UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda

[Earthdweller]

E63eeeeee... said:

Vanden Saab said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Murph7355 said:

Just to add, if the Dublin Agreement is working swimmingly and the EU is the answer... Why:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

And

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/w...

Mayne the deal that should be done is bulk discount with Rwanda

Dublin isn't working swimmingly, that's why it's being replaced. It worked well for the UK, you could almost imagine we were a big part of designing it, but it was always tougher on the countries where migrants arrived first.

Did you mean to post the same link twice? Nobody is claiming the EU are angels on migration, but one party suggesting something that could be implemented in some way maybe is somewhat different from an actual government threatening to break international law and legislating that black is white to get an absurdly expensive scheme off the ground, despite there being no evidence it will work even on its own terms.

Given it's generally less hassle and more effective just to get your asylum system working properly than faff around offshoring bits of it, this reads more like pandering, but the EU isn't immune to that by any means, nor does the UK have a monopoly on st ideas.

No wonder you think the EU is great if you think sending back less than 5% of failed asylum seekers is working well.

Sorry, you'll have to clarify what you're referring to, I've no idea. Also not sure where you get the idea I think the EU is great from, despite what's in the post you just quoted, maybe the same place you get your knowledge about immigration.

The Dublin agreement didn’t work well for the U.K. .. the U.K. received six times more than it expelled

[E63eeeeee...]

Earthdweller said:

The Dublin agreement didn’t work well for the U.K. .. the U.K. received six times more than it expelled

1. Neither true nor particularly relevant
2.

[Earthdweller]

E63eeeeee... said:

1. Neither true nor particularly relevant
2.

Your graph shows nothing

[E63eeeeee...]

Earthdweller said:

E63eeeeee... said:

1. Neither true nor particularly relevant
2.

Your graph shows nothing

Maybe try on a laptop or something.

[Earthdweller]

E63eeeeee... said:

Earthdweller said:

E63eeeeee... said:

1. Neither true nor particularly relevant
2.

Your graph shows nothing

Maybe try on a laptop or something.

I can see the graph but it’s meaningless and shows nothing in relation to the determination of which country should deal with an asylum claim under the Dublin agreement and the speedy return to that country of the claimant

More were transferrred in to the U.K. than transferred out

[272BHP]

Asylum seeker sent to Rwanda

https://news.sky.com/story/first-failed-asylum-see...

/thread

Clever bloke. Will earn a fortune selling his story to the various media channels and that is on top of the £3k he bagged from the government.

[Murph7355]

E63eeeeee... said:

Dublin isn't working swimmingly, that's why it's being replaced. It worked well for the UK, you could almost imagine we were a big part of designing it, but it was always tougher on the countries where migrants arrived first.

Did you mean to post the same link twice? Nobody is claiming the EU are angels on migration, but one party suggesting something that could be implemented in some way maybe is somewhat different from an actual government threatening to break international law and legislating that black is white to get an absurdly expensive scheme off the ground, despite there being no evidence it will work even on its own terms.

Given it's generally less hassle and more effective just to get your asylum system working properly than faff around offshoring bits of it, this reads more like pandering, but the EU isn't immune to that by any means, nor does the UK have a monopoly on st ideas.

No. Good spot. The second was meant to be this (which is especially relevant given your post here ):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/eu-g...

The Dublin Agreement didn't work well for *anyone*. And this new EU scheme won't either.

Getting asylum systems working properly is not straightforward because of the knots we tie ourselves in (one big fat hairy one being you super-speedily process the application and it fails. The individual is persona non grata. Ah but they're from somewhere that we aren't allowed to return people to. Then what?). The EU suffers the exact same issues, and this new scheme will too, because it has tied itself in the exact same knots (I wonder why that is).

The only way to really address the fundamental issues will be to "break international law" (I'm not sure they're "laws", are they). Maybe it needs breaking so it can be rebuilt to be fit for purpose? YMMV.

[E63eeeeee...]

Murph7355 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Dublin isn't working swimmingly, that's why it's being replaced. It worked well for the UK, you could almost imagine we were a big part of designing it, but it was always tougher on the countries where migrants arrived first.

Did you mean to post the same link twice? Nobody is claiming the EU are angels on migration, but one party suggesting something that could be implemented in some way maybe is somewhat different from an actual government threatening to break international law and legislating that black is white to get an absurdly expensive scheme off the ground, despite there being no evidence it will work even on its own terms.

Given it's generally less hassle and more effective just to get your asylum system working properly than faff around offshoring bits of it, this reads more like pandering, but the EU isn't immune to that by any means, nor does the UK have a monopoly on st ideas.

No. Good spot. The second was meant to be this (which is especially relevant given your post here ):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/eu-g...

The Dublin Agreement didn't work well for *anyone*. And this new EU scheme won't either.

Getting asylum systems working properly is not straightforward because of the knots we tie ourselves in (one big fat hairy one being you super-speedily process the application and it fails. The individual is persona non grata. Ah but they're from somewhere that we aren't allowed to return people to. Then what?). The EU suffers the exact same issues, and this new scheme will too, because it has tied itself in the exact same knots (I wonder why that is).

The only way to really address the fundamental issues will be to "break international law" (I'm not sure they're "laws", are they). Maybe it needs breaking so it can be rebuilt to be fit for purpose? YMMV.

If it's not safe to return people, you let them stay. It's really not that complicated. That's the fundamental purpose of asylum in the broad sense (as opposed to political asylum, which has more specific criteria).

[Mr Penguin]

Or you send them somewhere else

[Mojooo]

Wonder what Arsenal FC think about all this (they are sponsored by Rwanda)

[Murph7355]

E63eeeeee... said:

If it's not safe to return people, you let them stay. It's really not that complicated. That's the fundamental purpose of asylum in the broad sense (as opposed to political asylum, which has more specific criteria).

And you don't see any possible flaw with that plan?

I guess it comes down to whether you think immigration control is a good idea or not.

[E63eeeeee...]

Earthdweller said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Earthdweller said:

E63eeeeee... said:

1. Neither true nor particularly relevant
2.

Your graph shows nothing

Maybe try on a laptop or something.

I can see the graph but it’s meaningless and shows nothing in relation to the determination of which country should deal with an asylum claim under the Dublin agreement and the speedy return to that country of the claimant

More were transferrred in to the U.K. than transferred out

Or looked at another way, it show that the trough in UK asylum intake from 2003 to 2020 coincided with the period between the launch of Dublin 2 and the UK leaving the agreement. Now this might have been a complete and remarkable coincidence (spoiler: it wasn't) or it might be the case that a system for sending people straight back to mainland Europe deterred them from giving smugglers thousands of pounds to get them to the UK.

If you're still struggling, it's the second one.

You keep saying more people were transferred to the UK than to other places. I don't think that's true overall, although it was after Brexit for some reason. Where are you getting your data from?

[E63eeeeee...]

Murph7355 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

If it's not safe to return people, you let them stay. It's really not that complicated. That's the fundamental purpose of asylum in the broad sense (as opposed to political asylum, which has more specific criteria).

And you don't see any possible flaw with that plan?

I guess it comes down to whether you think immigration control is a good idea or not.

Well, we've been doing it for decades and the world doesn't seem to have ended. Indeed, plenty of people don't even seem to be aware it happens. It's part of immigration control, because instead of wasting time pretending you can return people who you can't (we've also tried that, it's not very effective and quite expensive in a number of ways to leave people in limbo for extended periods) you can use that capacity to do something more worthwhile.
It's not generally a particularly big cohort.

Fantasy-based immigration control doesn't work any better than fantasy-based anything else.

[Murph7355]

E63eeeeee... said:

...

Fantasy-based immigration control doesn't work any better than fantasy-based anything else.

Indeed - including fantasy based open door policies in a world where people traffickers are king and everyone knows that Western govts tie themselves in knots.

Rolling over and shrugging shoulders in today's world is not an option. Even the dear EU is realising this.

[Ridgemont]

E63eeeeee... said:

If you're still struggling, it's the second one.

Hmm.
Are you by any chance a returned poster who has previously been banned? Your posting style is remarkably familiar.

Either way junking the unnecessarily rude snark might help you play nice.

Anyhoo. your argument that leaving Dublin had an atrophying effect on illegal immigration mitigation might be fine if the actual comparative inflow of other countries *which did not leave Dublin* did not show minuscule actual numbers as of say even 2 years ago.

You might want to take a look at the numbers.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...

For example Germany request that 68000 individuals be relocated to the ‘transfer’ country. It transferred in the end just over 4000.

Well I guess that is 4000 more than we did, but strikingly in no way does Dublin appear to have mitigated anything. Apart from futile requests from destination countries to the likes of Italy and Austria to take back people who have ended up in say Germany or France.


Meanwhile - asylum applications for for example Germany. Historical.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107881/asylum...

Edited by Ridgemont on Wednesday 1st May 00:20

[E63eeeeee...]

Murph7355 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

...

Fantasy-based immigration control doesn't work any better than fantasy-based anything else.

Indeed - including fantasy based open door policies in a world where people traffickers are king and everyone knows that Western govts tie themselves in knots.

Rolling over and shrugging shoulders in today's world is not an option. Even the dear EU is realising this.

Where do you find these people suggesting open door policies? I've never seen one on here. There might be a few people in the Green Party who will publicly say "it would be nice if people could live wherever they like" but I really don't see anyone seriously suggesting we just end immigration control, and of course it would be absurd to do it unilaterally. If you do see some, invite them to this thread and we can explain why that might be problematic.

[E63eeeeee...]

Ridgemont said:

E63eeeeee... said:

If you're still struggling, it's the second one.

Hmm.
Are you by any chance a returned poster who has previously been banned? Your posting style is remarkably familiar.

Either way junking the unnecessarily rude snark might help you play nice.

Anyhoo. your argument that leaving Dublin had an atrophying effect on illegal immigration mitigation might be fine if the actual comparative inflow of other countries *which did not leave Dublin* did not show minuscule actual numbers as of say even 2 years ago.

You might want to take a look at the numbers.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained...

For example Germany request that 68000 individuals be relocated to the ‘transfer’ country. [b] It transferred in the end just over 4000.

Well I guess that is 4000 more than we did [/b], but strikingly in no way does Dublin appear to have mitigated anything. Apart from futile requests from destination countries to the likes of Italy and Austria to take back people who have ended up in say Germany or France.

I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the effect on the UK. Hence the use of a chart showing the UK's asylum intake before, during and after.

Are you seriously suggesting in the section in bold that we exported zero people? Maybe you should take your own advice and look at some numbers.

This is a weird argument. I'm not suggesting Dublin was perfect and I've already said several times that it's obvious why it gradually failed, but it really couldn't be any more obvious that it was good for the UK for most of the time we were in it. Net inflows are far less relevant than its impact on intake.

Do you also think it was a coincidence that Albanian asylum intake fell off rapidly once we had a returns agreement in place with them? We already know that rapid processing and effective returns are the boringly effective way to bring down asylum intake and undermine smuggling.

[Ridgemont]

E63eeeeee... said:

This is a weird argument. I'm not suggesting Dublin was perfect and I've already said several times that it's obvious why it gradually failed, but it really couldn't be any more obvious that it was good for the UK for most of the time we were in it. Net inflows are far less relevant than its impact on intake.

Do you also think it was a coincidence that Albanian asylum intake fell off rapidly once we had a returns agreement in place with them? We already know that rapid processing and effective returns are the boringly effective way to bring down asylum intake and undermine smuggling.

Taking the first point, no it could be more obvious because you have taken a graph showing a rapidly declining asylum rate before the advent of Dublin and then paintshopped a wonky line showing the ‘Dublin’ affect.

And then pegged the uptick on Brexit. Which does not seem to correlate with for example Germany’s experience. But then you say ignore everyone else and pay attention to my infographic as done by Sesame Street.

Colour me unimpressed.

On the second: well yes. And that is unsurprisingly how this is all going to play out: specific agreements to address local circumstances because an ‘EU wide resolution system’ means the square root of nothing. In the UK & Albania’s case they had to set up a dedicated ‘migration taskforce’ including specific checks on transits to the UK of Albanian citizens https://www.gov.uk/government/news/milestone-reach...

Or in the example of Germany from my earlier post 4000 returns out of 360000 applicants. A trend line increasing despite Dublin. Dublin is meaningless.

[ChocolateFrog]

So now they've tempted one asylum seeker with £3k and a free flight Sunak can put a big green tick next to one of his five pledges.

Maybe he can call an election now.

[ChocolateFrog]

272BHP said:

Asylum seeker sent to Rwanda

https://news.sky.com/story/first-failed-asylum-see...

/thread

Clever bloke. Will earn a fortune selling his story to the various media channels and that is on top of the £3k he bagged from the government.

If he can get back to the UK for under 3k it could be quite lucrative.

I'm sure he'll remember where he left his passport now.