to see how that is done without a serious number of fatal accidents.
In other words, they may be hardening their attitudes as their people lose patience, but they still have to devise an effective approach.
British officialdom’s enthusiastic embrace and zealous application of EU laws and regulations was a primary cause of the Brexit vote. For years other European countries ignored the EU Acquis without consequence while Britain signed up to and played strictly by the rules, to its obvious detriment. And the situation hasn’t improved post-Brexit as the same officialdom, supported by an army of NGOs and legal activists continue to behave as we always did. We always think we know better but how I wish we’d taken a leaf out our fellow Europeans book while we were still in the EU. And, now that we are, it’s not too late to start.
British officialdom’s enthusiastic embrace and zealous application of EU laws and regulations was a primary cause of the Brexit vote. For years other European countries ignored the EU Acquis without consequence while Britain signed up to and played strictly by the rules, to its obvious detriment. And the situation hasn’t improved post-Brexit as the same officialdom, supported by an army of NGOs and legal activists continue to behave as we always did. We always think we know better but how I wish we’d taken a leaf out our fellow Europeans book while we were still in the EU. And, now that we are, it’s not too late to start.
Unless this is resolved fairly speedily we may have to take the advice of the renowned 13th century Papal Legate, and former abbot of Cîteaux, one Arnaud Almaric. “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius .”
(*Kill them. For the Lord knows who are his.)
Be careful, Sulpicia, you’re getting very close to breaking the law there.
Thanks! It was meant to be a hypothetical proposition NOT a call to arms!
Thanks! It was meant to be a hypothetical proposition NOT a call to arms!
A slightly less extreme alternative is to have the policy that all illegal arrivals will be returned immediately, without any checking, to the country from which they departed to get here, typically France. In theory that could result in armed conflict with France, but I very much doubt it, though lots of friction I’m sure. This country needs to show some muscle
How do you propose to do it, though?
UK government is not even willing to stop boats crossing mid line between France and UK because of possible casualties.
Technically it is very simple, but politically difficult unless we quit various treaties and cut out snouts of so called “Human Rights” parasite lawyers from through of English taxpayers money with very sharp knife.
How do you propose to do it, though?
UK government is not even willing to stop boats crossing mid line between France and UK because of possible casualties.
Technically it is very simple, but politically difficult unless we quit various treaties and cut out snouts of so called “Human Rights” parasite lawyers from through of English taxpayers money with very sharp knife.
Be careful, Sulpicia, you’re getting very close to breaking the law there.
A slightly less extreme alternative is to have the policy that all illegal arrivals will be returned immediately, without any checking, to the country from which they departed to get here, typically France. In theory that could result in armed conflict with France, but I very much doubt it, though lots of friction I’m sure. This country needs to show some muscle
Unless this is resolved fairly speedily we may have to take the advice of the renowned 13th century Papal Legate, and former abbot of Cîteaux, one Arnaud Almaric. “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius .”
(*Kill them. For the Lord knows who are his.)
Well the USA has had at least 6 million come in since Biden took office and it’s only going to get worse now that Covid restriction title 42 has expired. We are in crisis mode.
Well the USA has had at least 6 million come in since Biden took office and it’s only going to get worse now that Covid restriction title 42 has expired. We are in crisis mode.
Im joining this discussion from the ether. I was the wife of this guy called Squanto. We lived,in our previous human body life,in this village on what you now call America,way up on the east coast. One day this funny object was on the nearby sandy,pebbly beach. It was made of wood but not like our boats and there were some people there looking a bit confused and lost. Actually it took us a while to realise they were people too,as everything about them was odd. Well to cut this story short. We all wanted to kill them right away because that might have evil spirits in them to destroy US. But my husband Squanto,he was a kind man,maybe thats what attracted me to him. He’d always give someone a second chance and anyone in need in our village always came and asked for food. But not me. They knew I’d box their ears. So my kind,generous husband helped these strange newcomers survive our vicious terrible winter. That was five years ago. Now more of those people are turning up and their village is getting big,and theyre not so respectful and wary of us as they used to be. But my husband says,they’re only people,just like us,and this IS our Country. We own it.
How many people, do you think, genuinely want to leave their home countries? Most leave because (a) they can’t get the education/work/life they want at ‘home’ and have been brought to believe that upping sticks and decamping to a foreign land will provide these or
(b) their home country is not safe to live in – because of conflict, tyranny, poverty and/or risk of starvation.
Category ‘b’ includes asylum-seekers and refugees. Category ‘a’ does not.
The UK and other countries have a duty towards people in category ‘b’. We have no such duty towards those in category ‘a’.
A proper border force would be staffed, equipped, funded and tasked to ensure that those in category ‘b’ who choose to come here are able to do so without the added stress of slow, intrusive bureaucracy, and receive the help they need after arrival. It would also use that equipment and funding, with full authority, to exclude, deport and deter everyone in category ‘a’ who chooses to attempt entry to the country in breach of the UK’s normal immigration policies.
