The Rwanda asylum plan (UK)
June 14, 2022 4:33 PM Subscribe
The Rwanda asylum plan is a controversial new immigration policy introduced by the British (conservative) government. Asylum seekers will be relocated to Rwanda for processing/asylum/resettlement and will not be allowed to return to the United Kingdom to seek asylum.
Today the first UK deportation flight to Rwanda was cancelled after an intervention by the European court.
The cancelled flight to Rwanda cost an estimated £500,000 for 7 passengers.
The cancelled flight to Rwanda cost an estimated £500,000 for 7 passengers.
The whole atmosphere around refugees, immigration, economic migrants and so-called 'Benefits Britain' is a toxic miasma, a racist mindset that has been spread deliberately. Just yesterday, an acquaintance whom I'd always assumed would be quite liberal, tried to start up a conversation about how Rwanda's a popular destination, and why there was nothing wrong with sending economic migrants (his words) there to have their claims processed (a common misconception). I held my tongue, but since keep reflecting on how utterly sad it is that this perception of the situation is now very much the standard narrative.
posted by pipeski at 5:07 PM on June 14, 2022 [27 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 5:07 PM on June 14, 2022 [27 favorites]
Just so I understand. The plan is that Britain is ending asylum all together and just depositing any and all seekers in Rwanda?
posted by treepour at 5:23 PM on June 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by treepour at 5:23 PM on June 14, 2022 [5 favorites]
For clarity, and because I’m sure most of the British media will be trying to confuse things, the European court mentioned is the European Court of Human Rights which is a court of the Council of Europe and is not an EU court.
posted by scorbet at 5:31 PM on June 14, 2022 [17 favorites]
posted by scorbet at 5:31 PM on June 14, 2022 [17 favorites]
'Controversial' because it is xenophobic. No need to mince words.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 5:39 PM on June 14, 2022 [19 favorites]
posted by Ahmad Khani at 5:39 PM on June 14, 2022 [19 favorites]
Wow, this is pretty fucking racist, cruel, and evil.
posted by Saxon Kane at 5:40 PM on June 14, 2022 [29 favorites]
posted by Saxon Kane at 5:40 PM on June 14, 2022 [29 favorites]
Open letter from Human Rights Watch:
As a matter of principle, such expulsions and denial of access to asylum on its own territory is a clear abrogation of the UK’s international responsibilities and obligations to asylum seekers and refugees....posted by Gerald Bostock at 5:42 PM on June 14, 2022 [10 favorites]
Rwanda cannot be considered a safe third country to send asylum seekers to, with Human Rights Watch and other actors, including the United States Government, having routinely reported on the serious human rights violations in Rwanda. The UK government is aware of this, having denounced Rwanda’s human rights record just last year.... To this day, serious human rights abuses continue to occur in Rwanda, including repression of free speech, arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, and torture by Rwandan authorities.
Leaving everything else aside, the long Australian experience with this idea is immensely expensive and would not pass any value for public money test.
This is how it always shakes out. On top of everything else, these obscenities are always so expensive.
This is probably the most underrated thing about progressive immigration laws, and all sorts of other places where we value human dignity and show general human decency through our policies and our institutions. On top of everything else, compared to the alternative, it’s cheap.
posted by mhoye at 5:59 PM on June 14, 2022 [15 favorites]
This is how it always shakes out. On top of everything else, these obscenities are always so expensive.
This is probably the most underrated thing about progressive immigration laws, and all sorts of other places where we value human dignity and show general human decency through our policies and our institutions. On top of everything else, compared to the alternative, it’s cheap.
posted by mhoye at 5:59 PM on June 14, 2022 [15 favorites]
> Wow, this is pretty fucking racist, cruel, and evil.
Tories are fucking racist, cruel, and evil.
Always. No exceptions.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 6:00 PM on June 14, 2022 [21 favorites]
Tories are fucking racist, cruel, and evil.
Always. No exceptions.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 6:00 PM on June 14, 2022 [21 favorites]
It’s telling of these times that they use the word “controversial” instead of straight up heinous.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:22 PM on June 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:22 PM on June 14, 2022 [4 favorites]
Can someone clarify- *all* asylum seekers are sent to Rwanda? Or only those seeking asylum *from* Rwanda?
