Activists and human rights

[windingroad]

Are you saying that a refugee should have the right to roam the World, possibly passing through many safe countries, in order to cherry-pick which country they would like to live in? That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Doesn't this mean we'd end up taking essentially no refugees, unless the good people of Iceland decide to move here en masse?

 

[najaB]

It sounds a lovely idea, doesn't it! But I see a very good reason for not doing that: It would mean that anyone who fancies earning a UK salary for 6 months or so - even people who have absolutely no grounds for claiming asylum - would be incentivised to come here and lodge an asylum claim, knowing that during the months until their claim is rejected, they'll be able to earn vastly more than they could have earned back home.

I really can't see anyone travelling five, six, ten thousand miles across desert, ocean and mountain for "maybe six months" of a UK cleaner's salary.

And the simple way to disincentivise it would be to place limits on what work they can do and when they can start doing it.

 

[DarloRich]

Doesn't this mean we'd end up taking essentially no refugees, unless the good people of Iceland decide to move here en masse?

That is exactly the point. We already take too many, apparently

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As I noted above: nobody notices that the salami is smaller after the first slice.

But you'd notice if the salami was completely removed, right? But that's irrelevant and is a straw-man argument if the plan was only ever to remove the first slice, and no-one is seriously suggesting removing more than one slice.

 

[najaB]

But that's irrelevant and is a straw-man argument if the plan was only ever to remove the first slice, and no-one is seriously suggesting removing more than one slice.

Can I borrow your rose-tinted glasses at some point?

 

[TwoYellas]

Can I borrow your rose-tinted glasses at some point?

Spot on!

It's nothing but an epic lie, a charade. The only thing they're trying to protect are their jobs as the top brass in the regime are getting more and more unpopular as people see their true colours (why they couldn't recognise Johnson, Patel et al. for what they were ages ago is a mystery).

They need to get popular again otherwise their own party will oust them. Hence the diversion. "Oh look at our noble effort to enact the democratic will of the people; only to be thwarted by lefty lawyers and the EUROPEAN hcr."

Johnson trots out the regular line of "we, of course, want to give a fair chance to those that have arrived legally but we must deter those illegals and the evil people smugglers".

Two big lies. Obscuring the fact that the ECHR is separate from the EU and give people vital rights that should be cherished and protected. And the fact that people have been denied the safe routes to claim asylum; so how exactly do they arrive legally?

It's just a show, it isn't going to solve anything, a waste of money. Sadly, many are falling for it; to the detriment of their own interests (rights). Cynical politcians always need a boogie man to deflect focus.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can I borrow your rose-tinted glasses at some point?

How about, I'll swap them for your incredible glasses that show what you imagine the Government might hypothetically do in the future as if it was happening today

Two big lies. Obscuring the fact that the ECHR is separate from the EU and give people vital rights that should be cherished and protected.

When exactly have the Government claimed that the ECHR is the same as the EU?

And the fact that people have been denied the safe routes to claim asylum; so how exactly do they arrive legally?

Well if they are genuine asylum seekers who are actually motivated by that they are fleeing from persecution and wanting to find a safe country to live in, then they could y'know *gasp* claim asylum in the safe country that they are actually already living in...

 

[najaB]

Well if they are genuine asylum seekers who are actually motivated by that they are fleeing from persecution and wanting to find a safe country to live in, then they could y'know *gasp* claim asylum in the safe country that they are actually already living in.

How many times do we need to say this: if you're a refugee then there is no obligation or requirement to claim asylum in the first country that I think is safe, you have the right to claim asylum in the country that you think is safe.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How many times do we need to say this: if you're a refugee then there is no obligation or requirement to claim asylum in the first country that I think is safe, you have the right to claim asylum in the country that you think is safe.

So do you believe that an asylum seeker should have the right to roam the World, possibly passing through many safe countries (as in, countries that are actually safe), in order to cherry-pick which country they would like to live in?