Unfortunately, our Border Force has none of those advantages, nor the mind-reading capacity to discriminate between those who ARE in category ‘b’ and those who simply SAY they are!
I am sorry, but it is well meaning nonsense.
Why should Europe except Muslims at all?
They should apply for asulum in Muslim countries.
Reality is, most countries are s**t countries because of low IQ population.
Importing 3rd world morons into the West is going to turn West into 3rd world hell hole, eventually…
I am sorry, but it is well meaning nonsense.
Why should Europe except Muslims at all?
They should apply for asulum in Muslim countries.
Reality is, most countries are s**t countries because of low IQ population.
Importing 3rd world morons into the West is going to turn West into 3rd world hell hole, eventually…
How many people, do you think, genuinely want to leave their home countries? Most leave because (a) they can’t get the education/work/life they want at ‘home’ and have been brought to believe that upping sticks and decamping to a foreign land will provide these or
(b) their home country is not safe to live in – because of conflict, tyranny, poverty and/or risk of starvation.
Category ‘b’ includes asylum-seekers and refugees. Category ‘a’ does not.
The UK and other countries have a duty towards people in category ‘b’. We have no such duty towards those in category ‘a’.
A proper border force would be staffed, equipped, funded and tasked to ensure that those in category ‘b’ who choose to come here are able to do so without the added stress of slow, intrusive bureaucracy, and receive the help they need after arrival. It would also use that equipment and funding, with full authority, to exclude, deport and deter everyone in category ‘a’ who chooses to attempt entry to the country in breach of the UK’s normal immigration policies.
Unfortunately, our Border Force has none of those advantages, nor the mind-reading capacity to discriminate between those who ARE in category ‘b’ and those who simply SAY they are!
Why is immigration even an issue in 2023? Brexit solved it, right?
Ha ha
Are you still here?
Are you still here?
Why is immigration even an issue in 2023? Brexit solved it, right?
Ha ha
The difference with the main Countries referenced in the Article from the UK are pretty obviously geographical. Greece and Lithuania have non European/EU borders and in some instances deliberate ‘weaponising’ use of asylum seekers/refugees by Turkey/Russia/Belarus.
Now of course some may contend ‘well that’s what the French are doing with us’. Not quite, and also we withdrew from the Dublin Agreement too when we could have sent them all back to France or another point of EU entry. (Now to be fair we didn’t use the DA much pre Brexit, but what scenario assessment did the Govt undertake before they decided to walk away from it? Clearly pretty scant one at best). Furthermore we can’t easily just push them back onto French beaches, albeit some would want that. And the reason we can’t is as much the people who man/woman our Navy and our Border Force simply won’t do it if they think it’ll result in risk of harm or actual some form of mid channel conflict.
So let’s engage with our reality which is a bit different. We need investment in rapid, humane processing and return deals. Let’s re-engage with European Crime and intelligence agencies to take down the traffickers. Let’s help our fellow Europeans at their borders if we want help at ours.
Many will have to go back to their homes. But we can do it efficiently and effectively whilst maintaining our best values. Not instantly as we’ve had our head in the sand, but with proper planning and investment we can.
…’So let’s engage with our reality’ … Yes! Let’s engage with the reality of the very many British citizens currently living lives of quiet desperation in cramped, overpriced and poorly heated housing (if they’re lucky) eating out of food banks, clothing themselves in charity shops and praying they don’t lose their (often) crap, poorly paid job! They may prefer the reality lived by 1000’s of boat arrivals, mostly young men, who will be well housed, well fed and kept warm, in a refurbished barracks in Lincolnshire. They will receive an allowance and the services of its own dedicated doctor ( don’t get me started) bus transport – well obviously they will need to consult the flock of (free) human rights solicitors to plead their case – (or be the means by which they disappear into the black economy -or worse!)
Classic displacement DT I’m afraid. The reason for the cost of living crisis and housing shortage in the UK have nothing to do with rubber dinghy arrivals. It shows you’ve drunk the ‘Kool-Aid’ of this deliberate strategy to weaponise these people to deflect from 13 years of Govt economic and societal failure.
I’d add you may see the news today where Govt figures likely to show a net migration increase of c1 million in the last year – the overwhelming majority through our airports and ports and not via rubber dinghies which is a v small part of this. The 1million is 4 times the annual rate pre-Brexit. What is going on you might ask? What’s going on is they are constantly mugging you off and you are buying into it.
You make a good point there. The 45,000 dinghy passengers are not even one twentieth of the net million immigrants who came last year.
The government may have few options in the Channel, but legal immigration is within their control.
An Indian graduate who comes on a one year Masters course can bring his dependants to this country. Why? Is it because he’s not going back?
Our government knows what it is doing, and it’s not ‘cutting migration to the tens of thousands’ which is what they promised.
