UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
E63eeeeee... said:
Pretty much none of that is accurate. "The left" broadly wanted to stay in the EU, whereby it was straightforward and effective to send people back to the first European country they arrived in. As far as I know, nobody objects to sensible returns agreements. It was "the right" who f
ked this all up by taking us out of the EU *and* starving our own system of resources at the same time. By the end of the noughties it was working pretty well, and thence it gradually collapsed. The evidence of the last 25 years suggests that in the UK at least, "the left" is far more effective at managing immigration than "the right".
Brexit wasn't divided across political party grounds.ked this all up by taking us out of the EU *and* starving our own system of resources at the same time. By the end of the noughties it was working pretty well, and thence it gradually collapsed. The evidence of the last 25 years suggests that in the UK at least, "the left" is far more effective at managing immigration than "the right".And the Dublin Agreement works really well. Really.
I'm not sure why fast tracking deportations stopped/slowed/diminished. Maybe because those who would typically whine about it were the ones doing it. So it met little resistance
(It should honestly be looked at... But I suspect there's a "good" reason). None of which stops this current position from one EU member being deliciously ironic. Childish as that may seem to the eternally offended.
E63eeeeee... said:
You can pick yourself up off the floor. The EU doesn't have any say in Ireland's non-EEA migration policies. This is purely about us being dicks to our closest neighbours.
Like France? E63eeeeee... said:
Mr Penguin said:
Sending them back to the first EU country they arrived in also isn't sustainable because the countries on the Southern and Eastern edges of the EU will be overwhelmed.
Hence the newly agreed EU asylum scheme. Murph7355 said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Pretty much none of that is accurate. "The left" broadly wanted to stay in the EU, whereby it was straightforward and effective to send people back to the first European country they arrived in. As far as I know, nobody objects to sensible returns agreements. It was "the right" who fked this all up by taking us out of the EU *and* starving our own system of resources at the same time. By the end of the noughties it was working pretty well, and thence it gradually collapsed. The evidence of the last 25 years suggests that in the UK at least, "the left" is far more effective at managing immigration than "the right".
Brexit wasn't divided across political party grounds.ked this all up by taking us out of the EU *and* starving our own system of resources at the same time. By the end of the noughties it was working pretty well, and thence it gradually collapsed. The evidence of the last 25 years suggests that in the UK at least, "the left" is far more effective at managing immigration than "the right".And the Dublin Agreement works really well. Really.
I'm not sure why fast tracking deportations stopped/slowed/diminished. Maybe because those who would typically whine about it were the ones doing it. So it met little resistance
(It should honestly be looked at... But I suspect there's a "good" reason). None of which stops this current position from one EU member being deliciously ironic. Childish as that may seem to the eternally offended.
People on Internet forums are free to be infantile all they like, I have something of an issue when it's the f
king Prime Minister doing it. As for Brexit, regardless of who voted for it, and I'm fairly confident that for any sensible definition the left/remain and right/leave Venns were the larger sections, it was unquestionably brought to us and implemented by "the right".
Murph7355 said:
E63eeeeee... said:
You can pick yourself up off the floor. The EU doesn't have any say in Ireland's non-EEA migration policies. This is purely about us being dicks to our closest neighbours.
Like France? E63eeeeee... said:
Mr Penguin said:
Sending them back to the first EU country they arrived in also isn't sustainable because the countries on the Southern and Eastern edges of the EU will be overwhelmed.
Hence the newly agreed EU asylum scheme. I think we're a couple of years away from the EU scheme. What we should be doing is asking how we can help, or just joining it, given if it does work we'll benefit massively from it. Just acting like a grown-up country instead of pathetic point-scoring, basically.
E63eeeeee... said:
Dublin worked extremely well for the UK. We were removing more than a thousand people a year through it, but mainly it was a very effective deterrent as it undermined the smugglers business model. Nobody is going to pay to get to the UK only to be processed quickly and returned to mainland Europe within weeks. People pay because their most likely outcome is to sit for months or years waiting for a decision. There were virtually no small boats when we were in Dublin.