 

[windingroad]

So do you believe that an asylum seeker should have the right to roam the World, possibly passing through many safe countries, in order to cherry-pick which country they would like to live in?

I don't think you answered my question on this, which was:

Doesn't this mean we'd end up taking essentially no refugees, unless the good people of Iceland decide to move here en masse?

 

[najaB]

So do you believe that an asylum seeker should have the right to roam the World, possibly passing through many safe countries (as in, countries that are actually safe), in order to cherry-pick which country they would like to live in?

Ignoring your deliberately emotive hyperbole, yes. Subject to the immigration controls of any countries which they pass through they should be able to claim asylum in the country that they want to claim asylum in.

 

[TwoYellas]

When exactly have the Government claimed that the ECHR is the same as the EU?

Ok, they may not have said it, but in my view it's the perception that they want to give. Maybe calling it a big lie was a bit extreme by me. But it's about gaining popularity; not sensible solutions.

Well if they are genuine asylum seekers who are actually motivated by that they are fleeing from persecution and wanting to find a safe country to live in, then they could y'know *gasp* claim asylum in the safe country that they are actually already living in..

Other European countries take many more; so they do claim asylum there. But there will be some that want to come here for various reasons like language and family connection. Also, if we go by that logic all the burden will fall on a few countries only, very unfair. That's why co-operation is vital with other European countries with regards numbers etc. This whole system can be improved greatly without the drama, but they want to manipulate the public's fears.

Its an asylum claim they make, genuine ones only will be granted. Too many are falling for the scaremongering. There is something quite malevolent going on with the right wing leadership aided by media. Listen to the stories of the actual cases such as those that were on the plane for example. It's important people know the truth.

 

[najaB]

When exactly have the Government claimed that the ECHR is the same as the EU?

Well the Attorney General (of all people!) said "It's time to complete Brexit" in reference to quitting the ECHR. I don't see how you can call that anything other than making a direct link between EU and the ECHR.

 

[TwoYellas]

I've amended my position. The flight to Rwanda should take off, the seats should be filled with Johnson, Patel and the Attorney General instead; as well as all Number 10 staffers. They can be lured on with the promise of unlimited bottles of alcohol and non-socially distanced parties, sorry I meant business meetings. And the promise of a return soon (fingers crossed behind back).

The asylum seekers who are granted asylum will be of more use.

 

[AlterEgo]

So do you believe that an asylum seeker should have the right to roam the World, possibly passing through many safe countries (as in, countries that are actually safe), in order to cherry-pick which country they would like to live in?

Previously, many asylum seekers simply arrived by plane, sometimes directly from the countries they fled.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't think you answered my question on this, which was:

Doesn't this mean we'd end up taking essentially no refugees, unless the good people of Iceland decide to move here en masse?

No, it doesn't mean that. And I'm not even sure how you'd get that from anything I said. I'm guessing you're possibly thinking of the issue that, if you expect people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach (which I believe is a reasonable expectation if someone is genuinely fleeing conflict/persecution, as opposed to simply trying to find a nicer country to live in), that imposes an unfair burden on those countries geographically closest to conflict areas. Personally I'd be inclined to favour trying to solve that by negotiating agreements whereby the UK agrees to take in a reasonable number of people who have claimed asylum in other countries and indicated a preference to come to the UK if their applications are successful. The application to the Calais situation would be something like: Anyone camping at Calais who wishes to come to the UK must first claim asylum in France, and if their application is successful, they can apply to swap to the UK. But they will not be given asylum in the UK if they try to by-pass the process by paying people traffickers to move them from France to the UK.

 

[najaB]

Personally I'd be inclined to favour trying to solve that by negotiating agreements whereby the UK agrees to take in a reasonable number of people who have claimed asylum in other countries and indicated a preference to come to the UK if their applications are successful.

Good luck trying to find any country that believes the UK will stand by an international agreement.

The application to the Calais situation would be something like: Anyone camping at Calais who wishes to come to the UK must first claim asylum in France, and if their application is successful, they can apply to swap to the UK.

Basically what the French offered and we declined.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ignoring your deliberately emotive hyperbole, yes. Subject to the immigration controls of any countries which they pass through they should be able to claim asylum in the country that they want to claim asylum in.

Fair enough, that's a nice direct answer

But I would disagree, on both ethical and practical grounds.

On ethical grounds: Basically, no-one else has the automatic right to decide which country they live in. If you (assuming you're a UK citizen with no other nationality) or I or almost any other UK citizen were to decide we fancy going to live in - say - the USA or Japan or China or almost anywhere other than a small number of countries, we would need to apply for a visa and convince that country that we have a reason to live there which meets their normal criteria for whom they are willing to accept. You seem to be saying that, if you become a refugee, that should therefore give you some kind of roaming rights that no-one else has. I simply don't see that. I believe all countries - including the UK - should do what they reasonably can to provide new homes for those who can no longer reasonably live in their home countries (because of war, persecution, etc.), but that's not the same as letting people effectively turn their noses up at perfectly safe countries because they'd rather live somewhere else.

And on practical grounds: The number of refugees plus the number of people across the World who would have legitimate claims for asylum if they put in a claim is staggeringly huge: Probably in the hundreds of millions, maybe over a billion. It is way, way, too much for any small group of countries to accept. If you adopt the principle that any refugee should be able to pick which country they want to live in, then the vast majority of refugees are (quite understandably) going to choose one of the few countries that has the highest standards of living, the highest quality of life, the most internationally recognised language, etc. etc. Having everyone choose a small number of countries is very obviously not workable.

 

[windingroad]

I'm guessing you're possibly thinking of the issue that, if you expect people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach (which I believe is a reasonable expectation if someone is genuinely fleeing conflict/persecution, as opposed to simply trying to find a nicer country to live in), that imposes an unfair burden on those countries geographically closest to conflict areas. Personally I'd be inclined to favour trying to solve that by negotiating agreements whereby the UK agrees to take in a reasonable number of people who have claimed asylum in other countries and indicated a preference to come to the UK if their applications are successful.

That's exactly the point I was intending to make, yes. While I don't necessarily have a problem with your solution per se, I have very little confidence we actually would take in a "reasonable number of people", or that "reasonable" would be defined in an acceptable way.

It also still imposes a huge burden on adjacent countries, because even if they ultimately redistribute most of the refugees that enter their borders, they still have to foot the bill for the immense welfare cost of all those people while they wait, and for supporting their applications to go elsewhere. Given these countries are likely to be relatively poor themselves, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Because of where the UK is geographically, it's very easy to make the argument that refugees should claim asylum in the first country they reach, because that's never going to affect us in any meaningful way. Whereas if the UK happened to be situated in a destabilised part of the world and tens of thousands of refugees were arriving every week, I suspect your opinion on this would be different.

 

[najaB]

On ethical grounds: Basically, no-one else has the automatic right to decide which country they live in.

Neither would a refugee. They have the right to decide where they want to live, in the same way that I could - if I wanted to - make a visa application to live in Myanmar. They would not have an automatic right to live here.

The number of refugees plus the number of people across the World who would have legitimate claims for asylum if they put in a claim is staggeringly huge: Probably in the hundreds of millions, maybe over a billion.

How do you make that determination? The UN defines a refugee as:

“someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

Why do you think that over a billion people meet that criteria?

 

[DarloRich]

Personally I'd be inclined to favour trying to solve that by negotiating agreements whereby the UK agrees to take in a reasonable number of people who have claimed asylum in other countries and indicated a preference to come to the UK if their applications are successful

I agree we should take and fair and reasonable number of migrants. The problem is that this government and many of thier supporters thinks that a fair & reasonable number is 0 ( if not a minus number)

 

[Mikw]

As I noted above: nobody notices that the salami is smaller after the first slice.