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 8:02 PM on June 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 8:02 PM on June 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
Yes, my understanding is that this is all asylum seekers, from the Mideast, Asia or anywhere else. Heinous seems like the correct word
posted by CostcoCultist at 8:06 PM on June 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by CostcoCultist at 8:06 PM on June 14, 2022 [7 favorites]
BuddhaInABucket - it applies to any asylum seekers. Among the 7 people meant to be on the flight was an asylum seeker from Iraq who crossed the Channel in a boat. Guardian source
I'm not sure how it would legally be possible to remove asylum seekers already on British soil, but I guess the European court of human rights seems to think so too. Wasn't the whole point of Brexit meant to allow Britain to control immigration laws themselves? Seems to have failed in this case...
The Australian policy differs in that the boats are intercepted before they ever "land" on Australian soil, they simply get whisked away to a different country before reaching Australia*, so it's more difficult to mount a legal challenge against it.
The Australian government tries to justify the policy saying they are primarily targeting scammers and people smugglers who are exploiting poor people's desire to reach Australia, rather than admitting they are directly harming asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution.
*by cleverly redrawing and redefining the islands and waters between Australia and Indonesia as the Australian Migration Zone which somehow makes it "Not Really Australia"... would be an interesting challenge if Indonesia tries to claim those islands instead.
posted by xdvesper at 8:17 PM on June 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure how it would legally be possible to remove asylum seekers already on British soil, but I guess the European court of human rights seems to think so too. Wasn't the whole point of Brexit meant to allow Britain to control immigration laws themselves? Seems to have failed in this case...
The Australian policy differs in that the boats are intercepted before they ever "land" on Australian soil, they simply get whisked away to a different country before reaching Australia*, so it's more difficult to mount a legal challenge against it.
The Australian government tries to justify the policy saying they are primarily targeting scammers and people smugglers who are exploiting poor people's desire to reach Australia, rather than admitting they are directly harming asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution.
*by cleverly redrawing and redefining the islands and waters between Australia and Indonesia as the Australian Migration Zone which somehow makes it "Not Really Australia"... would be an interesting challenge if Indonesia tries to claim those islands instead.
posted by xdvesper at 8:17 PM on June 14, 2022 [3 favorites]
As to why the UK are trying to copy Australia - here are asylum seeker boat arrivals (persons) to Australia by year, before and after the "Pacific Solution" was implemented - this is the boat interception and offshore detention solution.
1995 - 237
1996 - 660
1997 - 339
1998 - 200
1999 - 3721
2000 - 2939
2001 - 5516 <--- Pacific Solution implemented by right wing government (Howard)
2002 - 1
2003 - 53
2004 - 15
2005 - 11
2006 - 60
2007 - 148
2008 - 161 <--- Pacific Solution dismantled by left wing government (Rudd)
2009 - 2726
2010 - 6555
2011 - 4565
2012 - 17202
posted by xdvesper at 9:18 PM on June 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
1995 - 237
1996 - 660
1997 - 339
1998 - 200
1999 - 3721
2000 - 2939
2001 - 5516 <--- Pacific Solution implemented by right wing government (Howard)
2002 - 1
2003 - 53
2004 - 15
2005 - 11
2006 - 60
2007 - 148
2008 - 161 <--- Pacific Solution dismantled by left wing government (Rudd)
2009 - 2726
2010 - 6555
2011 - 4565
2012 - 17202
posted by xdvesper at 9:18 PM on June 14, 2022 [6 favorites]
Tories were well aware this scheme is illegal and would get shut down by the courts, but it's yet another grim opportunity to fire up another front on the culture war. A Tory MP was yesterday tweeting the racist trope that GP waiting times and school place shortages are the fault of refugees; ignoring that these failings are after a decade of underinvestment by his party.
posted by el_presidente at 11:12 PM on June 14, 2022 [19 favorites]
posted by el_presidente at 11:12 PM on June 14, 2022 [19 favorites]
I know I shouldn't be, but I'm always surprised by the doublespeak involved in Conservative explanations of this policy where Rwanda is presented as this wonderful place which any refugee should be happy to end up in, but also (implicitly) as this terrible place so bad that the threat of going there will deter any refugee from seeking asylum here.
I'm also discouraged about how reporting on this constantly shows pictures of the same hostel in Rwanda with room for 100 refugees at most. Given the numbers the Conservatives would like to send, it would be more honest to show places like the Mahama Refugee Camp, since it is places like those, in much more spartan accommodation, that people are going to wind up.
That camp is by some accounts a success story, but those accounts attribute that success partly to the linguistic and cultural similarities between the people living there and their Rwandan hosts. There is no acknowledgement by the UK government that the experience of a Burundian refugee who already pretty much speaks the language and understands the culture and a Iraqi Kurdish refugee might be completely different.
To them a refugee is a refugee is a refugee. All are equally undesirable (unless they are white Ukranians who can burnish the PM's foreign policy credentials), all are similarly devoid of rights (that they will acknowledge), and so all can be placed anywhere that will take them regardless of their individual histories, hopes, or desires.
posted by nangua at 11:34 PM on June 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
I'm also discouraged about how reporting on this constantly shows pictures of the same hostel in Rwanda with room for 100 refugees at most. Given the numbers the Conservatives would like to send, it would be more honest to show places like the Mahama Refugee Camp, since it is places like those, in much more spartan accommodation, that people are going to wind up.
That camp is by some accounts a success story, but those accounts attribute that success partly to the linguistic and cultural similarities between the people living there and their Rwandan hosts. There is no acknowledgement by the UK government that the experience of a Burundian refugee who already pretty much speaks the language and understands the culture and a Iraqi Kurdish refugee might be completely different.
To them a refugee is a refugee is a refugee. All are equally undesirable (unless they are white Ukranians who can burnish the PM's foreign policy credentials), all are similarly devoid of rights (that they will acknowledge), and so all can be placed anywhere that will take them regardless of their individual histories, hopes, or desires.
posted by nangua at 11:34 PM on June 14, 2022 [12 favorites]
Last minute intervention by the ECHR against the Rwandan flight, not sure if that is enough to permanently stop this plan.
My observation on a lot of Tory policy for the past ten years is that they don’t care if it works. They’re saying it for the headline, which will be repeated by pub bores for years to come.
posted by The River Ivel at 12:00 AM on June 15, 2022 [9 favorites]
My observation on a lot of Tory policy for the past ten years is that they don’t care if it works. They’re saying it for the headline, which will be repeated by pub bores for years to come.
posted by The River Ivel at 12:00 AM on June 15, 2022 [9 favorites]
The aim of the policy is to act as a deterrent measure. Crossing the channel in a small boat is substantially easier than getting to Australia by boat, which means that many people try it but it is still dangerous. In addition the French government does not always cooperate in ways the British government would like. Reports suggest around 28,000 people arrived this way last year.
As well as sending people who have not been processed in the UK to effectively claim asylum in Rwanda, the British government has also committed to receiving some of the most vulnerable of Rwanda's refugees and resettle them in the UK. There is no particular limit to the number of refugees that may come to the UK in this way, although I have seen people reporting that there are over 60 are in the first group.
There's definitely more support for Ukrainian refugees among the public than other refugees, however the government is still in practice massively limiting the number of Ukrainians who arrive in the UK. This is in contrast to other European nations, who have acted as nearby countries typically do when faced with a crisis on their borders and taken large numbers in. Some of them also tend to accept more refugees overall.
posted by plonkee at 1:33 AM on June 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
As well as sending people who have not been processed in the UK to effectively claim asylum in Rwanda, the British government has also committed to receiving some of the most vulnerable of Rwanda's refugees and resettle them in the UK. There is no particular limit to the number of refugees that may come to the UK in this way, although I have seen people reporting that there are over 60 are in the first group.
There's definitely more support for Ukrainian refugees among the public than other refugees, however the government is still in practice massively limiting the number of Ukrainians who arrive in the UK. This is in contrast to other European nations, who have acted as nearby countries typically do when faced with a crisis on their borders and taken large numbers in. Some of them also tend to accept more refugees overall.
posted by plonkee at 1:33 AM on June 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
For clarity, and because I’m sure most of the British media will be trying to confuse things, the European court mentioned is the European Court of Human Rights which is a court of the Council of Europe and is not an EU court.
Fortunately, the Council of Europe even has a page titled "Do not get confused" laying out some of the things it is and is not.
economic migrants (his words)
If I understand correctly, those are the ones who manage to both take all "our" jobs and simultaneously leech off the welfare system
posted by trig at 2:00 AM on June 15, 2022 [9 favorites]
Fortunately, the Council of Europe even has a page titled "Do not get confused" laying out some of the things it is and is not.
economic migrants (his words)
If I understand correctly, those are the ones who manage to both take all "our" jobs and simultaneously leech off the welfare system
posted by trig at 2:00 AM on June 15, 2022 [9 favorites]
The aim of the policy is to act as a deterrent measure.
This gives too much credit to the Tory party. They are attempting this policy because it won votes in Australia - the same way they tried to introduce a points system for immigrants, also based on the Australian system. This is probably because they are being advised by Lynton Crosby, an Australian political figure who helped various right-wing governments get into power.
The current Tory party does not care about the international effects of their policies - that is why they are being sued by the EU over Northern Ireland. The current Tory crew only cares about re-election. They think this policy will be successful for them, as it was in Australia. However, the UK isn’t quite as poisoned by Murdoch news as Australia, and with even Prince Charles speaking out against it, this might be a racist policy too far.
posted by The River Ivel at 2:35 AM on June 15, 2022 [13 favorites]
This gives too much credit to the Tory party. They are attempting this policy because it won votes in Australia - the same way they tried to introduce a points system for immigrants, also based on the Australian system. This is probably because they are being advised by Lynton Crosby, an Australian political figure who helped various right-wing governments get into power.
The current Tory party does not care about the international effects of their policies - that is why they are being sued by the EU over Northern Ireland. The current Tory crew only cares about re-election. They think this policy will be successful for them, as it was in Australia. However, the UK isn’t quite as poisoned by Murdoch news as Australia, and with even Prince Charles speaking out against it, this might be a racist policy too far.
posted by The River Ivel at 2:35 AM on June 15, 2022 [13 favorites]
Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?
posted by Lanark at 3:10 AM on June 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Lanark at 3:10 AM on June 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
Yes, my understanding is that this is all asylum seekers, from the Mideast, Asia or anywhere else. Heinous seems like the correct word
In theory, yes but it is currently being trialled on young single men for now. Deporting entire families may be too much for even those (44% for - 40% against) who support this policy.
posted by Kiwi at 3:25 AM on June 15, 2022
In theory, yes but it is currently being trialled on young single men for now. Deporting entire families may be too much for even those (44% for - 40% against) who support this policy.
posted by Kiwi at 3:25 AM on June 15, 2022
The aim of the policy is to act as a deterrent measure.
If, as the British government keeps saying, what they are trying to deter is small boats in the channel, the easiest way to do this is just give everyone ferry tickets. The annual number of people seeking asylum in the UK is vanishingly small compared to its total population (0.009%). Allowing them to arrive safely and then actually allocating money to hear and process their cases in a timely manner would be a much more morally (and probably economically) sound approach.
That might lead to an uptick in asylum claims, maybe up to something comparable to France or Germany which lack sea borders with neighbouring countries. They have about 0.015% new asylum seekers per total population every year, but that's still a vanishingly small amount.
The reason people are dying in boats in the Channel is that being seen to be cruel to migrants is better politically for the Tories than being kind to them. The reason the Tories want to send people to Rwanda is that it looks cruel too.
posted by nangua at 3:31 AM on June 15, 2022 [18 favorites]
If, as the British government keeps saying, what they are trying to deter is small boats in the channel, the easiest way to do this is just give everyone ferry tickets. The annual number of people seeking asylum in the UK is vanishingly small compared to its total population (0.009%). Allowing them to arrive safely and then actually allocating money to hear and process their cases in a timely manner would be a much more morally (and probably economically) sound approach.
That might lead to an uptick in asylum claims, maybe up to something comparable to France or Germany which lack sea borders with neighbouring countries. They have about 0.015% new asylum seekers per total population every year, but that's still a vanishingly small amount.