I think you are maybe confusing correlation with causation there. Once small boat migration started it rapidly grew as it became a viable route for people smuggling. We actually took more people under the Dublin agreement than we managed to remove and the numbers removed were never anywhere close to a thousand as far as I am aware.
The fundamental issue is that there is no obligation to take back the migrants in question and only a small percentage of transfer requests are granted.
https://iep.unibocconi.eu/publications/problem-dub...
So the Dublin agreement granted a theoretical right that in practice would not be able to be actioned the vast majority of the time.
PRTVR said:
With Ireland the traffic has been in the reverse in the past, I was chatting to a Turkish guy in a pizza place, he said getting citizenship in Ireland was easy and then he could legally come to the UK.
Is it bks. It's easier to get us citizenship than Irish.Your Turkish friend obviously never dealt with INIS.
M.
JagLover said:
E63eeeeee... said:
Dublin worked extremely well for the UK. We were removing more than a thousand people a year through it, but mainly it was a very effective deterrent as it undermined the smugglers business model. Nobody is going to pay to get to the UK only to be processed quickly and returned to mainland Europe within weeks. People pay because their most likely outcome is to sit for months or years waiting for a decision. There were virtually no small boats when we were in Dublin.
I think you are maybe confusing correlation with causation there. Once small boat migration started it rapidly grew as it became a viable route for people smuggling. We actually took more people under the Dublin agreement than we managed to remove and the numbers removed were never anywhere close to a thousand as far as I am aware.
The fundamental issue is that there is no obligation to take back the migrants in question and only a small percentage of transfer requests are granted.
https://iep.unibocconi.eu/publications/problem-dub...
So the Dublin agreement granted a theoretical right that in practice would not be able to be actioned the vast majority of the time.
Five minutes online will show you that you're wrong about this. We were only taking more than we sent towards the end, and that's still a sign of it working - mostly we were taking people with a link to the UK rather than people who'd come here and then gone somewhere else - did you even know that was part of Dublin? The main purpose of Dublin was not to reduce asylum seeker numbers in the UK, although that's exactly what it did, it was to stop people being processed over and over again, and asylum shopping, wasting resources and slowing down removals.
Here's a chart for one of the things you couldn't be bothered to check but thought you'd claim as if it was a fact anyway.
Generally, if you're going to say "as far as I'm aware", the subtext is that you most likely would be aware if the thing you’re claiming was in fact different from what you're saying. Using it when you obviously know nothing about the subject, on an incorrect statement that you could easily have checked, doesn't really make sense.
Press and media articles and reports seem to be painting a picture of an infantile and hissy Irish government approach.
I hope that's media slant and not the reality of the situation.
The UK government has decided to try to limit illegal immigration. They have decided to try a deterrent.
The deterrent is that if the immigrant does not meet accepted criteria they will be shipped off to Rwanda.
They have spent time agreeing this so that it's not an empty threat, that it can and will be applied. It's also not intended as a punishment.
Now some immigrants who chose not to follow official and regulated means of immigration may have taken note of this risk and have continued on to Ireland. Perhaps they're trying this as another way back into the UK. Who knows!
Ireland have also decided they want to limit immigration. Who would have thought?! Such a 'nasty' thing to try to control immigration. We've been hearing the Brits are the only nasty ones for doing this! Some on here suggest the British are acting like 'fks' (swearword substituted as the original isn't properly filtered) for not wanting to take immigrants back (if they've even transited the UK that is) but those same people make no such comment when the French won't take them back from the British and they certainly don't level the same insult at the Irish for not being all nice and keeping them. Wonder why that is? Is it bigotry?