Many lower ranking universities actively recruit international students, especially so since the liberalisation of the visa system. The numbers have swelled over the past couple of years and, for some student groups, there are more family members than there are students. Yes, many intend to stay in the UK longer term. I get many (many) emails about this from my international students and it’s evident from my conversations with them that it’s a primary (possibly, the primary) motivating factor for coming to the UK.
The question then is ‘why’ and why are they not being honest with you about that?
It may be they calculate the economic damage would cause greater problems, or perhaps it’d ‘queer the pitch’ for a trade deal with other Countries like India (and we are so desperate now post Brexit for those deals).
I don’t know but you need to ask, and avoid the distraction strategy associated with demonising a small number of boat arrivals.
Uptick for that. I’ve no idea why people are downvoting what seems a perfectly reasonable response.
Uptick for that. I’ve no idea why people are downvoting what seems a perfectly reasonable response.
Many lower ranking universities actively recruit international students, especially so since the liberalisation of the visa system. The numbers have swelled over the past couple of years and, for some student groups, there are more family members than there are students. Yes, many intend to stay in the UK longer term. I get many (many) emails about this from my international students and it’s evident from my conversations with them that it’s a primary (possibly, the primary) motivating factor for coming to the UK.
The question then is ‘why’ and why are they not being honest with you about that?
It may be they calculate the economic damage would cause greater problems, or perhaps it’d ‘queer the pitch’ for a trade deal with other Countries like India (and we are so desperate now post Brexit for those deals).
I don’t know but you need to ask, and avoid the distraction strategy associated with demonising a small number of boat arrivals.
Where do I state that these ‘asylum seekers’ are responsible for the state of our economy and the fact that many people struggle to afford the basics of a decent life? If we already face a serious problem in our ability to feed, clothe and shelter a significant % of this small, over-populated island, it’s a seriously misguided policy to have no policy and sit back and knit!
You make a good point there. The 45,000 dinghy passengers are not even one twentieth of the net million immigrants who came last year.
The government may have few options in the Channel, but legal immigration is within their control.
An Indian graduate who comes on a one year Masters course can bring his dependants to this country. Why? Is it because he’s not going back?
Our government knows what it is doing, and it’s not ‘cutting migration to the tens of thousands’ which is what they promised.
Where do I state that these ‘asylum seekers’ are responsible for the state of our economy and the fact that many people struggle to afford the basics of a decent life? If we already face a serious problem in our ability to feed, clothe and shelter a significant % of this small, over-populated island, it’s a seriously misguided policy to have no policy and sit back and knit!
Classic displacement DT I’m afraid. The reason for the cost of living crisis and housing shortage in the UK have nothing to do with rubber dinghy arrivals. It shows you’ve drunk the ‘Kool-Aid’ of this deliberate strategy to weaponise these people to deflect from 13 years of Govt economic and societal failure.
I’d add you may see the news today where Govt figures likely to show a net migration increase of c1 million in the last year – the overwhelming majority through our airports and ports and not via rubber dinghies which is a v small part of this. The 1million is 4 times the annual rate pre-Brexit. What is going on you might ask? What’s going on is they are constantly mugging you off and you are buying into it.
…’So let’s engage with our reality’ … Yes! Let’s engage with the reality of the very many British citizens currently living lives of quiet desperation in cramped, overpriced and poorly heated housing (if they’re lucky) eating out of food banks, clothing themselves in charity shops and praying they don’t lose their (often) crap, poorly paid job! They may prefer the reality lived by 1000’s of boat arrivals, mostly young men, who will be well housed, well fed and kept warm, in a refurbished barracks in Lincolnshire. They will receive an allowance and the services of its own dedicated doctor ( don’t get me started) bus transport – well obviously they will need to consult the flock of (free) human rights solicitors to plead their case – (or be the means by which they disappear into the black economy -or worse!)
The difference with the main Countries referenced in the Article from the UK are pretty obviously geographical. Greece and Lithuania have non European/EU borders and in some instances deliberate ‘weaponising’ use of asylum seekers/refugees by Turkey/Russia/Belarus.
Now of course some may contend ‘well that’s what the French are doing with us’. Not quite, and also we withdrew from the Dublin Agreement too when we could have sent them all back to France or another point of EU entry. (Now to be fair we didn’t use the DA much pre Brexit, but what scenario assessment did the Govt undertake before they decided to walk away from it? Clearly pretty scant one at best). Furthermore we can’t easily just push them back onto French beaches, albeit some would want that. And the reason we can’t is as much the people who man/woman our Navy and our Border Force simply won’t do it if they think it’ll result in risk of harm or actual some form of mid channel conflict.
So let’s engage with our reality which is a bit different. We need investment in rapid, humane processing and return deals. Let’s re-engage with European Crime and intelligence agencies to take down the traffickers. Let’s help our fellow Europeans at their borders if we want help at ours.
Many will have to go back to their homes. But we can do it efficiently and effectively whilst maintaining our best values. Not instantly as we’ve had our head in the sand, but with proper planning and investment we can.