The reason people are dying in boats in the Channel is that being seen to be cruel to migrants is better politically for the Tories than being kind to them. The reason the Tories want to send people to Rwanda is that it looks cruel too.
posted by nangua at 3:31 AM on June 15, 2022 [18 favorites]
I'm an American over here in England and yeah it's a mind-bogglingly frustrating look at the UK mindset for justifying cruelty along the lines of our border family separations. In British culture, though, from what I can tell you have to pander to racists while claiming you are "delivering a world-beating partnership." They make sound like as if they are cutting a ribbon at the opening of a convenient Marks & Spencer Simply Food store rather than literalizing the "go back to Africa" ideas of pub bigots. I was happy to see people on the bus this morning reading "RWANDA AIR FARCE!" headlines.
posted by johngoren at 4:27 AM on June 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by johngoren at 4:27 AM on June 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
The aim of the policy is to act as a deterrent measure.
Sorry, I meant, and should have said, stated aim.
posted by plonkee at 4:36 AM on June 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
Sorry, I meant, and should have said, stated aim.
posted by plonkee at 4:36 AM on June 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
This is moustache-twirling villainy that I’m praying fails to ever (literally) take off.
posted by breakfast burrito at 5:15 AM on June 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by breakfast burrito at 5:15 AM on June 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
economic migrants (his words)
If I understand correctly, those are the ones who manage to both take all "our" jobs and simultaneously leech off the welfare system
This is as also a common duality in North American conservative minds as well, much like their insistence that mothers who work full time should be staying home with their children but mothers who are on social assistance should be out working.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:55 AM on June 15, 2022 [6 favorites]
If I understand correctly, those are the ones who manage to both take all "our" jobs and simultaneously leech off the welfare system
This is as also a common duality in North American conservative minds as well, much like their insistence that mothers who work full time should be staying home with their children but mothers who are on social assistance should be out working.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:55 AM on June 15, 2022 [6 favorites]
Should poor people be having children at all? If not, who will do the menial jobs in a generation's time? Perhaps in the conservative imagination, there's some ideal state in which the poors bring up their children in wretched poverty, working night shifts when they are asleep, thus ensuring a compliant workforce grateful for a bowl of gruel a day and willing to do anything to avoid starvation or something.
posted by acb at 8:10 AM on June 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by acb at 8:10 AM on June 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
If I understand correctly, those are the ones who manage to both take all "our" jobs and simultaneously leech off the welfare system
Blaming immigrants for both unemployment of individuals and high welfare costs seems to be a pretty universal view around the world, even for countries like Australia, New Zealand and the US that are literally built on immigration over the entirety of their history. I often hear people that are immigrants themselves (but of course they are the 'good' immigrants, being nice white people) spouting this bullshit and they are often puzzled when I call them on it.
The 'Sovereign Borders' policy in Australia is built on the same platform as what the UK is trying to do, although the key difference is the intent of heading off refugees before they actually arrive in Australia. In that sense, there is a small portion of this policy aimed at actually trying to stem the flow of people paying large amounts of money to be sent out to sea in a vessel with little chance of ever making landfall in Australia and dying in the process. That doesn't change the fact that this is an inhuman way to treat people that are in the worst possible circumstances - someone willing to take the high risk of dying to get to a new country to start a new life deserves to at least be heard. It actually wouldn't be quite so bad if there was any hope of a swift decision on whether refugees are allowed to enter, but it routinely takes years and years while people rot in immigration detention in a different country. That key difference (intercepting people before they land vs deporting them after they land) is, I think, what makes this 'legal' in Australia but not in the UK. Both approaches, though, are seriously immoral and totally reprehensible.
posted by dg at 2:04 PM on June 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Blaming immigrants for both unemployment of individuals and high welfare costs seems to be a pretty universal view around the world, even for countries like Australia, New Zealand and the US that are literally built on immigration over the entirety of their history. I often hear people that are immigrants themselves (but of course they are the 'good' immigrants, being nice white people) spouting this bullshit and they are often puzzled when I call them on it.
The 'Sovereign Borders' policy in Australia is built on the same platform as what the UK is trying to do, although the key difference is the intent of heading off refugees before they actually arrive in Australia. In that sense, there is a small portion of this policy aimed at actually trying to stem the flow of people paying large amounts of money to be sent out to sea in a vessel with little chance of ever making landfall in Australia and dying in the process. That doesn't change the fact that this is an inhuman way to treat people that are in the worst possible circumstances - someone willing to take the high risk of dying to get to a new country to start a new life deserves to at least be heard. It actually wouldn't be quite so bad if there was any hope of a swift decision on whether refugees are allowed to enter, but it routinely takes years and years while people rot in immigration detention in a different country. That key difference (intercepting people before they land vs deporting them after they land) is, I think, what makes this 'legal' in Australia but not in the UK. Both approaches, though, are seriously immoral and totally reprehensible.
posted by dg at 2:04 PM on June 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Could someone help me understand these desperate and dangerous small boat English Channel crossings? I've always found them puzzling.
I can understand why migrants might risk their lives to cross the Mediterranean, when the places they're trying to get to are dramatically safer, more free, or just much richer than the ones they're presently in. But a migrant crossing the channel is already in France. Why are people risking so much to get to the UK specifically, versus staying in France or making the comparatively much safer and easier land journey to any other Schengen country?
posted by kickingtheground at 4:58 PM on June 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
I can understand why migrants might risk their lives to cross the Mediterranean, when the places they're trying to get to are dramatically safer, more free, or just much richer than the ones they're presently in. But a migrant crossing the channel is already in France. Why are people risking so much to get to the UK specifically, versus staying in France or making the comparatively much safer and easier land journey to any other Schengen country?
posted by kickingtheground at 4:58 PM on June 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
Could someone help me understand
"Most refugees in Calais see France only as a transit country, as their goal is to reach the UK, even though only half of them have close family ties there. While the French Office for Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons reports a 33.3% increase in accepted asylum applications between 2014 and 2015,12 we have documented an extremely low rate of asylum applications among the study population. This is probably due to the fact that many participants were determined to continue across the English Channel."
Malika Bouhenia, Jihane Ben Farhat, Matthew E Coldiron, Saif Abdallah, Delphine Visentin, Michaël Neuman, Mathilde Berthelot, Klaudia Porten, Sandra Cohuet, Quantitative survey on health and violence endured by refugees during their journey and in Calais, France, International Health, Volume 9, Issue 6, November 2017, Pages 335–342, https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihx040
"Many are pursuing what they perceive as a better life and feel a connection to Britain, whether through knowledge of the English language and culture or because they have family and friends in the UK," from "Why are migrants crossing the English Channel in record numbers?" The National (22 Nov 2021)
posted by Ahmad Khani at 6:00 PM on June 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
"Most refugees in Calais see France only as a transit country, as their goal is to reach the UK, even though only half of them have close family ties there. While the French Office for Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons reports a 33.3% increase in accepted asylum applications between 2014 and 2015,12 we have documented an extremely low rate of asylum applications among the study population. This is probably due to the fact that many participants were determined to continue across the English Channel."
Malika Bouhenia, Jihane Ben Farhat, Matthew E Coldiron, Saif Abdallah, Delphine Visentin, Michaël Neuman, Mathilde Berthelot, Klaudia Porten, Sandra Cohuet, Quantitative survey on health and violence endured by refugees during their journey and in Calais, France, International Health, Volume 9, Issue 6, November 2017, Pages 335–342, https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihx040
"Many are pursuing what they perceive as a better life and feel a connection to Britain, whether through knowledge of the English language and culture or because they have family and friends in the UK," from "Why are migrants crossing the English Channel in record numbers?" The National (22 Nov 2021)
posted by Ahmad Khani at 6:00 PM on June 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
Yeah this policy sucks, and is a direct assault on the Refugee Convention, one that will no doubt be followed by other rogue states.
>Yes, my understanding is that this is all asylum seekers, from the Mideast, Asia or anywhere else. Heinous seems like the correct word
>>In theory, yes but it is currently being trialled on young single men for now
I'm kinda being pedantic, but If I'm reading it right, it applies only to asylum-seekers who are in the UK without visas. Which you might think would be all of them, but it's perfectly possible and not uncommon to get a visa for a country, travel there legitimately, and then apply for asylum (e.g. Australian figures show between 500-2,800 such applications per month).