Some of their politicians seem to want to portray the British policy as the cause for their immigration problems, suggesting the influx is across the open border to the North. With known reports of the other way that immigrants get into Ireland, by air and not transiting via the UK, do we believe the Irish actually have the data and evidence to support their assertion?
Surely the adult approach for the Irish would be to acknowledge that if they have an immigrant influx through the NI border (if that's true), that these immigrants have likely passed through the EU and particularly France to get to the UK. The Irish still have a close connection to the French because of the EU. Surely the Irish would do best seeing sense that the Irish , French and British could work together to try to limit the number of illegal immigrants making the leap from the continent in the first place?
Instead thy seem to be pointing the finger at the British, which sounds like very bad faith, as if immigrants just originate in the UK.
I see mention on here of this being a part of a push for Irish reunification. That would also be an act of bad faith.
That kind of thing needs to be done in a benign and open way, not through disingenuous mischief.
I hope that's media slant and not the reality of the situation.
The UK government has decided to try to limit illegal immigration. They have decided to try a deterrent.
The deterrent is that if the immigrant does not meet accepted criteria they will be shipped off to Rwanda.
They have spent time agreeing this so that it's not an empty threat, that it can and will be applied. It's also not intended as a punishment.
Now some immigrants who chose not to follow official and regulated means of immigration may have taken note of this risk and have continued on to Ireland. Perhaps they're trying this as another way back into the UK. Who knows!
Ireland have also decided they want to limit immigration. Who would have thought?! Such a 'nasty' thing to try to control immigration. We've been hearing the Brits are the only nasty ones for doing this! Some on here suggest the British are acting like 'f
ks' (swearword substituted as the original isn't properly filtered) for not wanting to take immigrants back (if they've even transited the UK that is) but those same people make no such comment when the French won't take them back from the British and they certainly don't level the same insult at the Irish for not being all nice and keeping them. Wonder why that is? Is it bigotry?Some of their politicians seem to want to portray the British policy as the cause for their immigration problems, suggesting the influx is across the open border to the North. With known reports of the other way that immigrants get into Ireland, by air and not transiting via the UK, do we believe the Irish actually have the data and evidence to support their assertion?
Surely the adult approach for the Irish would be to acknowledge that if they have an immigrant influx through the NI border (if that's true), that these immigrants have likely passed through the EU and particularly France to get to the UK. The Irish still have a close connection to the French because of the EU. Surely the Irish would do best seeing sense that the Irish , French and British could work together to try to limit the number of illegal immigrants making the leap from the continent in the first place?
Instead thy seem to be pointing the finger at the British, which sounds like very bad faith, as if immigrants just originate in the UK.
I see mention on here of this being a part of a push for Irish reunification. That would also be an act of bad faith.
That kind of thing needs to be done in a benign and open way, not through disingenuous mischief.
Jeanboi said:
Surely the adult approach for the Irish would be to acknowledge that if they have an immigrant influx through the NI border (if that's true), that these immigrants have likely passed through the EU and particularly France to get to the UK. The Irish still have a close connection to the French because of the EU. Surely the Irish would do best seeing sense that the Irish , French and British could work together to try to limit the number of illegal immigrants making the leap from the continent in the first place?
Instead thy seem to be pointing the finger at the British, which sounds like very bad faith, as if immigrants just originate in the UK.
So Ireland should just overlook the uk facilitating people trafficking, and it'd be awful nice if the Irish and French just took care of it?Instead thy seem to be pointing the finger at the British, which sounds like very bad faith, as if immigrants just originate in the UK.
Chinny reckon
M.
Mortarboard said:
Might be seen as a tad xenophobic by some folk.....
M.
Controlling immigration could be seen as 'a tad xenophobic by some folk'? Of course some folk will see it that way. Obviously!M.
But those folk seem to be picking and choosing which nations get accused of that and which ones don't when they're trying to limit or control immigration.
I take it you're suggesting the Irish government is being a 'tad xenophobic' by seeking to offload some immigrants too?