As to the loss of rights, we've gone from "You have a right to protest" to "You have a right to protest, if..."

Indeed, we can still protest, but only if the home secretary doesn't find it "annoying".


That, as you say, is vastly different to an automatic right to protest. Now we have a "protest arbiter" right at the heart of government.

 

[TwoYellas]

I find it astonishing that sections of the media, over time, have made 'humans' and 'rights' a very negative combination.

By disproportionately concentrating solely on extreme cases it is quite common to hear people, for example down the pub, say things like: "it's the 'ooman rights that's what it is the 'ooman rights".

An unbelievable feat of propaganda if you think about it.

 

[Strathclyder]

I find it astonishing that sections of the media, over time, have made 'humans' and 'rights' a very negative combination.

Without naming them, I've a pretty good idea which sections of the media in particular you're referring to here.

By disproportionately concentrating solely on extreme cases it is quite common to hear people, for example down the pub, say things like: "it's the 'ooman rights that's what it is the 'ooman rights".

Exploiting their ignorance, the oldest and most effective trick in the book.

An unbelievable feat of propaganda if you think about it.

Propaganda is a disgustingly versatile tool, especially when used for such insidous purposes.

 

[brad465]

Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but I think it should be highlighted that in the policy there is a section about the UK accepting certain Rwandan refugees:

Memorandum of Understanding between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

www.gov.uk

16 Resettlement of vulnerable Refugees​

16.1 The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.

Whether one agrees with this or not, there will be supporters of this general policy unaware of this particular part who, if they're opposed to accepting refugees in general, will not like this detail.

 

[najaB]

Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but I think it should be highlighted that in the policy there is a section about the UK accepting certain Rwandan refugees:

Memorandum of Understanding between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement

www.gov.uk

Whether one agrees with this or not, there will be supporters of this general policy unaware of this particular part who, if they're opposed to accepting refugees in general, will not like this detail.

Which may well lead to the rather perverse situation of someone fleeing Rwanda, making their way to the UK where they claim asylum, being sent to Rwanda to await the outcome of that claim, and finally being allowed to settle in the UK.

 

[TwoYellas]

Which may well lead to the rather perverse situation of someone fleeing Rwanda, making their way to the UK where they claim asylum, being sent to Rwanda to await the outcome of that claim, and finally being allowed to settle in the UK.

They may not make it back to the UK the second time if you look at Kagame's record of treatment of those who oppose him.


The Gov't = Cynical, Inhumane Blaggers

The Activists/Lawyers etc who went and stopped the evil flight against the power of Gov't and their media baron propagandists = Heroes

I'm not sitting on the fence on this one. Yes, I understand there are legitimate issues around integration, culture and resources etc. But the way its been handled is a disgrace!

There are sensible ways for this discourse to take place.

 

[najaB]

I'm not sitting on the fence on this one. Yes, I understand there are legitimate issues around integration, culture and resources etc. But the way its been handled is a disgrace!

Absolutely. If offshore processing is really necessary (and that's a huge if), we could fund a location in France (where most of them come through) and process them there.

That would achieve the stated goal of reducing the danger of crossing the channel in small boats, plus it would make a hard-line stance against anyone who still makes the crossing morally justifiable.

 

[TwoYellas]

Absolutely. If offshore processing is really necessary (and that's a huge if), we could fund a location in France (where most of them come through) and process them there.

That would achieve the stated goal of reducing the danger of crossing the channel in small boats, plus it would make a hard-line stance against anyone who still makes the crossing morally justifiable.

I don't think they'd need to make the perilous trip then. Also, processing them in France for example may actually cut the profits of the people smugglers.

Let's not forget the humanitarian work of the RNLI in rescuing people, the best in humanity!

 

[windingroad]

The problem here, of course, is that the government doesn't actually care about people smuggling or human misery. They will remain quite content to defend this disgusting policy up until the moment it no longer benefits them politically.