>economic migrants (his words)
>>If I understand correctly, those are the ones who manage to both take all "our" jobs and simultaneously leech off the welfare system
Remind him that asylum-seekers in the UK aren't legally allowed to work while their case is being heard. They're given an allowance that wouldn't have covered my tube fare when I lived in London.
posted by Pink Frost at 1:41 AM on June 16, 2022
>Yes, my understanding is that this is all asylum seekers, from the Mideast, Asia or anywhere else. Heinous seems like the correct word
>>In theory, yes but it is currently being trialled on young single men for now
I'm kinda being pedantic, but If I'm reading it right, it applies only to asylum-seekers who are in the UK without visas. Which you might think would be all of them, but it's perfectly possible and not uncommon to get a visa for a country, travel there legitimately, and then apply for asylum (e.g. Australian figures show between 500-2,800 such applications per month).
>economic migrants (his words)
>>If I understand correctly, those are the ones who manage to both take all "our" jobs and simultaneously leech off the welfare system
Remind him that asylum-seekers in the UK aren't legally allowed to work while their case is being heard. They're given an allowance that wouldn't have covered my tube fare when I lived in London.
posted by Pink Frost at 1:41 AM on June 16, 2022
Could someone help me understand
The Pew Research Center did some research into the number of authorised and unauthorised immigrants in different countries across Europe which you can find here.
That shows that around 11% of immigrants currently make it to the UK while the other 89% are mostly going to Germany, Italy and France.
The UK is 15% of the European population.
posted by Lanark at 5:14 AM on June 16, 2022
The Pew Research Center did some research into the number of authorised and unauthorised immigrants in different countries across Europe which you can find here.
That shows that around 11% of immigrants currently make it to the UK while the other 89% are mostly going to Germany, Italy and France.
The UK is 15% of the European population.
posted by Lanark at 5:14 AM on June 16, 2022
it's perfectly possible and not uncommon to get a visa for a country, travel there legitimately, and then apply for asylum
Uhhh... that's not my impression at all. I mean, there are some people who manage it, but I don't think getting a visa to the UK is a simple thing, even more so if you're from a country like Afghanistan or Syria, known to have a high proportion of emigrants who might seek asylum. Even more so since the introduction of the "hostile environment" policy in the UK.
Here's a decent article on the topic (actually about he EU than the UK but I think its argument hold true). Two excerpts:
Why entrust your life to a small, overcrowded rubber dinghy instead of a well-equipped aeroplane? [...] The simple answer is that they are not allowed to choose. It’s not as if they were presented with two travel options, one that is cheap, safe and comfortable, the other long, costly and dangerous, and they chose the latter, just for the thrill of it. No, the reality is that if they had gone to the airport, the airline staff at the check-in counter would have stopped them. Why is that? Well that’s the complex answer.
[...]
Refugees fleeing conflict zones are often unable to obtain passports, let alone visas, partly because most embassies close in war-torn countries.
posted by penguin pie at 2:15 PM on June 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
Uhhh... that's not my impression at all. I mean, there are some people who manage it, but I don't think getting a visa to the UK is a simple thing, even more so if you're from a country like Afghanistan or Syria, known to have a high proportion of emigrants who might seek asylum. Even more so since the introduction of the "hostile environment" policy in the UK.
Here's a decent article on the topic (actually about he EU than the UK but I think its argument hold true). Two excerpts:
Why entrust your life to a small, overcrowded rubber dinghy instead of a well-equipped aeroplane? [...] The simple answer is that they are not allowed to choose. It’s not as if they were presented with two travel options, one that is cheap, safe and comfortable, the other long, costly and dangerous, and they chose the latter, just for the thrill of it. No, the reality is that if they had gone to the airport, the airline staff at the check-in counter would have stopped them. Why is that? Well that’s the complex answer.
[...]
Refugees fleeing conflict zones are often unable to obtain passports, let alone visas, partly because most embassies close in war-torn countries.
posted by penguin pie at 2:15 PM on June 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older New details emerge of Oval Office confrontation... | Building a 5-acre pond Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jjderooy at 4:52 PM on June 14, 2022 [13 favorites]