And the French?
The Americans?
Who gets to control immigration into their country and still gets a free pass to not be labelled as xenophobic, in your book?
Or are you not 'some folk'?
Mortarboard said:
Jeanboi said:
Surely the adult approach for the Irish would be to acknowledge that if they have an immigrant influx through the NI border (if that's true), that these immigrants have likely passed through the EU and particularly France to get to the UK. The Irish still have a close connection to the French because of the EU. Surely the Irish would do best seeing sense that the Irish , French and British could work together to try to limit the number of illegal immigrants making the leap from the continent in the first place?
Instead thy seem to be pointing the finger at the British, which sounds like very bad faith, as if immigrants just originate in the UK.
So Ireland should just overlook the uk facilitating people trafficking, and it'd be awful nice if the Irish and French just took care of it?Instead thy seem to be pointing the finger at the British, which sounds like very bad faith, as if immigrants just originate in the UK.
Chinny reckon
M.
Mortarboard said:
So Ireland should just overlook the uk facilitating people trafficking, and it'd be awful nice if the Irish and French just took care of it?
Chinny reckon
M.
The UK are wrong for not accepting people from France and wanting to send them back and wrong for not accepting people who have travelled through the Uk back from Ireland. France and Ireland are both behaving perfectly normally and correctly. Chinny reckon
M.
How anybody can make these statements with a straight face is beyond me. Critical thinking at its best.
Vanden Saab said:
Mortarboard said:
So Ireland should just overlook the uk facilitating people trafficking, and it'd be awful nice if the Irish and French just took care of it?
Chinny reckon
M.
The UK are wrong for not accepting people from France and wanting to send them back and wrong for not accepting people who have travelled through the Uk back from Ireland. France and Ireland are both behaving perfectly normally and correctly. Chinny reckon
M.
How anybody can make these statements with a straight face is beyond me. Critical thinking at its best.
Sovereign nation, innit?
M.
Jeanboi said:
Controlling immigration could be seen as 'a tad xenophobic by some folk'? Of course some folk will see it that way. Obviously!
But those folk seem to be picking and choosing which nations get accused of that and which ones don't when they're trying to limit or control immigration.
I take it you're suggesting the Irish government is being a 'tad xenophobic' by seeking to offload some immigrants too?
And the French?
The Americans?
Who gets to control immigration into their country and still gets a free pass to not be labelled as xenophobic, in your book?
Or are you not 'some folk'?
By sending them, as successful applicants, to a country a long, long way away.But those folk seem to be picking and choosing which nations get accused of that and which ones don't when they're trying to limit or control immigration.
I take it you're suggesting the Irish government is being a 'tad xenophobic' by seeking to offload some immigrants too?
And the French?
The Americans?
Who gets to control immigration into their country and still gets a free pass to not be labelled as xenophobic, in your book?
Or are you not 'some folk'?
Funny how you don't see it.
M.
Mortarboard said:
Jeanboi said:
Controlling immigration could be seen as 'a tad xenophobic by some folk'? Of course some folk will see it that way. Obviously!
But those folk seem to be picking and choosing which nations get accused of that and which ones don't when they're trying to limit or control immigration.
I take it you're suggesting the Irish government is being a 'tad xenophobic' by seeking to offload some immigrants too?
And the French?
The Americans?
Who gets to control immigration into their country and still gets a free pass to not be labelled as xenophobic, in your book?
Or are you not 'some folk'?
By sending them, as successful applicants, to a country a long, long way away.But those folk seem to be picking and choosing which nations get accused of that and which ones don't when they're trying to limit or control immigration.
I take it you're suggesting the Irish government is being a 'tad xenophobic' by seeking to offload some immigrants too?
And the French?
The Americans?
Who gets to control immigration into their country and still gets a free pass to not be labelled as xenophobic, in your book?
Or are you not 'some folk'?
Funny how you don't see it.
M.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff